- Illinois Democrat Abruptly Drops Congressional Bid
- Jeff Miller Won't Run for Florida Senate Seat
- A Brief Electoral History of Recently Indicted Congressmen
- Becerra Won't Run for Senate
- Democrat to Detractors: I'm Doing Better Than Your Guy
The tales emerging from the Occupy Wall Street movement have a certain quaintness, as a mixture of aging anarchists and baffled Main Streeters offer dazzlingly offbeat solutions to genuine concerns.
Take the OWS protester spotted in downtown Washington, D.C., the other day who refused to answer an interviewer’s questions until the reporter plucked a stone from the pouch he was wearing. As the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto describes it, the stone-bearer, a young man named Kyle Szlosek, proceeded to intone, “That stone is the only thing that matters in life.” If he could change anything through his protest, he said, it would be to “get rid of money.”
Other OWS protesters are more pragmatic or, at least, more formulaic. “One citizen, one dollar, one vote,” is their battle cry. This one emanates from the belief that money has corrupted U.S. elections, sabotaging the democratic process and elevating corporate greed at the expense of working Americans. The OWS protesters who raise this slogan are focused on campaign finance reform and the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that struck down federal limits on corporate political activity.
As fuzzily focused as these complaints are (the U.S. economic meltdown in late 2008 occurred 18 months before Citizens United and a full year after the first Obama stimulus had funneled hundreds of billions of dollars to favored interests and industries), they are on to something fundamental. Our nation’s money can no longer be trusted as a storehouse of value, and big government and big business have derived perverse benefit from their ability to access and manipulate that storehouse.
The good news is that Americans are increasingly recognizing this fact and its significance. And the contenders for the highest office in the land are responding to this recognition. In politics, as in markets, the supply will respond to the demand.
And that demand is rising. A poll conducted in October by Rasmussen surveyed 1,000 Americans about their views regarding a return to the gold standard, which was formally abandoned in 1971 during the Nixon administration. Men follow this debate more closely than women, and they support the gold standard by a wider margin.
When asked how favorable they are to the idea of re-establishing hard currency, a plurality (44 percent) of the populace as a whole is either somewhat or very supportive.
When, however, Americans are informed that re-establishing the gold standard would “dramatically reduce the power of central bankers and political leaders to steer the economy,” the favorability gap between men and women completely disappears, and 57 percent of all Americans say they support this step. The number is an impressive 69 percent among Republicans and 59 percent among voters not affiliated with either party, and it is a majority among nearly all demographic groups. Not surprisingly, the gold standard is essentially the default position of voters who count themselves as tea party adherents — they favor a return to the stability of gold as a standard of reference by an overwhelming 79 percent.