Over the years, there has been a separation of classes in the United States. This separation has caused those with money to become in charge of those who do not have money. This separation spurred a movement called the Occupy Wall Street movement. Though it may seem obvious as to the way people may feel about the issue, there are two different sides to the way people feel about it. Louis René Beres and Jonathan Zimmerman have differing viewpoints on the reasoning behind and the effectiveness of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
In the article “Founding Fathers Would Not Approve of Occupy Wall Street” written by Louis René Beres, written for the US News and World Report, it is made clear that the Founding Fathers would not be in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. In the article “Occupy Wall Street: an American tradition since 1776” written by Jonathan Zimmerman for The Christian Science Monitor, Zimmerman makes it clear that those involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement aren’t crazy protestors, they are acting on an issue that dates back to the time the Constitution was written. While both articles have opposing viewpoints on the issue of the Occupy Wall Street movement, both has similarities and both articles pull their information from similar portions of history. Beres writes about the fact that the writers didn’t hide their dislike for general publics and popular rule. They thought the power should lie in the hands of the one in main power. Zimmerman stands firm in his opinion that the Occupy Wall Street movement should be taken seriously, that there should be a change in the way the government currently handles affairs on Wall Street. Beres makes it clear that the Constitution was written in order to benefit the 1%, while Zimmerman is clear that those involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement are those fighting against the 1%.
In the article written by Beres, there is a heavy amount of history behind what happened within the Constitution that has created the Occupy Wall Street movement. In the article written by Zimmerman there is only a brief history on the problem that the Occupy Wall Street movement is attempting to fix, and focuses more on what is being done in more recent history. Both writers agree that the problem of the 1% is not a 21st Century issue, that it is something that has been an issue since the birth of the Constitution. Zimmerman tends to focus more on why there is a problem with Wall Street, while Beres focuses mainly on where the problem is rooted, though she doesn’t seem to see any problem with what is happening on Wall Street.
Beres makes it clear that she seems that it is safe to say that the idea of there being two types of people in society, those who rule and are ruled, is here to stay. She believes that if the Occupy Wall Street movement wants to change anything about that idea, then they will have to restructure and organize their goals in such a way that they will be able to transform America completely. Zimmerman, on the other hand, makes it clear that he believes that those involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement know what they are doing, and that though everything may not be completely organized, that they are speaking for the 99%.
Beres states that there seems to be some disorganization and some problems with the structure of the Occupy Wall Street movement. She believes that if those involved in the movement wish to make any sort of change that there has to be some sort restructuring and reorganization of their goals. Zimmerman, on the other hand sees success behind the way that those involved in the movement are handling things. Zimmerman mentions the fact that those involved in the movement are responsible for completely restructuring the financial sector.
Beres’ while article has a very pro-Wall Street feel to it. She talks about all of the reasons why the writers of the Constitution chose things to be the way that they are. She goes