We could go a long way to fixing the problem by repealing the constitutional amendment that provides for direct election of Senators.

Capitalism works because it leverages the greed of the individual. Regulation won't fix it, and government meddling won't fix it. The government exists to protect our borders and enforce contracts while providing for the rights guaranteed in the constitution. That is ALL it should do. Sadly, the only things that it should do, it does poorly, while trying to do everything for everyone.

As for who has been duped – it is you. Obama represents everything that is wrong with this country. He got where he is through political connectedness, not hard work. The man has never worked hard a day in his life. His entire world view is based on a mentality of "deserve". In reality there is no such thing as "deserve" – life is not fair and none of us deserve anything. What made America different was acknowledging that fact and allowing the individual to create wealth for himself.

I am saddened that you have such a cynical perspective on liberty.

Eric you sound like a nice person but unfortunately you have been duped. Your vision of an American dream where hard work trumped all else vanished, if it ever existed, with the frontier. We live in an interconnected world where your ability to earn is affected by society as a whole. The recent crisis could be instructional on how the actions of our leadership affect us all, in this case, those of wealthy wall street financiers for the worse. Obama is simply trying to bring the working and middle classes into a permanent social fabric instead of being the ballast that the wealthy throw off the ship every time they mess up. Stop worrying about entitlements and work with your fellow citizens to right the ship or there will be precious little of anything left to entitle with. All the best to you.

SS

As for my personal view of the American Dream – It is not homeownership, or even wealth. It is the opportunity to choose how I spend my time in the pursuit of happiness. If I want to work in a lower-wage job I will certainly have less money, but I will also have a lot more time to ponder my existence. If I work hard in a higher-wage job, I will have very little free time, but I will have wealth. Where we get into trouble is when the people who don't want to put in the time think they deserve the same rewards as those who work hard – this is what entitlements do, and this is what Obama stands for.

Here’s a question for you: will those opposed to government interaction set counter-protests with those wanting more government interventions, sort of like the days of school integration when protests held by pro-bussing people was surrounded by people with anti-bussing protestors, and vice versa? Let’s see what happens coincident with the early April “Bail out people not the banks” march in several major cities in the US, as promoted here: http://www.bailoutpeople.org/

My observations:
1. The majority of the people at the event, besides being middle class, had never been at any kind of protest before. One of the speakers asked for a show of hands of people who were protesting for the first time – my unscientific estimate is that about 3/4 of the crowd raised their hands. This helped explain the awkwardness of the protest. Most of us conservatives have been too busy working and paying taxes to have time to protest.
2. The protest actually *was* about a specific issue – government interference in the free market. The protest was against government bailouts of any kind, and it was against growth in government in general. We were all angry but with a purpose.

The next protests are planned for 4/15 and I think we will see a larger crowd. Bush started all of this with the TARP but Obama + friends have accelerated it.

At any rate, I think you raise an important point. I agree that workers are a major part of the protest movement, but as pointed out by commenters above (see especially David Riddy’s comments above), the working class often protests and is usually ignored. What has characterized this movement has been the ADDITION of the middle class — for example, I do not think two governments (Iceland and Latvia — thus far) stepped down because of protests by the working class — I think it was the addition of the middle class and the unrelenting nature of the protests that led to that.

There is another important point your comment gives rise to: what is the difference between the middle and working classes? Statistically, if you look at the wages, standard of living, etc. of what we have identified as the middle class in the US has slipped south pretty consistently over the past several years. So, it would be logical to expect a merging of sorts between the two classes.

Regardless of my response, your question is serious and you may be right and if so the fears that I have about a global movement would be less valid.