A Few More Thoughts on Capitalism and Catholic Social Justice

If you were kind enough to make it all the way through my last posting you'll undoubtedly realize that my argument (as logical, well-formed, and supported by documentation as it was) did not go over well with Thomas J. MacNamara who spoke on behalf of laissez-faire Capitalism. I remarked in my post that the sort of adherence to a "pure" economic system (any economic system) without reference to how well it might be serving actual human needs is really little more than slavery to ideology.

And I wonder to myself, "How can Christians surrender themselves to ideology?"

I was reminded of the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, verses 31-46:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he
will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for
me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

The Son of Man does not ask us on the last day, "How balanced were your books? How closely did you adhere to the rules of Capitalism? How great a profit did you make for your stockholders? How efficiently did you run your business or the economy as a whole? How productive were your workers?" Indeed, he does not ask, "Are you gay? Are you a Socialist? Are you a Democrat?"

No, instead the question he asks -- and the standard he holds us to -- is quite simple: What did you do for the least among us, for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the ill?

And I wonder how a Christian Capitalist answers this question. But I believe I already know.

Occupy Wall Street: Social Justice versus Capitalism

Several weeks ago, on November 16, 2011 (the day after NYC cops in riot gear evicted a peaceful protest in Zuccotti Park), I took part in a panel at Molloy College in Rockville Centre, NY, on Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy movement. The panel was sponsored by Molloy's Center for Social and Ethical Concerns (CSEC) and hosted by Molloy's VP for Advancement Ed Thompson. I was joined on the panel by Dr. Michael Russo, Professor of Philosophy and Director of CSEC, and Thomas J. MacNamara, adjunct Instructor in Molloy's Business program and Partner-in-Charge of the Litigation Practice Group at Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP.

I'm going to try to describe as objectively as possible the evening's discussion.

The evening began with a video by Mike Russo (AKA "Udo Capelli"), "Why We Protest: Voices from Occupy Wall Street." Michael then gave a little background on the video, the protesters, and his experiences at Zuccotti Park. (running time: 30:47)

I followed Mike Russo's video and talk with a presentation I called "The Inevitability of the Occupy Movement in a Global Context." I put forward what I believed to be a rational argument directed at a fairly conservative Catholic audience. I quoted from four Papal Encyclicals (Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, John XXIII's Mater et Magistra, Paul VI's Populorum Progressio, and John Paul II's Solicitudo Rei Socialis), all of which called some dimension of Capitalism into question and urged that self interest -- while a legitimate human drive -- not overpower and destroy the idea of "the common good." Listening to the quotes I selected, one could easily imagine I was reading Marx to an audience of Catholics. But this was part of my point: I wanted this Catholic, Christian audience to hear what the Church teaches about economics and social justice.

I also proposed that, since Christians have been warned by the Church for a century about the dangers of economic injustice but have largely ignored the warnings, there is a certain inevitability to the Occupy movement. One of the scholars whose work I referenced to support my proposition was Jacques Ellul. I've been struck by the fact that we are in a situation at the moment that runs counter to Ellul's description of the several necessary prerequisite social factors for effective propaganda, most notably a broadly shared average level of education and a broadly shared average level of income. In the last thirty years -- with supply-side economics at work and growing emphasis on the privatization of everything, including schools -- we've seen our national educational performance falter and a chasm grow between the country's richest and poorest, with the middle class the most threatened of all. And so the homgenizing effects of mass propaganda will, naturally, decrease under these circumstances making dissent and protest all the more inevitable. A logical argument, it seems to me: income inequality is not just unjust, it is dangerous to the stability of a society. (running time: 22:54)

Finally, Wall Street had its say in Thomas J. MacNamara's presentation, "Capitalism as the Solution, Not the Problem." Here's where I must actually try to be objective. Let's start with the title. Capitalism as solution? Sure. No problem. But the problem we're facing right now is not a problem with Capitalism? Wow. That's a tough one for me and suggests that only a true believer can rationalize such a statement.

I'll let you listen to Thom's argument (part of me is itching to call it a diatribe) and come to your own conclusions, but there are a small number of points I want to make: 1] no economic system is perfect. When we pretend that one system is perfect and cannot be regulated or treated with flexibility or is immune to change, we're not dealing with an economic theory anymore. We're dealing with an ideology. And ideology is the death of critical reason. Ideology is philosophy on artificial life support. Ideology -- any ideology -- is the dessicated corpse of reason embalmed with the fluid of self-justification. 2] There is no "invisible hand." Even when Adam Smith was talking about the so-called "invisible hand of the market" he wasn't anthropomorphizing markets; he was referring to the hand of God that guides the enlightened participants in a market who deal with one another not only out of self interest, but of "fellow feeling." 3] Ayn Rand was not a philosopher, nor is "objectivism" a "philosophy." Let's get this straight: philosophers don't answer questions, they ask them. And when someone proposes the one, true answer (whether we're talking about Communism or Capitalism or Objectivism or any of the other -isms floating around out there) he or she is not philosophizing, he or she is pushing an ideology. 4] Parts of Thom's argument sound as though they came directly from Frank Luntz's plenary presentation to the Republican Governors Association (even though that presentation came a couple of weeks after the panel at Molloy). It's all Washington's fault. Don't take money from "hard working taxpayers." They're "job creators" who believe in "economic freedom." Blah, blah, blah. 5] A fairer distribution of income will not make us Cuba.

I'm done being objective now. Watch for yourself. I report, you decide. Fair and balanced. Et cetera. (running time: 26:37)

It's Official...

...the Republican Party is dead.

Donald Trump is moderating a Republican debate in Iowa on December 27. The twice-bankrupt real estate developer, birther, and reality television star with the docile badger on his head will moderate "The Newsmax Ion Television 2012 Presidential Debate," which I'm sure was deliberately misnamed to sound far more important than history will prove it to be (it is, to be accurate, a Republican Presidential primary debate).

Pity the poor Republican. This primary season has already had the atmosphere of a circus; in lieu of ideas or palatable policies, candidates have tried to "come off" as various things, to project various images. There's Newt the intellectual (!), Newt the historian (!), Michelle the historian (!!), Rick P. the tough-talkin' Texan, Rick the only-real-Republican, Ron the hard-headed realist, and most entertaining of all, Herman the Herminator. (Just how many clowns can you fit in that little car?) The most memorable catch-phrases of the primary season thus far have included:

• Apples and Oranges (Cain)


• Nein, nein, nein!!! (Cain)


• Now, I don't have the facts to back this up... (Cain)


• Ummmm...ummm...uh... (Perry)


• Obama put us in Lybia. Now he's going to put us in Africa. (Bachmann)


• Let him die! (Paul)


• Hey, remember me? (Santorum)


• Why am I even here? (Huntsman)

Perhaps after December 27, we'll have one more phrase to remember, courtesy of the Donald: You're Fired!!!

On This Date in 1511...

In 1494, shortly after Columbus "discovered" the new world, Pope Alexander VI divided up the new discoved lands between Spain and Portugal. The Church itself had a vested interest in the new lands; they were converting by the sword and extending their influence beyond Rome and Europe.

On November 21, 1511, Antonio de Montesinos, a Dominican Friar from Spain, attempting to free the Indians from the slavery to which the Spanish -- both military and clerical -- had reduced them, preached an incendiary sermon which incurred the wrath of many Spanish Catholics -- incendiary in the sense that his soul was on fire, ignited by truth. For his efforts he became an object of Spanish persecution.

I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. In order to make your sins known
to you I have mounted this pulpit, I who am the voice of Christ crying in the
wilderness of this island; and therefore it behooves you to listen to me, not
with indifference but with all your heart and senses; for this voice will be the
strangest, the harshest and hardest, the most terrifying that you ever heard or
expected to hear…This voice declares that you are in mortal sin, and live and
die therein by reason of the cruelty and tyranny that you practice on these
innocent people. Tell me, by what right or justice do you hold these Indians in
such cruel and horrible slavery? By what right do you wage such detestable wars
on these people who lived mildly and peacefully in their own lands, where you
have consumed infinite numbers of them with unheard of murders and desolations?
Why do you so greatly oppress and fatigue them, not giving them enough to eat or
caring for them when they fall ill from excessive labors, so that they die or
rather are slain by you, so that you may extract and acquire gold every day? And
what care do you take that they receive religious instruction and come to know
their God and creator, or that they be baptized, hear mass, or observe holidays
and Sundays? Are they not men? Do they not have rational souls? Are you not
bound to love them as you love yourselves? How can you lie in such profound and
lethargic slumber? Be sure that in your present state you can no more be saved
than the Moors or Turks who do not have and do not want the faith of Jesus
Christ.

His sermon provoked great resentment among the Spanish Conquistadors, much as the anti-war, anti-corporate rhetoric of the Christian "left" and the Occupy Movement incites resentment among the modern, global Conquistador class. Montesinos was accused of preaching heresy by a church hierarchy tainted by Spanish gold. Yes, the church and the elite of society, who controlled the wealth and profited from the exploitation of the weak, called Montesino's sermon, which called for justice based on the inherent equality of the immortal soul, "heretical." The more things change, the more they stay the same.

However, after hearing Montesinos preach, a Spanish priest by the name of Bartolomeo de Las Casas had a conversion experience. He saw the truth in Montesinos's words. In 1514, he became a Dominican Friar, freed his Indian slaves, and began a quest to ban slavery and bring justice to the Americas. He condemned the use of torture and coercion in the evangelization of the people of the new world. Las Casas helped to draft laws which banned slavery. Until the end of his life, Las Casas continued to speak out but he had few supporters. I'm not surprised. Do not expect people to rally around you when you are speaking the truth about their -- and your -- common human imperfections. No one wants to hear they're doing the wrong thing. No one wants to think that God is NOT on their side.

Montesinos and Las Casas were prophets, as Martin Luther King, Jr. was a prophet, and Oscar Romero was a prophet. And prophets don't live long. To paraphrase Leo Rosten, conservatives make heroes out of prophets only after they've martyred them. Today is the anniversary of a simple man's simple message of justice. Montesinos was a prophet belonging to a preaching order with a history of fighting heresies.Today's heresies include inequality, injustice, exploitation and the ascendancy of an omnipotent self-interest over the common good.

Wanna fight?

Cantor: Occupy Movement is a "Mob"

Thursday at the "Values Voters Summit" in Washington, House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) said he was becoming "increasingly concerned" about the "mobs" who were occupying Wall Street and other cities across the country.

The mainstream media narrative of the occupy movement is that it is leaderless (as though that's a bad thing) and without defined goals. Right-wing bloggers consider the movement to be populated by "socialists, communists, and delinquents."

I thought I'd go downtown (Chicago) on Friday and see how dangerous this "mob" of communists is. It turns out, I think, that Eric Cantor is right to be concerned -- but not for the reasons he insinuates.

A Wish on the Feast Day of St. Dominic

In 1494, shortly after Columbus "discovered" the new world, Pope Alexander VI divided up the new discoved lands between Spain and Portugal. The Church itself had a vested interest in the new lands; they were converting by the sword and extending their influence beyond Rome and Europe. Antonio de Montesinos, a Dominican Friar from Spain, attempted to free the Indians from the slavery to which the Spanish -- both military and clerical -- had reduced them. He preached an incendiary sermon which incurred the wrath of many Spanish Catholics -- incendiary in the sense that his soul was on fire, ignited by truth. For his efforts he became an object of Spanish persecution.

St. Dominic de Guzman

I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. In order to make your sins known to you I have mounted this pulpit, I who am the voice of Christ crying in the wilderness of this island; and therefore it behooves you to listen to me, not with indifference but with all your heart and senses; for this voice will be the strangest, the harshest and hardest, the most terrifying that you ever heard or expected to hear…This voice declares that you are in mortal sin, and live and die therein by reason of the cruelty and tyranny that you practice on these innocent people. Tell me, by what right or justice do you hold these Indians in such cruel and horrible slavery? By what right do you wage such detestable wars on these people who lived mildly and peacefully in their own lands, where you have consumed infinite numbers of them with unheard of murders and desolations? Why do you so greatly oppress and fatigue them, not giving them enough to eat or caring for them when they fall ill from excessive labors, so that they die or rather are slain by you, so that you may extract and acquire gold every day? And what care do you take that they receive religious instruction and come to know their God and creator, or that they be baptized, hear mass, or observe holidays and Sundays? Are they not men? Do they not have rational souls? Are you not bound to love them as you love yourselves? How can you lie in such profound and lethargic slumber? Be sure that in your present state you can no more be saved than the Moors or Turks who do not have and do not want the faith of Jesus Christ.

His sermon provoked great resentment among the Spanish Conquistadors, much as the anti-war, anti-corporate rhetoric of the Christian "left" incites resentment among the modern, global Conquistador class. Montesinos was accused of preaching heresy by a church hierarchy tainted by Spanish gold. Yes, the church and the elite of society, who controlled the wealth and profited from the exploitation of the weak, called Montesino's sermon, which called for justice based on the inherent equality of the immortal soul, "heretical."
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
However, after hearing Montesinos preach, a Spanish priest by the name of Bartolomeo de Las Casas had a conversion experience. He saw the truth in Montesinos's words. In 1514, he became a Dominican Friar, freed his Indian slaves, and began a quest to ban slavery and bring justice to the Americas. He condemned the use of torture and coercion in the evangelization of the people of the new world. Las Casas helped to draft laws which banned slavery. Until the end of his life, Las Casas continued to speak out but he had few supporters.
I'm not surprised. Do not expect people to rally around you when you are speaking the truth about their -- and your -- common human imperfections. No one wants to hear they're doing the wrong thing. No one wants to think that God is NOT on their side. Montesinos and Las Casas were prophets, as Martin Luther King, Jr. was a prophet, and Oscar Romero was a prophet. And prophets don't live long. To paraphrase Leo Rosten, conservatives make heroes out of prophets only after they've martyred them.
Today is the feastday of Dominic de Guzman, the founder of this preaching order with a history of fighting heresies.Today's heresies include inequality, injustice, exploitation and the ascendancy of an omnipotent self-interest over the common good.
Wanna fight?

Survey: Plurality of Americans Believe Capitalism at Odds with Christian Values

A new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Religious News Service indicates that most Americans see a moral dimension to our economy and the economic crisis which plagues our country.

Nearly 6 in 10 Americans (58%) see the Federal budget as a moral document that reflects our national priorities. A full 60% believe that this recession is something other than a "natural" downturn, and 30% blame greedy businesses making risky market speculations, while another 52% blame government failure to regulate business activity.

66% of Americans think it is fair to ask wealthier Americans and corporations to bear a greater tax burden than the poor and middle class and 62% believe that the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small minority is a serious problem. 44% believe that Capitalism is fundamentally at odds with Christian values.

The findings seem to hold true across political and demographic lines, except for the Tea Party, a majority of whom seem to believe that capitalism (like America) was ordained by God. To them I offer the following:

Exodus 22:25-27 "If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor's cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets, for that is his only covering; it is his cloak for his body. What else shall he sleep in? And it shall come about that when he cries out to Me, I will hear him, for I am gracious.”

Psalm 15:1-5 “O LORD, who may abide in Your tent? Who may dwell on Your holy hill? He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart. He does not slander with his tongue, Nor does evil to his neighbor, Nor takes up a reproach against his friend; In whose eyes a reprobate is despised, But who honors those who fear the LORD; He swears to his own hurt and does not change; He does not put out his money at interest, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.”

Deuteronomy 15:7-8 “If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.”

Deuteronomy 15:10-11 "You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings. For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.'”

Deuteronomy 24:14 “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of your aliens who is in your land in your towns.”
Leviticus 25:35-38: “'Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Do not take usurious interest from him, but revere your God, that your countryman may live with you. You shall not give him your silver at interest, nor your food for gain. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.’”

Matthew 19:21-24 “Jesus said to [the wealthy young man], ‘If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’ But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus said to His disciples, ‘Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’”

Mark 10:21-25 “Looking at [the wealthy young man], Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, ‘One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’ But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!’ The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, ‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’”

TIPS FOR PEACEFUL TOTALITARIAN RULE

Despite all the media crowing about “democracy” breaking out in the middle east, it is unlikely that democracies will arise there. While we still use the word to describe the nations of the technologically developed west, democracy is, for the most part, dead; a remnant of the Enlightenment that flourished between the 18th and 20th centuries.

What developing nations seek today is not democracy – for they see no evidence of its usefulness anywhere in the world – but stability. It is stability that is necessary to create the fertile ground for investment, technological development, and global trade. It is to this end that I offer ten tips to achieve this stability, and peace:

1] Celebrate materialism and eliminate idealism. Happiness comes from the consumption of material goods. Utilize the vast resources of mass media to reinforce this message on a minute-by-minute basis. Transcendent ideas – whether “God,” or “liberty,” or “sovereignty,” or “truth” – can never be allowed to subvert the primacy of money and material goods.

2] Extol the virtues of a “free-marketplace of ideas.” Flood your media networks with entertainment, diversions, amusements, and trivia. Remind the people repeatedly that they have an absolute right to choose whatever “information” suits them.

3] Make truth subjective. There can be no absolutes. Truth arbitrarily limits human behavior to the moral. Moral absolutes have no place in a pluralistic society. Everyone should have the right to his or her own opinion, no matter how preposterous, or self-serving, or manipulative it is.

4] Redefine “objectivity” in journalism to mean “neutrality.” Journalism must be “fair” and “balanced,” not truthful. Neutrality implies openness to all points of view, even those that are objectively false. Objectivity implies openly acknowledging truth and falsehood among arguments. This is dangerous.

5] Make the people understand that education is about a skilled workforce, not about an informed electorate. The Enlightenment is over. History ended with the fall of Communism. It’s all about jobs now. Focus on skills, not critical thinking. Focus on technology, not ethics.

6] Encourage reductionism in public discourse. Nuance demands careful, critical thought (see number five). Seeing gray areas in a situation only invites ethical analysis. Presenting problems as “us vs. them” or “good vs. evil,” and referring to “enemies” is more effective in engendering and supporting group cohesion. Use stereotypes at every opportunity. Any problem that can’t be explained in a 20 second sound bite should be left to “experts” to solve.

7] Nurture “individualism,” but discourage individuality. People should labor under the illusion that they are true individuals rather than mere constituents of a mass. The isolation of mass society encourages group identity and consensus building. Constant connection to the group via mass-mediated diversions ensures no real, meaningful critical thought will ever occur.

8] Make a fetish of personal responsibility; ignore social responsibility. Emphasize constantly the notion that people are responsible for their own actions; ignore any possibility that they may be responsible to one another. As long as one’s behaviors are consistent with those of one’s group, no good can come of dwelling on the consequences of those actions for others outside the group.

9] Don’t persecute dissidents – ignore them. Americans still know the name Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and can identify him as a dissident of the former Soviet Union. The same is true of Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo who enjoys a prominent place in the US media. But Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn or Daniel Berrigan? Who are they? American media simply ignore them. Prison is unnecessary when no one knows you exist.

10] Keep ‘em smiling. ☺

Happy 80th Birthday, Neil Postman

“Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.” -- Neil Postman (The Disappearance of Childhood, 1982)

A note from Lance Strate:

Friends, today is the 80th anniversary of Neil Postman's birth, and by way of honoring his memory, I want to ask you, and especially those of you who have blogs and websites and/or are on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and the like, to help in an effort to correct an injustice that exists online.

Neil's most memorable quote is, “Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.” But if you Google that quote, you'll find that more often than not, it is attributed to someone else, specifically John W. Whitehead (the rightwing lawyer who represented Paula Jones against Bill Clinton).

Naturally, this is upsetting for many of us, and it is pretty much impossible to get websites to change their listings, but we can drive themdown in the Google rankings by posting in searchable sites that Neil Postman wrote “Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.”

So, we have a begun a campaign on this day to spread the word, and set the online record straight, at least as much as possible.

Glad to help, Lance. And anyone reading this who'd like to set the record straight, feel free to post this great quote from one of America's great thinkers of the last century.

The Cheddar Revolution: How Many People Attended the Rally in Chicago?

The Chicago Tribune reports that “several hundred protesters” showed up to support Wisconsin workers yesterday. ABC7Chicago said “hundreds” showed up in solidarity with public employees. The local CBS affiliate said the crowd numbered in the “hundreds.” The Huffington Post boldly proclaimed “more than a thousand people” were there. Even the Democratic Socialists (who knew?) put the crowd at a mere 2,000.

Was I wrong in my estimate? Sure. I’m no expert in this stuff. Was I that wrong? I don’t think so. So I did some thinking and some poking around to try to figure out where I got the idea that several thousand protesters – not several hundred – filled the plaza at Chicago’s Thompson Center yesterday.

I figured I needed to find out the area of that plaza before I could figure out how many people could fit into it. So I got the latitude and longitude coordinates of the roughly triangular plaza of the Thompson Center using Google Earth. I then calculated the area of the plaza at the Thompson Center using the Google Maps Area Calculator Tool. The highlighted area (click on the map to see it full size) where the rally took place constitutes 33,940.38 feet². Let’s be conservative (so to speak) and round it off to 30,000 square feet.

According to the Poynter Institute, working to improve American journalism since the 1970s, crowd estimates are difficult, but not impossible:

A loose crowd, one where each person is an arm’s length from the body of his or her nearest neighbors, needs 10 square feet per person. A more tightly packed crowd fills 4.5 square feet per person. A truly scary mob of mosh-pit density would get about 2.5 square feet per person.

The trick, then, is to accurately measure the square feet in the total area occupied by the crowd and divide it by the appropriate figure, depending on assessment of crowd density.

So by this rule of thumb, in 30,000 square feet of space a loose crowd would consist of about 3,000 people. A more tightly-packed crowd would contain more than 6,000 people, and a truly dense crowd, jam-packed into 30,000 square feet, could easily be close to 12,000 people.
Now this was a pretty tightly-packed crowd at yesterday’s rally, but it wasn’t 12,000 people. But I think my initial estimate of between 5,000 and 6,000 people is pretty close.

So why are the local media reporting that “several hundred people” showed up?

The Cheddar Revolution

A Rally in Support of Wisconsin's Public Workers from Dr Fallon on Vimeo.

Chicago went all Cairo today on Wisconsin Governor Scott ("I've got a baseball bat in my office") Walker as thousands of residents of the Windy City showed up at the State of Illinois Building (The Thompson Center) to protest Walker's cheesy, sleazy attempt to take away collective bargaining rights from state workers (translation: to break unions).

I'm not really very good at such things and I claim no true expertise, but I have had a little experience looking at crowds and figuring out how big they are, and I can tell you this: this was a BIG crowd.

The video gives only a flavor of the rally; I was too far from the podium to either see or hear the speakers very well (although I was glad to see my Senator, Dick Durbin, showing solidarity with the crowd) so don't look for speeches. But I spoke to several people to ask them why they were there. None of them were paid by wealthy ideologues to attend. They wanted to be there. Take a look and a listen.