There have been many successful political movements which have changed our world. Civil rights. Suffragettes. Solidarity. There is a significant question, however, as to whether the Occupy Wall Street movement will join those ranks.
On the one hand, they truly are a novel exercise in democracy. Even the day to day issues of managing a particular protest camp are decided on by a vote of the protesters. On the other hand, while they have tapped into a strong undercurrent of disappointment in the current plight of the average citizen, thus far they have been unable to translate that into the sort of cohesive message upon which movements effect change.
Indeed, although recent polls show that a majority of Americans agree with the OWS position, thus far this has only translated into a response that can best be paraphrased with “We know. And....?”
People don't need to be reminded how tough it is to find work. How hard it is to cover heath insurance, food, and mortgages which exceed the value of their homes. They know this. They live it every day. And the people don't need to be reminded how the banks gambled with the fortunes of all Americans, lost, and then cried to Washington to bail them out lest things get even worse. They remember those bailouts just fine, and it still sickens them to remember the costs downloaded onto them . The people know that the income inequality continues to grow. That the richest 1% are become vastly richer while the rest struggle to keep their heads above water.
They know.
What they haven't figure out yet is what the heck to do about it. And here is where the movement hits the wall. It is one thing to point out a problem. It is one thing to say that it needs to be fixed. It is quite another thing to actually fix it. Will raising taxes on the rich bring jobs? Will punishing banks solve their property value concerns? In the politics of Main Street, Washington's books are a discussion of scant intellectual concern compared to getting through the month with our own bills paid for most these days.
If one were to dissect a successful movement such as the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, we can recall the fiery rhetoric of it's leaders, the specific demands for equal treatment for all – regardless of race, and the events that propelled a nation to agree. The church bombings. The beaten marchers. The water canons. The assassination of Martin Luther King. And the government members who took up the cause and fought for it in the Capital.
With OWS, we have the marches that present the complaint, but we don't have any leadership to provide a consistent message or any proposed solutions. We have disjointed separate local protests raising equivalent complaints, but no cohesive message, no organized attempt to translate the protest into mainstream political action, no concerted effort to recruit current politicians into the fold, and no sense of a movement's focus. Contrast that to the other recent grassroots movement – the Tea Party's focused dissatisfaction with the direction of the Republican Party, and the immediate move into the political process. The Tea Party became a force within a year, with the support, funding, and direction of serious players as the Koch brothers and Americans For Prosperity.
Will the recent police clampdowns on the OWS encampments help provide public sympathy? Perhaps. Certainly such pettiness as the New York police confiscating the generators used by the local protesters on the night of the first snowstorm of the season is hard to stomach, as was the tear gassing of the Oakland protesters. But, on the other hand, if people can not see and end game for the OWS movement, then their desire to support such encampments is also limited. After all, a political movement does not require the long-term occupation of local public spaces. It requires entry into the political process to be successful. And in the six weeks since the movement first marched to Zuchotti Park, if anything there seems to be a deliberate avoidance of such entry by this movement.
The OWS has successfully put the media focus on social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and influence over politics. It also has a message compelling enough to have such right-leaning heavyweights as Bill Kristal attempt as vile a counter as to try to tie it to anti-semitism. If it has a difficulty in entry into the political process, it is that the entire political funding model puts the movement at odds with such entry.
The movement has found at least one ally in mainstream politics as witnessed by Alan Grayson's impassioned defense of them on Bill Maher's show. Indeed, he managed to define the movement's cause in a succinct fashion better than the movement itself has thus far. And if this becomes the thin edge of the wedge of candidates taking up the call then the movement has a chance. But other than that, the question remains – how does a movement which takes issue with the political process involve itself in it? Can a movement that objects to lobbyists and money in politics feel comfortable creating a PAC to manage funding? And can it put forth a cohesive message without adopting the model that approximates that of other mainstream political groups? Indeed, does a fervent desire to avoid politics as normal effectively eliminate the movement from actual political involvement?
These are questions that OWS must resolve if it is to truly become an effective conduit of the voter dissatisfaction that they have tapped into. If anything, right now it feels like a channeling of the large percentage of citizens who have abandoned the political process as evidenced by the continual drop in voter turnout. The question is whether they can, like the Tea Party, find political champions who will bring the movement to the voting booth and return the disaffected to the process. I would argue that this will require an entry into the current political processes that the movement seems dead set against taking. And if that remains their position, then this is a movement doomed to failure.
Comments