Occupy Crossroads
The "Occupy Wall Street" movement seems to be at a crossroads. The path it chooses to take next may be the deciding moment for whether it declines into irrelevance or grows beyond its current boundaries into something larger.
As always, addressing the subject of what I prefer to call the "99 Percenters" movement should or shouldn't do next is fraught with emotion, because one of the strong messages emanating from lower Manhattan is "Don't tell us what to do -- we're doing fine on our own, thanks." Which is why I don't write about the subject all that often, as it can be a minefield for anyone who can't claim street cred of camping out overnight in the park. But several disturbing trends seem to be emerging, which if not addressed could doom the movement to irrelevancy. So I feel it's time to offer some unsolicited (and possibly unwanted) advice.
First, I have to expose a little secret which nobody ever really admits (no matter what their politics may be): protesting (peacefully) is fun. Most protests are a carnival-like atmosphere, which is electrifying to participate in. It is a modern-day "gathering of the tribes" where like-minded people take to the streets and make noise and attempt to get everyone else's attention by doing so. While serious business may have inspired people to attend, to deny the fun aspect of protesting (whether a Tea Party rally or an Occupy march) is to deny reality.
But there's a flip side to this: protesting (violently) is dangerous. It is both dangerous to anyone caught in the violence, and it is dangerous to your cause. Violence turns people off, to put it bluntly. Sometimes violence can backfire on the police -- when they are the ones dishing out all the violence to peaceful non-violent protesters. Everyone, after all, has a camera these days, so photos and videos of such police violence will immediately make the news. But when protesters are the instigators of violence, they lose when the images become public. And it doesn't take many jerks throwing bottles at cops for your entire protest to be painted with the "rioting in the streets" brush. To put it another way, even if 99 percent of you are being Gandhi-esque and peaceful, the one percent who isn't is going to get all the news media attention. This is tough, because so few can ruin things for so many. Adequately stopping it can be downright impossible, in a chaotic situation. But the attempt must be made.
Just before the first major Tea Party rally, I (in the spirit of honoring all protest) offered up some advice:
Protesting in modern day America is (at best) difficult and ineffective, no matter which side of the political spectrum the protests come from. So to conclude this preview of the Tea Parties, I'd like to actually offer some advice to whoever is organizing these events. I have to give them credit, as they've already got a major media network worked up about the day (Fox, which should shock exactly nobody). Getting any media to cover protests is an extremely high bar to cross. And getting them to cover your protest seriously is even harder (instead of the typical: "Oh, look -- protestors! How quaint! How cute!" or, alternatively: "Deranged anarchist mob in the streets... film at eleven" storylines these things usually get in the media). Fox is apparently going to have a day-long Tea Party of their own, which is a media platform most protests never achieve (no matter what they do).
But this gavel-to-gavel coverage comes with a danger of its own. Because most every protest attracts a fringe element to it, which usually has nothing to do with the protest subject itself. This leads to dilution of the main message, at best. At worst, it showcases some serious nut jobs who happen to agree with your protest. They weasel their way onto the stage, and rant and rave about some entirely different subject, often to the embarrassment of the protestors themselves. And the right certainly has some doozies in their tin-foil hat brigades. To be fair, so does the left. But lefties are used to this sort of thing, since they're usually the ones in the streets protesting. Righties don't go in for the popular protest much (unless American military action is somehow involved), so their philosophical "fellow travelers" aren't as generally well-known.
In other words, figure out exactly what you are against. This is already pretty muddied, other than that you hate tea. Pick a theme and stick to it rigorously. Don't let your protest be swallowed in the swamps of irrelevancy, or else your message (such as it is) will be entirely lost, and you even risk being laughed at and wind up looking like buffoons as a result.
So I caution the Tea Party folks, in the bipartisan and sympathetic spirit of celebrating the concept of protest itself (rather than agreeing with their protest's content) -- keep the raving conspiracy-theorists off the stage. If the (non-Fox) media decides to use some bit of choice lunacy as their lead soundbite, you will wind up doing your cause more harm than good.
There are a couple of points contained in this advice which are relevant for the 99 Percenters. The first is what I would call "police your own ranks" -- make it crystal clear that the nut jobs who show up are not a part of your protest, and not sanctioned in any way. The Tea Partiers had big problems (at the start) with groups such as the LaRouche followers showing up with crazy signs and crazy theories. The 99 Percenters have had a few isolated incidents with anti-Semites (because Wall Street = Jews for many conspiracy theorists throughout history). Both the Tea Partiers and the 99 Percenters have done a pretty good job distancing themselves from the fringe folks who show up, and by doing so have strengthened their core movement.
The same is necessary for the violence, although harder to achieve. This is why, back in the 1960s, the F.B.I. (and other government agencies) would often "infiltrate" protest movements and then suggest radical, violent actions (this is documented historic fact). If the protests got violent, the protests lost legitimacy. Now, I am not suggesting any sort of conspiracy of this type is taking place in places like Oakland, mind you, but the lesson is instructive. Movements need to denounce all violence -- no matter who causes it, the cops or their own ranks -- in the strongest possible terms. It needs to be made absolutely clear that such tactics are not sanctioned in any way by the protest itself.
The second main parallel drawn from my advice to the Tea Partiers is that the media matters. Oh, sure, it's fun to berate the mainstream media's monstrous stupidity and shallowness -- in fact, I do so quite often here in these pages. But the 99 Percenters have been given a rather large media megaphone, and they need to start using it better. On one front, they have had an astounding amount of success at changing the conversation in the media universe from "cut all spending" to "hey, what about jobs?" This has been documented -- the media is indeed paying attention and shifting gears to start addressing the protest's concerns. That is an astounding victory -- it doesn't sound like much, but it truly is monumental. The media engages in groupthink -- they decide what is deemed worthy of talking about. The corporate media and the politicians in Washington decide which subjects to obsess about -- no matter what the rest of America is thinking. Breaking through this incestuous barrier is almost impossible these days, but the 99 Percenters have achieved it.
But, at the same time, they are squandering it. And the media has a notoriously short attention span, so they're already ready to move on. Occupy Wall Street has put forth a few people acting as press relations types (who are available for interviewing on television, for instance), and this is something to build upon. The movement, however, is determinedly against having any "leaders" so even this must have been contentious. But the media can't invite a gathering of a thousand people in for an interview, so there needs to be a cadre of spokespeople who can provide this service to the media.
Some 99 Percenters deride the mainstream media, and think that it's not important, because they're getting their message out in alternative media and social networking. This is not good enough, however. To shun the mainstream media is to limit your movement -- in a big way. A few thousand (even a few ten thousand) people on the streets across the country is one thing -- but getting millions behind your efforts is another. From the millions come real power, not from the thousands at the protests. And the only way to adequately reach those millions is television.
Which would the protesters choose: the only time the media reports on the Occupy protests is when it gets violent with the police, or having an articulate spokesman or spokeswoman being interviewed on a Sunday morning political show? Because when the media loses interest in the protest story as a protest story (which is already beginning to happen), this will be the stark choice the 99 Percenters face. Which they choose could be crucial to the future of their movement.
The 99 Percenters have done a pretty good job of defining (without the dreaded "list of demands" the media keeps clamoring for) what they are against. But they are making a big mistake by not getting the message out that they're for anything as well. Which is a missed opportunity. The protesters are (quite rightly) terrified of being "co-opted" by any group, such as the Democratic Party. They don't want to appear to be toadying to Democrats, in any way, shape, or form. That's understandable, but when Democrats do manage to achieve things that the protesters agree with, a message of support is in order. For instance, one of the biggest protest slogans for the past decade has been "End the wars." America is spending trillions of dollars on foreign wars that could be better spent at home, goes this thinking. Well, two wars are ending right now. Libya is over and done with, and cost what amounts to a rounding error at the Pentagon. President Obama just announced the troops are coming home from Iraq. This is good news, and should be good news at the protests. Now, admittedly, I see things through the media filter myself, so there may indeed have been some support given at the Occupy sites for ending these two wars, but if there have been I haven't noticed them.
Or take another example: student loans. President Obama just announced he's speeding up a program to help students bear the student loan burden, and loosening the restrictions so it helps more people. This is a victory for the 99 Percenters. Oh, sure, it doesn't go nearly far enough for many people, and it certainly won't just wipe out all student debt in a twinkling. It is not, in fact, perfect. But you know what? It is the best example yet of the power of the Occupy movement. Think about it: would Obama have even done anything on this issue if Occupy Wall Street had never happened? Possibly, but I have my doubts. I think this plan was quickly put together in the White House to get a jump on one of the biggest 99 Percenter issues -- to make progress, if not solve the entire problem. That is a stunning success. An issue which wasn't even on anyone's radar in the media or Washington got moved to the front burner, and quick action was the result. This is almost unheard of in Washington -- it is truly a remarkable success. Even if Obama's action isn't perfect, you cannot deny that it is a step in the right direction. So where is the support for the president from the streets on the issue? If your movement is never for anything, then you can never measure your own success -- which is limiting (to say the least).
My final advice is to agree with a few articles over at Salon. Occupy Wall Street is in danger of becoming a "protest for protest's sake." They have done an admirable job on many fronts -- raising money, organizing a mini-city in a small space with only volunteers, sustaining the number of people at the protest, organizing events which raise media interest, and many other detail-oriented achievements. But it's all what the military calls "tactics" and not "strategy." It is concentrating on the trees, and ignoring the forest. This point is made much better in an interview at Salon which is worth reading. Also worth reading is this overview of where the movement should go next.
I'll end here with an unrelated point to my advice in general. The Occupy Wall Street protest is in the midst of learning a very valuable lesson -- campaigning is easy, governing is hard. They hold nightly general assembly meetings to gauge the feeling of the group on all sorts of topics. This is both admirable and also instructive. The meetings spend hours on microscopic issues, because full consensus is almost impossible to achieve on all sorts of matters. They are developing a committee structure in an attempt to get things done faster and be more responsive to changing events. But they still have a problem, essentially, with the veto from the crowd. They're mulling over whether to go to a more representative governing structure, rather than just let whoever shows up each night at the general assembly have the final word.
Does any of this sound the tiniest bit familiar? Perhaps it is because I have been studying American history for the past few months, but does any of this remind anyone of Capitol Hill? The same legislative gridlock which happens on a daily basis in both houses of Congress are threatening to overwhelm the Occupy Wall Street protest as well.
As I said, campaigning is easy. It's actually governing that is the hard part.
[Grammatical Note: I think I've actually discussed this here before, but I just had to point out something odd. In that excerpt, I was using the word "protestor" whereas somewhere in the past two years I have begun using "protester." Any thoughts on which is "more correct" or even which is preferable? I'm all ears....]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
"Media" isn't all that matters. When I go during the morning rush hour and sit in Dewey Square, across from the exit of South Station where the commuter rail lets out for the financial district, several hundred people see my sign. If I do it several days in a row with different signs, I can deliver a much longer and more nuanced message than I could through a letter to the editor. I can also get the message to people who don't normally read political letters.
I got it!!!!
It just hit me what the message of the Oowzers is...
"It's not fair"....
That's it.. That's their ENTIRE message.
It's not fair that some are richer than others.
It's not fair that some have more than others.
It's not fair that people should have to pay for higher education.
It's not fair that people should actually have to work to earn a living.
It's not fair that some people can be leaders and others have to follow.
Life. It's not fair.
That's their entire message..
And, it frankly shows that the Oowzers really need to grow up..
This country doesn't owe the Oowzers a living.
Michale....
. Even if Obama's action isn't perfect, you cannot deny that it is a step in the right direction.
While I would agree that this is a step ( a very VERY small baby step) in the right direction, it will have absolutely NO effect on the economy.
The average student loan recipient will save about 5 bucks a month or so.
And who foots the bill for the reduction in set limits?
Taxpayers...
This is nothing more than re-election pandering...
I agree with your assessment though, that the Oowzers should acknowledge Obama's efforts.
However, considering the utter selfishness the Oowzers have displayed to date, I think they will write the action off as more "shiny beads and shallow flattery" from the Obama administration.
Ironically enough, in THAT particular case, I would have to agree with the Oowzers...
I mean, com'on!! 5 bucks a month!???
Michale....
Oooo carp!!!
CW, would ya mind?? :^/
Michale.....
Chris,
My take on the woefully ill-informed Occupy Wall Streeters has not changed much. If anything, my opinion has solidified.
If they seriously cared about anything of consequence, then they would find out what is really happening around them. But, that would take some serious effort on their part and, besides, they're too busy protesting.
Where were these people two and half years ago when Wall Street did everything but send out invitations to occupy their turf? Are the protesters experiencing some sort of delayed, post-traumatic stress reaction? I don't think so.
If the Arab awakening had not taken shape over the last several months and become as prominently covered throughout all manner of the American media as it has, I would wager that the OWS crowd would still be carrying on with their lives in blissful ignorance ... we just wouldn't have to witness it every night.
Maybe after reading this column I'll have a change of heart but time does not permit a careful reading right now ... I'll be back! :)
My take on the woefully ill-informed Occupy Wall Streeters has not changed much. If anything, my opinion has solidified.
i agree that the protesters are mostly not too well-informed. but then, that's yet another thing they have in common with 99% of americans.
don'cha think?
~joshua
Absolutely, positively, unequivocally!
... and, I don't limit that to just Americans. :)
If the Arab awakening had not taken shape over the last several months and become as prominently covered throughout all manner of the American media as it has, I would wager that the OWS crowd would still be carrying on with their lives in blissful ignorance ... we just wouldn't have to witness it every night.
That's so dead on ballz accurate, it's scary!!! :D
Dead on, Liz... Kudos...
Michale.....
As I said, campaigning is easy. It's actually governing that is the hard part.
That's kinda in keeping with what I was saying at the outset.. The Oowzers were all like, "Wow, it's so kewl to be protesting, eh!?? Look how awesome we are..."
Then they found out that they actually have to have some responsibility like actually having to clean up after themselves and having to provide security and the like. NOW it's not so much fun any more.... Hence the enthusiasm slide we have been seeing.
Movements need to denounce all violence -- no matter who causes it, the cops or their own ranks -- in the strongest possible terms. It needs to be made absolutely clear that such tactics are not sanctioned in any way by the protest itself.
So very true.. Unfortunately a good part of the Oowzers DO favor violence, as we saw in Oakland...
The problem for the Oowzers is, in a violent battle between protestors and cops, the cops will always win...
But Oowzers can take heart.
In a battle between protesters and testiculary-challenged politicians, the protestors will win every time...
We ALSO saw that in Oakland... :(
Michale.....
CW-
First, the important things. I prefer "protestor" over "protester" simply because things ending in "-or" seem to be going the way of the dinosaur.
I blame the band REO Speedwagon for this. No one had shittier diction than lead singer Kevin Cronin.
Sure diction was headed for hell when Cronin stepped in, but he put a slick, glossy wall of sound over shitty diction that somehow had the calming effect of kittens on the masses. Listen to him linger un-ironically on his "Rs"
"When I said that I love you I meant that I love you foreverrrrrRRRRRRR"
"I can't fight this feelin' any long-Grrrrrrr"
Now conservatives may accuse me of being jealous of Cronin's success. To which I respond, this is a pile of horsepoop.
There are plenty of melodramatic pop bands who have been wildly successful who I adore: Journey, Van Halen, Men at Work, to name just a small few. None of these destroyed the English language like Kevin Cronin.
I'd rather be trapped in a phone booth of mosquitoes and honey badgers with nothing but Air Supply to listen to on my iPod than to have to listen to Kevin Cronin.
He turns splendor into splender. Collector into collecter. Honor into Hon-eeerrrrr. If anyone could turn propellor into propeller, it would be Kevin Cronin. Pretty soon even candor will be cand-eerrrRRRR.
As part of the 99%, I pledge to do everything in my abilities to end the reign of terrer foisted on us by the likes of REO Speedwagon!
-David
p.s. Really enjoyed the column and have many thoughts, but first I have to drown out the incessant whining of Cronin in my head (who I also believe is responsible for the adoption of "-in'" as in "I'm gonna keep on lovin' you").
Now conservatives may accuse me of being jealous of Cronin's success. To which I respond, this is a pile of horsepoop.
Don't you mean "moose poop"??? :D
Michale.....
Don't you mean "moose poop"??? :D
Poop is poop. Unless you work for the "liberal" media. Then you can only call it poop if it won't offend your corporate advertisers :)
I'd rather be trapped in a phone booth of mosquitoes and honey badgers with nothing but Air Supply to listen to on my iPod than to have to listen to Kevin Cronin.
I really don't see much difference between REO and Air Supply.. :D
Michale....
"It's not fair".... That's it.. That's their ENTIRE message.
Wrong. I don't even believe in fair. "Fair" somehow always seems to favor the person in question. Does it mean same amount, same percentage, same opportunity? No, it means nothing, so just feel free to swap in whichever details seem likely to favor you.
Taxes should be allocated for least harm, not according to someone's notion of fairness. Likewise, the problem with a broken financial system that runs by inflating bubbles selling bailouts in advance is that it's harmful, not that it's unfair.
If a dysfunctional financial system harmed everyone exactly the same amount (or percentage or whatever), it might be fair, but it would still be bad.
If they seriously cared about anything of consequence, then they would find out what is really happening around them.
What in particular do you claim we should find out about, that would enable us to see that there's nothing to protest?
Where were these people two and half years ago when Wall Street did everything but send out invitations to occupy their turf?
I can speak only for myself: I was writing letters to the editor and holding signs on the street corner, pretty much the same as now.
dsws,
I don't even believe in fair.
Perhaps you don't. But the Oowzers apparently do.. Their entire message, everything they do is apparently based on some childish notion of "fair"...
Witness their form of "government"... The epitome of this childish version of "fair"...
They are finding out quickly that there is a reason why the phrase "Life ain't fair" is so dead on ballz accurate...
Michale.....
On the choice of "protester" or "protestor", I go with the e. For one thing, it's more common.
Of course, I don't automatically let commonness rule my word choice. On the merits, if you're just sticking a suffix onto a verb to come up with a word for the person who does it, the default is -er. One use of -or is for words with a more specific meaning, such as serving in a professional capacity. If you just happen to advise someone about one thing, you're the adviser in that situation. But that doesn't mean you're an advisor, as a job-title. Another use is to mark words as being derived more directly from the Latin, or at least having a Latinate feel to them.
Joshua [6] -
OK, now that was funny!
:-)
-CW
David [11] -
Are we going to open up the whole Journey / REO thing again? Heh. Never thought about REO grammatically before, but you're right, and I had to laugh at your phoenetic "any long-Grrrrrrr" since it did indeed cause REO singing to bounce around in my head for a few seconds. But REO was popular for the same reason a lot of cheesy music is popular -- the songs stick in your head until you have to apply head to brick wall repeatedly in an effort to drive them out. As for word endings, the worst song in history (as far as I'm concerned) for killing the final syllable would have to be "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" by... um... Gordon Lightfoot? "sons and your dott-urrrrrs..." (shudder).
Fun fact: "REO" were the initials of Ransom Eli Olds, whose name also lives on in the "Oldsmobile" (do they still make those?).
I will chalk you up as one vote for "protestor"...
:-)
-CW
PS. But really, Men At Work? Really?
Michale [12] -
That's the spirit! Plug the meme!
Heh. Had to admit I laughed out loud when I read your comment...
:-)
-CW
dsws [17] -
OK, one vote for "protester". I have to admit, it feels easier to type, if that makes any sense. Sigh. I guess I'll have to drag out my copy of the OED and look up the word's origins and transformation.
I just knew I'd get a response to that final note, here. You guys are an erudite bunch, I have to admit!
Michale and dsws -
"Fair" is a word which resonates with the American public. It's one of those fuzzy words which mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people, but it tests very well with political focus groups, no matter what issue "fair" is slapped onto. I'd say that "fairness" is a pretty good slogan for OWS, for the reason that most Americans agree that "fairness" (undefined) is a "good thing." Which is probably why they're using it.
-CW
I'd say that "fairness" is a pretty good slogan for OWS, for the reason that most Americans agree that "fairness" (undefined) is a "good thing." Which is probably why they're using it.
The problem is that "fair" to the Oowzers means everything that hardworking people worked hard to earn, is simply just handed to the people who don't want to put in the time and effort...
That's not what "fair" means to the REAL 99% of Americans...
Michale.....
That's the spirit! Plug the meme!
Anything I can do to further Weigantianism!!! :D
Michale
If online reaction is any indication, it’s not a stretch to think Olsen’s injury could be the start of something very big. We have a lot of military combat veterans in this country who haven’t been treated very well since they left the service. No job prospects. Inadequate medical coverage. If they take their anger offline and into the streets, the OWS movement will become an extremely potent, and WELL TRAINED force.
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlla/marines-storm-reddit-after-occupy-oakland-shooting-of-scott-olson_b43369
Of course, if the Oowzers in Oakland had obeyed lawful orders to disperse, Scott Olsen would still be unhurt.
Alleged Americans who label the actions of the Oakland Police as "fascist" should be completely and utterly ashamed of themselves....
Michale.....
Anything I can do to further Weigantianism!!! :D
Not just Weigantism or Weigantianism, but Weigantidisestablishmentarianism.
reality-based political commentary shall NOT be removed from our government, although presumably there'd have to be some there to begin with...
Not just Weigantism or Weigantianism, but Weigantidisestablishmentarianism.
I heard 'beer', then what?? :D
Michale.....
then drink! :)
then drink! :)
"That was easy...."
-STAPLES ad
:D
Michale
nypoet22 -
RE: "Weigantidisestablishmentarianism"
I think my spell checker just barfed. Heh.
-CW
Two of my signs at Occupy Boston:
A firm's role in society is to serve the customers, not the owners.
Costs are costs. Why do we expect firms to try to minimize the cost of labor (wages), but maximize the cost of capital (profit)?
(There is an answer to that question, but it's not "that's capitalism, the rich are just inherently entitled to get richer for no reason".)
A firm's role in society is to serve the customers, not the owners.
Not really.
Conventional business wisdom states that a business must be concerned with the bottom line, first and foremost...
My OWN personal philosophy is more in keeping with what you say.. My "business" philosophy is that if you take care of your customers, the bottom line will take care of itself.
It works for me because I have a loyal customer base and am "small town" where there isn't much competition..
Large business conglomerates don't have a loyal customer base to fall back on, so they have to worry about the bottom line more..
Michale.....
a business must be concerned with the bottom line, first and foremost...
It's entirely appropriate for the owners to be concerned first and foremost for their own bottom line. But likewise it's appropriate for the workers and customers to be concerned with theirs.
The question is what makes sense for how outsiders should evaluate the whole thing.
From that perspective the purpose of a firm is to provide value to the customers. Workers aren't entitled to pay if they don't do anything of value. Owners aren't entitled to a return on their capital if they hand it to managers who use it to just dig a hole and fill it back in all day.
Of course, people can make a deal to have someone else bear their share of the risk that the firm will fail. Owners of capital can lend money, protected by adequate liens, and have other owners hold the equity. Workers can (if they organize and negotiate effectively) get a contract with severance pay. Management can get a deal for a golden parachute, and often does at large firms. But the risk is there for all of them, until and unless they pay someone else to bear it for them.
Of course, even though owners and managers are concerned with maximizing their own take, a focus on serving the customers can be the best way to do so. That does depend on stuff like how much repeat business there is.
Of course, even though owners and managers are concerned with maximizing their own take, a focus on serving the customers can be the best way to do so. That does depend on stuff like how much repeat business there is.
Yer preachin' to the choir on that. I am in complete agreement..
But I also try to look at it from the business's point of view..
Especially in light of my own experiences with obnoxious customers.
While the axiom "The customer's always right" does have some validity, sometimes the customer is a dick. And I have no qualms about telling them that.
If business has obligations to the customer, then it stands to reason that customers have obligations to the business...
Michale.....
Definitely the customer is sometimes a dick, an idiot, and just plain wrong. Providing value to customers is the reason for a business to exist, but the value in any particular case is still only so much. If a customer is so obnoxious that the amount a prospective customer is willing to pay isn't enough to make it worthwhile to put up with them, the economically rational thing to do is to have them go away not buy that product, same as if they weren't willing to pay the cost of production.
If a customer is so obnoxious that the amount a prospective customer is willing to pay isn't enough to make it worthwhile to put up with them, the economically rational thing to do is to have them go away not buy that product, same as if they weren't willing to pay the cost of production.
Reminds me of a sign I read..
"If you are mean, obnoxious or simply a jerk, there will be a $10 surcharge just for dealing with you"
:D
Michale....