So far my thoughts on occupy wall street have largely failed to coalesce into a coherent opinion, but here's my attempt.
Your point is that, while (1) what OWSers are protesting is probably worth getting angry about, and while (2) they are trying to follow in the noble (and now rather mythic) footsteps of 60s protests, they (1) won't accomplish anything constructive, because (2) unlike the 60s protestors, their anger lacks the solid foundation of real discrimination; their impetus is not a vested interest in change but rather a transient wave of public emotion.
And I would agree, that this whole hubbub is a deeply theatrical event without as solid a grounding in misery as death in vietnam or racial segregation. In a sense, they are posers, lacking a civil rightsian authentic reason to be where they are. They are not the 99%; they are the 60-98%. (although it is growing.)
But, I would counter that this "inauthenticity" of the protesters' motivations and backgrounds doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't try to accomplish anything, because _expression_ is really important. Our democracy works not by counting the number of voices but their total volume. Obviously money talks loudest of all, but the tea party, people like Glenn Beck, have managed to gain a seemingly huge amount of influence just by being loud and confident-sounding. And probably all of us were frustrated when Obama and other Democrats didn't push back, rhetorically, and were left sounding almost conciliatory, defeated.
All of this is idiocy, rationally. Public opinion shouldn't operate this way. But it does. Right now OWS is one of the loudest voices for issues like equity, and I think that's important. In terms of generating actual change, I agree with you that putting pressure on individual members of congress probably is the best way of doing that (oil and gas companies would definitely agree). But that pressure simply isn't going to materialize unless you (1) have a lot of money (oil and gas once more) or (2) have a loud chorus of voices behind you, making you feel legitimized as you call your congressperson. Ardor, passionate intensity, is not an emotion that we often see sustained on an individual basis. With rare and wonderful exceptions, it is a social phenomenon, and we need vocal movements to inspire it.
Good to hear you guys are thinking about this too! It's been on my mind most of the time, these days. I have to say, I began being pretty skeptical, but I've warmed up to the protests dramatically in the last week or so.
Here are a couple of my ruminations:
1) The protests are nonviolent.
2) The protestors are mostly taking simple, non-aggressive steps of civil action (like occupying public space).
3) The protests have kept economic justice in the news cycle for longer than it has been in maybe decades.
4) It's throwing the right into a hissy fit and I love it. The reaction to the protests, more than anything else, has made me sit up and take notice.
5) Although I disagree with a lot of the individual posters and signs, I can get behind the basic message. Wall Street could be (should be) held much more accountable for its conduct than it ever has been in recent memory.
This last one took me the longest to come around to. I was really stuck on the anarchist/macintosh radical side of things. I am frustrated by some of the suggestions bandied about, I think people don't understand the market, and it seems like many camps under the "big tent" of the protest simply don't acknowledge the wider politics of the country. And yet, they're still the biggest force I've seen galvanizing for any kind of positive action. This seems really important.
Even though I haven't agreed with much of the granular "demands" of the protest, it seems to me that these are really small beans behind a protest that is largely an emotional reaction to a system that is heavily biased towards the super-wealthy. And that, at its core, seems like a really worthwhile message to communicate.
Plus, it's awesome to have a reason to talk about this stuff.
Thanks for the commentary. My argument isn't centered around the protesters have no legitimacy in protesting. Rather, it's an argument about methodology. They believe democracy is beyond repair. I believe that democracy is still strong despite problems with corporate influence and the way to affect change lies in engaging in democracy as an active democrat (small d). The question I ask myself is, how many of those people plan on voting? How many will try to contact their member of congress? The answer is too often few and few. If we want to make change, the choice is to engage or be irrelevant.
And I hope their message--nebulous as it is--does not become irrelevant. I support a broad redistribution of wealth, the dismantling of a corporate apparatus run by the wealthy few, and a shift towards a more peaceful world. But I think marching in the streets against "Capitalism" or "Greed" isn't going to change anything. However, if ten thousand constituents marched into Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's office and demanded that she withdraw her support of H.R. 2829 that seeks to effectively halve U.N. funding and withdraw aid money from UNWRA that goes to starving Palestinian refugees in retaliation for Palestine's bid to the United Nations--something would change.
Anyway, off of politics for a moment. Next weekend the 22-23rd. I hadn't planned on it, but I'd love an excuse to come visit Philly. We should totally do it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo far my thoughts on occupy wall street have largely failed to coalesce into a coherent opinion, but here's my attempt.
ReplyDeleteYour point is that, while (1) what OWSers are protesting is probably worth getting angry about, and while (2) they are trying to follow in the noble (and now rather mythic) footsteps of 60s protests, they (1) won't accomplish anything constructive, because (2) unlike the 60s protestors, their anger lacks the solid foundation of real discrimination; their impetus is not a vested interest in change but rather a transient wave of public emotion.
And I would agree, that this whole hubbub is a deeply theatrical event without as solid a grounding in misery as death in vietnam or racial segregation. In a sense, they are posers, lacking a civil rightsian authentic reason to be where they are. They are not the 99%; they are the 60-98%. (although it is growing.)
But, I would counter that this "inauthenticity" of the protesters' motivations and backgrounds doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't try to accomplish anything, because _expression_ is really important. Our democracy works not by counting the number of voices but their total volume. Obviously money talks loudest of all, but the tea party, people like Glenn Beck, have managed to gain a seemingly huge amount of influence just by being loud and confident-sounding. And probably all of us were frustrated when Obama and other Democrats didn't push back, rhetorically, and were left sounding almost conciliatory, defeated.
All of this is idiocy, rationally. Public opinion shouldn't operate this way. But it does. Right now OWS is one of the loudest voices for issues like equity, and I think that's important. In terms of generating actual change, I agree with you that putting pressure on individual members of congress probably is the best way of doing that (oil and gas companies would definitely agree). But that pressure simply isn't going to materialize unless you (1) have a lot of money (oil and gas once more) or (2) have a loud chorus of voices behind you, making you feel legitimized as you call your congressperson. Ardor, passionate intensity, is not an emotion that we often see sustained on an individual basis. With rare and wonderful exceptions, it is a social phenomenon, and we need vocal movements to inspire it.
Good to hear you guys are thinking about this too! It's been on my mind most of the time, these days. I have to say, I began being pretty skeptical, but I've warmed up to the protests dramatically in the last week or so.
ReplyDeleteHere are a couple of my ruminations:
1) The protests are nonviolent.
2) The protestors are mostly taking simple, non-aggressive steps of civil action (like occupying public space).
3) The protests have kept economic justice in the news cycle for longer than it has been in maybe decades.
4) It's throwing the right into a hissy fit and I love it. The reaction to the protests, more than anything else, has made me sit up and take notice.
5) Although I disagree with a lot of the individual posters and signs, I can get behind the basic message. Wall Street could be (should be) held much more accountable for its conduct than it ever has been in recent memory.
This last one took me the longest to come around to. I was really stuck on the anarchist/macintosh radical side of things. I am frustrated by some of the suggestions bandied about, I think people don't understand the market, and it seems like many camps under the "big tent" of the protest simply don't acknowledge the wider politics of the country. And yet, they're still the biggest force I've seen galvanizing for any kind of positive action. This seems really important.
Even though I haven't agreed with much of the granular "demands" of the protest, it seems to me that these are really small beans behind a protest that is largely an emotional reaction to a system that is heavily biased towards the super-wealthy. And that, at its core, seems like a really worthwhile message to communicate.
Plus, it's awesome to have a reason to talk about this stuff.
Peace out,
-Eli
P.S. Are you heading down to Haverford next weekend, Patrick? We should storm the campus together re: maps.
ReplyDeleteHey Friends,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the commentary. My argument isn't centered around the protesters have no legitimacy in protesting. Rather, it's an argument about methodology. They believe democracy is beyond repair. I believe that democracy is still strong despite problems with corporate influence and the way to affect change lies in engaging in democracy as an active democrat (small d). The question I ask myself is, how many of those people plan on voting? How many will try to contact their member of congress? The answer is too often few and few. If we want to make change, the choice is to engage or be irrelevant.
And I hope their message--nebulous as it is--does not become irrelevant. I support a broad redistribution of wealth, the dismantling of a corporate apparatus run by the wealthy few, and a shift towards a more peaceful world. But I think marching in the streets against "Capitalism" or "Greed" isn't going to change anything. However, if ten thousand constituents marched into Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's office and demanded that she withdraw her support of H.R. 2829 that seeks to effectively halve U.N. funding and withdraw aid money from UNWRA that goes to starving Palestinian refugees in retaliation for Palestine's bid to the United Nations--something would change.
Anyway, off of politics for a moment. Next weekend the 22-23rd. I hadn't planned on it, but I'd love an excuse to come visit Philly. We should totally do it.
Best,
Patrick