Every so often, I am so impressed by a comment to one of my columns that I offer to just turn my column over to the author, and let them have my soapbox. This doesn't happen often, usually around once per year.
I've written a few columns so far about the Occupy Wall Street protest, and what I like to call the 99 Percenter movement. But when I threw the subject open to my own blog's commenters as to what the next phase of the movement will (or should) be, I got one very interesting comment in response. So I asked the author to expand her comment slightly, and rewrite it as a column.
The author, when contacted, described herself thusly: "I am a longtime Netroots political junkie, avid reader of multiple 'left wing' or 'progressive' blogs and information sites, and I am following the OWS movement with great interest and deep satisfaction. Like many OWS sympathizers, my day job consumes my primary energy, but I am with the protesters in spirit. I've visited Occupy DC in McPherson Square where I've donated supplies, and I will continue to donate to the movement. I will participate in OWS when I can in actions nearer to home."
She has chosen to identify herself by her screen name "Paula." In the communitarian spirit of letting everyone have their say, I'm turning today's column over to her.
-- Chris Weigant
Occupy Wall Street is Not the Tea Party of the Left
I've read literally hundreds of articles and posts about Occupy Wall Street, and one recurrent idea is that OWS is or should become the "Tea Party of the Left." I think that's a misreading of both the movement's origins and its evolving aspirations.
The Tea Party burst forth as an expression of right-wing grassroots anger, but Tea Partiers weren't the only Americans who were angry. Most Americans have been angry and getting angrier at the state of the nation, the economy, and the apparent inability of our leaders to respond effectively. However, while the Tea Party created opportunities for Republicans to air their perennial tax cuts and deregulation "solutions" and provided populist cover for Republican union-busting and voter-suppression efforts, the rest of us were given no alternative solutions or narratives to support. President Obama and Democratic leaders spent two years agreeing with the Republicans' framing of our economic difficulties and the traditional media duly trumpeted "the deficit" as our most pressing concern. Many knew the deficit was neither the worst nor the primary problem, but what was?
For Tea Partiers, years of income stagnation, rising education and healthcare costs, the decimation of retirement funds and 401Ks, high unemployment, etc., could all be laid at the door of Socialist-Muslim-big-government-liberal-Democrats -- and the bailouts were the final straw. What to do? Lower taxes and deregulate, and then when the economy doesn't improve, rinse and repeat.
Others saw things differently. Very gradually a consensus was building. A critical mass of the citizenry was recognizing that corporations and exceedingly wealthy individuals (the 1%) had gained indirect control of our government. Through their influence in Congress and the courts they'd engineered conditions that exponentially increased their wealth and enabled them to exploit and prey upon the rest of us. "Too big to fail" meant their gains were privatized and their losses publicized. Competition and free market principles did not apply to them; they loved monopolies and corporate welfare. Citizens -- and democracy itself -- were expendable. The 1% and those that serve them were above the law.
But what to do? Most of us are too enmeshed in the system to risk challenging it. People with jobs don't want to jeopardize their employment or health insurance (even if their employer is a 1% entity that pays them, while hurting others). The Republican machine excels at defaming people who defy the system. Whistle-blowers are punished: Bradley Manning is abused in captivity, while Dick Cheney and Condi Rice do book tours. How do you challenge a system you're trapped in, and from which you can expect little mercy?
You don't. People NOT trapped in the system do. Young people without children or jobs who have nothing but debt and unemployment to lose. Activists who've fashioned lives outside the system. Retirees with incomes.
Occupy Wall Street, meet Zuccotti Park. You may only number in the hundreds but scores more will send you food, money, blankets, and messages -- and will honk for you, hassle their representatives for you, visit you, and thank you. Millions will accept your message because they have confronted the same problems and agree with your conclusions.
The OWS movement is growing spontaneously because it is reality-based and a wide swath of Americans actively relate to its 99% premise. It is confronting systemic problems that genuinely damage people's lives as opposed to the fantasies spun by the Tea Party. Indeed, it is so reality-based that the media has been forced to notice it and various power centers have had to publicly react to it (and try to silence it). In contrast to the "respect" accorded the Tea Party, OWS has made an impact in spite of its message being unwelcome in so much of the media. No one in power wanted to legitimize the movement, but the sheer weight of its accuracy has forced people into grudging admissions. Powerful people have publicly stated that protester grievances are understandable and even, maybe, legitimate. They don't want to do anything about the grievances, but they have not been able to deny the essential validity of the 99% message. In this OWS has already prevailed. But now what?
I interpret "becoming the tea party of the left" as OWS aligning itself with the Democratic party and working to elect progressive Democrats. But from the beginning, OWS activists have resisted going down this path. They want to emphasize their representation of the 99% and don't want their efforts reduced to "Democrat versus Republican" political battles. They consider both parties to be servants of the 1% -- and thus, part of the problem. Instead, their current activities have two trajectories: (1.) to highlight existing power abusers; and (2.) to find ways to return power to the people. OWS is a work-in-progress, developing in real time.
OWS's lack of pre-packaged solutions, lists of demands, etc., indicates we're in uncharted waters -- not a comfortable place for many people. The hard slog of real problem solving isn't sexy, and doesn't easily reduce to soundbites. But that has been one of OWS's strengths. Traditional solutions have failed -- often repeatedly -- so OWS is exploring new approaches. They're invested in reaching consensus, achieved through the laborious process of people hashing things out until they find common ground. It's the polar opposite of our current winner-takes-all system. Will their methods lead to "the" solution? I have no idea.
At present I think their greatest value lies in continuing to shine light on the fact that none of our emperors are wearing clothes. Our major institutions have failed us, one by one, and citizens have ceased to matter. Through their simple presence; through their continuing inspiration of more Occupy groups (Occupy Accountability, Occupy Marines, as well as location-based Occupations, etc.), the message continues to spread and evolve. It may well be that, say, the New York group never generates any specific outcome in terms of new laws or prosecutions, but I'll bet that some offshoot groups they have inspired will.
Meanwhile, OWS has shifted the media's focus from deficits to unemployment and the extreme income disparity and concentration of wealth and power that many economists, activists and pundits have long talked about (to no avail).
Simultaneously, violent reactions by some police have also been enlightening -- they have exposed the militarization of our police forces; the criminalization of poverty in America, and the lie that is "freedom". We are free only so long as the comfortable remain comfortable. Upsetting of applecarts will be punished. Leaders deplore our exponential increases in poverty while making it ever harder for the homeless: it's against the law to sleep in public or put up a tent in a park. Who knew?
True to form, Republican reactions to OWS highlight their innate nastiness and absurdity (with Fox News reaching new heights in hysterical invective).
Democrats, meanwhile, are unsure where this movement leaves them, which may generate some badly needed soul-searching. For OWS is unflinchingly condemnatory about the party's failures. Democrats stand guilty of: serious enabling; refusing to take strong party-wide stands against Republican excesses; cooperating rather than condemning; choosing safe acts of cowardice over risky acts of courage.
For years there's been a go-nowhere argument raging on the left over what to do about the Democratic party when it fails us. The answer has always been "elect better Dems." The problem with that answer is that it stinks. It is unsatisfactory. It supports a rigged system. Candidates can say anything to get elected and then immediately renege on their promises. It isn't good enough to say "wait for 2-4-6 years" to hold them accountable. It isn't good enough to have to wait for the future while they do damage now. We shouldn't have to fight our way through right-wing disinformation while a corporate media aids liars in their lies, and our representatives know we're being lied to but do nothing.
OWS is saying: No More. Not gonna keep playing a rigged game. Don't feel like going around in circles anymore. There has to be a better way. Must we settle for this travesty of a democracy?
Prior to OWS, I was mired in a tired kind of despair. Congress is a nasty joke. The president has not been the change we need. His genuine sense of responsibility makes him better than any Republican adversary, but he is so enmeshed in the 1% world that I don't believe he really grasps how our country has degenerated, or why (ditto for the rest of the inside-the-Beltway crowd). Obama is "better than the alternative", but that certainly isn't going to be an exhilarating message for the campaign season.
Now, partly (if not wholly) due to OWS, Obama is showing some fight -- but whether he fights one minute beyond his second inauguration remains to be seen. In any event, since it's both unfair and unrealistic to expect one man to engineer the level of change we need, and since Congress has proven such a weak reed, OWS offers a third avenue of change.
So, if the OWS goal isn't to become "the tea party of the left," what should it be? Well, I think they've done a hell of a lot so far simply by following their noses -- doing whatever came next. Doing what they feel is right. Doing what they agree together to do. So maybe the question shouldn't be: "what should they do next?" Maybe the question should be: "What should I... you... we do next?"
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Thanks Chris for giving Paula this opportunity.
There are plenty of folks who support the OWS folks, but until they can find someone in their midst who can actually explain what their beef is, and how camping out in parks serves to further the change that they seek, it all looks like a carnival.
You're welcome, but the praise is all due Paula, not me.
:-)
-CW
If there are not enough statesmen to AMEND the Constitution, how do you think these statesmen will do a better job at getting a New one written.
I often here uninformed people on both the right and left talk about this. You want the same people that you oppose and that win almost half the elections to write a completely new framework in which to make our laws?
You want to do way with 200+ years of court decisions so that people who cant write a simple law will rework the basic framework of liberty?
The problem is not the Constitution but the way it is ignored by politicians of both sides. The Soviet Union had a constitution that guaranteed Freedom of Speech. Was followed?
I am not sure what you mean by "a constitutiÂon that recognizes the pluralism that our country is". Our Constitution explicitly guarantees " the equal protection of the laws" to ALL CITIZENS. If that is ignored, what stronger language do you think would be enforced?
The Constitution does not have a two party system. That came about by law and can be changed by law. (Of course we dont have a true two party system since other partys do run and two Senators are Independents).
One quibble: the equal protection clause actually gives this right to "all persons" under the jurisdiction of the states. The Constitution does use the word "citizens" elsewhere, so the distinction was intended.
Make of that what you will...
-CW
While you make some extremely salient points in a very well written essay, I would strongly disagree with many of your assumptions and assertions.
Are you open to discussing them here?
movetoamend.org
(I feel January 20th, 2012: will be a bigger day in US history than WTO in Seattle. The battle continues, rage against the machine is real.)
January 20, 2012 – Move to Amend Occupies the Courts!
Move To Amend is planning bold action to mark this date — Occupy the Courts — a one day occupation on Friday January 20, 2012, of the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States and as many of the 89 U.S. District Court Buildings as we can. (I am inspired by Doctor Martin Luther King who said; "a true revolution of values", ... "there comes a time when silence is betrayal"., "people are not gonna be silenced".). Move to Amend will lead the charge on the judiciary which created — and continues to expand — corporate personhood rights.
(Scholar or Rogue? You get to decide.)
http://open.salon.com/blog/kennspace/2011/10/28/corporate_occupation_of_the_united_states_1
Look at the things on your website you linke;
"Firmly establish that money is not speech" Yet the courts have long held that not all speech is verbal and if money is not speech they can limit an Individuals ability to support causes they want. I am not ready to give up that freedom.
"Guarantee the right to vote and to participate," Don't we have that now? If not why not?
I went to the website and do you know what is missing? The actual amendment you claim to want?
Again from the actual movetoamend.org website. "We deliberately have not chosen specific language at this time"
How in the HECK can anyone support a group that wants to amend the constitution if they can't even tell you what they want?
the wise men said:
"You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan "
and
"You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow "
tinsldr2 -
Extra points for quoting Lennon. All you need now is a Groucho Marx quote to go with it, then we can accuse you of being a Marxist-Lennonist. Heh. Heh heh.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
-CW
. . . because they are Republicans.
"The TParty and the Repubs are NOT one in the same."
Yes, they are.
That post underscores why neither the average working American nor the unions can afford to entirely turn the reins over to the Democratic Party so long as it tolerates and accommodates Blue Dogs--and why the Democrats, and the 99% in general, need an immediate progressive challenger to President Obama, either to push him into embodying left-center partisanship or to replace him on the 2012 ticket with someone who already embodies it: someone who sounds like Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren and (like them) actually means what he or she says.
Not every Democrat stands guilty of refusing to take strong partisan stands, of enabling the Republicans rather than condemning them, and of "choosing safe acts of cowardice over risky acts of courage", but Barrack Obama does. Just as you say, he hasn't been the change we need.
I commend you for having an open mind. Most young Republicans wouldn't even be reading stuff here. Your remarks are very interesting, as well. I'm from a generation slightly older than yours, so it's good to see your support for your own generation getting involved in whatever way.
-CW
I am an older Conservative and registered Republican. Mr Weigant always has the best articles on Huffingtonpost. Also be sure and check out his webpage.
I frequently disagree with him but he is fair and almost always accurate, and worth reading.
Paul 2012 ... nuff said.
But that's where the comarison of OWS and the TParty ends. OWS hasn't found a way to be heard, unless you like drum circles. The group has worn out its welcome almost everywhere it had a camp.
That was my exact reaction to Paula's original comment, and why I decided to lend her my soapbox.
-CW
Like others, I don't think change comes by throwing out the Constitution, re-writing it, or abandoning principles of democracy, but rather embracing those things - for a change.
Occupy is exploring other ways to organize a democracy, new ways to bring the political debate back to the streets in a way we haven't seen, maybe since ancient Greece.
By living communally, they are also exploring new ways to answer the question of "how do we live together?"
My final point is that those living in the encampments are just the top crest of a tsunami of dissatisfied citizens who WILL change things. You see a couple hundred people in tents. What you don't see is the billion-plus citizens who are intent on bringing about the changes they stand for.
And we are here. We are legion. We aren't going away. Go ahead an keep repeating to your echo-chambers that's it's just a small group of hippies. Hahahaha. Keep laughing, idiots.
They stopped blaming themselves (which is what those institutions REALLY want us to do), and began to formulate a critique of the people on the other end of that contract.
More about this here: http://perfectwhole.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/freaks-gleeks-demarites-and-occupy-wall-street-a-five-day-series-part-v/