Like a fever, revolutions come in waves. And if this is a revolution, then it broke first on November 4, 2008, with the election of Barack Obama, second, on February 19, 2009, with the explosion of anger by Rick Santelli, giving birth to the Tea Party, and third, on September 10, 2011 with the #Occupy movements that are now spreading across the United States.
The souls in these movements must now decide whether this third peak will have any meaningful effect -- whether it will unite a radically divided America, and bring about real change, or whether it will be boxed up by a polarized media, labeled in predictable ways, and sent off to the dust bins of cultural history.
In the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., championed a strategy of non-violence: that in the face of state sponsored and tolerated aggression, the strongest response was a promise not to respond in kind.
In this movement, we need a similar strategy. Of course a commitment to non-violence. But also a commitment to non-contradiction: We need to build and define this movement not by contradicting the loudest and clearest anger on the Right, but instead, by finding the common ground in our demands for reform.
So when Ron Paul criticizes the "Wall Street bailouts," and attacks government support for "special businesses" with special access, we should say, "that's right, Congressman Paul." Bailouts for the rich is not the American way.
And when Rick Santelli launches a Tea Party movement, by attacking the government's subsidies "to the losers," we should ask in reply, what about the subsidies "to the winners" -- to the banks who engineered the dumbest form of socialism ever invented by man: socialized risk with privatized benefits. What, we should ask Mr. Santelli, about that subsidy?
Or when Republican Senator Richard Shelby tells NBC's Meet the Press that the message in bank reform "should be, unambiguously, that nothing's too big to fail," we should say that's right, Senator, and it's about time our Congress recognized it.
Or when Sarah Palin calls GE the "poster child of crony capitalism," we should say "Amen, Mamma Grisly": For whether or not we are all believers in "capitalism," we should all be opponents of "crony capitalism," the form of capitalism that is increasingly dominating Washington, and that was partly responsible for the catastrophe on Wall Street in 2008, and hence the catastrophes throughout America since.
We should practice "non-contradiction," not because we have no differences with the Right. We do. We on the Left, we Liberals, or as some prefer, we Progressives, have fundamental differences with people on the Right. Our vision of that "shining city on the hill" is different from theirs. Our hopes for "We, the People," are more aspirational. More egalitarian. More ideal.
But even though our substantive views are different, we should recognize that we have not yet convinced a majority of America of at least some of our fundamental views. And that in a democracy, no faction has the right to hold a nation hostage to its extreme views, whether right or not. We should fight in the political system to win support for our Liberal views. But we should reject the idea that protest, or violence, or blackmail are legitimate political techniques for advancing views that have not yet prevailed in a democratic system.
Instead, we should use the energy and anger of this extraordinary movement to find the common ground that would justify this revolution for all Americans, and not just us. And when we find that common ground, we should scream it, and yell it, and chant it, again, and again, and again.
For there is a common ground between the anger of the Left and the anger of the Right: That common ground is a political system that does not work. A government that is not responsive, or -- in the words of the Framers, the favorite source of insight for our brothers on the Right -- a government that is not, as Federalist 52 puts it, "dependent upon the People alone."
Because this government is not dependent upon "the People alone." This government is dependent upon the Funders of campaigns. 1% of America funds almost 99% of the cost of political campaigns in America. Is it therefore any surprise that the government is responsive first to the needs of that 1%, and not to the 99%?
This government, we must chant, is corrupt. We can say that clearly and loudly from the Left. They can say that clearly and loudly from the Right. And we then must teach America that this corruption is the core problem -- it is the root problem -- that we as Americans must be fighting.
There could be no better place to name that root than on Wall Street, New York. For no place in America better symbolizes the sickness that is our government than Wall Street, New York. For it is there that the largest amount of campaign cash of any industry in America was collected; and it was there that that campaign cash was used to buy the policies that created "too big to fail"; and it was there that that campaign cash was used to buy the get-out-of-jail free card, which Obama and the Congress have now given to Wall Street in the form of a promise of no real regulatory change, and an assurance of "forgiveness."
"Forgiveness" -- not of the mortgages that are now underwater. The foreclosures against them continue. "Forgiveness" -- not even of the sins now confessed by Wall Street bankers, for our President has instructed us, no crimes were committed. "Forgiveness" -- just enough to allow candidates once again to race to Wall Street to beg for the funds they need to finance their campaigns. The dinner parties continue. The afternoons at the golf course are the same. It's not personal. It's just business. It is the business of government corrupted.
There is no liberal, or libertarian, or conservative who should defend these policies. There is no liberal, or libertarian, or conservative who should defend this corruption. The single problem we all should be able to agree about is a political system that has lost is moral foundation: For no American went to war to defend a democracy "dependent upon the Funders alone." No mother sacrificed her son or daughter to the cause of a system that effectively allows the law to be sold to the highest bidder.
We are Americans, all of us, whether citizens or not. We are Americans, all of us, because we all believe in the ideal of a government responsive to "the People alone." And we all, as Americans, regardless of the diversity of our views, need to stand on this common ground and shout as loudly as we can: End this corruption now. Get the money out of government. Or at least get the special interest money out of government. And put back in its place a government dependent upon, and responsive too, the people. Alone.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil" -- Thoreau, 1846, On Walden -- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at the root."
If this fever is to have its effect, if this revolution is to have any meaning, if this struggle -- and the carnival notwithstanding, it is an obvious struggle to sleep on the streets -- is to have real consequence, then we all, Left and Right, must strike first at that root.
"It is the duty of youth," they say Kurt Cobain said, "to challenge corruption." He may have meant a different corruption, if indeed he uttered this poetry too. But whatever he meant, embrace his words. It is your duty to challenge this corruption. And once you have ended it -- once we have restored a government that cares about what its people care about first, and not just its funders -- then let us get back to the hard and important work of convincing our fellow citizens of the right in everything that is left.
Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lessig
Occupy Wall Street: What Life Is Like for Protesters
Coverage Of Wall Street Protests Protested
Occupy Wall Street... mansions
Occupy Wall Street protestors want fairness and a future
Ayatollah: Wall St. protests toppling capitalism
Peppered protester wants spray cop nailed
Protesters to 'Occupy' London Stock Exchange After Wall Street
Campaign laws are a great example; politicians exempt the commercial press, because the 1st Amendment prohibits abridging their freedom of speech and the press. But those same laws regulate grass roots communications.
If the United States Supreme Court defined freedom of religion using the same logic that campaign laws use to define a free press only the church or synagogue "as an institution" would enjoy freedom of religion, not its parishioners!
The corporate media are the biggest promoter of campaign reform but they are a large part of the problem and not the solution.
The commercial press is the voice of the corporate special interests, themselves corporations and dependent on the advertising dollars of other corporations. But they were exempted from the Federal Campaign Reform Act before the ink was dry. The corporate media is the unregulated voice of the corporations, free to spike or ignore stories and decide what views are presented as news. Flesh and blood citizens are regulated. How does giving a megaphone to the corporations re-establish the best interests of we the people?
When grass roots can spend unlimited soft money challengers are more likely to win.
All campaigns produce is information for distribution. If the media carried candidate and issue ads for free it would greatly reduce the influence of money in politics.
But campaign ads mean millions for the media and special interests.
I think most of us conservatives can agree with you on that. But getting the money out in a constitutional fashion is tricky. Because people will want to use restrictions on monetary expenditures to clamp down on speech they don't like. Take this shibboleth about corporate campaign spending. Most interest groups are corporations, even OWS has now applied (I love the irony). Shall NARAL or the NRA be unable to urge their views in the guise of spending restrictions?
I agree our government is bought and paid for (Unions purchase pols just like banks do). But I don't know how to safely fix it.
Stop believing in the electoral process to place honorable representatives in congress. Those days are long gone. To circumvent the money, which is the corrupting factor, lottery pick citizens to serve in state and federal legislation bodies. No elections, one short term. Just like a jury, give them the facts, let them vote without outside influences. Also, a lottery system will ensure our nation with representation in congress that would resemble Americians, like the national census, age,gender,race, beliefs, social status, ect. Not just a bunch of old corrupt rich white guys.
I heard you talk about campaign finance reform as a means to ends. Really? The genie is out of
the bottle. Even the supreme court has ruled on this one.
Our constitution has provisions for change, amendments. We've moved beyond the electoral process of the land-owner, slave-owner, days. Let's not get mired down in the corporate-owned-legistraitor days.
Your expressed thoughts and opinions are discussed at all hours of every day of this continuous growing movement.
However, there are many other problems that plague our society that is also being discussed.
This movement is not about a trickle down healing - It's about rebuilding our foundation first.
The sledgehammer of corruption has pounded on We The People in such a relentless and damaging manner that it has created some very deep seeded wounds for most elements of our society.
Elements of our society who's pleas and cries for change has fallen on deaf ears for so many decades.
So when people say that this movement isn't building at a rapid enough pace - I say that it's because this movement is not about trampling on those people who've been trampled on routinely throughout the history of this country.
And I am by no means suggesting that your open letter has suggestion such tactics.
Of course everybody can see the Big GIANT Elephant and Donkey in the room, but what's also being discussed and prioritized, are the many different problems that plagues our society.
Your opinions could become a much stronger and louder force of this movement if you were to speak at a couple of the General Assemblies that are conducted by each occupy Location.
Occupy Wall Street - NYC and Occupy Los Angeles would be two perfect locations that could benefit from your opinions and help to spread them throughout the movement.
And yes, this movement has nothing to do with the current political labels that have facilitated the brainwashing.
Those labels are only distractions that are designed to divide us and break down our unification.
What some people are labeling as a revolution, just might be the evolution of a new political party who actually speaks for WE THE PEOPLE.
A party who actually respects our Constitution as opposed to perverting it.
The power of the EARLY STAGES of these current Occupations are sending a message to the appropriate people.
That message is, that the game is up!!! The system must change!!!
Due to the power of technology, they can no longer keep the masses from the TRUTH.
These corrupt wannabe gangsters are getting a vision of what We The People can do if we rise in masses and actually are PROVOKED to defend ourselves and our nation in MASSES.
This is only a little appetizer of what can be organized. - And they know it.
This is currently a peaceful movement though; A movement where our two biggest weapons are the power of technology and the power of KNOWLEDGE.
Mr. Lessing touches on a very basic problem that is currently being discussed throughout the movements. - He has the wisdom and credentials that commands respect
That's why it would be extremely beneficial for him to actually show face on-ground to express these ideas.
Prt1
I apologize for not really staying on point, in relation to your response, but I just like to attempt to help maintain proper perspective throughout these current times that will create a major footprint in history.
Take care and much respect to you!!!
OneLuv
I don't know if it was intentional, but for Sarah Palin, I like your version of her pseudonym best.
As an aside, does she call herself that because grizzlies become passive-aggressive when anything that could possibly be a threat is near? Are they terrified of everything, and start bleating for help if anything ignores their roars? When attacked, do they immediately throw their cubs in the way so that they can then tell all the other forest animals that the threatening creature was SO MEAN for going after her cubs? I'm not a zoologist, but I'm pretty sure the analogy doesn't work on any level.
It's the lack of any forceful organized articulate principled political opposition to the decades-long (bipartisan) reign of error by the uber-haves and their steadily increasing oppression of the have-littles and have-nots.
The Democratic Party of yore played this role, but hasn't really since the 1940s following the death of FDR and waning influence of Eleanor Roosevelt and other liberal Dems. Thereafter the neoliberals methodically neutered the Dems as a voice of conscience and protector of the best interests of the multitudes. (Eg. the Kennedys derisively mocked Adlai Stevenson.) The rest is history.
The Occupy movement has the potential to become a serious third force in American politics; it espouses values and a creed echoing that of Canada's or Britain's left-liberal parties, the NDP and Liberal Democrats respectively.
If and when the Occupy movement morphs into a new party, it may meld the disaffected "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" with the Greens, Peace and Freedom, and a few other social democratic left-liberal collective voices, into a formidable new voting bloc.
Such a new party could, at long last, provide vocal opposition to the Republicans and eventually supplant them from power on a platform espousing enlightened versions of populism, protectionism and isolationism.
That's a lot of responsibility for a nascent movement. But it's our only hope.
Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Los Angeles, California
Have you spoken at the OccupyLosAngeles General Assembly that begins every evening at 7pm?
Expand the "founders v. funders" meme:
Found a new political party that decisively rejects the neoliberalism of the Dems in favor of OWS's enlightened versions of populism, protectionism and isolationism. Refine (via working groups) the OWS party's distinguishing principles and policies. Force particularly liberal Dem voters to decide: Which side are you on?
Don't just "fail better":
Recently, expressions of popular indignation (the anti-Iraq war marches or Howard Dean's 2004 prez campaign) have failed. Because unlike in Britain and Canada, where the Liberal Dems and NDP respectively, keep a (relatively) sharp progressive message alive "24/7", here we have no such party (aka "shadow government") of progressives the electorate can embrace. (Note: make honest paper-ballot elections with witnessed vote counts at precincts, an OWS party platform plank.)
Win the battle of historical analogies:
Bloomberg threatened you with WW1 Bonus Marchers ("you're all riff-raff") treatment. Insist on being the "abolitionist movement" targeting predatory capitalism and "financial elite supremacy". The apt parallel is to the 1850s (when both major parties supported slavery). Then, a staunch new anti-slavery party (the Republicans) quickly replaced the Whigs. Here, the OWS party can equally quickly supplant the Dems. (Incidentally, the 1856 Republican nominee for president was a Californian, John Fremont.)
Be wary of nay-sayers:
As the late great Canadian NDP leader Jack Layton said: "Never let them tell you it can't be done."
We shall overcome.
Eric
I support the Occupy Wall Street movement, but we need to look to our consumer habits if we truly wish things to change.
The Landsraad = the rich class
The Spacing Guild = Wall Street/Big Business
The Emperor = Government
The Bene Geseret = Religion
The Fremen = the OWS folks and the multitude ot others sympathetic to their cause
Maud'Dib = the prophecised leader that will one day come to deliver the fremen out of bondage.