Like a loud and mighty rocket with insufficient power to break free of the earth's gravitational pull, Occupy Wall Street struggles to reach escape velocity, but keeps falling back to earth. The reason, ironically, is on the movement's own "unofficial" website, where it defines itself as a leaderless "resistance movement." The term is self-contradictory. Resistance suggests standing firm, while movement implies forward momentum. Observing them both with equal force simply leads to a stalemate. And that is precisely where the movement -- more than two months since launching -- finds itself today.
Dubious grammar isn't, of course, fatal to a movement, but it serves to illustrate how ultimately futile it is for 30,000 people in New York City and tens of thousands more around the world to fight for an idea by shouting it from the sideline to get everyone's attention, but not taking the next logical -- and necessary -- step, which is to take action.
In a very real sense, Occupy Wall Street had us at hello. But they kept talking so much and not taking action that people finally lost interest. This unpleasant fact is reflected in the latest USA Today poll, which finds that six out of 10 Americans are indifferent to the Occupy movement.
A Tea Party Moment
Last month, in criticizing the movement, Ginia Bellafante of the New York Times defined it as "a diffuse and leaderless convocation of activists against greed, corporate influence, gross social inequality and other nasty byproducts of wayward capitalism." That description (minus the snarky tone) is pretty much the consensus of many analysts. Yet, that is not why the movement failed. That description was also leveled against the Tea Party movement in its first months of existence. It too was widely criticized as being "diffuse and leaderless." Yet, by most accounts, the Tea Party succeeded far beyond anyone's expectation.
Even labeled with the same criticisms and failing to capture a majority of public support, the "diffuse and leaderless" Tea Party movement quickly took off and became a major force in American politics for one significant difference -- it took action. Unlike Occupy Wall Street, it did more than shout its messages from the sideline and disrupt political speeches: it aggressively identified and backed politicians who supported its causes and it rewarded, at the voting booth, those who publicly embraced them. At the height of its popularity, during the 2010 election cycle, 138 candidates for Congress identified themselves as Tea Party supporters.
While the Tea Party seems to have folded agreeably into the Republican Party, it continues to be a factor today because it remains firmly focused on the political process, as illustrated by the televised debate in September on CNN, which featured the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls vying for their support. True, one can make the case that most politicians merely pander to the Tea Party to get its vote -- but then again, that's what politicians do to every group. The point is that the Tea Party made itself a force to be reckoned with.
Home Alone
In an ironically revealing article, Capital New York related a meeting last Friday at the SEIU building in Manhattan, where about 170 protesters regrouped following their ouster from Zuccotti Park in an overnight raid by New York City police. According to the writer, Matthew Wolfe, when organizers asked protesters to voice their top priorities, "the group seemed focused on short-term logistical goals (such as food and shelter) ... few speakers mentioned ... long-term political aims."
Regardless of where the rag-tag remnant of Occupy Wall Street makes its new home, organizers will likely find it to be a lonely existence. We're all sympathetic to dissatisfied coworkers who complain about their jobs. But when we realize they don't mean to do anything but whine, we quickly dismiss them.
Follow Mario Almonte on Twitter: www.twitter.com/almonte
Tell me what co-option looks like! The 99% Doctrine is what co-option looks like!
Sounds like a decent idea, sure, but its not consensus so its not #OWS.
Other than Buddy Roemer,Jesse Ventura...and of course Ralph Nader and Michael Moore...who among our public figures has had the chops to come out for the Occupy movement?
This is a huge risk for those who believe their survival depends on media coverage. Politics aside, the loss of revenue resulting from campaign finance reform makes ANY supporter of OWS an enemy of corporate media. Would-be supporters know they will drop off the radar.
But the mayors and governors who report the cost of OWS will be on the front page and above the fold every time. Many of these reports hit within 1-2 days of one another. They seemed to be piling it on as the demonization of OWS was getting some real traction.
"Stick a fork in them. They're almost done."
Coincidence?
This is all part of the grand design - content decisions being driven by corporate greed alone - and we Americans need to WAKE UP! The power brokers in America are convinced we are no longer capable of upsetting their plans, and their plans do not include us!
Not my experience. In my first-hand observations of Occupy SF and Oakland, I have found demonstrators with time to discuss the evolution of capitalism even as police deadlines for clearing out were less than 30 minutes away -- and the short-term logistical goals such as whether to move personal property but leave the tents, where were handled by rapid votes followed by rapid action.
As to supposed public indifference, my personal observation is that tourists from all over the U.S. were stopping to ask about the encampments, and virtually all were supportive. While San Francisco is a liberal city, tourists don't come because they are liberals; these were average Americans of all political stripes who reckon that greed has gone too far.
Writing about OWS in the past tense is simply not based in reality.
What's disturbing, however, is the prospect that inaction in the face of these massive protests will make the anarchists' ideology more appealing to otherwise moderate citizens.
No, they are turning off everyone who is remotely moderate. At this rate, even most of their current sympathizers will soon move on.
What were we expecting of the Occupy movement? Some divine government takeover? Or to check box A or B on some ballot and wake up to a government that once again represented ALL of its citizens? Really?
The Republican response to the Occupy Movement was predictable. So too main-stream media. But the silence of the Democrats, skulking in the shaddows and treating the movement like some virus, has confirmed the final lie: When it comes to money in politics, the Republican and Democratic Parties are now one.
As this movement fades into history, can we at least give these Occupy folks a little credit. They were trying to do something extraordinary for all of us. They were setting a stage upon which the rest might have united as engaged citizens to fix a government that WE ALL AGREE is horribly broken!
But in city after city, and on our finest campuses, they were harassed, humiliated, gassed, sprayed, clubbed, shot with whatever, arrested and fined.
And we sat by and watched.
Shame on all of us! We are unworthy of such heroes.
The people are doing what they usually do: trying to make a living, raise their families, pursuing their normal lives. If OWS really represented the people, they would not need to engage in obnoxious publicity stunts.
I read your article with interest. It remains to be seen what's going with OWS and affiliates. Witthout the visability of their encampments, the movement is thought to be over but perhaps not. You are right--they are not the Tea Party. From my observation, the core of each group is young; they seem informed, idealistic and apolitical. You won't find them dressed up as Dolly Madison waving American flags. Their Guy Fawkes masks may not resonate with older Americans but the masks are understood within their own age group. . How they will effect change or not effect change is as yet unknown. But, do not count them out. They govern by consensus which is a slow and ponderous process. Do not be deceived--they are still at it. I don't think we've heard the last of them and in fact, as a force for social change--I think they are just getting started.