Remember when Occupy Wall Street was sweeping the nation? The media
branded it the left’s answer to the Tea Party, the start of a grand
national mobilization; depending on who you ask, half of America once supported the OWS protestors, double the amount who back the Tea Party. The Huffington Post even launched a separate page devoted entirely to coverage of OWS.
How the mighty have fallen. The New York Times may still be trying to perform mouth to mouth resuscitation on the decomposing OWS corpse, attributing continuing policy influence sans
evidence of any kind to a movement that has all but completely
disappeared, but compared to the Tea Party, except for the media hype,
OWS was a political flop. (Via Meadia is not a card carrying
tea-partier, by the way; any tea sipped in the stately Mead manor is
poured into delicate China cups by our well trained housekeeping staff,
and tasted with pinkies appropriately extended in the proper,
traditional way.)
Much of the Tea Party’s influence was negative from a Republican
point of view: weak Senate candidates nominated by Tea Party enthusiasm
dragged the GOP down to defeat in Delaware and Nevada
races. In other cases, Tea Party enthusiasm increased turnout and swung
close races to the GOP. But like it or loathe it the Tea Party did —
and does — make a difference. Politicians seek its support; its leaders
have taken over local party organizations and made waves in race after
race across the country.
OWS is not in the same league. Despite generally favorable coverage
from the MSM (something the Tea Party has never had), OWS has
essentially fallen apart. It is not a significant presence on the
streets; it is not a significant presence in Democratic Party politics;
it is not a significant presence in the national conversation. Its
vaunted strategy of shunning conventional politics in favor of self
organizing groups making decisions from day to day more or less
evanesced into space while the Tea Party, equally anarchic, did in fact
spawn the kinds of movements and political changes that the OWS crowd
did not.
To the extent that OWS had any influence at all, it was at the level
of slogans: “one percenters,” “the 99 percent” and “occupy x” have
entered our language. But as a populist left wing fight back against the
biggest economic disaster since the 1930s, it was dismally lame. At its
height it failed to match levels of popular mobilization and outreach
that earlier movements achieved in past episodes in American history–
and it fell quickly from that height.
To some degree, it was killed by its “friends.” The tiny left wing
groups that exist in the country jumped all over the movement; between
them and the deranged and occasionally dangerous homeless people and
other rootless wanderers drawn to the movement’s increasingly disorderly
campsites, OWS looked and sounded less and less like anything the 99
percent want anything to do with. At the same time, the movement largely
failed to connect with the African American and Hispanic churchgoers
who would have to be the base for any serious grass roots urban
political mobilization. The trade unions picked up the movement briefly
but dropped it like a hot brick as they found the brand less and less
attractive.
It is as if the Tea Party had been taken over by the Aryan
Brotherhood and delusional vagrants while failing to connect with either
evangelical Christians or respectable libertarians. The MSM at one
point was visibly hungering and thirsting for exactly that fate of
marginalization to happen to the Tea Party, and the MSM did its klutzy
best to tar the Tea Party with that kind of Mad Hatter extremism. The
Tea Partiers by and large (not always or cleanly) escaped the fatal
embrace of the nutters and the ranters on their side of the spectrum;
OWS was occupied by its own fringe, and so died.
OWS’s popularity continues to plummet. Many pollsters
haven’t even bothered to ask the public about OWS since the protestors
were kicked out of Zuccotti Park. The NBC/WSJ poll, one of the only
reliable indicators of OWS support these days, shows OWS’s popularity
has dropped by half since November. Over the same period NYC’s Mayor
Bloomberg’s popularity has remained steady months after closing the sad
and futile encampment at Zuccotti Park. No backlash there.
At Via Meadia, we thought we’d wait until the weather warmed
to offer our opinions on OWS, since we don’t like to bury social
movements prematurely and since college students mostly come out to
protest when it’s sunny. But there’s been no upsurge this spring. OWS
tried to spark a May Day protest
against the 1 percent that would reverberate around the world. The
Whole World Is Waking! Into The Streets! OWS wanted the May Day affair
to breathe new life
back into the movement, but it was more of a last gasp. Few people took
notice, even fewer obeyed the message and took to the streets, and May
Day passed without incident.
OWS also tried to partner with Anonymous, the hacker group that once
teamed up with Russian television propagandist Julian Assange to attack
Visa and Mastercard when those companies refused to process funding for
Wikileaks. Jointly, the two organizations published a laundry list of
demands and tried to hype each other up: They promised to “flood”
downtown Manhattan with protestors, they tried to send “black faxes” to
the Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs and others, they tried to hack into
the NYPD’s communications equipment, they tried to take down the NY
Stock Exchange website — all efforts sputtered and failed.
The ideas behind OWS are more important than the movement; questions
about the legitimacy and the consequences of liberal capitalism are
going to be part of the political discourse as long as markets produce
socially disturbing and morally questionable results. It is natural and
healthy for young people to question society and to explore the
alternatives to the intellectual status quo. Many youthful protesters
grow up to play important parts in the social organization they once
denounced; others end up writing blog posts about the futility of
exactly the kind of protests their younger selves would have joined.
It is important to ask how wealth should be distributed or
redistributed. The role of banks and the dangerous position they occupy —
where private, market power and government finance intersect — has
preoccupied and puzzled some of America’s greatest statesmen; neither
Thomas Jefferson nor Andrew Jackson would celebrate the crony capitalism
that the conventional establishment takes for granted.
Occupy Wall Street brought important issues into a national
discussion. The group had a range of complaints, some reasonable, others
not so much, about a variety of policies and social conditions in the
United States. Many of the concerns and the grievances they voiced were
and are widely shared.
This makes the failure of the movement more striking, not less so. It
is easy to understand how someone can go broke selling umbrellas during
a drought, but OWS was peddling leftie economic ideas and the politics
of redistribution in the middle of the worst economic times in eighty
years.
There are some who think the United States is better off without an effective left. Via Meadia
does not share that view (though we wouldn’t want the left to get so
effective that it “seized state power”, “occupied the commanding
heights”, and then extirpated outdated bourgeois illusions like free
speech, trial by jury and private property before going on to liquidate
such social parasites and running dogs as ourselves). The level of
confusion and dysfunction apparent in the OWS universe during its brief
run is a sign that the American left has yet to find a vocabulary and a
political stance that works in the 21st century.
Historically, the American left has found its base among immigrants
who have not yet found a place in American society, African Americans
excluded from it on the grounds of their race, workers savagely
exploited by the rawest kind of capitalism and farmers being driven from
the land. Organizing an effective left has always been exceptionally
difficult in America because these groups were (and remain) much less
cohesive than, say, the traditional blue collar factory proletariat of a
conventional European ethnic nation-state.
There are plenty of reasons today why Americans might turn to the
left. Since the 1970s real wages have scarcely budged: manufacturing
employment has been falling, waves of immigrants are competing for
low-end jobs, and the mass entry of women into the workforce since the
1960s has increased the supply of labor as well. Those long term
problems were seriously exacerbated when the housing bubble burst and
the financial panic swept us into a deep recession.
Meanwhile, the upper middle classes and the super class (the
Davoisie) have seen their incomes soar even as their interests and their
values diverge from those of mainstream America. Seldom has the
American economy looked so unfair — and so unpromising — to so many.
A generation of intellectuals and students raised on Howard Zinn
expected great things from this combination. If times don’t improve —
and especially if the GOP wins in November and a Romney administration
governs from the right so that right-wing rather than left-wing policies
get the blame for economic failure — we may yet see a serious movement
of left-populism contending for national power. But on the whole, it is
harder than it looks to push the United States to the economic left.
The great OWS meltdown is proof enough of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment