(This is a cross post of course from LiL, but I am hoping it has bigger appeal than just my little corner of electoral politics. This is a big movement, with so much potential, I felt compelled to express my concerns for it. Slight edits in brackets.)
I spent most of Friday during the day in Boston, at Dewey Square, taking in OccupyBoston. I brought all the donations I could scrounge up (for instance, my entire adult history in mothballed bed comforters and towels) and hoped to hang around and get some video interviews and stories I could tell. Instead I wound up volunteering for a web project they needed – I thought my time would be better spent utilizing my skills as a developer rather than working on Occupy content and publicity for a small, local blog.
I haven’t written much [on my blog] on the Occupy movement in the last few weeks, though I’ve been more than keenly following it online. There are so many thoughts swirling around in my head that I’ve been paralyzed from writing an essay-length post about it, although if you follow my Twitter account, the Facebook page which features many of the tweets, or keep up with @leftinlowell on the left sidebar [on LiL], you’ll know that I’ve been a very active author about OccupyBoston and OWS in the 140-character arena.
I could write a lot (and may yet) about what I found at Dewey Square on Friday – the strong sense of community, amazing solidarity, the organic means of organizing they employ – but many others have written about that already and you can find reams of pixels devoted to covering the news and day to day life of Occupiers.
But this afternoon, I found the 140 character limit failing me, and as I said in a direct response to an inquiry, needed a full blog post to explain my feelings and thoughts, specifically regarding the pressures that the Occupy movement is and will face in the coming weeks and months.
Via @BostonPhoenix, I found this short description (and full video) of a Harvard political panel hastily formed to facilitate a discussion of the Occupy movement, including visiting fellow Ed Rendell, former Governor of Pennsylvania.
A far greater percentage of the audience than of the panel had actually spent signiicant time at an Occupation — Williamson has spent time at #OccupyBoston — but that didn’t stop anyone from speculating or projecting.
Rendell is not alone — especially and not surprisingly among Democratic politicians — in wishing that some of the enthusiasm of Occupy would carry over to the ballot box. What Democratic politicians have been very slow to acknowledge is that many Occupiers are as sick of Democrats as they are with banks — and are not enthusiastic about the possibilities of a two-party system they see as being hopelessly corrupted by corporate campaign contributions.
As a thoroughly committed progressive electoral political activist, I have, and will continue to, volunteer my time to electing good candidates at all levels of government, turning out the vote, encouraging voter participation, and going to the polls myself. It’s the least I can do for my democracy. But as an electoral activist, one who also has some experience in movement politics (the anti-war Bush era) I want to caution the Occupation against giving in too much to the powerful forces that would love to squeeze out this amazing energy for their own use.
There are so many pieces of evidence I could use to back that up. The most obvious is to look at what happened to the Tea Party movement. Although I am in total opposition to just about everything the TP stands for, the movement at its inception was grassroots at its core, expressing anger at the status quo. (I don’t argue about the need for such anger, but the TP is, at least in its current incarnation, gravely wrong on who was to blame.) Even one of its founders, a conservative blogger, now repudiates what it’s become – a front group for the financial backers of the Republican party and its politicians.
Or look at the Obama 2008 campaign. The enthusiasm of young volunteers and voters was part of the reason he was propelled to such heights of popularity. They were fired up, ready to go. And when they got there…they got some of what they wanted, sure. At least a modicum of health care reform. A half-measures stimulus package for jobs that turned out to be only partly effective – because the downturn was steeper than anyone knew, and because a third or more of the stimulus was ineffective tax cuts instead of direct stimulus spending. He has had a weak stomach for the fight…the opposite of a firm, demanding executive branch leader that we so need…instead, “capitulating” and “pre-compromising” are the catchphrases that come to mind about Obama’s first term.
Obama also put Wall Street execs into his economic brain trust. Wall St certainly doesn’t love this president, but if you were looking for them to enact policies against greed and corruption, you were sorely disappointed…besides the Elizabeth Warren-driven Consumer Protection Agency, we extracted no price from the financiers – not jail time pursued where possible, nor reigning their excess in, or asking them to pay their fair share of their own ridiculous bailouts.
The last of which, along with prolonged unemployment woes, prompted the Occupation movement to begin with.
If I have any advice for the burgeoning Occupy movement – if I could make any appeal at all to them that would matter (and by them, I do mean us, since I will continue to do what I can to support it), it would be this: if you allow yourselves to be coopted and pressured to work on elections, driven by the necessarily short-term thinking of electoral activism, you will be distracted from your larger goal, and you will be disappointed, time and again.
There are a few reasons for this, some inevitable in any circumstance, like the fact that we cannot all agree, even with those we agree, 100% of the time. I eased out of the anti-war movement because of the 2006 campaign for Governor Deval Patrick, swept up in the enthusiasm of what he was trying to accomplish, and believing that I could be more effective as an electoral activist than trying to change the stubborn mind of the Bush administration on its war policies. Choose between bashing my head on a wall repeatedly, or use a hammer to break through? Give me that hammer!
And in some ways, in some campaigns, you can be more effective as an electoral activist; ask for, and receive, real and lasting change. I am largely proud of my Governor, and the work I did to elect him. He has been an effective economic leader to say the least, nevermind his progressive support for gay rights, and for most social programs (your mileage may vary). But even I have had my enthusiasm for his tenure brutally dampened at times, especially now, that he, who should be smart enough to know better, has been on the forefront of the impending legalization of casinos. I have been disappointed, even in the best of our leaders, enough to distract me from more far-reaching goals.
If I can be disappointed in someone like Deval Patrick, just imagine the disappointment around a second term of Obama.
You can’t take on everything. Neither individuals, nor movements, can afford to be divided in their efforts or their aims. And in the end, electing more and better leaders will not change the system. That system is so broken, electing a Patrick or a Warren or this or that individual is like a plank trying to hold back a tide. The system needs fundamental uprooting and replanting, and no amount of progressive electoral politics (save the entire corps of incumbents being ousted and replaced wholesale at once by a massive grassroots effort of small donors and volunteers) will truly address the core problem at hand.
Electoral politics is about fraying the cloth of the “system” at the edges; Occupation should be about reweaving the entire bolt.
I have some ideas to propose (well one overarching, giant idea, really) of how Occupy can do this, for once, and for all. It’s an uphill battle so massive, so stacked against us, so big of an effort that just to think it makes me shiver in fear and excitement. But it is the only inevitable conclusion I can come to when thinking about the future of our country and how to right all the wrongs. I am talking about a constitutional amendment to rescind corporate personhood and the ruling of the Supreme Court that money equals speech.
All of what is broken with our system is about money and influence in our politics. Global climate change cannot be addressed because of the massive amount of money being pumped into stopping the regulation, and reversal of, carbon dependence. Economic justice is being thwarted by financial contributions from banks and Wall Street, so that the concept of going back to Clinton-era taxes on the wealthy and capital gains (money making money, as opposed to work making money) is nigh impossible to argue. And so on, and so on, and so on. If in a democracy being elected depends on monetary support, and people with more money can support more heavily than the rest of the 99%, then who will ever listen to the 99%?
A constitutional amendment is a big hill to climb. It’s a long-term hill, it could take a decade. It could take more. The money arrayed against such an act would be astounding – if you think Wall Street spends money on politics now, wait until you try this out.
However, no amount of cash is going to convince the American people that the system is working as it is, or that Citizens United was a good idea, or that corporations should have rights as though they were people. If lasting change is what Occupy seeks, than the moment is now.
But whatever form, and eventual goal, this movement takes on (if indeed it does not peter out after we see the economy rebound after some new temporary economic bandaid that puts off the inevitable real crash that I feel is coming) it needs to think beyond 2012. Beyond 2014, or 2016. Beyond the cyclical electoral process.
If that means fighting the pressure from Democratic politicians to elect them, as well as ignoring the temptation to help enact near-term policy bandaids, then as a staunch Democrat, I say, so be it. What you lose in short term gain is far exceeded by the long term possibilities.
I can’t help thinking that much of our future is dependent on what this nascent movement called Occupation does next (but no pressure!). And, I would love to be able to say at the end of all of this, “Our Democracy is dead…long live our Democracy.”
Nothing lasts forever.
Participation in electoral politics is the only way to effect change – you nailed it with getting rid of corporate personhood and money as free speech.
The Tea Party was effective in successfully challenging Republicans and getting the attention of the rest.
Occupy is in little real danger of getting co-opted by the Democrats. The real danger is being co-opted by the forces that co-opted the Democrats, the Republicans, the Supreme Court…..
Sue, can you go into a bit more detail on this statement?
I’d say participation in electoral politics is, overall, a necessary component, but what a whole lot of people have found out recently is that it alone is not sufficient to effect change. There are a whole lot of examples of non-electoral action that has led to change (MLK is the first that comes to mind).
…or something similarly likely to provoke REAL SYSTEM change is going to require more than electoral participation. Though it will eventually involve that very heavily as well. BUT such a goal would NOT be espoused by the establishment of either the Republican party NOR the Democratic party. Let’s be clear, and honest with ourselves – the status quo is quite beloved of the current crop of DC Dems. You will not get help from most Dems. Not to say there aren’t some existing Dem leaders who wouldn’t take this on – people like state Sen Eldridge or Rep Capuano – but by and large the Democratic establishment will NOT be the movement’s friend if the movement really goes after true and lasting change, or as I put it, the uprooting and replanting of the whole damn system.
There are enough of us in electoral politics dedicated to getting people elected, I am not interested in taking the energy these young people (and not so young people) have put into the Occupation away from them to use for my own ends as an electoral activist.
as you point out its not the only way, but you can have a lot of opinions, good ideas, and action, but the vote is what translates demands into reality.
That’s why MLK and the NAACP, spent so much effort on voting rights, while their opponents worked to place barriers to them voting.
Voting blocks, (either a demographic, political party, interest group) amplifies the power of an individual vote.
There are many arenas, many spheres of activism, that are each important.
I think we can imagine an OWS movement that is ultimately powerless and ignored because it is unable to translate its initial momentum into concrete victories in other arenas. Of course the issue is how to meet that challenge.
But what have we had until now? Only electoral politics without OWS. Frankly, it has been a failure, though one that can be redeemed by a real grass-roots movement that fights back.
We need both, and the real promise of OWS is that we can. Won’t that be something!
On that word “co-opt” Okay, but just because a campaign winds down (which the occupations will do, after a good run) does not mean that the movement will have been co-opted or will have failed. It just means, time for the next thing.
Contrary to lynne’s sentiments, I think the best thing that can happen to any social movement is that it is “co-opted.” That means that it’s reached a significant enough level of support to be taken seriously. Occupy Wall Street is probably not quite there yet, but if it continues to grow, then I don’t see how having their ideas co-opted by the Democratic Party would be a bad thing.
Of course, we see this time and time again throughout American history. A major social movement grows and grows, sometimes forming a splinter party (e.g. the Populists, the Progressives, the Socialists), but always in the end contributing to a significant change to one of the major parties. Indeed, that should be the end goal here — moving the Democratic Party to the Left. If OWS is ultimately successful, it WILL be “co-opted” — and that would be a good thing. If it isn’t successful, it means that they petered out over time with little impact on the political scene. I, for one, hope for the former scenario to play out.
A third party challenge is just not going to cut it this time.
Money in politics is SO pervasive, so utterly in charge, that the structural system is incapable of internal correction, IMHO. Convincing voters to vote for the best option at the risk of allowing the WORST option to get in has failed time and again for decades.
And if there’s to be any co-opting, it should be done BY OWS, not TO them. If it is done TO them I predict that it, along with the rest of movement politics, will fail yet again, discourage the majority of the activists and lead back to the mire that is corporate-run politics. This has to be on OWS’s terms or nothing will be fixed.
As to having to hold your nose and vote for the candidate that’s not as bad as the other! Been there, done it, don’t care to make it a habit.
Occupy is worthy of support as they are the only ones who have been successful in bringing the level of attention to the issue of corporate-run politics.
Let’s hope for the best and work for the success. We haven’t seen there terms yet.
For me the most striking feature of Occupy Boston is its anomie–the lack of structure or boundaries to guard against bad behavior. Yes, most attendees have positive experiences, but I had a bad experience as a legal volunteer and my only recouse was to back out. The “anything goes” environment leaves partisans with divisive agendas free to bully others to gain influence. It reminds of the decidedly unsuccessful run of the Gay Liberation Front in 1969-1970, where manipulative and dominant personalities pushed more collegial folks around and led the group onto the shoals.
she’s announcing on 10/24 at noon at the statehouse. Be there or be square.
The idea is to get the politicians so terrified of the movement — and their seats — that they bend to the will of the protesters, or lose to those who will, not the other way around. That can’t happen if the movement is co-opted by major parties.
Frankly, though, so long as so many big democratic cities keep up their efforts of hippie punching and encampment clearing, I don’t think the movement being co-opted by Democratic politicians will be a big problem. Look at all the trouble and harassment we’re seeing in Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Denver, San Diego, Seattle and elsewhere — all cities with Democratic Mayors and many (if not all) in states with Democratic Governors.
If anything, I think there’s a bigger danger of a huge backlash against Democrats for these actions by those who support the protests than there is the movement being co-opted.
I don’t care what you think of politics, of Democrats, of Republicans, of money in politics, of the two party system, whatevs.
Vote.
Even if you hand in a blank ballot to register your disgust. Even if you only vote for a few candidates who you believe are important. Even if you only vote write-ins. Even if you only vote for third party candidates destined to get tens or hundreds of votes.
Vote.
If you don’t vote, you don’t count. Period. If you vote, but not for a major candidate, you won’t change the outcome of this race — but you’ll encourage future candidates to run, knowing that there are untapped votes out there… people looking for a different kind of candidate. Blank votes make it clear that you’re not happy with the candidates. Staying home indicates that you’d rather watch television.
Vote.
Vote in the POTUS election. Vote in the Nov 2 mod 4 election. Vote in primaries. Vote in local elections. Vote in every single election. You’re willing to live in a freaking tent in downtown –ville for pete’s sake. Take the 20 minutes a few times a year and vote.
Vote.
I concur completely!
…but there are a couple of ways it can turn out well:
–#ows can, and already seems to have, pushed the dems left, which is what we were hoping for in an obama primary challenger. this can continue and would not necessarily require a particularized agenda, and it can actually continue to have some positive effect even if the leadership is co-opted by the party.
an example of that last line of thought is found in the tea party, who have benefited from astroturf money to the extent that many of their leaders are either bought off or dick armey – and yet the movement has successfully pushed the republican establishment a lot farther to the crazy right than they wanted to go, and to this day they continue top do so.
–#ows could create a political movement not aligned to party that supports candidates and “cause” groups that support the #ows agenda: in other words, a sort of “emily’s list” for the economically put-upon, which is similar to the political action structure that the afl-cio is adopting for the ’12 cycle.
OWS has neither funds nor political experience. Without being co-opted, how do you suppose they’ll be able to create a political movement?
I’m not writing this to denigrate OWS. OWS is full of lots of great people. I spent a few hours with ’em at Occupy Boston. These folks don’t even have access to a vast network of $50 donations. With few exceptions, they have no political organizing experience — knocking on doors, making phone calls, asking people for money or vote or register to vote, managing lists, managing the office, etc. It can all be learned, but without teachers to teach it they start with quite a deficit.
If they’re not co-opted, I don’t see how they’ll develop the infrastructure to have a *direct* impact on elections. This isn’t to say that this is the way they should go… maybe they’re more effective with an *indirect* impact on politicians.
They should study (though some situations may not be relevant) the suffragist movement, the civil rights movements, and other movements that truly made change.
The first phases were NEVER about establishment politics, since establishment politics were the obstacle they were trying to hurdle.
First you need to get momentum, and enough bodies to do the work. Then you have to come up with the big goal – whatever that is, constitutional amendment, whatever – and start the ground work for that (here’s where electoral political experience helps, like canvassing and phone banking). Then you start messing with elections – but on YOUR terms.
We haven’t even reached 40% of Step One yet. So, with regards to OWS, screw Obama’s reelection campaign or any other individual who wants the help from OWS to get elected.
Great summary, and the paragraph beginning with the sentence “All of what is broken with our system is about money and influence in our politics” sums up very well why very little substantial effort is or can be made to effect the kind of systemic change so many are increasingly cognizant is warranted.
But I’d add, in addition to your call for a constitutional amendment, a genuine attempt at some varation on clean elections, AND Instant run-off voting. Democrats, it seems to me, should really get behind IRV. As someone noted above, Jill Stein will doubtless be the GPUS presidential candidate for POTUS. Based on past performance (1.4% in the 2010 gubernatorial) and experience (nil), along with the fact that her goal is to raise all of, uh, $10K by 10/24, I’d discount this as a sideshow. But this year, there’s no small possibility that it’s not the mainstream parties that will co-opt OWS, but rather, that a Green candidate will draw even more disaffected voters than Nader did in 2000. Ms. Stein is smart, and while she falters in debate and under pressure, she can be very articulate in her critique of Democratic Party sins and failures, and those looking for an alternative voice could be lured by the siren song of the Greens (the NYC Statement of Issues sounds like it was ripped practically verbatim from the Green Party Platform). With consequences similar to ’00.
IRV serves as a bulwark against the predictable disaster, in allowing those disappointed with Obama to cast a vote of conscience … but to hedge their bets by voting for Obama in the #2 slot, with their votes eventually going his way. It would also encourage more disaffected voters to go the polls, thereby aiding downticket candidates (e.g., Elizabeth Warren; my fear this year is that many of those disappointed with Obama will simply stay home, assuming that BO will take MA anyway, with the resulting implications for the other races)). This is all hypothetical, of course, since we won’t see IRV this time around, but we’re likely to see this scenario played out again and again.
I’ve been reading an awful lot about the co-option concerns, but I’m not entirely sure what that means. Obviously, MoveOn is throwing their weight behind the movement, and I’ve also received a pitch from DFA, pitching a “We are the 99%” yard sign (with the DFA name and logo prominently displayed). I suppose (literally) capitalizing on the movement is one somewhat tawdry example. But I’d agree with those who feel that Democrats overly supporting with some of the movement’s principles is a good thing. Additionally, a non-hierarchical big-tent all-in movement like OWS really can’t disavow Democrats’ support; some in OWS will shudder at any contact with traditional politics, but many of us who’ve joined in the street marches and rallies in the square are in fact committed Democrats. It’s our movement too.
Finally: fake-consultant is on to something. I can forsee a time when the (overwhelming) majority of voters are registered unaffiliated (as are roughly half those in MA), and have been suggesting for some time that in the not-so-distant future, we’re going to see many more Independent candidates (along with a third party on both right and left), as well as the mainstream nominess, vying for the support of the “Tea Party,” OWS, whatever each of these movements morphs in to, along with additional grand-scale national “movements.” The deep infrastructure provided by the mainstream parties will ensure thay’e hardly rendered obsolete, but this possibility could result in a more “people-powered” politics, with a greater part of the citizenry engaged and candiates recognizing the need to be more responsive–well, to Main St than to Wall St.
(That’s the utopian version. It also leads to pie-in-the-sky politicking, reckless hard-line candidates who have no idea how to actually govern in a pluralistic political system, and the rise of dangerous demagogues).
It’s about resisting having your efforts begin to be directed by such people who, like all leaders, require people to jump on the bandwagon in order to get elected/reelected.
IRV and clean elections are laudable too, though the second is IMPOSSIBLE to enact. There is no clean elections when you have the SCOTUS ruling money is equal to speech, and with Citizens United. Therefore fixing the constitution is the only way to remedy that, IMHO.
IRV, sure, maybe, but I think in a world where an amendment about money in politics passes, THAT is a much easier thing to accomplish.
From the big change, all the little changes are made more possible.
The conversation HERE is far more interesting and productive than the posting on my own blog. ;-P
Hooray for cross-posting, I guess. đŸ˜‰