The Failure of the OWS Movement

There is a long and well documented history of mass protest being a successful driver for social change in this country. So why is it that the occupy/99% movement, in spite of steady growth sprinkled with some civil disobedience, has been ineffective?

In attempting to find an answer to this question, I realized I didn't quite know what change it is that the movement wants. In looking for answers I decided to go right to the source. On the site http://occupywallst.org/ I found this statement:

Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.This #ows movement empowers real people to create real change from the bottom up. We want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society.

Let's take a closer look, shall we?

1. "Occupy Wall Street is a leaderless resistance". This sounds good  in principle. No leader, so everyone has an equal share in the direction of the movement. Everything is decided by consensus. But who organizes? Who chooses the issues to be decided upon? Do they have an agenda? How do we know that all the issues have been appropriately presented to the body for consideration?

2. "We are the 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%". Since the start of the movement, I haven't been fond of this. Where did these numbers come from? How accurate are they? Also, there appears to be this notion that because people share a common demographic they must share the same opinion, and therefore one person can speak for all. I feel this an offensive and counterproductive group-think tactic that leads people down the same paths as the establishment that OWS wants (I think?) to overthrow. It also sets up a simplistic "us vs. them" scenario that I'm not sure really exists. I think the situation is orders of magnitude more complex, with overlapping social issues that cannot possibly be so easily expressed.

3. "We want to see a general assembly in every backyard and on every street corner... we don't need politicians". Except that we already have these things in some form. Even if you tear down the established political bodies and build new ones you will still end up with politicians who have agendas. There is no way around this. I would love to believe in the ideal of selfless people all contributing to the greater good, but my experience with human nature says it's just not possible.

So what we have is lots people who are angry because they feel like they have been treated unfairly by (the man?) who want... what? New government? No corporations? Change? It's not clear, and beyond the message that everyone is really mad about something, and they blame the government and "Wall Street" for it, I'm not sure anyone else knows what's going on either.

Let's set aside for a minute the fact that we have a leaderless movement with no goals. Why protest on Wall Street? by making noise and marching and blocking subways you aren't hurting the guy with the diamond underwear and the private jet, you're hurting the people who work for that guy. You're interrupting the middle class office worker who more than likely sympathizes with the anger on some level, but is really much more interested in getting to work on time so they can do their job and make a living to feed their family. Blocking the subways doesn't stop the 1% from getting to work. Harassing people on the sidewalk and making noise around office buildings doesn't make the money stop flowing.

On a similar note, Occupy Hobart, Indiana (or any other small town for that matter) doesn't do a whole hell of a lot of good (sorry B). The businesses and corporations that exist there are more likely to be owned by the "99%" than the "1%". Protesting in these areas does not get your message across to your  target audience either. It just blocks traffic and might hurt those local businesses.

The same is true, though perhaps to a lesser extent, in places like Providence RI and Seattle WA. The cities are bigger, and there are corporations with holdings there, but again, you're likely just getting in the way same citizens you're trying to speak for. Providence is at least worth while because it's the seat of the State's government, but they don't have any money either.

I don't think that complaining about a thing without offering up suggestions for improvement does much good, so I can't just lest this post end here. Here are my suggestions for improving the Occupy Wall Street movement:

1. Find leadership. I know, some of you are saying, "But Mat, leaders got us into this mess." But I said find leaders, not politicians. They are not the same thing, and I would argue that few if any of the current politicians are really leaders.

2. Decide on some actionable goals. What is it that the movement really wants? Find something that the majority can get behind that can be enacted.  You will not likely end Wall Street and you will never ever get rid of politicians. However you can push for reforms that minimize corporate influence and corruption in government and you can strive for better equality in government funded education regardless of social or economic background (though that one might actually be more difficult).

3. Occupy Washington DC. That's where the people who can change things are. The politicians, if nothing else, respond to pressure. The faceless corporations and their boards have no reason to change things. Instead, go to the politicians. Focus your anger on them and let them know it. They are the ones who make policy and they are the ones who most directly rely on the people for their jobs.

Think critically, and then speak with your votes. Right now, that's still the most powerful tool you wield.

You Say You Want a Revolution?

I've rewritten this a couple times over the last two weeks. There is a lot here, and I want to make my thoughts as clear as possible.

 I love this country. I think one of the things that makes it great is our right to free speech. Anyone who knows me me well knows that I will defend that right even if I don't agree with the ideas that are spoken. I love that this allows for debate, disagreement, and open criticism of our government. It goes hand in hand with our right to assemble peaceably, allowing us to both discuss our ideas and make them known to the powers that be.

There are increasingly vocal cries of discontent from several camps. I have been trying to critically analyze the things I see and hear in order to form my own conclusions. I have come up with some very general thoughts, which I have attempted to sort through below, for your consideration.  

1. "Deserve"is an often used word. The dictionary I have handy says it's a transitive verb meaning "do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)"(emphasis mine). What this means to me is that by default, a citizen of the United States deserves only rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution. You get those simply by having the quality of citizenship. Anything else requires some action on the part of the individual.

2. The government owes a lot of things to a lot of people. They owe me. If you've held a job in the last 74 years, chances are they owe you too. There are a couple problems here. First, many people believe that the government owes them debts that they simply have not earned. They feel that by their virtue of being, they are entitled to benefits that the government has not guaranteed they will receive. They expect something for nothing. The other side of the coin is that the government cannot pay what it owes. The government has debts not only with individual citizens, but also private companies and other countries that exceed the revenues that can be collected. As this debt increases, credibility decreases and public infrastructure crumbles due to the lack of funds necessary to maintain it.

3. Life isn't fair. It never has been. There is no system of government or economics devised by man that will ever make it so. There will always be haves and have-nots. political and economic shifts merely shuffle the numbers. Those with monetary wealth may have earned it, inherited it or stolen it, or (more likely,) some combination of the three. The system we have in place was originally designed with the idea that it should be possible for those who were not in the have category to change their station by their own merit. By the same token, those haves should be allowed to fall if they did not maintain their status through wise and responsible action. The catch here is that the system has been tampered with, and now functions abnormally.

4. The rights of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution have been eroded over the past 224 years. The system as designed worked well, but it wasn't perfect. The original designers foresaw the possibility of imperfections and designed the system so that it could be easily modified. The problem is that more often than not, laws made in the name of security have filed away at the edges of liberty. It seems to me that this erosion has accelerated in the past 20 years, though my perception may be skewed because of my frame of reference. This lack of personal liberty negatively impacts the ability of those who wish to change their socioeconomic status because it further limits the options available to them.

5. The government is in bed with big business. This is not a new situation that has cropped up in the current administration, the last administration, or even in the last thirty years. It goes back to at least the antebellum period and it's likely someone with a better grasp of history could point to much earlier roots. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least one example that predates the United States by a few hundred years. Money talks, and big businesses, of course have money. It would be naive to believe that politicians in either an official or unofficial capacity would be swayed by it. The problem is that the voice of the corporations has begun to hold more power than the voice of the people, and the rights of the corporation are protected over the rights of the populace.

So what can we do?
We as citizens have tools that have not as yet been stripped away from us. I believe it is still possible to initiate change within the current legal bounds of our society. Speak out. Talk, discuss, debate, write, blog. By all means, peacefully protest. As you do so, think about the change you're asking for. Does it truly benefit society, or is it a short term solution to your own needs?

Vote, but vote smartly. Forget political parties. They set agendas that benefit the members of the party. They could care less about the needs of the people. look at ALL the candidates. what do they claim as a platform? If they've held office before, does their record match what they say? If not, why?