When I was four or five years old, my mom and dad called me and my brothers into the living room. I can’t remember what they said exactly, but the gist was that dad might be going to jail for a few days. He was going to protest the war by joining hands with other people at the gates to a nearby air force base.
I thought the situation strange. Why would the police send you to jail for holding hands?
***
Activists weren’t some fringe element back then. They had defeated the naked bigotry of the Jim Crow south. They had waged a war on poverty. Now they wanted to end a senseless war. People believed that taking to the streets could change the moral condition of the country. There weren’t nearly as many screens in our lives; we hadn’t begun pouring so much of ourselves into them. Idealism wasn’t an object of ridicule. It was a legitimate, even laudable, belief system.
***
The Occupy Wall Street movement is now entering its fifth week. It has spread from a few hundred protestors in downtown Manhattan to most major cities in the country. The mainstream media, ravenous for conflicts that excite passion without invoking morality, initially ignored the protests, then attempted to dismiss them. They are now, reluctantly, having to reckon with the notion that genuine activism is not dead in this country, that American citizens – faced with a vacuum of responsible leadership – are capable of demanding an end to the economic corruption initiated by our richest citizens and upheld by the elected officials who serve at their behest.
***
As the weeks drag on, we will be treated to another one of those false equivalencies that our feeble Fourth Estate faithfully manufactures. We will hear the Occupy Wall Street movement compared to the Tea Party, over and over.
The individual citizens who show up for Tea Party events are, by their own reckoning, activists seeking to make their voices heard in our democracy. They deserve our respect, if not our support.
But you would have to be willfully blind to ignore the corporate lucre that helped forge and sustain the Tea Party “movement.” Its history is utterly transparent: corporations paid lobbyists to gin up grassroots support for their interests. The Tea Party reflects a genuine disillusionment with the status quo in Washington. But its amorphous goals boil down to preserving the status quo, to vilifying government so as to keep corporate power intact.
***
This, after all, is the Great Con of the conservative movement: to redirect the anger of the mob away from the wizards of Wall Street and the lobbyists of K Street (who abscond an ever greater share of this country’s wealth into their coffers) and toward “the government.”
The government, in this case, is a term of convenience. It doesn’t consist of firemen or policemen or soldiers or the people who build our highways or inspect our food or battle our plagues. Government is, instead, a golem – a dark figment borne of our civic paranoia and economic grievance. It’s some fat faceless Orwellian bureaucrat lounging in an office somewhere, dreaming up mindless regulations, skimming the cream from your paycheck, laughing quietly at your anguish.
The working and middle classes of this country know they got mugged. They just can’t identify the perpetrators.
***
The Occupy Wall Street movement is an effort to identify the perpetrators. It takes direct aim at the financial speculators and corporations who caused the economic implosion of 2008, the corrosive influence of money in our political system, and the obscene economic inequality this influence has wrought.
It consists of citizens – mostly progressives, but also independents and conservatives – who decided spontaneously to take to the streets. They were not exhorted by for-profit demagogues, or chauffeured to the site in luxury buses airbrushed with focus-grouped slogans.
They take their inspiration, at least in part, from the protests of the Arab Spring. They are not seeking to overthrow the government. They are simply tired of listening to politicians parrot the sick myth that unfettered greed will lead to shared prosperity. Their prospectus is that of Jesus of Nazareth, not Karl Marx.
***
Mitt Romney, the multi-millionaire businessman who is the likely Republican nominee for President, branded the protests “dangerous” and “class warfare.”
He did not explain, nor was he asked to explain, why the protests were dangerous, or to whom. His hysterical assertion of “class warfare” can be taken to mean that Romney fears his taxes may be raised by a few percentage points.
House majority leader Eric Cantor referred to the peaceful protesters as “growing mobs.” He blamed President Obama for “condoning the pitting of Americans against Americans.”
***
The movement is called Occupy Wall Street. It’s not called Destroy Wall Street. Or Burn Wall Street. The protestors want to be physically present. They want the traders who work on Wall Street to face the human consequences of their machinations. And they, the protesters, also want the chance to gaze upon the traders:
As in Psalm 52:
Behold the man! He did not take God as his refuge, but he trusted in the abundance of his wealth, and grew powerful through his wickedness.
***
Socio-economic mobility has always been central to the American dream. But our civic culture is actually carefully structured to keep us segregated. The wealthy lock themselves away in luxury vehicles and gated suburbs. The impoverished remain in blighted areas, obediently out of view.
The system is self-reinforcing. As the money concentrates at the top, less is devoted to those resources that are shared by all of us – parks, schools, community centers, subway trains – the very places where people of different classes might peaceably mingle.
The wealthy hire lobbyists and tax lawyers to game the system. They remove themselves, physically and psychically, from their duties to the poor. In this way, the interests of the few crush the interests of the many.
***
If it was up to me, America would be a socialist democracy. The unforgivable crime of socialism is that it asks people to share. It puts the interests of the many before the interests of the few.
But most of the protestors aren’t advocating for socialism. They just want to see the government put an end to the cruel and disastrous excesses of capitalism.
Something worth remembering: during the Eisenhower administration, the tax rate on the richest Americans was 91 percent. Because they knew the government would get their dough if they tried to sock it away, the wealthy built factories and bought new equipment and hired workers instead. The economy boomed. High tax rates on the wealthy, it turns out, makes them better job creators.
***
The protestors don’t just want to be seen by Wall Street traders. They want to be seen by the politicians in Washington, and by their fellow citizens. They want their individual stories told. They are trying to rouse a great nation from its moral slumber. Look, they are saying: the era of passive complaint might still give way to collective action.
***
The response from most Democratic politicians has been tepid support. Many of them seem caught off guard, as if the sudden appearance of a national conscience were a chimerical beast bent on upsetting the natural order.
But it’s really not that hard to explain. Americans do, eventually, get fed up when they feel their values and interests are being ignored. They are capable of following the money. The great tragedy of the democratic party is that it has moved so far to the right that it no longer recognizes the protesters for what they are: agents of moral progress. Versions of who they used to be.
***
There is a history of activism in this country. When faced with atrocity, Americans don’t just sit around. They demand moral improvement: suffrage, abolition, the labor movement, civil rights. They come together in public spaces to consecrate the possible.
Imagine what happens if the protests get larger: ten thousand people, a hundred thousand, a million? The media can only ignore the underlying message for so long. Eventually, they will have to start to talk about economic injustice. The discourse will shift away from the failed catechism of tax cuts and deregulation, and toward the question of how much avarice we, as a people, will tolerate.
The real question is: what are we going to do? Are we going to do the inconvenient thing and turn off the computer and join the movement? Are we going to be counted by history? Are we going to consecrate the possible?
***
My father was arrested for protesting the war. He didn’t spend long in jail. That same afternoon he appeared at the end of our street. He was wearing a suit and tie. My twin brother Mike and I were on the sidewalk pretending to make pancakes, pretending we weren’t waiting for him. We ran to hug him.
Years later I would learn that my dad, who was at this time a junior faculty member at Stanford, had organized student protests against the war. His activism was frowned upon by the administration, and he was not asked to stay on. He was counted by history.
***
Update: After reading this piece, my father emailed me the following:
For the record book, your Mom and I picketed Woolworths in downtown New Haven during our first year of med school after a southern Woolworth’s refused to seat blacks at the lunch counter. This was one of the first actions of the civil rights movement.
30 responses
Hwy–this post is prime literature, makes clean sense and I will include a reference to it in tomorrows post at my blog site. I’ve been on the barricades too, maybe standing right next to your father, who knows, at Seneca NY with the thousands of women who wanted only “loving arms not nuclear arms”, and in Washington, and in the streets of NYC– I can’t count the times–never arrested, often distressed by the backlash, twisted re-interpretations of what was really happening, and heartbroken by the ignorance of some responses, but disheartened most by the way we were too often ignored in the mainstream media. Now, decades later, here we are again, only this time it’s much worse–the situation is global. I am amongst the countless to be counted in again and again until I am no more, and the last shuttle leaves for the next planet. Keep the faith.
Thanks for bringing up the “false equivalency” issue. I cringe every time Obama refers to MSNBC as equivalent to Fox. There’s a huge chasm between fact-based opinion and opinion-based opinion.
I wish the Occupiers, bless them, would consult with some moral but politically savvy folk–I’m thinking Howard Dean, Al Franken–for advice on their next step.
It will be very cold soon.
That last picture – the blond woman getting felt up (accidentally?) by police officers – where did that come from? It’s so wonderful.
“Something worth remembering: during the Eisenhower administration, the tax rate on the richest Americans was 91 percent. Because they knew the government would get their dough if they tried to sock it away, the wealthy built factories and bought new equipment and hired workers instead. The economy boomed. High tax rates on the wealthy, it turns out, makes them better job creators.” I had no idea. This is brilliant – the whole piece. Thank you.
Yes, Yes, Yes, and also: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html?pagewanted=2
By far the best thing I’ve read on OWS. Fantastic piece, Steve. I’m alternately reading Zizek and Almond’s “God Bless America” at Occupy Salt Lake City.
Excellent. Thanks for this, Steve.
Smart work Steve. Today also saw n+1 debut this important tidbit on the point as well. If they had a comments section I would be pointing those readers right back here.
http://nplusonemag.com/the-police-and-the-99-percent
Bravo! This gets right to the heart of it.
Thank you Steve.
Thanks for this. I was waffling about attending the march in downtown L.A. this weekend. I waffle no more.
I love your dad. Time to turn off my computer and get downtown. But first, re-post this terrific piece.
Great post. Inspiring. I wonder about this: “The great tragedy of the democratic party is that it has moved so far to the right that it no longer recognizes the protesters for what they are: agents of moral progress. Versions of who they used to be.” I agree that the protesters are agents of moral progress, and that the democratic party has moved far to the right. But I wonder if it’s more than just movement to the right that’s a problem with the dems. They seem completely vacant to me, and completely weak. I wonder if the dems, as a party, a group, have any convictions worth fighting for. They seem morally bankrupt to me, bought and paid for by the same corporations that control the right, though perhaps bought cheaper. I still have hope for them. But less and less and less. I have more hope based on the people in the streets.
If the Occupy Wall Street movement is still stuggling to articulate its central message, they should ask Steve’s permission to reprint this exaltation. Thanks, Steve.
that should be “struggling,” not “stuggling.” How would one stuggle?
Thanks, Steve. Great job.
I don’t completely agree with much of what you say in this very well-written piece. That is, the problems you and others define are real but not as all-encompassing as you maintain. What I’d like to take issue with is the oft-repeated suggestion that the media ignored the OWS protests and has treated them like they have the Tea Party. This is absolutely false. OK, maybe it took the media a few days to jump on the bandwagon but since then it has been cheerleading these protesters every step of the way. The NY Times and NPR in particular have become publicity mills for the movement. By contrast, they portrayed the Tea Party as a violent, racist movement until the truth to the contrary became so overwhelming that they had to pull back on that gross mischaracterization. There is no equivalence to how they have been treated. Further, to believe that the Tea Party is the instrument of big business, one has to believe that corporate America selected Christine O’Donnell to run in Delaware and Sharon Angle in Nevada.
Nice, Steve. Good work, as always. I agree mostly, though I’m not someone who would slide the Balance button from the R all the way over the L, just back to the center would be radical enough. I wonder what the Democratic Convention will bring here in Charlotte. Worth watching…er, participating, somehow.
Brilliant. Thanks so much for this, Steve. Best article re: OWS I’ve read by far.
“Activism” implies action. It implies goals. A plan. When your father marched, organized and lost his job – all laudable – it was with a goal in mind. The protesters today seem to be interested in only venting ridiculous childish slogans. There is no way that “Wall St” or “Corporate America” sees this as a legitimate threat to their power. My guess is they barely think about it. They are too busy making money.
That – in, and of itself is not “evil”- what is evil is the lack of accountability and that mirror reflects both ways. Are you registered to vote? Do you? Are you unwilling to take the “evil” earnings of your inheritance? Are you working toward social justice? Or, are you simply drumming, and chanting and giving the “I don’t know man, we’re just angry” sound bytes to the media, begging to be discounted by the powers that be?
The right and ultra right are organized, methodical and connected. And, guess what, they are winning. Because they have organized the money and motivated people to ACT not just to act out. The left – my left- leaves me utterly disappointed.
I am all for protest but not one person has been able to articulate to me what the vision is for this one. #fail
That was during the Eisenhower administration when much of East Asia was inaccessible. Today it’d be cheaper to take the industries to China or Taiwan or anyone of those places.
Nice piece otherwise.
Good work, love the piece… I, too, am astonished that while the lack of organization began this sit-in, no one has emerged as a leader. This movement needs that something more in order to make a difference in the ways of corporate America and politics in general and especially, in particular.
Jacqueline,
Part of the problem with the left is that they tend to be defeatist. Your note strikes this tone. A genuine movement is guided by a broad moral goal — more economic equality — which is crystal clear. You’re not just squinting to miss it. You’re closing your eyes.
Spot on! I agree that one thing our narrative is missing is that our villain needs a face. People need a face to hate. I don’t think our villain is the wall street trader or the government. I love that you painted a picture of government as this ubiquitous fat faceless bureaucrat(satirically). I think our villain is this selfish 1% I think our villain are the republican five that signed a blood oath not to raise taxes. The other side has their face they call us the mooching class they make us look like greedy scavengers. Either way, I find this post brilliant and articulate and fun to read and keep up the RAWK!
I’m here to echo KLM—what an astonishing photograph—can you please provide cutline/caption/information/a link?
Also, I’m astonished by the bipartisan support of OWS. It can only be a sign of encroaching sanity, countering the Tea Party’s monomaniacal insistence on social values which most of us don’t share.
Thanks for this piece—
Do you support a zero capital gains tax?
When you say the wealthy hide behind gated communities while their lawyers game the system, it reminded me of some sites recently writing about Herman Cain’s recovery from cancer, which involved visits to the most prestigious cancer centers in the US (claim is made that friends got him to the head of the line) and the very best treatment. The conclusion is that the average person has a much greater chance of dying because they have to wait for drugs to be approved by their insurance company, rely on substandard hospitals, etc. It puts a life-or-death face on the income inequality in this country.
I marvel at how much this country is beginning to look like a “banana republic.” As a child I saw homes in Central America where broken glass was placed on top of the walls to keep people out. Gates and security guards do the same thing in the US. Our congress has become dysfunctional. The rich-versus-poor gap grows wider, and the US becomes more like Venezuela every day.
The best result that has come out of OWS has been the conversations it has caused. During which I usually stand on the side of cynic while my boyfriend sides with the idealistic. I feel that the movement lacks focus while he is glad that there is any movement at all. (I also occasionally vote Republican.) Perhaps that’s the beauty of it. That there is a discussion and some disagreement. We are engaged and we are debating and that, in itself, is a very wonderful, powerful thing.
“Sari Botton Says:
October 11th, 2011 at 9:25 am
“Something worth remembering: during the Eisenhower administration, the tax rate on the richest Americans was 91 percent. Because they knew the government would get their dough if they tried to sock it away, the wealthy built factories and bought new equipment and hired workers instead. The economy boomed. High tax rates on the wealthy, it turns out, makes them better job creators.†I had no idea.”
Then maybe I should add Ike also warned us about the military-industrial complex taking over our democratic republic in his last speech, and about the “stupid Texas Oil Men that want to end Social Security” in a letter to his brother.
Steve is correct: this isn’t the Democratic Party of his successor, JFK.
It is actually more right-wing than most any 1960’s Democratic politician.
Remember: JFK stood up to the exact same forces…..the exact same goals…alone. Ike would be labeled an “extremist lefty” by the msm Mockingbirds these days.
Nice piece. Thanks!
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment, or log in if you’re already a paid subscriber.