I've had a lot of conversation about OccupyWallSt over the past three weeks: with fellow occupiers, with police officers, new yorkers passing by Liberty Plaza, my wife, my parents, my siblings and my friends. And since dialogue is such an important part of the movement (both in practice and in principle) - Im going to going use the format of 'question and answer' or a dialogue to explain why I occupied Wall St and why I think others are doing it. Just to be clear, this is not a transcript of a real conversation, the italic speaker is also me.
Hey, I overheard you talking about that protest on Wall St - whats going on over there?
Well, theres a large group of people forming a movement called OccupyWall St and they've been camping out in a private park called Zuccotti Park (previously named and more recently renamed Liberty Plaza). The park was the closest space they could take to Wall St, which was barricaded by police before the event even started. Since before day 1, other Occupy events have popped up all over the United State and abroad - some are in full effect (like OccupyBoston, OccupySF, OccupyChicago) and many are in planning (OccupyNJ, OccupyPhilly, etc). 66 locations and counting.
Oh, who are they? and why are they there?
The movement is made up of a frequently-shifting group of organizers who were not previously part of one organization that created this event. It was thought up and announced by a Canadian magazine called Adbusters, which is ad-free, user generated and covers issues ranging from anti-globalization to corporate advertising. The magazine, as far as I know, has had no other involvement - the event took on a life of its own. An important group of organizers belong to the NYCGA (General Assembly) - which you can learn about here, they help facilitate group meetings.
The general group is huge variety of people (and I'll use overly simplified labels to categorize us). The movement is made up of left-leaning activists, students, academics, veterans, senior citizens (shout out to the Granny Peace Brigade), unemployed people, union workers, etc. Another way of saying it: people that are pissed.
Which is a great transition into why we are here. We are occupying, most generally and all-encompassingly, because we are not happy with the current financial/political/social situation in America and abroad. A little more specifically, we feel taken advantage of, or hoodwinked in some way, and want to express that frustration. I will, of course, get more specific but I first want to say that the more specific I get about the reason for OccupyWallSt, the more likely I am to exclude someone participating. Many people feel angry about the 2008 financial crisis and the bailout - this is a major theme at the event. Many people (and I) feel angry about the influence of money in our political system and feel that corporate campaign contributions (ranging into the tens of millions) will ALWAYS create laws that bias those contributors - which means our political system becomes much less of a democracy and more of a oligarchy or corporatacracy (Yes, I made that word up). I don't mean that as enflamed, meaningless political rhetoric, I mean literally that our politicians no longer represent the people they seem to, but actually only a small group of wealth contributors (including corporations).
Now, I do honestly believe that the majority of the movement would give a thumbs-up to the statements I just made. Certainly some people would not agree it, and many many people would have a particular issue or solution they feel strongly. The issues include the right to unionize, gender discrimination, homelessness, student loans, the mortgage and investment banking industry, etc. The solutions include some concrete and immediately possible (like re-instituting the Glass-Steagall Act), to more abstract and cerebral (a global shift in consciousness to value people ahead of profits) and the more bold and extreme (end the Federal Reserve). Instead of making judgements on this huge range of ideas, I'll say this: there is another goal adopted by many members of the movement that has already been realized. That is the creation of a space that is a microcosm of the world they wish to live in - much aligned with Ghandi's famous charge to "be the change you want to see in the world". This world they created has free expression in political discourse, music and art, it is not hierarchical in nature and make decisions by consensus and direct democracy. To some, creating this space is, in and of itself, an end.
Lastly, the most basic and widely realized goal of this movement is to create dialogue in the public sphere. Open, thoughtful, respectful and empassioned conversation is the most immediate and effective goal of this movement, (fine, I'll say it once:) in my opinion.
Ok - well some of that sounds crazy or weird to me, but I agree with the parts about corporate influence over politicians - but, come on - do you really thing anything can be done about the corporations? They run this show, everyone knows that - they are too big.
This I've heard a lot. After all, wanting a government that is more responsive to its people is not really red state or blue state specific. It reminds a lot of people of Tea Party talk, actually. Despite the general notion that 'wealthy people' and 'wealthy companies' are Republican - I think that corporate influence is not right or left wing. They certainly donate to legislators across the aisle and expect back-scratching from both in return. More importantly, the issues that they might 'encourage' their contribution-recipients to support are not always going to be right or left either. Corporations seek to protect profit - thats all. So unless you are a CEO, stockholder, or contribution-recipient there is a good chance you find some truth in these claims and frustrations. As far as 'too big to fail'? In the last few months, we've seen protests that started like this topple dictators and produce actual political revolutions. This country was started, the Tea Party reminds us, by revolutionaries fighting an all-powerful and god-ordained king. 'Too big to fail' is nothing more than a self-fulfilling attitude.
Ok, Im not sure I share your optimism, but I respect it. But lets talk nuts and bolts here: what does this OccupyWallStreet group want? What is your ONE demand?
The million dollar question right there. First let me explain a little bit of history on the beginning of OccupyWallSt. Adbusters, in their initial call to action, stated not much more than 'occupy Wall St' and 'We will state our ONE demand' - not saying what it was. And just to remind you, Adbusters did not actually create this movement of people, they are not actively involved in this movement in anyway and the OccupyWallSt is being run by the body of individuals that make it up. It seems clear that to me that people have largely rejected this 'ONE demand' approach. It is over simplifying, at its best, and would be group-splintering at its worst. At some point in the very beginning of the organizing for this event (or maybe from its inception), a decisions was made that the entire body of the movement would be deciding this key issue together and by consensus -
Wait - you mean you expect this group of hundred or thousands of individuals to make this decision all together and decide unanimously?
That is the goal and, yes, it is a lofty one. The general assembly process is slow and frustrating. Direct democracy takes time and patience and respect for each other (even those you disagree with - how radical in this country!). This made me immediately remember a lesson I learned in my US constitution class in high school:
The founding fathers of our government built a system of government that was slow ON PURPOSE. In order to temper the intense passions that humans are prone to, laws must pass get approval in both houses of Congress and get signed in by the president - the whole system subject to checks and balances along the way.Slow on purpose is a hard concept to grasp, but it makes a lot of sense - especially seeing it in action. For example, one person gets up and makes a rousing speech encouraging an anti-police action and gets a moderate applause - but the general assembly process allows for people to get up and speak in response, one at a time, with the attention of everyone and it becomes clear that the crowd does not actually support the action - only the sentiment of feeling betrayed by the police officers. Mob-mentality does not win ou, calm is restored and the (long) debate continues about whether or not to pass a certain resolution.
[Paraphrased from Alan Brodman, former lawyer and teacher at East Brunswick High School, NJ]
Ok, I understand the process and the reason for rejecting one demand rhetoric, but what does this group want? They are making so much noise and getting media attention - don't you have a message?
Well, occupywallst.org is updated daily, especially if the GA has passed any statements or press releases. This is a good place to read up on past statements. Some of them are full of activist jargon, others are vague - but it seems like from the Day 1, each statement is more specific and the group is making progress - slowly, but thats okay. And, just because we can't sum it up in four words to fit on a New York Times headline - doesn't mean we don't know why we are here. Intelligent and productive discourse is still valued in some places in America. Maybe not in Congress or on our mainstream news channels - but in Liberty Square it still is.
Ok, so you've talked a lot about the group in general, but what about you? Why are you participating? What do you want?
Well, thanks for asking - as I mentioned briefly or hinted at above, I'm angry about the influence of big money on our government and the types of laws it passes. And I'd place myself into the pragmatist camp of the group - I believe there are real and concrete changes that could take place in our political and financial systems that would make a big difference. And these may be optimistic, but I don't think they are totally unrealistic. I think a suite of changes would need to come at once and in different avenues. I think we need some major campaign reform - there needs to be some way of making the playing field more even for all candidates. The American people should be able to learn about candidates who can't afford hundreds of millions of dollars in their campaign fund. Also, the politicians who do get in power are really and truly accountable to the people who voted them in, instead of to contributors to their campaign fund.
I think the supreme court needs to reverse their 5-4 Citizens United vs FEC decision in which they declared corporations as 'people' and called spending money 'free speech'. Corporations are not people, do not vote in this country, do not get representation in this government and cannot be held accountable to their actions - you can't put a corporation in jail (and CEOs and shareholders have limited liability). This change would affect campaign contributions as well as as a host of other indirect effects that came from affording a for-profit corporation protection under the Bill of Rights. And I can't understand how declaring money as a 'free speech' implies anything other than 'some people should have more free speech than other people'.
I believe that after these two changes, slowly over time the American government would be fundamentally different. Politicians would be free to act on behalf of their constituents and they would be held accountable to the voters instead of the financiers. But, if I can be allowed a little more indulgence - this gradual change might take too long and I think a few immediate changes could take affect. These changes would be to laws that were created by those legislators who were indebted to wealthy people and wealth corporations.
The suite of changes should include closing corporate tax loopholes and expenditures and getting rid of tax cuts for the wealthy. Like I said, I think free-thinking politicians would eventually make these changes, but I thought I would mention some other changes that would to level the playing field in America and return the power of this incredible country back to the people, where it belongs.
Wow, thanks for this interview - I'm going to go home, pick up my sleeping bag and head down to Liberty Plaza.
What a coincidence, Im going there myself - I can give you a ride.
--
Thanks for reading, feel free to comment (respectfully, of course) your feedback, questions, etc. This is an ongoing dialogue and every single person (that is, human being) has a voice and a place at the table.
Feel free to quote from or post this article if you feel it could add to the conversation somehow. Or, better yet, jot down your own thoughts and put them out there.
- Mark
1 comment:
brilliant! especially love the solution you suggest in response to the last question--makes me think there is hope.
Post a Comment