Why the Left Needs to Embrace OWS
Hello!
Long time no see. I've been told it's perfectly acceptable for junior year of college to be ridiculously stressful and busy, but I still feel bad about never posting. Also, I went to a "Writing your Way Into a Career" seminar and received such advice as "write all the time" and "keep up your social networks;" a soon-to-be-published author even mentioned LJ by name. So, I've decided to commit to a once a week blog entry. In theory. But, into this with a positive attitude! Go forth, I say!
For my re-entry into the blogging world, I'm tackling the Occupy Wall Street movement. Well, that's pretty huge, so specifically I'm discussing why, in my opinion, the left should embrace this movement (exactly what it says on the tin.)
One major reason is momentum. Obama's having some trouble getting his jobs bill passed (which draws a stunning lack of surprise from me, by the way) because Republicans, bolstered by the Tea Party's enthusiasm, refuse to budge. Well, OWS could be the liberal version of the Tea Party. It's a group of mainly younger Americans, many of them college students, (with time and enthusiasm to spare) but there are also older people, middle aged people, black, white- basically, a large slice that cuts through demographics. This is what the Tea Party advertises itself to be, making OWS a left-leaning alternative to that movement. And the protesters are obviously dedicated to the cause if they're camping out in tents and risking pepper spray and arrests. This could be the type of mobilization Democrats need to push back against the Republican tide.
Another huge draw is the religious aspect of the OWS movement. Clergy have joined the protests, offering hymns and impromptu worship services to the crowds. Given that the Republican party is considered the party of religion (specifically, the party of Christianity), the Democrats have a great opportunity here. They can use it to show themselves in a more positive, pro-religious light. Also, on an individual level, people can see that the Bible doesn't have to make you Republican. (In fact, the opposite may be true.) Biblical teachings can be used to justify social programs and government action, as they have been historically up until the 1980s. (Thanks, Religion and Politics class!) Faith is a great motivator for the believers. Also, if Democrats seem more open to religion, the religious will feel less embattled and endangered, reducing hostilities. And those few who continue to proclaim that message will find less evidence and so be less convincing.
There's also the fact that, according to October 23rd's issue of TIME, more Americans support OWS than do the Tea Party; 54% view them favorably compared to 27% for the Tea Party. This is a majority. The Republicans claim to be doing the will of the people; this is a sign that the majority of said people want something to change. It never hurts to have solid public opinion majorities on your side, and Democrats could harness this by more explicitly linking their policies to this movement.
Although that TIME poll does make me wonder; the category with the highest percentage in the "view of Tea Party" question was "Don't know enough to say," with 39%. How is it that people don't know enough to say?? The organization has been pretty clear about its goals, newspapers have widely reported them. And only 23% gave the "don't know enough" answer about the OWS protests, which have received (arguably, but I certainly won't) far less coverage than the Tea Party. The disparity really, really confuses me; the Tea Party has established leaders, publications, and member organizations, while OWS is much more nebulous, with shifting involvement.
I don't know what's behind it, either. Perhaps the people are so fed up with the system that even vague protests against it excite them. Or, maybe this very nebulous quality means that each person projects his/her own particular views on the protesters, and of course that would cause him to support the movement.
The nebulous quality of the movement is another reason why the left should step up. If OWS has a clear direction like politicians or activists can provide, they can actually change the system and produce results. Otherwise the movement will either splinter, or coverage of it will focus on the most radical factions that comprise it (anarchists and socialists and the like. Not that "socialism" as Republicans use the term is inherently bad, but they're so skilled at framing it that way). And if that happens, support will dwindle and the positives listed above will be lost. If OWS falls apart, many of the protesters will be even more disillusioned and cynical about the political process, decreasing their participation. And that hurts everybody. The crux of it is, prominent Democratic figures ought to take ownership of the movement like Republicans have done with the Tea Party, or some more polarizing figure will.
Or- would this necessarily be a bad thing? Ignoring everything I said up there, if an extreme leftist were to hijack the movement, support would rapidly bleed away until only those most on the fringe remained. We'd have an extreme left-wing party (or group. But the point remains). And if Americans are slowly realizing that the Tea Party is actually the extreme right wing faction of the Republican Party, most will withdraw support there as well. And what's left? The main parties hugging the center and small, almost irrelevant fringe groups on either side. Sound familiar? That's right, my ideal four-party remedy for the current debacle :)
This conclusion is bolstered by several articles. One of those is the cover story of the 10/23 TIME, which was the reason I bought the magazine. Basically, a reporter went on a trip through the heartland and was reporting on his findings. And the average person, the one who doesn't have a megaphone or an axe to grind, "longs for the moderate center" and a return to civility. A favorite passage of mine:
...there was a common, contemplative thread, as if Americans had been coming to terms with the scope of the economic disaster and trying to figure out what sort of expectations were reasonable for themselves, their children and their country. It seemed a quiet revival of the Great Silent Majority, grappling with drastic new circumstances. Their commentary was far more reasoned and thoughtful than the breathless tide of sensationalism and vitriol that passes for discourse on talk radio and the cable news networks. (30)
These people actually discuss things, instead of throwing slogans. A Democratic woman can support a Republican plan if she thinks it will help solve a problem. The result is a rediscovering of our commonalities and areas of agreement. That article talks about the similar frustrations of both the Tea Party and the OWS movement, problems they both notice, as well as their similar ultimate goals (improved lives). They also both originated in some way out of opposition to bank bailouts. The similarities, I should say, are between the average Tea Partisan or OWS protester, not necessarily the political actors or huge donors that have hijacked the former movement. Sanity does reign for most Americans, and compromise is possible. Which is good, because it is sorely needed.
If Tea Partisans and OWS protesters- seemingly separated, politically, by a gaping chasm with a tiny little rope bridge above a fire-spewing river and acrid smoke cloud- can find common ground, why can't the folks in Congress? I think they should stop doing things because it's what the people want and start listening to what people want. Because no one is giving it. If OWS helps them see that, then it will have been more successful than some probably dream. With or without the left's endorsement.
Long time no see. I've been told it's perfectly acceptable for junior year of college to be ridiculously stressful and busy, but I still feel bad about never posting. Also, I went to a "Writing your Way Into a Career" seminar and received such advice as "write all the time" and "keep up your social networks;" a soon-to-be-published author even mentioned LJ by name. So, I've decided to commit to a once a week blog entry. In theory. But, into this with a positive attitude! Go forth, I say!
For my re-entry into the blogging world, I'm tackling the Occupy Wall Street movement. Well, that's pretty huge, so specifically I'm discussing why, in my opinion, the left should embrace this movement (exactly what it says on the tin.)
One major reason is momentum. Obama's having some trouble getting his jobs bill passed (which draws a stunning lack of surprise from me, by the way) because Republicans, bolstered by the Tea Party's enthusiasm, refuse to budge. Well, OWS could be the liberal version of the Tea Party. It's a group of mainly younger Americans, many of them college students, (with time and enthusiasm to spare) but there are also older people, middle aged people, black, white- basically, a large slice that cuts through demographics. This is what the Tea Party advertises itself to be, making OWS a left-leaning alternative to that movement. And the protesters are obviously dedicated to the cause if they're camping out in tents and risking pepper spray and arrests. This could be the type of mobilization Democrats need to push back against the Republican tide.
Another huge draw is the religious aspect of the OWS movement. Clergy have joined the protests, offering hymns and impromptu worship services to the crowds. Given that the Republican party is considered the party of religion (specifically, the party of Christianity), the Democrats have a great opportunity here. They can use it to show themselves in a more positive, pro-religious light. Also, on an individual level, people can see that the Bible doesn't have to make you Republican. (In fact, the opposite may be true.) Biblical teachings can be used to justify social programs and government action, as they have been historically up until the 1980s. (Thanks, Religion and Politics class!) Faith is a great motivator for the believers. Also, if Democrats seem more open to religion, the religious will feel less embattled and endangered, reducing hostilities. And those few who continue to proclaim that message will find less evidence and so be less convincing.
There's also the fact that, according to October 23rd's issue of TIME, more Americans support OWS than do the Tea Party; 54% view them favorably compared to 27% for the Tea Party. This is a majority. The Republicans claim to be doing the will of the people; this is a sign that the majority of said people want something to change. It never hurts to have solid public opinion majorities on your side, and Democrats could harness this by more explicitly linking their policies to this movement.
Although that TIME poll does make me wonder; the category with the highest percentage in the "view of Tea Party" question was "Don't know enough to say," with 39%. How is it that people don't know enough to say?? The organization has been pretty clear about its goals, newspapers have widely reported them. And only 23% gave the "don't know enough" answer about the OWS protests, which have received (arguably, but I certainly won't) far less coverage than the Tea Party. The disparity really, really confuses me; the Tea Party has established leaders, publications, and member organizations, while OWS is much more nebulous, with shifting involvement.
I don't know what's behind it, either. Perhaps the people are so fed up with the system that even vague protests against it excite them. Or, maybe this very nebulous quality means that each person projects his/her own particular views on the protesters, and of course that would cause him to support the movement.
The nebulous quality of the movement is another reason why the left should step up. If OWS has a clear direction like politicians or activists can provide, they can actually change the system and produce results. Otherwise the movement will either splinter, or coverage of it will focus on the most radical factions that comprise it (anarchists and socialists and the like. Not that "socialism" as Republicans use the term is inherently bad, but they're so skilled at framing it that way). And if that happens, support will dwindle and the positives listed above will be lost. If OWS falls apart, many of the protesters will be even more disillusioned and cynical about the political process, decreasing their participation. And that hurts everybody. The crux of it is, prominent Democratic figures ought to take ownership of the movement like Republicans have done with the Tea Party, or some more polarizing figure will.
Or- would this necessarily be a bad thing? Ignoring everything I said up there, if an extreme leftist were to hijack the movement, support would rapidly bleed away until only those most on the fringe remained. We'd have an extreme left-wing party (or group. But the point remains). And if Americans are slowly realizing that the Tea Party is actually the extreme right wing faction of the Republican Party, most will withdraw support there as well. And what's left? The main parties hugging the center and small, almost irrelevant fringe groups on either side. Sound familiar? That's right, my ideal four-party remedy for the current debacle :)
This conclusion is bolstered by several articles. One of those is the cover story of the 10/23 TIME, which was the reason I bought the magazine. Basically, a reporter went on a trip through the heartland and was reporting on his findings. And the average person, the one who doesn't have a megaphone or an axe to grind, "longs for the moderate center" and a return to civility. A favorite passage of mine:
...there was a common, contemplative thread, as if Americans had been coming to terms with the scope of the economic disaster and trying to figure out what sort of expectations were reasonable for themselves, their children and their country. It seemed a quiet revival of the Great Silent Majority, grappling with drastic new circumstances. Their commentary was far more reasoned and thoughtful than the breathless tide of sensationalism and vitriol that passes for discourse on talk radio and the cable news networks. (30)
These people actually discuss things, instead of throwing slogans. A Democratic woman can support a Republican plan if she thinks it will help solve a problem. The result is a rediscovering of our commonalities and areas of agreement. That article talks about the similar frustrations of both the Tea Party and the OWS movement, problems they both notice, as well as their similar ultimate goals (improved lives). They also both originated in some way out of opposition to bank bailouts. The similarities, I should say, are between the average Tea Partisan or OWS protester, not necessarily the political actors or huge donors that have hijacked the former movement. Sanity does reign for most Americans, and compromise is possible. Which is good, because it is sorely needed.
If Tea Partisans and OWS protesters- seemingly separated, politically, by a gaping chasm with a tiny little rope bridge above a fire-spewing river and acrid smoke cloud- can find common ground, why can't the folks in Congress? I think they should stop doing things because it's what the people want and start listening to what people want. Because no one is giving it. If OWS helps them see that, then it will have been more successful than some probably dream. With or without the left's endorsement.