My reaction to the Occupy Foo Movement (Crosspost)
The impression I am getting from a lot of people is that the government is corrupt and does not want to improve things. I get the impression from a lot of people that Congress could pass laws to get things going in the right direction, if only they were motivated enough -- that we need to protest to tell people that this is important and convince
( Read more... )
On the one hand you talk about how the 99% includes such a wide diversity of opinions, and people who want many things that are the opposite of what others want.
On the other hand you think the right thing for the movement to do would be to agree on a set of specific policy proposals that only a small subset of the movement actually want.
What you've missed is the Occupy movement's actual demands: Government should be accountable to people, not money. Wealth should not speak so loudly compared to the voices of everyone else. Corporations are not people, people are people.
It seems to me that the movement is quite comfortable with a wide diversity of opinions that may contradict each other, and allowing for that is part of the point. Their demand is that all of those be listened to, but in proportion to ... how much sense they make, how persuasive they are, how many people hold each opinion, almost any standard except the one standard that dominates all others today: in proportion to how much money is behind them.
That seems simple, focused, clear, and unifying to me. It's a big tent that can include people who disagree about government spending, as long as they agree that corporations shouldn't have the constitutional rights of people. It can include people who disagree about abortion, as long as they agree that it should be decided by votes not dollars. It can include people who disagree in various ways about what "the plan" should be, as long as they agree that we should use democratic rather than plutocratic processes to hash it out.
Reply
You're right that I've missed those actual demands. Where did you get those? Are they official? If they are, that does address my objections, but the rhetoric has always been that they haven't decided their demands yet. (New York has made some laundry list of demands, but that was largely rejected by the other cities, which is also why the movement's been more reluctant to make outright demands. Still, things are changing while we are discussing this.) If you ask different people, you get different explanations about what the movement is about, though there tends to be a loose anti-wealth-disparity theme (99% vs 1%). This movement is much more decentralized than a traditional protest movement, so its message is understandably going to differ from source to source.
I guess I've mixed two points, though they are related:
1) I believe that the way forward is not clear, which has prevented more definite action. This is not simply the fault of corruption standing in the way of doing the right thing. Expressing displeasure without a way forward may not be enough.
2) The last time we went through this, we got the Tea Party, which pushed the country in a direction that I disagree with -- cutting spending and preventing further stimulus. I am worried that this movement, which overlaps with the previous, could have results that are unpredictable and not necessarily for the better.
Ultimately, I want to answer the question: If I support this movement, am I doing something that I might ultimately regret? If I can see explicitly what the movement stands for, then that would help.
Reply
Reply
I think it is a good thing that the occupation movement is not making specific policy demands. If it did, the movement would become about those demands. If the demands were not met, the movement would be seen as having failed.
It seems to me that the OWS movement is moral in nature, that occupiers want the country to change its moral focus. It is easy to find useful policies; hundreds have been suggested. It is harder to find a moral focus and stick to it. If the movement is to frame itself, it should be on the basis of its moral focus, not a particular agenda or list of policy demands. If the moral focus of America changes, new people will be elected and the policies will follow. Without a change of moral focus, the conservative worldview that has brought us to the present disastrous and dangerous moment will continue to prevail.
Reply
Essentially, I believe good people who are well-intentioned can do bad things.
The Tea Party we have was the result of a moral focus, and I believe it is a disastrous calamity visited upon the country.
As a secondary note, shying away from being seen as having failed is a horrible motivation for a movement because it takes the emphasis away from the results and more towards the movement serving itself. I would rather have a movement that makes progress towards a goal but destroys itself than a movement that perpetuates itself but loses its direction.
Incidentally, have you seen the list of demands that I subsequently posted? They are not the result of the General Assemblies, but the work of individuals who, like me, wanted a list of demands. It calls for a convention to debate and vote on a finalized list of demands. I heartily support this process.
Reply
Leave a comment