I don’t particularly care if the Occupy Wall Street protests spark a battle between the left and the right – we’re used to battles between the left and the right . . . except, this time, I’m not exactly sure how that battle will end. From what I’m seeing, and hearing, the movement’s singular lack of focus and leadership (though touted by the protesters as one of its charms) is likely to open a chasm into which Republicans can step and effectively apply their spin.
It’s starting already, of course, from Eric Cantor (“it’s a mob!) toHerman Cain (“if you’re not rich, blame yourself”) to Newt Gingrich (cannily making the protests a referendum on President Obama’s “failed leadership“) to Mitt Romney (“dangerous . . . class warfare”). Of course, the comments coming from the peanut gallery are breathtaking in their hypocrisy, given how they’ve salivated for the “populist movement” teabagger support . . . but although criticism of the Obama Administration and anyone on the left is nothing new, I’m uncomfortably cognizant of the fact that the protesters may have handed Republicans an actual club this time – a club that right-wingers can and will use against the President in the marketplace of public opinion.
The right is better at the spin than the left – and that’s part and parcel of not particularly caring about shaking hands with the truth. Right-wing spin is as easy as the lies they concoct; right-wing spin is as easy as the lack of interest in integrity. Voters are fickle creatures – and with the 2012 election in 13 months, we don’t have time to waste if there’s a chance, any chance, that the protest will either fizzle out or, worse, be counter-productive. If it fizzles out, well, there we are, another group of libs that can’t organize their way to a bathroom break. If it turns out to be harming the President’s re-election chances, we’ve rolled out the red carpet for the Republicans to stroll down on their way to the White House in 2012. And what a mess that would be.
I find it troublesome. It’s a liberal’s nightmare, in my opinion – to fall on the side of the protesters means supporting the movement as a whole, including those who are in fact making this protest a referendum on President Obama, those who are touting the unrealistic concept of full socialism, those who are touting an agenda with utopic demands that has no real likelihood of changing anything, those who dress up like zombies. One can like the message and still find the messenger unappealing, at best. But to fail to support the movement is (in progessives’ eyes, anyway) a step too far out of the tent. My friend said that the protests are largely a bunch of socialists thinking this is their Revolution – perhaps it’s closer to that than anything else. I’m admittedly clueless.
Whatever the case, I’m disappointed to learn the left-wing tent, in some ways, is turning out to be as small as the right-wing tent. My failure to jump on the Occupy Wall Street bandwagon – or any offshoot of it that rolls by – is a referendum on my commitment to liberal and/or progressive causes. Shame.
I’ve been lectured too many times in recent days about the way protests evolve – they start out messy, begin to focus, find some leadership, find a message, and boom, it’s a movement. But what if the OWS protests remain in the messy stage, and show no signs of ever moving on to Stage II? In my mind, for a movement such as this one to have any chance of success, some key elements have to land on the table: A clear, specific mission and a common goal; a plan, and an ending point; a strategy to back up the plan; tangible action to put the strategy into play; and some form of leadership. Rudderless protests are nothing more than a congregation of semi-like-minded thinkers muddling about and diluting any real message.
In Chicago, on Friday, a handful of protesters were outside my building. Seven signs had seven different, specific directives: Stop the Libya intervention, stop the wars, stop aid to Israel, corporate greed, and assorted others. It’s like Let’s Make a Deal - except instead of prizes behind Door Number 1 or 2, it’s more like Pick Your Protest. And I’m not so sure there’s any jackpot behind any of the doors.
People who know me, know me as a true-blue liberal, a fiery, outspoken progressive; people who don’t, reading this, might think I’m a Blue Dog. I’m as much a yellow dog Democrat as they come – but I also spent last winter protesting all over the Midwest on behalf of the unions, on behalf of the residents of Benton Harbor following Governor Snyder’s appointment of a Democracy-stripping Emergency Financial Manager, in Lansing, Michigan, against yet another anti-union legislative item . . . and the protests were focused and specific, there was a common goal, names were named, enemies were identified, there was a starting point and an ending point, and there was a back-up plan if the protests failed to accomplish the goal – for Wisconsin, it was recall elections.
I’m not even sure we’ve identified a clear enemy here, except the looming invocation of “Wall Street” and “Big Banks” . . . with a little “Stop the War,” “Aid the 99′ers,” and “Student Loan Forgiveness” thrown in. The protest seems ephemeral, non-durable. I don’t find myself moved by it or interested in it, and I find myself fearing it and, consequently, having an aversion to it – because this could be the wedge the right has been waiting for to direct the independents, the fence-riding voters, to a camp that looks more organized, more systematic, more pragmatic and less splintered.
Although the Occupy Wall Street protesters show all signs of being in for the long haul, time is not infinite: Everyone grows weary of the same old, same old, and this protest won’t be any different. If they can’t unify around a common, concrete, realistic goal quickly – and come up with a plan to accomplish it – Occupy Wall Street runs the risk of being another bit of liberal posturing. We’ve wasted a boatload of energy on something that gets us nowhere before. We can’t afford that now.
Dozens of states are working to pass voter suppression legislation: Protest that. Dozens of states (over 900 pieces of legislation in all) are attempting to dismantle abortion rights: Protest that. More and more states are jumping on the anti-collective-bargaining bandwagon: Protest that. Find a common theme, people – you need a brain child.
If these protests provide little to nothing in terms of action, and simply grant disenchanted people the opportunity to make a lot of noise, muddy the waters with utopic demands, and repeat a litany of left-wing talking points, the 2012 election will roll around and place President Obama on a very slippery slope indeed. It doesn’t have to be true that these protests are a referendum on “Obama’s economy” or “Obama’s wars” – the message just has to resonate. At this point, what it appears to me is that the protest is simply against unhappiness, and a backsliding vision of the American dream – something all middle- and lower-end Americans are affected by.
Of course the protesters have the right to be out in the streets, shouting from the rooftops – that’s the beauty of this country. But I was uncomfortable when the tea party sprang into being, and this protest movement is reminiscent of the same free-floating anger.
As a closing thought . . . if – perish the thought – President Obama is defeated and a Republican is elected in 2012, the Occupy Wall Street protesters might realize, too late, where the energy really should have been directed.
On “getting angry about one issue”, the problem is that liberals have been doing that for decades, and splintering into smaller and smaller single-issue focused groups, to our own detriment. And there are so very many things to be angry and upset about, where do you start. A collective cry of rage from the left that things are not as things should be–a lot of things–is necessary, as is a target for that rage: those most responsible, those whose choices and actions can be tied directly to the cause or as the cause of those problems.
Granted, the protesters do not have a common goal and may never come to one during this protest. However, persistence seems to be a point of fortitude for the American people. A point which may, in the long-run, lead to success. During Bush’s presidency, we saw a few riots, however large, last only a weekend. Now, one president later, we have a protest lasting much longer. Unless major change comes relatively soon, we can expect to see continued protests (even if this one fails) that will become stronger and more coherent as time progresses. Additionally, my personal opinion is that having such clear and goal oriented demands may be counter-productive. That seems all too American-Capitalistic of the protesters critics. It is almost as though they are saying, “What is our goal; what can we see from you this quarter? You know, if you don’t show results immediately and consistently, no one will invest (time) into it”. I think if Wall Street/the corporations/the government thinks that massive amounts of lay-offs and unemployment is a good idea or necessary “in a time of slow economic progression”, let them see exactly what that unemployment looks like: thousands of people standing at their doorstep. Wonderful.
There’s lots of “what ifs” here. It’s best to wait and see before judgment. Time will tell.