Strangely, I both agree and disagree with Matt Yglesias at the same time. At the most fundamental level, I think that Occupy Wall Street is an irrational protest. So, I wouldn’t call it a rational response. But it is an appropriate response to our current political circumstances. It might seem like a semantic distinction, but it’s an important one. The reason people are acting irrationally is because it has become clear that all rational responses are blocked. For those of us who have sought to bring about needed changes through the ballot box, we’ve seen our hopes dashed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United, which makes it impossible for the small-donor model to compete with corporate cash. Further, we’ve seen that even with healthy majorities in both houses of Congress and a progressive-minded administration, we can’t craft solutions to the left of Senators Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe. The system is rigged against us to such a degree that it’s hard to maintain hope in our strategy’s likelihood for success. And then we have to fight a rearguard action against the right’s national program of voter suppression. We know things can and will get substantially worse if the president is not reelected, but we have little reason to believe things will get better if he is. This is a byproduct of the Republicans’ unprecedented willingness to obstruct and demagogue every important issue facing the country.
Therefore, a huge portion of the left, and even the center, has given up on the electoral process, and that is why the Wall Street protests aren’t timed to the legislative calendar or coordinated with the administration or the Democratic Party. Their demands are nebulous and unformed because the moment something is made specific it becomes clear that it can’t happen.
People with an organizing background are ambivalent about these protests, which have some of the hallmarks of failed organizing efforts of the past. The effort to lead through consensus, for example, has not historically worked out very well. Yet, without an alternative to offer, it’s hard to argue against the idea that something needs to be done, some effort needs to be made, some gesture, no matter how futile, is required. And the mobilization of lots of young people will probably bear fruit in the future.
In order to be a rational protest, it would need to be more focused and have some kind of direct goal. It would need a logical path from here to somewhere better. These protests don’t have that. But that doesn’t mean that circumstances don’t call for an irrational response. The word “irrational” carries some negative connotations, among which is stupidity. These protests aren’t stupid. This isn’t a bunch of people asking the government to keep its hands off their Medicare. As frustrated as I am that the left has basically given up on the fight in Washington, given the gridlock and hopelessness of breaking it, it would be stupid to tell people we can solve our problems legislatively or electorally.
Of course, those are the only ways we can change the tax code or hold the banks accountable, but we have no hope of doing that in the near future. With no rational way forward, the irrational route is suddenly justified. It has to be better than the alternative, which is apathy.
And one key to remember here is that the protesters are not, in general, making radical demands. They’re not making irrational demands. They’re reacting to a system in which entirely modest and reasonable demands have no hope of being met.
That’s McConnell’s plan. Kill hope and thwart change, and the president will fail. As long as people keep their eye on that ball, I have no problem with the Wall Street protests.
There are different kinds of protests. I am very pleased with OWS and its siblings in other cities, including my own. No, there is not a program, but there is a point. That point, nicely crystallized into the “99%” slogan, is getting press. That actually goes at fundamental assumptions in the country, and as more than one has noted, there’s a lot more talk about inequality right now than there is debt. I have to think that it’s OWS that got the ball rolling on that. If people think about inequality, a lot of other comparatively good choices at the ballot box will happen. If they think debt, we (the 99%!) are toast.
I tend to think that the organizing model is, most of the time, the most effective form of protest in this system. Most of the time, making general points in a protest is very ineffective. Maybe luck is involved, or maybe the timing is right, but OWS seems to be making a general point and being heard. Hasn’t happened in my lifetime.
Movements evolve as events happen. Where this goes remains to be seen. If I remember right, Boukman’s movement in Haiti began in 1792. Independence was 1804. Things evolve.
You are right. After all, we remember July 4, 1776, but it wasn’t until like 8 or 10 years later that we actually kicked the British out for good.
There was a Continental Army in the field dodging British bullets a year before the Declaration.
…it would be stupid to tell people we can solve our problems legislatively or electorally.
It would be irresponsible to suggest they can’t.
Premise: The bullet, or the ballot. (1)
Premise: There is no ballot..
The conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.
1. Love to hear your tertium quid, if you’ve got one.
Excuse my ignorance, but what’s a tertium quid? (And what’s the point you’re making?)
I took Latin years ago but did do a google search to see the specificity of its use here. I think the question is do you see a third option other than the two above, which would leave no option but the bullet.
I understand the second premise. A vote for either party is a vote for the system, therefore there is no vote. I don’t entirely disagree with this though for real reasons I stress that the Democrats are vastly preferable to the GOP.
The first premise is what’s wrong. There are not only two choices. Malcolm was making a very specific point in his speech, and it should not be taken out of context. What I might suggest is the construction of an economic infrastructure alongside corporate capitalism. Capitalism did not appear on the world stage out of nowhere in 1789, or 1492, or whenever. It developed in context. We have an alternative economy in embryo, to be sure. One can use coops. Better still, one can start one. Etc. There is a lot to build on, right now. That’s my tertium quid.
just a few thoughts: I recall during the Bush yrs, ppl complaining on the blogs that the young ppl don’t get out on the streets and demonstrate (against the war) the way the oldsters did (and lots of annoying commentary about authentic protest in the olden days vs. young ppl nowadays don’t care about anything). just sayin’
It’s not just young ppl at OWS, of course, and if those camping out had jobs and jobs with a future they wouldn’t be camping out.
as far as staying power goes, all the ppl camping out probably won’t have jobs a couple weeks from now when cold weather hits. The 1% have no concept of the power of the social interactions going on – if they did they’d be rushing to hire them and get them off the streets into isolated cubicles where they might learn to be haters and me-firsters (or, me-only-ers, like the rest of the 1%).
OWS – Very impressive, and very impressive that they are changing the narrative.
The protesters have absolutely identified the problem: it is untrammeled, unquestioned power of a very small and exclusive minority, which must finally by any empirical experience threaten the possibility of a democracy.
And done so with absolute clarity and simplicity, and therefore eloquence.
P.S. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve been flooded with Herman Cain webads whenever I’ve came here the past two days. It’s about all I see.
Pecunia non olet.
Wow, you’re the king of Wikipedia Latin references.
I think we need to look at the rationality of the different Occupy protests. The Manhattan one seems very rational to me — its location near Wall Street is more than symbolic, it reclaims for public use resources that seem public but aren’t, it forces the NYPD to choose between enforcing private property rights vs constitutional rights, and most importantly it’s created a community that will train and educate the public. As a means to change the narrative, which has to precede any legislative or judicial change, it’s brilliant.
On the other hand, Occupy Philadelphia is strangely located around City Hall. What City Council legislation is it advocating? What mayoral decisions does it want? For a protest to be rational, the resources it spends to maintain itself should be minor compared to the resources it spends to effect its goal. That’s true of OWS; it’s unclear whether that’s true of Occupy Philadelphia. Given that the latter has permission to be camped in Dilworth Plaza, the encampment itself isn’t a sufficient goal. So what is theirs?
Just speculating, but perhaps the goal of Occupy Philadelphia (or Occupy the Tundra in Alaska!) is to help build the narrative of that which inspired it — perhaps it exists just to give critical mass to the “movement” idea, thus assisting the OWS people in their quest for leverage. In other words: solidarity breeds power.
Agreed. And Occupy Philadelphia is educating and training people itself. Maybe I should have said that it doesn’t seem as rational as OWS.
At the risk of sounding like an “O-bot” or something, I do wish that the OWS movement could pivot slightly to emphasize the real obstacles to progress in this country which are Republicans in office.
I know that Democratic lawmakers are influenced by corporate money also. And the Obama administration has been far from perfect. But I do not think anyone who reads this blog would disagree that our nation would be better off if the Democrats were able to enact an agenda. (And when I think of the many great bills passed during the previous Congress under Speaker Pelosi and then quashed by Senate Republican filibusters… I am even more incensed.)
The prevailing media narrative seems to be all-important, the only way to reach those who barely pay attention to the workings of government (likely the majority of Americans). OWS has shifted the discussion, thank Gourd.
BUT: Is there any potential benefit from an expanded (or parallel) movement with the sole purpose of identifying Republican deceitfulness and obstruction and demanding an end to the cynical abuse of power? I doubt that most citizens realize that Obama’s agenda has been more obstructed than any prior administration, down to the Republicans’ refusal to take votes on numerous appointees.
In my opinion our only hope is to do the media’s job for them. Our fellow countrymen and women must be informed of the extremist behavior of Republicans in government at this time. If the only way to move the media narrative is to protest, then should we not favor an Occupy Congress movement? Specifically directed at GOP obstructionism, the crowds could demand something be done!
Well, we all know that the OWS movement would lose some of its luster that way. It would be a simple matter for the Right-wing to label OWS as “Democratic shills” and whatnot. The media would probably change the tenor of coverage…
Perhaps there could be an Occupy Congress movement (outside on the Capital steps) which did not specifically align itself with Democrats but which demanded ACTION. Then coverage would naturally flow to discovering the impediments to action (Republicans and the awful Dems like Lieberman).
Just thinking into my keyboard. Anyone have some good ideas?
OWS has several things going for it that may keep the momentum up and the movement growing.
First, it is targeting a very real problem that is personally affecting a wide swath of people. People understand that the country is in trouble in a visceral way.
Second, there is so much clear cut, relatively easy to understand data that illustrates the problem with economic path we’ve been on for 30 or so years.
Third, there is an actual location that can be “occupied” in a global media center that serves as a powerful metaphor and physical rallying point.
These favorable conditions will enable the movement to continue growing and allow it some leeway to stumble while they are finding their footing, without losing too much momentum.
I feel like I must respectfully disagree with the Booman on whether these protests are irrational. I understand (and correct me if I am wrong) that he feels that the protesters may be justified in their reaction to irrational circumstances, but he nevertheless feels there response is irrational as there is no rational response. I personally believe their response is quite rational and maybe the only rational response available.
According to Albert Einstein the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Yet, for whatever reason it has been the ballot box that has failed us for at least the last eleven years, if not 30 or more. And that failure is not just evidenced here, but in many countries throughout the world.
I have spent a good deal of time city hall, but far from enough. What I have witnessed there in limited time in which I have been there is a process that offers a great deal of promise as mechanism to identify the problems before us and elicit a unified response from a disparate many. The Booman stated, “People with an organizing background are ambivalent about these protests, which have some of the hallmarks of failed organizing efforts of the past. The effort to lead through consensus, for example, has not historically worked out very well.”
What I witness the very first night at the church at Broad and Arch with a well packed crowd past the capacity of 900 was nothing short of phenomenal. Within less than two hours it was decided by a super majority location date and time for the protest to begin. The committee offered four locations, each presented by an author who favored that particular location. Each location was then voted on and it was clear that support for the location was fairly equally divided between three of the four locations. They then went back through each of the remaining three locations and allocated time for the audience to voice only their concerns about each location. They voted again individually on the location until it became abundantly clear which location had won the support of the supper majority. In the end I believe almost every single member of the audience came to feel the right choices had been made no matter what their original position may have been.
While there have been few direct demands made by Occupy Wall Street protesters there has been one implicit demand. That demand is that all voices have value and they demand to be heard. There is a firm belief that there are solutions, but they are not derived from a top down process. The OWS process is more horizontal, placing trust and respect in each other. Far too long have we been at the mercy of our business, political, and professional elites who tell us they know our collective pain and misery which has been heaped on all of us by the same cast of characters (themselves) who got us here in the first place. To add insult to injury, they tell us that they are the only ones who can right the ship. Thereby they should be rewarded handsomely even as we are left to pick up the tab.
The Occupy Wall Street is both a deliberative and inclusive process. Specific demands come slowly as all points of view are welcome. This is why you will find both a tent for supporters of Ron Paul and also a tent for the Revolutionary Communist party. As a consequence, the process takes time.
Today we witnessed an election in Tunisia, the fruition of but one protester who truly had an irrational response to an irrational set of circumstances. While the process in Tunisia is just begun, that protester was the spark that not only ran through Tunisia, but through the Middle East including Israel and through the rest of the world. The protesters at Occupy Wall Street are not irrationally setting themselves on fire, but I believe they are redefining our political process and how we look at each other.
I suggest each and every one of you, if you have not already done so, take some time and visit City Hall. Go there to offer you own ideas, as well as to listen to others. Somewhere in there is that rational response to our irrational circumstances.
Well, don’t get too hung up on the correct definition of rational and irrational. I said that the protests are justified. For many, that’s enough to make them rational. Yet, when you need someone to do something and they just won’t listen to reason, you can often convince them by doing something that has nothing to do with reason. You can scare them. You can make them feel pity. You make an emotional appeal, in other words.
That’s more like what the Occupy protesters are doing.
The most famous example of this is when Bluto Blutarsky rallies the troops to avenge the expulsion of Delta House.
He talks about how we didn’t give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. And then:
I carefully avoided calling these protests stupid. They’re not stupid. Maybe they are not even futile. Bluto did go on to be a senator, after all.
I suggest, however, that whenever someone comes along and points to the protestors and says “The Germans didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor” or the equivalent, that you say, “Forget it, they’re rolling.”
You haven’t convinced me that the protests are rational. But, so what?
While there are many disparate ideas expressed at City Hall, some that make sense and some what I like calling flat earth theories like returning to the gold standard which make no sense, the Occupy Wall Street in my opionion has captured much of the essense of what has gone wrong in this country if not the world. As far convincing you that they are rational I must defer to the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin in which he writes, “So convenient it is to be a rational creature, sense it enables one to find or make a reason for every thing one has a mind to do.”
man is not a rational animal, he’s a rationalising animal.
there is no way to intellectually engage with wall st spokespeople, so the only response is to just show up, because that’s the only way to stay in integrity. to try to engage in dialogue with minds that are the sharpest tools in the shed, when it comes to the furthering of their agendas, and who will be guaranteed to argue in bad faith, using jesuitically complex sophistries to try and co-opt/undermine/devalue/sabotage what all simple people know… the cards are stacked, the wheel is weighted, and the croupiers are all mobsters.
what’s to discuss? bear witness, while others ponder the quandary of where it stands on the rationality scale! feel the love of so many trying to rally morale in the Great Depression 2.0 that’s opening beneath our feet.