I'm sitting here in the airport in Charleston, West Virginia (where Fox News is blasting -- it is literally a non-stop attack on Obama), and finally have a moment to weigh in a bit on the protests that are gathering momentum throughout the United States. (I also thought you might enjoy this stirring little bit of video that nancy pointed out to me the other day in comments).
Several of you have asked my thoughts on the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon. I am definitely sympathetic and supportive of the effort. I think that at this point anything that helps to give voice and presence to the widespread disgust with our economic and financial elites is a good thing. I am also quite pleased to see unions joining in the effort and doing so as supporting and supportive players -- not trying to dictate the direction of the movement, but lending heft and organizational power to the nascent efforts.
I think public protests serve a few different purposes. The first, and most obvious one, is to push a cause or an issue, especially where conventional political routes are unresponsive. Protests also serve as a way of engaging the broader society, raising awareness and garnering allies -- with the hope, again, of both changing the terms of debate within the culture and generating political responsiveness. Finally, protests serve the role of giving visibility to a group of like-minded citizens -- which serves the dual purpose of making those in a cause feel their own strength -- there is an intoxicating quality to being in a throng of the like-minded, especially for people who might be in a minority in their own cities and states -- and to display that strength to others, especially office holders. I have been in a few of the larger protests held in the United States in the last couple of decades -- two huge marches for reproductive rights and the last "Solidarity Day" organized by the AFL-CIO -- and being in a crowd of several hundred thousand people on the national mall is really energizing. (Having said that, I am skeptical that any of these marches had much impact -- at least none to which I can obviously point.)
So what can the Occupy Wall Street and related protests accomplish? Truthfully, I am not certain. But I think there is value in giving public expression to the justifiable anger so many Americans feel. I would like to think that it could also be a vehicle by which people can learn more about the reason that misery is so widespread and why the economic system seems to be working for so few people. I also think it may help expose the lie that the "tea party" phenomenon is in any way a populist expression of dissatisfaction with Wall Street and business as usual -- when pressed, tea party types will almost surely reflexively side with the business elite, because they are just traditional Republicans in new packaging.
Ultimately, I think any succesful protest effort has to result in electoral and legislative victories. And that's where I feel a little bit of trepidation with respect to OWS. The movement seems a bit divorced from concrete policy steps. What would constitute victory for the protestors here? I think that it would be useful if there was some sort of policy hook attached to the demonstrations -- my own personal choice would be mortgage relief, a revisiting of the idea of reforming mortgages via bankruptcy. It's a simple idea, it is one for which there is still a desperate need, and it is a concrete area in which the bailed-out banks have stood steadfastly against the broader public interest. It won't be enacted in the present environment, but it is an issue with which the public can be educated and sides can be drawn.
What do you all think?
