The developing #Occupy movement bubbling in major cities across North America and around the world has proven to be, if nothing else, a fascinating avenue for reflection. From the varied levels of success of different regional protests, to dynamics of outside appropriation and astroturfing, to the uneasy tone of most media coverage, most any discussion of the movement can branch into a seemingly endless number of directions.
Perhaps lost in this seductive blend of social, economic, media, and political intrigue, however, are meaningful exchanges about the core issues at play. «Le raison d’être du groupe», as an #OccupyParis participant might say.
The difficulties can be read, depending on who you ask, as either a failure of the movement’s early adopters to clearly define their motivations or a living testament to the organic energy of its diverse supporters.
In both views, it is clear that the amalgam’s decentralized messaging structure has made it difficult for politicians, the press, the small and medium-sized business community, and casually engaged citizens to settle on a concrete opinion of the protests. After all, as right-leaning Americans caught in the recent Tea Party swell know, it can be difficult to argue for practical reforms when you are perpetually forced to wink at the masses from behind the craziest guy in the room.
The Tea Party, of course, was only momentarily applicable for comparison with OWSers. A furious infusion of turf from veiled GOP establishment groups like Freedom Works and Tea Party Patriots mowed through the grassroots within several weeks, bringing with it huge stacks of cash-on-hand and communications professionals. Looking back, it is startling just how quickly the garbled mishmash of tax gripes, constitutional adherence, and vaguely xenophobic sentiment voiced by supporters morphed into tightly-bound retrieval exercises punctuated by terms like ‘Obamacare’, ‘Christian nation’, and ‘Bill Ayers’.
The #Occupy movement, by contrast, seems to have so far managed to retain its intrinsic lack of specificity. No doubt, however, purist supporters are looking over their shoulder at freshly pandering Democratic groups and labour unions in the same way that a group of teens would the fifty year-old cardiganed man asking them where he could “cop some green”.
For some, the prospect of an easy, inflated wad of cash must be tempting. Hell, the Tea Party dominated American politics for four years since—literally—selling their soul to the GOP (although some might argue that they remained pawns in a larger game).
But what OWSers should remember is that the Democratic Party and big labour are as tied to Wall Street as anyone else in Washington, and allowing themselves to be ushered under their umbrella achieves nothing.
Don’t get me wrong, money is very important in the dog-eat-dog world of societal agenda-setting. But the #Occupy movement has so far displayed a surprising ability to rasie money independently, and their decentralized configuration keeps their proverbial O&M quite low.
What they should demand from the DNC (or, say, Grits and Dips) and union leadership in exchange for their hashtag of approval are concise, measurable commitments to foster the creation of a more open and accountable speculative market.
After all, wouldn’t it be fitting if it was a currency of ideas, rather than a horny stampede of mustachioed dollar signs, that drove the movement forward.
*This was an attempt to work though the movement as a medium. I hope to, time permitting, reflect on the message as well.
