Occupy Wall Street: point this sinking ship home

So, Occupy Wall Street has started getting more media coverage. I read an article about it and it devolved into more articles, blogs, debates, and conspiracy theories. It made me thoughtful, so I wanted to post about it, but I'm not entirely sure of the point of this post. Here it is anyway, though.

So, in brief, what is Occupy Wall Street? What do they want? Why does it matter?

"It's really simple. These young people on Wall Street are giving voice to many of the problems that working people in America have been confronting over the last several years," said Larry Hanley, international president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, which has 20,000 members in the New York area. "These young people are speaking for the vast majority of Americans who are frustrated by the bankers and brokers who have profited on the backs of hard-working people," Hanley added in a statement. "While we battle it out day after day, month after month, the millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street sit by -- untouched -- and lecture us on the level of our sacrifice."

"The way our society is now headed it does not work for 99% of people, so when Occupy Wall Street started ... they kept to it and they've been able to create a national conversation that we think should have been going on for years," [Michael] Mulgrew said [President of the United Federation of Teachers].

Over the past two weeks, demonstrations have addressed issues such as police brutality, union busting and the economy, the group said.

source

This is an interesting opinion piece from Forbes on the protest and it makes some thoughtful points about how it was easily dismissed at first and how that's slowly changing. Beware that it then devolves into a bout of ad hominem misogyny about halfway through. So that's fun.

Going into the third week of protests, major media outlets are finally starting to cover the story. Unions are also now backing the protest.

Hailing the power of street protests to shift the dialogue, [President of AFL-CIO, the US's largest civil union, Richard] Trumka said, “I think being in the streets and calling attention to issues is sometimes the only recourse you have because, God only knows, you can go to the Hill, and you can talk to a lot of people and see nothing ever happen…”

source | see also

( Here are some conspiracies to think about! )

Anyhow, critics of the protest are basically lambasting the lack of clear and uniform goals. This is fair - and I had a long debate with a friend on this very subject - but I think it's worth it to consider comments like this:

Occupy Wall Street and its offshoots have clear strains of liberal economic populism -- a powerful force in U.S. history during times characterized by economic stress. That said, it would be a mistake to label or tie the movement to a specific agenda, said Susan Olzak, a Stanford University sociology professor.

"It's difficult to classify a social protest movement early on in its history," Olzak said. "Clearer goals could eventually emerge, but there's no guarantee."

She added, "Many movements fizzle out. Others become more organized. (But) "I think we run a risk (by) taking a snapshot at any one point in time and trying to categorize the movement in any one way based on that snapshot. The only way to study these protest movements is to follow them over time."

source

Of course, as soon as any popular movement starts to gain stirrings of legitimacy, politicians jump all over it. Well, some Democrats are, at least. Then you have people like Republican candidate Herman Cain saying things like, "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself! It is not a person's fault because they succeeded, it is a person's fault if they failed."

Mitt Romney adds that the protests are "dangerous" and "class warfare" and he won't elaborate on his comments because he's only concerned with getting himself into the White House. Good thinking, Romney. What would we do with a president who cared about what the people think and want?

Also. "Class warfare"? Seriously? I just...won't derail this into my commentary on Republican presidential candidates.

When I typed up this post, I wasn't quite sure what I wanted to do with it other than share information. I hadn't really engaged with the content to know what I felt about the entire thing. Thankfully, that is what debates with friends are for! As thyme_hawthorne said, it's rare that we disagree, but I think in the right circumstances it can be healthy. Fresh perspectives can be eye-opening and educational, right?

( Critical discussions of OWS. )

No protest is ever black or white in intention or consequence; there will always be a confluence of factors. They're worth thinking about, though; Occupy Wall Street (and the other cities where this has spread) is important because it's happening. Even though it's disorganized with unformed goals, even though it's far from problem free in many respects, the fact that it exists matters, I think. It's a reaction. It's history. It's expression of speech, and it will have effects. We just don't know what those are yet.

I think a Good Omens quote is relevant here:

It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.

source