Yesterday, Reihan wrote that labor unions and groups like MoveOn should hesitate before getting into bed with Occupy Wall Street, given its anarchist roots. Then I went on CBC News to debate a representative of OWS, and came away convinced that Reihan is exactly right.
You should watch the video, partly because it is the most (unintentionally) hilarious TV interview I have ever done. You might say that the OWS rep blathers incoherently, but there are actually two important takeaways from his comments.
One is that, as is typical for OWS, he is unwilling to set out any actual policy goals that the movement wants—except for, and this is a direct quote, “a Glass-Steingold Tax, or whatever that is.”
The other is that the structure of his comments is broadly anarchistic—he says OWS doesn’t need policies because they will create social change by “building a model society” in Zuccotti Park, where people share food and sleeping pads according to their needs and arrive at decisions through discussion and consensus. I guess the idea is that the American people will give up capitalism once they see how wonderful it is to camp out in a park and dress up like Zombies.
Matt Yglesias has written that labor unions and other more mainstream left-wing organs need to co-opt the OWS protests as a vessel for a more concrete policy agenda. Presumably, his model is along the lines of the Tea Party, where disparate and sometimes extreme activists have, more often than not, played ball with the Republican Party and its associated entities.
But I’m not sure that will work for OWS, because too many of its participants may simply be too extreme. If you reject the mixed capitalist economy and representative democracy, how do you fit within a political coalition broadly aligned with the Democratic Party, even its left flank? It’s a much more fundamental rejection of the American political and social system than, say, wanting to repeal Social Security.
I suspect that the only thing holding OWS together is policy ambiguity. Some of the protesters want to reform the system; others want to smash it to bits. If you get too specific about policy, how do you keep those people marching together? But Yglesias’s co-option strategy would involve injecting at least some policy specificity.
So, Reihan is right and progressives should be careful where they step, as this dog is not likely to hunt. But the dance between the anarchists and the labor unions will be fun for me to watch from the sidelines.
Progressives may be careful to watch where they step and align with, but conservatives perhaps should be realistic that there is some very well focused and agenda driven glue holding these outliers together, in multiple discrete locations, for extended periods. Someone with a credit card is buying the take-out. These are not the happy hippie college kids who demonstrated when I was a carefree co-ed. I believe these to be largely hired hands who will happily create mayhem on behalf of some people with very ugly agendas indeed. In this case, the progressives are the nicest ones we're likely to meet. Consider them the crazy relatives of the so-called spontaneous "flash mobs" running lawless in inner cities. But the people with the money won't show up for interviews.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNah. These people are harmless. They couldn't overthrow a down comforter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, so harmless that the NYPD felt it necessary to mace people in the face at random, and arrest 700 people at once.
You're off base if you ask me. Because some of them may not be articulate about what they are protesting for does not invalidate their position. Indeed, most if not all interviews of people i have heard thus far have made more sense than the majority of what i hear politicians say.
I think you may be wrong on this one, and underestimate this movement. If the financial situation of the world continues to get worse, this could be the start of something big, however ill conceived and vague it's beginnings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, so harmless that the NYPD felt it necessary to mace people in the face at random, and arrest 700 people at once.
You're off base if you ask me. Because some of them may not be articulate about what they are protesting for does not invalidate their position. Indeed, most if not all interviews of people i have heard thus far have made more sense than the majority of what i hear politicians say.
I think you may be wrong on this one, and underestimate this movement. If the financial situation of the world continues to get worse, this could be the start of something big, however ill conceived and vague it's beginnings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"These are not the happy hippie college kids who demonstrated when I was a carefree co-ed. I believe these to be largely hired hands who will happily create mayhem on behalf of some people with very ugly agendas indeed."
This is exactly what they said about those happy hippies the first time around.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, so harmless that the NYPD felt it necessary to mace people in the face at random, and arrest 700 people at once.
You're off base if you ask me. Because some of them may not be articulate about what they are protesting for does not invalidate their position. Indeed, most if not all interviews of people i have heard thus far have made more sense than the majority of what i hear politicians say.
I think you may be wrong on this one, and underestimate this movement. If the financial situation of the world continues to get worse, this could be the start of something big, however ill conceived and vague it's beginnings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, so harmless that the NYPD felt it necessary to mace people in the face at random, and arrest 700 people at once.
You're off base if you ask me. Because some of them may not be articulate about what they are protesting for does not invalidate their position. Indeed, most if not all interviews of people i have heard thus far have made more sense than the majority of what i hear politicians say.
I think you may be wrong on this one, and underestimate this movement. If the financial situation of the world continues to get worse, this could be the start of something big, however ill conceived and vague it's beginnings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll one has to do is catch a snippet of what the OWS people have to say and one is assured that there is nothing there there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStalin thought the system was corrupt and killed millions in making it better only to find out it , it was he who was corrupt. Castro thought that free enterprise was wrong and he was right and improverished four generations and imprisoned thousands. Some of whom died and some of whom still langusih in hell. Change can come about in a more social way but we can't wait they tell us. The founder of Goldman Sachs was an immigrant from Germany who started his company by selling IOU's that helped finance other businesses that employed American workers. When Ford went public and kept Americans working, it was Citibank that helped finance the stock issue. Without financing, we get no where. If Marcus Goldman as a single individual did what he did, so can the protesters who see anarchy in their eyes as the only viable way out. You have to be stupid not to see the results of anarchists who kiiled millions, or starved millions in Ukraine under Stalin. When Brownstone owners in Brooklyn were dissatisfied with their increase in premiums year after year, they didn't camp out on Pine Street in lower Manhattan where all the large insurance carriers were , they used their God given ability and formed their own mutual insurance company that eventually was so suiccessful, they were bought out. Can any one in the protesting do like wise of course they can. Will they , of course not. Tom Bragen, Bayonne,NJ
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you actually know what anarchy is? You're wrongly equating it with dictators and making a really faulty analogy to the protesters. Dictators are kind of the opposite of anarchists. And the dictators you choose are people who never even truly subscribed to the political theories they claimed to embody (I'm not sure if you've ever actually read these philosophies or taken a philosophy class, but you're off base here). Stalin wasn't even an anarchist. He was a communist.
Anarchy is about questioning the inherent morality in the law and ultimately respecting the boundaries of other human beings. It's about having everyone, all being fully self actualized (or at least with the opportunities to become self actualized), contribute to society with everyone supporting each other's basic needs. A government isn't needed because there is a sense of community and sharing among people and respect for fellow human beings.
Additionally, I don't think that all those people are anarchists. I think that they are attempting to start a political discourse in an attempt to change the status quo. That's what democracy is about. And diversity is a good thing in politics. It brings together the many views of human beings with diverse experiences in order to create a holistic political process. Unfortunately, our world is dominated by a narrative dictated by white male landowners. It has excluded women, minorities, other religions, various sexual preferences, etc. Being able to understand multiple points of view and why we hold those points of view is critical for a democracy be truly effective. And most importantly, a value of basic human dignity is the crux of a democracy. I highly doubt that these people who support equal rights are an imminent threat and ready to start slaughtering people. That's kind of ridiculous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's amusing to hear the right-wing pundits claim, on the one hand, as Ann Coulter put it, that OWS is the new totalitarianism, and on the other hand, the NR says that OWS shouldn't be taken seriously because it is oh so confused. In both instances, what you all are saying doesn't matter because as much as you you'd like to hope that it can't be taken seriously and as much calumny is brought down on the OWS, the world and nation and the 99% are taking OWS seriously, and indeed, are inspired by it and joining it. So continue to fulminate. It's not getting you anywhere. You're not going to be able to insult it to death and all of your warnings to people about it aren't going to work. What you don't get is something that the other 99% do get: this system is corrupt, unfair, and unjust. The 99% motif is an organizing principle for people because it provides a way to capsulize what's wrong. In the meantime, enjoy the cake that Marie Antoinette enjoyed...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe video is the most hilarious bit I've seen to date. The sheer incoherence just has me ROFL.
"We are beyond policy." is classic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy you write about the Occupy Movement and why you shouldn't take is seriously is telling. Why write about it if it doesn't have impact?
The other question I have for you Mr. Barro is what your real agenda is. Why do you feel so compelled to dismiss the movement and devaluate it's impact?
You talk to one representative and now you are an expert? Have you been to an encampment or event?
There are several clear goals that the Occupy Groups have, and if you had bothered to do research and looked at the various declarations of these groups you would find goals such as:
Protect homes from unlawful foreclosures
Repeal Citizens United
Single Payer health care
forgive and reduce student debt obligations
make college more affordable for families
end foreign wars and bring out troops home
reinvest in education and infrastructure
end indefinite detentions
repeal the patriot act
end corporate personhood
and so on.
Perhaps the reason you don't know of these goals is that you are too lazy to look them up and main stream reporters such as yourself refuse to report on them.
If you want to refute what I say, why not have me or perhaps Craig Barber (who has been on Countdown and other national shows) to debate you and your ignorance.
Peace,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTex Shelters