Now that its various franchises have been emasculated and their light dimmed, Occupy Wall Street’s architects are trying to turn their attentions to a second act. Yesterday afternoon I wandered down to see Zuccotti Park, post-eviction, and found it radically changed. The revolution is gone. A handful of assorted placard-wavers were still present along the barriers at the front, reduced to a tenth of their original number, and inside the cordoned-off park, there were two small groups of hardy protesters huddled quietly beneath trees that have been decorated with golden Christmas lights, Hollywood-style. But where the demonstration once bustled, it is now a damp squib — far from a portrait of the dying hours of capitalism, the scene now resembles the first minutes of a cocktail party, when only a few of the guests have arrived and it is unclear how many more will follow.
Advertisement
This transformation has not been lost on the Canadian anti-capitalist group whose infamous September advertisement set off the worldwide protests. Adbusters has recommended that the crowd that it inspired go home, regroup, and plan to reassemble in “the spring,” in order to “use the winter to brainstorm, network, build momentum,” and “emerge rejuvenated with fresh tactics, philosophies, and a myriad projects ready to rumble.”
Such an injunction is certainly timely. The cities of New York, Oakland, and Portland, Ore., have all evicted their camps, and what progress the movement made in occupying the headlines has been tempered by a sufficient number of violent or criminal acts that it has become impossible to spin the problems as anomalous. As has been widely noted, whatever the original intentions, the communes have proven an irresistible draw for undesirables of all stripes, and their rapid transmutation into safe havens for lawlessness, violence, and disease has proven too much for the initially indulgent authorities to accept.
While Adbusters’ call for a sabbatical from the revolution is understandable — politics aside, the tactics employed have quite evidently run their course, and the savvier of the protesters will have intuited this — the prospect of a second chapter poses a key challenge nonetheless: How to divorce the message from the medium? The group’s aims have still to be defined, and it will be a struggle to give them a solid form now that their advocates have gone home. Zuccotti Park is restored to its former state. Those who rail against false consciousness might well complain about the distracting baubles and trinkets of capitalism, but skyscrapers and electric lights speak loudly to American aspiration and will fill the void nicely. The vast majority of the encampments’ defenders have cast the inchoate nature of the movement as a feature and not a bug, celebrating as virtuous in and of itself the expression of indignation. But such an explanation relies at the very least on the physical presence of the disaffected. Now that they are absent, what of the new dawn?
We are also told by the likes of Douglas Rushkoff in the New York Times and the ever-reliable Naomi Klein in The Nation that it is precisely because OWS is not a political party and has no policy platform that it is powerful. Unfortunately for OWS, this somewhat anarchic approach relies heavily upon organic growth for success, and such growth never came. Despite claims to the contrary, neither Zuccotti Park nor the other encampments across the country were meeting points for ordinary and concerned citizens spontaneously taking to the streets. Instead, they were a veritable convention of the usual suspects. Members of the professional Left congregated and were soon joined by a steady procession of young acolytes, whose disappointment that their expensive college educations had not shielded them from the vicissitudes of the dire economy roused them to join the witch-hunt. Then — less innocuously — the homeless, the mentally ill, and the downright criminal joined the unholy partnership. The necessary dramatis personae for a successful insurrection never showed up and, if Act II is to be more successful, Occupy is going to need to expand its base to include the general public — the sort of people who are now bustling past Zuccotti Park as they did before, as if nothing out of the ordinary had ever happened there.
Here the movement is running squarely into a brick wall. Most people in America either simply don’t share OWS’s aims, or have no idea what it is that the protesters actually want. At no point has America at large joined in. In a USA Today/Gallup poll from November 22, 59 percent of respondents said they don’t know what it is that OWS is after. This is unsurprising. Occupy Wall Street was as much about self-expression as about politics. After my first visit I described the camp as “the first posthumous Grateful Dead concert, with a sprinkling of Brechtian aestheticism thrown in for good measure.” Two months later, I have not changed my view. The performance art and communal elements were as important as the message, if not more so. I am not convinced that the two can be separated.
Much as it would be absurd to hope for a “Woodstock without the music festival,” perhaps it is as much a category mistake to try to organize an “Occupy without the occupation.” That is the challenge that those who would continue the movement will face. It is possible that the curtain has gone down on the Occupy movement and will not rise again.
— Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate atNational Review.
One needs only to watch the 2002 documentary “Weather Underground". While it seemed a bit clinical, perhaps even sympathetic towards the folks that brought us bombings and terror, it is eerily similar on the outset.
The parallel messages, the anarchic approach, really struck home with me that these are the same people, if not literally, at least philosophically.
If the language has not changed, then will the behavior be any different? We certainly saw a glimmer of what a mindless mob, peppered with union members, could do when they came unhinged in Oakland, on "Port Day".
To be honest, I would expect to see erratic cellular/viral activity, like flash mobs. Only, I expect more pointed damage and disruption, not just a song and a dance. This allows the radicals with intent, to not get dragged down by the hangers on that an encampment attracts.
I don't believe that this group cares whether or not they can truly capture the hearts of the real 99%. There are enough extremists of many flavors to swell the ranks. More spectacular time in front of the camera, more recruits. I hear from a few part-timers and more uninformed sympathizers than I care to. There is a lunatic fringe just out of sight, enough to be a concern.
Mr. Cooke,
I usually don't comment on your articles, because they are so cogent , thoughtful, and cover the attendant arguments pretty well by themselves. This one is no exception.
Let me just thank you for your work. You are an excellent additon to NRO. WFB would be delighted with you, I'm sure.
"It is possible that the curtain has gone down on the Occupy movement and will not rise again."
We certainly will see more progressive/radical protests, and the success - albeit brief - of this particular episode certainly will be used by professional protesters, and their mentors, moving forward. They might not explicitly use the title, "Occupy", but undoubtedly we will hear its echoes in the future.
Rest assured that the OWS braintrust is probably huddled with its Hollywood guidance counselors on the next new protest experience. Choreography and scripts reviews are likely in progress - or will be once the Master Cylinder in D.C. gets back from his most recent vacation.
Maybe we need a conservative version of it, called Occupy Hollywood. Unlike the circus at OWS, there could actually be some concrete goals with Occupy Hollywood. First goal, end gratuitous on screen sex in movies that would do just fine without it. Second, stop using double entendres in kid's movies. Third, stop making the U.S. out to be the villain in the movies. Fourth, stop the incessant use of the F word in movies. Finally, Occupy Hollywood to boycott movies until those goals are achieved.
All good points to be sure but you're mssing one major distinction. If conservatives "Occupied Hollywood" as you suggest, they would have stated, concrete demands to which Hollywood could acquiesce.
As near as I could tell, OWS' demand was, "give me money and fulfill my never-ending stream of wants". It's difficult to see a time when they would run out of things to object to.
The first, second, and fourth qualities are hardly inimicable to conservatism; in fact they grease the wheels of market capitalism. So don't expect sex and profanity to go anywhere anytime soon. If you want people to blame, look in your own party - the pursuit of the dollar at all costs simply does not go hand in hand with public decorum or traditional values. As the Republican Party has shown time and again, the second will always be sacrificed for the first when push comes to shove.
As for the third, political correctness - to a certain extent - has also become an attribute necessary to sell entertainment effectively. Vague "we are the world"-type sentiments play into this overall packaging, but you need not be concerned about them representing any actual anti-Americanism. I assure you, the corporations that manufacture these products are more interested in making a profit than a statement, and to the extent American foreign policy can widen their market share, they'll be onboard. If conservatism is defined as seeking to preserve the fundamental status quo of the American economic system, than entertainment which critiques American foreign policy (yet sells itself in the existing system and perpetuates the Hollywood monopoly on public consciousness) is simply a more sophisticated form of conservatism.
But then it's hard to keep track of how conservatism defines itself - in the 90sit led with social conservatism, in the 00s it was neocon foreign policy, and now it's Ayn Rand-type libertarianism. These values are hardly complementary, even if in some situations they share, or perceive, a common enemy.
Ultimately, the real problem with Hollywood is that the ratio of trash to quality is extremely high. Your goals seek only to spray the trash with air freshener, rather than get it off your doorstep. Or better yet move; i.e. create or support your own films with their own message. Hollywood need not be the only show in town - that's your most conservative assumption of all, and I don't mean conservative in a good way.
Also...administrators, please get clearer voices if you're going to do this spoken password thing for comments. It's really hard to make out the vowels.
obama is not through with this bunch. the gleam in his eye when the ows'ers "heckled him" yesterday was telling. he created them in true community organizer fashion. obama counseled his cousin odinga to do the same thing in kenya when he lost his election - incite his followers to riot until the country capitulated.
JB Tucson: OWS is nothing like the exploits of the Weather Underground. The WU were largely Maoist, Marxist-Leninists and terrorists. The OWS is not Marxist-Leninist--far from it. There is no vanguard party, democratic centralism, or fearless leaders.
That the Left is back on parade is a fact. It has also been joined by some of the larger unions. The leadership of the 'traditional left' were astonished by the outpouring of young 'Left populist' protesters, nationwide and worldwide.
The Right is concerned by OWS and the Left is concerned over the Tea Party, militias, and hair-brained wild-eyed armed libertarian extremists. You notice the OWS crowd doesn't pack heat. The Tea Party is heavily armed and attracts armed militants who see a socialist in the White House and under every bed in America.
All things considered, the authorities showed remarkable restraint, notwithstanding the pepper-spray incidents. Have our local police become militarized? I am not so sure, though they need regular reminding of the constitutional rights of the protesters.
For some on the Right, more than two people standing on the sidewalk together is a mob. We know you are not fans of democracy (horror) and support a limited franchise. Things will get hot when OWS goes from "Protest to Politics" as Bayard Rustin use to say.
This is a good article and goes to show some of NRO posters it is possible to make your points without derision, name calling and mud slinging
Interesting you should bring up the gun show aspect of the Tea Party. Heavily armed but how many shootings, including accidental? Zero. That's less than OWS Oakland.
A limited franchise? Yeah, I support a limited franchise. The franchise should be limited to those who can govern themselves. People who build the country instead of those who, at best, just want a free ride.
A quick acid test might be whether the person abiding by the rules already in place, e.g. getting a permit to protest.
Unfortunately for my comment, little things like picking up one's trash after a rally or carrying a firearm without being a threat to those in the immediate vicinity are just symptoms of a person's ability to govern themselves.
The way to determine one's self government is, as you indicate, nearly impossible to determine. At least there are symptoms that we could use for determining self-government.
My comment is kind of like Mr. Gibbs' in Pirates of the Carribean, "Everyone's thinking it, I'm just saying it..."
Well, right now we use age eighteen as a threshold. The Founders' generation were more careful. I'm not entirely convinced they were wrong.
In a homeowners' association, when there's a vote on whether to approve an assessment for new landscaping, only the homeowners get a say. The guy from the tract two blocks over who likes to walk his dog through your greenbelt doesn't get to vote himself a nicer lawn, at your expense, for his free-riding dog to poop on.
Ideally, in a republic, we vote to tax ourselves. That *should* mean that unless everybody is going to pay a proposed tax, the people who will actually have to carry the burden should have a greater say.
Norman, if you so dislike name calling and mud slinging, why not edit it from your own work? How many "wild-eyed, armed libertarian extremists" have shown themselves at Tea Party events? The Right supports a limited franchise? Where do you get that out of the Tea Party? Just because you call us nuts by using nicer words doesn't mean you are showing restraint.
It was very easy to see how dirty, hateful, and violent the OWS crowd was, regardless of your disagreement or agreement with their aims.
Since they were breaking laws almost from the start, the police arrested hundreds of them. You are right. They showed admirable restraint.
I think the current title rolls a little better off the tongue than the more accurate title of, "Can Occupy disenjuvenilate itself, take a bath, and get a job?"
Here are some facts. First, OWS, at its height, if you were to add up all the people who were in all the camps around the country, amounted to NOTHING when compared to any number of true organizations in the U.S. In short, its assembled members were inconsequential compared to organizations such as the Shriners, VFW, Boy Scouts and many others who actually accomplish goals in their organizations. Second, it was goofy. Between the beating drums, the "twinkle fingers," the "human microphone," and other oddities. It was a freak show, nothing more. Third, it relied on criminal acts to survive such as illegally occupying spaces they didn't own and had no right to occupy. Fourth, they had goals which were either unattainable, or so nebulous as to be meaningless. Lastly, it was a hoot to watch while it lasted, but like all trash it's good to see that it was finally disposed of so the smell can eventually dissipate and go away.
What does OWS have to say say except, "Some people have money and I deserve more of it!”?
To which the unions add, “Can’t we all just have high paying jobs with good job security?’ (without worrying too much about where the money to pay these employees is to come from- Consumers? Government? The rich?)
it's surely possible that the USA will have declining living standards for the next decade or two and this will surely have to be managed politically..
The housing buble fueled consumption beyond our means, as people bought (imported) stuff with home equity loans. Now the loans have gone bad, and the losses have been transferred to government, and government has covered its costs by taking on unprecedented debt- much of which is owned by foreign countries.
The choices are:
1. Default on the debt (bank failures, business failures, mass unemployment).
2. Raise taxes to pay it (less consumption at home as our incomes are transferred to [mostly foreign] lenders),
3. Inflation due to deliberate creation of money by the fed (pay back debt with cheap dollars). With the likely result that in ten years everything may cost twice as much even though you only earn 10% more.
In short, declining living standards may be unavoidable over the next couple of decades.
To which OWS offers, "Tax the rich!" As if that could even start to solve this massive financial constipation. As if capital was not mobile, and the Golden Geese would just hold still so we can gut them to get at their Golden Eggs.
And to which the unions add, “Can’t we just have it all without having to be cost-effective producers?”
“I want, therefore I should have.” Has any political movement ever been as intellectually impoverished as OWS??
Follow
