Occupy Wall Street’s surface message, cleverly backed up with the canny but fatuous “99%” slogan, is an illusion, a red herring employed in a cynical attempt to press more mainstream public unease into the service of a worldview that remains very much on the fringe. Were all of OWS’s gripes to be resolved firmly in their favor, the displeased would not suddenly consider America pure. On the contrary, by and large, the types who have occupied Zuccotti and other parks across the nation consider the United States to be an intractably racist, imperialist, unequal nation, which boasts an invidious history whose alleged crimes can be seen populating the pages of Howard Zinn’s books. As a new report concludes, “while their rhetoric might decry crony capitalism or bank bailouts, their values reveal self-centered and fear-based motivations,” and a deep hostility to capitalism and American values of individualism and limited government is thrown in for good measure.
Advertisement
The report, ShortsellingAmerica, reveals that, below the surface, there is a lot more going on than meets the eye, and most of it has very little to do with “social justice.” Its author, Frontier Lab, takes an interesting approach, applying techniques of market research to political science. The group’s aim is to move away from the short-term model employed by political pollsters — which, although valuable, essentially provides just a fleeting snapshot — and instead to conduct a more thorough assessment of participants’ values. From these data, they then seek to predict future behavior. An example: Surface-level polling will see consumers tell us that the reason they buy a particular dish soap is because it is green, or cheap, or conveniently sized. But research shows the deeper truth is that, overwhelmingly, people buy the same brand as their mother did. (Nobody will write that on a survey.)
What did Frontier Lab discover? First, that many of the rank-and-file occupiers feel isolated in their lives, and appear to lack basic community ties such as are provided by participation in clubs, churches, and strong families. Indeed, much of the report could have come from the early chapters of Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone. They thus attach to their political causes with something like a religious fervor. For many, a commitment to “social justice” is “not the end, but rather a means to an inflated sense of self and purpose in their own lives.” Crucially, involvement with others who agree with them provides an “overwhelming feeling of being part of a family.” I noticed this on my first trip down to Zuccotti Park, when I saw a telling sign adorning the entrance to the tent city: “For the first time in my life, I feel at home.” On subsequent visits I was struck by the importance of the commune to the project. As much as anything else, vast swathes of occupiers were simply looking for a new club. This group, Frontier Lab dubs the “Communitarians.”
The second group, which to all intents and purposes forms the leadership, is less existentially lost, and derives its fulfillment from the “prestige,” “validation,” and “control” afforded by the movement’s coverage in the media. Frontier Lab calls this group the “Professionals.” Its members fill the ranks of the professional Left and boast long histories of attending and organizing protests. For them, indignation is quotidian, “community action” is a career, and they feel “validated by the fame and attention” and “rewarded for their life choices.” Unlike the Communitarians, the Professionals actually want tangible change, or a “win,” but politics is still playing second fiddle to self. There is nothing spontaneous or organic about the movements they lead. They are waiting for the revolution and hope to be in its vanguard. Their careers depend upon it.
I was disappointed with this article. I had hoped to get a genuine, well thought out, insightful analysis of the motives and frustrations that led the Occupy Wall Street protesters to do what they are doing. Instead the article was filled with a lot of conversational put-downs of the kind one would expect to be constantly exchanged among the staff of a conservative publication like the National Review. It's obvious I will not find anything useful written by a conservative whose only motive seems to discredit the OWS people. Thanks anyway.
You did get an analysis of the OWS movement but you are blind to their obvious flaws. The rank and file are indisputably young and ill informed. (Look up the Daily Show woman on the street interview showing the class division.) The leadership are professional leftist agitators.
We can reach the younger ones since they have yet to have much life experience and it is experience with the world that turns many to conservatism. I think the lesson to be learned is that we need to attack the professional left in their greatest bastion- education. When young people are presented both points of view and given a place to feel nurtured by others rather than communitarian parasites they will come to see the world as it is; flawed but infinitely better than the Zinn's of the world portray.
It seems that rather than attempting to actually discuss the economic inequity that has led to this point, NR has simply restated the canard about the OWS protestors being 'extremists', and portraying fringe elements as representative of the whole. The financial sector has failed to legally account for its abuses, and since their supporters on both the right and the left have allowed the majority of the American people to be swindled by an entrenched banking-lobbyist-political kleptocracy, articles like this one seek to ignore the underlying problems by snarkily using ad hominems against the individuals who want an open and honest discussion about the corruptions in this country. Technically, if you're taking the side of one percent against the 99 percent, YOU'RE the extremist.
"technically, if you're taking the sife of one percent against the 99 percent, YOU'RE the extremist"
If one assumes as fact what the statement asserts: that the 99% actually represents 99% of the population. Otherwise, the jury remains out as to who is the extremist. From my persepctive, it seems clear that the "99%" do not represent even a majority of the population, let alone ninety nne percent of it.
Ultimately, the Occupy movement is upset because they deem life not to be fair. I'll gladly concede that point. Their problem, however, becomes that they expect someone else to make things fair for them. At the very least, they should consider picking up some cheese to go with the whine.
It seems Christopher H takes all of the "99%" nonsense at face value. Unfortunately I am not yet a member of the 1% but I can assure that OWS doesnt speak for me or any others I know. I can handle it myself thanks. Good post Tim
As a market research and political scientist, this report is spot on from a methodological standpoint. However, you really should note that Frontier Labs is overseen by a National Review employee.
I'm not sure what it takes to be a "market research and political scientist" these days, but interviewing four people for an hour, two in Chicago and two in New York and then breaking down their long form answers into single words or short phrases which are then used to draw a negative analysis is hardly a methodologically sound research practice. Frontier Lab is not only suspect due to conflict of interest, but due to poor quality research. Honestly, if this is what passes as analysis at NR...
Unless of course this whole thing is an incredibly attuned hoax played by NR and broadviewjoe. If you guys are all trollin' then I admit to falling for it.
Then there is the faction that cheers on OWS, from the media, from Facebook, from Twitter. "So sorry I couldn't be there but I'm so busy..."
But they're there in spirit, because they feel they should have protested more, joined in the great movements back in the day, but then again they were too busy with their lives, etc.
Sorry, Jay. The motives and frustrations that led the OWS crowd to turn numerous public spaces into public toilets will probably not be revealed by the techniques of market research. Perhaps you should be reading a journal of Freudian analysis?
I don't see any putdowns, Jay. It's quite a humane, compassionate article, conciliatory where reconciliation is possible, yet realistic at all times. This is the reality of OWS, and frankly, I feel moved with compassion toward a group that feels so alienated from the rest of us. Still, the goals of OWS would see the nation ruined. I can't go along with that.
Would be interesting to see how we could connect these young men and women into an 'alternative community'. If conservatives want to satisfy the wants of this demographic (and thus get their votes), then we need to figure out a way to help these people out. The major problem I foresee is that a community has to be based around a shared set of values, and the values of these individuals is anti-conservative. They are largely secular, communitarian, and liberal. I understand that there is a somewhat communitarian strain in the conservative philosophy that often clashes with the more libertarian branch, but that communitarianism is usually associated with religious ideology (something which secularists are antagonistic towards). I do not see how we can actually satisfy the needs of these people without first changing their values.
The rank and file of OWS are the same psychological type of what used to be referred to as 'useful idiots', but it is probably more accurate to use von Mises' term 'useful innocents.'
I've had quite a number of heated exchanges with OWS supporters, and have learned that there is yet another faction in this movement: "black bloc."
They're the young howler monkeys smashing windows, keeping people out of stores, setting fires, graffitti-spraying walls, and the rest. They're hard-core Anarchists and, to paraphrase something Barbara Ehrenreich wrote about Bill Clinton and the Religious Right, OWS is a growth medium for black bloc Anarchism.
For the first time, I found myself reading the Daily Kos Twitter feeds, witnessing these arguments within the left. It was impossible not to feel some sympathy for the idealistic "Communitarian" types as you've dubbed them, imploring the "black bloc" against violence. But they have no control, having ceded the possibility of control as a foundational prerequisite.
What they don't realize is that OWS is Anarchic in its roots and in its execution. All it's language, from the "99%/1%" trope to "Whose park? Our park!" is deeply Anarchic. The movement really is black bloc's. Everyone else is their dupe.
The writer stated that the ows people felt disassociated from society. The proptestors should be thankful that they did not grow uo in the USSR where participation in the Young Pioneers was mandatory, or in Hitler's Germany with the Hitler Youth. I think that Congress should reinstate the military draft so to serve as a goad prodding these people to make adult decisions about their lives.
I read in a forwarded column recently that the unemployment rate among college grads is only 4%? I don't know if that's accurate, but it is definitely lower than the overall 9% unemployment rate.
Say it's 4%, or even 6%. Not all OWSers are grads. Not all of them even have MFAs in puppeteering. But say that the leaders, or at least the most articulate - okay, let's call them the least inarticulate - of them are mainly college grads. Then they who claim to speak for the 99% are really speaking for the 6%. Actually, it's more like the 3%, since 6% of college grads represents more like 3% of all adults.
The shame of much of this is that the "non-Professional" OWS participants may be damaging their future prospects for getting themselves out of the hole they appear to feel they're in.
To them I would point out that I graduated from my local community college in 1982 and entered the work force in 1983, just prior to graduation from the University of Central Florida, the closest public university I could drive to. In 1982-1983 the unemployment rate was between 8.5%-10.8% and I had tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt.
I was working as a day laborer when I had heard about an opportunity to push somebody else's paperwork since I had a degree in business. I worked hard at the job and being the kind of employee that my boss could count on and, over a period of years, paid my student loans back and continued to improve my value as an employee.
You can, too. You won't become who you want to be nor get to where you want to go by following those who don't like our country and want to take it somewhere that no other country's citizens would ever want to go.
You won't get there by protesting. Sadly, nobody has ever figured out a path that doesn't involve hard work, self-reliance, and self-discipline. Others your age who are working, at all and at anything, or out looking for work are getting ahead of you, mostly because you are stagnating.
You have to be busy with preparing yourself for opportunities, creating your own opportunities, and taking advantage of them whenever and where ever their light appears.
One last thing: this applies to life at any age, not just the age you happen to be right now.
surfcat50, I normally don't reply to someone simply to say that I agree with them, but in your case I had to. I wish there were more like you. You busted your butt in college, took an entry level job, found an opportunity and worked your way up. In the mean time, you also paid off your student loan. Personally, I joined the Army to earn money for college. It wasn't the easiest life, but it allowed me to pursue my education. Kudos to you!
Follow
