Occupy Wall Street is wandering in the desert. This much was made clear on New Year’s Day. Sitting at the airport in London waiting for my flight back to America, I watched a stream of hysterical tweets from OWS’s Twitter account. They described the attempted “reoccupation” of New York City in terms usually reserved for genuine crises. It was 4 a.m. on the East Coast, and the occupiers were in the midst of an attempt to grab the first headlines of 2012 — ostensibly by encouraging their members to get themselves arrested, which is apparently the new metric of revolutionary success.
When I landed at JFK, I expected to find all sorts of stories filling the Web and to head straight down to Zuccotti Park to see what had happened. After all, the disproportionate media coverage that OWS received — which was more in line with the protesters’ deluded sense of self-importance than commensurate with the public’s interest or the coherence of their aims — was its greatest achievement of 2011. But there was nothing, and nor was there much sign of OWS in New York. In the seven hours I had been out of touch with those on the ground, America’s media had gone wild with apathy and OWS had gone home. Evidently, occupying is so last year.
Advertisement
Having been cleared out of most of its major encampments — New York, Oakland, Portland, Los Angeles — the occupation is now homeless. This presents it with something of a problem. The sine qua nonof an occupation is that its practitioners have to stay put (the clue is rather in the title), but the occupiers have now been rendered nomads. They have not quite reverted to diffusion — prior to congregating on September 17 last year, its members were living variously and waiting for the next G8 — but are now a wandering rump, in search of a new tactic. They seem to have settled upon flashmob-esque descents on major public spaces, which are keenly filmed in the craven hope that something bad happens. In New York so far this year, their sets have been Grand Central Terminal and Broadway. (The latter being a suitable home for many involved, perhaps.) They may be coming soon to a sidewalk near you.
Once they’ve assembled, we have heard the same old misunderstanding of the First Amendment that characterized last year’s hijinks: that it legitimizes all behavior, providing that such behavior is in support of political protest. “OWS blocked Broadway! Being moved away by police. WTF!?” read one New Year’s Day tweet. WTF? It seems rather self-explanatory to me.
Given their history of dogmatic insistence that one has a right to squat on private property and ignore city ordinances simply because one doesn’t like them, it should come as no surprise that the Occupy brigade enjoys such a limited understanding of the Constitution. But this is more about the optics. Expect the-authorities-are-trampling-on-our-rights! to be a theme employed widely in 2012. It is no accident that the next major protest planned is on January 16, Martin Luther King Jr. Day; OWS is fully aware that “civil rights” holds a sacred place in the American heart and to appropriate its imagery can be a highly effective, if distastefully misused, political tool.
Occupy is not merely physically homeless, but politically and existentially so as well. Their tactic of protesting banks and corporations is in large part the product of an unwillingness directly to criticize an administration that is by and large their own, but this has the added effect of keeping them out of the larger political structure. So, unfortunately for them, will electoral gravity. As the election nears and President Obama is forced back into synthetic centrism, OWS is unlikely to find itself the beneficiary of many more overtures from the DNC, and, with a general election looming, a repetition of the early lukewarm support from the likes of John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi seems implausible.
Nor is Occupy likely to find a home among a majority of voters. Americans responding to Occupy Wall Street last year seemed barely capable of containing their indifference. As any petulant child knows, there is one thing worse than to be admonished, and that is to be ignored. Polls have shown that two-thirds of Americans have never even heard of OWS, let alone considered supporting it. So much for the “99 percent.”
During their pathetic attempt to retake New York’s Zuccotti Park on New Year’s Eve, OWS marched under a predictable banner. It promised a “New Year’s Revolution.” In reality, it is more of a devolution. At its height, Occupy was a few thousand leftists in a park. Now it is a few hundred leftists without a park and with a couple of faculties that really should be put to a more productive purpose. The occupiers can walk around in the desert for as long as they like, but they will never escape the mirage.
– Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate atNational Review.
OWS reminds me of my youthful stupidity in SF during the late sixties and early seventies. Most are naive kids in their twenties. The older members are just stuck on stupid. The anger and frustration are misplaced and disproportionate. Most will mature and become Conservatives. They will enjoy some success in life, and find some happiness. The others will always be disappointed and deluded. Happiness and success are preceded by accomplishment,not indolence or dependence.
This is a pretty predictable outcome for a "movement" which never developed a coherent message. "We are the 99%" means nothing in terms of socio-economic status or demographics. Most of these protesters were just incensed that their $100,000 college degrees in Gay and Lesbian Basketweaving didn't land them a $250,000/year job at a Wall St. investment house.
I say good riddance.
"...barely capable of containing their indifference." What a great line.
When I was young and in a bratty mood, Dad used to advise Mom to: "P.N.A." I was twenty-three before I figured out what they meant, and by that time I had a sweet little daughter who occasionally needed the same treatment.
Movement schmovement, the OWS brats are acting-out.
I think they should protest the Oscars. Think of all the limos they could use for toilets. Camera coverage would be good, and they could contrast their creative garb with that of the 1% in Hollywood.
If you want to see "petulant children," take a look at the Tea Party. In 2011, their tantrums over the deficit helped drive the approval rating of the Republican-controlled, do-nothing Congress to a robust 11%.
OWS isn't leading the Democratic Party around by the nose, but it has put the issue of income inequality front and center for a change.
"...Republican-controlled, do-nothing Congress..."
66, it should be brought to your attention that Congress consists of a Republican controlled House as well as a Democrat controlled Senate. I would suggest that those robust approval ratings apply equally to both chambers. I'll also add that when the House was under Democrat control, Congressional approval was even lower.
Finally, expressing outrage over deficits that are about to bankrupt the nation probably qualify as more than the "tantrums" of "petulant children".
How does one determine what level of income is equitable? How does one define income inequality? What is income supposed to represent?
Stupid slogan, comrade maksutov. Income Equality. How would you define it? How would you enforce it? In what way is "Income Equality" even remotely better than merit based, or value based, income? Why should the fact that someone spent an inordinate amonut of money to obtain a credential that nobody wants to reward in any way entitle them to "Income Equality"?
The "issue" of income inequality is only an issue for naive sheeple who chose to avoid taking responsibility for their own well being and prefer to require others to care for them.
Eric T. -- Your illustration "60K and 100K getting a 20% raise...." is an example of the thinking that has created a disparity of 1000 fold, not just the 2 fold of 72k/120k.
We now have 400 people with a greater net worth than the total net worth of another 150,000,000 people -- about half the population of the USA!
We don't want to destroy wealth. It has just gotten to the point where the power of the wealth has block the other 99% from getting things done that they want in government.
"Here's a reduction in your payroll tax. Are you happy now?" NO.
Should we all pay income tax on our "un-earned" income? YES.
I have to say, I find the numerous contradictions about the occupation movement to be quite enlightening. Why is it that when the various occupations were being evicted from parks across the country, the National Review deemed this a good thing, and that occupying those parks was not essential to their "incoherent message", yet now their "homelessness" is a major problem? Neither case is true.
Occupying public land (the parks) was an attempt to stay within the law...yet the law was ignored by local governments as they evicted one group after another, denying people their basic constitutional rights...which I guess are no longer something the conservatives support, since I hear so little outrage over this coming from conservative camps. The occupations were nothing more than a recruitment tool, and the police happily obliged by knocking skulls and drawing media attention to the occupiers. Each major incident resulted in a massive influx of new recruits.
The occupiers have moved beyond the parks, for now. The weather made many of them difficult logistically, and there were better things to focus on. I wonder how many regular people hang out in Zuccotti Park these days...probably as many as before the occupation...none. It was never a popular park...but I digress. The movement is now organizing how to go about achieving the limited goals that have been agreed upon at the General Assemblies. The ground troops are currently occupying foreclosed homes, helping to keep the families in them.
In the Spring will return the occupations, the mass protests, and new things that we haven't even tried yet.
Really? Please, please, let it be so! Great news, just in time for the primaries, and to remind the actual 99% (whose rights you were eager to squat on in November-December 2011) of the many logical reasons to vote conservative! It was never lawful for you to take over the parks.
You do NOT speak for me - or for most Americans. Quit insisting that you do.
What basic constitutional right were the OWSers denied? The federal Constitution allows people to stay in private property against the wishes of the owners indefinitely? I must have missed that one. Even where the parks were public, the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on use. Derived from English Common Law and the concept of wastage, which does not mean what most OWSers probably think it means. You don't have the right to waste what belongs to everyone, hence the reasonable restrictions upon use.
I am fond of the enchanting use of terms such as General Assemblies. Almost like a civics lesson. I guess a few of y'all got degrees in something other than worthless arts and crafts and allegedly oppressed persons studies. And ground troops. Hmmm... rather militant. For a group allegedly representing 99% of the population, you'd think you wouldn't need to resort to such military-minded responses. But I forget, even you guys know you don't represent 99% of anybody, let alone the whole country. Heck, I'd wager that you don't even represent 99% of the people in your "movement" (not that the dissenters would be allowed to voice it).
Particularly fond of the new things you haven't even tried yet line. Very fourth grade of you. Not sure of the utility of the word "even" in the sentence, given that the things are self-described as new, and, by definition, not yet tried. Even..
"...ground troops are currently occupying foreclosed homes...". So, they've gone from occupying public property to squatting on private property. Such a noble group.
Dear Sir -- You sell papers with your biased adjectives and artistic sentence structure. The Occupy movement is not about putting up tents. That was an early move to get attention. Now, more than the 1/3 of the population that you claim, know that they are part of the 99%, and they understand that they're going to gain as the movement progresses. (Progress will be slow, unless the wealthy turn to violence to attempt to supress it.) The Occupiers' aim, for the 100th time, is to to get money out of politics, primarily. Did you hear it this time? The bias of legislators and laws favors that wealth stay with the wealthy. We do not want to destroy wealth. We do not want to destroy Corporations. We are simply correcting what nearly every economist and political scientist will tell you -- the extreem economic disparity that has developed in this country is not healthy for democracy. The wealthiest have even used their power to persuade a lot of people, like you, that the status quo is good for them, too. It ain't, if you think about it. - CivilizedNation.US
OWS="Get money out of politics". No, sorry, that's YOUR interpretation of what OWS is all about. It seems every single person who identifies with OWS has their own agenda. Just as "Hope and Change" can be interpreted in any way an individual wants. so does OWS. It renders it meaningless.
If you really wanted to get the money out of politics, you'd have joined with the rational folks in the Tea Party. That IS what they are about.
"You sell papers with your biased adjectives and artistic sentence structure."
Because nothing sells papers like adjectives. "Antediluvian" increases sales by 2% per use.
My friend, money will be involved in politics, as long as politics are involved in money. Want to reduce the influence of wealth on government? Give government less influence in deciding who gets wealthy.
Follow
