As demonstrated by the Occupy Wall Street movement's role in defeating an Ohio bill that would have slashed collective bargaining rights for public workers, there is real potential for the OWS movement to carry out lasting political and electoral change. Despite this success, however, it is important to remember how much banks and other members of "the 1%" have been able to influence politics by working within the political system.
As such, OWS protesters should re-evaluate tactics they are currently using to get their messages across. OWS participants would be far more effective in achieving political change if they spent less time participating in mass demonstrations and more time copying the tactics of formally-organized political organizations.
In the U.S., elected officials and media outlets are conditioned to digest information through the prism of congressional committees, lobbying groups, interest groups, Political Action Committees, non-profits, think-tanks, pundits, and foundations. Given the entrenchment of formally-organized groups around lawmakers and journalists, OWS participants would be more effective if they create focused, issue-oriented organizations that can reach out directly to politicians and the media. "We Are The 99%" written on a piece of cardboard is far less authoritative sounding than a press release from an organization called something like "Citizens for Sensible Banking" or "Americans for Corporate Tax Loophole Reform."
Time spent building and rebuilding tent libraries is time that could be better spent building and re-building long-term relationships with media outlets. Start by writing letters to the editor en masse. Continue by reaching out to individual journalists at local TV, radio, and newspaper outlets with story ideas and angles, and maintain regular contact with them. Public relations firms exist to cultivate relationships with journalists and to feed them stories that show their clients in a favorable light. As nearly every major bank has a PR firm, and nearly every political organization issues press releases, OWS supporters need to build organizations that can broadcast their own set of easy-to-digest talking points about their positions to journalists and producers, and have organization representatives on hand to respond to attacks and criticisms. This way, the OWS movement can reach people who may be turned off by the imagery of protesters clashing with cops, but also fed up with the current economic situation.
More importantly, time spent occupying parks, streets, and bridges in a town or city is time that could be spent campaigning for OWS-sympathetic candidates all across city, county, district, state, and national levels of government. Upstart candidates challenging incumbents bankrolled by various special interests need all the support they can get in connecting with voters. Canvass door-to-door for them during the day, and phone bank for them in the evening. Offer to write and edit press releases on the candidate's response to daily news issues, offer to design campaign literature, and offer to organize mailing lists, campaign appearances, and fundraisers. One more person spending a few hours a day helping out a small campaign is a far better opportunity to make an impact than being one more indistinguishable person in a crowd.
I'm not saying OWS participants aren’t already doing any of these things. But the longer a movement perceived by people who aren't part of it as simply "protesting for the sake of protesting" drags on, the less likely these protests will directly contribute to the legislative reform needed to change the flaws in the system. Getting people together in public to collectively voice their frustrations is a great start. But it's not the finish line for political change and never will be. Real political change comes from focusing on the nitty-gritty, mundane details of organizing, advocacy, debate, and statecraft that will actually compel lawmakers to take action.
As Marshall McLuhan famously stated, the medium is the message. With so much of the news media driven by television and the internet, OWS protesters should ask themselves which image they honestly believe that journalists, politicians, and the general public are more likely to have the credible message to rally behind: The image of a mass of black hoodies, Guy Fawkes masks, and banners with vague, handwritten slogans? Or the image of a business suit-wearing representative of a political organization with an "official"-sounding name and digestible sound bites?
The Discussion
Neither image is appealing. We are the most educated, underemployed least motivated generation to date. Which is why siege protest seems credible. A more active stance will arise to face our problems but it doesn't have to be in the guise of the same institutions that have proven our weaknesses.
The Occupy movement represents numerous issues, and what is needed is real UNIFICATION of those ideas. But, with so many critical ones, which are priorities? We need to FIX it ALL, for the sake of our future generations - OUR CHILDREN. OPERATION: KIDS FIRST! That's the unifier, the rallying cry!
A lot of people on this thread seem to think that OWS should choose a leader. I am forced to disagree.
The problem with an individual being a leader is that it gives your enemies someone to aim at. Discredit the leader and you discredit the movement. Being leaderless on the other hand makes it exceedingly difficult to get a bead on the movement to discredit it. Attack any individual and you've done nothing to the movement. Attacking the movement as a whole is a lot like herding cats, as the police in numerous cities across the nation are finding out.
1 Replies
#OWS needs to do more than protest consumerism. It needs leaders and a seat at the table where policies are formed. Support is waning #OWS, it time.
http://littlebiggy.org/4660547
People who think as the OWSers do have been doing all these things for years. (I write Letters to the Editor regularly.) It has changed nothing because the Entrenched Bureaucracy and Big Corporate Money are what run the country (and the media), and short of a full revolution you can't dethrone them. At least by their visibility the OWSers may get *more* people to do them, and *that* would be a revolution of sorts.
Jason, I appreciate your points, but your prescription for OWS is both premature and a bit off-target.
This all started just two months ago without the help of Fox News. Now most every single American knows about them and the concepts of "income inequality" and "99%" are household. I doubt a guy in a suit could have done better.
People like Ms. Warren embrace the OWS message, but as a leaderless movement, OWS asks us "What do YOU want to do?"
2 Replies
The Occupy movement needs to stop solely protesting and start actively striving towards change. Some may say that's what they're doing- but unless a movement has leadership & a mission that will never happen. Some demands they have I'm not sure are too realistic- such as getting rid of student debt.
Unless this movement is turned into political action OWS will fade into history. OWS needs to learn from the tea party and affect a political party. The tea party's most influential action was not creating a party but pulling the republicans towards them. OWS needs to attempt to pull democrats towards them.
3 Replies
The point of the demonstrations were to draw attention to the unjust and unethical practices of our financial elites and they have done this spectacularly, but the demonstration were not or at least should not be indefinite. The next step is to begin formulating solutions and picking representatives and take OWS from the streets to the halls of power.
Though our democratic systems are ill, we still have them. This isn't Egypt or Tunisia where there was no way to work within the system but we have options they never have and we should make use of them.
1 Replies
The truth is that there is no there there to the OWS "movement." Protesting IS the movement. Action is not. These deluded people are under the mistaken belief that protesting is an ends in and of itself. Quite unlike the Tea Partiers that translated their ire into actual political action, these OWSers will not. In fact, they despise every vestige of the system, so it is virtually impossible for them to affect it! They are outside it by choice.
2 Replies
If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten.
OWS has raised some money in its short time in existence, but less than $1M. Not even chump change in the world of lobbying, PAC's and formalized bribery. If they go the route you suggest, they are joining and reinforcing the "business as usual" that they are protesting against. Any power they have would be lost in the requirement to raise money. In order to raise that money they would be forced to go to the very people they want to take power from. A self defeating activity.
OWS has shown knowledge and wisdom in their actions. They are doing exactly what they need to do an they are doing it in exactly the right fashion. Change would defeat them.
7 Replies
Disagreeing with all of you, below. Official press releases from OWS...my Aunt Fannie!
Look, I understand where Sal and Phil come from when they voice opposition to OWS; they've lived through the 60's and 70's the way Jon, Darwin and I have...there are some things we elders "get" because we've seen them before that Millenials don't understand because they are new to you. This understanding crosses our political divides.
Protests by their nature are motley and organic...handwritten slogans on signs, masks, drums, theatrics are all part of the way in which they both make themselves accessible to "common folk" AND attract attention to the cause.
If you dislike noise and crowds; are uneasy at the idea of civil disobedience and
1 Replies
While I agree with you, I think OWS will have trouble implementing your idea. The central message of OWS seems to be that the political system is broken---unwilling or unable to address the needs of the 99%. Attempting to effect change through the political system contradicts this message.
Thus, though I hope they find a way to have impact, I expect OWS to fizzle, much like the "tent protests" that happened in Israel last summer.
7 Replies
Hold on, lets not overstate OWS's role in Ohio voters rejecting Issue 2 earlier this month. The union-backed "We Are Ohio" outspent its main conservative rivals on ads and activism by a 4 to 1 margin. Big union money drove that bus.
...and "Citizens for Sensible Banking"? A main part of the reason that OWS has garnered so much attention stems from is because of its inflammatory character. I don't disagree--a more mature and professionalized organization is needed to carry the OWS message into the future, but we wouldn't be talking about it if protesters hadn't conquered Zuccotti Park two months ago.
1 Replies
Mr. Prechtel, your essay is a refreshing change from the assault I was subjected to in recent days after posting an article about the shortcomings of OWS, a response I fully anticipated. Well done.
By focusing on specific issues rather than ranting about all the evils of American society, OWS could potentially achieve it's destiny to be a meaningful force. The alternative is to create chaos that may result in violence.
In my essay I spoke about the potential of violence and was slammed because commentators insisted OWS is a peaceful endeavor. Unfortunately peaceful protest could turn violent and pit American against American if either the protesters or the authorities act badly. In either case it would be a sad ending to this story.
Nothing else to say then, Here Here! Right on the button.
Hard graft, campaigning and commitment will see OWS far better then erratic protesting movements and the sporadic use of social media.