Unless you live in a cave or watch Fox News (not that the two are mutually exclusive) you’re likely beginning to hear about Occupy Wall Street, a movement opposed to the negative influence corporations and the wealthiest one percent have over American politics.
Occupy Wall Street recognizes the lack of legal repercussions over the global financial crisis and seeks to draw public attention to this. It was inspired by the Arab Spring movement, particularly the protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square which resulted in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution.
The aim of the demonstration is to begin a sustained occupation of Wall Street and to draw attention to the misdeeds of the banking industry and to call for structural economic reforms. Organizers intend for the occupation to last “as long as it takes to meet our demands.”
When Occupy Wall Street began on September 17, scant attention was paid to it by the mainstream, corporate media. The major networks, cable news networks, and newspapers treated it as an afterthought, if at all. CurrentTV host Keith Olbermann was critical of his colleagues in the mainstream media:
Why isn’t any major news outlet covering this? … If that’s a Tea Party protest in front of Wall Street …, it’s the lead story on every network newscast.
It was not until brutal and questionable actions by the New York City Police Department against non-violent demonstrators, such as the use of pepper spray on those already corralled into “kettles,” that there has been some broad media recognition of Occupy Wall Street.
Yet, the media hasn’t quite acknowledged its rationale. After the late-2007-2009 recession left many countries on the edge of financial collapse, a Canadian-based activist group called the Adbusters Media Foundation began to mull over the concept of a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest the financial and political status quo and the failure of the U.S. government to create effective change in the ongoing global financial crisis.
In Summer 2011, the organization took action. As a senior editor of the Adbusters magazine recalls:
[They] basically floated the idea in mid July into our [email list] and it was spontaneously taken up by all the people of the world, it just kind of snowballed from there.
Although Occupy Wall Street was proposed by Adbusters, the demonstration is mostly leaderless. Hacktivists from Anonymous encouraged its followers to take part in the protest, which increased the attention it received. Other groups followed, including the NYC General Assembly and U.S. Day of Rage.
The protest was coordinated with similar events throughout the United States and as of September 27, the Occupy Wall Street site reported that “52 cities were occupied or organizing” including Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago, and these efforts have been coordinated by OccupyTogether.org.
Because the movement had no central leadership, the demands of Occupy Wall Street were initially nebulous, but soon gelled enough to call for President Barack Obama to establish a commission tasked with ending the influence corporate money has over our representation in Washington.
More demands are forthcoming, yet the basic message is that Wall Street is teeming with criminality and unfettered political dominance by dispatching hordes of lobbyists and showering our political leaders with contributions and favors. And it is this control that allows the the one percent to demand the ongoing servitude and suffering for the remaining 99 percent; people who are losing access to good jobs, decent health care, and their social safety nets. Meanwhile the one percent feasts on government welfare for itself and sucks dry our nation’s collective wealth.
There has been a groundswell of support for Occupy Wall Street from educator and author Cornell West, filmmaker Michael Moore, actress Susan Sarandon, media mogul Russell Simmons, and writers Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein among others.
Klein’s is notably articulate in her support and damning of the movement’s naysayers:
This is not the time to be looking for ways to dismiss a nascent movement against the power of capital, but to do the opposite: to find ways to embrace it, support it and help it grow into its enormous potential. With so much at stake, cynicism is a luxury we simply cannot afford.
West has addressed the dismissal of Occupy Wall Street by critics who claim it has no clear or unifying message:
It’s impossible to translate the issue of the greed of Wall Street into one demand, or two demands. We’re talking about a democratic awakening…you’re talking about raising political consciousness so it spills over all parts of the country, so people can begin to see what’s going on through a set of different lens, and then you begin to highlight what the more detailed demands would be. Because in the end we’re really talking about what Martin King would call a revolution: A transfer of power from oligarchs to everyday people of all colors. And that is a step by step process.
Despite getting kudos from Klein and West for its raw, youthful energy, Occupy Wall Street needs to tidy up its act. Ultimately, the footage the public sees on the news is that of bedraggled kids with torn jeans and oversize t-shirts emblazoned with marker-etched slogans blocking traffic. Is it no wonder why the media has become keenly focused on the movement’s lack of refinement? The protest needs an extreme makeover; it needs its demonstrators to look more like middle America. They need to be seen in blazers and khakis, and it must telegraph the frustration of those in those in their senior and middle years. The public needs to see demonstrators that look like their parents, grandparents, and neighbors. This connection must be established for the movement to succeed.
This is where the Democratic Party comes in. While there have been heroes of financial reform within its ranks, like Eric Schneiderman and Elizabeth Warren, many Democrats–particularly in New York–choose to ignore the suffering and frustrations of their constituents. Unfortunately, other Democrats are even accessories to these derelictions.
Democrats–or at least those still with souls–need to take a stand and support Occupy Wall Street. They need to embrace the movement and not be idle. They must recognize that this is just the beginning of a revolution, and one that should eventually have the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans; I believe it is only a matter of time.
I’m speaking particularly to Democrats in the city and in neighboring counties in Long Island, New Jersey, the Lower Hudson Valley, and Connecticut. I’m speaking to politicians, activists, and committee members. These are the people with the organizational tools, the networks, and the supporters to help this movement along. These are the people that can validate the demonstrations and bring legitimacy to the movement.
If Democrats fail to take to streets, it will be a failure to affirm one of the party’s basic tenets, and that is to look out for the well-being of 100 percent Americans–the wealthy, the middle class, and the poor.




28 Comments

What legitimizes the movement are bodies in the street.
The message is clear & un-muddied right now: “Here is the Enemy folks–it’s name is WALL STREET”
Making a laundry list of grievances begins to separate people into groups. That old Imperial Trick of Divide & Conquer.
This is virtually everybody vs. virtually nobodies who are the predator class–the 1%–our self-appointed rulers.
The reason bodies are in the street are due to the MASSIVE FAILURE of the people you are appealing to to “legitimize” this revolt against the system.
Hire cops and firemen
lay off ceo’s and bankers
these people in ny are american citizens, patriots stand with them….
Democrats are corrupt. They are in no position to bring legitimacy to anything. You must mean former Democrats.
Why “mainstream” Democrats won’t endorse and worse, why they are actually pissed :
http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-reason-many-liberal-and-progressive-elites/
Repeat after me : The Democratic party is a contradiction. It can be either for the capital or for labor. It can’t be for both, sorry. And it is imploding from within because of the contradiction. Don’t you see it is a joke that there is a progressive “caucus” within what is supposed to be a party for the masses? The party exists for the elites to co-opt/deflate any viable left opposition. We need to end “Too big to fail” for the Dem party, let it crash & burn. So we have an opening for a genuine labor/populist party.
Saying “Democrats are corrupt” or calling it a contradiction is a bit harsh, but both of you are correct to an extent; much of the Democratic Party has sold out to the big money that funds our political process. But within the Democratic Party there are populist and progressive heroes like Schneiderman and Warren that I mentioned above. It is also the party of Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, John Lewis, and Keith Ellison. There is a progressive caucus that can and should be leading the party, and it will if the left wing of the party stand up.
I know that you’ll never see Barney Frank, Ben Nelson, Carolyn Maloney, or Chuck Schumer lift a finger for Occupy Wall Street, but perhaps its time that the others spoke up. There is no way that a third party can emerge from the Democratic Party right now; the revolution has to come from within.
People with refinement don’t do what the occupiers are doing. You would let the unrefined take all the risks, then your kind move in and use it to get YOUR Democrats elected while the unrefined are thrown under the bus.
Not impressed.
The Democrat Party destroys everything they touch.
Everything.
They need to stay the hell out of this. If Obama tries to support this, he will be ridden out of town. If he had done his damn job, none of this would be necessary. If Dems won’t do the work, then we shall do it for them.
When we’re done with Wall St., Dems are next.
Couldn’t have said it better.
fuck the democratic party
the protesters are doing just fine
agree completely, esp re obama
this is the same movement that obama commandeered in 2008 under false pretences
the democrats are the problem not the solution (and it goes wo saying, i hope, that the gop is flat-out demonic)
Nor I. Superb, funkygal!!
“Revolution from within” is a contradiction in terms and in understanding. It lacks “revolutionary consciousness”. “From within” implies “reform”; not revolution.
As was stated above, you cannot compromise with capital’s corruption. It must be destroyed by limiting the gap between rich and poor. Even the most “liberal” Democrats refuse to confront this reality.
It is nonsense to try to regulate the damage caused by an excessive concentration of wealth. You either have power or you don’t; great wealth will not allow you to impose regulations on itself. The wealthy elite must be stripped of their excessive wealth because the vox populi cannot flourish until wealth is more evenly distributed.
Liberals try to narrow the wealth gap with progressive taxation. It doesn’t solve the problem. Even if you taxed income at 90%, the 10% remaining would still allow the wealthy elite to gain a greater and greater share of national wealth. Wealth must be stripped and capped because excessive wealth equals excessive power. Russ Feingold is not going to do that; neither is Kucinich or Warren or any of your other liberal heroes.
The situation is urgent. Global corporate power has become dangerously concentrated. The world’s natural environment has never faced a greater threat. US empire is strangling the very fundamental idea of national sovereignty. Human rights and human dignity have been enslaved by global corporate tyranny. Poverty and starvation are rampant and climate change, caused by the fossil fuel companies, and the poisoning of the world’s food supply, caused by Monsanto’s GMO insanity threaten the lives of billions.
The world is ablaze and all we are offered by liberal Democrats are safety net enhancements and calls for peace that cannot succeed because the military-industrial complex, controlled by massive corporate dollars, dictates the terms.
Liberals cannot lead the party, as you suggest, because they refuse to confront, head-on, the disparity of wealth. They fail because they see it as somehow un-American or perhaps politically impossible to call for the massive seizing of wealth from the ruling elite. And, sadly, therein lies their Achilles Heel and their ultimate ineffectiveness.
Electoral politics is a dead-end. We need to look for answers among the 99% and call all citizens into the streets to demand changes that will never evolve from corrupted legislatures or from corrupted courts.
“When we’re done with Wall St., Dems are next.”
I don’t think we can be done with Wall St. without getting done with Dems first —- or at the same time. Not next.
Otherwise, in total agreement. I see signs the Democrats are already trying to turn the whole movement into a giant political rally.
You nailed it, little doggie. As usual. Thank you.
The protesters need to “tidy up their act?” What’s the matter, liberal, afraid they’ll disrupt your latte’ supply?
And no, they don’t need the Democrats. The Democrats are part of the problem. They are every bit as corporatist as the Republicans, and Obama takes his marching orders from Goldman-Sachs and Jamie Dimon. The idea that the Democrats will actually support the OWS demands is ludicrous. The most they will do is try to co-opt them. No thanks.
This diary is ultimately asking how do the Democrats take over Occupy Wall Street in the same way the Republicans took over the Tea Party? The answer is they can’t and they won’t.
During the Bush years, the Democrats could function as flimsy opposition to the Republican agenda. Now the Democrats are the face of that very agenda. They are the face of the GWOT; they are the face of Wall Street influence and corruption; they are the face of AIPAC; the are the face of the re-distribution of wealth from the poor and the middle-class into the hands of the richest 1%…I could keep going on and on but you get my point. The Occupy Wall Street movement is one of the powerless standing up against the powerful. The Democratic Party represents power, they are fully owned and operated by the richest 1% and therefore can’t touch with a ten foot poll a movement that seeks to challenge this inequity.
As for the protesters lack of refinement, I can only imagine that it must be baffling that so many people are responding positively to these “bedraggled kids with torn jeans and oversize t-shirts emblazoned with marker-etched slogans blocking traffic.” It’s because as the middle-class lose everything they’re getting angry, and until now, there’s been little outlet for that anger and the feeling of helplessness that comes when you see your way of life slipping through your fingers. These “unrefined” kids are giving voice to their anger and frustration. We are the 99% – and we don’t need to see images on television of nice, refined middle-class people in jackets and khakis to relate to them. It’s their MESSAGE we relate to – they are giving us a voice at last.
So thanks for your concern Mr. Weathers, but I suggest you moveon.org because this doesn’t belong to you and the Democratic Party and you will not be able to clean it up and control it.
All my blazers are out of date and no one wears khakis any more. You’ll have to take me as I am, sorry.
How about my suit coat over my best Wranglers? Will that be a proper uniform?
Besides, the last thing these kids need, is all you liberal Democrats hanging around Liberty Park in your sharp casual blazers and pressed khakis.
And here are Nader, Ron Paul, Kucinich, Noam Chomsky, about Occupy Wall Street:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xrSR552IXA
Obama On Collision Course With His Donors
What a great conversation – are the Democrats worth supporting? I think there are some, but some that need scuttling. Which way will Obama go?
This story is not going away – since the police brutality investigation, JPMorgan made a $4.2 million donation to the “Policeman’s Ball”.
This is a clear message, trying to drive a wedge between middle class cops and their middle class countrymen, by buttering their bread.
But that means the protest is having an effect – now can they just make that a mandatory annual recurring contribution? That’s what the public is asking – to stop evading their full contribution to the needs of the public interest.
From the banks view, this was done to prevent lawmakers to assess fees for extra police details like polluters are forced to pay to make the taxpayer whole from environmental clean up.
But pay careful attention to the media coverage, the NY Times covered this ONLY when Forbes mentioned a huge whitewash the day before (Day 12 or so), and then got caught revising copy to help the NYPD look more justified in their wide scale arrests yesterday.
Now we are in a countdown to how long it takes before this becomes a campaign issue. Will Democrats embrace OWS indeed? A better question is who will come down to the daily rally and grab a bullhorn?
Fan out, kind reader, participate, get involved and ask your elected officials on all levels how they weigh in. Get them on the record now. This is “media” activism that will promote useful public debate.
Check out how Reagan’s own OMB director says Reaganomics got it wrong – he split with Reagan then and has only been proven more right today, claiming the GOPs “new cadre” has been continuing in blind faith despite the worst results imaginable.
Remember this guy was one of the original architects of Reagan and the GOP economic policy, saying it is leading us into an economic apocalypse…oh, and the Democrats stink too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html
“OWS needs the Deomocratic Party like a fish needs a bicycle.” — Irina Dunn
oops.
“OWS needs the Democratic Party like a fish needs a bicycle.”
adapted from the original:
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” — Irina Dunn, feminist
To answer one comment, I have never said a thing about the Democratic Party co-opting #OccupyWallStreet. What I said is that they must embrace it.
And to address the comments about my “tidy up their act” comment, I think that American history is on my side. In the 1960s, the original antiwar and equal rights demonstrators were disaffected college students for the most part. It wasn’t until people that were more part of the mainstream joined these two movements that people took notice.
It’s doesn’t necessarily follow that OWS shares meaningful analogies to movements during the 60s (though it’s possible). What seems quite easy to envision is that as exposure increases, the meaning of OWS will resonate with more folks from mainstream U.S.A. (in all its diverse incarnations) without regard to the hygiene or attire of the WS occupiers.
Then, yes, even more people will take notice.
mr. weathers,
OWS will remain outside of the democratic party and i hope it is warry of the unions, the national leadership of which are tools of that party. the message is that we are not democrats, we are the people and we demand justice for all and a functional democratic government so that we can begin to intelligently address the problems of poverty, civil liberties, equal treatment under the law, usury and global warming. the democrats are opposed to these objectives. anyone who has wittnessed what the democratic party and obama have done over the last three years knois quite aware of that. the movement is not interested in being co-opted by a corrupt political party.
uh-oh, here comes trouble:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/02/1022198/-MoveOn-Joins:-Calls-Virtual-March-on-Wall-Street-to-join-with-Live-March-on-Wednesday
I never said the movement belongs to me, nor have I ever suggest that the Democratic Party co-opt the movement. What I AM saying is that this is a time to put up or shut up…I am hoping for the former. They’re supposed to be the party that takes care of all Americans, now is the time to show it.
As far as the demonstrators are concerned, I am NOT saying that these kids should get khakis and blazers. What I AM saying is that people that look like middle-class and middle-aged or older, that it shows that most of America is disenfranchised. If this for the 99 percent, then it should look like 99 percent of the population.
I am not asking the protesters to change their dress, I’m asking middle America to join in the fight.
And going back to the anti-war and feminist protests during the ’60s. It wasn’t until the parents of soldiers and former soliders joined in the protest and it wasn’t until professional women joined the protest that people started waking up to these movements. These demonstrations get legitimacy when the demonstrators look like middle America. That is all I’m saying.
And to the person who calls me a “latte-drinking liberal.” You are so far off the mark. I grew up knowing poverty, I knew what it was like to be the poorest family in my town, and I know what it’s like to make sacrifices. Nothing has ever been handed to me. That caricature of me is wholly unfair. And besides, I only drink regular joe.