Radicals, Liberals & #OccupyWallStreet: This is What a Populist Alignment Looks Like [New]
Cross-posted at BeyondtheChoir.org
Glenn Greenwald asked yesterday whether Occupy Wall Street “can be turned into a Democratic Party movement?”. He discusses how the tone of establishment Democrats has quickly shifted and how many in the Party—including the White House—are now clamoring to figure out how to ride the anti-Wall Street populist wave.
Judd Legum of the Center for American Progress even told the New York Times that “Democrats are already looking for ways to mobilize protesters in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012.”
After detailing the hypocrisy of a Party that is deeply in the pocket of Wall Street, Greenwald concludes:
So best of luck to CAP and the DCCC in their efforts to exploit these protests into some re-branded Obama 2012 crusade and to convince the protesters to engage in civil disobedience and get arrested all to make themselves the 2012 street version of OFA. I think they’re going to need it.
Greenwald is right, I think. Very few of the committed folks who are sacrificing time, safety and comfort to make these occupations happen are going to switch uncritically into re-elect Obama mode.
However, the fact that establishment Dems are clamoring to figure out how to co-opt this energy is a serious victory for genuine progressives and Left radicals. This is what political leverage looks like. Radicals haven’t had it in this country for a very long time, and now we’re getting a taste of it.
Having leverage is perhaps the most important thing in politics. Without leverage, all you have is a political analysis. Trying to engage in political struggle with an analysis but no leverage is like coming to a gunfight armed only with the truth. Good luck with that!
Having leverage allows us to frame the national discussion and to pull forces to the left. How often are genuine progressives and radicals in a position where the major political parties are reacting to them? I think I can count the number in my lifetime on one hand.
Now, here’s what not to do. Don’t make these occupations a “radicals only” space for fear of co-optation. Radicals never have and never will have sufficient numbers to go it alone. We have to muster the courage and smarts to be able to help forge and maintain alliances that we can influence but cannot fully control. That’s the nature of a broad populist alignment. Will some parties to this fragile populist alliance try to stab radicals in the back, throw us under the bus, and claim all the credit first chance they get? Likely so. The thing to do about that is to organize better, to make it so you can’t easily be disposed of — because you are too connected to too many people who will throw down for you. That’s good organizing and that’s real politics.
This is why I find Steve Horn’s piece at Truthout yesterday so unhelpful. His article titled MoveOn.Org and Friends Attempt to Co-Opt Occupy Wall Street Movement argues that “the liberal class is working overtime to co-opt a burgeoning social justice movement.” First, I think the piece is unfair. I think that MoveOn and Van Jones are legitimately interested in doing whatever they can to support this movement, and I appreciate the capacity that they add. But even if you concede his main point—that liberals want to co-opt a more radical agenda—so what? Sure, let’s not have any illusions here, but does Horn seriously not want to involve liberals in this effort? Do any progressives and radicals seriously think we will be able to achieve the kind of change we imagine without engaging large member organizations that aren’t as radical as us?
This isn’t a moment to draw rigid lines. It’s a moment to beat the crap out of Wall Street, and to encourage as many people as possible—including people we may not particularly like—to do the same.
What Do You Think?
7 Responses to 'Radicals, Liberals & #OccupyWallStreet: This is What a Populist Alignment Looks Like'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Emocrat [New]
Wednesday, 12 Oct, 2011 at 10:17 am
Absolutely spot on, methinks.
I’m not at all concerned about this becoming a “radicals only” space, since I’m not seeing that. The other day I dropped by just to try and talk with a couple people about this very question. I didn’t find anyone who could speak to this. I did find a half-dozen very newly radicalized people, but they don’t see themselves as radicals at all. I’m going to go back and spend more time there next time (I’m in San Diego). Actually, as far as the movement goes here, the main problem is turnout isn’t what I’d like it to be. But this area has a well deserved rep as being remarkably apathetic and conservative. But the media has been okay thus far, with daily coverage the first few days and most of it was reasonably positive. That’s something of a milestone in this town.
Also agree about the Dem apparat. Good luck with that Bigfoot operation! You’re going to need it!
I just don’t see that working at all. I found a lot of hostility towards incumbents in general, but Obama in particular. Why? Because a lot of these people were Obama voters who feel betrayed. OFA screwed up when they activated all those young people just to leave them twisting in the breeze. In this sense, they’ve created the means of their own destruction.
Right now, there is more interest in forging good relations with the cops than the Democratic Party. So I don’t see how the Dems avoid being hurt in all this, right along with their frenemies (a term that seems designed for party politics) in the GOP.
As for the word “leverage,” while your point stands quite well, I would respectfully submit it’s aiming too low. The reason is that it’s not decisive. It suggests on an emotional level that some policy tweaking will suffice, when that is clearly not the case. It makes no sense to gain leverage on a corrupt, broken system. Nor does it amplify the process of radicalization that’s already taking place.
It’s time to Reboot the System.
Well Liked:
5 
0
John Emerson [New]
Wednesday, 12 Oct, 2011 at 6:57 pm
One thing I’ve thought is that to avoid cooption they should put out a mix of “realistic” (achievable within the status quo) and “unrealistic” (requiring major change) demands. If only one or the other, either they’re coopted with small victories, or they end up in a decades-long, multigenerational struggle with little actual payoff.
This seems sort of simple-minded, but I’ve seen a lot of groups fall on one side or another.
Emocrat [New]
Wednesday, 12 Oct, 2011 at 9:08 pm
While your logic seems quite right, I don’t think we have the luxury of time. Resisting Bigfooting is a simple matter if you’re after Really Big Things. It’s when you get into technocratic thinking that Demands become something malleable, defensible and thusly, “dealable.” The demand for Demands is little more than a demand to Make-A-Deal. From what I’ve seen thus far, many seem to appreciate the quality of the demand from the establishment. It’s very much worth it to avoid that kind of thinking at this juncture.
For one thing, the identity of the movement is still being established. This takes time, in a society as diverse and large as ours. “We are the 99%” is a great start, but masses of people have to actually adopt it as their own for it to take decisive proportions. People have to cast off decades of bullshit to actualize that simple thought.
So I’m suggesting “demands” be far reaching at this point. If that’s unrealistic, so be it. Because if there’s one thing we all know, it’s that we have a mass of unfortunately decisive problems to deal with and they can’t be dealt with by making “realistic” demands, as that limits people to “the achievable,” which quite plainly isn’t enough to save us.
Taibbi suggested a set of demands today and for once, he really isn’t getting the gravity of the situation. We can demand the end of monopolies, as he suggests, but in order to do that we have to tear down much of the political establishment. So he’s putting the cart before the horse.
Let’s tend to the horse first. Once it’s properly fed and watered, then we can hitch the cart to it.
Tim [New]
Friday, 14 Oct, 2011 at 5:18 pm
For myself, the main value of Occupy Wall Street it that for the moment the media is presenting an alternate view of what has passed for dogma for nearly thirty years. We’ve had a monoculture of ideas in politics, economics, and in the media. Any alternatives to the de-tax, de-regulate, and suppress wages agenda has been ignored or waved away as non-serious, something the experts have discarded as useless or evil. My hope is that these protests will last long enough for enough people to hear the message and for that message to resonate and take hold in people first and the serious media soon afterwards.
But we’re not there yet. I’d also like to see this experience split in two waves, the people who protest on a regular public and even disruptive way and people who take that energy and turn it into a real political alternatives, no bigfooting allowed. Each effort would feed the other effort. Instead of expecting these protests to evolve into a clear set of policies.
As we’ve seen, politicians are only too happy to call themselves Democrats, promise what a majority want, then promptly push Republican policies once elected. Occupy Wall Street has the potential to hold any progressive policy makers honest. And expose the phonies like Obama.
Emocrat [New]
Friday, 14 Oct, 2011 at 6:27 pm
+10,000
Something tells me you are not alone at all. This rather seems to be the overarching theme, even when it’s not well articulated in a manner such as yours.
I don’t think most Americans even know what Neo-Liberalism is specifically, and yet they are very much putting it on trial. As are the Egyptians, Tunisians, Spaniards and so on.
The political development is already taking place. What I’m hoping for is that it coalesces around basic themes of Justice, Fighting Corruption and Democracy Reborn. That already seems to be there, so development is natural going forward. But getting into specifics now, before basic identity and recruitment have reached a decent level of fruition, would derail the project rather quickly. Critical Mass hasn’t been reached yet and I think that’s probably much more important for the time being.
This is a longer term project. We can push for things like Taibbi’s suggestion of ending monopolies, for example, but in order to do that effectively, the matter of corruption has to be addressed first, no? And that’s undoubtedly the toughest nut to crack of them all. When monopolies effectively own the government, how does one go about tearing them down?
On a strategic level at this point, this is partly a numbers game. Right now the movement is polling well even though no one really knows for a fact what’s happening. That’s terrific. When it becomes a veritable juggernaut, then a lot of things become possible. But until that time, it’s all still rather iffy. But it’s less iffy than it was yesterday, when Bloomberg’s girlfriend was threatening to evict the folks in Zuccotti Park. Who was it that backed down today?
So to riff on your thought, I’d organize canvasses in support of the demos. Pure grassroots stuff. Door-to-door outreach ops work better than anything. Because if there’s one thing that’s lacking right now, it’s a broader geographic territory. That’s also rather simply dealt with. I worked 40% of Colorado with 50 people in about eight weeks and unseated 5 out of 7 targeted GOP incumbents. Do something similar and local media will follow. Then ramp up the comm strategy to support the grassroots effort. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Still, for whatever faults any of might find in the movement thus far, it still keeps on chugging along. This morning was a good one. We all have to recognize that.
If I were a doctor, I’d probably say, “The patient is doing fine and gaining strength after a brief shock from the Mayor’s office. Prognosis is good.”
The local movements are going to suffer more in the short-term, which is why its so important to keep NYC growing. Dammit, I live in the wrong place!
John Emerson [New]
Wednesday, 12 Oct, 2011 at 7:00 pm
“Frenemies”: if you haven’t read Karp’s “Indispensable Enemies” already, do. You’ll love it. About D / R cooperation at the cost of their own voters.
Emocrat [New]
Wednesday, 12 Oct, 2011 at 7:59 pm
I have and couldn’t agree more. It’s one of the works that really did a number on my perceptions.
Both parties would be nothing without each other now. Within the broader polity, that makes a huge hole in the strategic landscape, methinks. Both parties are now so joined at the proverbial hip they can’t function without each other. The entire Democratic Leadership has made that painfully obvious over the last five years or so.
Impeachment (read: Rule of Law) off the table? Yep. That was the death knell of the Democratic Party.