The scene at Kerr Park in Oklahoma City last Friday was fascinating. Standing together were both protesters adorned in the stars and stripes, and those clad in the merchandise of their favorite punk band.
Despite that the meeting was primarily procedural, planning for future protests, it was still something to behold. The single unifying principle was they were “the 99 percent” and they were upset with corporate influence.
Immediately apparent were three interrelated threats that also stand true for the Occupy movement as a whole. Those threats are being disorganized, being co-opted and misunderstanding the root of the problem.
Near the end of the meeting, Edmond Memorial High School senior Grayson English noted his concerns that outside of agreeing “the 1 percent” was “being [unprintable synonym for ‘jerks’],” there didn’t seem to be much of a message. The sentiment so far seems to be roughly something to the effect of, “What do we want? We don’t know! When do we want it? Now!”
Individuals within the movement seem to have plenty ideas of their own. Kalen Kattestad, education senior, said she was interested in libertarian solutions, such as combating the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. However, when the proposition was made for the Occupy OKC movement to have Oklahoma-centric demands, many in the crowd reacted negatively, one saying he didn’t want any “of that libertarian crap” to be part of the demands.
Regardless of what the Occupy movement’s message turns out to be, it certainly needs to have one. Without clear, concrete demands, the movement can make no impact other than showing people are mad.
Further, it leaves the movement susceptible to the false salvation of politicians, more than willing to co-opt the movement for their own gain. Already, mainstream progressive politicians such as President Barack Obama have begun to claim they are responsive to the complaints of the Occupy Wall Street protests. It is absolutely crucial that the Occupy movement rejects this false kindness.
Though many in the Occupy movement would be insulted by the comparison, they would do well to note the recent historical tragedy of the Tea Party. Initially very libertarian, principally enraged at the bailouts and even with strong anti-war sentiment, it fell apart as soon as Fox News and the Republican Party gave their “help.”
Almost immediately, the decentralized grassroots libertarian operation was transformed into a cringe-worthy Astroturf display of conservative populism. The original intent of the Tea Party has even fallen so far down the memory hole that Paul Ryan, who voted in approval of all the bailouts, is now considered an archetypal Tea Party Republican. For the Occupy movement to turn into a Democratic Tea Party would do nothing but silence this brief public outcry and stifle any attempts at real change.
The final problem faced by the Occupy movement is the most unavoidable. Most political discussion is essentially a fake argument: big business versus government. Seeing the two as somehow in conflict, critics of government reflexively defend inequality and the actions of big business, as the product of a free society. Critics of big business see government as the answer, able and willing to defend the interests of common people and create social justice.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The malign nature of Wall Street as we know it is the monstrous creation of its symbiotic relationship with government. Almost all government action — not only including, but especially, regulations — serves the already financially powerful.
Industry giants know they cannot survive with the power they do in a truly free market. Thus, they lobby for their own regulations, which prevent smaller businesses from getting off the ground, while the Walmarts of the world can absorb costs like a speeding ticket. Small businesses are not the victim of corporate victory in market competition but of corporate fear of market competition.
There is reason to be hopeful for the Occupy movement. However, there also is reason for cynicism. Real change only will occur when the public has clear demands that cannot be twisted by power-seeking politicians, and do not just feed the problem by treating a government in constant collusion with corporations as a solution to the problem of government collusion with corporations.
Jason Byas is a philosophy junior.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
valgor665 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I don't understand the charge "they are disorganized". What protest is completely organized from day one? What does it matter that it is organized from day one? Solutions to problems have to exist before starting a protest?
Like most people that hate this protest, I get the feeling you are quoting only the dumbest of protesters. Is this true? There are plenty of intelligent people out there, but anti-OWS people seem to only find the dumbest and then claim this is what the protesters are like.
You attack OWS for not having clear goals (which is crap if you read more from official sites) while praising the Tea Party movement with a clear goal that failed. One reason for not having a single goal and allowing ideas to grow in the protest is that the protest cannot be hijacked. Once you label them, you can corner them and defeat them. Contrary to what you say, "it leaves the movement susceptible to the false salvation of politicians, more than willing to co-opt the movement for their own gain." Politicians and unions and whatever can spout all day long how they support the movement, but the people know how much those groups support them by the action that group takes. OWS has not and will not allow any one group control them. That is the point of the 99% rhetoric. We are literally the 99% of the population, not liberals or conservatives or whatever.
There are plenty of right leaning people out there. I met a few the other day passing out flyers about why we should end the Fed. Left or right, corrupt and fraud are not acceptable.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the difficulty in establishing an entire set of demands in detail is because there is so much wrong with the system. There is too much to be against, and each demand is no easy undertaking to accomplish.
I'm interested in your tale on Kalen Kattestad. ".. many in the crowd reacted negatively". How many was this negative crowd? Was it an overwhelming amount that caused her ideas to be shut down completely? Not everyone is going to like everyone's idea. That's what goes along with a direct democracy. All I see is a chance to educate people. Her and her friends should continue trying.
I guess my biggest problem with your column is this: OWS is an open movement looking for ideas and solutions to problems. Instead of writing off the protest as leftist crap that will ultimately fail (since you know the future) why not use your column to write about your ideas and what you would like to see out of the protest? Personally, I would much rather try and help this protest accomplish what I want to see accomplished and have the protest fail rather than sit on the side lines with my thumbs down and see the protest accomplish something.
SgtB 7 months, 2 weeks ago
@ Valgor665,
I have to say that I personally think this occupy wall street movement is nothing more than an echo of hippy culture and it is primarily against capitalism. I also think that it is fair to say that if you don't have a solution to the problem... stop screaming about it until you do have a solution and then scream that at the top of your lungs. Right now, the only ideas being tossed around are to end the fed and to tax the hell out of the rich. Past that it is a hodge podge of mixed ideas that alot of the organizers are trying to suppress by telling people to stop posting demands online.
The idea to end the fed is something that I'm sure most Tea partiers would agree to and it would go a long way to stopping our wealth theft through inflation which causes the need for people to work longer and save more.
However, when your group calls for an end to capitalism, the one socioeconomic plan that involves direct price competition and entrepreneurship that brought this nation from a group of colonies to the most wealthy nation in the world, they are being idiots. I understand that alot of them are frustrated that gov't bails out banks and businesses or that businesses lobby Congress for all sorts of regulations or incentives. But that is not capitalism. That is gov't sleeping with business ( both parties in this duopoly system ) and it is called crony capitalism because it masquerades as true capitalism but is far closer to fascism and national corporatism.
Jason is right when he says that regulations generally lead to stifled marketplace competition. Just look at food or cars for example. Even though there is a market for unmolested milk (not pasteurized), it is illegal for such a product to be sold in most states and it is especially illegal to cross state lines. And in cars there are more regulations than anyone can count. Pretty soon all cars will be required to have traction control systems, what does this do to the entrepreneur who want to make cars that are simple, cheap, efficient, and low maintenance? It completely cuts him out of the market! Just look at aptera, they have a backorder for their 100mpg car and they are still sinking under regulatory weight and will probably go under soon. Or how about the first remarkable case, the chevy corvair. It was ahead of its time. A 4 cylinder rear mounted engine in a small car that seated 5 and got decent mileage. It was the first car of its kind from an American auto manufacturer and it was killed by Ralph Nader who sued over safety reasons. In a Libertarian society people would have been free to access the information about the car and its safety performance if they wanted and if they bought it it would be of their own choice and their own acceptance of risk, not because of a gov't mandate or lawsuit by a third party.
SgtB 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Oh, and to tax the hell out of the rich will do nothing because the "rich" you speak of are wealthy enough that they can avoid tax by simply moving to another area or even easier by just moving their money there. Also, it is a known fact that you cannot place a tax on a business that will not be paid by its customers. So if you tax corporations, you will pay for it at the store. Also, you will do double damage by making exportation from this country (The only way to gain national wealth) even more costly, inefficient, and unprofitable.
You should read some of F.A. Hayek or watch some of Milton Friedman's video interviews on youtube.
kalen 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I'm Kalen Kattestad. The story seems to have confused the issue. I talked with Jason personally about having more libertarian discussions about Ending the Fed and the problem of using more government to solve the problem. I did not propose this personally to the General Assembly, as I did not feel it was the right time or place to be making these demands.
But there were several in the crowd that felt that "Oklahoma-centric demands" were out of line because Oklahoma is such a right-leaning state. We are trying to get that message out there, but realizing it's an uphill climb because people don't truly understand the root of the problems with Wall Street and Government in collusion. That's a symptom of an overall problem...
I'm well aware of how direct democracy works. And how, sometimes, it doesn't because it's often the loudest voices that win. People go along with the consensus because they don't want to be shamed into not agreeing. It's an interesting experiment, to be sure. We've talked in some of the working groups about using an umbrella type statement that reflects all and realizing that demands aren't going to fit everyone's personal views.
allonemind 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"WE" for I am one of these protesters you speak of Do know what we are doing. You are the ones that don't know what you are doing.
If you cannot see that our so called "GOVERNMENT" is corrupted. you are the ones without a "PLANNED" set of action.
YOU will know our plan of "ACTIONS" and what we are doing, when we do it.
This is a movement. Open your minds and you will be enlightened.
Why don't you GO investigate in the TRUTH. are you scared you will lose your job? because I believe any wise person would agree, We know what we're doing.
SgtB 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I forgot, you are NOT 99% of the population.
allonemind 7 months, 2 weeks ago
narrowminds think alike. our country is not ran by the government you see.. you see puppets.
BethIsbell 7 months ago
Hey Jason ... doesn't being a philosophy major actually require you to think? Maybe even think about ways to make the world better, rather than deriding those who are actually committed to and actively working toward that goal? You're making my alma matter look bad. I know they teach you better ...
If you want to know where this movement is headed, read this ... I know, it might require thinking, but put down the beer & the porn mag, and read, you can do it! :),
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150362182527351
KanalleyPark 7 months ago
There's a petition open to anyone asking Occupy OKC to apologize to the community of Oklahoma City, each other and the participants who left because of intimidation, naming enemies, and an atmosphere of fear and conspiracy that turned ugly, driven by the drug crowd in order to keep everyone quiet about the X-popping and drug use they forbad in the park. Here is is (copy and paste a link):
Press Release: http://bit.ly/rGiu6f
Petition: http://chn.ge/uTBaTB