Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
It’s surely no surprise that my response to whether Occupy should or shouldn’t “be the left’s tea party” is the latter. That’s my Two Party Front for the Oligarchy perspective. The status quo-ed corporate Duopoly system is working just fine for those for whom it’s designed to work just fine. Serious challenges and changes require efforts from within and without that system. Occupy is creating “outside” space.
Last week Josh Harkinson, at Mother Jones, wrote Why Occupy Should Be the Left’s Tea Party. Harkinson has reported on the Occupy movement for months, but in this piece writes as a “pundit.”
A few days later, Max Berger – an “Occupy organizer” – wrote at OWS, Why Occupy Can’t and Shouldn’t Become the Progressive Tea Party.
From Harkinson:
… if the movement is going to sustain the kind of momentum that captured the nation’s attention six months ago, it must begin to evolve in a different direction. …
I have the utmost respect for original OWS organizers … who took the art of calling bullshit on the political system way further than the chattering classes thought it could go. …
In the early days … Occupy Wall Street seemed poised to grow in any number of directions. There were people who wanted to make concrete political demands or get involved in electoral politics, and people who didn’t. … (M)any of them were happy to collaborate with more mainstream groups, such as labor unions, on protests against common enemies like Wall Street.
For a while I believed that this kind of limited partnership could be enough to keep the Occupy movement relevant. … This has certainly happened to a degree … .
Though politicians don’t always fulfill their promises, history shows that social movements tend to advance when they help elect people who at least feel compelled to listen to them. …
Since the Occupy movement probably can’t stomach campaigning for Obama, it could instead loan its 99 percent message to MoveOn.org and the unions and progressive PACs … . But while occupiers are justifiably skeptical of Obama, they’re also unjustifiably paranoid about being co-opted by Obama supporters … .
Occupy activists … seem to think that MoveOn is taking its orders from the White House. In reality, MoveOn polls its 7 million members on which candidates to support … . What Occupy really ought to do … is plunge directly into electoral politics on the local, state, and congressional level. It ought to co-opt the Democratic Party.
Though Occupy could support many sympathetic candidates in Democratic primaries, some pundits haven’t pushed the idea because they worry about a tea party effect on the left, with liberal Democrats losing to Republicans in the general election. …
… Occupy has drawn attention to the rigging of the political system by boycotting it. Now it can campaign against that political system … by working to elect people who will unrig it.
From Max Berger:
As long as there has been a thing called Occupy Wall Street, there have been people who’ve suggested it should become the left’s version of the Tea Party. Josh Harkinson’s piece is a notable contribution to the conversation … suggest(ing) that Occupy should recruit and run candidates … . According to this logic, it doesn’t matter if Occupy does this itself or essentially outsources the job to our progressive allies … .
(Before Occupy) … I didn’t see how the left could create real change in America without taking control of the Democratic Party. Now I think it’s important to recognize that the problems we face … can’t be solved … even by electing more good Democrats. A progressive Tea Party would be a welcome addition, but it wouldn’t be nearly enough to create the kind of change we need. …
… Starting a progressive Tea Party is a completely legitimate, useful goal—but it’s something for the progressive institutions to take on. …
… the unfortunate reality is that our political system as presently constructed is simply incapable of responding to people’s needs. … The Democrats’ inaction (following 2008) proved that our political system was designed to serve the whims of the market … .
My generation doesn’t … hate the player, so much as we hate the game. … The system is fundamentally incapable of healing itself. …
Occupy transformed the public debate by naming the problem —gross inequality of wealth and power—and the cause: the power of Wall Street. …
…The Occupy Movement would be derelict if we focused on the electoral at the expense of systemic change. The entirety of civic life cannot be reduced to a get-out-the-vote campaign. …
… Like the civil rights, women’s rights, environmental movements before us, we can’t afford to ignore the electoral realm, but we also shouldn’t expect to succeed by voting alone. …
For all those who think it’s essential to work within the progressive established ways and methods of doing things, do that. For all who think it’s essential to work outside that system, do that. Harkinson and Berger show it’s possible to disagree without attacking the other, and to see merit in the other’s perspective. Expecting Occupy to do your progressive electoral work for you would make no more sense than Occupy expecting the progressive establishment to do its non-electoral focused work for them.
The history of progressive interests that have morphed into or created political pressure groups is not an inspiring one. Most seem to be taken over by the Democratic Party eventually. The only way that Occupy is likely to remain a force for progressive change is by being a motivation for the politicians to do the right thing, not as yet another political front for one party or another.
I think you have it right, Cujo, in terms of the kind of “force” Occupy can be. And unfortunately, I think you’re also right that the “history of … political pressure groups” isn’t “inspiring.” It’s a very hard job, just working not to be taken over.