In its Dec 2 edition, The Week asks the question, "Will the crackdown end the movement?" In the following paragraphs, opposing views are presented by columnists from major news outlets from all points on the spectrum.
Arun Gupta of Salon.com asks "Can an occupation movement survive if it no longer occupies a space?" He provides his own answer, saying that the movement can, indeed, survive but it has to change in order to do so. He relates the reaction of Occupy Mobile -- a little-publicized part of the movement that is important for the fact that it sprang up in one of the most conservative cities in the country. After being shut down by city government, the small group staged a silent protest at an ArtWalk being held. The protest involved more than a thousand people according to Jason Carey, cited in the column as one of the participants in the protest and a victim of a police beating during his arrest on the final night of the encampment.
Mike Gavin, columnist for the Wall Street Journal expects Occupiers to concentrate on political results by backing candidates who support their causes. But, he says, "that will be impossible unless somebody takes charge, narrows the focus, and identifies exactly what they want changed." This is no surprise because those who represent and speak to the one percent have never gotten the message of what the movement is all about. It does have a focus and a purpose. This was stated eloquently by Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post : "There is a central idea, by the way: Our financial system has been warped to serve the interests of a privileged few at the expense of everyone else."
He continues, "This is a conversation we haven't been having for the past 30 years. For politicians -- and those who pay lavishly to fund their campaigns -- the discussion is destabilizing because it does not respect traditional alignments. For example, white working-class voters are supposed to be riled up against Democrats for policies such as affirmative action and gun control. They're not supposed to get angry with Republicans for voting to bail out the banks and then flatly ruling out the idea of relief on underwater mortgages."
David Carr in the New York Times is quoted in the magazine as saying "The people who make up Occupy Wall Street know enough to sense that a tipping point is at hand. Regardless of how the movement proceeds now that it is not gathered around campfires, its impact on the debate could be lasting and significant. If the coming election ends up being framed in terms of "fairness," the people who took to the streets, battled the police and sat through those endless general assembly meetings will know that even though their tents are gone, their footprint remains."
The problem with a footprint is that it marks the passing of whoever left it. It may provide a path for others to follow, but those who follow cannot join.
But the point being made by all of these respected journalists -- at least on my part -- is vividly accurate: occupation was and should be seen now, as only a beginning. There must be a second chapter -- a next step -- a stronger, louder, more insistent voice that demands, rather than requests, attention.
The occupation phase of the protest -- taken from the same tactics used by Spanish protesters who occupied Madrid's central square for four months to affect changes there -- was a terrific beginning for the expression of dissatisfaction and contempt for what our nation has become. But it is, by its very nature, a passivist method of expression. What is needed now is an activist approach.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
