Eliot Spitzer: Why Occupy Wall Street Has Already Won
October 15, 2011 |
Photo Credit: Sarah Jaffe
The following article first appeared on Slate.
Occupy Wall Street has
already won, perhaps not the victory most of its participants want, but
a momentous victory nonetheless. It has already altered our political
debate, changed the agenda, shifted the discussion in newspapers, on
cable TV, and even around the water cooler. And that is wonderful.Suddenly, the issues of equity, fairness, justice, income distribution, and accountability for the economic cataclysm–issues all but ignored for a generation—are front and center. We have moved beyond the one-dimensional conversation about how much and where to cut the deficit. Questions more central to the social fabric of our nation have returned to the heart of the political debate. By forcing this new discussion, OWS has made most of the other participants in our politics—who either didn’t want to have this conversation or weren’t able to make it happen—look pretty small.
Surely, you might say, other factors have contributed: A convergence of horrifying economic data has crystallized the public’s underlying anxiety. Data show that median family income declined by 6.7 percent over the past two years, the unemployment rate is stuck at 9.1 percent in the October report (16.5 percent if you look at the more meaningful U6 number), and 46.2 million Americans are living in poverty—the most in more than 50 years. Certainly, those data help make Occupy Wall Street’s case.
But until these protests, no political figure or movement had made
Americans pay attention to these facts in a meaningful way. Indeed, over
the long hot summer, as poverty rose and unemployment stagnated, the
entire discussion was about cutting our deficit.
And then OWS showed up. They brought something that had been in short
supply: passion—the necessary ingredient that powers citizen activism.
The tempered, carefully modulated, and finely nuanced statements of
Beltway politicians and policy wonks do not alter the debate.
Of course, the visceral emotions that accompany citizen activism
generate not only an energy that can change politics but an incoherence
that is easily mocked. OWS is not a Brookings Institution report with
five carefully researched policy points and an appendix of data. It is a
leaderless movement, and it can often be painfully simplistic in its
economic critique, lacking in subtlety in its political strategies, and
marred by fringe elements whose presence distracts and demeans. Yet, the
point of OWS is not to be subtle, parsed, or nuanced. Its role is to
drag politics to a different place, to provide the exuberance and energy
upon which reform can take place.
The major social movements that have transformed our country since
its founding all began as passionate grassroots activism that then
radiated out. Only later do traditional politicians get involved. The
history of the civil rights movement, women’s rights movement, labor
movement, peace movement, environmental movement, gay rights movement,
and, yes, even the Tea Party, follow this model. In every instance,
visceral emotions about justice, right, and wrong ignited a movement.
Precise demands and strategies followed later. So the critique of OWS as
unformed and sometimes shallow may be correct, but it is also
irrelevant.
Just as importantly, most of those who are so critical of OWS have
failed to recognize inflection points in our politics. They fail to
recognize that the public is responding to OWS because it is desperate
for somebody to speak with the passion, and even anger, that has filled
the public since the inequities and failures of our economy have become
so apparent.
Will the influence of OWS continue? Will it continue to capture the
imagination of the public? Will it morph into a more concrete movement
with sufficiently precise objectives that it can craft a strategy with
real goals and strategies for attaining them? These are impossible
questions to answer right now.
Could it launch a citizen petition demanding that a Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz,
or Paul Volcker be brought into government as a counterweight to or
replacement for the establishment voice of Treasury Secretary Tim
Geithner? Maybe. Could OWS demand meetings with top—government
officials? Could it demand answers to tough questions—from the specific
(explain the government’s conflicting statements about the AIG-Goldman
bailout) to the more theoretical (why “moral hazard” is a reason to
limit government aid only cited when the beneficiaries would be everyday
citizens)?
There is much ground to cover before real reform, but as a voice
challenging a self-satisfied, well-protected status quo, OWS is already
powerful and successful.
Eliot Spitzer is the former governor of the state of New York.
No comments:
Post a Comment