I didn't go to the May Day protests. I did my best to keep up with the coverage though, and aside from the few instances of mayhem that made everyone look bad, and the police brutality that made mostly the police look bad, there was one thing that has struck me about the occupy movement that hasn't changed in nine months. They aren't organizing, or communicating effectively--or at least not in a way that is gaining them the support of the 99% of people they claim to represent.
Now before I get a gang of occupy supporters breathing fire down my neck, let me just say that we're all on the same team here. I support the central tenets of occupy, and I've been working on many of the issues we are trying to address since well before the tents went up last September. I want this to succeed. I want us to fix our broken political system by ridding ourselves of the undue influence of money in politics, and then go about addressing all the other complex issues we face as a society. I want reasonable, respectful, responsible, honest discourse about how we can move together toward a more sustainable, peaceful, and equitable future.
And okay, I know that in a movement this big there are always going to be fringe elements, and people who show up just because they like to protest, and there isn't always going to be 100% control of the message, and unfortunately the media's tendency to sensationalize things means that they often gravitate toward those with the most colorful costumes and language, but since we know that to be the case, we really need to do a better job of avoiding these pitfalls. Complaining that the media does not cover us the way we would want to be covered does nothing. Instead we need to be figuring out how to use them to drive the message we want to get out there.
There are millions upon millions of Americans who agree with us, even if they don't know it yet. The problem is they haven't heard a coherent message or plan that has compelled them to get involved. The parents toting their kids to soccer practice and band rehearsal and trying to figure out what to do for dinner. The small business owner who is working 70 hours a week and spending all his free time with his ailing mother. The single mother working two jobs just so she can afford to pay her rent and her utility bills and feed her kid. Everyone who doesn't have much interest in politics, who is too busy living their daily life, but knows that something is wrong even if they can't quite put their finger on what it is. These are the people we need to reach if we are truly going to build a movement that can really be a force for positive change.
Unfortunately, if any occupy-related messages are reaching these people at all, too often it is the wrong message. Let me present Exhibit A. This bus was part of the Occupy LA protests. Does anyone see a problem here?
As pro-fabulous as I may be, I am definitely not anti-capitalist, and do not think this is a message that resonates with the majority of people who associate themselves with the occupy movement, and certainly not with a majority of the American people. Anti-crony-capitalist? You betcha. Anti-greed and corruption? Most definitely. Anti-corporatist? Sure thing. But not anti-capitalist.
Now if anyone wants to challenge me, and explain why occupy should have an anti-capitalist agenda, let's talk about it and see if we can't find some common ground; for just because I think that capitalism has its merits does not mean I think it is always the right solution. In fact, pretty much all first world countries are a blend of socialism and capitalism, and I think that this makes sense, so long as both are subservient to the democratic will of the people.
But unless we can come to a consensus on the central message and central goals, agree on a plan of action to achieve those goals, and keep the message focused, and free of distraction, I am afraid that we may miss our opportunity to really make the changes that we seek. And this goes beyond telling the 9/11 truthers, PETA people, and supporters of legalizing pot and gay marriage to go home, or at least not bring those signs and instead focus on the core message: corruption in democracy that stems from special interest money in politics. There will be a time and a place for all those other things, but unless we address the systemic issue first, none of the rest of it matters because we'll be fighting the same battles all over again in twenty years (for a case in point, see all the recent attempts to roll back progress on women's rights).
So there is still this struggle to focus the message, but there is also another struggle--one that involves groups that are seemingly competing when they could be working together, which is detrimental to the movement as a whole. Exhibit B, from the Occupy National Gathering site:
The national convention of delegates on July 2nd in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is a product of the 99% Declaration affinity group and does not have the endorsement of the Occupy Movement. The 99D project employs methods that the Movement has found disconcerting including representative governance, closed meetings, and exclusionary tactics. (See the whole release)
The National Gathering ALSO plans to meet in Philadelphia around July 4. Now, the biggest problem is that 99% of the general public has no idea that EITHER of these things is happening, much less what the difference between the two is, or why there is this internal split, but it is strange that the National Gathering seems to be trying to compete with the 99% Declaration and attempting to delegitimize it rather than working side by side, especially if you are on the outside looking in.
Now, I find it disconcerting that the authors of the above statement, and presumably a large majority of people regularly participating in these general assemblies find representative governance "disconcerting". I mean I think our founding fathers chose representative governance for a reason--namely because the more people involved, the less tenable direct democracy becomes. I mean I understand the appeal of horizontalism, and I think democracy should be as direct as possible, but we also need to be practical here.
Just from personal experience, I sat in on a couple general assemblies, and it took about 3 hours to decide if Occupy LA would endorse a candlelight vigil for some thing or other. Now imagine this on a national scale. Even if you didn't have to spend 20 minutes on the rules every single night, the process can be tedious, and is not well understood by a lot of people. They argue points of process that don't really make sense, as in one instance where an objection not to the substance of a proposal, but to the person who was making it led to a discussion that lasted nearly half an hour.
That and a lot of people just want a chance to be heard. And it's not that their grievances aren't real, or compelling, but at a certain point, they are all basically saying the same thing, even at times arguing two side of the same coin. And don't get me wrong, it's good that they are adding their voices to the conversation, but a lot of people don't have the time, motivation or patience to sit through these assemblies or participate in this part of the process. This doesn't mean these people who aren't participating don't have real solutions to offer either, or may not offer their support once they see a solution they can get behind, but they aren't sitting around waiting for people to come to a general consensus on what the movement should be about or whether it should or should not endorse a particular action or position.
And that is what I believe happened in this instance. Mr. Pollok, who has spearheaded the 99% Declaration and has now dubbed the event Continental Congress 2.0, was rather impolitic in the way he went about things. He didn't play by the rules of the Occupy General Assembly (neither did the woman who started Bank Transfer Day, by the way, though I haven't heard anyone rebuke her for it). He did however get shit done, and put his name and a lot of his personal resources on the line to do it. And yes, he may have made some transgressions and missteps, but whatever they were, they do not take away from the open, democratic platform he has been instrumental in creating. One that, for its part, seems to be more focused than the National Gathering, with a clear goal and more developed plan.
At the end of the day though, the goals of the National Gathering and Continental Congress 2.0 are one and the same. This is direct representative democracy at its best, if we can get our act together. People should gather in Philadelphia, and have teach-ins and build networks and share solutions via the National Gathering. People should also become delegates for Continental Congress 2.0, because this is an historically unprecedented thing that is now happening, and could be a big part of the solution if we do it right. But we need unity, and we need laser focused messaging.
So let's set aside our differences and focus on our common goals. This is about the influence of money in politics. It is about corporations being treated on equal footing with people and money being equated with speech. It is about shadowy special interest groups willfully misleading people, preying on fear and prejudice, buying elections and buying politicians. It is about the compromising of our democracy, our economy, our planet, and our values. And finally, it is about the people reasserting their power.
Our Constitution. Our Country. Our Government.
May God bless the United States of America.Help Build the People's Platform.