Grievance is the electricity of the powerless. It energizes masses. Yet, lacking bright vision, cursing the overlords cannot become a political program. Cures need calm confidence. Complaint awakens protest, but it is insufficient for transformation. Escaping dark plagues begins collective action; spying Canaan must follow.
In our dour moment in which citizens of all stripes are taking to the streets, the plazas, and the parks, we see accusing placards, but no persuasive manifestos. As sociologist William Gamson has pointed out, the first step is to demonstrate an “injustice frame” as a precursor to action. Point taken, but it is a start.
Despite their manifold and manifest differences, the polyester Tea Party and the scruffy Occupy Wall Street protests have at least this in common: palpable anger and resentment. We feel at the mercy of distant puppet masters, and elites in pinstripes and in gowns have much to answer for.
Neither the Partiers nor the Occupiers are wrong to recognize the sway of elites, even if they are not sufficiently aware of those powers that stand behind their own movements: David Koch, the Alliance for Global Justice, and FreedomWorks. Anti-elites are the playthings of the powerful.
Yet, despite their backers, both the Partiers and the Occupiers are solidly 99%’ers. Both radicals of the left and upstarts of the right think that there is not so much difference between the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration. The oil establishment and the financial services establishment could share breakfast of caviar and champagne, discussing whether their interests are better served by this president or the last one. Peasants with pitchforks are on no guest lists, whether they dress in denim or dacron. Despite partisan bickering, it is easy to feel that on the basic issues of security and capital the gap between competing establishments is small. I am struck by how little fundamental restructuring, hope and change has brought. The same powers will control health care, energy development, and financial services.
The fatal illusion of the Tea Party Movement is that America could have a smaller government, without programs cut, and more freedom, by allowing those with control to have less oversight. The Tea Partiers treasure the idea of a stripped down government, but what they call for is a government that provides largess without controlling that largess. A sincere Tea Party would be talking about slashing safety nets and insuring that small businesses can compete against corporations that, in effect, operate as governments. The Tea Party supports in fact a conservative movement whose desires are sure to permit few of its dreamy members to enter that one-percent. (At least the collegiate corner of Occupy Wall Street movement has a few budding oligarchs in their midst). The grievances are real, but blurred, and the solution of freezing government spending at past levels is dishonest in its unwillingness to make tough choices about programs.
The Occupy Wall Street collective also has its illusions. Are they socialists, naïfs, the distraught, or simply leeches? Whichever it is, they too smell rotten fish. In order to establish a movement – a congregation of collegiate radicals, union members, and impoverished minorities – these occupiers of tiny bits of public space drew a cartoonish enemy: the super wealthy fat cat, erasing the class fractions of Barbra Streisand, David Koch, Glenn Beck, Oprah, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet. And they are right in that each, despite varied political positions, demands social stability, governed by those wise oligarchs that they prefer.
But something essential is missing. It is what George H. W. Bush ineptly, if memorably, called the “vision thing.” I have observed a South Carolina Tea Party rally and a Washington OWS encampment, and in both cases, I was struck by an absence of a call to greatness. Consequential leaders – Kennedy, Reagan, King, Bush in the days after 9/11, and campaigner Obama – have persuaded us that we are a city on a hill, imbued with destiny. Effective movements begin in grievance, but end in achievement. Ultimately, neither group has a vision of America transformed, bathed in golden light. Who speaks for a revived America in which we reconsider our institutions? It is easy to ask for more and cheaper student loans, a safety net for home buyers, banks that can never fail, and Medicare for everyone, all on the cheap. But will this produce a robust nation? Anger is a tonic whose bitter tang is but a jolt. To last, an infusion of communal faith is what matters. The Partiers and the Occupiers taste a jangly, acrid past; what they need is to brew a chamomile future.
can the vision thing grow organically from the movement or will it happen slowly over time, if the protestors are able to impact electoral politics. I agree that the slogan of “anti-corruption” is too vague but my sense is that what is targeted is not the elite but the very specific practice of the corporate backing and ultimate ownership of politicians (all the way up to the president) and I do not know what it would mean to actually have a plan to change that—- it will need to be changed bit by bit, policy by policy, it will cumbersome, time consuming and just not very sexy.
Does OWS need ‘Leaders’ with ‘Visions’? The very idea is absolutely ghastly. Keep repeating those words in the mind: Leader with Vision… Leader with Vision… Doesn’t it make one shudder as if confronted with a rotting corpse, which is precisely what such an idea will turn OWS into?
The Tea Party, within two years, was an institutionalized K-street configuration of think tanks funded by the Koch brothers with a House caucus and a leader who certainly has plenty of visions: Michelle Bachmann.
I think the answer you are looking for is called ‘whatever singularity.’
My apologies, that came across far stronger than I intended. To put another way, traditional forms of political mobilization both through charismatic leadership and entering already failing institutions are precisely what lead to hierarchy and corruption and ultimately failure.
I often have disagreed with Gary Alan Fine, and I don’t fully agree with him here, but I find myself agreeing more with Fine than Doug, in this case. I give the occupiers a lot of credit for fortitude camping out through all sorts of horrid weather and making what I think is a very clear point. The system is stacked against the 99%, and inequality has grown exponentially in recent decades in this country. This is not healthy economics and should even worry the 1%. But in answer to Doug, I don’t have to envision Michele Bachmann. Unfortunately, she is a reality too often before me in the media, and she and her compatriots are causing real harm to real people. We live in a real world, which needs real solutions to real problems. One way to counter a Michele Bachmann could be to elect Elizabeth Warren, and inspire more Elizabeth Warrens. The real Elizabeth Warren has been denounced and called ugly names by a Tea Partier. We can’t let the Tea Party get what it wants. There has to be a real movement against them, with political leaders.
I think OWS has already impacted electoral politics by moving Obama further to the left, as least in rhetoric, and I am not bothered by the movement’s “blurry” message. because at this point factionalism may result from a narrowing of the movement’s focus; however, I think combining a specific demand, hopefully wrt limiting the influence of money in politics, with direct action as mass convergence in Washington D.C. could make a significant impact. That at least is my “vision thing” for what is possible.