So there has been a lot of discussion about what the OWS movement's demands are or should be. I've seen people like Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone talk about how he thinks the movement is doing the right thing because at the moment they should keep their message vague and keep growing because that is an end in it's own right. Then they can whip out the demands later.
I have also of course heard the complaints on Fox News about how the rabble are unfocused and useless because well . . . it's Fox. Hence why I'm not linking to anything because I'll be damned if I'm going to give them one cent of banner ad money.
Thus far these are the two strongest arguments I have seen, the strong argument for OWS, and the strong argument against OWS, but they both miss a very strong point.
What if the "demand" is just simply a demand for democracy? Here is how I was taught about democracy growing up. It's not a simple definition. It's more of a philosophy, but it is kind of necessary groundwork for why I think what I do about OWS.
There are multiple sides to an issue, but we'll say for simplicity of explanation that there are two sides to an issue. The people who feel strongly about those two sides come together and talk about what they want, why they want it and why they are opposed to to the other side. You find common ground and accept that you will at least act on that common ground. Then each side sees if they can accomplish what they want and need while not doing the things that the other side is opposed to. By trying to accommodate the other side, while not sacrificing the things that are truly important to you more common ground is identified. Someone puts together a decent draft proposal that includes the common ground you've come to. It's voted on and after tweaking your solution enough to convince the majority it will be better than what you have right now it's passed, whatever it is. No one person gets everything they want, some people will always be against the entire proposals, but the wisdom of multiple points of view are taken into account. It's a slow process, a messy process, a process that bruises egos. In the end it's a terribly flawed problematic process that just happens to be better than everything else humanity has tried thus far.
There, democracy in a nutshell. The issue with it is that it requires people to actually try to solve problems. The instant the goal isn't actually about solving the problem at hand the entire thing falls apart because the basis of negotiation falls apart. That is what we have been living in since Obama was elected (and to varying degrees for decades before that). The Republican leadership has very clearly stated that their primary goal is making Obama a one term president. It's not that they want to be a counterbalance to his excessive liberalism (I'm sorry, I'm going to need a moment to go laugh hysterically in the corner having just typed that), but instead their goal is just to get him out of office by making sure that nothing gets done while he's president. They assume that the population won't notice because they control the messaging, and are used to a populace that doesn't really pay attention. It's just kind of how it is. The politicians are bought, and they are only interested in maintaining their power structure. No matter how corporate Obama is, and no matter how much he isn't fighting for as much change and hope as he should be, he is fighting for some legitimate movement in the right direction and that terrifies those truly in power (read: corporate political complex).
The 99% has a single demand, but it is a demand that is so completely foreign to America at this point in our history that we don't even recognize it. They want democracy back. So what are they doing about it? They are participating in democracy whether the rest of our country and especially our country's power base want them to or not. There has been a lot of talk about how non violent everything has stayed, and that is starting to get more and more attention which is what makes the events in Oakland that much more powerful and the response from the mayor incredibly powerful.
It's not that the movement "should" keep growing then at some magickal point "decide" on some demands and hand them over to our leaders. The Occupy movement IS the people, and that's not how the people work. What the occupy movement should, and I suspect will end up doing is exactly what it is doing now. It will continue to grow while the politicians stare at it and try to figure out what is going on, like a 2 year old learning social skills they might some day get it. It will be a messy, but ultimately healthy process just like the rest of democracy in action.
The more people start to talk about this, talk about the nature of democracy and stop trying to figure out "What the protesters want" as if any democratic process EVER lead to a coherent goal or set of goals, the sooner we will make real progress and our society can get back on track.
No comments:
Post a Comment