Up close and personal: Participating in NYC’s Occupy protest

You may have heard about the Occupy Wall Street movement, also called the 99% movement. Contrary to some media reports, when you go to one of these protests you will get people from all walks of life to participate. This includes homeless people, hippies, older experienced activists, young college kids, international people and police participating. This means a realm of political and social beliefs is present.

The diversity of the movement was proven through my experience. Early in the morning, at about 9:00 A.M., I came near Zuccotti/Liberty Park with my family. There were two entrances, both with New York Police Department (NYPD) officers guarding them, meaning you had to go through police checkpoints. Once inside, once could observe twenty people sitting on benches in the park and occupying about 1/4th of the park. Half of the park was being power-washed by Brookfield workers and the other 4th was open space. One must take into account the nature of the protest itself: it has more longevity, different orientation and feel toward social dynamics, not just a one day march. One can get a feeling that people know each other and talk to each about their ideas.  As a result, it’s much more a movement about sharing ideas, not just demonstrating. This sharing goes on that doesn’t happen at usual demonstrations, housing sharing at encampments (not in New York) and overall it becomes like an alternate family, a social network.

Speaking of sharing with others, the first person I talked to called himself D.J. about what had happened and he mentioned a number of interesting points. He argued that there was a psychological reason to bring the walls in. There were (and probably still are to my knowledge) NYPD fences around the park, doubled up with another fence parallel around the whole park. It’s a bit hard to explain, but if you look it up, you can see what I’m talking about. Continuing with D.J., he believed the police wanted to intimidate the protesters with a huge presence, so they would leave. After that comment, he walked away.

There were two people that walked up to us (me and my family), hugging and welcoming us. When we told them we came from Baltimore, both of them thanked us for coming. In a conversation about Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, each one had a different view. One was an African-American male possibly in his 20s was reasoned, saying it was it was horrible the tents were taken down. He also noted it’s not going to get better since Mayor Bloomberg’s girlfriend is on the Board of Brookfield Properties which owns Liberty Park (note this is an unconfirmed report). We asked him of the day’s events and he mentioned a march later in the day to Macy’s to protest the buying of fur, which seemed to not be related to the original message of the movement. However, the older African-American lady decried Bloomberg, saying he should be killed. I could tell she really hated Bloomberg with a passion. The younger African-American who I mentioned earlier calmed down the discourse even though he didn’t like Bloomberg either. He spoke of Bloomberg having his money evaporate instantly.

Activity was low at that time of the day, so we left and went to Battery Park. What happened after that is something I’ll mention in a future article. Anyway, we came back to the park about an hour and a half to two hours later. The place was lively with the beating of drums which some critics say is ridiculous and won’t lead to meaningful change. These critics don’t realize the sound of the drums will attract people to join to cause and become part of the movement. People were beating with their drums and I decided I’d join in. For a little while banging a pot lid and a padded soup ladle together, a feeling came over me: I was more than something generated by my beliefs; I was part of a movement. We walked around, scanning it out, and then we left the second time with a family friend. What happened after that is material for a future article as well. That wasn’t all that happened to me.

The third time, coming back near the park, there was a noticeable difference: increased police presence. It seemed something was going to happen. Later I figured out it was probably just usual police posturing to scare occupiers. At one point, a group of 200 or more came by shouting their support for women’s rights and the Occupy Movement. The family friend started to become paranoid about the police presence. The rest of my family looked in one direction at what they thought was a police buildup throughout the day. Meanwhile, I looked the opposite way and saw a startling site.

A person, an older white male, was asking people for donations to OWS (Occupy Wall Street). He was also holding up a sign that opposed American military intervention in foreign countries by listing statistics on who died, since 9/11, along with other information. Suddenly NYPD officers rushed in; handcuffed him and he yelled: “I didn’t do anything wrong!” After they told he was charged with assaulting another, he yelled once more: “I didn’t assault anyone!” Camera took pictures of this affair while someone else on a notepad wrote down what he was saying. Less than a minute later, you’d never know he was there. A middle-aged man commented to me: “Isn’t it a police state?” speaking of America in general. I stated that I agree, even though it was a stretch to say that one incident made it a police state. Previously I had been debating the issue and now was the time to confirm it was a fact. I talked a little more with the man on the subject.

By this time, our family friend got so paranoid and thought that the police would surround us. So we left that corridor in front of the park. On the corner overlooking the park we watched and listened to the General Assembly. I wanted to participate, but it wasn’t possible with the paranoia of the family friend. We crossed the street and the marching occupiers came toward us (we joked) literally! They turned and went to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Earlier we had commented on the excessive security in the area around the NYSE. One would have to go through two checkpoints to even get in front of the stock exchange. Our family friend kept mentioning how much these tactics by the NYPD reminded him of fascism, saying it was very similar. After a while, he left and was off on his merry way. Then we followed the occupiers down to the corner overlooking the stock exchange, then back to the park.

This time we entered the park, not going on the perimeter. The police pressure has diminished dramatically. There were no police at either entrance into the park, only Brookfield workers. At first glance it was lit up and it looked like there was just a bunch of tourists in the park. Later it was apparent there was even more activity than before. In a sense there were a number of different stations addressing certain aspects of the protest itself. One area was more serious, called the “think tank,” where a knowledgeable man was talking about the Egyptian Revolution and how it was not calculated well by the activists in the country. I would believe that other revolutions worldwide were discussed there, revealing the impetus for the protest. Also, a former police officer, Sergeant Louis, I believe, was there. He was the one who was arrested in a nonviolent action in Philadelphia was there to talk. He called Bloomberg’s actions close to a dictatorship. He also recommended that when people participate in civil disobedience, they should offer to cut themselves so unnecessary injury does not occur as they struggle. A person named Michael of Philadelphia Weekly was also there and I introduced myself. He said I could send my blog to him and this gave me great joy that people respect political bloggers.

Finally, we went to the weekly story time, organized by an activist who said the stories presented would be given to Eve Ensler, the author of the play The Vagina Monologues and she would compile them into a book. She was a clean-cut, simply-dressed woman who seemed to be a college graduate or in college. Stories ranging from international occupiers to those from other protests in America were told. Each was personal to the occupier.

This brings me to another concept, the human microphone. NYC has noise ordinance, so those in Liberty Park couldn’t get a bull-horn. That’s why they came up with the human microphone. It’s the first time this idea has been used in a movement or demonstration.  “Mic check,” a common tactic that has been used to interrupt numerous political figures (President Obama, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Karl Rove, etc…) occurs with human microphone. When one is participating in the human microphone you fell more involved than just listening on the side.

Back to the stories. Some were seasoned veterans (one had been to the Occupy Wall Street movement in the Pacific region) who then came to New York, another was a college student who decried imperialism as the greatest terrorism ever, another was a high school student and another was from Ecuador and talked of his work with a student-led movement there. That’s just a sampling of the stories, the ones I can remember. Also at night, intellectual discussion and heavy-duty political discussion was more common. The level of intellectual discussion was elevated to a higher level, in part about political philosophy.

Before we left, I stumbled upon an American Indian activist who gave us his paper (for one dollar donation) and the Occupied Wall Street Journal. Then he talked of the Occupy movement representing other cultures as well and how he had to be there in solidarity. After that we left the site and I uttered: Goodbye! Goodbye! This experience left a lasting impression on me, something I’ll never forget. The future historians will remember this movement and say it stood up for something that was right, for what was needed: fundamental change.

A new political spectrum: solving problems of the left-right system

Almost every blog ends up with a battle over the current political spectrum that has liberal at one end, conservative at the other and moderate in the middle. There are other extremes mentioned like radical and reactionary, but it is too limiting. Another problem is the current system used was created during the 1790s in France, denoting a “left” and “right.” The new spectrum I created is below:

From a number of sources, including definitions I created myself, there is the definition of each term on the eight-pointed spectrum above. 

I’ll start with the terms Aristocrat and Democrat. The idea came from Noam Chomsky’s book titled Secrets, Lies and Democracy. Mr. Chomsky writes that “Thomas Jefferson…made a distinction between two groups—aristocrats and democrats. Aristocrats “fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.” This view is held by respectable intellectuals in many different societies today, and is quite similar to the Leninist doctrine that the vanguard party of radical intellectuals should take power and lead the stupid masses to a bright future. Most liberals are aristocrats in Jefferson’s sense…Henry Kissinger is an extreme example of an aristocrat. Democrats, Jefferson wrote, “identify with the people, have confidence in them, cherish them and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interest. In other words, democrats believe the people should be in control, whether or not they’re going to make the right decisions. Democrats exist today, but their becoming increasingly marginal.” 

When the word ‘Democrats’ is mentioned, I am not talking about those of the Democratic Party. If one looks at the party platforms and compares them, you could consider the Republican and Democratic parties to be one big party with two parts, having some differences, but not many. Also one could say that both of the so-called major parties are separate, but so similar that the terms “Republican” and “Democrat” don’t mean anything. If one is to interpret this correctly, think of Democrats in the Jeffersonian sense, as those that want the people in control, not some elite class. Do not think of the word “Democrat” in this political spectrum as those that cave in on certain issues in the federal legislature, do insider trading legally for the most part and get money from special interests. Those that are running in the 2012 election for “the 99%” as shown on Occupy the Ballot’s website would encompass Democrats (in the Jeffersonian sense). More evident of this is in the working document of OWS candidates, which can be seen below:

 

In my reading of different internet postings, I read once that one person characterized the world as divided between those for and those against corporations. As a result that was incorporated into the new spectrum in the words corporatist and Non-corporatist (or Anti-corporatist). I’ll start with non-corporatism, which many call “Anti-corporatism.” One blog owner mentioned[i] what they defined this term: “I am a radical anti-corporatist. I think all should be free to organize to further their own ends, but not by implic[i]tly and malignantly conspiring to reduce the interests of everyone else.” I searched the internet and looked for more information on this term. Another person on topix briefly mentioned it: “I'm anti-corporatism [because] capitalism eventually leads to corporatism especially in America where everything has a price tag on it.”[ii] I kept going through topix and found more material. While I don’t agree with the viewpoint expressed toward the Occupy Wall Street protesters from the topix forum, some of the text still applies to this discussion: “I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm anti-corporatist. I'm against too much power in the hands of too few people who control all the levers of power, no matter who those people are.”[iii] Finally, I looked at The New Moderate blog. One person below the article commented: “I’m increasingly an anti-corporatist. Sure, plenty of corporations make plenty of worthwhile products, but 1) they’ve become far too influential with our elected representatives, and 2) they’ve essentially become winner-take-all games, with the CEOs often earning 1000 times more than the average employee.”[iv] From all of these sources I have concluded that if one is a non-corporatist they are: against grand combinations such as monopolies and trusts, but think that everyone should be able to organize businesses or whatever whenever they want but in a way that benefits others, against an plutocratic-type government with the wealthy wielding major power and reducing the influence of the corporations on the political process. 

 

From all of that, you are probably still wondering what a corporatist is. A University of Massachusetts report gets us a little closer to the answer. It argues that John Maynard Keynes was a corporatist, while defining the word.[v] From the pdf, I picked those words to define this term and a person who embodies this term would:  

•    “decisively reject the traditional theory of perfect competition” 
•  “[accept] the ongoing trend toward increased reliance on public corporations, and argue that the government should…accept the current movement toward cartels, holding companies, trade associations, pools and other forms of monopoly power [and] should proactively assist and accelerate this trend in order to regulate and control it”  
• “[say] The state [should] set goals for these corporations and evaluate their performance, but not manage them directly.” 
•  “[support]...self-regulation [of big business in order to create]…the ultimate corporatist institutional arrangement.”

In the definition of this word, I am not promoting a conspiracy; rather one showing that one who believed these ideals would want a government that benefits big business in some way or another, as well as for their one benefit.

 

The issue of corporatism is on many people’s minds ever since the beginning of this economic crisis which one could call the second Great Depression. However, armed conflict is a major problem that must be put into the political spectrum through the terms “War Hawk” and “Peace Activist.” I’ll start with the latter term. In a facebook comment, one can get closer to its definition. One user states[vi]: “[that in today’s world] the wars rage on costing trillions of dollars and millions of lives.” The same user on Third Party Forum’s facebook group writes of the goal to “eradicate[e]…war by restoring democracy in America.” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting had an article about peace activists, mentioning a rally in April where people “were speaking out on a…timely issue (wars in Afghanistan and Libya), and connecting them to the budget and near-government shutdown in Washington.”[vii] According to a few excerpts from Chris Hayes articles linked on Third Party forum, one can get closer to defining the word at hand. Mr. Hayes inadvertently defines the term as those who oppose “pre-emptive war and occupation” along ending those wars that damage out country’s well-being. From these excerpts, I define a peace activist as one who opposes occupation of other parts of the world, opposes armed conflict (most if not all of it) and wants to take money out of the military budget to help each other at home. 

You are probably wondering what a war hawk is, since I’ve already defined a peace activist. Last year, I wrote about War Hawks and the Tea Party.[viii] More relevant to this discussion as of now is who the original “War Hawks” were: “A group of 10 individuals who…wanted war with Britain [and they corrupted the] President of the United States, James Madison [to go to war with Britain].” Today, that same ideology stays in place with those of this term as those that do not want to cut the military budget and those that want to go to war, increasing the expenditures on the national budget. Those of this position defend themselves saying troops must be worldwide for “national security” or “defending our interests.” In addition, those that support war in any shape or form would fall into this category as well. 

  

While the term “war hawk” and “peace activist” epitomize the struggle over the issue of war, it isn’t enough to complete the spectrum as a whole. Libertarians (Market Anarchist) and Coercive Collectivists must be included as well. Market Anarchists is defined on page 27 of David Miller’s book titled Political Philosophy as those that “claim we could contract and pay individually for the services the state now provides, including crucially for personal protection. In the absence of the state, forms would offer to protect clients and their property, and this would include retrieving property that had been stolen, enforcing contracts, and obtaining compensation for personal injury. So if my neighbour steals something that is mine, instead of calling the (public) police, I would call my protective agency, and they would take action against the troublesome neighbour.” 

William Levinson tacks on some other ideas to this term. He defines these people[ix] as those for equal opportunity, an all-volunteer armed forces, encouraging private citizens to learn how to use firearms and those that are practical recognize the need to pay taxes for collective national defense. In addition, those of this term find flag burning offensive but not punishable by law, say there should be little or no gun control with citizens using weapons for their self-defense as well as the country as a whole against foreign enemies, the government must issue weapons if does not want to restrict military service and people have the right to pray in a school or anywhere else as long as it doesn’t disrupt others. Also these people are for private retirement accounts and pro-choice. In opposition, he defines a “Coercive Collectivist” as one that wants "a higher, nobler, and kinder world based on the sanctity of the Crowd and the villainy of the single person,” those that want flag burning to be illegal, want private security forces and want mandatory school prayer. Furthermore, those of this term believe that there should be mandatory participation in a government retirement plan (like Social Security), want a return of the draft, in support of affirmative action, exclusion of certain racial/ethnic groups and in favor of compulsory abortions. To clarify, one must realize that the person who came created the scale between “coercive collectivist” and “libertarian” was leaning to the side of libertarianism, so he made the other side sound worse. Even so, I believe the terms make sense, but I made some modifications.

This eight-pointed political spectrum as a whole, combining the ideas of those across the internet is a comprehensive way to tell where you are on the political spectrum. In the middle can be whatever term you please, which I leave open to the discretion of the one using the spectrum. In the end, I hope this spectrum solves the problems of the current failures of the political system.

---

[i] http://khanneasuntzu.com/

[ii] http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/mgvm3/loud_and_clear/

[iii] http://www.topix.com/forum/city/portsmouth-oh/TJ31PD9PM9CSKGPHJ/p3

[iv] http://newmoderate.com/2009/10/07/corporatism-and-communism-too-close-for-comfort/

[v] http://people.umass.edu/crotty/JEI_Keynes-corp.pdf

[vi] http://www.facebook.com/notes/nicole-nichols/do-you-have-a-story-to-tell/10150274899909789

[vii] http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6545

[viii] http://hermannview.tumblr.com/post/1448332035/will-the-tea-party-people-become-the-next-war-hawks

[ix] http://www.stentorian.com/spectrum.html

The America you don’t know: elitism and pluralism

In the multifaceted American political system, the elite theory and pluralism theory can be combined to explain the political process. Special interest groups, the reemergence of the elite, the phenomenon of the apolitical and political stratum and default of compromise have been changed with the age of mass global communication. In America, people think about politics as two different aspects. First, the political spectrum presented by mainstream media. Secondly, the idea that it doesn’t matter if they participate and government doesn’t affect them at all. The current economic crisis changed the complex political system by shaking government and consumer confidence. However, even with these changes political scientists Robert Dahl and C. Wright Mills are both right in some sense. Military elite, corporate elite and interest groups remain powerful. Americans are divided into political and apolitical strata while compromise is the basis of this democracy. On the other hand, the current age has proven Dahl and Mills wrong. Educational and religious institutions are really separate; leaders often only care about themselves.  24/7 News has born with the advent of more technology and dissatisfied people are creating groups to address their grievances.

Certain groups dominate the modern political scene. People’s needs are ignored at times while the small groups of lobbyists are appeased by government officials. Interest groups have the power in national, local and state politics to force people inadvertently to choose a side on a law or proposed policy. Since the Obama Administration has been in office, influence of special interests has played out on the floor of Congress in two different instances. Healthcare reform in 2010 was supposed to bring healthcare to more citizens, but people were forced to buy private insurance. The law was an uneven proposal because it was almost co-written by the industry, contradicting the point of the bill: to stop the abuses of the healthcare industry. Later that year, a major financial reform bill was signed into law, trying to stop another economic crisis. Like the healthcare law, the bill was supported by of lobbyists from Wall St, an institution the law was trying to limit. It’s easy to see that Congress is run by lobbyists since its makes it hard to get reforms passed. Also it has become extremely easy for the elite to manipulate members of the federal legislature or any other part of the federal government.

The elite have reemerged in the American political woodwork. Mr. Mills’s vision in The Power Elite of separate corporate and military elite is true. These “leaders” still occupy high positions of power and use fearmongering as a common tactic. The corporate overlords distract public with entertainment news, something that’s not important to their well-being. In addition, they convinced the government to approve certain mergers while lessening regulation so their profits can increase dramatically. Meanwhile, the influence of the military elite in Congress has caused cuts to not be enacted even as their bureaucracy is becoming a hazard to America’s financial stability. Through the continuation of certain wars, a permanent war economy is maintained and endless war could become a reality. Therefore, corporate and military elite coalesce, creating an interlocking power structure. This country is going bankrupt from expenses that help the military and corporate overlords prosper. One prominent example is private military contractors in foreign countries that outnumber U.S. troops. On another note, the mainstay of the military elite, the Pentagon is so centralized that it can’t account for ¼ of what is spent. Furthermore, “Too Big to Fail” corporations dominate the economy while people across the nation are divided into two major political groups.

 Robert Dahl wrote about in Who Governs?, the division of people into different strata in America’s political arena. Politically active people protest injustice while inactive people accept injustice. In the apolitical stratum is characterized as people blindly ignorant of political issues and those who think politics is not important to them. At the same time, the political stratum is the polar opposite with motivated citizenry want to go out on the street. These people encourage others to get involved through the blogosphere and other means. Even so, the small supposedly-united groups called the “Tea Party” are just another aspect of the apolitical spectrum. Those that participate in these groups mostly have inconsistent opinions and ideologies. For example, many in these groups are against government healthcare, yet they support programs like Medicare, a blatant contradiction. These weakly-informed citizens try to inject themselves into the political mainstream but are mostly unsuccessful, ridiculed by many others. Despite this, overall political awareness has grown in recent years with more young people are getting involved in process whether that is in voting, protesting or blogging. The 2008 election was highest turnout for young in a very long time, but it doesn’t change the reality of compromise in the United States.

The default of compromise is accepted by almost everyone talking about politics or trying to get their point across. It is a time of divided government and the citizens want everyone in Congress to work together. However, many bills have favored wealthy and privileged class of society. America is a country founded on compromise. In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, two compromises were made between the delegates: the three-fifths compromise and the great compromise. This created the mentality that everything must be solved by going for the middle road, taking all ideas into consideration. This isn’t always the right pathway as the idea you may be accepting could be wrong and horrible policy. Despite this, the Senate’s limit of 60 has made agreement required on almost everything passed. Concessions are needed to pass anything, even a bill about the Post Office. Reform legislation that was supposed to fix problems in society has been watered down time and time again. People are getting mad and dismayed as Mr. Dahl predicted. They just can’t take the endless bargaining anymore and are fed up with government. Approval rating of Congress is at an all-time low: 14%. Compromise is isolating the citizenry causing them to be disfranchised of their right to express their opinion to Congress. As a result, political action groups are popping up nationwide; something not predicted by either Mr. Dahl or Mr. Mills.

In the modern era, Dahl and Mills have to be tweaked because their theories won’t be true if something isn’t changed. Both political scientists were writing in their time, the 1950s and 1960s and before the digital revolution (1980s-Present). These factors change the ballgame in political relations.  Today, leaders aren’t always on side of people. Some politicians worry about getting reelected. Others are influenced by corporate and military elite to vote in certain ways. Educational and religious institutions have been proven separate from the corporate and military institutions for the most part. Schools teach people to have independent minds in their lives. Many different religions such as Unitarian Universalism preach the seeking of truth in your beliefs. News is more extensive and rapid in the present with first-hand accounts of events posted on YouTube that are used by the mainstream media in their reporting. Also the alternative media is challenging corporate media dominance. All of these changes have caused people to create groups/pages due to their dissatisfaction with certain policies on social networks or elsewhere. The increase in political action could be the return 1960s fervor returned in minds of some young people or expression could be increasing with the advent of new technology.

Even with the division of America into an apolitical and political stratum, people are more educated than before. As some users have said, the internet allows information to disseminate so people can decide for themselves what they believe. A forum to exchange ideas has been created, provided that it stays free from censorship or government intervention.  On the other hand, elite theory and pluralism continue to plague efforts to expand democracy to other corners of the globe. This flawed system is continued in America by societal and corporate-backed forces of greed. Even with its backers, the political system can be altered in two major ways: direct action, such as blocking a road to area being logged and expansion of the blogosphere with “blogger-journalists.” Everywhere around us, the world is always changing, a place where mass communication networks can be harnessed and where people must stand up for what they believe.

NOTE: This article/essay was originally for my US Government class but I thought you people would enjoy it.