SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Protests and Power

POLITICS OCTOBER 12, 2011

Protests and Power

BY THE EDITORS

How should liberals feel about Occupy Wall Street? If you follow politics and you think of yourself as a liberal, then you have undoubtedly been grappling with that question in recent weeks. At first blush, it would be difficult not to cheer the protesters who have descended on lower Manhattan—and are massing in other cities across the United States—because they have chosen a deserving target. Wall Street should be protested. Its resistance to needed regulations that would stabilize the U.S. economy is shameful. And, insofar as it has long opposed appropriate levels of government spending and taxation, it has helped to create a society that does a deeply flawed job of providing for its most vulnerable, educating its young, and guaranteeing economic opportunity for all.

But, to draw on the old cliché, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Just because liberals are frustrated with Wall Street does not mean that we should automatically find common cause with a group of people who are protesting Wall Street. Indeed, one of the first obligations of liberalism is skepticism—of governments, of arguments, and of movements. And so it is important to look at what Occupy Wall Street actually believes and then to ask two, related questions: Is their rhetoric liberal, or at least a close cousin of liberalism? And is this movement helpful to the achievement of liberal aims?

This task is made especially difficult by the fact that there is no single leader who is speaking for the crowds, no book of demands that has been put forward by the movement. Like all such gatherings, it undoubtedly includes a broad range of views. But the volume of interviews, speeches, and online declarations associated with the protests does make it possible to arrive at some broad generalizations about what Occupy Wall Street stands for. And these, in turn, suggest a few reasons for liberals to be nervous about the movement.

One of the core differences between liberals and radicals is that liberals are capitalists. They believe in a capitalism that is democratically regulated—that seeks to level an unfair economic playing field so that all citizens have the freedom to make what they want of their lives. But these are not the principles we are hearing from the protesters. Instead, we are hearing calls for the upending of capitalism entirely. American capitalism may be flawed, but it is not, as Slavoj Zizek implied in a speech to the protesters, the equivalent of Chinese suppression. “[In] 2011, the Chinese government prohibited on TV and films and in novels all stories that contain alternate reality or time travel,” Zizek declared. “This is a good sign for China. It means that people still dream about alternatives, so you have to prohibit this dream. Here, we don’t think of prohibition. Because the ruling system has even oppressed our capacity to dream. Look at the movies that we see all the time. It’s easy to imagine the end of the world. An asteroid destroying all life and so on. But you cannot imagine the end of capitalism.” This is not a statement of liberal values; moreover, it is a statement that should be deeply offensive to liberals, who do not in any way seek the end of capitalism. 

Zizek is not alone. His statement is typical of the anti-capitalist, almost utopian arguments that one hears coming from these protesters. A recent debate about whether to allow Congressman John Lewis, a civil rights icon, to speak to Occupy Atlanta was captured on video and ended up on YouTube. As Lewis looked on, arguments on both sides were bandied about. “The point of this general assembly is to kick-start a democratic process in which no singular human being is inherently more valuable than any other human being,” argued one protester. Ultimately, because no “consensus” could be reached, Lewis was turned away. Yes, like the Zizek speech, this was just one data point. But surely it was an indication that liberal skepticism about this movement is not unwarranted.

And it is just not the protesters’ apparent allergy to capitalism and suspicion of normal democratic politics that should raise concerns. It is also their temperament. The protests have made a big deal of the fact that they arrive at their decisions through a deliberative process. But all their talk of “general assemblies” and “communiqués” and “consensus” has an air of group-think about it that is, or should be, troubling to liberals. “We speak as one,” Occupy Wall Street stated in its first communiqué, from September 19. “All of our decisions, from our choices to march on Wall Street to our decision to camp at One Liberty Plaza were decided through a consensus process by the group, for the group.” The air of group-think is only heightened by a technique called the “human microphone” that has become something of a signature for the protesters. When someone speaks, he or she pauses every few words and the crowd repeats what the person has just said in unison. The idea was apparently logistical—to project speeches across a wide area—but the effect when captured on video is genuinely creepy.

These are not just substantive complaints. They also beg the strategic question of whether the protesters will help or hurt the cause of liberalism. After all, even if the protesters are not liberals themselves, isn’t it possible that they could play a constructive role in forcing Americans to pay attention to important issues such as inequality and crony capitalism? Perhaps. But we are hard-pressed to believe that most Americans will look at these protests, with their extreme anti-capitalist rhetoric, and conclude that the fate of the Dodd-Frank legislation—currently the best liberal hope for improving democratically regulated capitalism—is more crucial than they had previously thought.

In the face of the current challenge from Tea Party conservatism, it is more important than ever that liberals make a compelling case for our vision of America. But we will not make this case stronger by allying with a movement that is out of sync with our values. And so, on the question of how liberals should feel about Occupy Wall Street, count us as deeply skeptical.

This article appeared in the November 3, 2011, issue of the magazine.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 112 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

112 comments

When I read that Zizek was allowed to speak to these occupiers my skepticism grew even more intense. Heretofore I had been worried that these protests would lead to some kind of confrontations with the "establishment" and that many voters would be turned off to the Democratic party. I was worried that we might be seeing electoral history repeat itself: the first time around it was Nixon who was the beneficiary of the anti war demonstrators in Chicago 1968. This time around it would be the some farcical right wing fundamentalist Republican. That the clown Zizek was allowed to speak to the impressionable demonstrators but not the venerable Congressman John Lewis is disgusting.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 12:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The point of the Establishment suborning the movement is to lop the ears off any untolerably heterodox notions and work with the movement to achieve the Establishment's goals. This is why Occupy Wall Street people are wary of institutional support (that, and the fact that some of the animating spirit is against institutions in the first place). It is also why the Tea Party played such a critical role in burnishing the Right without challenging the fundamentals of its ideologies. Tea Partiers, properly understood, are against bailouts. But we don't hear from them when Republicans oppose anti-bailout legislation. So you get the pressure of the Tea Party without friendly fire from the angry people who comprise it. Of course, it doesn't help if you are trying to cooperate or co-opt a leftist movement, as those people are all about independent sources of data and individualism. It's darned complicated. Also: "Indeed, one of the first obligations of liberalism is skepticism—of governments, of arguments, and of movements." True, but this statement does not clearly differentiate liberalism from conservatism, whose obligations are preservation of the institutions and maintenance of the status quo. Perhaps a paralysing scepticism has led to the culmination of liberalism, but it's fair to note that when your liberalism is backed up against the wall by a movement of "conservative" radicals, then liberalism and conservatism fuse together to fight the radicals. It's still good to know remember what distinguishes the two, though.

- chaitless

October 12, 2011 at 12:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

'” The air of group-think is only heightened by a technique called the “human microphone” that has become something of a signature for the protesters. When someone speaks, he or she pauses every few words and the crowd repeats what the person has just said in unison. The idea was apparently logistical—to project speeches across a wide area—but the effect when captured on video is genuinely creepy.' Why does this keep getting repeated? Look around the web, protesters are not allowed to use amplification, and this post should explain why. The protesters need a permit. If the article is implying the group become more organized and apply for one, do so. http://investmentwatchblog.com/huffpost-the-members-of-occupy-wall-street-are-not-allowed-to-use-megaphones-so-theyve-adopted-a-low-tech-workaround/ Here's Stigliz talking about it: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=100219

- jet

October 12, 2011 at 2:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I do not seek the end of capitalism, but I do support OWS's efforts to address the relentless normalization of some of the dangers & shameful behaviors our capitalism facilitates in our daily lives.   And obviously it's impossible to disagree with their basic message that incomes for the majority of American workers should not stagnate while incomes for the richest increase exponentially.  Rarely has simple awareness of basic math & economics been so infuriating  -- to be clear, it was not infuriating when the income disparity ratio of CEO to average worker was, say, 50:1; that was no big deal.  It only became a movement-motivating issue when people saw their tax dollars contribute directly to that ratio growing closer to 300:1.  Reverse & stabilize those numbers and OWS won't be necessary.   I of course wish to preserve the system that allowed my country to become the greatest in human history, but we should always strive to strengthen & perfect it as well.  (By the way, accusations of utopianism from worried, skeptical liberals or from dismissive conservatives are usually just as pathetic as actual utopianism efforts.)  That's the work of our elected officials, but the math lately indicates that, for whatever reasons, they are failing their constituents in the middle class.  The middle class doesn't have an election at the moment to absorb & reflect their disgust, so they take it to the streets.  It's not so scary when you break down this simple bit of sociology.   People feel like their politicians are inaccessible, that corporations & Wall Streeters are as legislatively & economically influential as politicians, and that corporations & Wall Streeters are for the moment more suitable focal points for their disgust.  (I avoid using the word "targets" there, lest I accidentally birth a violent wacko's 15 minutes of infamy.) More power to them.  

- Konstantin

October 12, 2011 at 2:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm pro-regulated capitalism (not the monopoly capitalism that Republicans support). But I'm not a liberal. Nor am I a Leftist. I was afraid that the hard Left would take over the Occupy Wall Street movement, and this article suggests that it may be happening. I thought this movement should be about recent college graduates protesting the fact that our monopoly-capitalism system has failed them in their quest to get jobs, after they and their families spent a fortune putting them through college. Wall Streeters are getting record year-end bonuses in 2011, while 14 million people are out of work. Maybe many of the protestors have business degrees and are angry at capitalist America for making record profits, while refusing to hire them out of college. Maybe they feel betrayed. That can turn you into an extremist. But chanting silly slogans about capitalists in public isn't going to change anything. Demonstrators all across America should be bellowing WE WANT JOBS NOW! Maybe some Democrats would listen. Republicans sure won't. If Americans started getting jobs, Obama might get re-elected. A couple of Republicans in Congress actually presented that as a reason to oppose Obama's Jobs Bill. And Tuesday every Republican in the Senate voted against it. The Wall Street occupiers might be anti-capitalist, but Republicans are anti-American.

- magboy47.

October 12, 2011 at 2:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is one of my personal gripes about capitalism in the US and how it has many underreported, unnoticed negative effects on its subjects:  How sad it is that MacDonald's, arguably responsible for more obesity & heart disease than any corporation ever, hires the best young athletes, including Michelle Wie & Lebron James, to push milkshakes and chicken nuggets.  This is like hiring Bill Gates to be a spokesman for Match.com. Nonsense. But somehow this is normal for fast food joints. And Hardees, flailing not to be left behind in the efforts to clog American arteries & colons, uses bikini models to push mayonnaised cheesy-beefy monstrosities.   There are a couple of companies whose stock price downfall would be welcome, but they are so filthy profitable that they will continue with impunity to beam pictures of their poison to every American football telecast.  Lebron will keep telling his young admirers that cheeseburgers are super, and I will daydream that I see his diminished soul drift piecemeal toward Hell after each commercial cash grab.   It's depressing.  Yeah, we gave them the freedom to do that.  That's capitalism.  Nothing illegal.  They offer a product that sells well, and I support such an accomplishment that sustains our economy.  I understand I have the freedom to not watch the NFL, to not heed TV commercials, to not support a business that minimizes wages & promotion opportunities for its non-celebrity employees while it has millionaire athletes sign millionaire contracts to pretend to be patrons in the drive-thru.   Again, it is depressing, but I understand it is but one piece to the big, mostly successful puzzle that makes America America.  But we have the freedom to be disgusted by it, too.   That's not what OWS is about, but to me it's one more thing that unfortunately defines a big part of life as an American, being constantly exposed to advertisements and the efforts of the ultra-rich to convince us that the fittest, hottest, wealthiest celebrities are eating fast food, fer chrissake.  And meanwhile, ivy leaguer candidates suddenly drop their 'g's to show they are just like us. We are assaulted with such insults from corporations & politicians, and now is a good time to return the favor.

- Konstantin

October 12, 2011 at 3:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"American capitalism may be flawed, but it is not, as Slavoj Zizek implied in a speech to the protesters, the equivalent of Chinese suppression." What equivalence is Zizek drawing? Regardless of what I may otherwise think of Zizek, this point is much less extravagant than, say, his polemical valorization of Terror. Rather, if the possibility for another form of socio-economic organization were real and not simply an abstract potentiality, then censorship would likely become a serious issue. The need for outright censorship signifies the real subversive power of that which is censored. If censorship is lax, the attitude then may be, "What harm can these voices be? They will not transform the current order, so let them speak." He suggest that by all appearances it seems nearly everything is permitted in the popular imagination--complete sexual liberation, extravagant violence in movies and on television, effortless vision of apocalyptic events--especially as entertainment. Catastrophe is in our midst, as well as on our screens, yet it is assimilated to a degree as to not compel us to act. It may demand reaction were it irreconcilable and effectively disturbing, but such is not the case. (Would we have received a daily glimpse of oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico in April of 2010 if the result was not going to be a proverbial slap on the wrist to BP and eventual resumption of offshore drilling?) Where subversion is legitimately, if selectively, detected, it is promptly disavowed (such was the point of his comment regarding the reaction to Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe-malfunction). So, do we imagine the end of capitalism? Can things concretely be otherwise? Zizek obviously believes there are no such objective expressions of a thinking beyond the present situation, but is it not difficult to produce a counterexample? An honestly anti-capitalist, or post(?)-capitalist film, for instance, would not merely have the right-wing commentariat apoplectic, but would draw censure and outrage from all sides. That sort of response would likely, though obviously not necessarily, be an index of its success. And when has "consensus" talk ever bothered liberals? I thought the cornerstone of liberal politics was conversation and dialogue that first leads to compromise then consensus. It is that impulse to continuously "open the conversation" that frustrates the conservative desire for a regulated, hierarchical, tradition-bound society. What these protesters intend though is a concerted effort to resist hierarchy and decisionism. It should be apparent that if "dictatorship" is a dirty word for liberals, it's anathema for these protesters. What has become more vocal in the past few days than was previously reported is advocacy for honest egalitarianism, not as concession, but for its own sake. We should worry about blind communitarianism if the message drifts into advocacy for being a "good citizen", knowing one's place and particular role in society in which to invest one's identity, and not to overextend oneself in the pursuit of self-indulgence. For the time being, however, when all are currently encouraged to speak and participate, it seems to me that the Occupy Wallstreet-ers are the last you would accuse of suppressing individuality.

- brian.r.jenkins@gmail.com

October 12, 2011 at 3:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bottom Line: In the US, workers share of GDP has collapsed since the late 1970's. The trend acceleated under Republican and Democrat administrations. Theoretically, Conservative and Liberal administrations. In an American context, I think the Liberal/Conservative dichotomy is out of date and dangerous. Of course, some of the protestors demands are mental. You're hardly likely to motivate a spontaneous civil campaign with rousing language about incremental, moderate change. Change that has done nothing to stop the economic polarization over the last 30 years. Moreover, when Liberals answer to record levels of personal debt is to spend money on current expenditure and not tangible infrastructure; when Liberals are up to their neck in contributions from the the FIRE sector while picking winners and losers in the industry; when the Treasury Secretary is reduced to acting as AIG's bagman by shaking down little countries like Ireland for 20 Billion; when Wall St already record bonuses rise another 17% in 2010 as a DIRECT RESULT of taxpayers money given to them by a Democratically controlled Congress and White House then you know the traditional Liberal vs Conservative is out of date and pointless. I saw an ad from the WSP interviewing some people on what they want. It ranged from taxing the rich more to getting the cash out of Washington to bringing back Glass Stegall but instead you have to focus on the utopian anarchist element. I don't think any reader of TNR would sign up the end of capitalism but I'm sure most would hope that it gives O'bama cover to run to the Left. God knows he needs to be dragged there. Surely that would be a good thing? I hope they scare the sh*te out of a few kleptocrats and land an egg or two on Dimon and Blankfien before they're forcefully removed by the cops in about a month. Good luck to them. God bless em.

- IggyPop

October 12, 2011 at 6:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This editorial has the tone of a book review by someone who hasn't read the book. I have mixed feelings about the protests. On the one hand, I'm a believer in grandmother's wisdom that we cannot learn from our mistakes until we accept responsibility for them, which the bankers clearly have not done. On the other hand, I've raised a child, a sometimes unruly child, and know that you cannot shame a child into behaving. But let's be honest with ourselves, would the protestors with positive motives and aims be protesting if they believed someone, including leading American liberal voices, were focused on the crisis in America? Am I skeptical about the motives and aims of some of the protestors? Yes, but not for the supercilious reason expressed by the editors, that the protestors are anti-American (how else does one describe an anti-capitalist). Rather, because the protestors reveal the weakness of the liberal movement, that it suffers from ADHD, a grab bag of grievances and aims. Much like the Democratic Party. While shaming the bankers will not change their behavior, learning some discipline will certainly help the protestors (and the Democrats).

- rayward

October 12, 2011 at 7:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anti-capitallist = Anti-American. Dog whistle well spotted Rayward. How about a regulated Derivatives market? I've seen lots of signs for that. Is that anti-capitalist TNR? I think the one message is pretty clear: http://tiny.cc/rfq32 http://tiny.cc/l7cpl http://tiny.cc/968qd http://tiny.cc/hrhw9 and my personal favourite http://tiny.cc/lgai1 Can't you behead Dimon and a few other leeching bankers in the street? Just to satisfy the mobs bloodlust. No? The streets could be cleared and normal life could resume. http://tiny.cc/grlxp

- IggyPop

October 12, 2011 at 7:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who'd a thunk it? (I would, actually.) The new and not-so-improved editorial staff of The New Republic adopts, in the name of liberalism, a distinctly conservative position. Want to tell me why I should take direction from a news organization willing to sell access for $1500 per annum? So, because a couple of outre speakers are given a hearing we're supposed to reject the whole movement in its infancy? Instead, why don't you guys encourage pro-capitalism liberals to join OWS and help keep it from going off the rails as it (hopefully) gathers momentum. As rayward and Iggy have pointed out, the evidence, such as it is, casts serious doubt on the proposition that OSW is mainly a utopian anarchist movement. And anyhow, as the Tea Partiers have demonstrated with their radical individualism, a dash of utopianism helps to get people motivated to enact real change within the actually existing political system. Meanwhile, the President's jobs bill is dying in the Senate--a body controlled by the President's party, you may recall. Would you care once more to explain your rejection of a movement that to me seems concerned first and foremost not with eliminating capitalism per se but with the elimination of capitalists' control of our nominally democratic government. A quote from the novel Mating by Norman Rush: "What is becoming sovereign in the world is not the people but the limited liability corporation, that particular invention: that's what's concentrating sovereign power to rape the world and overenrich the top minions who run these entities. The perfect medium for the corporation is an electoral democracy where nobody--in the mature systems--bothers to vote, parties disaggregate, labor unions decompose, corporations control who gets into parliament, accountability disappears."

- AaronW

October 12, 2011 at 8:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seems like a pro-Capitalism manifesto to me: Securities laws are enfoced Derivatives are regulated Losses are not socialized Glass-Stegal laws foster competition Companies cannot extort economic rent http://tiny.cc/o4x3f Sorry, you meant anti-American. They're anti-American. Got it. Fecking filthy crusties, can't they just donate to the Democrat party like Dimon and Blankfien?

- IggyPop

October 12, 2011 at 8:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Send money.

- skahn

October 12, 2011 at 8:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In response to the strategic comment: But we are hard-pressed to believe that most Americans will look at these protests, with their extreme anti-capitalist rhetoric, and conclude that the fate of the Dodd-Frank legislation—currently the best liberal hope for improving democratically regulated capitalism—is more crucial than they had previously thought. I doubt very must that most Americans will "look at these protests," whatever that could even mean. What they will do is look at media coverage and framing of the protest. The protest themselves either enable or force the media (depending on your conception of whether the media are 'good-natured but understaffed muckrakers working within a dying business model' or 'in the hand of of crooks') to ask questions from the perspective of people who are unhappy and left-inclined--and in turn to force politicians to answer those questions within that frame (with the ability to spin, of course). So, the dismissal of the strategic value of the protest from a naive standpoint about how protests generate legislative change in an editorial that professes to be skeptical above all reads as bald cynical manipulation. This is the first time I've been seriously upset by the views expressed in this magazine--and it's a shame that 'the editors' are all on board (though, given Cohn's earlier comments: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/95833/how-organize-the-left, I suspect they might not all be on board).

- osprey

October 12, 2011 at 9:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AaronW "So, because a couple of outre speakers are given a hearing we're supposed to reject the whole movement in its infancy?" Aaron is missing the point. It's not the couple of retrograde speakers were allowed to sound off that's the problem. It's that people like Congressman John Lewis are being denied a voice that is worrisome.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...and my personal favourite" IggyPop "Perhaps they need a small gallows... for some effigies (?)" The Brit loves the gallows don'he. Why not bring back Dr. Guillotine?

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The right wing takes capitalism as an ideological commitment. The left wing should regard it as a means to an end--that end being the welfare, liberty, and happiness of human beings. In the situation we are in right now, where global capitalism is becoming increasingly predatory, it is not unreasonable that voices on the left should arise calling for a new system. Whether you agree with them or not, such voices pose a necessary challenge to capitalism's advocates: Fix your system or lose it. You know when the last time was that anti-capitalist voices were at their loudest? Back in the middle of last century. Not coincidentally, that was also the time when liberalism was at its zenith. Capitalism was not thrown overboard, but it was moderated and reformed. Big business and big finance were forced to submit to those reforms, because (in the '30s, at least) there was a real risk of revolution if they didn't. Ever since Reagan, liberals have been in retreat and conservatives have been on the advance, to the point that the current Democratic President could have passed for Republican a few decades ago. The reforms of Roosevelt and Johnson are being undone, piece by piece, and the crisis we're in now is a direct result of that. If we want to reverse that trend, we need some energy on the left, even if it brings a little crazy with it. The idea that OWS poses any kind of immediate threat to capitalism is laughable. This kind of fussy, fainting liberalism is something I expect from the likes of Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman; I am very disappointed to see it in The New Republic.

- Dausuul

October 12, 2011 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The idea that OWS poses any kind of immediate threat to capitalism is laughable." There are threats and threats. The Wall Street kids are no danger to the system, however they if they act up they could help elect a Republican President. That to me is a threat.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@arnon "There are threats and threats. The Wall Street kids are no danger to the system, however they if they act up they could help elect a Republican President. That to me is a threat." Sure, but is there any reason to believe they might? I don't see the path to that happening. Care to share one?

- osprey

October 12, 2011 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Sure, but is there any reason to believe they might?" A number of possible scenarios could lead to that: if some demonstrators resort to violence; if the demonstrators resort to civil disobedience that gets in the way of daily life of citizens; if the ultra left is seen taking over the demonstrations, etc. The fact that Zizek but not people like John Lewis are allowed to speak is a warning sign.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://tiny.cc/jxn7y If he knows who the enemy is, why doesn't TNR?

- IggyPop

October 12, 2011 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can imagine scenarios where OWS alienates moderates and turns a razor-thin Obama victory into a Romney win. But I can just as easily imagine scenarios where it fires up a despondent Democratic base and turns a Romney squeaker into an Obama comeback. Do you have any reason to believe the former is more likely than the latter? If not, then this really shouldn't be a consideration. As things stand, we are staring down the barrel of a Japan-style lost decade, maybe multiple decades. (Consider that Japan itself has never really recovered from its crash in the early '90s. They managed a brief export boom earlier this decade, but that's not an option when the whole world is in the same boat.) Obama's re-election, by itself, will not change this. To break out of our self-imposed paralysis and make change on the scale required to bring our economy back to life, we need a political force strong enough to overcome the inertia of the establishment. Which would you prefer that force to look like: Occupy Wall Street, or the Tea Party?

- Dausuul

October 12, 2011 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon, Good point. Newton's Law applies in politics, as well as physics. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Working people who reflexively vote Republican are more determined than ever to vote for the Godawful Old Party after they see the Left on the news stirring up trouble on Wall Street. This includes working people without jobs. But these people might feel they have something in common with people across our country chanting We Want Jobs Now. It all come down to the voters. As long as the Republicans have even a solid minority in our government, America is doomed. An aggressive minority can ruin it for everyone, as we saw this summer. Many Republicans are in the media talking about getting rid of the Dodd-Frank bill, which is only mildly re-regulatory. They want Wall Street totally unregulated, like it became under Bush. Yes, runaway capitalism is the scourge of the earth right now, but Democrats need the votes of jobless Republican and Independent voters who may think it's no longer advantageous to have a corporate boot heel on their necks. Recently I saw a woman panelist in the media, when asked what she thought the Wall Street Occupiers needed to succeed, she said, "A bath." This is what reasonable Americans are up against. Newton's Law: Don't antagonize unthinking people with slogans counter to their own. We Want Jobs Now is not a slogan. It has to do with the very right to exist.

- magboy47.

October 12, 2011 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is pre-mature for Liberals to issue definitive judgments concerning Occupy Wall Street. The protesters and their movement are "under construction." As always, the anarchists have taken over the stage, for the moment. The disciplined and numerous TRADE UNIONISTs have now entered from stage left. They have a program, issues and punch. There would be a deeply crippled Democratic Party without the trade unionists. After years of Wall Street triumphalism, the financial industry ("community" would be a stretch) is taking its lumps. There is a spirit of "anti-capitalist" co-operativism in the land. This is a unique development in our land of "pro-capitalist everything." The American cultural bias of profit, private enterprise, limited government, is being roundly challenged by peaceful protest, non-violent marches and rallies and colorful street theater. Why should the Liberals of the mahogony wainscotted conference rooms (i.e. TNR) feel it necessary to join the nay-sayers of the Rightwing? This movement is in formation. Pro-capitalist Liberals have co-existed with not so pro-capitalist activists before. These coalitions have advanced a common progressive agenda. I don't believe there is anything vague or amorphos about the programs and recommendations outlined by the Progressive Caucus and, on the floor of the Senate by Bernie Sanders (VT). There is change in the land. There is real anger and resentment against the inequalities produced by Wall Street economics. The Editors views are presumptuous and ill conceived. Mass protest on the Left will likely continue to grow, against the big banks and Wall Street, the "economic royalists." It is up to the Liberals to turn "protest into politics." So far, they are doing a poor job.

- LawrenceGulotta

October 12, 2011 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There would be a deeply crippled Democratic Party without the trade unionists." I agree there. Wish the labor/trade union movement were stronger.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm at a complete loss right now. I have been subscribed to this magazine for a long time. I am a liberal. And I am very happy that these people are in the street. http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ What is this really about? No, it is not a coherent movement, but you see some very common problems in the above. Student loan debt and medical debt. I'd like to think we can all agree these are legitimate problems. As for the solutions offered by OWS? Yes, many of the protesters speak of revolution and an end to capitalism, but can they really be faulted when the system appears to be so broken? I think the majority of people in the OWS movement would gladly take single-payer healthcare, a serious program to help forgive or ease student debt, as well as increased taxes on the rich, over some kind of far-fetched "revolution." But they don't see enough people arguing forcefully for these things in the public sphere, and so they are taking to the streets and demanding something even more radical. Yes, Obamacare will fully kick in by 2018 (that's not around the corner for people struggling right now). Yes, Obama is banking on being able to let the Bush tax cuts expire (doesn't additional public pressure help THIS liberal aim?) Yes, we have finally killed the private student loan industry (but what about the rising cost of tuition?) To cast aside these protests after a month because in their anger the protesters have not been able to offer a coherent and sensible policy platform seems premature. BTW, I work on Wall Street, and I hope these people stick around as long as they can brave the weather.

- ClumsyMohel

October 12, 2011 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seriously, TNR - this is timorous and undigested nonsense. Brandishing Slavoj Zizek, who would himself hardly deny being a "clown," arnon - an intellectual jester with a jester's role of provoking and exaggerating and contradicting and saying a number of uncomfortable truths, which, say what you will, is a far more honest self-presentation than a whole host of other pundits and experts and commentators and analysts feted on the airwaves and treated to chin-stroking attention, such as the execrable Steven Pinker, to pull a name from the immediate hat - to treat Slavoj Zizek as if he were or even pretended to be a Leader of a Movement; that's almost Fox News level demonization. C'mon. You write as if the "liberals" for whom you speak were consumers window-shopping on the street for political representation, but as another commenter recently posted: no one cares about your Yelp review of OWS. It amounts to little more than that "those who are well-situated in current institutional structures, however compassionate and well-intentioned, should be wary of the inchoate demands of those who aren't." Well, yes. But the whole point is that the current institutional structure is dramatically shifting all around the world. Those committed to the status quo have been forced into ever more confrontational and reactionary positions, not because of organized opposition but because of the increasing disorder of the current situation. OWS, which isn't a party platform but the magma of collective interactions outside the home from which politics emerges, makes liberals nervous not because it hosts the (powerless) Slavoj Zizek and turns away the (powerful) John Lewis, but because it forces them (us - I'm not down there either) to recognize that in order to preserve "liberal" values in the current situation we may have to do more than "feel" one way or another about stuff on TV, "like" this or that option provided by our public institutions, which have all failed so grievously to police or reform themselves despite three "wave" election cycles in various ideological directions, a global debt crisis, and the collapse of the capitalist press model and the public sphere it supported, but that we may have to defend those ideals on the streets of the world. And really, if OWS isn't doing it to our liking, are we ready to do it ourselves? That's the question.

- rmutt

October 12, 2011 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

God...where to begin (without exploding into expletives) in addressing this post by the "liberal establishment" editors of TNR. Arbiters and protectors of the old-skool liberal way of thinking. "They believe in a capitalism that is democratically regulated—that seeks to level an unfair economic playing field so that all citizens have the freedom to make what they want of their lives. But these are not the principles we are hearing from the protesters. Instead, we are hearing calls for the upending of capitalism entirely." Then it goes on with one quote from one person and TNR applies the broad stroke of radicalism to the entire OWS movement. This sounds like paranoia at first but then once you parse the words you understand that really, TNR and other 'establishment' liberals and 'establishment' protestor experts, don't actually fully realize what is going on nor understand what the OWS represents. The entire structure of the OWS is horizontal on purpose. The reason the MSM (and I mean every branch of that tree - TV, Radio, Print) can't pinpoint a leader is that the entire movement is based on trying to force a restructuring the democratic process and the free-market system to be less hegemonic and oligarchic than it is now. And by that I mean, both the Democrats and GOP collude with big business to enforce a free-market system that has morphed from some local or even regional aspect into a multi-national, global, octopus. An octopus whose reach and influence doesn't simply affect & infect Wall Street, but also infects Congress, WH, and the Supreme Court (with it's ironically named 'Citizens' decision). The reason the OWS is highly distrustful of even getting into bed with 'bandwagon' liberal politicians is that they've seen the 'establishment' liberals literally bend the body politic over simply to kow-tow to their own self-interests and the business leaders/industries that line their pockets as much as the GOP. Disappointingly, TNR and others can't even see past their own state of social somnambulism to realize that, after the last 30 years, trying to use the same tools and playing the same game, as the "establishment" to get any sort of progressive action enacted on behalf of the 90% of American that have been continuously marginalized (politically and economically) and been spoon fed by the 'establishment' that if you just 'play by the (their) rules' you can work hard, be paid a fair wage, have a meaningful and productive live, and raise a family without being figuratively an indentured servant. Instead we've been bombarded by propaganda that if we leverage our lives, bank-accounts, run up debt, buy more worthless crap, denude the environment and feed the system (all in the name of progress of course) that we can achieve the American dream. As George Carlin famously said "The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it." That applies to the sleepwalking establishment liberals that seem to think if the OWS folks just woke up, took showers, and then politely, with hats in hand, pleaded, begged and prostrated themselves to convince the Dems and GOP to just pass 'Dodd-Frank' all will be right with the world again. It reminds me of this propaganda remix poster. http://propagandaremix.com/nggallery/page-25/image/100/

- singlspeed

October 12, 2011 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, but it's just insane to think that if we're quiet and mousy and moderate enough, the voters will reward us. If the rise of a vocal, radical fringe were a major turn-off to moderate voters, Democrats should have won solidly in 2010. Instead we got our clocks cleaned by a wave of Tea Party maniacs. Obama tried being conciliatory and negotiating, and it turned off independents as well as liberals. Now he's being fiery and aggressive, and winning back both groups. This should be enough to disabuse anybody of the notion that reflexive moderation is the way to go right now. Remember that most swing voters are not people who have carefully considered both sides and charted a course between them. People who take the time to carefully consider both sides usually end up picking one or the other. The real swing votes are people who don't pay much attention to politics. They don't care about moderation per se; what they want to hear right now is, "I know how to fix this mess, and if you elect me, I'll do it." (Or, failing that, "I know who's responsible for this mess, and if you elect me, I'll string 'em up.") The side that delivers that message with the most conviction and intensity is the side that will win the independent vote. So far, I have not heard such a case being made by anyone on the center-left. The people promising solutions are all on the right (deregulate and cut taxes till the cows come home!) or the far left (massive stimulus and debt relief!). There's a reason OWS has been semi-jokingly described as "Krugman's Army." As a certain neocon once said, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.

- Dausuul

October 12, 2011 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Vastly better post on the subject, from one Jon Chait: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/the_right_answers_occupy_wall.html Or this from Paul Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html I figured when JC left it was downhill for TNR. This 'editorial' reinforces that idea.

- tmmats

October 12, 2011 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In the face of the current challenge from Tea Party conservatism, it is more important than ever that liberals make a compelling case for our vision of America. But we will not make this case stronger by allying with a movement that is out of sync with our values. And so, on the question of how liberals should feel about Occupy Wall Street, count us as deeply skeptical." What planet is TNR living on at the moment? All the things you protest about the OWS not protesting about are what they're actually protesting about. Dig deeper journalists you'll find that OWS is highly motivated to curtail crony capitalism is a far more liberal and progressive counterpoint to the One Party fascism that the Tea Party would have us believing in. You don't see the OWS sending out "pledges" to the Democrats or party establishment or media in order to prove fealty to their cause do you? You don't see the OWS being funded by obscured slush-fund billionaires do you? What may cause you pause and skepticism is that OWS has the word Occupy in it instead of some innocuous sounding name like 'Tea Party' which allows it to operate as some liberating force snatching Capitalism from the clutches of the working poor and demoralized working middle class of America.

- singlspeed

October 12, 2011 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, gang, but TNR is right. I tried joining last week's march in NYC -- literally -- but couldn't find a place that was more than five feet away from a Che t-shirt, a "smash capitalism" type sign, or similar silliness. Yes, I am very, very glad that the process has begun. But it needs to go mainstream. I would never vote for a Republican, but don't subscribe to Workers' Daily World either. I am two iterations away from joining.

- Mikelawyr22

October 12, 2011 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great links Tmats. Thanks. "They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens." I know this article is all about protecting the integrity of the TNR brand and all but still if reads like it was written in the 1950's. I think this year will be my last subscription. I've got about 10 months to go, then I'll try another mag.

- IggyPop

October 12, 2011 at 2:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the reason why the crowd-repetition of speakers' comments seems "creepy," to use the editorial term, is that a lot of people remember the "We are all individuals" scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian! But on a more serious note, the difference between OWS and the teabaggers -- or one of the differences at least -- is that the Tea Party is at its core a Republican Party creation. It's an astroturf movement with grassroots elements and it has acted the part of an authentic movement with great verve and passion. But in reality it was never "outside" in the full sense of the term. Occupy Wall Street is, in contrast, not the brainchild of the Democratic Party left and it is contemptuous as far as I can see of the Dems and distant from (if not hostile to) a lot of basic institutions of small-d democratic representation and action. Occupy XX groups are not like the labor movement-led occupation of the Wisconsin state house last winter (which of course was also demonized by FOX et al) that seriously worried the GOP administration in that state. I imagine John Lewis was rejected in Atlanta because PETA thinks that civil rights means valuing people over animals, and they didn't like that.

- ironyroad

October 12, 2011 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look, I'm not down with smashing capitalism either. I'm all about the technocratic, pragmatic, non-ideological approach to governing. But here's the thing: Technocrats don't do political passion very well. Technocracy is an approach to governing, not campaigning. For campaigning, you need energy, conviction, and a clear moral vision. These folks have it. Nobody else on the left seems to, right now. Nobody's saying you have to go out there and march with them. But at this time they are the best (if not the only) allies we liberal technocrat types are going to find. And if you want them to go mainstream, the way to do that is to join the damn movement and push toward the mainstream! It's like that old Republican canard that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." If only the far left fringe joins OWS, then the only voices in OWS will be the far left fringe. Moreover, technocrats themselves have been increasingly relegated to the fringe of late. Paul Krugman is as technocratic a guy as you're likely to find, and a decade ago he was a center-left sort. Nowadays he's an icon of the far left. When the entire Republican Party has taken leave of reality, centrism and empiricism are no longer compatible; following the evidence wherever it leads makes you a liberal by default, as Bruce Bartlett discovered. We're in the same boat with the radicals whether we like it or not, so let's work with them. What's your alternative?

- Dausuul

October 12, 2011 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It would be refreshing in this editorial if the writer would make an attempt to get the facts correct before entering into a debate on the merits of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. The writer characterized the use of "the human microphone" as a creepy sign of the group-think of the protesters. But the reasoning behind this activity is for a simple reason. Since this protest was unauthorized by the city officials, the protesters would be in violation of the law for using bullhorns or a PA for the assembly. That is only allowed if the protesters had gone through the normal bureaucratic channels of filling out a permit for the protest. That is the reason for the human microphone as I understand it.

- rewiredhogdog

October 12, 2011 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mikelawyer , how will 'going mainstream' makes the cause more legitimate for you? I suspect it's only to make you feel more comfortable being out there if you saw more khakis and izods vs. skinny jeans and Che shirt. So instead of a motley crew of individuals across a wide spectrum of America's 1% underbelly, you want, what? Protesting Banana Republic employees to hang out with? Oh the irony of that one.

- singlspeed

October 12, 2011 at 2:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This editorial is such a bunch of baloney - it reminds me that people are afraid to believe anything organic and good can happen in American political culture this way, so it has to be run through the lense of cynicism so the writers feel safe again. Be brave, think for yourselves. The protestors can't be anti-capitalist because we haven't had a capitalist society in 30 years. It's such an insult to say that the protestors are anti-capitalist. THINK. They are, in fact, arguing FOR capitalism - real capitalism where failed business models mean failed businesses, where competition dictates what a company does and how it treats it customers - not bought off politicians, where customers can vote with their feet if a company treats them like shit and NO business models that make customers captives. Be my guest and make huge profits! I salute you (I'm talking to you Apple), but do it honestly and not within a rigged system of sychophant politician/whores that has actually weakened capitalism to the point of collapse. What we have now is not capitalism.

- WandreyCer

October 12, 2011 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Singlespeed - you killed, I cracked up. Mikelawyer, you might appreciate this. I live in NYC and a a successful lawyer friend in her late 60's called me yesterday and said "I feel like such an ass. I'm going to get my highlights done at Louis Lacari and then heading to the protest."

- WandreyCer

October 12, 2011 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm somewhat surprised at the hostility to this opinion piece expressed in the comments. Let's get real. From a political standpoint, this "movement" could be extraordinarily damaging to the President and Democrats in the 2012 election. I listened to NPR's "On Point" this morning and heard one of the Occupy WS "leaders" calling for the establishment of a new political party to participate in the upcoming election. One of the other guests, Tom Gitlin, a professor at Columbia University and former leader of SDS back in the '60s, got it right. He said (and I paraphrase) there are only two words you need to remember in order to understand what a bad idea a third party is - Ralph Nader. http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/10/12/occupy-wall-street. I suggest two others - George Bush. Many of these folks are well-meaning, and I admire their sense of purpose. But, their naive view that we'll be better off in the long run even if that means the election of Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, or Herman Cain would be as politically idiotic in 2012 as it was in 2000. Read your history, guys. America isn't run by a parliamentary system. Take votes away from Obama and you'll regret it, but more importantly, so will what's left of rational thought in our nation.

- barijoe

October 12, 2011 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Occupy Wall Street is, in contrast, not the brainchild of the Democratic Party left and it is contemptuous as far as I can see of the Dems and distant from (if not hostile to) a lot of basic institutions of small-d democratic representation and action." This is an understatement. I heard some demonstrators calling their little encampments "Obamavilles" and quoting Malcolm X. I have a feeling that some of the guys in the take over demos may be paid by the Republicans also.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rewired hog -- yes but that's not the point. It's not about whether there's a totally acceptable reason for the voice-repetition idea, it's about whether it looks creepy as it goes around the globe on YouTube and whether (if so) that creepiness can be exploited politically against OWS.

- ironyroad

October 12, 2011 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What sister Wandrey eloquently said. ("but do it honestly and not within a rigged system of sychophant politician/whores that has actually weakened capitalism to the point of collapse." You've just summed up the history of Fianna Fail Wandrey.)

- IggyPop

October 12, 2011 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's get real. From a political standpoint, this "movement" could be extraordinarily damaging to the President and Democrats in the 2012 election. Or it could pull their fat out of the fire. Let's remember that in 2010, a lot of Tea Partiers claimed to hate the Republican establishment, and the non-Fox media portrayed them as loonies in tricorner hats. Yet they delivered a huge Republican win. Their passion got them to the polls, and once in the voting booth with a Republican and a Democrat in front of them, it was obvious which one they were going to pick. Occupy Wall Street looks astonishingly similar to me. Hate the establishment: Check. Portrayed as loonies in the media: Check. Fired up: Check. Gonna vote hard left in the primaries: Check. Gonna vote Democratic in the general, because the alternative is intolerable: Check. All in all, I think they're a great thing to have on our side. My only worry is that they might primary Obama. However, I think he can co-opt them if he plays his cards right, which would turn them into a big asset for him.

- Dausuul

October 12, 2011 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another thing: I think we're going to see a lot more movements like this in the next few years. As long as the economy remains a wreck and the political system remains paralyzed, the torches-and-pitchforks impulse will continue to erupt. Occupy Wall Street at least has their pitchforks aimed the right way.

- Dausuul

October 12, 2011 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandrey thanks. I think it's ironic that so many establishment progressives, who pine for some legitimate grass-roots movement they can cling to, suddenly get a progressive, legitimate grass-roots movement and now they're feeling uncomfortable? And you're spot on about the kleptocratic version of capitalism we have now. barijoe...Tom Gitlin misses the point (even as a former SDS member). Nader was never a movement. He was a third-party, spoiler candidate running under the Green Party banner. The OWS calling for a third party is just that. A legitimate 3rd party, because a good majority of the people realize the fix has been in for sometime. The only reason we've been forced to adhere to a two-party system is that the two parties have no interest in being put out on the street. The obscure rules for third party candidates to participate in debates are created by the GOP and the Dems. The GOP absorbed the Tea Party and the Tea Party had no qualms about that because it was just the astroturfed branch of the far right of the GOP. Whereas the OWS has little desire to be co-opted by the Dems because of the likes of Ben "DINO" Nelson wander the halls of Congress like a catatonic zombie purporting to operate in the interests of the people just as long at the people are named Cargill, ADM, or Montsanto.

- singlspeed

October 12, 2011 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR takes pride in having righted the ship when it was listing port and, by doing so, preserving (or re-establishing) its relevance. From that perspective, this editorial isn't surprising. I understand that MP's influence has diminished, but I cannot help but read this editorial in the context of MP's red-baiting post several days ago (about Syria). Is there an ideological war at TNR?

- rayward

October 12, 2011 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great read, in simple graphs, of why TNR's editorial is full of it and the protesters do get it: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1 I say more power to that group in NYC and others around the country. Apparently the TNR editors don't have a clue of what's going on in the republic.

- tmmats

October 12, 2011 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WandreyCer is there any movement for so called "social justice" that you haven't endorsed no matter how vile or how naive? You probably would have endorsed Lenin's revolution because it claimed that it was for equality, justice and redistribution of wealth.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Singlspeed - Actually, the Tea Party was and is uncomfortable with having been assimilated by the GOP establishment... and the GOP establishment has more than a touch of indigestion. It's funny that you call Ben Nelson a DINO, because of course the Tea Partiers knocked off a number of Republican pols they considered RINOs. I think Occupy Wall Street has the potential to do much the same. As for creating a third party, it would be a disaster if they did. Whether Nader was "a movement" or "a spoiler candidate" is irrelevant; the problem is that in a first-past-the-post plurality voting system, third parties are destructive to their own stated interests. They split the vote and thereby throw the election to the party they most dislike. However, I think the memory of Nader is still green enough that a third party would not gain traction.

- Dausuul

October 12, 2011 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rayward " I understand that MP's influence has diminished, but I cannot help but read this editorial in the context of MP's red-baiting post several days ago (about Syria). Is there an ideological war at TNR?" Red baiting several days ago? Which century are you living in? TNR has been consistent in its endorsement of a practical kind of liberalism and has always been skeptical of pie for the masses kind of "social justice."

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tmat - Business Insider is a great site. I'd say you're absolutely right about the TNR editors. They're living in a different country in a distant century.

- IggyPop

October 12, 2011 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(Clarification to previous: A third-party Presidential run would be a disaster. Third-party candidates at the state level might work, depending on the state.)

- Dausuul

October 12, 2011 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"..... the fate of the Dodd-Frank legislation—currently the best liberal hope for improving democratically regulated capitalism...." Are you guys serious? You can't be. Or maybe you live in some parallel universe devoid of the reality taking place in this universe. Dodd-Frank is so weak and toothless BofA figured out how to make money off of it. I didn't say it, your own blogger-in-residence documented evidence of it: http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/95632/debit-debit What is going in in TNR's editorial offices? Have all the real liberals left the building (or are barred from the offices)?

- tmmats

October 12, 2011 at 5:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@ dausuul "creating a third party, it would be a disaster if they did. Whether Nader was "a movement" or "a spoiler candidate" is irrelevant; the problem is that in a first-past-the-post plurality voting system, third parties are destructive to their own stated interests. They split the vote and thereby throw the election to the party they most dislike." Why is creating a third party so disastrous? Are you that fixed on polarity that you see little difference between the Dems and GOP when it comes to particular policy issues? Oftentimes it seems that they're two-sides of the same coin. Who determined that the only legitimate arbiters of Democracy and defending our Republic, the Constitution and representing the People, are and should always remain the GOP and the Democrats? We're convinced that this is the only choice because neither party desires it to be otherwise. And I hate to break it to you and those old-school curmudgeons out there but there are a lot of young voters who don't even know who Nader is or was.

- singlspeed

October 12, 2011 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And I hate to break it to you and those old-school curmudgeons out there but there are a lot of young voters who don't even know who Nader is or was." If they are that young, they probably can't vote and if they are that stupid they shouldn't vote.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 6:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon, I'm specifically referring to Nader's 2000 run for president. His 2004 and 2008 runs simply illustrate his marginalization as a third-party candidate that even first time voters and young college kids (who may have participated for the first time in 2008) who would have been too young to remember Nader running for 2000. As to your remark "If they are that young, they probably can't vote and if they are that stupid they shouldn't vote." I would reply that they are outnumbered by a far greater population of old, stupid voters who consistently show they can't vote and shouldn't be voting.

- singlspeed

October 12, 2011 at 6:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon, we get it; the anarchist, Greenie, anti-globalism protesters in Europe to which OSW bears some similarity have a strong anti-Israel, pro-Palistinian bias that both you and I oppose. And any movement that stands in opposition to bankers in New York City is almost by definition going to be catnip for anti-Semites. And, yes, Zizek is definitely anti-Israel if not a frank anti-Semite. But despite David Brooks's attempt to imply as much, none of this means that OWS is itself, as a movement anti-Semitic. And it doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with Israel.

- AaronW

October 12, 2011 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Singlspeed, you're rehashing the exact same arguments that were made by Nader supporters in 2000. Practically word for word. Do you want to try and claim, looking back, that Gore would have been just as bad as Dubya? Obama is not my ideal President, but there are miles between him and Mitt Romney, and light-years between Romney and the rest of the trolls.

- Dausuul

October 12, 2011 at 6:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AaronW, fuck you, bigot. Where did I mention Israel or antisemitism? I am talking about the demonstrators naivete about politics and economics.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama is not my ideal President, but there are miles between him and Mitt Romney, and light-years between Romney and the rest of the trolls." That's what it's about.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 7:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Dausuul, the argument to be made in favor of a third party challenge isn't that Obama and any of the Repubs are the same or that a GOP victory wouldn't be worse than a Democratic victory; the argument is that in the long term the system would benefit from an increase in the number of available political choices. Honestly, though, I don't believe that our voting system that permits pleurality winners to take all the marbles can really tolerate multiple parties. As soon as you started seeing significant numbers of elected officials for whom majorities of their constituents had not voted, people would get too pissed off.

- AaronW

October 12, 2011 at 7:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How does anything I said make me a bigot, arnon? You didn't say it in this thread, but on multiple occasions on these boards you have expressed skepticism about the Greens both here and abroad specifically because of their anti-Israel stance and their latent anti-Semitism. Now here you express similar skepticism about OWS giving as specific grounds OWS's association with the known anti-Israel (? anti-Semitic) Slavoj Zizek. Is it really such a leap to suggest that concerns about anti-Semitism might have something to do with your expressed aversion to OWS? But whatever. This biggot hates Jews so much he married one and is raising his kids Jewish.

- AaronW

October 12, 2011 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the goal is a system where there are more than two party options available, count me in! We'll get a campaign started to switch to instant runoff or some other type of voting that's less susceptible to "spoiler" effects. It'd be a pretty heavy lift to start at the federal level, but we might be able to pull it off in a small state that's fond of slightly kooky experiments in government... I'm thinking Vermont. Once some third and fourth and fifth parties get a foothold there, we can work to expand to other states. When several states are using such systems, those third and fourth and fifth parties will have enough of a national presence to start pushing for reform at the federal level. Win! Man, and here I thought we were talking about running a third-party candidate under the current system, which attempt has never once produced a third-party President in the entire history of the republic, and has frequently thrown the election to the other side. Glad I was wrong about that.

- Dausuul

October 12, 2011 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Is it really such a leap to suggest that concerns about anti-Semitism might have something to do with your expressed aversion to OWS?" It is a fantastic leap, since nowhere did I express a concern for antisemitism as far as these demonstrators go. It’s also unkind to try and turn me into a single issue person. In fact I have been angry at some conservative Jewish writers who did try to bring it up without any proof. I know why their trying to do and it is they rather than the demonstrators who are a danger top the Jewish community here. Again my concern has to do with the effects on the 2012 elections, and with fantastic visions of economic justice which will never be realized either here or anywhere. It's their naiveté that is bothering me. Some of the people I heard articulate a belief in utopian visions expressed in a smarmy unctuous tone used by public relation people. Listen to a broadcast by “talk of the nation” on npr and you’ll what I mean.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 7:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does anyone think that if a third party is successful others will not start a forth, a fifth and a sixth party both at the State and federal government levels. This will spell chaos and could paralyze the country. If you think a two party gridlock is bad wait till you have three or more party gridlock.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon - a rousing fuck you for existing, but in this case for your insinuation that I salute murderous bigoted faciscts - that's you dear, your post is called "projection" and you are an arrogant, ignorant buffoon. You don't know me at all.

- WandreyCer

October 12, 2011 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is a fantastic leap, since nowhere did I express a concern for antisemitism as far as these demonstrators go. It’s also unkind to try and turn me into a single issue person." Fair enough. Please accept my apologies. However, I must point out that it is also unkind of you to try to turn me into a bigot on no basis whatsoever.

- AaronW

October 12, 2011 at 8:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think one of the things that speak for a third party is that a number of issues that don't easily align right or left -- the environment is the classic example -- can't find the proper setting. To that extent, it would be good if conservatives who care about the state of the physical world we live in had potentially a political home that was receptive to their ecological concerns. If you're now a Republican who cares about the environment, you are like a fish on a bicycle, a fish that other people throw rocks at. Likewise, the Democrats have become the party of ethnic identity politics rather than the party of workers and employees, the party of people who went to college rather than the party of people who want public education to work, the party of Blue Dog saboteurs like Ben Nelson who is only a Dem for reasons of history and culture, rather than the party of social reform out of conviction. An opening-up of the U.S. party landscape could possibly release these misconfigured energies in a productive way.

- ironyroad

October 12, 2011 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's very refreshing to see such an honest statement regarding where a pillar of the liberal establishment stands. As a self-admitted "hard leftist" and donor to OWS (temporary employment in Honduras being my only barrier to actual participation), I don't want TNR or the Democratic Party anywhere near the demonstrations. Occupy Wall Street isn't just a demonstration against the GOP and the Tea Party; it's a demonstration against the entire US political/economic establishment as a whole, and the complete disappearance of a promising future in this country. As such, OWS is not on the same side as the liberals, and I mean it when I commend TNR's board for recognizing that fact. TNR and the rest of the liberal establishment believes the working class and ruling class can co-exist benignly, while OWS participants appear to have realized that class society is nothing more and nothing less than perpetual class war. It's just a question of whether or not the 99% choose the fight back at all.

- whyamihere

October 12, 2011 at 8:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't demean yourself by responding to it Wandrey. Arnon - Wandrey does social work in New York that she doesn't need too exactly because she has that keen sense of social justice that you seem to hate. You really should think before you type and make a complete tool of yourself.

- IggyPop

October 12, 2011 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WandreyCer “arnon - a rousing fuck you for existing, but in this case for your insinuation that I salute murderous bigoted faciscts - that's you dear, your post is called "projection" and you are an arrogant, ignorant buffoon. You don't know me at all.” Such a loving “social worker.” Typical. This folks is how dreamy utopian react when they confront people who resists their impossible dreams. They stop dreaming and start building gulags. Btw: I didn’t say you salute “murderous bigoted fascists” (what other kind is there?). And if you think I do then it’s you who is projecting. I did say that you probably would have endorsed Lenin as did lots of people who believed that he represented social justice.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 8:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Likewise, the Democrats have become the party of ethnic identity politics rather than the party of workers and employees, the party of people who went to college rather than the party of people who want public education to work,” True, and this will change in the course of time since many of the Democrats traditional supporters are becoming unemployed. There is nothing like being unemployed to sober you up and start worrying about real bread and butter issues rather than identity politics. “the party of Blue Dog saboteurs like Ben Nelson who is only a Dem for reasons of history and culture, rather than the party of social reform out of conviction.” This is unfair, unless you are yearning for a multi-party country (and I mean four or more parties, each party will be the home of many people who don’t agree on all issues.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AaronW, I didn't try to turn you into a bigot. I insulted you because you attributed beliefs to me that I didn't and don't hold.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 8:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR gets this right. Some kind of left-of-center movement is necessary. I'm not all that unhappy to see the Occupy Wall Street effort, although I'd much rather see it coming from the unions (sigh). But know what and who you're supporting, those of you going all out in support. This was hardly an "organic" movement, Wandrey -- look up Adbusters and its role, along with some other organizers, in getting this started. And everyone, please check into those who put out the "Occupied Wall Street Journal" paper and their ties to Indypendent/Indymedia -- the likes of Arun Gupta, Jed Brandt, Alex Kane. There's a difference between responsible left and loopy left, and these and their buddies are somewhere beyond the fringes of the loopy left. That's not useful for achieving change. At all. And "human microphone" is creepy and is being used by the "leaders" unnecessarily -- on that march up past the rich folks the crowd sounded like a bunch of cult-freak zombies. To say nothing of turning John Lewis away in Atlanta while welcoming Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon in NY -- turn away a city's congressman while welcoming 2 of the loopiest lefties. And there is a mathematical proof, by the way, that it's impossible to have more than 2 major parties at any given time in a single-member district system. Many thanks, TNR editors.

- LISAH

October 12, 2011 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hehe, arnon. Calling me a bigot is attributing beliefs to me that I don't hold. You could say, "You did it first!" but that would be kinda childish wouldn't it?

- AaronW

October 12, 2011 at 9:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ok, OK, Aaron we were both wrong about each other.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon - you clearly don't know many social workers - and how rich that you become offended at someone attributing beliefs to you that you do not hold. Have you no sense of self awareness at all? You're also a hateful old fart sitting in the corner judging anyone and anything that you suspect might not hate Arabs and Muslims as much as you do - and calling them bigots. You need help.

- WandreyCer

October 12, 2011 at 9:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cer "You're also a hateful old fart sitting in the corner judging anyone and anything that you suspect might not hate Arabs and Muslims..." You are an ignorant old fart who thinks that anyone who doesn't embrace hate filled Islamicists hates all Arabs and Muslims.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 10:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This is unfair, unless you are yearning for a multi-party country (and I mean four or more parties, each party will be the home of many people who don’t agree on all issues." You may be right, arnon. There is an historical tendency in American politics, I agree, to have little patience with third parties: in the 1850s the Republicans ultimately swallowed not only the Whigs but also the Native American Party (aka the Know-Nothings); in the 1900s the Democrats swallowed the Populists, and after that marginalized the American Socialist Party (the largest vote for an avowedly socialist presidential candidate was for Debs in 1912 -- it's the centenary next year). Nevertheless, one has to ask what is the utility of someone who carries the party's label but cannot be relied upon to support his party's president even in moments of significant crisis. I have no problem with the voters of the state of Nebraska electing Nelson as their U.S. senator. That's their right, absolutely, and no doubt he delivers the goods in a practical way. I have a problem with Nelson running as the representative of a party -- which gives him support in his elections, incidentally, and enables him to chair committees -- he appears to want to cripple and trash at every possible moment. If I had a magic wand, Collins and Snowe would be D and Nelson would be R.

- ironyroad

October 12, 2011 at 10:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WandreyCer "Arnon - you clearly don't know many social workers -" I wasn't talking about social workers who are as varied as a group as any other group. I was talking about W. Cer. who believes in some fairy tale about "social justice" and when that fairy tale goes bust she is ready to become a suicide bomber.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 10:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, he is running for reelection. Unless you want a Republican to take his place you need to understand the political climate there and show some sympathy for what he is up against. Trust me there is a real difference between Democrats and Republicans even in Nebraska. Did you ever here of former Republican Senator Roman Hruska, the defender of mediocrity?

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 10:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is a quote from Hruska: "Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos." http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/27/us/roman-l-hruska-dies-at-94-leading-senate-conservative.html

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 10:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To predict whether the Occupy Wall Street movement will correspond, on the Left, to what the Tea Party movement did on the Right, it is useful to review the course followed by the latter. Within months of appearing on the scene, the Tea Partiers got to work in Republican Party politics, and showed up at many local party meetings. Then they organized the ritual political beheading of a few veteran Republican candidates whom they deemed insufficiently reactionary (e.g., Bob Bennett in Utah, Charlie Crist in Florida, Mike Castle in Delaware). Pundits wrung their hands over the unseemliness of these actions, forgetting Napoleon's famous policy of occasionally executing one of his generals in order, he explained, "to encourage the others". The Tea Partiers followed exactly the same tack, by means of which they in effect took over the Republican Party: in short order, every remaining Republican politician had dropped to the ground to kiss the boots of the TP and its slogans and outlook. After the 2010 elections, the TP took control of the House of Representatives. A corresponding action for the Occupy Wall Street movement would be getting to work in Democratic Party politics, with the aim of pressuring its politicians and officeholders to the Left. The likelihood of this scenario can already be judged. TNR reports that an OWS gathering refused to be addressed by John Lewis---the venerable civil rights veteran and liberal Democratic congressman from Atlanta. Mr. Lewis' offense was, evidently, that he was a liberal Democratic congressman, although other OWSers were happy to hear an address from Slavoj Zisek, a professional poseur who occasionally affects nostalgia for Stalinism. In the E-zine Truthout, William Rivers Pitt reports as follows: "Prominent House Democrats are embracing the Occupy Wall Street protests as demonstrations are spreading across the country ...Howls of outrage and disgust from OWS activists and supporters could be heard all up and down the Eastern seaboard when word reached them of their new prospective allies. No, no, and hell no, went the refrain. ...The OWS movement is protesting the Democrats as much as it is protesting against the rest of the crooked institutional theft machine that shattered the economy in the first place." So, the OWS movement considers itself too pure to be contaminated by any part of the Democratic Party, or presumably any other aspect of "the crooked institutional theft machine" that is---well, politics. After all, how could engaging in the messy, tedious, compromise-ridden, and interest-ridden process of representative politics compare to the sheer thrill of big outdoor mobilizations, a form of street theater in which everybody gets to star in his or her own drama? Alas, we don't need a weatherman, to quote Bob Dylan, to know that the wind will not blow the OWSers into the sort of practical action that will have any institutional consequences at all, unlike, unfortunately, their Tea Party counterparts .

- jgallant

October 12, 2011 at 10:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There has been speculation that Union organizations will join the demonstrations. I hope they do and teach the demonstrators about practical politics. If this happens I will take them more seriously.

- arnon

October 12, 2011 at 10:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Classic pundit junk. Set up a straw man - Occupy's alleged anti-capitalism - and knock it down. All in the derisive tone usually reserved for Peretz' snarkiest smearings of Obama. The group is still taking form. "No" to liberals supporting them is at best premature. Why not get involved, and bend the arc of Occupy's trajectory? Or wait, so as to truly deploy the skepticism we liberals are allegedly known for.

- floydsm8

October 12, 2011 at 11:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the editors are missing the point: The value of the protests DOES NOT lie in specific views voiced. And OF COURSE many of the views voiced may be too liberal for mainstream voters. Conversely, it is actually A GOOD THING that the protests have not coalesced around a single set of specific demands. The value of the protests lies in demonstrating that there is energy behind a left wing critique of the financial system and the economic elite in this country. This puts a "general wind" at the back of Democrats. More specifically, it puts Democrats on the side of "the people", and causes Republicans to take the side of the powerful--and unpopular--interests that mainstream voters believe got us into this mess. Part of the reason why Republicans did well in 2010 is because they were able to portray the necessary--but unpopular--bailouts as Democratic pandering to the elites. The terrain that the current protests are opening up for Democrats to take is strategically advantageous, if only Democrats have the brains and the balls to take that terrain.

- NateG

October 12, 2011 at 11:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More than anything, the demonstrators are are an indictment of the American educational system. They have learned nothing of Locke, Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson, and so they are open to the apostles of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Castro. I believe the TNR editorial board's claim that it is anti-totalitarian and pro-democracy. Sadly, that seems to to be a minority position on today's liberal left.

- bulbman1066

October 12, 2011 at 11:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wall Street needs reform. We need to bring back Glass-Steagall and to break up the big banks. In exchange let's abolish the Departments of Education and Energy. We need a centrist movement that will stick it to the parasites on both sides.

- bulbman1066

October 12, 2011 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't agree with the OWS "movement" being taken over by the Left. I think the focus should be on creating jobs, not yelling anti-capitalist slogans. Slogans aren't going to change the excesses of monopoly capitalism. The people on Wall Street are getting record bonuses this year. They're laughing at the "occupiers" in the streets, many of whom are jobless. This reminds me of those Enron sociopaths who were caught on tape laughing about being able to charge a little old lady in California hundreds of dollars a month for electricity because of Enron's criminal monopoly. We need free enterprise in America. Up with free enterprise! Down with monopoly capitalism! Out with Republicans! Speaking of Republicans, they may have made a fatal mistake Tuesday. All of them in the Senate voted against Obama's Jobs Bill, no doubt with Grover Norquist in mind. They obviously do not want a single job created in America. The Democrats may be smart enough to use that Senate vote in the 2012 campaign, or maybe they won't. Of course, the Right will say, "Lower taxes even more and deregulate even more, and jobs will be created." Righto. G.W. Bush implemented that idea big time in 2001, after he inherited a booming economy. Six years later America was bleeding millions of jobs (that's why the Democrats took back Congress in 2006), and two years after that Wall Street crashed. Been there, done that, didn't work. We're still waiting for jobs to be created. G.H.W. Bush had a term for the Right's sorry job-creation formula: Voodoo Economics.

- magboy47.

October 13, 2011 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have not been so disappointed with a TNR editorial since TNR endorsed Joseph Lieberman for President. I should have remembered, though, that nothing spooks liberal elites (elitist liberals) more than the spectre of the mob-- much more so than the spectre of millions of unemployed, outrageous unequal distribution of wealth and power, undemocratic hold on government by monied interests, etc. You have convinced me to buy the protesters a pizza and look even more skeptically at your editorials.

- Saturn25

October 13, 2011 at 10:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To my Canadian's eyes, this is a stinting editorial. OWS seems an evolving thing with lots of complexity, reflecting the frustration born of the effects of an economy gone awry systemically, and is too wide and deep for the pinched dismissiveness of the editorial, which makes narrow, tunnel visioned arguments disserving the phenomenon and what's driving it and which betrays a need to try corraling a bucking horse nowhere near ready to be broken. Let the thing live and grow, take part even, and let's see what happens.

- basman

October 13, 2011 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK I give up. What are you saying? First you state: "This task is made especially difficult by the fact that there is no single leader who is speaking for the crowds, no book of demands that has been put forward by the movement. Like all such gatherings, it undoubtedly includes a broad range of views." THEN you go on to cherrypick a select set of views leading to the conclusion the "OWS" movement is anti-capitalist. Sorry, I don't see that. Yeah, there are some loons there. But America has virtually no left at all. So it's hard to believe a mass movement will sweep the nation if no one joins it. Even liberals represent only half of what conservatives are in this country. And let's look at the frustration factor. Perhaps some views are extreme to counterbalance the insane, but 'mainstream' rhetoric on the right. There's no question fanaticism is the order of the day on the right, with Bachmann and Perry given serious consideration. But there are no examples on the left as extreme as there are on the right. So the rational choice is for liberals to embrace this movement, with all its faults and to see it as possibly heralding a reply to the delusional "America exceptionalism" movement on the right.

- bpuharic

October 13, 2011 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is a fact, however, that populism of the right is treated with a lot more respect in the U.S. than populism of the left, and that can have consquences. The Tea Party may be too strident for a lot of people but for the average Joe or Jane it looks vaguely normal in an Applebee's Restaurant sort of way. This is not necessarily the case with OWS. I think one problem is that in this discussion we've been mingling the politics of OWS with the style of OWS. This has been a problem for a couple generations of left activism. Often people are open to the ideas expressed by an activist group but simultaneously put off by the way that group approaches the public. That said, the polls seem to suggest OWS is being noticed by the mainstream, and with a note of approval.

- ironyroad

October 13, 2011 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon says "There has been speculation that Union organizations will join the demonstrations. I hope they do and teach the demonstrators about practical politics. If this happens I will take them more seriously." So for arnon to feel comfortable with these supposed far-leftist, quasi-proMarxist, "mob ruled" mentality of the OWS, organized labor (with a far left, quasi-proMarxist, mentality" needs to show them practical politics. Maybe arnon has been sleepwalking for so long to realize that the pro-labor, Unions are and have been a dwindling force in politics amongst the general population for quite a while now. Unions are good at two things when it comes to politics. Voter organization and fund raising. That's it. The reason I, rayward, Wandrey and others have been repeatedly saying that the OWS doesn't need "establishment" liberals "leading" the way is that for those joining OWS, are trying to find another way to shake up/rattle the cages/protest the system that has failed for them and most us - at the political and economic levels. Several have stated the only way OWS can be taken seriously is if they're absorbed into the fold of the big D party and "shown" the way. Anyone who argues counter to that or mentions a third way / third party some people start equating it to mob rule or some third-world coalition government made up of 42 parties, thus canceling out the ability for progressive reform and yet defend a 2-party system that IS literally at a standstill. So when some of us say the cage needs rattling it needs rattling from outside the box. Why is it that the Dems always have to move right of center? How about a left party that counterbalances the fringe far-right, proto-libertarian/one-party rule lunacy that is now the GOP. Go back and revisit the histories of the GOP and Democrats and they have vacillated back and forth from being liberal to conservative, conservative to liberal respectively for over a 100 years. Teddy Roosevelt's GOP is not Michelle Bachman's GOP. Obama's Democratic party is not the Grover Cleveland. You begin to realize that a lot of folks consider the two parties to be the same side of the coin sometimes. Maybe the best thing to come out of the OWS protests would be a national third party that is left of the Dems and would allow the Democratic party to position itself as the Centrist party. Where the likes of Webb, Nelson, Landrieu, Stone and other right of center Democrats can operate without the far fringes of either party applying supposed "pledges" or litmus tests. The purpose of the OWS is to shake the institutions awake and let them know the status quo is broken and needs fixing. The 'establishment' has no interest in fixing things because they benefit from the system. The media whores, the pundits, the politicians, their benefactors, corporations, the 1%.

- singlspeed

October 13, 2011 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The Tea Party may be too strident for a lot of people but for the average Joe or Jane it looks vaguely normal in an Applebee's Restaurant sort of way. This is not necessarily the case with OWS." I think one of the reason why Tea Partiers loudmouthed are taken more seriously is that the OWS are mostly young people and students. Not all are but many of those interviewed in the media seem to be.

- arnon

October 13, 2011 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

singlspeed "So for arnon to feel comfortable with these supposed far-leftist, quasi-proMarxist, "mob ruled" mentality of the OWS, organized labor (with a far left, quasi-proMarxist, mentality" needs to show them practical politics." That's right singelbraincell. Marxism has been responsible for the death of tens of millions of people around the world in the last century. Only a moron would take them seriously. And unions such as they are have more legitimacy than a billion Marxists.

- arnon

October 13, 2011 at 4:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One difference between the Tea Party and OWS is that the former to my knowledge never engaged in organized civil disobedience

- basman

October 13, 2011 at 6:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you. It's why I'm a liberal and not a "progressive" -- and why I'm a subscriber -- that you can criticize this extremist anti-capitalist movement as you do. So keep up the good work, and go further and deeper on this, and start with battling your own journalists here that have gotten rather pie-eyed on this subject. I'm glad you've singled out the creepy People's Mike stuff. That's very anti-democratic, as it substitutes group-think and coercion by the cadres pretending to be "the People" for authentic democracy, and all that hand-waving is meant to undermine one person/one vote. Clue: the cadres first explain it as "necessary" because they "aren't allowed" to have bullhorns. Well, if you get a parade permit or organize a rally, of course you can have bullhorns -- people always do. You just can't do that in a public park that is open 24 hours to the public, but not The People *cough*. And guess what -- the People *are* using megaphones as we see time and again on Youtube and Live stream. Then, they do it to be heard (!) even as they tell us that microphones and PA systems would be "oppressive". Oh? No Hyde Park? No Roberts Rules of Order? No Talking Stick? No Taking Turns? Just the crowd? And the cadres... Indeed, there's lots more to be wary in this leftist bureaucratic start-up (it's not a movement) as well. What is the provenance of Ad-Busters? Why can't the person registering the website occupywallstreet.org show his name? And for that matter, what about the awful anonymous and thuggish Anonymous, notorious for their Bolshevik tactics, hacking and disabling business and government web sites, costing millions of dollars? You want *those* people in charge of your life? And that class warfare and the monkey math -- there will always be some small percent of people who own the most of the country's wealth, and what of it? It's not some inherent evil but merely math. What the OWS gang is proposing is uravnilovka, Soviet levelling, not "justice". Justice would involve democratic and liberal social policy with elected representatives. These thugs keep wailing about how Wall Street has "bought" all the congressmen, a wild exaggeration -- and as if they themselves aren't bought essentially by Silicon Valley moguls fomenting cultural revolution (which is really what this is all about -- Kickstarters, and their venture capitalists). Whatever the resonance of the 99 percent stories, they are being incited and manipulated shamefully by the truly greedy -- the greedy for social power and influence. They're just as much a problem as multi-million dollar "banksters" because they will take away other people's rights, not only their money. The Leninist 'worst the better' operations I've seen in NYC at marches, where demonstrators deliberately provoke police, crash barriers, and go in the street instead of the sidewalk so they can appear as victims -- this will ensure the movement stays small -- or if it does happen to grow, that it becomes as sinister as the Marxism it mimics and which Zizek toys with as a stick in the eye of the West that he craves even as he loathes. And that's a bad thing, because we do need a social movement in this country that can protest unjust wars and protest various grave injustices at home and abroad and propose viable alternatives. It really does matter how you make the movement first. And making a kitchen and a library and a first aid station isn't all there is to it -- although some have been impressed with this as if they were fawning parents cooing over baby's first step. Perhaps alternatives to the extremist and manipulative OWS will appear, just as they did in their day to the SDS with its Marxist and violent factions. We must do better than Port Huron.

- catfitz

October 13, 2011 at 7:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

christ almighty arnon. Stop conflating the OWS with Lenin and Stalin's versions of Marxism. I don't see the OWS setting up collective farms and gulags to send CEOs to. Stop projecting your fears of some fantasy army of a billion marxists marching on NYC. OWS is not marxist, if you read their loose set of demands it doesn't come off as a drum-circle version of the Communist Manifesto.

- singlspeed

October 14, 2011 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@jet it's completely disingenuous to claim that the People's Microphone is only an exigency of these extremists because they are denied the use of a bullhorn. Of course, they could have a march and through mere notification, get a parade permit and have bullhorns, or organize a rally and have loudspeakers. But in fact, when you look around the country at the different "occupations," you will see plenty of cadres using bullhorns! Of course they use bullhorns...and then get the crowds to mimic the speaker in that fashion, too. They themselves tell you that it is not about the local regulations disallowing bullhorns, it's about their belief that loudspeakers oppress people (sigh) and that minorities, or silent majorities, ostensibly, are drowned out by those oppressors using loudspeakers. Except...video after video on Youtube and Livestream shows them using bullhorns themselves. No, it's about the incantation and the power of mesmorizing people and making them feel united in a cause and burning in the slogans. The propagandizing and desensitizing techniques are age-old, it's merely wrapped in a new story for whatever gullible ears show up next to fawn over them. @singlspeed, gosh, I will stop "conflating" these people with Lenin's and Stalin's version of Marxism when they stop inciting hatred of the rich, stop ranting about prosecuting people without indicating any criminal grounds for doing so, stop carrying hateful signs like Eat the Rich, stop going right up to people's houses they hate and bullying them with a personal presence, and doing and saying 100 other things that indicate they are Marxists who believe fervently that capitalism should be overthrown and some sort of coercive socialism with themselves in charge and their People's Mike Myrmidons taking over the levers of state. Every single poster and demand I've seen involves nationalizing banks, making "people's development banks" that are about requisitioning resources and redistributing them by the lights of their doctrines -- even their excuses for their hypocrisy -- like their awe of Steve Jobs and possession of iphones -- is explained away by the fact that Jobs, albeit in the 1 percent, was "socially useful". Reminds me of the Soviets prosecuting the poet Joseph Brodsky because he was a "parasite" and not "socially useful".

- catfitz

October 14, 2011 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"gosh, I will stop "conflating" these people with Lenin's and Stalin's version of Marxism when they stop inciting hatred of the rich, stop ranting about prosecuting people without indicating any criminal grounds for doing so, stop carrying hateful signs like Eat the Rich, stop going right up to people's houses they hate and bullying them with a personal presence . . ." Is that what Lenin and Stalin did? I didn't realize. For some reason I thought the former organized a violent social revolution in a quasi-medieval country that overturned an absolute monarchy, followed by a savage civil war in which millions died, while the latter turned that country into a personal totalitarian dictatorship in which millions died over two decades.

- ironyroad

October 14, 2011 at 5:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ironyroad if you're not busy later will you join me in picketing that restaurant (talk about "Eat The Rich') last night that way overcharged us for a mediocre bottle of Ripasso.

- basman

October 14, 2011 at 7:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman, an invitation after my own heart -- I can see you're a man of self-sacrifice and unbending principle. In fact, if your expense account will run to it, I'll go in covertly and order a few glasses myself beforehand, just to make sure we have a comparative basis for the indictment.

- ironyroad

October 14, 2011 at 8:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've applied to OWS for funding as we speak.

- basman

October 14, 2011 at 9:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to ask, though: what's Ripasso? It sounds like an obscure battle in WW2 where the Waffen SS held out at some mountain pass longer than the allies thought they would.

- ironyroad

October 15, 2011 at 3:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

....[ree-PAH-soh] A process used in producing some valpolicella wines to give them richness and body. After the wine is fermented in the usual way, it's placed in casks containing the lees from a prior batch of recioto or recioto amarone a concentrated wine made from passito grapes. This process, which lasts from 2 to 3 weeks, adds color, tannins and complex flavors.... From my more simple perspective, it's an Amarone like wine. We're Amarone lovers but Ripasso is a compromise made with one of my friends when we go out for dinner and who finds Amarone too heavy.

- basman

October 15, 2011 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Honestly, last time I followed a TNR endorsement, you were gung-ho on the BushCo led Iraqi invasion. The GOP and their wealthy backers have had this nation in a death grip for a very long time. The Democrats have neither the spine nor the inclination to change this state of affairs. Which brings us to the protesters. If it makes the nation more aware or the perpetrators more nervous, that is a good thing. We are a nation of laws, and a government by the people. It is time the lawmakers find out who the people are.

- mcmann00

October 19, 2011 at 2:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I unfortunately learned my lesson 4, 5 years ago. I went to protest to bring the military back from Iraq. I believed that destroying Saddam was great and keeping this artificial nation as one was stupid. It was created for the benefit of Britain putting borders where none should have been and cutting nations a part while uniting others who hated each other into one Kingdom they created for the Hashemite family. It was time to take it apart and let every nation have it's homeland including the Kurds. All Iraq's neighbors would have breathed a sigh of relief while protesting loudly. What I found was total anti- Semitism and anti- Israel instead of the protest we were supposed to do. I am sure the Wall Street Occupier anti- Semites believe that they are doing just what anti- Semites should do against the Jews who "own everything" and "Control Washington." By the way, I am now an independent because my old party is infested with anti- Semites and Obama is at the head.

- Poupic

October 21, 2011 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Only a tnr editorial could conclude one sentence with the accusation that occupy wall street is "genuinely creepy" and then begin the following sentence with "These are not just substantive complaints..." These are not substantive complaints at all. There is no argument here. Zizek argues that we can no longer begin to consider possible alternatives to capitalism, and that that's a problem. Why would a liberal have a problem with this argument? Most liberals are capitalist for pragmatic reasons, not theological ones. It's rights that liberals are theological about but capitalism isn't the same thing.

- NR851651

October 21, 2011 at 11:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As long as the protests are governed through so-called consensus, I expect that the anarchists will have an out-sized and illiberal influence. If you want to identify one of their intellectual gurus, check here.

- STTaylor

October 24, 2011 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This is not a statement of liberal values; moreover it is a statement that should be deeply offensive to liberals..." Deeply offensive? Should be? As opposed to simply skeptical (a better word used elsewhere in this piece)? That's language my "deeply" religious Roman Catholic family members would use --- they are "deeply offended" at any critique of the church hierarchy, regardless of cause. Who's preaching religious/dogmatic group think here? Yes, I understand that the specific statement labeled "deeply offensive" compares US capitalism to Chinese suppression --- I'm not deeply offended by it. I'm amused, I think it's extreme, and I think the extreme analogy makes a certain point quite well. My point is a certain smug, in-group tone that often appears in TNR pieces --- I am "deeply offended" by that. It's echoed in ad hominem attacks that appear in some of these comments, e.g. "that clown Zizek." Such statements don't advance the dialogue, they just feel good to the author. And the proscription from TNR that we "should" embrace the cleaned up version in the article is creepy (and something you complain about re OWS). Come on --- clean it up.

- crsoule1954

November 2, 2011 at 6:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close