The Occupy Movement--Part II What

In the prior post, I discussed from the perspective of a liberal, sometimes Democrat, why the Occupy movement started. Here I'm going to tackle what I think it means.

Join Me! No, Join Me! No, You Were Following Me, right?

Now that Americans have taken to the streets like those in the Arab nations that had their spring, Democrats and Republicans are reacting. Democrats are jumping all over themselves trying to get out ahead of the pack and lead it. Jim Dean was on the Norman Goldman radio show last week trying to appropriate the movement for DFA. Local DFA tweeted about recruiting from within the Chicago occupation only to find out that no one there wanted to join NSDFA. MoveOn sent around Occupy petitions, and ooopsie, connected its own donation site to signers rather than the Occupy donation site. Obama's people apparently just got through counting and categorizing the participants by age and such, and in an unrelated action, unveiled his executive plan to cut student loan interest rates. They took a look at some signs about bankers, lenders and foreclosures, but wait, they already had a plan to ease foreclosures. They just hadn't gotten around to implementing it before the occupation. And they seem to have read only some signs out on Wall and LaSalle Streets as they have sort of ignored the issue that the program's hint of bailout might not be well received

All the political jockeying aside, it's pretty clear that the Occupy movement is not about any political party and not about half-baked plans to half-help the economy without bothering multinational corporations much. The people I've talked to do not want to identify themselves as Democrats, Greens, or Republicans for that matter. I did find a couple of young men who think of themselves as Libertarians, though.

Dirty, Smelly, Stoned Hippies

Leave it to Mark Kirk. Without setting foot near any of his own Illinois constituents on LaSalle Street, he deemed them dirty, smelly, and stoned. From what I'm seeing out on the Internet, that is the Republican meme on the Occupy movement. They have nothing more to say because they represent the 1% and are not ashamed about it at all.

Realty

Sorry, Mark, but I've been to LaSalle and Jackson and no one smelled, no one was stoned and I did not see any evidence of drug or "hippie" culture. I saw a diverse group of people, many of whom simply looked tired. One man told me he hadn't had a night sleep in 5 days. One day when I was there, I saw a couple of men with trader jackets in the group and a couple of people in business suits. I even saw a couple of women who called themselves the "Church Ladies" asking the 1% to repent.

I don't think Occupy is an extension of any Democratic or "progressive" (meaning we would call ourselves liberal, but we're afraid to) movement. The group is diverse in demographics and opinion when categorized conventionally. I met a man who wants both state services and lower taxes. Others voiced visceral reactions to the bank bailouts and what they are seeing in their jobs, or lack thereof, and homes, or lack thereof.

They know something is wrong, but are not quite sure what to do about it or who's plan to support. They mostly don't trust the plans that have been put forth, maybe because there is more politics than plan to most of the articulated plans from the parties and candidates.

Occupy Chicago has come up with some grievances (and then changed them and then tabled them for further changes). This is what I found so far in this work in progress:

1. PASS HR 1489 REINSTATING GLASS-STEAGALL. – A depression era safeguard that separated the commercial lending and investment banking portions of banks. Its repeal in 1999 is considered the major cause of the global financial meltdown of 2008-2009.
2. REPEAL BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY
3. FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis.
4. OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED v. US. – A 2010 Supreme Court Decision which ruled that money is speech. Corporations, as legal persons, are now allowed to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns in the exercise of free "speech."5. PASS THE BUFFET RULE ON FAIR TAXATION, CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOPHOLES, PROHIBIT HIDING FUNDS OFFSHORE.
6. GIVE THE SEC STRICTER REGULATORY POWER, STRENGTHEN THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BUREAU, AND PROVIDE ASSISTANCE FOR OWNERS OF FORECLOSED MORTGAGES WHO WERE VICTIMS OF PREDATORY LENDING.
7. TAKE STEPS TO LIMIT THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATE THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION.
8. ELIMINATE RIGHT OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS OR INDUSTRIES THEY ONCE REGULATED.
9. ELIMINATE CORPORATE PERSONHOOD.
10. INSIST THE FEC STAND UP FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN REGULATING PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC AIRWAVES to help ensure that political candidates ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME for free at reasonable intervals during campaign season.
11. REFORM CAMPAIGN FINANCE WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT (S.750, H.R. 1404).
12. FORGIVE STUDENT DEBT – The same institutions that gave almost $2T in bailouts and then extended $16T of loans at little to no interest for banks can surely afford to forgive the $946B of student debt currently held. Not only does this favor the 99% over the 1%, it has the practical effect of more citizens spending money on actual goods, not paying down interest.

A lot of this sounds like what rank and file Democrats asked for a long time ago which demands were dropped in favor of "don't talk about this because it will make it harder for Obama to be reelected in 2012." Obama promised #7 during his campaign, and while his early days looked good for keeping that promise, his administration's will to keep the promise quickly deteriorated.

There is no doubt about it, early drafts of the movements manifesto are clearly  about campaign finance and financial reform. These folks are the not the buffoons who believe the country is falling about because Obama is African-American or a girl who has been raped can get an abortion. They clearly understand why the economy tanked--uncontrolled speculation by the financial industry caused by deregulation caused by unlimited money in elections and the revolving door between government and private industry.

They might not know it, but they are economic liberals and classic (old fashioned) financial conservatives all rolled up in one. They want progressive taxation, consumer protection and responsible regulation like new deal liberals. They also want law and order on Wall Street like any good conservative from the Eisenhower era and before would favor, not to mention Theodore Roosevelt. In short, they want things to be done correctly.

I've also seen a list of local demands, also work in progress, including TIF reform, protecting the Post Office, foreclosure relief on the local level, fair labor, fair immigration practices, police department reform, and protecting/adding trauma centers.

Going Further? Moving Forward?

It is not clear that this is official out of any Occupy movement, but someone in New York or someone referring to New York, but possibly from Arizona, put together the 99% Declaration. This looks like a plan to set up a convention or continental congress, scheduling and providing the framework for a national general assembly next summer in Philadelphia, complete with elected delegates based on congressional district. They envision this congress creating and ratifying a formal list of grievances, non-partisan and addressing the critical issues now confronting the People of the United States of America. It is apparent to this working group, that our congress is failing to do either.

The Declaration includes a suggested starting point for the grievance list, pretty much like the one out of Chicago, but adding real health care reform, environmental protection, education reform, immigration reform through the Dream Act, ending the Fed, abolishing the electoral college, and ending war for profit.

I'm wondering how this will be accomplished by a movement the hallmark of which is mistrust of organization (even if rightful) and group consensus governing. I may have a few suggestions for them in a later post.

What about 2012?

They say that elections are decided by the independents and since the Occupy movement seems pretty independent to me, they just might decide the 2012 elections. Last night, Rachel Maddow reported that Republican front-runner, Herman Cain's campaign is really Americans for Prosperity, the Koch Industries Koch Brothers funded fake grassroots group that funded the tea parties. So, it looks like it might be a match between the fake tea party and the Occupy movement which I believe is comprised of the real heirs to the Boston Tea party and ThinkProgress agrees. The problem is for whom can the occupiers vote. There don't seem to be many (if any) candidates that fit the bill.