I am not the first person to talk about the one-year anniversary of Occupy. I am not the most qualified person to talk about this. I suggest that you read these far more eloquent and informed reflections on Occupy SF. But since you're here now...
I attended two Occupy SF rallies last year, both on nights when the police were threatening to break up the encampment. I was not heavily involved in Occupy and I did not camp out. Having attended definitely raised my awareness about the movement, but in no way do I feel qualified to speak on Occupy's behalf. My motivation for writing this post is three-fold:
- I want to reflect on the Occupy movement and share my perspectives
- I want to call attention to the one year anniversary of Occupy for those of you for whom it may have flown under the radar, and
- I have a few follow-up posts that I will be writing in the next few weeks that were inspired by my participation in Occupy.
In my opinion, Occupy's most important accomplishment was that it introduced a new voice to the national narrative. Occupy's voice was different from most voices that make up the national narrative because it represented a broader and more diverse cross-section of the United States. The typical voices are the vocal minority and the most vocal of those leading up to Occupy had been from the Tea Party movement. Occupy dramatically altered the national narrative. But more on that in a moment.
When I say the “national narrative,” I am talking about a description of what is happening in the United States from a broader perspective. The national narrative, in my mind, is a big picture approach that ignores much of the "chatter." For example, during the presidential campaign, so much is made of whose attack ad said what, what gaffe was made by a candidate, and how that was unfairly covered by different news organizations. This is all simply chatter and most of the time it doesn't mean anything. The national narrative for this presidential campaign centers on how the candidates are seen on a broader scale. Obama is an inspirational speaker and leader who has not accomplished everything he had promised in 2008. Romney is a successful businessman who comes from a privileged background and has struggled to connect with voters. Both Romney and Obama have presented themselves as more conservative candidates than either of their political records indicate. We can get lost in debate over why Obama hasn't accomplished everything he promised or who has been affecting Romy's ability to connect with voters, but none of this alters the overall narrative.
The national narrative should not be confused with a historical perspective. The historical perspective is an even broader picture, and from that perspective much of the “national narrative” becomes chatter.
It's very similar to using Google Maps and zooming out further and further. Daily news stories would be zoomed all the way in, and the view of the entire western hemisphere is the historical perspective. National narrative is the midway point between the two.
In the year prior to the beginning of the Occupy movement, much of the narrative was from the Tea Party conservatives. The midterm elections of 2010 showed the influence of the Tea Party movement and in early 2011, the effects of that election were beginning to be felt. Occupy, if nothing more, countered the Tea Party movement. For all the talk by Tea Partiers about the tyranny of taxes, Occupy brought the idea of the 99% and called attention to the widening income gap between the ultra-rich and the rest of the country. [And believe me, I recognize both movements were about more than the sweeping generalization that I just used.]
[Addition to my original post - I think it is important to explain a couple things here. First, I am doing a comparison of Occupy and the Tea Party because of the timing of their messages, but Occupy was not a response to the Tea Party. I do think that the emergence of the Tea Party played a part in the formation of Occupy, but indirectly so. Second, while the Tea Party is a part of the Republican Party, Occupy rejected the notion of having a political affiliation. Many of Occupy's participants are politically liberal, but one of the central points of Occupy was that the current political system incentivizes politicians to seek personal financial gain to the detriment of what is good for the US citizenry. An affiliation with the Democratic Party would lead to more "business as usual" in DC.]
But where the Tea Party movement had a focused message, Occupy was the expression of general dissatisfaction. To a politician, a focused message made by an easily identifiable group is easy to understand. You can easily identify the constituency that is "speaking" and what they want. In contrast, a sustained rally based on general dissatisfaction is much more disconcerting to a politician. It is much harder to address because the constituency is diverse and their desired outcomes are difficult to identify. When a diverse population rallies like Occupy did, people in positions of power take notice.
If I tell you that I'm organizing a march on City Hall protesting the passing of a controversial bill that will make it illegal for people to lay down or sleep on sidewalks, you might show up for the one rally, feel like you did something, and then go home. Heck, you can even bring your gun to show your support for gun rights even though it isn’t part of the protest.
But if I tell you that I don’t like how politicians are running this country, that corporations have too much power (and that they're the ones who are actually running this country), that foreclosures are out of control, that we need laws to protect the rights of everyone, that politicians should not be able to use special knowledge of government policies for financial gain in the stock market, and that maybe we should get rid of corporations altogether… and that to protest this, I am organizing a group to camp out in cities across the country indefinitely (without even mentioning that the group may possibly get tear-gassed, arrested, or beaten). You'd probably be inclined to let someone else do it.
And yet, tens of thousands of people DID do it... for a couple of months.
Occupy was a broad movement with a broad set of interests – the hardest type of group to mobilize and sustain. It needed a central message to become part of the national narrative, and “We Are The 99%” propelled Occupy into that narrative. If Occupy drew the attention of Homeland Security, then you know for sure that it gained the attention of politicians throughout the country. Occupy does not have a single act to “hang its hat on” like the Tea Party movement has the 2010 midterm elections. But Occupy has made accomplishments directly on a local level (most notably with banks re-structuring mortgages and helping to address the debt crisis) and indirectly by altering the national narrative. A year later, "We are the 99%" still echoes throughout the United States.
As always, thank you for reading. I am sometimes hesitant talking about divisive topics in a public forum because I worry that my friends who disagree with me will interpret my words as a judgment of them (which it is not). If you do decide to respond publicly, I ask that you are respectful of anyone else who has responded. Below are a couple other thoughts I'd like to share as addenda to this post.
Josh
First, I would not have this perspective if Evelyn hadn't invited me out to two rallies in San Francisco early on in our relationship. Attending these rallies made the Occupy movement more than just a topic I read about online.
Second, about ten months ago, I emailed a fair amount of people sharing my experiences at the two evenings I attended. I received many supportive responses to my email and had intended to respond to everyone who had emailed me. I also intended to follow up my email with other messages. Unfortunately, my intentions resulted in inaction. Thank you to those of you who did take the time to read my email and respond so thoughtfully. I am sorry that I did not respond to most of you.
