Monday was the one year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Movement, but there seems to be a consensus among journalists and bloggers that the movement has lost its relevance and its drive. The birthday celebrations occurred where the movement started in lower Manhattan, but the protesters were outnumbered by police on this significant day. Many were arrested for their protests. Furthering the view of the decline, one businessman noted the contradiction that the reasons for the movement (banking corruption) and the motivation of an upcoming election have not increased the grassroots movement's action; he continues by listing his ideas of why OWS has failed. A New York Times article also faults OWS for not having many significant accomplishments (although the article does note that the OWS supposedly helped to remove the additional fees on debit cards). On the other hand, in the above video, a Columbia professor credits OWS for changing the vocabulary (the 99%, the 1%, etc.) and thus initiating a successful change on our country.
Now many compare Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. The Tea Party is seen as successful since many republicans are now trying to gain the support of the Tea Party, and some Tea Party candidates have had success on different levels. Overall, the Tea Party attributes its success to its main message, less taxation, as opposed to OWS purposefully vague messages.
**Update: I wanted to clarify my post regarding the comparison between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. Yes, the two groups are at odds with each other, but they started around the same time and are both grassroots organizations. Further similarities include using large gatherings to garner support and the claim that each group speaks for a large section of Americans (for more examples see a list here) A more appropriate word as opposed to compare would perhaps be differentiate; journalists have been differentiating between these two different movements are mainly attempting to change the way America works financially. I hope that this update helps.
3 comments:
I think that the Occupy movement has been successful in some ways, and mostly failed in others. For example, thus far the movement has failed to bring any significant change to Wall Street practices, as capital gains still aren't being taxed. On the other hand, the Occupy protesters brought potential corruption and shady business to the forefront, and for that I think they deserve some credit.
The overall message was lost early in the protests, with most media coverage focusing on arrests and issues caused by OWS as well as responses by celebrity and political figures. It seemed like the movement was poorly organized, despite the protesters' attempts to prove otherwise. The concepts of equality that the initial protests tried to push were lost when protests were criticized for turning into grimy encampments.
It seems strange to compare the Tea Party and the Occupy movement in any significant way. If you wanted to say that they're both disgruntled groups of people criticizing big government, that should be fair. Otherwise, it seems like they would be at odds with each other. It's a little disappointing that the Occupy movement had so much potential, but not enough momentum or organization to go anywhere.
The Occupy Wall Street Movement was a greatly ambitious and ideal group that hoped to shatter the divide between the super rich and the rest of us. While it has had a few good runs in terms of its protest, I believe it has lost most, if not all, its potency. If the police really did outnumber the protesters in the birthday celebrations, then not many really care for it anymore. I think OWS could have been a great movement for more economic equality, but the thing that caused their collapse was lack of true leadership. Only a few true followers really stood up for what the movement was all about, while others took advantage of these protests to riot, ransack and vandalize. In general, I think the OWS is done for.
I feel that the Occupy Movement is a ridiculous idea that is mainly an output of frustration and rancor from the middle class. I do not sympathize with their actions though I can respect their motives. The group has no consensus on specific goals they wish to achieve and can accomplish nothing unless they learn to organize themselves better. This is similar to unions in the past. The AFL union has better success than the others in the past because they focused on the "bread and butter issues" that people could understand and care about.
The Occupy Movement is chaotic and looks more like a mob than an organized protest against the establishment. Frank Miller, a renowned writer, noted that the protesters were simply "anarchists" and I personally agree. The movement has only caused damage to the public areas they occupy. Some analysts have said that their "99%" rant is an emotional excuse to attack all high-income citizens because they themselves do not possess that wealth. In the end, they have not truly changed anything, which should not be surprising.
I have read before of connections between the Tea Party and Occupy Movement but there is no clear associate between them. The Tea Party is critical of the social inequality of wealth and big government, similar to the Occupy Movement. But I have no knowledge of anyone from the party publicly endorsing the actions of the anarchists. Now, the movement has to go away because it had little to no potential with the way it was organized. Unfortunately, the movement only amounted to conflict and passionate outbursts.
Post a Comment