Where Did the Occupiers Go?

Print Share on LinkedIn More


What happened to the plans for a revival of the Occupy Wall Street movement after a winter in which most domestic Occupy encampments were dislodged by police actions and, typically, prohibited from regrouping in ostensibly public venues?

On the 4th of July, a multi-day event in Philadelphia billed as the “first-ever national Occupy gathering”—which quickly took on the sobriquet of “#Natgat”—came to an end. One of the more consistent journalistic entities monitoring and providing generally positive reports on the Occupy Wall Street movement from its inception, Yes! Magazine, sent its web editor, James Trimarco, to monitor the proceedings at Occupy’s national gathering. One of the key #Natgat activities was a visioning process meant to articulate the change that the latest conglomeration of Occupiers would like to see. Trimarco reports that the document was “rumored” to be 75 pages long. NPQ explored the national gathering website, where there was a link for people who wanted to participate in the visioning process, but we found no document detailing the visioning that occurred in Philadelphia.

Among the multiple #Natgat debates was whether Occupiers should be fielding their own slates of candidates for electoral office. Whether or not the Occupy movement were to choose to follow the Tea Party model with Occupy-endorsed candidates, it’s a little late in the game for the 2012 cycle, especially with the Occupiers’ predilection for a consensual decision-making style requiring 90 percent approval from whoever happens to be part of the decision-making process at any particular point. In any case, unlike the Tea Party’s firm footing in the Republican Party, some of the tenor of discussions at #Natgat reported by Trimarco and others suggests that the Occupy movement is hardly part of the mainstream Democratic Party apparatus.

Blogger Zachery A. Bell quoted Truthdig columnist (and former New York Times reporter) Chris Hedges delivering a rip-roaring speech attacking the “monstrosity of faux liberals like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama” and advocating Occupy’s adoption of the goal “to reverse the corporate coup d’état and put the power back in the hands of people.”   A June column in Truthdig by Hedges himself devotes several paragraphs to one of the early D.C. occupiers, Kevin Zeese, who uses the Democratic Party’s failure to oust Republican Gov. Scott Walker as national gathering website

While Trimarco reports that, “Occupy participants from every region of the United States poured into Philadelphia…for the movement’s National Gathering,” even Trimarco’s upbeat article conveys a sense of a much smaller turnout than organizers expected or hoped. One has to wonder where the movement will go. The various news articles, though relatively few, and blog postings on the national gathering emitted different impressions of the event. Some of it had the feel of the late 1960s/early 1970s Yippies of Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, creatively poking fun at the hypocrisy of American politics and American corporations. Another swath sounded somewhat angrier, feeling that the structures of this nation’s socio-economic inequities needed more direct confrontation. A third subgroup appeared to be the “black bloc” anarchists who appear to desire confrontation with the police.

It doesn’t add up to a coherent movement at the moment, at least in the absence of a compelling narrative lurking in the visioning document, but speaking for the national movement may not have been the goal in the first place. Headlined as “fragmented unity,” one report on the plans for the national gathering suggested that the visioning process was not intended to generate a coherent platform for Occupy. Rather, the gathering would not attempt “to speak for Occupy Wall Street, the Occupy movement as a whole, or anyone beyond those in attendance.”

Rob Kall of OpEd News described #Natgat as “powerful, visionary, exciting, FUN.” A participant in the gathering, Kall concluded with a vision of the Occupy movement’s evolution and future:

“People wonder what the future of the Occupy movement is. I left the gathering very optimistic and hopeful. The energy, creativity, dedication and passion manifested by all ages is extraordinary. The encampments are gone. So be it. The future of Occupy is in the people already in it and those who discover it and who the current people awaken, who will act as catalysts, moving the people of the world from a top down culture of dinosaurs to a bottom up, horizontal, direct democracy world of little mammals. That’s how evolution happened. That’s how the metamorphosis of Occupy will shake the world and, from the bottom up, make the biggest changes seen since civilization began.”

In any circle, there’s no real doubt that the Occupy Wall Street movement had has an enormous impact on our society by cementing the issue of wealth disparity into American political discourse. The Christian Science Monitor notes that “Today’s politics revolves around campaign talk of ‘the wealth gap,’” evidence of the Occupy movement’s impact. Did that serious element of impact fade away as the encampments were dislodged and the Occupiers dispersed? Or is Kall correct that there is still a dynamic of direct democracy impacting the political system?

One answer might be found in the recent decision of the Oakland City Council to terminate its investment relationship with Goldman Sachs in a controversy concerning LIBOR rates, the exact topic of a presentation by Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi at #Natgat. The Council’s unanimous resolution to sever the city’s relationship with Goldman Sachs specifically cited options suggested by the “Stop Goldman Sachs Coalition,” which Forbes reports is linked to the Occupy movement.

It is not clear how linked these local Occupy efforts are to the national gathering, but a number of observers have noted that while the encampments may be largely gone, and while the Occupy “General Assembly” in New York City is not functioning, local Occupy actions continue nonetheless. The Nation’s Jeremy Brucher reports that, “In New York City (the example I know best), more than fifty OWS working groups and other collectives meet face-to-face at least once a week and maintain almost daily online interaction.” Meanwhile, OWS’ers recently followed billionaire industrialist David Koch to the Hamptons on Long Island to protest at his $50,000 a plate dinner fundraiser for Mitt Romney. Also, various interests are drawing energy from and emulating the Occupy movement, such as the “Vote 17” campaign, which seeks to lower the minimum voting age.

In the wake of the national gathering and with the upcoming September 17th anniversary of the Zuccotti Park encampment, there has been a spate of articles asking—much as we are asking here—what the future of the Occupy movement holds in store. Some are eulogies for a movement seen as having become lackluster. Some are critiques from the right charging that efforts to revive Occupy such as #Natgat are fronts put on by MoveOn.org puppeteers. Other critiques come from the left, such as Alexander Cockburn’s complaint in CounterPunch about Occupy’s protracted consensual decision-making process, its lack of a plan, its “endless speechifying,” and what he sees as its naïve or arrogant dismissal of social movements that have preceded it—for instance, those who opposed McCarthyism in the 1950s or the New Left organizing of the 1960s.

But it’s important to remember that the American left has hardly been monolithic in any of these past moments. In the 1960s, for example, for all the hard-edged organizing that was occurring, often in universities with the mobilization of students against the Vietnam War, there were many streams of protest. Just look at the composition of the “Chicago Eight” arrested at the Democratic National Convention in 1968; it included Yippies, a pacifist, a future California Democratic politician, members of Students for a Democratic Society and a Black Panther. Similarly, no one group of Occupiers encompasses the entire opposition to what Cockburn calls the “American empire.” The Occupy movement may not currently have much of an impact in some arenas of political life, but it has the ability to pop up with grassroots protests and direct actions—for example, at corporate shareholders’ meetings—to call attention to a broader political or economic issue.

Trimarco’s report in Yes! seemed to capture the fun aspect of the Occupy national gathering, taking special note of “a baseball game that pit the 99% against the 1% Tax Dodgers, and a ‘Wells Fargo Circus’ in which ersatz bankers forced acrobats playing the role of loan applicants into all kinds of contortions—literally.” For Trimarco, “These moments showed off the movement’s talent for comedy, costumes, and playfulness.” It would not be belittling at all to suggest that the evolution of the Occupy movement has led it to recapture some of the ethos of Abbie Hoffman’s Yippies, and maybe this aspect of the Occupy movement will be on display at the Democratic and Republican national conventions, just as it was in Chicago 44 years ago. Just don’t confuse the fun, creativity, and comedy for any lack of serious intent on the part of those pushing the evolution of the Occupy movement.

  • Elle

    This is such a typical lefty article from one-sided Rick – almost giddily supporting a crap movement from ne’er-do-wells who are funded by multi-billionaire, George Soros. Yup, a foreign billionaire…… It is so typical of the Liberal hypocrisy it is astounding. What about protesting the insider trading by Nancy Pelosi that made her many, many, many millions of dollars? What about protesting that the very Congress and Senate that passed a horrible, burdening, anti-patient rights healthcare bill and then exempted themselves, many unions and multiple other DNC donors from being held to the same legislation and program?

    And if OWS is protesting $50,000 a plate dinner for Mitt Romney by th koch brothers, where where they when George Clooney had a $40,000 per ticket dinner for Barry Obama (and a $30,000/plate dinner in Switzerland for Americans — do you suppose any of them have Swiss bank accounts?????) , and Sarah Jessica Parker and British millionaire snob Anna Wintour had a $40,000 per plate dinner for Barry also. Why not mention those? Because you are a hypocrite. Sickening

  • Guest

    This is such a typical lefty article almost giddily supporting a crap movement from ne’er-do-wells who are funded by a multi-billionaire, George Soros. It is so typical of the Liberal hypocrisy it is astounding. What about protesting the insider trading by Nancy Pelosi that made her many, many, many millions of dollars? What about protesting that the very Congress and Senate that passed a horrible, burdening, anti-patient rights healthcare bill and then exempted themselves, many unions and multiple other DNC donors from being help to the same legislation and program?

    Why did this article fail to mention the $40k per plate dinner George Clooney had for Obama? Or the one George has planned for Americans in Switzerland this summer for $30k per plate. Hmm… wonder if any of those donors would have Swiss bank accounts. Let’s also be fair and mention the $40k per plate dinner that Sarah Jessica Parker and British multi-millionaire Anna Wintour had for Obama. The lack of fairness in Rick’s articles is lame at best. Hypocrisy personified.

    Stop removing the posts that dissent. Another typical Liberal tactic to keep people misinformed.

  • Lyn

    The actual “physical” act of Occupying can be time-consuming and need more resources. Most of the Occupy participants have jobs or school to go to, so I would suggest that the Occupy Movements use other means of “Occupying”, which I believe are at their disposal in our daily technological lives. That way they will keep the movement alive!

  • kgreger

    I work near Zuccotti Park. The “Occupiers” were the filthiest, rudest, creepiest bunch of thugs I ever saw. The stench from the park was revolting — no one who works in the area will ever sit in that park again in memory of the disgusting things we saw there. They shouted abuse at passersby and hit a friend of mine with a rock. OWS are anarchists and thugs. Good riddance to them. Hope they’re gone for good — I could never work out what it was they wanted any how.

  • Anonymous

    They’ve been gone a looooooooooooong time. The movement had a number of very important and salient points to make, but the way some in the media have been looking for a continuing movement that quite simply isn’t there -and hasn’t been there- has been disingenuous and embarrassing. Right or wrong for America, the truth is that Occupy wasn’t even close to the power of the Tea Party movement in spite of the overblown hopes of so many journalists.

    News flash: 2 occupiers protest on capitol hill steps!

    News flash: 3 protestors camp in old tent in town square!

    This isn’t news.

    Personally, I have a few ideas about this:

    1. Journalists like to be activists and they wish something was there. So, they’ve covered it more than they should have hoping to whip something up.

    2. Old hippies saw something of their youth and got their hopes up. They didn’t know that this generation simply wasn’t taught the tenacity to persevere by their hippie parents the way hippie kids were by their boomer parents.

    3. A bunch of 21st century hippie kids (and I’ve been one so I know) generally aren’t the thoughtful, respectful, dignified representatives or proponents of a movement you would wish. Relative morality will do that to a generation. So, you’ve got drugged, dirty, ill-thinking, unfed, entitled, wild twenty-somethings…. hmmm… not a recipe for sustainability or success.