It seems that the favorite tact for traditional media voices to take when covering the Occupy (insert city name here) movement is to comment on how the protesters can't agree on a platform, that they tend to be shabby and young, and that it is not going to amount to anything. I don't really think this is the case.
I think this is probably a function of a couple things. First off, for those that are there that are educated and have a very specific understanding of the things they'd like to change, the list is so long, that it doesn't translate well into a 5 second soundbite. So you ask 10 people why they are there, they each might name 3 different things, but if you asked them to write everything down and compare to the other 10 people, you could probably pick out a ton of commonalities and find a considerable amount of agreement.
The second faction of protesters are there because they have a feeling in their bones that the whole game is rigged against them, but they may not have done the research or have the words to express it.
The thing is, both of those groups can be a powerful political force. The person who has the prevailing sense that their degree isn't going to amount to shit in this economy, but doesn't know the history of partisan politics and how it is interwoven with the deregulation and policy drift that results in their food being poisoned and their social safety net being eroded...that person is still a voter. And that person has friends.
Planet Money did a great piece on the Occupy Wall St. movement that helped me get what the General Assembly is all about, and how the group is very concerned about operating in a way that allows everyone to speak their mind.
The movement has momentum, and I trust that they can put together a platform, but the task is daunting. The interesting thing is how leaders may or may not emerge from this movement. Who will be their mouthpiece?
No comments:
Post a Comment