NEW YORK CITY – The drum circle pounds nonstop, making it even harder for the speakers at Occupy Wall Street, where the police do not allow megaphones.
The occupiers’ clever and captivating solution to this problem has a typically overwrought name, “The People’s Mic”: The speaker shouts a few words. Those sitting close in, who heard the words clearly, then shout the words to those farther out. Everyone who heard that repetition repeats it again. This way, the whole crowd hears the talk.
The People’s Mic at Zuccotti Park in the Financial District carried plenty of left-wing red meat (“Every worker –” “Every worker –” “Will be an owner –” “Will be an owner –“). But most of the effort went toward sorting out protest logistics and rules of the camp.
At Sunday night’s “General Assembly,” attendees heard and repeated, for example,: “We meet every day –” “We meet every day –” “Except Tuesday and Thursday –” “Except Tuesday and Thursday –.” The speaker was a representative from one of the working groups (facilitation, sanitation, community relations, media, library and so on).
This laborious system of committee reports, consensus-seeking, and literal repetition seemed like it would be a huge drag on this crowd of excited young liberals. But not only do the occupiers tolerate the drudgery of the process, for many, the process is almost the purpose. “This is a movement for direct democracy, rather than corporatocracy,” occupier Sinead Lamel told me.
Like many others I spoke to as I camped out in the park on Sunday night, Lamel meant that on two levels: in the park and across the country.
First, they reveled in the process of building a civil society through consensus and democratic apparatuses in what has become a minivillage at Zuccotti Park. Julia Shindel called the participatory decision-making, and cooperative process of building a civil society “extremely intoxicating,” she told me.
Second, the occupiers also hoped to make our national- and state-level politics more representative and democratic. Rob Eletto joined the “occupation,” in part to battle the “hollowing out of democratic institutions.” Citing Noam Chomsky, Eletto told me that in Washington, the term “politically possible,” really means “profitable to someone powerful.” He wants to change what’s “politically possible” to include what the majority desires.
While the Washington protests focussed more on specific policies — the bailouts, the wars, immigration, labor law — the Wall Street occupiers were much vaguer on substantive issues. At first light Monday morning, I surveyed the signs and found that democracy and disenfranchisement were easily the most common themes. The policy I heard mentioned most was campaign-finance regulation, specifically the Citizens United ruling, in which the Supreme Court struck down some federal restrictions on corporations engaging in political communications. This drowned out “the people,” many liberals lamented.
What about Wall Street? While much of the occupiers’ anger at the “banksters” was typical talk about “greed,” the gripes almost always included something about undue influence. Anthony Hassan, an out-of-work construction worker from Norfolk, Va., sounded a common note, pointing out that bailed-out banks “take some of the money we’ve given them, and they hire lobbyists.” An organic farmer who traveled down from Vermont who called himself Mack (and would not give me his full name) said “we’re at a point where the people with the most money have the most influence.”
They’re right. It does undermine our democracy and harm our economy when hiring a former Senate majority leader, for instance, can be the best investment a company ever makes. Wealthy special interests do dictate policy too much, regardless of which party is in power. I don’t know who made the sign under which I slept Sunday night, but I agreed with its thrust: “Separation of Business & State.” The back read “I can’t afford a lobbyist.”
My agreement with these folks went no further, however, than a common diagnosis of the problem. Their proposed solutions — more campaign finance restrictions and curbs on the freedom of firms to lobby — showed disregard for the freedom of speech. They also don’t seem to understand that getting government more involved in the economy always gets business more involved in government. Outside the small minority of Ron Paul supporters at the park, none of the occupiers saw smaller government as the answer to cronyism and corporatism.
It misses the point to observe that the protests are unfocused, and that their policy demands are scattered and incoherent. The Wall Street Occupiers were more focused with the process of policymaking, confident that a fairer political system would yield fairer policies.
Timothy P.Carney, The Examiner’s senior political columnist, can be contacted at [email protected]. His column appears Monday and Thursday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.
