Occupy Wall Street, the Brooklyn Bridge and Political Space

I have some reservations when I see young people marching in New York (although there is a group of “grandparents for peace”) with the blessing of the ruling class of the celebrity-left: people such as Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Cornel West and Grandpa Noam Chomsky. But, to show off my linguistic sophistication, I will say that these diffuse protesters in the “Occupy Wall Street” movement capture the zeitgeist of 2011.

For these youth, Tahrir Square in Cairo is right here now in New York, in Zuccotti Park, the campground of the movement (near ground zero, the location of the Sept. 11 attacks). The protest is, to say the least, extreme and vague with political slogans against capitalist greed, social inequality and the corrupt government that bailed out Wall Street. Some of the protesters have more specific purposes for protesting, such as having no money(?). This issue was expressed by young people interviewed at the end of the week, such as Erin Larkins, a graduate student at Columbia University. She and her boyfriend have accrued $130,000 in educational loans.

As I said (and said beautifully), there is a zeitgeist. It is the spirit of the times. These are young people with high levels of education (and others with less), who had high expectations. What they have instead today is stubbornly high unemployment, a slipping economy and overall frustration with Barack Obama’s promises (even among the youth who voted for him), and a generalized disappointment with the political ruling class (both Democrats and Republicans). For example, Democratic Representative Charlie Rangel (a symbol of what is most atrophied and corrupt in Congress) was coolly received and even intimidated by a militant when he appeared at Zuccotti to lend his support (not financial).

Wall Street, in fact, got the worst from the crisis of 2008. Clearly it is not moving much, as the country slips into a recession. It is true that President Obama’s rescue package for the banks prevented a financial collapse or a return to a financial depression, but this provides little consolation for today’s youth who are feeling depressed.

The young people say they are inspired by the Arab Spring and the young “indignados” of Spain, just as are those from other parts of the emerging world. They say that this leaderless movement (unions are now getting involved, along with the celebrity-left) wants to restore democracy in the United States. Huh? What is there now?

At first, New York, the world’s media capital, did not give much attention to this movement. Now it is noticing, and so is the world. The police helped with some brutality (nothing, obviously, approaching the standard and quality of Bashar Assad). However, the march on the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday resulted in more than 700 arrests and guaranteed the protests a news-bite. A perfect wedding of a spectacle: police acting like police and demonstrators acting like demonstrators. The police set a trap for the protesters on the bridge, which had protesters begging to be arrested.

It is difficult to know if the “Occupy Wall Street” movement will take off in earnest. In fact, it has occupied a political space in the media beyond the expectations of the participants. Similar demonstrations are taking place in other cities (but only in Boston is the movement already significant, although protests are growing in Chicago and Los Angeles). The idea in New York is to continue camping in Zuccotti Park for months on end (easier for those who are unemployed or unoccupied). Much more will depend on how the police react (or don’t), and the ability of the protesters’ sparks to generate political fires. This next Wednesday will be a major test with the planning of another demonstration with union support.

The movement proclaims that it represents 99 percent of the population against the 1 percent of the privileged. Good slogan, but 100 percent wrong. Once again, “Occupy Wall Street” captures the zeitgeist from the economic daze: disappointment with politics, a squeezed middle class and increased poverty rates. It is healthy to have this unrest, as a counterpoint to the tea party, a conservative movement that in the beginning seemed archaic and ridiculous, donning 18th-century American costumes. However, the tea party has now shown itself to be consistent and able to set the agenda of a country, regarding questions of fiscal discipline and a leaner government. The danger is that the tea party can devour the Republican Party itself with its extremism and ideological tests of purity.

There’s nothing wrong with caffeine politics from the other side of the bridge (but not in the middle of the bridge). In common with the tea party, the young people of “Occupy Wall Street” have been gripped with a populist aversion to Washington and Wall Street. The ruling political parties hustle to re-occupy their due places, in a more productive form with more respect for citizens, voters and taxpayers.