The Steve Jobs of the 21st Century May Emerge from the Wall Street Protests

The 2008 global financial crisis has birthed two grassroots movements: the tea party, an extreme right wing citizens’ network, and the Occupy Wall Street protests. Standing on the side of the GOP, the right wing tea party had already paraded its uncompromising stance by forcing its opposition into submission during the past summer’s U.S. debt ceiling talks.

In huge contrast to the GOP and the tea party, Occupy Wall Street claims no distinct partisanship, uniting people under the slogan “We are the 99 percent” to criticize the “1 percent” that is considered to have triggered the U.S. economic recession. And while it has come to light that a financial tycoon is pouring money into the continuation of tea party activity, the Wall Street protests are maintained through online fundraising and the accumulation of small contributions from regular citizens.

Both movements demand solutions to America’s current woes. However, their viewpoints and associated modes of expression differ so greatly, there is some speculation that they could come into conflict with one another. Immanuel Wallerstein of Yale University commented on October 15 that a right wing counter-demonstration could be organized against Occupy Wall Street.

The Tea Party for “Exclusion,” Wall Street Protests for “Inclusion”

Although born of the same economic crisis, the two movements are heading in opposite directions. Noting this phenomenon, Todd Essig, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at New York Medical College, argues that “exclusion” and “inclusion” are the root elements which distinguish the two movements.

In a column run by Forbes on October 16, Essig expained that both the tea party and Occupy Wall Street are similarly motivated. Driven to action by the anger, fear and frustration brought about in the economic crisis, both movements press on with “an enduring faith in democratic ideals.” However, Essig further notes that the tea party that favors “exclusion” would write Obama off as “un-American,” effectively adding a potentially racially charged element to its ideas.

The exclusionary tea party stance opposes anything that comes from outside the center of America and discriminates between “us” and “them.” It views as bad anything that goes against the Constitution or is not American, placing the blame for the economic crisis on an outside “them.” Essig sums up this attitude as “[l]ock the doors and windows; never explain, never excuse; don’t tread on me.”

What the Zuccotti Park “Communal Kitchen” Symbolizes

Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, opens itself to any willing participant and gives each a right to speak. This quality pits the Wall Street protests in extreme distinction against the nature of the tea party. Indeed, Occupy Wall Street’s “us” extends to a global scope so denounced by the exclusionary tea party.

Occupy Wall Street’s premise of openness reveals both a strength and weakness. Its inclusive nature grants it the advantage of being a truly democratic movement, while its freedom of expression may be too forgiving of any erroneous or foolish notion put forth. Essig observes that although Occupy Wall Street might include some arguably stupid thinking, it is united under the idea that the problem is not “theirs” but “ours”; this solidarity lends the protests the strength of a community willing to work together to find the necessary solutions.

Such a mentality has not been easy to spot in America for quite some time, which has rendered the Wall Street protests so fascinating to the media. The Associated Press caught particular notice of an emerging “communal kitchen” that feeds any hungry protester in New York City’s Zuccotti Park. All “kitchen” workers are volunteers, and while there is no designated leader to direct them, protesters that have worked the kitchen for the longest appear to determine the daily tasks.

It is also worth noting that these protests have somehow compelled Internet-accustomed young people to stick around one space for extended periods of time. The International Herald Tribune reported that by occupying a common space, protesters are able to experience a sense of community and pay greater mind to others’ opinions.

On October 6, progressive activist Naomi Klein spoke of her admiration for such communal spirit in a speech to the protesters in Zuccotti Park: “My favorite sign here says, ‘I care about you.’ In a culture that trains people to avoid each other’s gaze, to say, ‘Let them die,’ that is a deeply radical statement.”

“Real capitalists who work hard and smart have nothing to fear”

Essig further remarks that while the tea party is captive to paranoia, the Occupy Wall Street movement carries with it the promise of community. This is yet another facet of the protests that inspires sympathy and interest in others.

Essig confesses to be inclined more toward the Wall Street protests than toward the tea party and claims that criticisms of Occupy Wall Street carry anti-capitalist sentiments. “It’s a movement about which capitalists, real capitalists who work hard and smart, have nothing to fear. Oligarchs, on the other hand, should be afraid, very afraid.”

Essig argues that it is not enough for firms and entrepreneurs to create jobs. He asserts that the rules of the game in which lobbyists and businesses influence politics must be changed, and that doing so will not eliminate the game. He even conjectures that just as “Steve Jobs emerged from the ethos of 1960s radicalism and spiritual-seeking, perhaps the 21st century’s next great industrialist will emerge from the Zuccotti Park tripod tarps.”

Although the possibility of violence, extremism and stupidity remain, Essig states that the essence of the Occupy Wall Street message of “getting Wall Street money out of K Street pockets, of realizing that corporations are not people, of treating people like people, of letting capitalists win over oligarchs” brings about hope.