APPROACHING Zuccotti Park, the sound of drumbeats in the air, I could see hundreds of protesters, picketing on its lawns, a few blocks from Ground Zero in New York.
Dozens of signs read, ‘We are the 99 per cent’, as the earnest Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters, spoke to anyone who would listen, on issues ranging from corporate greed to education reform. The OWS movement, now in its fourth week, has gained momentum, spreading to over 25 cities. A hodgepodge of vague demands by an equally eclectic range of people projected through posters, signs, flyers, art and even music made it difficult to grasp the unifying message or theme that had brought them together.
Henry Gargan, a student from North Carolina, was hoping to encourage corporations to regulate waste and be environmentally friendly. Nicole Doula was protesting big government, favouring devolution of power to the state and community level. While Zak Cunningham, sitting beside his class warfare sign, identified himself as a communist. Despite this fragmentation, many protesters did share a sense of deepening inequality, a need for job creation and a desire for politicians to do more for the ‘other 99 per cent’.
Two factors will determine the success of the movement; frustration with the economy and the upcoming presidential race.
Frustration with the economy, Wall Street and politicians is palpable. People are furious with banks in particular: the dire state of the economy caused by irresponsible lending, the bailout by the government with taxpayer dollars and finally, the cosy relationship between politicians and Wall Street resulting in low taxes for the wealthy and light regulation.
Tom Phillips, a protester, echoed this last sentiment, “People are overeducated, underemployed, and debt-ridden.
Government has lost its way, taking care of the greedy and putting them in office. I want to show the government and Congress, to get re-elected the people will not put up with it.”
Due to a nationwide sense of inequality, high unemployment and the perception of political favour for the wealthy, the movement has spread quickly to over two dozen cities, from D.C. to Alabama to San Diego. This surge in support has caused politicians to take note. Many are referring to the OWS movement as the Tea Party for the Democrats. There are similarities.
Both movements started out with a lack of central organisation, as a backlash to Wall Street bailouts, and spread quickly nationwide. Unlike, the Tea Party at that time, the majority of OWS protesters believe that the government needs to be part of the solution.
This is where the political climate becomes interesting. With the upcoming elections and Obama’s unpopularity regarding his bailouts, the Democrats are keen to win back the support of the ‘other 99 per cent’. Obama has been eager to gain support for his ambitious job proposal, paving the way to reduce unemployment, create jobs and increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy — goals the protesters broadly share.
The Democrats are wisely tapping into OWS with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi giving it her full endorsement on Sunday. “I support the message to the establishment, whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen,” she said. “We cannot continue in a way that does not — that is not relevant to their lives. People are angry.”
While Democrats continue to equate themselves with populist demands, they are keen to equate the Republicans with the interests of the rich and wealthy. Republicans, on their part, are not doing much to dispel this image. Mitt Romney, GOP frontrunner, described the Wall Street protests as “class warfare”. While Rick Perry, his main GOP competition, indirectly referred to the movement when he said “…you can’t rev up the engine of economic growth by heaping higher taxes on job creators, you can’t spread success by punishing it, you can’t unite our country by dividing it.…”
The ugliness between the Democrats and Republicans has begun, with Eric Cantor, House majority leader, referring to the protesters as “mobs” who have pitted “Americans against Americans”. Nancy Pelosi has retorted by accusing Cantor of being hypocritical for criticising the Wall Street protesters, while endorsing the Tea Party movement.
The fact that OWS is getting politicians riled up speaks more for the protests than the slogans pasted on their boards. The Democrats will see the movement as a way to promote their agenda of deficit reduction, job creation, and taxation on the wealthy, and as support grows, will try to bring about some coherence and unity.
As the presidential race begins next year, the Democrats may remember the House midterm elections when the Republicans rode to victory on the tail of an energised Republican base, thanks in large part to the Tea Party movement. If they are smart, they will use OWS as an antidote for the Tea Party, and perhaps, will succeed in eventually bringing it into their political fold.
The Tea Party, having gained momentum just two years ago, now finds itself in a powerful position to help Republicans defeat Obama. It is conceivable that, with OWS, the Democrats could do the same The fact that the Democrats are interested in ‘using’ OWS, is to the protesters’ advantage. Though they oppose Obama’s bailouts, they share many of his goals. OWS has won the attention of political players. The next step will be to translate demands into sound policy proposals in Congress. This will only happen if Democrats continue to stay in power. If they both ‘use’ each other effectively, it might just turn into a win-win situation.
The writer, a development economist, is currently working as a freelance journalist in New York.
