The Chris Moeller Archives

You're also going to get some snark. New York Magazine described the protest this way: "Several hundred Occupy Wall Street protesters decided that the best way to topple the oligarchy of 'the other one percent' was to cause chaos for the commuters heading in and out of Brooklyn. Which is why they occupied several lanes of the Brooklyn Bridge, closing it off for hours, and leading police to make mass arrests."

Now, let's set aside, to start, the fact that the protest was held on a Saturday and caused about as much of a disruption to the delicate balance of New York City's transportation system as a Susan Komen race. Next, we'll address the so-called politics of "alienation" that's being alleged: It doesn't fit here. Protests that disrupt, you see, are the protests that work. Showing the strength of your numbers puts the reactionaries in the uncommon position of being in the minority. Those people whose main pursuit in life is always avoiding it's minor inconveniences are not your target audience anyway. They're the ones that will eventually be swept along behind the movement anyway because they're afraid to be left alone.

Lest we forget that marching on Selma, Montgomery, Washington, Chicago, and elsewhere was controversial also, but it brought much-needed attention to the Civil Rights movement. In fact, the marches were the heart of the movement. Rosa Parks was not the physically-tired, reluctant hero she's often portrayed as being today. She was an activist, a verbally-blunt and pushy agitator, a revolutionary in its purest form. Today, being "loud and proud" on the lively streets of a gay rights parade provides the same kind of social resonance even as many still criticize such an aggressive, "in your face" cultural presence. "You can be as gay as you want," they say, "as long as I don't have to look at you being gay while I'm sitting in this comfortable chair." But people, as a whole, actually adore boldness as a human characteristic. Ask any of the presidential candidates or their handlers.

Criticizing the protests is a necessary tactic, though, to protect the establishment interests. Thus, these protests are condescended to by many, and criticized as being silly, unfocused, poorly-organized and strategized, and, above all, populated by undesirables-- that is, the jobless and in many cases, the uneducated (i.e. people that don't really matter, and are otherwise unseen).

Many so-called progressives are even criticizing the protests. These are the ones that fear political movements that are non-partisan in nature. They believe that a Democratic President cannot be targeted for criticism because the main goal has to always be electing more Democrats. Deviations from the official party line are perceived as threats to the viability of the party. If you doubt that any of this is true, take a peek out of your window tonight and look for an anti-war demonstration. Report to me by email if you see one.

We're wise, of course, to see the parallels between these protests and the protests throughout 2011 in the American Midwest, in European capitals, and particularly, in the Middle East. The Washington political establishment has opposed those movements as well. Granted, our leaders had to offer verbal support publicly when the spotlight on the world shown upon millions of young men and women in the Middle East protesting bravely, peacefully, and using technology that's popular in the West to grow their movement, but in Egypt, for example, Hillary Clinton and the State Department never stopped working behind the scenes to elevate the dictator Mubarek's top military general as his successor. The goal of the United States was always maintaining the status quo. Places where there are few economic resources for the U.S. to claim, and places where the spotlight of the world never shines-- places such as Yemen, the U.S. is free to pursue its true militarist goals. It's in Yemen that we boldly back a dictator whose army opens machine gun fire upon the peaceful protesters. In return, he aids us in the assassination of our own targeted citizens.

The goal of their criticism is not just to discredit either, but to intimidate. Rarely, if ever, in American history, has aggressive force and the violent suppression of dissent by the police and the military been so tolerated, and even encouraged, by the government and its apologists. It's essential that protesters become categorized as "disruptors" to the peace so that their hearts and minds can be more casually dismissed when their bodies are getting beaten, bruised, and pepper-sprayed.

Will the Occupy Wall Street movement succeed in winning meaningful financial reforms? Maybe. Maybe not. But in either case, what it does is remind people that there is a political movement out there in this country, free to join, that is committed to the idea that our establishment political and financial interests are not above accountability to the people. The fools will always be fooled, but the world will also see a percentage of the population that's willing to stand up to this political hustle. The bandits can make off with our cash and with our economic security, but that doesn't mean they get our tolerance and respect as well. It's on.