Connect with us

Occupy Wall Street: Democracy in Zuccotti Park

Published

on

Fresh from a visit to Occupy Wall Street’s Zucotti Park, Swarthmore student, writer, activist, and guest author Sam Sussman discusses his findings. 

 

Something remarkable is happening in American politics. Three years after a financial crisis that delegitimized the parochial right-wing ideology of deregulation and ‘let the rich rule’ economics, Americans are voicing outrage at the chronic infection of money in our political system. By putting its finger on this unspoken fact of American politics, Occupy Wall Street has suddenly changed our political discourse. Cries of Social Security and Medicare’s ‘unsustainability’ have been replaced by outrage over Wall Street’s greed. Goodbye deficits, hello income inequality!

Walking through Zuccotti Park on a recent Friday afternoon, it was clear that the understanding tying the movement together was this: the federal government has bailed out the largest banks, yet the unemployed and foreclosed upon have received insufficient relief. What Americans are realizing is that this is the logical outcome of a political system in which the largest economic sectors — finance, insurance, oil and gas — fund our political parties, candidates, advertisements and think tanks. It is a spirit summed up by David, a high school student holding cardboard that read, “I can’t afford a lobbyist so I made this sign.” He explained, “Nobody is lobbying for me to go to college, for me to have a job when I graduate. I can’t influence politicians.” Then he pointed upwards, to the financial institutions that contributed $155 million to both parties in 2008. “But they can.”

The movement’s emphasis on this structural defect in American politics manifests in its treatment of President Obama, the left’s would-be, but unwilling, FDR 2.0. Those in Zuccotti Park know that without taking the corrosive influence of money out of politics, no politician can play savior. Samoa, a middle-aged computer technician from Brooklyn, held the famous ‘Hope’ poster, with ‘Your Face Here’ written where Obama’s profile once was. “No matter who the people are,” he said, “they’re constrained by the power of money.

The right has hastily characterized the demonstrators as illiterate opponents of capitalism itself. This is untrue. Many demonstrators with whom I spoke had an intricate understanding of public campaign financing, environmental policy, prison reform and trade. The words ‘Glass-Steagall’ were on many lips.

And yes, there were anarchists who made my proper liberal cheeks blush. But behind each radical was personal desperation wrought by recession. One young woman painfully described trying to work enough hours to pay rent despite a debilitating medical condition. She would go to college, she said, but the certainty of student loans outweighed the less-than-certain probability of employment after graduation. Her politics aren’t constructive, but they reflect legitimate grievances worthy of redress. The radical’s presence should encourage moderate factions — those who see money in politics, not capitalism itself, as the root problem — to participate in and take ownership of the movement.

Whatever one thinks of the radicals, it would be a grave mistake to fall for the right-wing trap of focusing on the few extremists in Zuccotti Park at the expense of the truly radical things the Right itself has done. The invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation that posed no national security threat, was radical. The income trends of the past decade — in which 65 percent of income growth went to the top one percent as middle-class income fell — was radical. The $700 billion Wall Street bailout was radical. The bipartisan push to slash Social Security and Medicare is radical. The very fact that money can purchase public policy in a democracy is radical.

Occupy Wall Street understands this: it is gaining attention — the latest polls show 54 percent of the public approves of the movement — because it speaks to the issues for which it has been too convenient and conventional for Republicans and Democrats, Fox News and CNN, to ignore. Occupy Wall Street has its finger on the pulse of a shrinking middle class, and the disenfranchised poor for whom the tattered rungs of opportunity have been steadily eroded.

Yes, it is true that Occupy Wall Street doesn’t have media-ready index cards with specific policy demands. But that’s the downside of spontaneous democracy, as opposed to astro-turf activism in which corporations manipulate popular grievances for their own benefit (hello, Tea Party!). For those willing to listen, Occupy Wall Street’s demands are quite clear. First, institute public campaign financing. Second, help those affected by the recession through mortgage relief and a New Deal-style public jobs program. Third, restore regulations in finance and energy so that our market economy works for everybody, not just the one percent. Finally, expand opportunity through increased access to health care, education and job training.

These ideas are supported by the “99%.” Huge majorities want a millionaire’s tax (81 percent), to cut defense spending (76 percent), increase education funding (67 percent), and preserve Medicare (76 percent) and Social Security (81 percent). Yet, time and again, public preference has been overruled by the one percent — those who are CEOs of health insurance companies, hedge fund managers, defense contractors, or oil tycoons. Occupy Wall Street understands that the one percent can only be confronted by going outside the political system they control. This is the historic logic of progressive change: the New Deal was as much due to sit-ins and strikes as it was to FDR. Now, in the depth of the Great Recession, more and more Americans are heading to Zuccotti Park.

Perhaps, after all, these protesters are onto something radical. It’s called Democracy.

 

(Image)

 

Sam Sussman is an undergraduate in political science, philosophy and literature at Swarthmore College who has organized around economic justice, clean energy, LGBT civil rights and ending the Afghanistan War. His political commentary appears weekly in Swarthmore’s The Daily Gazette and The Phoenix, and has previously been published in The Oxford Left Review, Binghamton University’s Prospect Magazine, Journal of Philosophy, Politics and Law, and Amnesty International Magazine. A former intern for both Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand and State Senator Thomas K. Duane, he is the Secretary of the Orange County, NY chapter of Young Democrats.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Lying’ Samuel Alito Is a ‘Coward’: Elections Expert

Published

on

Professor of Law Richard Hasen, an elections law expert, is denouncing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as a “coward” who is either lying to himself or the American public, after authoring what has been called the “earthquake” decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which sharply erodes the Voting Rights Act.

Alito’s “disastrous” majority opinion in Callais “essentially gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act,” but he “claims to have done no such thing. The question is why,” Hasen posits.

Hasen charges that Justice Alito was too “afraid” to share his actual opinion, and so he found ways to “get away with overturning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through technical minutiae rather than through a direct hit.”

Section 2, passed in 1965, is the provision of the Voting Rights Act that protects minority voters from discriminatory voting laws and maps.

Hasen argues that Alito’s opinions in both Callais and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee “necessarily imply” that “Congress cannot do anything to protect minority voting rights short of banning intentional discrimination despite the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, despite the 15th Amendment’s ban on race discrimination in voting, and despite the fact that both amendments explicitly give Congress the power to enforce the measures by ‘appropriate legislation.'”

READ MORE: Trump Attacks ‘Very Disloyal’ GOP Senator — Calls for Him to Lose Primary

He notes that Alito managed to render Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “essentially toothless,” while leaving the six-decade-old landmark law on the books.

“Since Brnovich,” he writes, “no plaintiffs have brought successful suits under Section 2 challenging a law alleged to suppress votes.”

Indeed, Alito’s opinions in both cases are “extreme overkill,” handing states “multiple pathways” to defeat a Section 2 claim.

Hasen explains that for Alito, “to discriminate against Louisiana Democrats is not to discriminate against Louisiana’s Black voters, despite the overwhelming overlap between the two groups.”

But for Hasen, the most “galling” issue is that Alito “goes out of his way to disclaim he is making radical change while putting multiple stakes through the heart of Section 2.”

He offers some possibilities of why Alito has acted in this way.

“Maybe Alito is worried that a ruling forthrightly saying what he is doing would sully the reputation of the court, which has already faced public criticism for killing off another key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013’s Shelby County decision,” Hasen writes. “Perhaps he is worried that a frontal kill of Section 2 would energize Democrats, leading to greater losses for Republicans in the midterm elections and in future elections.”

Regardless, Hasen concludes, no one “is fooled by Justice Alito’s act of cowardice, unless it is Justice Alito himself. If that’s the case, he is more deluded than he seems to think the rest of us are.”

READ MORE: Trump Stalls J6 Lawsuits From Officers and Lawmakers With Immunity Push: Report

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Trump Attacks ‘Very Disloyal’ GOP Senator — Calls for Him to Lose Primary

Published

on

In a double-barreled attack, President Donald Trump has targeted a two-term sitting Republican U.S. Senator, calling for him to be voted out during the GOP primary — which is tight and barely weeks away — while criticizing him for his vote on impeachment and his opposition to the president’s pick for Surgeon General.

Calling U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) “a very disloyal person” who won election thanks to his endorsement, the president blasted him for his Senate vote to convict him “on what has now proven to be a total Hoax and Scam.”

Accusing Cassidy of “intransigence and political games,” Trump charged that he has “stood in the way of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Nominee, Casey Means, for the important position of U.S. Surgeon General.”

Just sixteen days before the GOP primary, Trump did not hold back.

“Hopefully all of the Great Republican People of Louisiana, which I won, BIG, three times, will be voting Bill Cassidy OUT OF OFFICE in the upcoming Republican Primary!”

READ MORE: Trump Stalls J6 Lawsuits From Officers and Lawmakers With Immunity Push: Report

According to The Hill, Senator Cassidy is currently polling behind two of his GOP primary challengers among likely Republican voters.

Cassidy got just 21 percent support, U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow received 27 percent, and state treasurer John Fleming received 28 percent, according to an Emerson poll. Although Trump endorsed Congresswoman Letlow in January, she has yet to pull into the lead.

In 2021, Cassidy was one of just seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump for inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Of the seven, just three are currently serving: Cassidy, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski.

Minutes after his attack, Trump announced his nomination of Fox News contributor Dr. Nicole B. Saphier to become Surgeon General, after calling Means “a strong MAHA Warrior” who “understands the MAHA Movement better than anyone, with perhaps the possible exception of ME!”

Image via Reuters 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Stalls J6 Lawsuits From Officers and Lawmakers With Immunity Push: Report

Published

on

President Donald Trump is holding up lawsuits from police officers and Democratic lawmakers suing in federal court by pursuing immunity claims, Bloomberg News reports. The plaintiffs say he bears legal responsibility for inciting the January 6, 2021 riots at the U.S. Capitol.

Trump is appealing a March decision by a federal judge who rejected his bid to have the cases thrown out.

The president’s personal attorneys are also arguing that he should not be required to submit any information, documents, or evidence to the plaintiffs until his immunity appeal is resolved — a position that, if granted, could extend the litigation by years even if Trump loses.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has repeatedly rejected Trump’s immunity claims. Because Judge Mehta ruled that Trump was not acting in his official capacity, the Justice Department was denied its request to become the defendant in place of Trump.

Last month, Politico reported, Judge Mehta ruled that Trump’s January 6 speech at the Ellipse was a political act and therefore not eligible for immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled presidents have broad criminal immunity for official acts.

“President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties,” Mehta wrote. “The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity.”

Politico also reported that the appeals process will likely generate years of additional litigation, keeping the cases alive through the end of Trump’s presidency.

READ MORE: Trump Running Out of Options in $83 Million Case After Court Rejects Rehearing Bid

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.