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 Cries of Social Security and Medicare’s ‘unsustainability’ have been replaced by outrage over Wall Street’s greed.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.

Related Topics:
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

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Senate Run Just Became Much More Likely

Published

20 hours ago

on

May 5, 2025

By

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of President Donald Trump’s most vocal and loyal allies, has for weeks been eyeing a Senate run aimed at unseating freshman Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff—one of the GOP’s top 2026 targets.

On Monday, that Senate run became far more viable for the Georgia GOP congresswoman, as the top potential Republican candidate, Governor Brian Kemp, reportedly has decided to not run.

The right-wing Daily Caller website had reported that Greene was “seriously considering a run for Senate in 2026,” and reportedly “believes she would ‘crush’ the GOP primary contest if the governor were to pass on the contest.”

Politico on Monday reported that Governor Kemp “will not run for Senate in 2026, according to three people familiar with his decision.”

And despite Greene being a “divisive” candidate, Politico noted that “Ossoff is still likely to face a difficult race in a historically conservative state that President Donald Trump carried last November.”

It appears Greene has wasted no time fundraising—and no time attacking Ossoff.

READ MORE: ‘Don’t Gaslight Families’: Backlash as GOP Defends ‘Shared Sacrifice’ of Christmas Shortages

In an email to supporters, Greene called the award-winning Senator Ossoff a “Radical Transgender Activist.” She has been attacking the transgender community for years.

She also attacked the “globalist billionaires.” As The Forward’s senior political reporter Jacob N. Kornbluh notes, Ossoff is Jewish.

Politico’s Meredith Lee Hill added that in addition to Greene, there are at least five other potential GOP candidates, including Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Earlier on Monday, Greene warned that Republicans are on track to “lose the midterms,” as Raw Story reported.

Punchbowl News’ Mica Soellner late Monday afternoon added that Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries appears to see Greene as the GOP’s candidate to run against Ossoff.

“Why is the Republican Party stuck with Marjorie Taylor Greene as their candidate for the United States Senate seat in Georgia? … because Donald Trump and House Republicans are on the run,” he reportedly said.

See the social media post above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Maoist’ ‘Soviet’ ‘Communist’: As Trumpism 2.0 Takes Shape, Experts Endeavor to Define It

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Don’t Gaslight Families’: Backlash as GOP Defends ‘Shared Sacrifice’ of Christmas Shortages

Published

21 hours ago

on

May 5, 2025

By

Many Republican members of Congress are now backing President Donald Trump’s reversal of his 2024 campaign promise to lower consumer prices “on day one,” embracing instead a new era of “shared sacrifice” as his global tariff war drives up costs and threatens the availability—and affordability—of goods.

U.S. Rep. David Joyce (R-OH) is facing criticism for going all-in on promoting Trump’s tariffs and the administration’s claim that “shared sacrifice” is necessary to move the U.S. economy to one centered on manufacturing.

“The president who had promised in his inaugural address that ‘the Golden Age of America begins right now’ was all of a sudden suggesting that ‘there will be a little disturbance, but we’re OK with that,'” wrote Politico magazine‘s Jeff Greenfield last month. “Trump’s economic team also chimed in; his Treasury secretary said the economy might need a ‘detox’ period, while his billionaire Commerce secretary said a recession would be ‘worth it’ (and also that his mother-in-law would not mind missing her Social Security check).”

On Monday, Congressman Joyce told CNN (video below), “you know, look, anybody who’s ever chased the one of these dolls, the American Girl doll or the chubby ones that were a big one, in my —”

READ MORE: ‘Maoist’ ‘Soviet’ ‘Communist’: As Trumpism 2.0 Takes Shape, Experts Endeavor to Define It

“Cabbage Patch Kids,” Dana Bash offered.

“Yes, yes, thank you, Cabbage Patch—when my kids were little—know what an important Christmas event that is,” Joyce explained. “But obviously, you know, this doesn’t stop and start overnight. And so the idea that the Christmas trade is already starting to slow down the progress, and there might be less around, I get it. I think American people will understand that, because American people understand shared sacrifice.”

“But what needs to be explained to them is that China has been eating our lunch.”

“If you ever go back and look after World War II, they’ve slowly but surely stolen all of our steel industry by undercutting us. Spring wire, everything they’ve done, they’ve stolen our technology that’s gone over.”

He described China as “the enemy.”

Critics are blasting Ohio Republican.

“Shared sacrifice?” asked investment banker Evaristus Odinikaeze. “Trump hoards luxury golf clubs while telling kids they don’t need dolls. This isn’t wartime rationing, it’s economic mismanagement and manufactured austerity dressed up as discipline. Don’t gaslight families struggling to afford basic joys. This is unconscionable!”

“WE AREN’T AT WAR!” declared veteran activist and podcaster Fred Wellman. “This is all self inflicted.”

READ MORE: ‘What Drunk on Power Looks Like’: Trump Goes on Attack in Wild Rants

Entrepreneur and community activist Ann Yarko Orner wrote: “I was told for years that the government telling us what we could and could not have was tyranny by the Republican Party. One of the reasons, I joined the party. Now Republicans sound like Communists. Reagan would be appalled.”

Dawn Smart, CEO of Doré Designs, wrote: “When the bread lines start (Russia during 70’s and 80’s) they will be telling us it’s shared sacrifice again. Never let MAGA call the Dems communists again because what we have happening right now is communism. Unless we act soon, our lives will be very different.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Absolutely No Clue’: Trump Roasted Over Unique Declaration of Independence Interpretation

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Maoist’ ‘Soviet’ ‘Communist’: As Trumpism 2.0 Takes Shape, Experts Endeavor to Define It

Published

24 hours ago

on

May 5, 2025

By

In the 105 days since Donald Trump began his second term as President, political observers and experts have been working to define and explain what Trumpism 2.0 is—and what it is not.

For some, the “not” is obvious. Critics suggest the United States is no longer a fully functioning democracy, but a nation sliding toward authoritarianism. Under Trump, they say, this is not a country growing stronger—or moving toward a brighter future.

That may explain the increasingly stark language used by his critics. One likened his recent televised Cabinet meeting to “something that frankly I would’ve expected out of North Korea.” Another said, “I didn’t sign up to live in the f—— Soviet Union,” in response to Trump’s claim that “a beautiful baby girl that’s 11 years old” doesn’t need 30 dolls or 250 pencils. “They can have three dolls or four dolls… they can have five” pencils. Others argue that Trumpism is now “primarily about the acquisition of power—power for its own sake.”

Political observers, experts, scholars, and critics are increasingly focused on signs of Trumpism’s extremism, authoritarianism, fascistic demagoguery, and even its apparent support for movements some say verge on fascism itself.

The current Trump administration “is supportive of a German political party that is the direct successor to National Socialism”—Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party—national security attorney Mark Zaid warned on Sunday. He appeared to be referring to Alternative for Germany (AfD), which German authorities have officially designated a “right-wing extremist endeavor.” Germany’s state media outlet, DW, recently published a video titled: “How much of a neo-Nazi party is the German AfD?”

READ MORE: ‘What Drunk on Power Looks Like’: Trump Goes on Attack in Wild Rants

The Atlantic’s James Surowiecki, author of “The Wisdom of Crowds,” on Monday pointed to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Trump Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Surowiecki remarked: “Trump says he will set the prices for all imported goods. He tells us we’ll have 5 pencils and like it. Now we have the Treasury Secretary talking about preventing the ‘spiritual degradation of the working class.’ Trumpism is becoming perversely, farcically Maoist.”

Noah Smith, the former Bloomberg opinion columnist, made that “Soviet Union” remark, above, in response to Trump’s comments to NBC News “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday—the same comments that Surowiecki cited.

Those remarks—Trump defending his tariff war and the expected results, namely, higher prices and fewer available goods—appear to have hit a nerve.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, now a Professor of Political Science at Stanford, added: “This is just incredible — a billionaire telling working people they need to reduce their consumption. This is the opposite of the free market. Sounds a lot like communism to me. Soviet leaders also dictated to consumers their limited choices.”

He also noted: “Soviet communist leaders also dictated the consumption patterns of their citizens.”

“Enjoy MAGA Maoism,” remarked political writer and former congressional speechwriter Rotimi Adeoye, also commenting on Trump’s “dolls and pencils” utterance. And Adeoye pointed to his recent Washington Post piece:

“What we’re seeing is a kind of MAGA Maoism, remixed for the algorithm age. Like the Chinese Cultural Revolution, it glorifies physical labor as moral purification, only now the purification is from the supposed “wokeness” of desk work, filtered through TikTok, X and Twitch. It’s not about creating jobs. It’s about creating vibes: strong men doing hard things, reshared until they become ideology.”

Professor of Political Science Robert E. Kelly noted that “MAGA loves to call its opponents ‘communists,’ but this is literally a neo-Marxist critique of consumerism.”

“The Department of Central Planning and Child Rearing has figured out the optimal number of dolls and pencils each child should have to make beautiful Republic,” snarked Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Justin Wolfers.

And The Atlantic’s David Frum, quipped: “One serving per person, no second helpings, until we have won the great patriotic war against Chinese pencil exporters.”

Frum added: “Second-term Trump messages: ‘America’s over-indulged 11 year old girls own too many pencils.’ And also: ‘I’m not sure whether president needs to obey the Constitution.'”

READ MORE: ‘Absolutely No Clue’: Trump Roasted Over Unique Declaration of Independence Interpretation

CNN senior reporter Edward-Isaac Dovere on Sunday noted: “In the space of 48 hours, the President of the United States has tweeted an image of himself as the new pope, said he doesn’t know if he has to abide by the Constitution, cited multiple completely false statistics, and announced that he wants to reopen a prison closed in 1963.”

Trump’s comment about his duty to uphold the Constitution—”I don’t know“—drew tremendous anger.

“The thing is that he’s being honest here,” Surowiecki observed. “He doesn’t know, because he’s totally incurious, doesn’t care about policy other than tariffs, and doesn’t have any interest in or knowledge of American constitutional law.”

Then there is the latest theater of Trump’s tariff war: the film industry.

The President of the United States has decided that any film “produced” outside of the U.S. will also be subjected to his tariffs.

“The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death,” Trump claimed. “Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda! Therefore, I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands. WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!”

Professor Wolfers sounded the alarm.

“Given that this White House leaks about everything,” Wolfers, who is frequently seen on cable news, wrote, “and there was no chatter about movie tariffs, it seems likely that policy reshaping the lives of millions of Americans was made by an old man sitting alone in a room with a remote in his left hand, aided by no expert advice.”

“The party of small government would like you to watch fewer foreign films,” he also snarked.

And calling it “a very dangerous escalation,” Wolfers noted: “Tariffs have not traditionally been applied to services, and the United States is a massive net exporter of services. We would be extremely vulnerable to any service-based retaliation.”

Self-described “Tech policy wonk” Michael Nelson, formerly of Georgetown University, labeled Trump’s film tariffs “Deranged. #EconomicSuicide.”

Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA), who made the “North Korea” comparison above, has repeatedly warned about what he sees as corruption in the Trump administration.

“It seems like ages ago that Donald Trump turned the South Lawn into a car showroom to boost the profits of Elon Musk’s sputtering Tesla business. But it was just over a month ago. That’s the kind of daily, open corruption that’s just another day in this administration,” Senator Warner wrote on Friday.

Earlier last week, he summed up his thoughts on the Trump administration: “Corruption in plain sight and tanking the economy. This is what the Trump administration has been all about.”

Some, like The New York Times’ conservative opinion writer David Brooks, say simply that Trumpism is all about power.

Trumpism, Brooks wrote, “is primarily about the acquisition of power — power for its own sake. It is a multifront assault to make the earth a playground for ruthless men, so of course any institutions that might restrain power must be weakened or destroyed. Trumpism is about ego, appetite and acquisitiveness and is driven by a primal aversion to the higher elements of the human spirit — learning, compassion, scientific wonder, the pursuit of justice.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: He Wanted Hulk Hogan to Run for Senate — Now Scott Jennings Thinks He May Meet That Bar

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.