The Efficiency of Modern Political Movements
Introduction:
I am not a fan of occupy Wall Street, but I do believe that unregulated trades and betting is what led to this economic downturn. The solution, however, does not lie in the act of finding who is at fault because it does not lie within one sole entity. Recently, we have had the rise of both the “Tea Party Movement” and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. But, conclusively, are any of these movements effective and if so, to what extent?
Protests and Utilitarianism:
John Stuart Mill wasn’t entirely correct. Well, he was wrong in many ways, but the reason that so many academics love his ideas and his promulgations is because many (including me) share many of the same ideals with him. In my opinion, one of Mill’s most compelling arguments is the treatment of ideas and discussion in a society. Of the greatest debaters, John Stuart Mill contests:
“The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary’s case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practiced as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”
And, on discussion Mill adds:
“So essential is this disciple (discussion) to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skillful devil’s advocate can conjure up.” [1]
Thus, the purpose of any protest must be to bring ideas and notions into national attention in order for them to be properly scrutinized in a public forum. Only once all ideas have been staunchly debated can the idea that is more applicable be applied. Nonetheless, the purpose of popular protests, such as “The Tea Party Movement” and the “Occupy: Wall Street Movement” is to bring into attention grievances and problems.
Protests and Media:
My main problem with the Occupy movement is that there seems to be no clear goal. Instead, people just seem to be fighting over a vague idea, but for no real purpose. Jonathan Schell, in The Nation[2], argues, “A movement –like a book or an article- can have content without demands. Demands are a later stage that comes once the content is developed and, above all once the movement is strong. This movement was born rich in unmistakable content.” Political movements are not books. The Cat in the Hat never made me want to make a social change in America (though one can argue that preventing strangers from entering your home is a good policy). However, Schell does provide a good point in the fact that political movements must develop some attention and must then lead into a demand. Now, that is where the Occupy movement lost me- where is the demand? The occupy movement has the media attention, the celebrities, and the police beatings to say “Look, this is what we want now. We want this to change and this is how.” Instead, they seem to garner the attention of anyone who wants to impress their college friends, girlfriends, or family into believing that they did something that mattered, but no one ever asked themselves the question: “Where is this going?” Let’s look back at the Tea Party. The Tea Party movement was one that looked for a more libertarian approach to policy in the United States. “NO MORE TAXES” was frequently thrown around at rallies and in speeches throughout the United States. But, if you asked anyone what the Tea Party represented some would reply that it represented a Republican resurgence in American Politics, the elimination of the federal tax, the banning of Sharia Law (for some reason?), and the implementation of Christian values. Well, in the end, no one knew what the Tea Party stood for, but all anyone knew was that it was against the liberal agenda. Once Tea Party politicians were elected people started to realize “Wait, what are you doing to my collective bargaining rights?” The Tea Party didn’t necessarily represent an end to collective bargaining, but the vagueness of its intentions let some politicians take the flair of the movement and used it to fulfill personal political ideals. My point is that if the Tea Party had been direct in their demands, many people would have strayed away from it sooner. This need to discuss ideas goes back to John Stuart Mill’s arguments. We need discussion of all ideas in order to find some kind of compromise. The likes of political movements with no defined goals lead to good media stories, but they lack progress.
Conclusion:
Does the Occupy movement represent an elimination of Capitalism? Then I disagree because competition, despite its many flaws in social services, is still a great system. Does the Occupy movement represent an implementation of a law or agency that overlooks commerce in order to prevent credit default swaps? Then I am all in because I think that entities with money should not be betting on an individual’s ability to pay or go into debt. Unless the Occupy movement finds something to fight for instead of the old, general “I hate the Man” Hippy argument from the 1960s, it will never cause any change in policy. I like the idea, just not the approach.
