The Right of Political Protest in the U.S.: Nullified in the Outback by Intimidation

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of Grievances.” Peaceable protest, even to protest a government or an official thereof, has come to be regarded as a staple of American democracy. In practice, however, the right can be eviscerated such that peaceful protesting is simply not worth the trouble. Such trouble can be orchestrated by a police force or even a government within the United States.
Implicit in the right to protest is the value put on tolerating the expression of contrary opinions. Conservative and progressive views, even those of racists and anarchists, respectively, are generally accorded the right to peaceably protest in a public way. If a State is sufficiently one-sided, however, public officials, including governors, majors, and police chiefs, can reflect the dominant attitude of residents that protests on behalf certain political, economic, or social ideologies should not be allowed. If they must be allowed, then massive shows of police force can—it is assumed--legitimately be used to intimidate the protesters.

The placement of the three posters illustrates pictorially that business and authoritarian political interests can co-exist comfortably in a broader political coalition. In Nazi Germany, for instance, the industrialists were part of Hitler's authoritarian political coalition. Besides receiving purchase orders from a state that is able to resist popular calls for government spending, business likes the political stability that a "law and order" police-state can provide. 

In Arizona, for example, prior to the 2020 election, a conservative candidate for sheriff of Maricopa County, which includes the Phoenix metropolitan area, displayed signs containing the imperative, “Stand Up to the Mobs!” Just above that line was another imperative—that the laws be enforced. Presumably the unenforced laws on car-emission limits and mask requirements on public transportation were not on the candidate’s mind. Presumably he was not planning on holding the transit authority accountable for allowing passengers without masks to ride the buses and light rail. A supervisor at Metro Valley told me by phone at the time that the county law (and ordinances of the cities) that face masks must be worn on public transportation does not have “legal force” because it is just a requirement. Stunned, I did not point out that her company was in violation of the requirement because even bus drivers did not have to wear masks; I had already investigated the strange messages coming out of that company, such as, “Masks are required and we will allow passengers to board without wearing them.”
The candidate for sheriff was likely referring back to the protests against police brutality (otherwise known as abuses of power). That he did not use the word, “Rioters,” instead of “Mobs” implies that he was including peaceable protests too. Given the bad connotation of the word, “Mobs,” as “a large and disorderly crowd of people” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a negative attitude toward at least certain peaceful protests can be inferred. I had heard enough Arizona residents conflate “liberal” peaceful protests with riots to know what the candidate meant by mobs. “They are all violent,” one conservative resident insisted to me as I thought of the state’s pre-college education rating of 49^th out of the 50 States.
A few years after the 2016 presidential election, some students of Arizona State University told me that protests against Donald Trump had not really been allowed on campus. One student even observed that Arizona does not tolerate “liberal” protests. Besides the errant assumption that any mob of people is bound to become violent (which in turn rests on an extremely negative view of human nature rivaling that of John Calvin), anger against “liberals,” which was clearly evident locally, was likely behind the excessive police force designed to intimidate even peaceful protests.
With ASU police regularly staked out in jeeps parked on sidewalks and even academic courtyards, an excessive show of force has been the authoritarians’ tactic of choice to intimidate protesters even if they happened to be 20 students in the Global Politics of Human Rights class whose final project was a class protest on campus on April 13, 2017. The students protested against Trump’s policies on immigration, LGBT rights, women’s rights, Black Lives Matter, and even the prison system. 

The class was fluid in its movements, rather than being intent on blocking a sidewalk. (Source: Connor Bolget of The Republic)

As vaguely reported by a local newspaper, “At one point, Arizona State University personnel asked the group to relocate in order to stop blocking the sidewalk. Protesters then stood in a staggered line, with about a foot between each person, instead of standing shoulder to shoulder. Campus police then were called to the scene, as the protesters changed from holding signs to linking arms, walking back and fourth [sic] in front of the grassy area of Hayden Lawn.”[1] The word lawn is important, as the area is a large square of grass with sidewalks on the periphery.
Who were the opaquely labeled university personnel? In addition to the routine police presence on the campus, students working essentially as police aides typically have the campus covered (even sidewalk intersection to intersection). I have seen those security students keeping a particular eye on outdoor “political” tables near the student union building. It is possible that those student-security personnel notified the campus police of the class’s final project as a protest, which the police would have understood as such rather than as an academic project.

The walkie-talkie-clad "eyes and ears" for the campus police are ubiquitous on the main ASU campus--sometimes at every sidewalk-intersection even as observant police jeeps are stationed during the day on sidewalks and even academic courtyards. 

Did the university personnel and police over-react? The local newspaper reported, “Passers-by had some difficulties finding their way around the linked demonstrators, so ASU’s campus police stepped in to give a second warning, this time directly” to the professor.”[2]  That the protesters were few (20 with some add-ons) and were generally fluid (i.e., mobile) suggests that both the university personnel and the caller over-reacted. It would not be a crisis for by-passers (especially students) to walk on the grass, especially at that square. The police stepped in to give a second warning, so who gave the first? The student security workers? Given that students ordinarily walked on the grass and the small group was mobile, were two warnings really necessary? Should a university police force be able to interfere with a class project without permission from an upper-level academic administer? I suspect that the police took it upon themselves to threaten the professor as if she deserved to be arrested because students had to make a slight detour on grassy square. I also suspect that the police viewed the event as a political protest rather than as an academic project. That it was the latter means that the police should not have intervened without the permission of an academic administrator. Instead, the incident reflected the local culture wherein mobs protest and protests can be expected to turn violent. With such a negative view of protests even as a class project, it is easy to understand why threats and intimidation would be used with impunity.
Hence even the people in the peaceful protests against abuse-of-power by the police in Phoenix during the summer of 2020 (as distinct from the riots, which rightly have no constitutional protections) had to contend with massive police shows of force. Even a small protest on behalf of Ryan Whitaker had to put up with a police helicopter circling overhead as if twenty people might suddenly lose control of themselves and go on a rampage. A resident who lived near a park where protests against police violence took place told me that even peaceful protests walking to the park had to contend with an overwhelming police presence. I was talking to the other Midwesterner after a police car hit a parking lot curb as the police employee quickly swerved closely by me as I was walking from the main library, which was closed. No one was in the nearby park or even in the library’s parking lot that early afternoon during a weekday. Even though protests were taking place nightly, I contend that the police were over-reacting to one person walking through the parking lot. The aggressive driving was totally uncalled for, and yet the police employee likely, given the culture there, regarded it as measured rather than hyperactive. The underlying assumption, which I had heard from both local police and residents, is that any grouping of citizens in public is likely to turn violent without intimidation from an exaggerated show of force. That very assumption is what puts Arizona at odds with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
During that summer, the city’s mayor was bragging about how minimal the protests were there compared with those in other big cities in other States. If that differential was the result of intimidating peaceful protesters under the subterfuge that they would inevitably become violent because mobs are unruly, then the “success” came by trampling on the right of the people to assemble peaceably, which means without feeling intimidated. I would not call that success.

---

1. Conner Borgelt, “ASU Class Holds Protest as Part of Its Final Assignment,” The Republic (azcentral.com), April 14, 2017.
2. Ibid.

Do Police Departments Unwittingly Attract an Aggressive Mentality?

Might the personality type most excited by inflicting pain on others be drawn to “serve” on a police force?  Might force itself be an allurement to such a personality? Moreover, might organizations populated by the personality be inclined to set up defenses against being held accountable either internally or by other organizations? At the very least, deference ought to go to the victims rather than the “officers.”

The New York City police department and the district attorney’s office set investigations in motion after video surfaced of Anthony Bologna of the police department using pepper spray against protesters of Wall Street greed and the lack of accountability there. Even as the department’s own investigation was yet to commence, the chief publically questioned whether the video offered enough context to evaluate the inspector’s actions. To the chief, merely protesting in a way that blocked traffic justifies the use of pepper spray without warning. The inspector’s union boss claimed the motive had been to restore order—though the video shows that the victims were not disorderly or resisting arrest. Indeed, the police did not attempt to arrest those sprayed. It is not difficult to see where the police investigation of its own will go.

Beyond the hypocrisy involved in those sworn to protect actually attacking and the anti-Americanism involved in trying to curtail a protest, it might reasonably be asked whether Bologna was acting on his own, or whether Wall Street money was ultimately behind the aggression. In the protest’s first four days, the mega media companies scarcely covered the protest; Bologna’s unprovoked aggression came after the news networks could no longer viably ignore the movement. So was the case simply that of American banks using the police state to keep a movement from spreading to their detriment? Were there actual accountability on Bologna, might the bird sing, affording us some transparency concerning any such hidden relationships?

Even if no such conspiracy existed, there is obviously a need for stronger instruments of accountability that could be imposed externally on police departments and their employees. In the wake of Bologna’s attacks, the media reported that such incidents are not uncommon. Indeed, I have witnessed them. While in Pittsburgh, for example, I witnessed how the police treated black teenagers who were simply walking along the sidewalks in the university area of town (Oakland). It was evident to me at the time (as a bystander leaving a restaurant) that the police employees believed they did not face any meaningful accountability. So I was not surprised to see video surface of Anthony Bologna’s sadism on full display in New York.

Thomas Hobbes writes that in the state of nature, and even in society, each person has the right to protect his or her person, as per the right of self-preservation. A sovereign cannot take this inalienable right away. When Bologna acted outside of the law, and thus outside of the social contract, his victims had the right to defend themselves, even in using pepper spray against the attacker. In other words, Bologna could and should have been treated as a criminal attacker by his victims and bystanders. Perhaps in the future protestors ought to carry pepper spray in case any criminals show up and attempt any aggressive attacks. It could be that the offending attackers are imprisoned while the self-preserving protestors are exonerated. Then maybe police departments will recognize that accountability applied to their own employees is in the departments’ interest. Legitimate force goes only so far before it lapses into criminality, and we all have an obligation as citizens to thwart crime as it is happening by whomever. If police employees do not want other citizens to be put in the position of making this judgment, then perhaps those employees might want to reassess their attitude and habits. In the meantime, citizens need to be on guard against criminals even and especially where they are least expected and perhaps most commonly found.

Source:

Al Baker and Joseph Goldstein, “Officer’s Pepper-Spraying of Protesters Is Under Investigation,” New York Times, September 29, 2011. 

Oligarchs in Ukraine Decide the E.U./Russia Question: Big Business on Top of Democracy?

One of the many lessons shimmering in the sunlight from stars such as Gandhi and Mandela is the possibility that popular political protest really can matter after all. Alternatively, managing (or manipulating) the crowd could be a mere front dwarfed in influence by that of a rich and power elite. Although the Ukraine will serve as our case study, democracy itself is under the microscope here.
As 2013 was losing steam and heading into the history books, the people of the independent state of the Ukraine were poised to turn back east or aim toward statehood in the European Union. The matter of who in the republic would decide was at the time obscured by the appearance of power in the pro-Europe protests in the capital city. Peeling off this veneer, the New York Times provides us with a more revealing look.
"Protesters may be occupying government buildings and staging loud rallies calling for the government to step down, but behind the scenes an equally fierce — and perhaps more decisive — tug of war is being waged among a very small and very rich group of oligarchical clans here, some of whom see their future with Europe and others with Russia. That conflict was ignited, along with the street protests, by Mr. Yanukovich’s decision to halt free trade talks with the European Union” in November, 2013.[1] In other words, very wealthy businessmen were very active politically in setting the course of the ship of state.

Petro Poroshenko is a Ukrainian oligarch who sees more money for his conglomerate and himself in greater ties with the E.U. Does it matter what the majority of the Ukrainian people want? NYT

Although blocking government buildings makes excellent news copy, all that visible strife may have been diverting attention from the dark corridors of power in search of a deal that would set a much larger course. To be an independent state between two contending empires is not the safest place to be. If finally moving one way or the other hinges on a certain constellation of wealthy and business interests coalescing enough to pull the strings of state, what the people think really does not matter. As put by the New York Times, “In this battle of the titans, the street becomes a weapon, but only one of many.”[2] Put another way, what the titans do with their arsenals of wealth and power is the decisive point, not what the people in the streets happen to think.
The implications for representative democracy are stunning, if not dire, and for the illusion, utterly deflating. Does not adulthood involve the recognition that something taken hitherto as real is in actuality an illusion? Perhaps it is high time that Toto pull the curtain open to reveal the Wizard as the person pulling the levers for billowing smoke and bursts of flames to divert our attention from his existence, not to mention his manipulation and power.

1.Andrew Kramer, “Behind Scenes, Ukraine’s Rick and Powerful Battle Over the Future,” The New York Times, December 6, 2013

2. Ibid., emphasis added.

Anna Hazare: A Modern Incarnation of Gandhi?

On August 21, 2011 in New Delhi, India, tens of thousands marched in support of Anna Hazare, then in the sixth day of his hunger strike in support of the Jan Lokpal anti-corruption bill. He told the crowd, “Even if the prime minister comes, I will not withdraw my hunger strike until the [bill] is passed in the Parliament. I can die but I will not bend.”[1] What a unique and intriguing statement! To be sure, the man's “professed unwillingness to compromise,” as well as his “occasionally belligerent tone, . . . attracted criticism.”[2] Even so, he inspired mainly hope, particularly from the young. His main constituency, however, was the middle class, who felt alienated and unfairly treated. Hazare self-consciously embraced the model of Gandhi. That model, including the principled unbending, is no stranger in India, yet I am surprised that it took until 2011 for a societal figure so Gandhi-like to emerge and galvanize a mass protest using Gandhi’s methods. Of course, the likeness between the two men could be overstated. How much like Gandhi was Hazare and his political action? For example, would Gandhi have stopped eating simply out of preference for one of two bills before the Parliament? Putting a stop to widespread violence is arguably much more significant than reducing corruption. Also, the demand that conduct be changed is more direct than that a law be enacted unless to abolish an unjust one. 

                              

The uncompromising rectitude plays out differently in the two cases  Gandhi's underlying moral concern made his unwillingness to compromise laudable. Such stubbornness can fall on its face in a legislative context in which political compromise is inherent to the process. In appealing directly to the people for their malicious behavior to stop, Gandhi sidestepped the incrementalism of legislative politics. 

For a refusal to compromise to be a virtue, some pretty convincing principles must be at stake and a clear distinction must be drawn. In other words, a serious moral wrong must be involved. Typically, such a wrong involves great human suffering. Wide-scale  corruption, especially if it involves extortion of the poor and middle class incurs human suffering, but arguably not that which is involved in widespread societal violence that even results in death. In subjecting himself to death, Hazare may thus have been acting disproportionately. Taking up the mantle of Gandhi's method is perhaps not as simple as it may appear. 

1. Jim Yardley, “Thousands Back Antigraft Hunger Strike in New Delhi,” New York Times (August 22, 2011). 
2. Ibid.

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Capitulates on a Proposed Extradition Law

Facing huge violent protests, Carrie Lam, the chief executive of Hong Kong, a semi-autonomous region of China, decided on June 15, to indefinitely suspend her proposal to open extradition to mainland China and Taiwan. As the Chinese government demonstrated during the protests at Tiananmen Square decades earlier, holding a mass protest in China was not among the ways to impeded proposed legislation. Why, then, did Lam seem to cave into the popular protests in Hong Kong?

Perhaps it is naïve to claim that even in China, when popular protests are so large government officials cannot but conclude that enough of the people are advocating that Rousseau’s general will has spoken. Of course, a highly visible protest need not be from a majority of citizens. Often the political extremes show up to protest while the centrist majority stays home. In fact, the regularization or ubiquity of political protests in the E.U. and U.S. may dilute the ability to stand out in such a way that the intended change will happen. The Arab Spring’s mass protests in the Middle East demonstrate that even huge protests can be “regularized” within the control of a government. So I think the efficacy of protests has diminished as they have become increasingly hackneyed. It follows that the large, violent protests in Hong Kong in 2019 against the extradition bill were not decisive in the legislation’s untimely demise.

Alternatively, that local business leaders turned away from Lam on the issue could be said to be the decisive change that led to Lam’s decision to indefinitely shelve the bill. In the U.S. especially, the loss of support of corporate leaders could indeed stop legislation from progressing. The power by which corporations can use campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington, D.C. had indeed become formidable by 2019. In contrast, however, the Chinese government was relatively strong against the power of amassed private capital (i.e., large companies). With the support of the Chinese government, Lam could have handled the errant business elite, but did she have the central government’s support?

Government officials in Beijing “were starting to question her judgment in picking a fight on an issue that they [regarded] as a distraction from their real priority: the passage of stringent national security legislation in Hong Kong.”[1] So rather than yielding to the streets or the business sector, Lam yielded to the central government. The implication is that Hong Kong’s semi-autonomous status within a dictatorship could be questioned. In fact, semi-autonomous is an oxymoron in a dictatorship—that is to say, a façade.

---

1. Keith Bradsher, “In Hong Kong, Leader Yields to the Streets,” The New York Times, June 16, 2019.

Morgan Stanley: Systemic Mistrust or Bad Financials after the Financial Crisis?

"Morgan Stanley by any measure is a safe and solid investment bank. Except for one: The amount of trust people have in the whole financial and political system. It's just about zero,” according to Jesse Eisinger of The New York Times in October 2011. Even as there is undoubtedly an element of hyperbole in his conclusion—for zero trust in the financial system and governments would occasion far greater problems than the world faced at the time of Eisinger’s report—his broader point that bankers would be held accountable one way or the other for not having learned their lesson on derivatives (and risk more generally) is valid. The subtext is that even though banks like Morgan Stanley were in actuality in solid financial shape, they deserved the negative repercussions from the systemic skepticism that the banks themselves brought about by virtually ignoring risk analysis in preference to a run of profits and (not coincidentally) bonuses.

Eisinger points out that, at least as of October 2011, Morgan Stanley “has almost $60 billion in common equity, compared with $36 billion before September 2008, and its ratios are stronger. Its trading book - which is volatile and where any bank can take sudden, large losses - is smaller than it was. Morgan Stanley has more long-term debt and higher deposits, both of which stabilize its finances. The bank has more cash available in case there's a crunch and a smaller amount of Level III assets, which don't have an independently verifiable value and so must be estimated by the bank. Hedge funds have parked a smaller amount of assets at Morgan Stanley. That's good because in the financial crisis, they pulled them from the bank.” But because all of this could be easily wiped out by a run on the bank occasioned or fueled by a wider mistrust of the financial sector, Eisinger brings up the topic of derivatives as a way of showing that the bankers did not in fact learn their lesson (i.e., all the improved stats may be for naught). Accordingly, the bankers deserved the systemic mistrust even at the expense of any effort having resulted in added financial strength.  

According to the reporter, Morgan Stanley had a face value of $56 trillion in derivatives in October 2011. He notes that JP Morgan Chase had more: a face value of $79 trillion. This is the GNP of some countries. Even though the bankers insisted at the time that they had adequately hedged their long positions, the hedges themselves could fail, especially if the derivatives are positively correlated, as in September 2008 when AIG was completely overwhelmed due to the housing-based derivatives caving in virtually all at once.

In other words, those of us capable of learning lessons know that we should not trust hedges in so far as systemic risk is concerned; the system itself can be overwhelmed by the sheer momentum of a really big wave. So we are back to the issue of trust in the entire financial system, which is and ought to be a drag on even stellar financials until the broader lesson is learned. Unfortunately, that lesson may not be in the immediate financial interest of particular banks due to externalities occasioned by moral hazard (e.g., the possibility of being rescued while another bank, such as Lehman, fails).

Even though governments can step in to protect the broader system (unless captured by the regulated), legislators and regulators cannot force bankers to learn their lesson. A mentality to safeguard even one’s own bank as a going concern cannot be imposed; it must be felt and valued from the inside. All too often, bankers are engaged in “managing” regulations as impediments to be minimized rather than stepping back to ask why the regulations exist in the first place. They might exist for the banks’ own good. If so, the banking lobby trying to water down the Volcker Rule might have been working at odds with those institutions that the lobby ostensibly represents. Be careful what you wish for, Wall Street bankers. You might just get it, especially if you have the gold and therefore can make the rules. It would be ironic if the protesters rather than yourselves had your back, even as you ridicule the masses marching below your towering be-windowed edifices of greed.

Source:

Jesse Eisinger, “Between the Lines, Wall St. Banks Face a Deficit of Trust,” The New York Times, October 12, 2011. 

Putin Likened Protesters to "Weak Birds"

At the conclusion of the 2012 Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Russia, the host president, Vladimir Putin, likened the birds that had been following his motorized glider south one day to the Russians who did not follow him--in other words, the protesters. “Only the weak ones,” he quipped, "didn’t follow me.” Elaborating, he added of the birds, “not all of the cranes flew, and the leader, the pilot, has to be blamed because he was too fast in gaining speed and altitude and they were just lagging behind; they couldn’t catch up.” It is interesting that he was blaming himself as well as referring to the lagging birds, and thus protesters, as weak. Was Putin really blaming himself though? Furthermore, doesn't blaming the protesters contradict the notion in the transformational-leadership literature that such leaders build up rather than push down their followers?

Putin could not have been entirely objective on the protests against him.      

Source: Democracy Chronicles

Putin stated that “during certain circumstances, when there is strong wind and bad weather, the pilot has to lift very speedily—otherwise the vehicle, the flying machine, could overturn and capsize.” In other words, Russia would collapse were he to have relaxed or compromised on his agenda for change. 

Is it really the case that a political leader’s transformational paradigm must be implemented quickly or the government, economy or society will collapse? Is a glider stalling and falling really comparable to a government slowing down on reform? I contend that the latter is oriented to graduations, whereas a stall in the air happens all at once (i.e., a qualitative change). 
Was there really the political, economic or social equivalent of “strong wind and bad weather” facing Russia at the time? In the 1990's in the wake of a collapsed Soviet Union, governmental and economic transformation was clearly needed as soon as possible. In fact the rise of the suddenly rich Russian oligarchs can be taken as an indication that the government did not produce adequate economic laws soon enough. In 2012, it could be argued that Putin was applying “leadership in a crisis” to “leadership in the status quo” in his own time. In the midst of a tsunami, for example, there is not time to question or debate the directions from a leader; people must get to higher ground as soon as possible. Russia was not facing such a massive wave in 2012. Therefore, Putin's argument that he had not been at fault because he was avoiding stalling so the economy and/or government would not collapse is valid. 
Had Putin been willing to take some responsibility for the protests, he may not have characterized the protesters as weak. According to the transformational leadership literature, doing so undercuts a leader's ability to transform an economy, government, and society. In Transformational Leadership, James Burns defines transformational leadership in terms of developing the capacities of followers, which presumably includes the followers being able to become leaders themselves. Nietzsche would beg to differ, claiming that the weak cannot be weak; they are simply not constituted to be strong. The strong too, cannot be but strong. I suspect that Putin would agree with the nineteenth-century European philosopher. In the transformational leadership literature, leadership is portrayed as stronger than followership because a leader can encourage followers to develop their own inner authority, which in turn can be used in becoming a leader. Plato's notion of justice, wherein reason is in control of the passions, is consistent with the notion that inner authority (i.e. self-discipline) can enable a person to be a leader. A just polis, Plato claims in The Republic, is one in which a government uses reason to control the passions in society. 

It is possible that Putin's comment regarding the protesters actually reveals Putin as weaker. According to Nietzsche, the truly strong feel no need to dominate as they have a surplus of self-confidence and pleasure from exercising power to go after protesters. "What are these parasites to me really?" such a political leader would say. "Let them have their protests; my sights are on turning my transformational paradigm into reality."  In fact, the strong are not stingy in giving away the surplus; they have more than enough. The best source of such power, according to Nietzsche, is from the inner strength to master an internal intractable instinctual urge. Doing so gives the strong such pleasure from power that they are not motivated to be cruel to an opposition even as it protests. Put another way, in trying to snuff out threats to his power, Putin demonstrated a lack of self-confidence and strength.

Source:

David Herszenhorn and Steven Lee Myers, “For Putin, a Flight of Fancy at a Summit Meeting’s Close,” The New York Times, September 10, 2012.

On Nietzsche applied to power in business, see On the Arrogance of False Entitlement: A Nietzschean Critique of Business Ethics and Management (available at Amazon)

Egypt: A Missed Opportunity to Interiorize Protests

How a democratic system is designed can be as important as whether the government officials have been elected or appointed. In constructing a democracy, it is not sufficient to simply hold elections. While the victors may have democratic legitimacy, the government itself may still not. Egypt amid the violent protests in early 2013 may be a case in point. Even though unlike in 2012 the sitting president had been democratically elected, it is too simplistic to say that the Egyptian government and constitution had democratic legitimacy.

In January 2013 following an Egyptian court sentencing 21 residents in Port Said to death for their roles in the stadium disaster, the chief of the army said that the ongoing violence could bring about the collapse of Morsi’s government. The opposition demanded that the president establish a nationally unified government and rewrite controversial parts of the constitution that had recently been passed. That the constitution had been pushed by religionists amid an increasingly polarized citizenry left even the democratically elected government vulnerable. It was not enough that Morsi had been democratically elected.

Particularly in a highly polarized country, simply holding elections is not sufficient to usher in a sustainable democracy. If a partisan party holds virtually all of the power in the government of a highly polarized country, the opposition will have no recourse but to resort to protests and even violence. Put another way, democratic legitimacy requires more where a citizenry is polarized in the sense of operating under very different, and thus highly conflicting, assumptions and prescriptions. In such a context, a democratic system that hands virtually all the power over to one “side” is insufficiently democratic.

This is not to say that a “unity government” is the answer. Given the polarization, any unity would be illusory. More realistically, Morsi could have viewed the sheer intensity of the violence in the protests as an indication that the new democratic system was being monopolized by one party at the expense of others. Providing them with their own bases of power within the government and democratically elected would bring in the external political strife—replacing violence on the streets with debate and negotiation between governmental institutions. The latter is not predicated on unity. Even any resulting compromise in legislative terms would not necessarily imply unity.

 Can such intense violence be "interiorized" as debate and politics in a legislature?  Government itself can be viewed as civic violence "redacted" and "refined."   Source: thestar.com

Interiorizing the conflict on the streets by permitting it with some political power within the government could be accomplished through a bicameral legislature, the chambers of which having very different bases of membership, or a qualified majority vote mechanism in a single chamber. The separation of powers could also be by government branch, with one party controlling one branch and the opposition controlling at least part of another branch.

In the U.S., for example, a Democrat controlled the White House at the time, while the Republicans controlled the U.S. House. The opposition did not have to have a share of the power in the House because the minority there had another power base within the government. Were the government completely dominated by even democratically elected Republicans, such was the case in Wisconsin after the election of 2010, activist Democrats would head for the streets. That the legitimacy of such a government can quickly become suspect in spite of its democratic basis is illustrated by the thirteen senators from Wisconsin who literally fled to Illinois so Wisconsin’s senate could not function with a quorum. Democracy involves the design of a government as much as that crucial offices are elected rather than appointed. To be legitimate democratically, the government’s design should interiorize political strife by providing a power base to more than one party.

In short, it is not sufficient for the Egyptian president and even its parliament to be democratically elected, such that one party can dominate both simply due to the numbers. Given the extent of polarization among the citizenry, such domination is doomed to failure even if the dominated party is in no hurry to differentiate power-bases within the government. Particularly in cases such as Egypt where the parties are “not on the same page,” the opposition must have some basis within the government to act as a check and thus balance out the otherwise excess possible in one-party rule. In a polarized citizenry, such excess quickly pushes the other side to extreme reactions on the street.

The task in the construction of a viable government in Egypt would seem to be providing opposition groups with enough ownership within the government without thereby providing a veto on any legislative output. As of early 2013 at least, Egypt might have to go a couple of rounds before a design is adopted that effectively interiorizes the violence.  Otherwise, splitting the country into two—one secular and the other a theocracy—might be the only viable solution (other than federalism and the sort of democratic design discussed here).  It is notoriously difficult to relocate people, however, so as to have truly distinct secular and religionist societies. Given the daylight between the two camps, however, partition, such as that which had occurred between Pakistan and India in 1947 might simply reflect the fact that two distinct nations had already come to exist in Egypt. If so, it is the fossilized nature of a defined country that may be the underlying obstacle to Egypt catching up with itself.

Source:

“Egypt Political Factions Condemn Violence, Urge Dialogue,” Deutsche Welle, January 31, 2013.

Occupying Wall Street

At the “Occupy Wall Street” protest in Washington, D.C. in 2011, a man was preaching the Gospel as protesters pleaded with him to stop. While I suspect that the hackneyed secular/progressive vs. right-wing Christian dichotomy is reflected in this dynamic, the protesters may also have been “policing” the contours of their movement as anti-corporate and anti-Wall Street. Yet one of the pleading protesters was holding a sign, “Create Peace,” which does not really get at the anti-business theme. Another of the protesters pleading with the evangelical had a bongo drum handing down from around his neck, which could suggest that he would be out for any left-wing protest. Still another protester, perhaps from the peace movement, held a sign “2 Wars equals = Deficits!” Even morphing into a protest against the horrendous debt of the U.S. Government would miss the mark on the anti-corporate, anti-Wall Street target. 

In the New York protest, an elderly black man held two-part sign: “Obama: One Brilliant American Moving America” and “Upward a Standard of America.” Standing next to him, a young woman was holding a hand-written note, “This Guy Is Clueless” with an arrow underneath pointing to the man. Her expression said, “What is this guy doing at our anti-Wall Street protest?” His expression said, “I’m confident in what I believe and I’m not backing down.” Neither one looked angry.

My question is this: In a free society in which people enjoy the right to protest on public property, how can a given protest movement enforce the limits of its message? If a group secures a permit to protest in a certain area, can that group establish gate-keepers along the parameters to keep out signs that do not reflect the group’s message? I am sympathetic to permitting protests this self-regulatory function. In attending protests in the past, I saw people interlarding their own causes where they were obviously on topics other than that stated of the protests. How selfish of them! I remember thinking. It is as though such people assume that the rules don’t apply to them. They are like those people who show up to a private party uninvited then are offended when they are asked to leave. Essentially, they are arrogant and presumptuous; such an air belies any cause.

The anti-corporation, anti-Wall Street protests are not religious revivals; neither are they pro-Obama rallies. The rallies aren’t even geared to protesting the fiscal mess of the U.S. Government, even though the deficits and debt can be partially explained by the largess pressured by industry lobbies (including banking) and bail-outs occasioned by the greed and fraud extant in the mortgage and investment bank sectors. In short, the protests need not be an opportunity for virtually any progressive cause that wants to promote itself as though it had been invited to interlard its own agenda.

The Wall Street Journal reports that at a “protest off Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., it was unclear what the protesters stood for, much less if they’d accept political support from the Democratic Party. A man on stage beat on a drum while reciting free-verse poetry lines such as ‘Revolution is the solution,’ and ‘then we can all sit down and have a lollipop.’ The group at one point participated in Yoga stretches.” In contrast, the populist protests in the Arab Spring were focused and had tangible goals (i.e., the removal of a regime). The American protests can be just as radical with respect to breaking down the system of corporate capitalism, whose oily tentacles have made it around the throats of nearly every government official in Washington, playing those wind pipes like Scots.

By availing themselves to virtually any sort of professional hippie, the American protest movements in the fall of 2011 were relatively wan or pallid—not likely to result in anything other than venting on a variety of left-wing causes. Failure to delimit a movement makes it possible for the point to be the protesters themselves, the various causes all blending into each other like a rainbow of colors. Given the lack of accountability on the Wall Street banks that received TARP by elected officials and the fact that banks helped write the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, even as the banks and Congress refused to obviate the mass-foreclosures, the ambiguity permitted by the protest movement’s organizers was unfortunate; it actually served the interests of the corporations and banks by diffusing and thus dissipating the opposition.

The Occupy Wall Street movement could have potentially turned into a Tea Party of sorts on the left capable of pulling the Democratic Party along similar to the impact that the Tea Party has had on the Republican Party. Sen. Charles Schumer (D. NY) exemplifies the sort of careful Democrat that the Occupy Party could replace. The Wall Street Journal reports that he “enjoys strong backing from financial services firms and wouldn’t comment on the protests on Wall Street.” Bought and paid for, one could reasonably conclude. That senator would not be one to push through structural reforms sufficient to thwart the plutocracy that has taken root in America. For such reforms to be effective, the large corporate form itself (i.e., massive concentration of private capital), which is inherently a threat to a republic, would have to be exculpated and extirpated from the legal and economic landscapes. An economy of small and medium-sized businesses would appeal to Democrats who castigate the towering corporate salaries and bonuses, and to Republicans who value the extent of competition that Adam Smith wrote of, wherein producers are price takers rather than oligarchic makers and therefore not quite so supercilious (and powerful).

Instead of debating the “legal persons” doctrine and whether corporations should be allowed to make campaign contributions, the very existence of the large corporate entity itself can be placed front and center. “Too big to fail” and “systemic risk” could have served as context. The Occupy Wall Street Party could have potentially crystalized around the very existence of the modern corporation and megabank. Playing drums, campaigning for Obama, demonizing the Republican Party, saving souls, protesting war and deficits, and doing yoga won’t cut it. Let’s just say it is in the financial interests of Wall Street and Corporate America, and thus their sycophantic agents in Washington, to keep the Occupying Wall Street movement diffused and chaotic, such that the various protests could have eventually blended in adiaphorously with the cacophony of campaign issues in 2012. Perhaps the plutocracy’s power extended to being able to furtively relegate its opposition by moving it onto peripheral issues, as if a magician making a white dove suddenly disappear—the animal supposing itself still on stage. Perhaps the question is whether corporate capitalism can be eradicated by democratic means. That the protests sport signs advocating revolution may provide us with a baleful glance at the answer. It may be that economic (and political) inequality will continue to expand until the pressure builds to such a point that the sluggish, somnolent masses finally have had enough from the super rich, proffering to the world an American Spring. Although perhaps a harbinger, Occupying Wall Street is in all likelihood yet another garden-variety protest rather than a game changer sporting real change.

Sources:

Jonathan Weisman and Laura Meckler, “Democrats’ Populist Puzzle,” Wall Street Journal, October 7, 2011. 

Mark Landler, “Protests Offer Obama Opportunity to Gain, and Room for Pitfalls,” New York Times, October 7, 2011. 


See related essays: "Protest Movements 101" and "A Self-Regulated Protest?"

Protest Movements 101

David Johnston of Reuters opined on October 7, 2011, the Occupy Wall Street “protests show signs of sparking a major change in U.S. politics by creating common ground among people with wildly divergent views. The key to their significance will be whether they foster a wholesale change in political leadership in 2013 or whether Americans return a vast majority of incumbents in both parties at all levels of government.” But are “wildly divergent views” really represented, and did the movement translate dramatic camera-ready protest parades and sit-ins into grassroots work to get specifically anti-corporate candidates past the primaries and into office in 2012?  I contend that from the get-go, the Occupy Wall Street movement set itself on a trajectory antithetical to being able to answer both of these questions in the affirmative. In so doing, the movement’s “non-leaders” sowed the seeds of the movement’s demise—or at the very least of being relegated as partisan and thus contained as a sub-part in the system.

In terms of a diversity of views, a poster board in McPherson Square, where “Occupy D.C.” pitched camp, listed, according to USA Today, “the group’s wide-ranging goals, including economic justice, education reform, repealing the Patriot Act, District of Columbia home rule and an end of the two-party system.” One protester claimed all these agendas are related because, “Everyone has a voice here.” That doesn’t really explain why the goals are related. I contend that the reason is because the group is populated by liberal Democrats.

While symmetrical with the Tea Party in the Republican Party, my pigeon-holing of the Occupy Wall Street movement deprives it of the anti-big-business populism that is salient in much of the Tea Party. Indeed, traditional agrarian Republicanism contained a strident thread of anti-corporatism, as big business, like big government, is fully capable of trampling over the individual. As Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) used to say on the U.S. Senate floor, “I’m for the little guy.” This is vintage Republican populism, which the “Occupy Wall Street” excluded from the get-go by failing to delimit itself in terms of topics. In other words, the “Occupy Party” may be undercutting itself by association.

It is in the corporate interest that the movement be relegated as partisan and left-wing. It is in the political interest (and comfort) of Republican officials to keep the movement from engaging in joint operations with Tea Party organizations or absorbing some Tea Party members; that would essentially muzzle representatives like Eric Cantor who would not want to insult those members.

The movement’s organizers (and there are leaders even if they claim to have a “leaderless” movement) failed to resist the ideological temptation to permit liberal Democrats who are “off topic” with respect to Wall Street and big business generally and with respect to government officials to join in anyway. Even apart from being stigmatized as simply partisan, the group ran the risk of running off course, like a sailboat without a rudder in the water. The boat goes wherever the wind takes it. To get an idea of how even just one protest event can slide, a nebulous “Stop the Machine” protest in Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. on October 6, 2011 “was intended to protest the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . but morphed into a multigroup demonstration that decried corporate greed as well as drone attacks.” Even the best placed intentions can find themselves on the losing end of a “morphing” if the boat had no rudder in the water. So a protest event against the corporate takeover of Congress (i.e., a plutocracy) could easily morph into an anti-war rally where pot-smokers beat bongos and dance in tie-dye shirts, while singing songs from another century that was anything but peace and love. While convenient and fun to the protesters, they would quickly lose credibility in much of the wider American society. Considering how much of that society might subscribe to an anti-Wall Street and big business lobby movement, the ideological convenience came at a steep, though perhaps hidden, cost.

As far as the impact of the Occupy Wall Street movement on the primaries and general election in 2012, the most likely scenario is that turnout of liberal Democrats gets a boost. This marginal impact would be indirect, rather than from a deliberate strategy in the movement to transition protesters into campaign volunteers for anti-corporate candidates urged to run by the movement. Ideally, such candidates could be found and supported for the primaries of both of the major parties. For example, agrarian populist Republicans could readily support a Republican candidate who advocates repealing the “legal person” corporate judicial doctrine (and thus corporate political spending), capping executive compensation on Wall Street, and breaking up the banks as well as companies that are too big to fail (or simply a danger to the republic form of governance).  In short, the notion that there is no ceiling for economic liberty can be replaced by a social-contract notion of solidarity based in the viability of a republic form of government and of market competition. As such, the movement’s goals could easily have been bipartisan, with only the Rockefeller Republicans in opposition.  Alas, so close but so, so far.

Had the Occupy Wall Street movement’s leaders been oriented to getting specifically anti-corporate candidates elected on both sides of the aisle, the movement would have limited itself to a few specific policy proporals. The very existence of the mega-corporation (and the mega-compensation levels) could have been at issue. Indeed, specific proposals capable of fundamentally redefining capitalism from its mega-corporate (with mega-lobbies) variety could have been linked to setting up and supporting particular candidates for a variety of state and federal offices. The movement’s leaders would have had to bend over backwards to make sure that Republican populist (e.g., agrarian) candidates were given just as much support. This would likely have included supporting some Tea Party candidates—the movement’s litmus test being stridently narrow yet uncompromising on providing the corporations with some loop holes or watered-down policies. Most importantly, for the movement to have succeeded in terms of policy would have meant supporting candidates who are not liberal! It could almost be said that such self-discipline alone would merit success at the ballot box. In contrast, taking the road most convenient has meant that making a radical change in corporate capitalism is not likely, at least from the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd.

Consider the following observation from Brendan Burke, a truck driver and punk rock musician who studied philosophy in college. “I have heard a thousand different things people are concerned about — inadequate teacher pay, no jobs, the rich not paying their fair share of taxes and all of it was about how we working people are not getting a fair shake.” The thousand points of light here sound to me like a grab-bag from the left wing of the Democratic Party. A small town Republican who is skeptical of big business (and big government) would naturally take one look at these causes and view the entire enterprise as partisan and left-wing. In other words, Burke’s observation confirms my sense that the movement quickly tracked to the liberal Democrat agenda writ large without even attempting to achieve a sufficient focus either on topic or on grass roots mobilization to significantly change the election results in 2012. At most, liberal Democrats will be more likely to make it to the ballot box on election-day in November, 2012. The usual suspects re-elected who had been sympathetic to the movement will have no fire under their bellies to maintain the movement’s push for fundamental change. Once again, real change will be in terms of incremental regulations rather than systemic change. Perhaps this is simply how American governance gets done.

If I am correct in my prediction, the culprit was none other than ideological selfishness or greed at the expense of driving home one radical change. It is ironic that greed (i.e., the desire for more) compromises efforts to curtail monetary greed. Perhaps the protesters were so upset in part because they knew deep down that they shared something with the bankers on Wall street: being driven by an unwillingness to resist the temptation to have more of whatever is in line with self-interest. I suspect that the corporate (and political) elite depended on this selfishness to derail the protest movement, and the protesters did not disappoint.

Given the immense wealth (and thus power) that the large American corporations and banks have, I am utterly astonished that a window could open even a crack to occasion a societal decision on whether the large corporation—the so-called “legal person”—should continue to exist in the United States. Less astonishing, the window began to close even as the movement was beginning to spread. It was a self-inflicted wound. The movement’s fate, as if predestined, will likely be taken to mean that the modern corporation itself has become virtually untouchable, meaning that it cannot be challenged politically within the system. The mega-corporate form thus ensconced in American society, pressure from the related increasing economic inequality will likely build until the system ultimately bursts open, at a much, much greater cost.

There are indeed huge costs in keeping the party going, whether in Goldman Sachs’ tower or on the street below. I suspect that neither Wall Street nor its antagonists—both of whom have been acting like predictable character-actors— grasp this point; both appear so narrow-minded yet proud. I can’t be wrong, they were undoubtedly thinking as they gazed at each other in 2011 from afar. The bankers refused even to acknowledge any culpability for the financial crisis of 2008 and the protesters were so sure they were on the right side of truth that they provided free admission to virtually any friendly agenda. What if a pro-life protester had shown up?

It would be nice if the great silent majority—those Americans who simply go about their daily business while quietly but astutely observing Wall Street and the protesters from afar—would take the reins from the arrogant and the proud in order to enact systemic change. At least from the vantage-point of a decade into the twentieth century, I suspect that many ordinary Americans like you and me had come to the uncomfortable conclusion that our political-economic system had in all likelihood been wrecked along the rocks of unbridled ambition. At the very least, many of us probably felt that, given the financial crisis of 2008 and the consolidation of special-interest power in Washington, both the financial system and the federal system were in need of major repairs, but had received only fine-tuning at most from vested interests. In other words, most citizens were probably wondering: where are the adults? It is indeed difficult to detect any such creatures among either the childish CEOs, such as Fuld (truly a lunatic), Coyne (a card-playing child), O’Neil (an insecure tyrant), Thain (selfishness incarnate) and Lewis (just plain dumb), or the angry yet somehow playful protesters. Tweedledum and Tweedledee could not put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Unfortunately, there is no Mother Goose either; sorry to say, but I'm afraid we must tackle the hard egg ourselves. Hopefully, we will muster the requisite determination before that egg completely spoils amid the stench of the sordid spoils of corporate capitalism in the stygian halls of Congress.

Sources:



David C. Johnston, “Occupy Wall Street,” Reuters, October 7, 2011. 

Donna L. Leger, “Protesting ‘Occupiers’ Spread Message Beyond Wall St.,” USA Today, October 7, 2011. 




See related essays: "Occupying Wall Street" and "A Self-Regulated Protest?"

On the Police Power of Chinese Banks

In July, 2010, a few days after the Agricultural Bank in China went public in an IPO bringing in $22 billion, dozens of former bank employees stealthily gathered outside the headquarters of the country’s central bank. Like many other state-owned companies, the bank slashed its payroll and restructured in order to raise profitability and make the bank more financially attractive to outside investors. By Western standards, the bank was overstaffed, a legacy of its role as one of the pillars of China’s socialist financial system. The fired bankers had no legal redress. In 2000, the Supreme People’s Court had put an end to any hope that the legal system might adjudicate such disputes, saying that plaintiffs from state companies had no standing in Chinese courts. So the ex-bankers protest—at least they attempt to do so before being picked up by a coordinated police response. This dynamic should come as no surprise to anyone.  What might not be so apparent is the ability of the banks to use the police to go after recalcitrant ex-employees. The banks are so powerful that they can enlist the local police to keep an eye on the most troublesome employees, often following them to Beijing, where their protests and petitioning can prove embarrassing for executives back home. One ex-employee said, “The head of my branch said he would never give me my money and spend any amount to fight me to the end.”  I contend that it is troubling that the director of a bank branch whose mentality it is to spend any amount of money to fight an ex-employee has police-power at his beck and call.  Beyond the lack of an independent judiciary in China, the possibility that a banker in any country could have a police force at his or her ruddy fat hands is something that ought to be investigated.  While it might be tempting to relegate such a scenerio exclusively to China, European and American states are most likely not immune either.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/world/asia/16china.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&dbk

Occupying Wall Street: A Self-Regulated Protest?

The right to protest as a manifestation of freedom of speech is held societally as sacred the United States, but the question of how far protest goes before it becomes simply living in a park is one of those gray areas that tend to be decided by the judiciary far from the tarps and sleeping bags. The protesters’ premise that living in a public space eventuates in the achievement of their goals is tenuous where the goals are broad. Undergoing a hunger strike to get a certain anti-corruption bill voted on by India’s parliament is far different than camping out in Zuccotti Park in New York City until corporate capitalism is ended in the U.S. In short, the tactics used should be oriented to the sort of objective being sought. Moreover, the tactics and indeed the objectives themselves require a protest group to self-police such that it does not wander too far off course or spread itself too thin. Protest movements may be too prone to die a slow death from self-inflicted wounds without even the slightest recognition of the cause of death. The Occupy Wall Street protest movement had the capacity to self-regulate, but fell well short of that which was necessary for the group to achieve its anti-corporate goals.

To be sure, the movement evinced some capacity to regulate itself. Faced with the prospect of an imminent clean-up of Zuccotti Park—perhaps a salubrious subterfuge actually geared to permanently dislodging the park’s new residents—some of the protesters scurried around “with brooms and trash bags, moving mountains of sleeping bags, backpacks and jackets out of the way,” according to The New York Times. Meanwhile, others gardened. These tasks doubtlessly tapped into the young protesters’ ideal of working toward something larger than themselves, which they tend to label as “community.”  The impetus on the upkeep was geared to forestalling the park’s owner, Brookfield Properties, from clearing the park a third at a time for a “once-over” by a clean-up crew, after which new rules proscribing camping, tents, tarps and sleeping bags would be enforced. But was it even in the group’s interest to allow camping to become a major issue? Secondly, could the energy of self-regulation have been put to better uses than clean up, given the group’s anti-corporate goals?

Taking the first question first, it should be obvious that occupying a park is not occupying Wall Street. If the protesters were serious on their occupation, they would have sat own in streets in New York’s financial district and blockaded the bank entrances with sit-downs—perhaps even occupying bank lobbies akin to the anti-war protest at Columbia University in 1968. This “actual occupation” strategy would have been more likely to involve the police, but the occupation would have been real—at least for a time. This strategy is distinct from protest marches, which as a strategy could have been an alternative or addition to that of actual occupation of the streets and banks. Allowing the issue to be whether camping takes place in a park can thus be seen as a diversion that is not in the protester’s own interest. Indeed, getting sick by living in a crowded park night after night would also enervate the protest (besides justify the public authorities in clearing the park for public health reasons).

Regarding the second question, the self-regulation evinced by the protesters cleaning up on their own volition can be read as supporting the argument that the protest movement could have policed itself regarding delimiting its topic and presenting a positive image for public relations purposes. Protesters could have volunteered, for example, to make the rounds to eliminate any off-topic signs, such as those for the environment and against the war in Afghanistan. Allowing the protest to be a virtual grab-bag of leftist causes deprived the movement of broader support and gave the opposition ammunition with which to relegate the movement. Even in shifting from an anti-big-corporation message to redistribution undercuts the group’s original anti-corporate (but not necessarily redistributive) goals.

Butting up against the movement’s own efforts to regulate itself was the ideology or illusion that the movement had no leaders. “Every action you see here is autonomous,” one protester said as he was filling plastic bags with trash. “Autonomous enough for people not to be doing it,” another protester added, as reported by The New York Times. That protester went on to describe his “autonomous plan” as if that label itself, and his belief in it, rather than a single-minded aim of ridding American society of large corporations were the main point of him being there.

In other words, the protesters themselves suffered from a lack of priorities and this hurt the attainment of their original anti-corporate goals. Even though the voluntary clean-up effort demonstrates that the movement was capable of self-regulation to delimit and protect the priority of its original, anti-corporate goals, the refusal to delimit the topics (based on the illusion that there were no leaders) and keep the distracting ideologies at bay undercut the group’s self-regulatory potential and ultimately the group’s realization of its anti-corporate goals. Indeed, their lip-service to the contrary, many of the protesters may not have been sufficiently interested in those goals in the first place.

In a letter to the local police commissioner, the chief executive of the property company that owns Zuccotti Park reported that there had been neighborhood complaints of “lewdness, groping, drinking and drug use.” Without self-policing such behavior, the movement risked undercutting its own legitimacy in the eyes of the wider public. Without legitimacy, the movement would face an uphill battle even to be heard. Furthermore, the behavior could be viewed as having an opportunity cost—that of the foregone focus on how to achieve the anti-corporate aims of the movement. Actions speak louder than words; from my vantage-point, it seems that the protesters could have been more devoted to the cause that presumably brought them to Zuccotti Park.

So while it might be fun for young people to relish their “autonomous plans,” get high and camp out with other like-minded people in the zest of life, the refusal of the group to self-regulate itself may have been the seed of the group’s eventual dissolution without the movement having attained its goals—whatever those happened to be. It is an interesting question whether an aggregate of "autonomous plans" can regulate a movement without even a leader as a spokesperson. But why risk "the cause" to find out?

Every group must necessarily have leaders. Whether centralized or decentralized, leadership is part of any organization. Whether accountable or stealth, leadership is there, and whether as spokespersons or committees, leadership is also there. To eschew mechanisms like majority rule and group decision-making so that every person can feel fully autonomous is not only antithetical to there even being a group, it is also at odds with the realization of the movement’s goals, which presumably are necessary means to the greater autonomy being sought outside of a city park.

In short, the protesters undercut themselves from the get-go by wanting too much both ways. They refused to self-regulate their ideology. They would hate reading this, but I suspect that a crucial error of the movement early-on was to give young people too great a role in, yes, running it. Even forestalling necessary decision-making at the group level constitutes a default-decision. In a way, to eschew any leadership at all evinces a puerile or jejune mentality of stubbornness at the expense of one's goal of reducing the impediments to greater economic liberty. This mentality may also have manifested in the failure of the young in the movement to defer to more seasoned leaders. We can do it better ourselves this time and we want it both ways. We don't want ANY limitations. To this mentality, I echo Burl Ives as the snowman narrator of Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer, where he shakes his white head of snow, smiles, and says almost fatalistically, Ah, youth.

In Homer's story of the Trojan War, Achilles' youthful exuberance defers quite uncomfortably to the experience of King Agamemnon; a war led solely by youthful passion would be a mere series of battles. In Lawrence of Arabia, Alec Guinness as King Faisal tells Peter O'Toole as Lawrence to leave the room so the British and Arab leaders can negotiate on Damascus. Some things must be left to old men, the king teaches the youthful warrior with a credible tone of fatalism at the expense of volition. Successful youth are mature and humble enough to know they can't do it all themselves. Successful leaders can then tap into youthful passion and direct it strategically.

Had the Occupy Wall Street movement self-regulated itself beyond cleaning up the park, the group could have enforced and sustained sufficient focus (and thus energy) on the original anti-corporation goals, wherein corporations no longer own Congress and the largest banks and corporations are broken up because of their systemic risk to the financial system, the economy, and representative democracy. The opportunity cost in broadening the movement is sad, particularly as theTea Party could have readily agreed to protest against big business and the banks. That leftist causes, even that of redistribution, were allowed to join the movement out of sheer ideological convenience and an immature refusal to admit the necessity of leadership demonstrates that the self-regulation evinced in the clean-up of the city park did not go nearly far enough for the movement's own good, and that of the republic for which we stand united for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Source:

Anemona Hartocollis, “Tidying UP, Pre-emptively, But Showdown May Loom,” The New York Times, October 14, 2011. 

See related essays: "Occupying Wall Street" and "Political Protest 101" and "Police Against Protesters: Sadism or Politics"