Occupy Wall Street: Another example of a grassroots movement in danger of being 'hijacked' by politicians, PACs, and astroturf organizations. Part 2 of 2.

A few weeks ago I blogged this post about the Tea Party Movement and the danger of it being co-opted by entities with ulterior motives. Here is part 2 in which I briefly discuss the same dilemma facing the Occupy Wall Street Movement.  Occupy Wall Street is a very important movement and must be free of intrusion from those who will stop at nothing to use it to further their own political or personal agendas. There is as much a danger of co-opting the OWS movement as there is the Tea Party movement.

The grassroots movement Occupy Wall Street (OWS) began with demonstrations initiated by a Canadian activist group in response to social and economic inequality, unemployment and corporate greed in America. While centered on Wall Street in New York City, thanks to social networking, protests began taking place in cities all over America. True to the principles of grassroots movements, there is no designated leader of the OWS and though there are varying objectives on the part of protesters, there is an underlying common theme: ordinary average Americans tired of corporate greed and corporate influence in politics.

The OWS is under the umbrella of the New York City General Assembly which is composed of “dozens of groups working together to organize and set the vision for the #occupywallstreet movement” (New York City General Assembly, 2011). According to its website, the NYCGA states that New York General Assemblies “are an open participatory and horizontally organized process through which we are building the capacity to constitute ourselves in public as autonomous collective forces within and against the constant crises of our times"(New York City General Assembly, 2011).  

To date, donations exceed half a million dollars and given by people from all walks of life from ordinary citizens to celebrities. The funds are used for all kinds of OWS-related purposes including food, storage bins, dry socks and underwear (for protesters who march in the rain), tarps, coffee, medical supplies, and bail. Two bank accounts for the organization have been set up in New York City and every major expenditure over $100 must be approved by the General Assembly. So far, those handling OWS finances seem to be doing a good job. However, as the movement grows and with the increase in donations comes an increased risk of outside influence from influential organizations with big money and the possibility of being co-opted by others with alternative agendas.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Alliance for Global Justice agreed to assist the movement by sponsoring OWS in the form of lending its tax-exempt status so that donors could write off donations. While the Alliance makes no decisions on behalf of OWS, it is affiliated with George Soros’s philanthropy the Open Society Institute. Though there is no evidence that Soros has any connection to the OWS movement, there speculation of his influence. Even there mere speculation can detract focus away from the cause.

Several large labor unions  have pledged support for the demonstrations in the form of protesters and monetary donations. There are some in the media who have expressed great concern over the labor unions involvement in the OWS movement because of their heavy political influence and funding. Labor Unions are heavily political with members generally voting for Democrat candidates. The Service Employees International Union which is staging an “Occupy Congress” protest in Washington DC from December 5-9, 2011 (Sargent, 2011). SEIU President Mary Kay Henry said in an interview,

“The reason we’re targeting Republicans is because this is about jobs. The Republicans’ insistence that no revenue can be put on the table is the reason we’re not creating jobs in this country. We want to draw a stark contrast between a party that wants to scapegoat immigrants, attack publicworkers, and protect the rich, versus a president who has been saying he wants America to get back t owork and that everybody should pay their fair share” (Sargent, 2011). 

SEIU spent $28 million (more than any other organization) supporting the Obama campaign in 2008 and supports primarily Democrat candidates in other elections. Political and legal blogger Glenn Greenwald called the SEIU out saying,  

“Having SEIU officials…shape, fund, dictate, and decree an anti-GOP, pro-Obama march is about as antithetical as one can imagine to what the Occupy movement has been” (Greenwald, Glenn, 2011).

New York Representative Carolyn Maloney stated on a weekend morning talk show recently that the message she got from talking to individuals in the OWS movement was that Congress should pass the President’s job bill. However, in stark contrast to that, Glenn Greenwald stated in an interview with Democracy Now, 

“What this movement is about is more important than specific legislative demands. It…is expressing dissent to the system itself. It is noy a Democratic Party organ. It is not about demanding that President Obama’s single [jobs] bill pass or anything along those lines. It is saying that we believe the system itself is radically corrupted, and we no longer are willing to tolerate it. And that’s infinitely more important than specific legislative or political demands” (Greenwald, 2011).

The independent online publication Truthout published an article in October 2011 about the dangers of OWS being co-opted by MoveOn.org and other democrat-party backed organizations. It stated, 

“Occupy Wall Street, now three weeks into the occupation, now finds itself in a pivotal moment. Will the nonpartisan, anti-establishment movement allow itself to be co-opted by the Democratic Party serving powers that be, ie. By the MoveOn.orgs and Center for American Progresses of the world, or will it remain a strong, left, independent force that grows with each passing day and strikes fear into what the late sociologist C. Wright Mills calls the power elite” (Horn, 2011). 

Occupy Wall Street is at its heart, a movement of the people. Forget for a moment what you've been reading and hearing in the news media, this movement isn't about forgiving student loans, abolishing capitalism, making America a socialist nation, violence, hating Republicans,  or any of the other nonsense spewed by some radicals. Rather the heart of the movement is so simple and should appeal to all of us. It's about the corruption that takes place involving the highest ranking executives in some of America's richest corporations and elected officials within our government. We should all be pissed off about that. It's why I support the OWS movement, while at the same time denounce many of the radical statements from some its supporters.

Grassroots movements are essential to democracy in this great nation. In grassroots movements, the people, not the politicians set the agenda and hold the power.  If the politicians, big corporations and PACs are allowed to infiltrate, influence and co-opt these movements, it negates the objectives and silences the voices of the people. Grassroots movements have been taking place in America since colonial times and some even changed the course of American History. Examples of successful American grassroots movements include the colonists’ quest for independence, women’s suffrage, abolition, and the civil rights movement. All of these began through ordinary people making a difference through action in their local communities. Through rallies, protests, boycotts, and letter-writing, ordinary citizens were able to expand their causes and change the course of the nation.

Grassroots movements are one of the few ways Americans can have a direct impact and in order to protect it, those involved in the movements must be educated on the objectives and principles of true grassroots activism. The only way to prevent grassroots movements from being co-opted and subverted is if the individuals involved in the movement refuse to allow it to happen. This means grassroots movements must maintain their distance from political parties and candidates and they must be very careful of what organizations or individuals sponsor the movement. Grassroots movements cannot endorse or show favoritism of any candidate or party. They cannot accept support of any kind from any organization which supports any party or candidate. Of course, this becomes difficult because PACs can be hidden beneath layers and layers of organizational bureaucracy, but to maintain the integrity of grassroots activism it has to be done. 

The only way to protect the legitimacy of grassroots movements is to stay strictly neutral in regards to politics and stick strictly to the objective of the movement. Grassroots activism is an important part of American history and our heritage and must be protected and preserved so that its principles can be passed down to future generations.



References:

Greenwald, G. (2011, Oct 26). Glenn Greenwald on Occupy Wall Street, Banks Too Big to Jail and the Attack on WikiLeaks. (A. Goodman, & N. Shaikh, Interviewers)

Greenwald, Glenn. (2011, Nov 19). Here's what attempted co-option of OWS looks like. Retrieved Nov 28, 2011, http://www.salon.com/2011/11/19/heres_what_attempted_co_option_of_ows_looks_like

Horn, S. (2011, Oct 11). MoveOn.Org and Friends Attempt to Co-Opt Occupy Wall Street Movement. Retrieved Nov 28, 2011, from TruthOut: http://www.truth-out.org/moveonorg-and-friends-attempt-co-opt-occupy-wall-street-movement/1318259708

New York City General Assembly. (2011). About Us. Retrieved Nov 28, 2011, from New York City General Assembly: http://www.nycga.net/about/

Sargent, G. (2011, Nov 19). Here Comes the Left's Attempt to Co-Opt Occupation Wall Street. Retrieved Nov 28, 2011, from Economic Policy Journal: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/11/here-comes-lefts-attempt-to-co-opt.html