The calls for OWS to stop being about “sleeping in parks” and to evolve toward “real politics” are getting louder by the day. “Real politics” meaning, of course, electoral politics. “Electoral politics”, of course, being code for “voting for Democrats”. These calls are coming most loudly from long-time Democratic Party loyalists. For instance, Van Jones, former member of Obama’s staff, claims there will be “2000 candidates under the 99% banner” in the 2012 elections. Unless the “Occupation Party” is off to a much better start than I think, what Jones means is that there will be 2000 candidates running as Democrats in the 2012 elections. Although their embrace of the Democrats may be less exuberant, the calls of people claiming to be to the left of the Democratic party for OWS to “work with Democrats” (i.e, vote for Democrats) have the same effect.When you check the box next to a candidate’s name it doesn't quantify your enthusiaism for that candidate or his/her party-the simple act of voting is all that matters.
The arguments for OWS becoming primarly about electoral politics usually hinges on two pernicious lies: a) that electing alleged allies to office is the only way to affect change, and b) that the Democrats are the only reasonable, serious choice in electoral politics for those on the Left. Each has the unfortunate flaw of being in direct conflict with recent (and even less recent) history.
Americans have been so conditioned over the last several decades to believe that electoral politics is the only way to get what they want (a self-serving view pushed by the parties in charge) that before last spring most Americans struggled to think of a way to change policies other than by voting for one of the two acceptable parties every two or four years. The Arab Spring has changed that; indeed, it directly inspired OWS. The people seeking change in Tunisia and Egypt didn't attempt to get “sympathetic” people from one of the acceptable parties elected so that they could change the system from inside. The people ditched the middle-man and demanded change directly-and they got it. Getting changes is not merely a matter of having people who share your views in office; it’s about bringing pressure. Pressure was brought to bear on Hosni Mubarak and before he finally capitulated he was offering all kinds of concessions. The current military rulers of Egypt have been reeling the past few days from the mass actions there. They've offered a number of concessions themselves. They’ve gone so far as offering ‘sincere’ apologies for those that have died at the hands of the police and army. Does anyone think that if the protests had been dispersed after the first day the army would be apologizing and offering to hand over power early? No, those were direct results of the pressure brought to bear. Closer to home, Occupy Rochester provides another proof that getting changes is not solely dependent upon having friends in high places. Occupy Rochester brought enough pressure that the mayor signed an agreement to allow them a 24 hour presence. This is the same mayor that had 48 Occupiers arrested in the days before the agreement was signed. It was the pressure brought to bear that changed the mayor's actions, not his sympathy. To pull examples from other times and places: did Gandhi and the Indian National Congress win India’s independence by trying to get sympathizers elected to British Parliament? Did postal workers in 1970 wait for allies in congress to allow them to organize? In both cases the answer is a resounding “NO!”-they organized and forced the hand of the government.
These examples and dozens more prove that getting change is not dependent on having friends in high places. If you have the people on your side the government will follow. That’s the task the Occupy movement needs to be focusing on: building support among the people and organizing that support. There is still much to be done, particularly when it comes to education. 60% of Americans say they don’t know enough about the Occupy Movement to have an opinion: we must educate them. Reaching out to organized labor (without being in thrall to them). Networking with other Occupy movements. Reaching out to underrepresented communities. These are the ways the Occupy movement will grow and build power-not by trying to get Democrats in office. The weapons of the 99% aren't congresses and city halls-those are controlled by the 1%. The weapons on the 99% are mass protests, mass occupations, mass strikes, and direct actions. The key part of all of these is the support and participation of the mass of the people, not government officials.
None of this is to say that electoral politics has no place: it does. The battle against SB 5 here in Ohio was one such example. However, that is the exception, not the norm. When most people refer to 'electoral politics' they are referring to elections. Participating in elections can be a good and necessary action, but when your system is broken and fundamentally undemocratic (one of the theses behind the OWS movement, correct?) it is counter-productive and downright suicidal for a movement like ours to make elections its primary or even a major concern.
Since this post has gone longer than anticipated and answering the second part of the argument for electoral politics will run at least as long I’m going to save that for a part 2. So check back soon.
