Guest Blogger: Heather Gautney

In an earlier post I asked what it means if  the Occupy movement has already crested.  Today, guest blogger Heather Gautney adapts a piece she previously published in The Washington Post to talk about the movement’s ongoing vibrancy and long term relevances.  Gautney is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Fordham University and author most recently of Protest and Organization in the Alternative Globalization Era.

Occupy Congress began last week, and I have to ask: Is democracy possible amid extreme instability and social inequality in which 1 percent of the population owns and polices the other 99 percent?  And who, among our distinguished set of 2012 presidential candidates, really wants to narrow this gap?

Thus far, the Occupy movement is checking “None of the Above” on the ballot box.  Since mid-September, it has instead decided to represent itself in the streets.  And if you think there aren’t concrete, policy-related demands being made there, have another look: Everything from education to housing, health care, environment, energy and security are up for grabs.  All of these institutions are in need of fixing, and all of them are making the list.

These acts of self-representation, or direct democracy, do not compute among mainstream politicians and their pundits.  Occupy does not speak the language of party or ideology, and this makes it difficult to decipher for a system that relies on polls, predictability, and reductive thought.  Social movements are, by their very nature, complex, organic and indeterminate.  They operate at the deepest levels of how we view each other and the world we live in.  This movement is no exception.

You can’t reduce this kind of public outcry to dichotomies like liberal and conservative, or Blue and Red.  And you certainly can’t dismiss it as fringe and un-American.  Occupy is a popular movement, not a Tea Party, and the act of sticking up for yourself is as American as apple pie.

Despite this disconnect, the Occupy movement has received honorable mention at the highest levels of government, though I suspect it has more to do with polls and constituencies than with genuine understanding.  When Time Magazine revealed that 54 percent of Americans actually supported these rabble-rousers, politicians started to take notice.  Occupy is far more popular among the American people than the U.S. Congress, and that must really hurt.

That 54-percent figure also likely drove flip-flopper Mitt Romney’s multiple changes of heart.  Just days into October, he called the protesters “dangerous” instigators of “class warfare.”  A week later, he switched gears and expressed “worry” for the 99 percenters.  All of a sudden this multi-millionaire, private-sector guru had become a man of the people?  Of course not.  With a solid lead in the polls, Romney more recently has reverted to the Herman Cain school of adolescent gibberish, in which protesters and poor people are “just jealous” of popular mean girls like him.

Then there’s Barack Obama.  The guy we all wanted to love.  With his usual charm, he empathized with the Occupy-ers, said not everyone in Corporate America was playing by the rules and, once again, took us on a stroll down Main Street.  But in the tug of war between Main Street and Wall Street, Obama has made his loyalties clear.  Just take a look at the long list of Wall Street contributors to his campaign.  Unfortunately, Mr.  President, you are the company you keep.

And let’s not forget Ron Paul, who even pitched a few tents at Occupy to get grassroots with the lefties.  With most Republicans going nuclear on Iran, his opposition to “policing the globe” is a welcome breath of fresh air.   But at what price?  Try lifting gun control, reproductive health care, corporate regulation, and labor and environmental protection.  Oh, and don’t forget social safety nets.  He calls this Liberty.  Looks more like Tragedy to me.

So is it really any wonder that the people of Occupy want no part of the electoral circus?  Why in the world would a grassroots, anti-corporate movement align itself with these guys?  After all, if it looks like corruption and tastes like corruption, then it’s probably corruption.

But at the end of the day, Romney, Obama, and Paul are only symptoms of a much deeper problem.  Corporate-sector experience has become a golden gateway to political power, and this inner circle is essentially closed to average citizens, regardless of their knowledge and experience.

Our top political and economic institutions are not structured as representative bodies in any real sense.  Rather, the idea of representation is being used to legitimize the vast decision-making powers of the ruling elite.  Few people sit at the helm of this giant ship, and some those who do are incompetent.  With cracks in the hull expanding each day, the 99 percent are feeling powerless to change course and stay afloat.

The Occupy movement is an indicator of this powerlessness.  But it also suggests a new direction.  The radically democratic, leaderless aspect of this movement raises the question of how cooperation and mutual concern can replace competition as an underlying principle in building communities and social institutions.  Our teachers already know this.  They’ve discovered that most children learn better in mutually supportive groups, working with a variety of people in intimate and productive settings.

Instead of playing the blame game of who created this mess, perhaps our elected officials should consider the input of the American people when thinking about how to clean it up.  Or perhaps despite them, the Occupy movement itself will innovate new, more egalitarian institutions that can meet the demands of a truly participatory democracy.  Not the one we’re told we have, but the one that we, the 99 percent, really deserve.