It is clear from the events of the last few days that there is a concerted effort to eliminate the occupation camps of the Occupy Movement. The local governments of numerous cities have been consulting and coordinating with each other and then moving to forcibly evict the camps. What is not yet clear is who else has been participating in this initiative. In light of these efforts it is becoming more and more difficult for the movement to sustain the camps.
This morning the New York Times, along with many other media outlets, published a taking stock piece.
Beyond Seizing Parks, New Paths to Influence
The anti-Wall Street protests, which are being driven from their urban encampments across the nation, now face a pivotal challenge: With their outposts gone, will their movement wither?
In New York, where the police temporarily evicted Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti Park early Tuesday, and in other cities, dozens of organizers maintained that the movement had already reshaped the public debate. They said it no longer needed to rely solely on seizing parks, demonstrating in front of the homes of billionaires or performing other acts of street theater.
They said they were already trying to broaden their influence, for instance by deepening their involvement in community groups and spearheading more of what they described as direct actions, like withdrawing money from banks, and were considering supporting like-minded political candidates.
“We poured a tremendous amount of resources into defending a park that was nearly symbolic,” said Han Shan, an Occupy Wall Street activist in New York. “I think the movement has shown it transcends geography.”
Even before the police descended on Zuccotti Park overnight, some early proponents of Occupy Wall Street had begun suggesting that it was time to move on.
On Monday, Adbusters, the Canadian anti-corporate magazine that conceived of the movement, indicated that the protesters should “declare victory” and head indoors to strategize.
These issues and the suggestion of declaring victory were already being raised prior to the eviction form Zucchotti Park.
At this point I find myself trying to place this movement in a context with other protest movements in order to get a perspective on where it is going.
In the civil rights movement of the 60s we deliberately engaged in civil disobedience against the Jim Crow laws of the southern states. The sit ins and the bus rides were aimed directly at the laws that restricted access to public accommodations. They were the law of the land in those places and they had been supported by the US Supreme Court in the doctrine of separate but equal until the Brown decision began to change that interpretation. The civil rights protests were about injustice and free speech, but they had an immediate practical purpose in the targets of their action. A decade later the disabilities rights movement came along and used similar tactics to gain physical access to public accommodations.
A number of people have drawn parallels between the US Occupy Movement and the uprisings of the Arab Spring. Those movements have occupied public spaces for fairly short periods of times. However, they have a clearly revolutionary goal. They are attempting to bring about the overthrow of existing political regimes and institute the basic apparatus of democratic process.
The Occupy Movement has generally resisted calls for it to define specific goals and objectives. While people who are participating in it have specific ideas about what they think needs to be done, the movement is "about" general abstract concepts like inequality and corruption. Without defined goals it becomes very difficult to have a discussion about what might constitute effective strategy and tactics.
The movement is now being forced by circumstances to look at occupation camps and the question of how essential they are to the fundamental purposes of the movement. Legally the laws which prohibit camping in public parks and their relation to political speech is muddy. Such laws have been sustained by a SCOTUS decision but they are subject to a test of neutrality of enforcement. It seems plausible to me that if the movement wanted to engage in a protracted legal battle to defend camps in court there would likely be some cases where the local government would win and others where it would not. Decisions would likely turn on specific local circumstances and not on grand constitutional principles.
There seems to be a lack of clarity about what is at stake with the camping issue. The only people for whom it is about a practical problem of public accommodation are the homeless. They were already in the areas where the camps have been established and have been drawn to them. The problem of homelessness is a very real and growing one. However, tents are not the solution to that problem. Homes with roofs are the solution.
Others see the camps as a first amendment issue. There are always some limitations imposed on first amendment rights. They are not absolute. Personally I am opposed to the use of it as a defense for those who engage in the bullying of gay kids. There is no question that there has been an insidious trend to limit and stifle political dissent. However, defending camps are not the only way to fight that.
I am not coming out with my personal prescription of what i think that the Occupy Movement must do. Even if I thought I knew to answers to that, I am very clear that I have no control over what happens. I am an interested observer. However, I think it is time to have serious discussions about where this is going. A movement without a clear purpose will be blown by the winds of circumstance. Like the falling leaves it will not be likely to endure.