Occupy Isn't About Electing Democrats--It's About Exposing a Broken System

By Max Berger, AlterNet

May 14, 2012

http://www.alternet.org/story/155325/occupy_isn%27t_about_electing_democrats--it%27s_about_exposing_a_broken_system

As long as there has been a thing called Occupy Wall
Street, there have been people who've suggested it
should become the left's version of the Tea Party. Josh
Harkinson's piece is a notable contribution to the
conversation because it comes after eight months of
in-depth reporting on the movement. Harkinson, like
Jennifer Granholm, suggests that Occupy should recruit
and run candidates, so the left has champions in
Congress and can credibly threaten less ideologically
aligned Democrats. According to this logic, it doesn't
matter if Occupy does this itself or essentially
outsources the job to our progressive allies -- the
point is to find ways to elect more good Democrats.

The idea of a progressive Tea Party was totally my jam
before Occupy started. Like Harkinson, I didn't see how
the left could create real change in America without
taking control of the Democratic Party. Now I think
it's important to recognize that the problems we face
as a country can't be solved by electing more
Democrats, or even by electing more good Democrats. A
progressive Tea Party would be a welcome addition, but
it wouldn't be nearly enough to create the kind of
change we need.

If Occupy tried to start a left Tea Party, we would be
following in the footsteps of several progressive
movement efforts that came up short. Howard Dean's
presidential campaign turned into Democracy for America
to reclaim the "Democratic wing of the Democratic
Party," the Progressive Change Campaign Committee
explicitly references the DCCC, and Rebuild the Dream
originally billed itself as the progressive Tea Party.
I have worked for each of these organizations and have
lots of respect for their work. But unfortunately, none
of these projects, despite their many successes, have
managed to mount a serious national effort to take out
bad Democrats and replace them with good ones. They are
constrained by the lack of a grassroots base in many
congressional districts and big donors reluctance to
fund challenges to Democrats. Even big, collaborative
efforts to take out bad Democrats have a relatively
poor record (See Sheyman, Ilya; Halter, Bill; or
Lamont, Ned).

Occupy is less well suited than the Progressive
movement to overcome these challenges. Most occupiers I
know aren't interesting in learning how to raise money,
knock on doors, or run campaigns. Starting a
progressive Tea Party is a completely legitimate,
useful goal -- but it's something for the progressive
institutions to take on. New York state and city
provide a good model for how this can work
harmoniously: the Working Families Party is a unified
progressive block within the Democratic party. They
support Occupy and we support them on the issues.
Together, we won a huge, unexpected victory for the
millionaires tax.

Despite the hard work of our progressive allies, the
unfortunate reality is that our political system as
presently constructed is simply incapable of responding
to people's needs. The election of the most progressive
Democratic nominee of the past 30 years and a
Democratic super majority in Congress resulted in
relatively little change in American political economy,
even during a time of massive economic crisis. The
tepid response showed our political system was designed
to serve the whims of the market, and no politician has
the power to do much about it.

My generation doesn't put all, or even most, of the
blame for this state of affairs on President Obama. We
don't hate the player, so much as we hate the game. I
believe Democrats are better than Republicans, because
Democrats care more about the lives of gays, women, and
people of color. I also believe everyone should all
vote, because not voting would hurt people that I care
about. That being said, we won't just win by getting
new players -- we need to change the game. The system
is fundamentally incapable of healing itself.

Occupy is hardly alone in believing our political
system is in a state of crisis. Congress' approval is
at 9 percent. Many have written that our 18th Century
political system has proven itself uniquely incapable
of responding to external circumstances, including
noted radicals like James Fallows, Ezra Klein and Matt
Yglesias. The presidential system is prone to gridlock
(and, frankly, falling apart) and our byzantine,
bicameral legislative system makes it incredibly
difficult for even winning parties to put their agenda
into law. The crisis of parliamentary democracy taking
place in Europe is happening in America as well.

Occupy grew at such an exponential rate because it
spoke to people's sense that the rules of our society
are deeply unfair and the political system couldn't do
anything about it. In the midst of systemic failure,
only Occupy was talking about systemic change. Occupy
transformed the public debate by naming the problem --
inequality of wealth and power -- and the cause - the
power of Wall Street. More important than our
discursive accomplishments, we showed what an
independent, citizen-led social movement for equality
and democracy could look like in America. I don't want
to argue we've yet built that movement, because it's
still very much a work in progress. By giving people
the space to connect, Occupy showed that people power
is the only force capable of shaking the foundation of
our corrupt system.

Only Occupy can provide the space, literally and
figuratively, for this conversation. The Occupy
movement would derelict of duty if we focused on the
electoral at the expense of putting pressure on the
system as a whole. The entirety of civic life can not
be reduced to a get out the vote campaign. The left
needs strategies that take aim at all the ways
neo-liberalism breaks down our communities. The
inherent conservatism of America government, and the
limitations of electoral organizing, means we need
inside and an outside strategies.

Occupy has already inspired a new generation of social
justice leaders to build an inclusive, radical movement
that also speaks to the mainstream. We continue to push
institutional groups towards more confrontational forms
of resistance, bring new people into the struggle and
provide a unifying message. Like the civil rights,
women's rights, environmental movements before us, we
can't afford to ignore the electoral realm, but we also
shouldn't expect to succeed by voting alone. The
Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party didn't succeed by
electing candidates -- it succeeded showing the
limitations of the electoral system. Occupy should aim
to do the same.

Max Berger is an organizer with the Occupy movement. 
(c) 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate