Leaving the Tea Party (Patriots)?

Posted on February 29, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Mark Meckler has just resigned from the leadership of the Tea Party Patriots, an organization he and Jenny Beth Martin, started in 2009.  Because Meckler was the most visible exponent of a fundamentalist grassroots orientation to political activism within the movement, it’s hard not to read these tea leaves to discover something larger about the movement.

Meckler tells a story of his activism that starts with him as a lawyer and small businessman in Northern California, generally disaffected from politics.   Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC inspired him to take his family to an early Tea Party rally shortly after President Obama’s inauguration, and then build an independent non-partisan national organization to support grassroots activism.  It’s a good story.

But it’s not a complete story.  It edits out Meckler’s paid work as a political consultant for Republican candidates for office both before and during the Tea Party.  It also edits out his successful career as a distributor–and recruiter–for Herbalife, a nutritional supplements company that subsists through multi-level marketing.  (See Stephanie Mencimer’s 2010 profile at Mother Jones.)

Meckler’s role in the Tea Party was always to emphasize the grassroots.  Tea Party Patriots was the national organization that provided affiliations for local Tea Party groups, and promised support as well.  The TPP model was all about initiative from below, and working hard to avoid being coopted by the Republican Party or demanding Washington-based groups.  The vision of sustained democracy from below, explained very well by Jonathan Rauch, promised independence, autonomy, and true authenticity.  (In the article, Rauch quotes me as someone skeptical of this promise.)

Oddly, Meckler’s resignation coincides with the publication of his book, Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution, co-authored with Jenny Beth Martin,  and the requisite publicity tour.

[Perhaps it’s less odd that it follows Meckler’s plea to “disorderly conduct” for trying to carry a gun and ammunition on a plane at LaGuardia airport.  Meckler declared the weapon, which he was licensed to carry in California–but not New York.  So much for local control.]

The Tea Party Patriots refused to work with Tea Party Express on candidate forums that included Mitt Romney, and criticized John Boehner for compromising with Democrats in the Senate and the Oval Office, most notably on raising the debt ceiling.  Perhaps it’s not surprising that Meckler and Martin survey the current Republican field of candidates and find them wanting.  From The Blaze:

“Nobody is satisfied with the candidates out there,” says Martin. “They’re all losers.”

Her other cofounder, Mark Meckler, doesn’t feel any different. “They’ve caved on every single point of principle since the Republican majority has taken over,” he says.

So why leave the grassroots-oriented group?

At the Daily Caller, Alex Pappas reports the Meckler was frustrated that the group was abandoning the grassroots, and that he had lost a leadership struggle to his co-author, Martin:

…Meckler told the state coordinators of Tea Party Patriots on Thursday night that he “fought long and hard” to maintain the group “as an organization that is run from the bottom up, with the intent of serving the grassroots.”

“Unfortunately, it is my belief that I have lost this fight,” Meckler said. “I probably fought the internal fight longer than I should have, but I wanted to give absolutely every possible effort to preserving what I believe was the unique nature of the TPP organization.”

Since the organization’s founding, Meckler has shared the role of national coordinator with co-founder Jenny Beth Martin. But Meckler wrote in the email that he had lost “influence in the leadership of the organization, and it has been that way for quite some time.”

Meckler said the board granted Martin “almost complete power over the day-to-day operations” in November 2011 after a “protracted fight in which I was complaining about the direction, operation (top-down) and finances of the organization.”

Details followed over the next few days.  Meckler charged that the national had become successful at raising and spending money, but not at supporting the grassroots groups.  He was angry in particular about $250,000 spent to co-sponsor a Republican primary debate, which–in addition to misusing funds, made it appear that TPP was hardly non-partisan or independent.  TPP, he said, “…felt like it had become much more a top down organization.”

I suspect more is on the way.

In the meantime, our first read is that the biggest promoter of the Tea Party as a decentralized grassroots movement has left the organization he started because it had become more focused on party politics and organizational influence–at the expense of the grassroots.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Do movements own their crazies?

Posted on February 22, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Meredith Lowell, a self-styled animal rights activist, was arrested Tuesday in Cleveland for contracting the murder of someone (almost anyone!) wearing fur.

Ms. Lowell made the initial solicitation on Facebook, offering somewhat less than $1,000 for a murder that would lead to her trial, an opportunity to make a public indictment of the fur industry, and the chance to move out of her family home, where parents and siblings ate meat and wore wool.  Apparently, she thought prison would be more congenial.

The FBI, which has directed some of the “war on terror” at direct action environmentalists and animal rights activists (see here and here), investigated a tip about the Facebook posting, and assigned an agent to follow up.  In a series of email exchanges, the agent negotiated payment for the murder.  Police arrested Lowell and she was charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

These events are not good news for animal rights activists.  At ABC News, Alyssa Newcomb reports:

Jennifer Kaden, co-founder of the Cleveland Animal Rights Alliance, said she checked her membership records and found that no one in her organization had ever dealt with Lowell, who she called “misguided” and “dangerous.”

“We’re all about advocating for peace and nonviolence,” she said. “We extend that to humans and animals.”

The energy, passion, and possibility of a vital social movement draws all kinds of people up in its wake, including troubled people who are using the cause to work out other issues.  Ms. Kaden and other animal activists don’t want to be discredited by an individual claiming identification while engaging in heinous acts.  Opponents of animal rights activism, however, have found their new poster child.

The problem isn’t peculiar to animal rights activism.  Tea Partiers saw people bringing guns and racist signs to their rallies.  Occupiers watched a picture of a self-identified Occupier pooping on a police car go viral.  Their opponents saw guns and racism were integral to the Tea Party appeal, and public defecation a clear expression of Occupy values.

And it gets even worse: Anti-abortion activists have been forced to explain how their efforts to preserve life have inspired a few men to bomb clinics or shoot doctors.

Social movements in America have a hard time exercising internal control.  The name and cause aren’t trademarked and solo actors can try to appropriate them–and movement rhetoric–to justify their choices.  Political opponents will hang the radical fringe on movements, and activists face the difficult task of disowning the crazies while promoting the cause.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Movement influence: it’s not forever

Posted on February 10, 2012 by David S. Meyer

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to license two new nuclear reactors in Georgia, the first new licenses in more than 30 years.  Activists can’t count on social movement victories to be permanent, and activists that leave the field cede political advantage to their opponents.

The antinuclear movement in the United States, aided by a reactor accident at Three Mile Island, drove up the costs and difficulties of building new reactors so much that new licenses were so unattractive as to become almost unattainable.  (But most of the reactors operating in 1978 continued–and continue–to generate power and waste.)

Meanwhile:

concerns about global warming have undermined some of the opposition to nuclear power (which doesn’t generate greenhouse gases);

fears of rising energy costs have made nuclear power appear more viable economically;

an horrific reactor accident at Fukushima, Japan, has scared publics around the world;

and Germany has committed to end nuclear power within the decade.

It’s not clear how all this added up to licensing new plants in the US–and it’s completely unclear that the plants, estimated to cost the Southern Company another $10 billion–on top of the $4 billion it’s already spent–will actually be built and commence operations.

Much will depend on whether the antinuclear power movement, which has been mostly quiet in America for the past three decades–will re-emerge and mobilize.  The movement of the 1960s was led by local activists staging campaigns against specific plants.  We’ll watch to see who picks up its banner in Georgia.  Will Georgians organize to oppose the plant and the rising energy bills they’ll be saddled with?  Will national groups, like the Natural Resources Defense Council, give a campaign against nuclear power some space on its broad agenda?

The first step in a battle that will surely span many years will be a lawsuit, already promised.  Mass politics and mobilization will follow only when organizers think it necessary–a last resort.

Movement victories are generally partial, often ambiguous, and almost always reversible.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What courts can/ will do

Posted on February 7, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Today’s news provides more data on the extent and limits of the judiciary as a venue for social movements:

A federal appellate panel (9th district) has upheld District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s decision to strike down California’s ban on same sex marriage, passed by referendum in 2008 (Question 8).  Implementation of the ruling, which would again allow same sex couples to wed in California, has been suspended, pending certain appeal to the Supreme Court.

Also in California, an animal rights group, PETA, has filed suit seeking the release of orcas held in captivity by Sea World (in San Diego and in Orlando, Florida).  Attorney Jeffrey argued that keeping the whales violated the 13th amendment’s prohibition of slavery.   Federal District Judge Jeffrey Miller was, apparently, unimpressed, and concerned about the precedent of extending Constitutional protections to non-humans.

The text of the 13th amendment, passed after the Civil War, reads:

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You’ll note that the text of the amendment doesn’t specify citizens–or persons, but the argument requires a very sympathetic and adventurous judge.  If the orcas, forced to perform for paying customers, are found to be slaves, then what of cows herded into slaughterhouses?  or even my cat, kept inside when she’d prefer to go out?

Activists always maintain the hope of finding a friend on the bench who can obviate the political obstacles that all causes face.  As we’ve discussed here, they’re invariably disappointed.  Judges try to rule on the law and the Constitution, not morality or the wisdom of a policy.  Activists are often creative in stretching the language of the text or ignoring precedent to try to argue for what they want.  Even if judges rule as they prefer, they are still dependent upon the cooperation of other branches of government.  (Thus, you can’t count on the courts….)

Marriage equality advocates will celebrate this ruling, even acknowledging its limitations (it does not find a Constitutional right to same sex marriage).  But tomorrow, they’ll be busy preparing for the appeal–and continuing to lobby, demonstrate, organize, and vote for marriage equality across the states, while they counter the hostile rhetoric of presidential candidates taking offense at the ruling.  If all goes well, a long and difficult road lies ahead.

PETA and animal rights advocates, at best, face a less hospitable landscape, although the court case does provide a chance to make their arguments to a broader public.  The legal filing gives media the chance to present an entertaining and dramatic (if Constitutionally, uh, suspect) argument along with a picture of an orca.  It’s a good story.

Both activist groups will ultimately have to depend upon convincing Americans to agree with the merits and justice of their positions.  Recall that in 2008, when 52% of Californians votes to end same sex marriage, 63% of Californians voted to mandate more humane treatment of farm animals.

Of course, whales don’t vote.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A protest is a threat (the Komen debacle)

Posted on February 5, 2012 by David S. Meyer

It’s never just the demonstration that brings about change.  Rather, it’s the larger actions that demonstrators promise (and authorities fear) that lead to concessions.  Demonstrators threaten to storm the barricades, stop paying taxes, or vote, or contribute money.  Their targets assess how credible those threats are and how damaging such action would be.

The recent rapid reversal of a new funding policy by Susan G. Komen for the Cure demonstrates how this works very clearly.  It also shows the different strategies that opposing social movements can employ to try to get what they want–little bits at a time.

Komen raises and spends about $93 million a year to fight breast cancer.  It runs races, promotes pink, funds researchers and service providers, and maintains a large bureaucracy to keep the machine moving.   (Just over 1/5 of its budget goes to fundraising and administration.) It is explicitly non-political.

Last week, Komen announced a decision made weeks earlier, not to fund organizations that are under investigation.  This excluded 1 of the groups it funded, Planned Parenthood, which received just under $700,000 a year to provide breast examinations and referrals for mammograms.  (Jezebel has covered this flare-up comprehensively.)

Among other things, Planned Parenthood also provides birth control and abortion services.

The investigation rationale was, at best, an obvious bow to political pressure.  Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) launched an investigation to discover whether Planned Parenthood was using federal funds to support abortion services (No public evidence on this).  It’s very easy for any member of Congress to launch an investigation.

Much more likely, however, the investigation rationale was a transparent ruse.  After all, Komen ditched it quickly.  Numerous reports noted that Komen’s new senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, had pushed for an end to its association with Planned Parenthood.  Handel, who had served as Secretary of State in Georgia, and run an unsuccessful campaign for the Republican nomination for governor, is staunchly anti-abortion.   The decision was in the works months ago.  Last December, when Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to President George W. Bush, was interviewing candidates for a high level public relations position for Komen, he made it clear to candidates that Komen would be cutting its connection to Planned Parenthood.

Once the decision was announced, the reaction was intense and viral, aided by social media.  Runners, contributors, and many many others announced that they were done with Komen, tweeting and posting facebook notifications of their decisions.  (Social media allowed all of this to happen very quickly.)

They also started sending checks to Planned Parenthood.  Most visibly, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a $250,000 matching grant for new money Planned Parenthood raised to make up the difference.  In short order, Planned Parenthood raised $3 million.  Politicians who supported Planned Parenthood weighed in, publicly pressuring Komen to scrap the new policy.

Komen held the line on its policy, very briefly, shifting rationales and explanations quickly.  In short order, however, Komen’s founder and CEO, Nancy Brinker, announced that Planned Parenthood would get the money and would continue to be eligible for grants in the future.

Komen executives realized that their offices, their jobs, their reputation, and their cause were dependent upon public support.  It was all to easy to imagine women foregoing the Race for the Cure and for Planned Parenthood (or someone else!) to start raising its own money to fight breast cancer.  They couldn’t back peddle fast enough.

But it’s not over.  Opponents of abortion are angry that Komen caved to the political and financial muscle of Planned Parenthood supporters.  Presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich released statements of disappointment, while grassroots activists announced their own boycott of Komen.  Komen executives will now have to assess how credible those threats are and how damaging those boycotts might be.  It’s awfully hard to be non-political on abortion when people start paying attention.

Posted in countermovements, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Methods and movements: how to study social movements

Posted on February 3, 2012 by David S. Meyer

I was part of an online roundtable of researchers discussing how to study social movements.  It’s at The Society Pages, and includes Jeffrey Alexander (Yale), Neal Caren (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), Nathan Clough (University of Minnesota, Duluth), Myra Marx Ferree (University of Chicago), Sarah Gaby (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), and Fabio Rojas (Indiana University).

Thanks to Sinan Erensu, Kyle Green, and Sarah Lageson for putting it together.

Posted in academic | Tagged | Leave a comment

How the Tea Party produced candidate Romney

Posted on February 2, 2012 by David S. Meyer

This essay is part of a larger dialogue at Mobilizing Ideas, which also includes pieces by

Neal Caren, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Tina Fetner, McMaster University
Richard Lloyd and Steven Tepper, Vanderbilt University
Chris Parker, University of Washington
Jenni White, Tea Party activist, R.O.P.E

Protest movements sometimes have perverse effects, hastening outcomes they don’t want. The contest for the Republican presidential nomination has to be scored as a disappointment for the broad Tea Party movement, and perhaps a sign of its dissolution. Social movements capture the imagination of participants and audiences, engaging and enlarging our sense of the possible. But, particularly in liberal systems, movements that succeed in reaching mainstream public discourse are ultimately consumed by it.

The American political system makes lots of space for social and political movements. It’s set up to enable challenges, then to water down, distort, and tear them apart. When Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina Republican presidential primary, we saw just how the system works to dissipate the energy of a social movement, in this case, the Tea Party.

The Tea Party, a powerful movement that captured the imagination, for good and ill, of Americans during the first two years of the Obama presidency, exercised visible influence on political debate, public policy, and politics. It grew and developed in the wake of a Democratic rout in 2008, when Barack Obama won the presidency and his party control of both houses of Congress. Conservatives lacked a visible institutional route to influence, and took to the streets in an attempt at redress. An alliance between populist and plutocrat dissatisfaction with President Obama, the Tea Party coalesced just after Obama took office, and focused early on opposition to his effort to reform and extend health insurance in the United States. Proposed health care reform provided a focal point for economic and social conservatives who had been trying, for many years, to advance their vision of limited government, regulation, and taxation.

Beltway groups like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, funded primarily by large corporate interests, most famously the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, needed Barack Obama as president and the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act to reach a broader audience. Of course, the Tea Partiers at the grassroots had many grievances beyond Obama and health care reform, but the proximate provocation of an ambitious reform that would affect virtually all Americans provided the leading edge and unifying issue for their efforts.

Grassroots mobilization, in conjunction with funding and direction from national groups, and in the context of a severe recession, allowed the Tea Party to shape the public debate in 2009 and 2010. After the Democrats (and only Democrats) passed a health care bill, Tea Partiers shifted their attention to debt and taxes.

Although many Tea Partiers shared socially conservative views, the national leadership of the movement urged them to focus on economic issues to avoid divisive debates. Taking advantage of the relatively frequent legislative elections built into the American system, Tea Partier worked with—and through–the Republican Party. Tea Party energies helped the Republican Party make huge gains in the midterm elections, picking up 63 seats to win control of the House of Representatives. (Ah, but the Tea Partiers also beat several mainstream Republican candidates in primaries, nominating candidates less suited for the general election and undermining Republican chances to win the Senate.)

As the Tea Party entered campaign politics, the dramatic, costumed, confrontational, and Constitution-quoting events of its heyday disappeared, as Tea Partiers watched Republican legislators carry their program—or at least one version of it. The American political system, however, makes it hard to get anything done, and what the House leadership wanted to do, mostly obstruct the President and make strong statements against taxes and borrowing, wasn’t enough for the Tea Party—but far too much for many Americans. Once in office, the Tea Party became a target and provocation for an opposing movement, saddled with the responsibility of governance, but not the capacity to govern. (This is a recurrent American movement story.)

Now, another irony of American politics, Obama’s most likely opponent in the general election signed the legislation on which Obama’s health care reform is based. Mitt Romney, who has campaigned the longest, raised the most money, and led in most polls, is preparing to run a campaign in which he will advocate taking health insurance away from tens of millions of Americans–but not the residents of Massachusetts, whom he’s already taken care of. Tea Partiers, and many Republicans, are understandably uneasy about this prospect.

The potentially viable alternatives to Romney also represent, at best, a partial and distorted vision of the Tea Party’s claims. Indeed, the Republican primary field now offers three distinct personifications of Tea Party politics. Representative Ron Paul has hewed to a libertarian line for decades, and appears as a sincere and consistent advocate of extremely limited government. But a government that doesn’t criminalize drugs or engage in active foreign and military policies is an anathema to most Republican voters. Former Senator Rick Santorum consistently articulates the social and religious conservatism of many Tea Partiers, but not their vision of limited government, nor a focus on the fiscal. His long record offers ample evidence of a willingness to use government to promote and police Christian values. And former Speaker Newt Gingrich, an inconsistent advocate for conservative economic or social policies, has captured only the Tea Party attitude, vigorously expressing a sense of anger and entitlement. Any of these three offers only a partial version of a Tea Party platform, and none is likely to be stronger in a general election than Romney.

But it’s worse than that. The Tea Party captured the imagination of conservative activists around the country, and was an immense aid in firing up Republican voters in 2010. It buoyed up the aspirations of several prospects who proved far from ready for presidential prime time, crowding out more mainstream–and credible–candidates for office. Thus, the Republican field came to include Representative Michele Bachmann, a vigorous campaigner and fundraiser, but a back bencher in the House Republican caucus, and Herman Cain, a radio host who had never won an election. It did not include Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels, who had served as governors of Midwestern states (Minnesota and Indiana). Republicans who were dubious about Governor Romney, including Tea Partiers, flirted with a series of alternatives who, for various reasons, were found wanting: Bachmann, Governor Rick Perry, Cain, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the last of which has turned into an intermittent attraction/repulsion relationship. A longer list of prospects could include flirtations with Sarah Palin and Donald Trump as well. And it may not be over yet. Tea Partiers seeking both a strong advocate and a strong candidate are likely to find neither.

So, the successful mobilization of the Tea Party has produced exactly what most Tea Partiers didn’t want. It’s a common movement story in America.

Posted in academic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Korematsu Day (2nd)

Posted on January 30, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Today is the second Korematsu Day.  Reposted below is last year’s entry.  It’s also a time to recognize the passing of Gordon Hirabayashi (this past January), another critically important resister of Japanese internment.  After the war, Hirabayashi invested in his own education, and had an important career as a sociologist.

Today Californians celebrate the first Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution.  Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, Korematsu challenged the constitutionality of relocating and interning Japanese Americans during World War II.  Three Supreme Court Justices agreed with him; six did not, finding that the emergency of a World War justified allowing Congress to put civil liberties on the back burner (Korematsu v. US, 1944).

Korematsu’s challenge exacerbated rifts within the Japanese American community; large organizations like the Japanese American Citizen’s League were eager to prove their patriotism by cooperating with internment.

Maybe the arc of history really does bend toward justice; it’s certainly long.  In 1980, President Jimmy Carter established a commission to investigate the internment of Japanese Americans during the war; in 1983, Korematsu’s conviction was vacated.   In 1988, Congress apologized to the Japanese Americans for the internment, and the government paid (modest) compensation to those interned.  In 1998, President Clinton awarded Korematsu the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  More than fifty years later, we recognized courage and heroism in what we first saw as a crime.

We should derive more benefit from the vindication of Fred Korematsu more than he did.  To do so, we need to draw lessons from the cause and the case that extend beyond Japanese Americans in World War II.  This means, I think, paying close attention to discrimination on the basis of race justified by appeals to national security.

We should tell Fred Korematsu’s story in New York City, where the construction of an Islamic Center in lower Manhattan draws opposition.  We should recall the history in Arizona, when the state passes a law mandating that police demand proof of citizenship from people who look like they might be undocumented.

And we should all think about how people learn.  California Attorney General Earl Warren pressed for interning Japanese Americans immediately after Pearl Harbor, arguing that their presence in California represented a threat to civilian defense.  Thirteen years later, as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Warren organized the Court to issue unanimous decisions prohibiting racial segregation in the public schools.  I want to think he learned from the past, including his own past.

Apparently, one of the justices Earl Warren had to persuade was Robert Jackson, one of the three dissenters in Korematsu.  In dissent, Jackson wrote:

But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.

Justice Jackson took a leave of absence from the Court to serve as as the chief US prosecutor during the Nuremberg war crimes trials, putting him in a very good position to think about a government’s use of race politics as a means of mobilization during moments of crisis.

Perhaps Korematsu Day will be an occasion for fireworks and picnics one day.  Today, it seems like a good time for reflection.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Occupy Oakland and the militant wing of a movement

Posted on January 29, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Occupiers burn flag

Occupy, like all large and successful social movements, includes people with a broad range of political viewpoints and a very diverse range of action strategies.  While some activists are working to move inside the political system by lobbying or contesting elections, others are trying to escalate the disruption and the conflict.

Occupy Oakland activists tried to take control of a vacant convention center, pledging to move-in to the unused building and turn it into a functioning social center.

Erik K. Arnold reports at Oakland Local that activists envisioning re-establishing an Occupation indoors that could serve as a center for activism and service:

Organizer Adam Jordan outlined the vision of what Occupy Oakland had hoped to accomplish. “The move-in day is hypothetically and hopefully going to be a multi-use center with free school workshops, free food, free meals, and a meeting place to have for Oakland, for the people, by the people. We see the need to help other people. Going through the system has not been working for a lot of people.”

Mayor Jean Quan and local officials ensured that police, wearing riot gear, were prepared to respond quickly and in full force, and avoid the erratic management that had characterized the City’s approach to the first Occupation.  The police were quick to respond with force and arrests (more than 400), and the confrontations continued as activists redirected their efforts to City Hall.  Several Occupiers broke into City Hall and, according to the City, burned flags, broke glass, and damaged property.  Mayor Quan estimated the damage from the Occupation since its onset in millions of dollars.

Mayor Quan has, for months, voiced her support for Occupy’s goals, even as she has been increasingly willing to use police force to counter their efforts.  The Occupiers focused on police conduct, criticizing the City for wasting money on stopping the activists from putting a vacant building to use and doing some good.

The Occupiers staging direct action face the same sorts of challenges as those trying to move into more conventional politics.  First, no organization has exclusive control over an Occupy trademark.  Anyone can claim to be acting in the spirit of Occupy, and whether or not either the people who supported Occupy or actually stayed in the encampments will sign on is an open question.

Second, different tactics demand different resources and appeal to distinct constituencies.  Occupiers running for office need to appeal to majorities, but don’t necessarily demand much of them.  This means a moderation in rhetoric and tactics.  Occupiers who want to seize buildings don’t need such broad support, but depend upon intense commitment and partisans who are ready to take serious risks.

Third, Occupiers trying different strategies for influence encounter authorities in very different ways.  There are clear rules for running for office that channel activists in fairly predictable ways.  They need to collect signatures, can participate in debates, and put poll watchers at voting sites.

Direct action engages another element of government power: the police, who are better armed and better trained than the activists who challenge them.  While the police are bound to rules of engagement and the law (and activists and their lawyers will try to hold them to those strictures), they are not committed to nonviolence.

Fourth, activists compete to define the movement and its concerns to a much broader audience.  Running for office doesn’t usually generate powerful images for the media, and it is often easy to ignore.  Burning a flag, to take another example, makes for a powerful image and projects a vision of Occupy that most Americans are likely to find, uh, unappealing.  While Occupiers will blame Mayor Quan and the police for brutality, they know that many who watch the same videos will blame them instead.

And here’s something else: Social movements do best when there is a connection between the margins and the mainstream, between direct action and institutional politics.  Such connections are extremely difficult to maintain.  Candidates for office and civil disobedients will have to make statements on each other, and it’s hard not to criticize other activists with alternative strategies for being naive or out of touch.

Meanwhile, Occupy Oakland has called for sympathy demonstrations across the country, spreading their message and extending the activist dilemmas far beyond the Bay area.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Occupy elected office

Posted on January 26, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Is incumbency another word for occupation?

Today two self-identified Occupiers announced candidacies for local office in Northern California.  Jeff Kravitz, a lawyer who has represented Occupy Sacramento activists, is running for a county board seat.  So is Gary Blenner, a high school teacher who has  previously served as an elected member of a school board.*

In Philadelphia, Nate Kleinman, a legislative assistant to a state representative, has announced that he intends to challenge Democratic Rep. Allyson Schwartz for her seat in the House of Representatives.  He has experience working in Democratic campaigns, but emphasizes his Occupy Philadelphia connections and commitments.  Berkeley Professor George Lakoff has written that contesting elections is the logical step toward influencing policy for Occupy, while others have argued that Occupiers should focus on the initiative process, rather than particular candidates.

Electoral politics is a natural next step for a growing social movement, but it’s not easy or uncontroversial.  In real life, activists need to take a position on each election, even if that position is to opt out.  But just because one doesn’t want to take institutional power seriously doesn’t mean it will go away.  Activists and advocates neglect electoral politics at their peril.

For Occupy, which has created a broad political umbrella uniting a broad range of claims about political and economic inequality, there is no trademark protection.  Anyone who wants to call themselves an Occupier–or a supporter–can try to do so, and can try to campaign on this identity.  Whether or not the people who camped out in urban parks–or the much larger group of people who sympathized with them–will support them is quite another matter.

The American political system, offering many elected offices and frequent and routine elections, works to bring movement politics indoors.  It forces aspirants for office to build broad coalitions, address multiple issues, and work with people who are at least a little different from them.

The Occupy candidates will have to figure out stances on issues that matter directly to their voters, and come up with ways to finance campaigns.  They’ll have to deal with the two-party system, either by working through the Democratic Party (as the Tea Party has worked with Republicans), or staging third party campaigns that are unlikely to succeed in winning office  (Gary Blenner, referenced above, had most recently run unsuccessfully for reelection to school board as a Green–and lost.)*

Far more important than the first Occupiers to run for office will be the electoral choices that the much larger number of activists and supporters make.  Surely some will eschew electoral politics altogether, reasoning that the terminally corrupt system forces compromises that make meaningful change impossible.  They’ll say: “Don’t vote, it only encourages them.”  But elected officials can operate without our encouragement.  They’ll call self-identified Occupy candidates sell-outs–or worse.

I suspect the electoral abstainers will be a sliver of the broad movement, and that most Occupy advocates will haul themselves out to the polls and make a choice from the options in front of them.  Call it the lesser of two evils, or call it doing the best you can in a real, rather than imagined, world.

Remember, things can always be worse.

 

* Corrected, January 27, 2012.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 12 Comments