And, of course, at the same time, the Democrats have also moved further right, accepting and internalizing libertarian critiques of liberalism. So, now, the idea of government programs like those of the New Deal and the Great Society is completely foreign to American political discourse. Everything is all about creating market-based solutions to allow people more choice. With the result that there seems to be a sort of neoliberal consensus among elites of both parties and the media. I think you once had an OP linking to a Michael Lind article that dealt with the phenomenon. I happen to quite like this piece by Peter Frase on how this neoliberal consensus is portrayed as non-ideological in the media (and notice the recent description of the new Italian and Greek leaders as “technocrats” rather than as people ideologically disposed toward austerity):
In any event, OWS seems to be the best hope at the moment we have for questioning this and ultimately broadening the range of acceptable political discourse. I mean, if the Tea Party can get the (maybe) leading candidate for the GOP Presidential nomination discussing bringing back child labor, it doesn’t seem too far fetched to hope OWS can bring back New Deal liberalism.
Unfortunately, they do not have their own Fox News to do that for them. What, are expecting 99% of the population to have one or two bullet points, starting with the word “No”?
Progressivism leads in a wide variety of directions, since there are so many things we need to improve upon. The reactionism we see from the Teabag astroturfism is simply saying “No” to any proposal to move forward. That, by comparison, constitutes a “concrete list of demands” of the type you seem to consider important. Well, friend, simplicity in public policy is *not *necessarily a virtue, but far more often the opposite.
What OWS has shown is the widespread hunger for concrete ways to improve our situation as a society. Developing and proposing these ways is the role of public servants running for and holding office. What they’ve done is make it safe, and even desirable, for public servants to take progressive positions. What the Baggers have done is make Republican pols afraid to do anything but oppose.
They had enormous financial backing . The people didn’t cobble shirt together. It was the wealthy rich people who figured out how to use them. This movement would have died a quick death if the Koch Bros., Armey and Nordquist didn’t see a use for them.
Do you imagine the huge halls they talked in were free and available to the rabble?
99% of the population? Don’t be absurd. While I might agree, as a general principle, that progressive politics benefit 99% of the people, not even the most starry-eyed bearded student thinks 99% of the people support OWS- or care.
Anyway, OWS, like the Tea Party, is primarily an economic phenomenon. I’m sure most of those people want on-demand abortion and gay marriage and lots of other social niceties, but the reason they’re all out there is because they’re pissed off about income inequality.
If there’s anything we’ve learned from the Tea Party, it’s that you can’t have your cake and marry it too. If your gripe is economic, focus on that. Everything else will follow.