This article is a contribution to ‘Liberalism
and Occupy Wall Street,’ A TNR Symposium.
Occupy Wall Street is a carnival. Both detractors and
supporters say so. The most amusing part of the show is
watching the rush to join it. When Deepak Chopra and
Suze Orman endorse the cause, you have to wonder about
its revolutionary bona fides. Democrats have also flung
themselves in the direction of Zuccotti Park—but in
their pursuit of the movement they may damage themselves
and hinder the protests’ potential to do tangible good.
The catastrophic misdeeds of bankers should have been
political gold for Democrats—the strongest case for a
robust regulatory state one could make; an opportunity
to corner Republicans into defending banks that have
inflicted so much misery. But the Democrats’—or rather
Obama’s—strategy strangely didn’t point in that
direction. At best, we can describe Dodd-Frank as a
marginal step in the direction of reform. And in the
course of the ongoing battle over implementing the law,
the legislation will likely be reduced to a marginal
half step. When the Obama administration whispered that
it had some qualms with Wall Street’s behavior, the
bankers acted as if they were being led to the gallows—a
response that spooked the administration into refraining
from any further forays into populist rhetoric and
provoked it to send envoy Valerie Jarrett on
peace-making missions to Wall Street. It is, indeed,
maddening enough to make you rush to the barricades.
With just over a year until the election, Democrats
have finally realized that they have a major problem on
their hands. Where the Republican base is fired up and
ready to go, liberals are despondent about the
dissipation of their messianic hopes. By failing to
speak to the public’s anger, the president has given
ample space for Republicans to grab that fury and,
amazingly, turn it against Washington.
Or to pan wide on the scene: Obama has annoyed both his
political base and his donor base, while doing not
enough of substantive value on the underlying issue. The
Democrats have aimlessly meandered into dire political
circumstances—so they are desperate for any cause for
hope, no matter how implausible.
Protests movements, with their outpourings of
camaraderie and idealism, often lead to lyrical writing
and wishful thinking. Some Democratic politicians and
think tanks apparently now see a scenario for salvation
in Zuccotti Park—a possibility that the protests could
morph into the Democratic answer to the Tea Party.
Perhaps Washington operatives could descend on the
movement and drive it in that direction. But that seems
like an awfully daunting task, given the scene on the
ground and the ideological tendencies of Occupy Wall
Street—and it misreads the symbiotic relationship
between liberals and the left. Let’s say Occupy Wall
Street can overcome its self-limiting strategic
philosophy, develop some concrete goals, and blossom
into a full-fledged social movement. Over the long-term,
then, liberals will want to position their reforms as
the most reasonable mechanism for staving off the
radicals. That’s how FDR played it—“Liberalism becomes
the protection for the far-sighted conservative.” But
you can’t triangulate against a social movement if you
fully embrace it.
On one level, the protests have already wildly
succeeded. They have helped remind the public of how
blame for the crisis should be properly apportioned. And
when Eric Cantor mouths the words “income disparities,”
you know the conversation has shifted. But as the
protests drag on, will they continue to be beneficial?
To answer that, the protestors need to answer, at least
for themselves, the question: Will they work to actively
undermine Barack Obama’s reelection?
Under the best scenario, this moment emboldens Obama to
rhetorically cudgel Wall Street, lock arms with
Elizabeth Warren, and make symbolically potent
appointments to his economic team. His turn towards
populism reassures his political base and helps him
paint Mitt Romney as the tribune of the economic
royalists. While the movement continues to harp on Wall
Street, and maintains useful pressure on him to overcome
his cautious instincts, it does nothing to actively
campaign against his reelection. This shift would set
the stage for a second term that would further financial
reform and take other measures against income
inequality.
There is, however, another, plausible possibility: that
Occupy Wall Street is poorly timed. After all, there’s
no legislative debate to usefully prod at the present
juncture, but there’s a chance to scupper the
president’s re-election. As John Nichols cheers in The
Nation, the “movement might well develop into a
virtual primary challenge to Obama.” Even if Obama
attempts to co-opt the message of Occupy Wall Street,
the movement will likely continue to harp on his
inadequacy. (Many of the complaints with Obama unfairly
view him as a central villain in the crisis, rather than
a disappointingly ineffectual foe of it.) Protests might
erupt at the convention in Charlotte that overshadow his
case for reelection; all this further diminishes
enthusiasm for his candidacy. Or worse, a third-party
candidate emerges and we know how that story goes.
Indeed, much of the gripe with Obama reflects the canard
that a Republican president wouldn’t be worse. I hope
the protesters are surrounded by allies who remind them
it actually can get much worse.
Franklin Foer is an editor-at-large for The
New Republic and a Schwartz fellow at the
New America Foundation.
