A key feature of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protest is that its members aren’t aligned with either political party. In fact, some of the protesters seem to have as much animosity towards the Democrats as the Republicans.
Why they dislike Republicans is self-evident: the GOP stands for the 1% at the expense of the 99%, not only on economic matters but on everything related to public health, safety, and the environment—to say nothing about their oppressive stances towards gays and women.
Some of the ire directed at Democrats is also warranted. It was Bill Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall, ushering in the era of deregulation that wrecked the global economy and allowed Wall Streeters to reap huge profits at the expense of the general public. President Obama populated his Administration with former Clinton staffers known for their Wall Street ties, and many of his policies followed suit, causing some to feel that his position towards the big banks has not been sufficiently tough. In addition, his focus on deficit reduction instead of job growth (especially when it became clear that the recovery was faltering) is viewed by many as a betrayal of the middle class. While Obama has faced political constraints these past three years, there’s definitely some truth to these criticisms.
All the same, there are strong reasons why the OWS protesters are wrong to stay above the political fray. Their counterpart on the right, the Tea Party, has become a powerful destructive force. House Speaker John Boehner is unable to control them, and they essentially hold veto power over the entire House GOP caucus. It’s important for the OWS movement—an actual grassroots movement—to make the Democratic Party more progressive.
The reasons are simple math. The first are the numbers 7 and 2. In the next presidential term, two liberal Supreme Court Justices—Ginsburg and Breyer—will almost surely be retiring. A Republican president would tilt the Court rightward by 7-2, guaranteeing rulings in favor or corporate interests for another generation. Everything OWS stands for would essentially be made impossible for the rest of their lives. This isn’t hyperbole, it’s reality. If the OWS protesters think the Citizens United decision was bad, they need to imagine what a 7-2 Roberts Court would do.
The other math relates to the tax code. The next president will set the economic agenda by either allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire or by extending them. You can bet that a Republican president will not only continue the Bush tax cuts, but cut taxes for the rich (and for corporations) even more. This will increase income inequality while it explodes the deficit—allowing the GOP to claim how imperative it is to slash Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all other social welfare programs.
What I’ve outlined is at least plausible, perhaps even probable. If a Republican becomes president, the goals of the OWS protesters will never be achieved.
OWS may not love the Democrats, but facts are facts. The protesters have a better chance of making the Democratic Party more progressive than of achieving success with a third party. There is already a solid progressive caucus within the Democratic Party, and building on this would give it new energy. The OWS protesters should seek out progressive candidates, and help the Democrat Party as it attempts to retake the House.
The Tea Party will ultimately harm the GOP because its positions are way out of line with the majority of Americans. By contrast, what OWS stands for is popular across all demographics, including independents and Republicans.
The OWS movement has the potential to become a powerful progressive force, but only if it translates its intensity and passion into political power. The Democratic Party provides that opportunity, however flawed and imperfect the party is.
Now more than ever, OWS protesters need to remind themselves not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Jason Scorse