The Occupy Wall Street story is everywhere — thanks to police that think this is 1968, or 1886, and don't know their foxes from their rabbits.
And the protest is spreading.
It's said to be leaderless (Cairo was essentially leaderless), and early reports were that labor wasn't involved — despite the paranoia of mainstream commenters. (That has recently changed — Trumpka's now a supporter.)
We're used to thinking of protests as more formal, organized, start-and-stop events, with police permits, speakers and dueling attendance-counts. This is something clearly different. But what?
Paul Krugman has one answer. From his precious column inches, he writes:
There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.Et tu, NPR? Wouldn't be the first time.
When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever ... [but] Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.
Krugman has nothing but praise for the people putting the focus for the current economic misery where it belongs — on the rapacious, ungrateful, ever-bailed-out, always-self-entitled Wall Street billionaires and their millionaire minions. Given these facts, Krugman asks, "how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?"
He then takes on the various criticisms, and lays them low. I'll let you read that part for yourselves; he makes perfect sense on all counts.
As to the question, What is Occupy Wall Street?, Krugman has one excellent answer — a wonderful political opportunity:
[T]here are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today’s Republicans ... [b]ut Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama’s party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.Seen as an opening for our so-called "leaders" is one good way to look at these protests. Kudos to Krugman for pointing that out. And kudos to the administration — and labor — for their toe-in-the-water support.
My own note — Krugman's analysis defines the protest in terms of something else, administration response. In a later post, I'll attempt to define Occupy Wall Street more intrinsically, in terms of itself. (Hint: It's not yet Tahrir Square, but it could be.)
GP
