Doug Lavey participated in Or Tzedek’s first program in the summer of 2007.  In this op-ed for Or Tzedek, Doug shares his opinion on the evolution of the Occupy movement, arguing that it must become a political power in order to create effective change. Doug currently studies Political  Science and Economics at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  

The Politicization of OWS
By Doug Lavey
Or Tzedek Participant, Summer 2007

 As we enter 2012, we look back on all that has occurred and all that has changed this past year. One event that should certainly jump to mind is the emergence of Occupy Wall Street (OWS). 

Soon after it began, the protests quickly became one of the most talked about and debated topics throughout the world. Though the protests in New York led to similar movements nationally and internationally, after over 3 months of protesting, the Occupiers have little tangible change to show for their efforts.

 I like to think that 20 years from now I will be able to point out the Occupy protests as the beginning of an era when socioeconomic policy no longer favored the super wealthy or corporations and that our democratic system more accurately represented the citizens that make up this country. Ultimately, however, I believe the only way for these protests to make this broad type of impact is to join the political process.

But before any long-term goals can be formulated for OWS, questions about the immediate direction of the US, the global economy, and other world-wide crises must be addressed. While OWS protestors may be searching for more broad-based reforms, they will also be a key factor in determining these more immediate decisions. This is because of the role OWS will play in the 2012 elections. 
We have seen the power and influence a group like OWS can potentially have in elections and the political agenda. In 2010, we saw Democrats lose much of their power in Congress to a reinvigorated Republican party running on a platform of lower taxes, reducing the debt, responsible fiscal spending, and limited government. The driving force behind this newfound momentum? The Tea Party.

Since 2010, conservatives in the House and Senate have worked to push legislation that would greatly reduce the size of the U.S. Federal Government and the federal debt, like the Balanced Budget Amendment. Hyper-partisan politics has led to a virtual stalemate in the legislature, an artificial debt crisis, an anemic economy, single digit approval ratings of Congress, and a drop in the U.S. credit rating. 

The failures of the U.S. Government brought the thousands of Occupy protestors, to the streets, representing millions more who remain at home. In many of its political stances, OWS is the anti-TEA Party. 

However, similar to what the TEA Party did for Republicans in 2010, Democratic leaders hope to politicize and earn the support of the Occupy movement and its protestors. Though protesters have been infuriated with the actions of both political parties, Democrats still might be able to use OWS as a springboard to retaining control of the presidency and retake control in the House.

Many Democratic candidates have been hesitant to identify with the Occupy protests out of fear that a radically left position would discourage moderate voters. On the other hand, a second motive for politicization of OWS is that it would likely streamline the creation of a single set of goals and remove the extremist ideals that are highlighted by the mass media, thereby giving the movement more legitimacy, long-term stability, and appeal. 

Politicization would require the protests to unify, if not around a single leader, then around an agreed upon message and set of changes they would like to see implemented.