Adrift in a sea of causes, Occupy needs to set a course

October 1st marked the one-year anniversary of Occupy D.C. and, in celebration of the movement, the group occupied a number of lobbying firms, banks, etc. around K Street. The lobbying firm where I work was one of them. The events of the day were as follows: about 20 protesters arrived at 9:30 a.m. to protest against the firm’s lobbying on behalf of oil companies, then, approximately 30 minutes later, they left and didn’t return. I have one thing to say to Occupy: commit to your issues, or don’t talk about them at all.

When Occupy came to D.C., it had some real issues to raise. Here was a movement that looked to change the long-running stance of the government, a real movement for change. However, it has since yielded few results, and at this point it can no longer even protest effectively, The movement that held so much promise and was supported by so many floundered due to its inability to effectuate a vision for change because it could not grasp a common, compelling message.

The Occupy movement at its start was well supported nationally. It has since seen its popularity wane in direct response to its failures as a movement, and it is now considered directionless. The question that the movement raises is, what does Occupy stand for?

At its inception, the Occupy movement wanted increased financial regulations in response to the unethical investing practices perpetrated by bankers leading up to the Great Recession. As the movement went from city to city, it began to amalgamate the issues that affected each different population. Now the movement demands universal healthcare, international environmental standards, the reduction of working hours, etc… All of this sprung from the issue of the regulation of Wall Street.

While Occupy does have goals, they are too broad-based and there are too many of them. The movement went from a single-issue reformation of Wall Street to muddying the waters with other extraneous calls for change. It has been co-opted by a number of disenfranchised groups. The original message about economic accountability has become lost in a sea of other messages, all fighting for “change.” The meaning of Occupy has been diluted; Georgetown students now refer to spending a day in the library as “Occupying Lau.”

Reading the Global May Manifesto put out by the global Occupy movement is like reading the manifesto of the Liberal Utopia. While an argument can be made for most of the change they demand, it’s no way to run a movement. Movements have to be focused around a singular issue, be able to be summed up into a few words, and have a clear goal for effectuating change. Feminism was about women’s rights, the civil rights movement was about equality, and the Anti-War movement was about ending the war in Vietnam. The Occupy movement is about “global change.” What exactly does that entail?

If the movement wants to fulfill its potential, it will have to focus and start somewhere. Going back to its roots and focusing on financial reform would be extremely beneficial to the movement. It would allow its members to stand in front of the cameras and say “This is our major demand.” Now, this in no way means abandoning all of its ideals and principles. Rather, it means focusing on one thing before moving onto another. Without this kind of direction, it ends up like someone with too much on their plate—nothing gets the full treatment that it should. By focusing and simplifying, the movement will accomplish more than a change in the national dialogue.

The movements of the 1960s changed the national dialogue, but they also led to actual change from inside and out. The same can be said about the Arab Spring, an inspired movement in its own right. The Arab Spring began to yield results when key government officials joined in the protests. There is only so much that can be done from the outside; at some point internal change is necessary and required. The Occupy movement is selling itself short by not gathering people who can change the system from inside.

This is where the Occupiers can learn from the Tea Party. The Tea Party got people elected in states all over the country. Its members are in state legislatures and Congress introducing legislation that affects how the country works as a whole. Where are the Occupiers? Eating bagels in MacPherson Square.

Occupy is not the first movement, nor will it be the last, to have structural issues. However, it has enough members and visibility to still make a difference and get things done. The first step is recognizing that its current model is not working.
While the debates may now focus on the economy and the middle class, financial regulation has sunk into the background of national discourse and business’s hand in campaign finance is as influential as ever. Occupy needs to recognize that it’s time to get people elected and focus on one issue before dealing with other grievances. Feminism, the civil rights movements, and the anti-war movement spent years fighting for change and the Arab Spring is still fighting. Pick an issue and go with it. The bottom line is: you can’t change anything in 30 minutes.