Analysis
The occupy Wall Street campaign appears to be a semi-organised, semi-spontaneous effort involving many individuals with some history of involvement in radical politics (in socialist, environmentalist and even quasi-anarchist causes) fused with others who have recently been subject to economic distress. It has no conventional leadership structure and its policy objectives are broad and transformative (eg ending the close relationship between financial interests and political institutions and transforming capitalism) rather than anything comparable to a conventional party platform or manifesto.
While the numbers mobilised to operate in protest camps are not statistically impressive, the geographical reach of the movement within the United States is more surprising. There is no obvious timetable for the demonstrations to cease (especially in New York City, which is likely to remain the epicentre of this activism) and, as many of those involved are unemployed, they may continue for some weeks with consequent difficulties for local administrations.
_
The political impact of the 'occupiers' will be strong; the policy implications are limited
However, the main significance of the movement is likely to be in its influence on broader national politics, rather than policy. Obama has deliberately identified himself with many 'occupier' goals -- a stance that carries considerable political risk.
Catalyst for protest
The catalyst for this activism is a combination of some very long-term trends in US national life coupled with more transient factors. Over the past 25 years technological change has altered the balance between capital and labour in capital's favour; it has also led to the benefits of economic prosperity being distributed more unevenly than in four decades after 1945, with the proportion of income held by the wealthiest 10% of US citizens increasing sharply (a phenomenon that has been even more striking among those with incomes in the top 1.0% and top 0.1% of the population). Furthermore, the labour unions which might have in the past been the natural institutions in which those aggrieved by these developments could vent and channel their discontent have declined in authority, allowing the space for more ad hoc protest organisations to expand.
_
Sense of grievance
Several recent developments have compounded the effect of these broader trends:
- The duration of the economic downturn in the United States since 2008 is reflected in stubbornly high unemployment; the unemployment rate among the young is particularly high, which may explain their prominence within the occupy movement (among those 16-19 years of age it was 24.6% in September, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics).
- This economic malaise is attributed to the performance of the financial services sector in a manner which has not been true in past recessions; polling consistently indicates that the US public does not believe that the banking sector has atoned for its failings.
- A sense that the idealism associated with Obama's 2008 bid for the White House has not been exploited, as well as discontent on the Left and parts of the centre-left with the president's inclination to compromise with Republican leaders -- particularly after Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in January.
As Obama does not face a challenge for the Democratic party's nomination in 2012, so traditional politics does not offer an outlet for discontent on the Left.
Immediate effects
_
64% Share of the public that blames the federal government, not financial institutions, for economic problems
In the short term, the practical and policy effects of the demonstrations will be modest. Active protests outside New York City will dwindle. There is no evidence that Congress will embrace the agenda of the occupy movement. While the broader US public has some sympathy with the protesters' complaints, this support is limited and hedged: in an October 15-16 Gallup poll 64% blamed the federal government for current "economic problems", and only 30% blamed "financial institutions".
There is little reason to believe that the movement can at this stage emulate the success of tea party counterparts in imposing itself on the national political stage. Comparisons between the two institutions are rather misleading. The core demographics of the two groups are wildly different in terms of age, culture and geography. Tea party supporters tend to be economically mainstream individuals who have become intensely dissatisfied with the performance of Washington but are not sceptical about the fundamentals of the US political system (quite the reverse, in many cases) whereas the occupy movement is far more alienated and disconnected.
Longer-term influence
However, the longer-term impact of the movement's central message should not be discounted. The argument that the Democratic party has been an accomplice to a form of 'crony capitalism' which does not serve the economic interests of the poor or middle class could take root -- either in the event of the president being defeated in his re-election bid next year, or if he wins but finds himself impotent in the face of a Republican party which continues to hold the House of Representatives and which may extend its support in the Senate.
The Democrats may confront the challenge of articulating an answer to economic discontent which is different from that offered under former President Bill Clinton (and, in essence, repeated under Obama), which allows them to maintain the support of the party's Left -- possibly inclined to defect to fringe causes or abstain from voting -- while at the same time retaining its appeal to centrists.
