The difference between T and V is yoU

What happens with the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests and their
counterparts in cities all over the U.S. now that the protesters have
been cleared out, their message communicated loud and clear? Observers
have declared that the so-called “movement” is actually free-flowing and
structureless, and not a movement at all. They are not organized to
become a movement.

But it would cheapen what those protesters did at significant personal
costs to allow their points to dissipate. How to deal with the validity
of their points and the inherent nature of the protesters not to
organize? More protests are planned.

This week thousands of unemployed workers — representing that deadening almost 10 percent of the workforce of which the economic reports keep reminding us — will converge on the nation’s capital. Several days of activities are expected, including camping and vigils on the Mall, lobbying Congress and protesting on K Street, the metaphoric home of lobbyists. The organizers’ hope is that activism on the streets will translate into political action in the 2012 election. They plan to do more than camp out.

The OWS “non-movement” has splintered, it seems, into various specific-issue protests. This week organizers are planning an Occupy Our Homes protest in 20 cities focusing on the millions of mortgage foreclosures. Student groups are focused on student-loan problems. Specific issues like these can combine into a connected movement, all pressing for economic justice. Public consciousness has been raised through media coverage of the recent Occupy events. Focused activism has to follow.

The public interest in economic issues is not going away with the camps in the parks. Government can not arrest an idea that is relevant and timely, and as social critic Robert Scheer has stated, these protests provide a Jeffersonian moment where masses of Americans of all ages and backgrounds are petitioning for redress of their, and our, grievances. The need for campaign finance reform, tax reform and curbs on corporate greed, if not rapaciousness, have majority (99  percent, to use a popular number lately) support. With a national election on the horizon, and a national history that demonstrates that citizens organized around a salient issue do create change, politicians need to be dragged into making important advances.

The thousands of people who went to the streets in recent weeks, and those coming now to D.C. demanding economic reforms, could be re-enlisted to take practical steps to advance the policies they have highlighted. Political operatives (read: the Obama campaign) should augment these efforts, along with existing sympathetic private organizations (unions, civil rights groups, tax reform institutions). The AFL-CIO is coordinating efforts in congressional districts to extend unemployment benefits. Other existing groups need to step up and get involved. Why not a newly created organization modeled after the Tea Party? It might be called the V (for Vote) Party, whose slogan could be: The difference between T and V is U — yoU. Its focus should be on economic justice.

The personification of this movement is Elizabeth Warren, whose career and current senatorial race make her the ideal face of the nascent movement. Getting her elected, to replace a Republican senator, after her being scorned, unfairly, by the Senate when her executive appointment was crushed, would be the perfect statement. But she alone cannot assure the reforms reformers desire. Protesters need to follow the lead of historical left-leaning citizens and current right wingers. Young people supported Eugene McCarthy, who caused sitting president LBJ to drop out of reelection because of his support of the Vietnam War. The Tea Party has influenced the national agenda for two years, pushing conservative platforms. By supporting candidates across the nation who subscribe to a political agenda focused on the issues of economic disparity, the current protesters can affect the course of the 2012 election.