Occupy Wall Street has changed the national conversation

In 2012, Americans will go to the polls and vote for who they want to represent them in Washington. But, as 2011 showed, the real political momentum is not to be found in Washington. Our institutions have let us down, not only by failing to prevent the biggest financial crisis since the Depression, but also by only producing suboptimal solutions at best to the multiple problems we're facing.

In fact, the crisis itself was more of a symptom than a cause. The trends had been in motion for decades: the decline of the middle class, growing inequality and downward mobility. But, in 2011, with the credibility of our political system in tatters, something happened. People said "enough," and decided to take matters into their own hands. Time magazine captured the moment by making the protester its Person of the Year for 2011.

At the beginning of 2011, the tectonic shifts that would define the year had only just begun to rumble. Mohamed Bouazizi, a poor Tunisian fruit vendor, had yet to douse himself in paint thinner and ignite a revolution - one that would be the first of many. Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak sat comfortably poised to enter his fourth decade of dictatorship. And few people, aside from financial workers on their lunch breaks, were aware of the existence of Zuccotti Park, a small concrete plaza in New York's Financial District that would soon become the beating heart of Occupy Wall Street.

The message of OWS was broad: the status quo is broken, the economic system rigged to unfairly help those who least need it, and we desperately need change. Some criticized the movement for not immediately having tangible, concrete goals. But, in fact, the simplicity of the message was part of what fueled its growth. Its appeal crossed party lines, generational lines and even class lines.

Suddenly, three years after the financial crisis plunged the country into recession, Americans were coming together to protest, echoing Frederick Douglass' truism that "power concedes nothing without a demand; it never did and it never will." By the time President Obama, at a December speech in Osawatomie, Kan., identified inequality as "the defining issue of our time," he was not leading the charge, but joining the chorus - the Occupy Wall Street protesters had been saying the same thing for nearly three months.

The Occupy movement isn't just a challenge to our political system, it's a response - a response to the fact that millions believe our system is broken and unable to craft solutions that would reverse the growing inequity and injustice that are fundamentally changing our country. It was a response to the growing feeling that the essential compact of the American Dream - if you worked hard and played by the rules, you'd be rewarded - could no longer be trusted. And not only is our political system unable to repair it, our political institutions were complicit in the breakdown.

What the movement and the response to it have shown is a governing class almost completely disconnected from those it purports to represent. Instead of acknowledging the truth of the critique and setting about finding ways to act on it, the response by local governments seems more like that of burglars who were surprised by the police and decided to pepper-spray their way out.

For weeks, the news was dominated with indelible images of violence: There was the NYPD officer calmly walking up to several women who were penned, pepper-spraying them in the face and then slinking off. There was the 84-year-old woman pepper-sprayed in Seattle, along with a pregnant 19-year-old and a priest. There was Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen splayed on the ground with a serious head injury after being assaulted by police in Oakland.

Though the movement has been cleared out of many parks, this was never about land or territory. And even if it ended tomorrow - and it's certainly not going to - it has changed the national conversation in ways that would have seemed unthinkable even a year ago. Occupy has made people ask fundamental questions about our political and economic systems, and about whether or not those systems are working. It's made people think about what America should stand for, about which values it should reward and which values it should punish. It's made people realize that there must be a better way to organize a free market, capitalist system - one that could be both more productive and more fair.

One sign it's changed the way we think about the economy is that "the 1 percent" vs. "the 99 percent" has earned a permanent place in the national lexicon. The editor of the conservative New Hampshire Union Leader used it when he endorsed Newt Gingrich's presidency: "Gingrich is going to have a better time in the general election than Mitt Romney. I think it's going to be Obama's 99 percent versus the 1 percent, and Romney sort of represents the 1 percent." (Never mind that he was implicitly claiming that Newt "$500,000-credit-line-at-Tiffany's" Gingrich is not the 1 percent.)

Can you imagine that kind of language being used by Republicans a year ago?

As George Bernard Shaw put it: "All progress depends on the unreasonable man." The Occupy movement has shown what can happen when people use some unreasonable methods to achieve eminently reasonable goals.

Arianna Huffington is president and editor-in-chief of Huffington Post Media Group. Her email address is arianna@huffingtonpost.com.

Featured Stories

Advertisement

PLAN AHEAD

Top Trending Videos