Writing at TomDispatch, Barbara and John Ehrenreich have produced one of the calmest and most cogent explanations of why “the 99%” has emerged as a resonant political idea. Their take is generally hopeful, but they’re worried that traditional divisions among the non-super-rich will derail whatever political momentum the Occupy movement has built:
If the “99%” is to become more than a stylish meme, if it’s to become a force to change the world, eventually we will undoubtedly have to confront some of the class and racial divisions that lie within it. But we need to do so patiently, respectfully, and always with an eye to the next big action — the next march, or building occupation, or foreclosure fight, as the situation demands.
That’s broadly true, but it takes the slogan of “99%” too literally. Obviously, the Ehrenreichs don’t actually think that everyone below a certain income threshold is going to start agreeing with one another, and they’re correct that the 1% and their stooges in politics and media will look to exploit any division among lesser people who share economic interests. However, and this is a big however, the ultimate effect of America’s newfound sense of class solidarity will depend chiefly on the ballot box, and that’s something which simply cannot be quantified at this time.
Despite what some of Occupy’s more ardent participants may believe, revolution is not on the verge of coming to the United States. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere, and neither is Wall Street. Reigning in the excesses of both is clearly warranted, but that means reforms, not a new system from the ground up, and that means winning elections, both primaries and generals.
That’s why the Occupy movement’s general distaste for electoral politics is a much bigger weakness than a reawakening of “class and racial divisions”. It’s rhetorically useful to discuss “the 99%”, but in terms of the major changes that need to be made to reestablish the middle and working classes, to say nothing of making America a humane place to be poor, the far more important percentage is 51.
That’s grating to a lot of people, in no small part because the Democratic Party is lousy with bought out 1% whores. (Yes, Senator Schumer, we’re looking at you.) But that’s what primary elections are for. They aren’t sexy, they aren’t as emotionally satisfying as camping out with cool, like minded people, but they’re also the ticket to getting real things done. Credible primary threats also have the added feature of keeping incumbents responsive to their base once they are in office. As the old saying goes, “more and better Democrats” really is the only path forward.
None of that means that the Occupy movement hasn’t done truly useful things by focusing cultural attention to the rapacious crimes of Jamie Dimon and company. Democrats have been talking about benefits going to the top 1% since the 2000 election, mostly ineffectively. In just a couple of months the dirty Occupy hippies made the point better than the establishment Blues did in more than a decade.
That’s a real accomplishment, and calling it a “stylish meme” undersells it greatly. But the threat to continuing to make progress isn’t primarily the cultural divisions, it’s that all this energy won’t translate at the ballot box over many election cycles. If at this time next year the Reds are preparing to move into the White House and retake the Senate, then all the media stories about inequality in the world won’t matter a damn because inequality will be about to get much worse. The same will be true two years after that, and two years after that, and so on. A burst of publicity is a very good thing, but without sustained electoral pressure it won’t amount to anything.
