Various reasons have been put forward for the success of the occupy movement around the world, and one in this article seems to be on the mark. Essentially Obama’s slogans of change and message of hope, though coming from the mouth of someone bought by Wall Street, are bigger than the man. He did not invent the lines, “Yes we can!” “Be the change” and while those words were effectively stolen, the sentiment was not.
The article also reports some interesting material on a survey of attiude towards capitalism.
David Graeber: On Playing By The Rules â€“ The Strange Success Of #OccupyWallStreet
So the social scientist in me has to ask: Why? Why now? Why did it actually work?
Again, I think the answer is generational. In politics, too, as in education, we are looking at a generation of young people who played by the rules, and have seen their efforts prove absolutely fruitless. We must remember that in 2008, the youth vote went overwhelmingly to Barrack Obama and the Democrats. We also have to remember that Obama was running, then, as a candidate of â€œChangeâ€, using a campaign language that drew liberally from that of radical social movements (â€œyes we can!â€, â€œbe the change!â€), and that as a former community organizer, he was one of the few candidates in recent memory who could be said to have emerged from a social movement background rather than from smoke-filled rooms. This, combined with the fact that Obama was Black, gave young people a sense that they were experiencing a genuinely transformative moment in American politics.
All this happened in a country where there was such a straightjacket on acceptable political discourse in the USâ€”what a politician or media pundit can say, without being immediately written off as lunatic fringeâ€”that the views of very large segments of the American public simply are never voiced at all. To give a sense of how radical is the disconnect between acceptable opinion, and the actual feelings of American voters, consider a pair of polls conducted by Rasmussen, the first in December 2008, right after Obama was elected, the second in April 2011. A broad sampling of Americans were asked which economic system they preferred: capitalism, or socialism? In 2008, 15% felt the USA would be better off adopting a socialist system; now, three years later, the number has gone up, to one in five. Even more striking was the breakdown by age: the younger the respondent, the more likely they were to reject a capitalist system. Among Americans between 15 and 25, a thin plurality still preferred capitalism: 37%, as opposed to 33% in favor of socialism (the rest were unsure). But think about what this means here. It means that almost two thirds of Americaâ€™s youth think it might be a good idea to jettison the capitalist system entirely! This in a country where most have never seen a single politician, TV pundit, or mainstream â€œexpertâ€ use the term â€œsocialismâ€ as anything but a term of condescension and abuse. Granted, for that very reason, itâ€™s hard to know exactly what young people who say they prefer â€œsocialismâ€ actually think theyâ€™re embracing. Presumably not an economic system modeled on that of North Korea. What then? Sweden? Canada? Itâ€™s impossible to say. But in a way itâ€™s also beside the point. Most Americans might not be sure what socialism is supposed to be, but they do know a great deal about capitalism, and if â€œsocialismâ€ means anything to them, it means â€œsomething, pretty much anything, other than that!â€
In 2008, young Americans preferred Obama to McCain by a rate 68% to 30â€”again, an approximately 2/3 margin.
How, then, do you expect a young American voter to feel, after casting a vote for a fundamental change to our political and economic system, on discovering that in fact, they have elected a man who twenty years ago would have been considered a moderate conservative?
I mean that word, â€œconservative,â€ in its literal sense by the way. This literal sense is now rarely used. Nowadays, in the US, â€œconservativeâ€ has come to mean â€œright-wing radical,â€ but it used to mean someone whose main political imperative is to conserve existing institutions, more or less exactly as they areâ€”and this is precisely what Obama has turned out to be. Almost all his greatest political efforts have been aimed in one way or another at preserving some institutional structure under threat of radical transformation: the banking system, the auto industry, even the health insurance industry, since Obamaâ€™s main argument in pushing for health care reform was that the US health care system, based on for-profit, private insurers, was not economically viable over the long term, and indeed, what he ended up doing was preserving exactly that for-profit system in a way that it might endure for at least another generation. Considering the state of the US economy in 2008, it required genuinely heroic efforts not to change anything. Yet Obama did expend those heroic efforts, and the result was no structural change in existing institutions of any kind at all.