Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Sheilbh]

Really? What effect has street protest had in actually changing anything over the last few years?

I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.

[Malthus]

I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.

Funny, I thought they did that by grass-roots vote organizing and in effect infiltrating the Republican party.

Now I learn that they did that by protesting in the streets and getting "the man" to heed them.

[Berkut]

Really? What effect has street protest had in actually changing anything over the last few years?

I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.

Yeah, but not by incoherent babbling in giant mobs at random locations.

[crazy canuck]

It will look better when you have him join the random grumbler-bashing. 

There was nothing random in my bashing.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.

Not for the better.

[MadImmortalMan]

We're not talking about abortion anymore at least. There's that silver lining.

[Admiral Yi]

Not for the better.

Disagree.  The deficit is an issue now.  Before it wasn't.

[Jacob]

Not for the better.

Disagree.  The deficit is an issue now.  Before it wasn't.

Similarly, "corporate greed" and "irresponsible regulations" are issues now too; at least for the moment.

[fhdz]

We're not talking about abortion anymore at least. There's that silver lining.

Boy, isn't that the fucking truth?

[Ideologue]

I've been talking about aborting the Tea Party for the past six months.  Dibs on the skull scissors.

[Razgovory]

Really? What effect has street protest had in actually changing anything over the last few years?

I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.

Yeah, but not by incoherent babbling in giant mobs at random locations.

Actually, that's exactly what it was.

[Berkut]

Really? What effect has street protest had in actually changing anything over the last few years?

I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.

Yeah, but not by incoherent babbling in giant mobs at random locations.

Actually, that's exactly what it was.

Yes, if you define a voting place as a "random location".

[fhdz]

Actually, that's exactly what it was.

It's actually only a portion of what it was. The random mobs were able to mobilize voters and affect a real change. That change may or may not have been beneficial overall, but there was a much more concrete outcome than what we've seen out of OWS so far.

[Razgovory]

Yes, if you define a voting place as a "random location".

There hasn't been an election since this new movement came along.  Before the 2010 election there were lots of incoherent rambling in rallies across the US.

[Malthus]

Yes, if you define a voting place as a "random location".

There hasn't been an election since this new movement came along.  Before the 2010 election there were lots of incoherent rambling in rallies across the US.

What the Tea Party engages in is basically the process of politics as usual - rallies to mobilize support, getting sympathetic candidates nominated, etc.

In contrast, the whole point of demonstrations and "occupations" is that they are an alternative to politics as usual - an attempt to get the message out by way of direct action.

The reason the latter is less successful and influentual than the former is simple, and amply demonstrated by the contrast between the two movements: both are, to be blunt, portrayed as crazies by their opponents; but this doesn't matter nearly as much, where what you wish to do is exercise power through the political process - if you have enough like-minded "crazies" to vote your way.

It matters a lot where you are attempting to directly influence a hostile audience (in this case, allegedly "the man" or "ivory tower elites"). If the "man" or "elites" can successfully characterize your protest as the work of some dumpster-diving, tattooed professional anarchists, beggars and crazies, you have lost.