From a macro standpoint, there's a couple of ways of looking at the Occupy Wall Street protest: one has to do with the messaging and goals of the protest, the question of what constitutes "success."
The other is a far more practical question around the physical presence of the protest in a park downtown.
I may not be thrilled with the underlying question of what the protestors - and by extension, much of the angry left - want to accomplish... but I'm not a particaularly vocal opponent of the physical protest. The camping out, the drum circles, the marching to and fro... the energy of it is undeniable. And the presence of the protestors, clearly, has forced a flummoxed media, and (to some extent) a flummoxed group of leaders to notice that in fact all is not remotely well.
Indeed, as I've said before, I think the problem the protest faces is that these two elements - the energy of the presence and the void in the messaging and demands - are the real conflict that the Occupy protests struggle with. Lots of people - me included - genuinely want to support this... as soon as we're clear on just what "this" is.
Today, we will see what unfolds between the OWS protestors and City government, which has decided that today needs to be the day that Zucotti Park - a private park space run by one of the major real estate concerns - will be cleaned. The City says the Park will be cleaned in stages, the protestors are convinced that this is a fabricated excuse to try and push the protests out. Protestors also point to volunteer efforts to clean the park, and have called for addtional people to be present this morning to try and deter efforts to move them.
In short, this morning has the makings of a major standoff, with the attendant potential for things to go from bad to worse.
This isn't me trying to say the protestors are wrong to resist the "cleaning crew;" though I'm leery of agreeing to familiar notions of protestors=good, police=bad math. It's entirely possible that the net result will actually be more fizzle than conflict: the City could stand down, there could be a modest attempt to address some physical space concerns, there could be a lot of people waiting for a confrontation that never comes.
The underlying question of this standoff, and what will likely be future standoffs, though, will remain whatever happens today: Occupy Wall Street lasts until... just what, exactly? Until there's no longer an economic crisis? Until we no longer have banks? No more Wall Street? It's fine to say that this "leaderless" protest is "open ended"... but patience with this protest is not infinite (and I don't mean, in any sense, my own sense of exasperation that's defined my sense of it from the start). The world will not watch this protest forever, cheering on the triumph of the common people. Refusing to leave, refusing to move, refusing to set some terms... at some point, that leads to "enough is enough." Fall is here, and in short order things will get colder and wetter. What then?
The physical standoff today is, no doubt, important. It would be devastating if things devlove into violent confrontation, or even mass arrests. But the real standoff here is between the admirable energy of the physical protest, and the more philopsophical question of just what all this energy is meant to accomplish. Until that standoff is resolved, Occupy Wall Street can't really be seen having a victory, something that says, "we stayed out here until things changed." Getting to stay in place, getting to resist the "cleanup" effort, living to fight another day means maintaining a physical presence that much longer... until what?
Comments