We can't make it on our own (because our hearts are in Ohio)
It's been long enough since I thought of democracy as being interchangeable with freedom or liberty or other good words that it's taken me a few weeks to figure out two things. First, that the intellectual core of the Occupiers (one assumes that it, like any other movement, simply as a statistically observable property, has a core of coherent thinkers and a bunch of hangers-on) mean democracy when they say democracy, and not some less precise notion of equality or fairness. Second, that they mean democracy when they say democracy, and not some more precise assumption that democracy may be treated as code for a set of social policies that at least 51% of people in a democratic structure will support. Also, they probably mean democracy when they say democracy, and specifically not republicanism, which is to say they don't think of what they propose as a return to an American value. What I'm hearing is a desire for actual democracy - refreshing and way cool.
The latest instance was in Planet Money #312, wherein the hosts manage, as usual, to sound naive (they report without sarcasm, or much interest, that some dude wrote a program that solves the calculation problem) while being apparently competent. Their theme is: What do the Occupy peeps want? They boil it down, with the approval of a couple of interviewed Occupiers, to "a structure for people to bring their issues to and put them on" and "a venue, not a movement." The word "consensus" came up a lot, which I've been hearing a lot from Occupiers, along with "democracy."
I like this. I think part of the reason it took me a while to get it is that I was trying to figure out how it is any different from one strain - one fairly conventional out of the manifold strains - of libertarianism. The answer, to a first approximation, is that it's not.
By happy coincidence, the state the Free Staters chose is New Hampshire. I was in a room with one of their past presidents as he talked about the way Free Staters, even the very few who had moved of the eventual 20,000, had begun changing things. He was talking about the directly democratic small town meetings where there are no intervening representatives, where Joe Q. and Jane X. Public haggle over one line item in the budget. The existing culture and politics combined with the movement as defined are at least 80% of the way to having the structure the Occupiers want. There are differences among FSPers and Occupiers, but there are differences within both groups too, and both depend for their ability to continue existing as cohesive groups upon consensus.
And here's the thing. I'm not saying Occupiers should join FSP. What I'm struck by is how the kooky, wingnutty FSPers (I say with love!), viewed by most of society as at best eccentric, at worst insane, are downright respectable compared to the Occupy movement. I keep coming back to acting like a grown up - conform to convention enough to show that you're negatively capable and socially intelligent enough to do more than sleep in a tent and cry that the capitalists won't share their toys so you're ... having consensus meetings, or whatever, and marching to city hall in the middle of the workday.
I'm still thinking out loud - this is a process, not a conclusion. It's where I am.
The latest instance was in Planet Money #312, wherein the hosts manage, as usual, to sound naive (they report without sarcasm, or much interest, that some dude wrote a program that solves the calculation problem) while being apparently competent. Their theme is: What do the Occupy peeps want? They boil it down, with the approval of a couple of interviewed Occupiers, to "a structure for people to bring their issues to and put them on" and "a venue, not a movement." The word "consensus" came up a lot, which I've been hearing a lot from Occupiers, along with "democracy."
I like this. I think part of the reason it took me a while to get it is that I was trying to figure out how it is any different from one strain - one fairly conventional out of the manifold strains - of libertarianism. The answer, to a first approximation, is that it's not.
By happy coincidence, the state the Free Staters chose is New Hampshire. I was in a room with one of their past presidents as he talked about the way Free Staters, even the very few who had moved of the eventual 20,000, had begun changing things. He was talking about the directly democratic small town meetings where there are no intervening representatives, where Joe Q. and Jane X. Public haggle over one line item in the budget. The existing culture and politics combined with the movement as defined are at least 80% of the way to having the structure the Occupiers want. There are differences among FSPers and Occupiers, but there are differences within both groups too, and both depend for their ability to continue existing as cohesive groups upon consensus.
And here's the thing. I'm not saying Occupiers should join FSP. What I'm struck by is how the kooky, wingnutty FSPers (I say with love!), viewed by most of society as at best eccentric, at worst insane, are downright respectable compared to the Occupy movement. I keep coming back to acting like a grown up - conform to convention enough to show that you're negatively capable and socially intelligent enough to do more than sleep in a tent and cry that the capitalists won't share their toys so you're ... having consensus meetings, or whatever, and marching to city hall in the middle of the workday.
I'm still thinking out loud - this is a process, not a conclusion. It's where I am.