Rod Dreher

What it means to miss New Orleans

The public turns on OWS

By Rod Dreher • November 16, 2011, 3:33 PM

According to a new survey, public support for the Occupy movement has dropped sharply. Who paid for this poll? Some right-wing nut-job think tank? No, the leftie website DailyKos:

“What the downturn in Occupy Wall Street’s image suggest is that voters are seeing the movement as more about ‘Occupy’ than ‘Wall Street’: The controversy over the protests is starting to drown out the actual message,” wrote Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling.

In the latest survey, 33 percent voiced support for Occupy Wall Street, down from 35 percent in a previous poll, while opposition to the movement climbed from 36 percent to 45 percent. Twenty-two percent were unsure.

The poll asked: “Do you have a higher opinion of the Occupy Wall Street movement or the Tea Party movement?” Forty-three percent opted for Tea Party, 37 percent for the occupiers.

“These are rough numbers for Occupy Wall Street: The particularly painful part is falling behind the Tea Party,” Chris Bowers wrote on the dailykos.com web site, which sponsored the poll. Dailykos.com has been outspoken in its support for the occupiers.

Jensen reported, however, that public support remains high for raising taxes on the wealthy and taking away their multiple tax breaks.

It’s what I’ve been saying here for some time. People agree, generally, with the goals of Occupy. They just don’t like the movement itself. Why do you suppose that is? Why, oh why? How many people are going to show up in the combox thread blaming America for failing Occupy, instead of Occupy for failing to build on popular support for its worldview, and instead focusing on this hippy-dippy downtwinkles crap, maintaining pointless hobo encampments, and in one crackpot Seattle case, alienating allies for no good reason?

The Tea Party is now more popular than Occupy. Think about that.

28 Responses to The public turns on OWS

Brian says:

November 16, 2011 at 3:50 pm

“People agree, generally, with the goals of Occupy.”
Actually, I think this is quite wrong. I think people agree with the main complaint of OSW, which is that the government has unjustly favored Wall Street’s specific interests over the general welfare of the country. But the “goals of Occupy”, to the extent that there are any, seem to lie somewhere along the spectrum between garden variety conventional liberal solutions and barking mad lefty lunacy. If Occupy had kept to their complaints, and knew how to keep its assorted hangers-on well behaved, it’d be doing fine, but it could do neither, and now the American public is sick of it.

Which is a shame, because there’s lots of important stuff that OWS and TP folks could agree on, if either of these “movements” were like normal political parties directed by leaders who actually want to get stuff done. Stuff like making student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, ending tax laws that specifically benefit big corporations at the expense of small businesses and self-employed (such as treating benefits equally, etc.).
Polichinello says:

November 16, 2011 at 3:57 pm

This generation’s version of Kent State:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDu0HKyzQIU&feature=player_embedded

“OWSER! OWSER!! A guy in bike shorts pepper sprayed me! OWSER! YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!” *stomp*
Jen says:

November 16, 2011 at 4:19 pm

I agree with Brian – Other than my radically left-leaning friends, I don’t know a single soul who supports the goals of OWS — but I do know lots of regular, mainstream folks who do empathize with and share many of the complaints/concerns.

I’ve had this conversation with the hard left-leaning friends who are participating in OWS — that yes, Wall Street is gaming the system, and the government is pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street, but no – I am not in favor of taxing the rich at a higher rate, but I AM in favor of closing loopholes that only the rich can afford to exploit (by hiring tax attorneys or accountants to interpret the snarled tax code that is incomprehensible to the rest of us). And so forth and so on. Many of us agree on what the problems are, but we’re not necessarily on board with OWS ‘s version how these should be solved, even assuming you can get them to articulate what the solution should be in the first place.
Charles Cosimano says:

November 16, 2011 at 4:26 pm

This is really no surprise.
K. W. Jeter says:

November 16, 2011 at 4:36 pm

“If Occupy had kept to their complaints, and knew how to keep its assorted hangers-on well behaved, it’d be doing fine, but it could do neither, and now the American public is sick of it.”

That would be the difference, all right, between OWS and the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era. The latter was essentially managed behind the scenes by old-school Trotskyists who had gained their chops during the great labor struggles of previous decades. Those were hard men, not softie hippies, and they not only kept “assorted hangers-on” well-behaved, they also eliminated them when necessary. I was there and saw it happen, and even participated in the process. Harsh, but necessary.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

November 16, 2011 at 4:42 pm

“If Occupy had kept to their complaints, and knew how to keep its assorted hangers-on well behaved, it’d be doing fine.”

This is true, as is Rod’s basic overview, but how does a movement keep its assorted hangers-one well behaved?

This is starting to sound like a 21st century update of Lenin’s critique of spontaneity in the mass movement. Now getting the right mix of sober planning, and free flow of genuine spontaneous popular grievances, without turning things over to a cabal of either would-be empire builders or simply con-men, that’s a tall order.
Ken Hoop says:

November 16, 2011 at 4:59 pm

Seriously, you folks could benefit by reading the discussion about OWS by sophisticated vet lefty Welsh and his commentors.

http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-occupy-education-continues/

Ian Welsh permalink*
November 15, 2011
These things play out over time. The elites are creating a radical cadre opposed to them, and creating the supporting class. That won’t come to fruition for years, but it is stupid.

Bloomberg had to remove OWS because he didn’t initially pat them on the head and smile. Once he backed down once, he had to come in brutally later. Once you decide to be a thug, you have to go whole thug.

And yes, in their own way, people like Quan (particularly, because she was regarded as a real leftwinger) and Bloomberg are doing us a huge favor. Amazing, really.

“Ian Welsh permalink*
November 16, 2011
Occupy has changed public conciousness? No. It hasn’t. It has changed the conciousness of a small part of the public, and that’s what matters. And what it is changing for them is the understanding that the elites don’t play by the rules and that asking nicely won’t work.
Anglican says:

November 16, 2011 at 5:04 pm

Yep, some of the criticisms that the OWS people had where and are legit. But they themselves are utterly worthless back wash, who went out of their little ways to alienate anybody who isn’t some sort of misfit.
Thomas O. Meehan says:

November 16, 2011 at 5:13 pm

OWS was doomed from the start by their choice of location alone. It was only a matter of time before street people and criminals infiltrated the camp and put their own distinctive stamp on things. And I say that’s all for the good. even the best these people are ignorant fools seeking to redistribute wealth. Members of the tax recipient class, They are howling for our stuff.

Yet I am sorry that the police moved in when they did. A another week, and the public at large would have come to despise them. As Napoleon said, “Never interfere with your enemy while he is making a mistake.” Now they can depict themselves as victims.
Suz says:

November 16, 2011 at 5:33 pm

I agree with Brian. OWS doesn’t have much in the way of goals, and judging by the active protesters, their main goal is anarchy. OWS sympathizers and the Tea Party do have in common the understanding of the root causes of what is wrong. If the Tea Party had the guts to break ties with the Republican Machine, I honestly believe millions of moderates would join as fast as they could.

And yes, both groups lack leadership. I personally hope that the Tea Party soon finds some leaders who are not funded by the usual suspects. I know it will take time, but it appears that they are far likelier to do so than OWS.
Ben says:

November 16, 2011 at 6:16 pm

So we went from “the protesters don’t have goals” to “the public agrees with the protester’s goals” to “the public disagrees with the protester’s goals” in what, a couple of weeks? I honestly don’t know what to make of any of it.
Rod Dreher says:

November 16, 2011 at 6:22 pm

No, Ben, that’s not it. A few weeks ago, a large percentage of the public agreed with the general OWS critique of Wall Street (that is, that the financial sector has too much power, and is not accountable for what they do). But the constant problem with OWS is it didn’t articulate any demands. There was no way to know what they wanted to see happen. Eventually it appeared to many people that the protest, however well intentioned, had no definable (therefore achievable) goals. And then all the stupid hippy stuff took over the narrative.
Andrea says:

November 16, 2011 at 6:24 pm

My dad responded to the protests by reminiscing with amused horror about how he was invited to participate in a “love-in” by some long-haired hippies in L.A. in 1968. I really can’t say I disagreed with him about the people in the park. These are my neo-hippie feminist, environmentalist, Amnesty International/Green Peace/Gaia worshiping college friends or their little brothers and sisters. My college friends were never all that successful at organizing an event and I didn’t see any sign that the Operation Wall Street people were going to get much done either. I don’t disagree with them about the problems with student loan debt and corporate profits, etc., but I’m not interested in a total overthrow of the system or outright anarchy either. Maybe someone will come forward with a little more sense.
Nixon is Lord says:

November 16, 2011 at 6:35 pm

People were becoming less sympathetic as the percentage of smelly and weirdly-behaving people at these sites increased. Plus there were stories of assault told by the OWS people themselves which makes it look like something dangerous and pointless.
Ben says:

November 16, 2011 at 6:37 pm

That was actually a helpful summary. Thank you.
Nick K. says:

November 16, 2011 at 7:07 pm

OWS has been making an effort to burn up as much public support as it possibly can. Even here in left-leaning Portland, most people are fed up with the occupiers. Our liberal mayor finally gave the order last weekend to evict the two large illegal Occupy encampments in our city center. If people in Portland are done with OWS, then you can be sure no one else in the country has any patience for it now either.
JustMe says:

November 16, 2011 at 7:08 pm

Rod has spilled a lot of ink here about the outrage he has felt about OWS, but he’s been relatively silent and not at all bothered by the militaristic violence and abrogation of the rights of the press of property involved. And while I do not feel the same way he does, and my moral priorities are directed in another direction, I understand where he’s coming from.

For example, the public overwhelmingly blamed the victims of Kent State, many of whom were bystanders not associated with the protest at all, rather than the misbehavior of the National Guard, for their sin of being shot. One might argue that the line between civilization and anarchy depends on a public willingness to place our faith and loyalty to the authorities with the guns. Sometimes, the government needs to use violence to stop protesters, and innocents and the press and many of our concepts like “freedom” and “personal property” might have to take a back seat. Our willingness to stand by authorities even when they’re wrong can be said to serve a public purpose, here. We’d be facing a total breakdown of public trust in authorities if the public took the side of OWS here, which strikes me as sort of un-conservative, which reveres our established institutions, like Wall Street and police forces, over ad-hoc ones, like protesters.

It’s like how yo If we focused our anger at wall street or Bloomberg, it would just turn us into the targets of public violence and mockery. u kind of chuckled when that socially-awkward kid from the poor family got taunted in school. Sure, you felt sorry for him, kinda, but he was kind of annoying, and someone needs to be the scapegoat, and you need to show you’re on the side of the “respectable” crowd in school, especially if you don’t have a lot of social capital to draw on.

We might be appalled at this level of militaristic violence and destruction over… well, a bunch of camping protesters, instead of being appalled at the protesters themselves, but if you speak out against that, you’re lashing out against duly elected authorities, and that can only lead to bad things. Let’s just be happy we picked the right scapegoats: harmless protesters.
Charles Cosimano says:

November 16, 2011 at 7:16 pm

It was never more than a peculiarly malodorous outpouring of hot air and it should been eliminated long ago. Still, it would have been fun to see them in the winter freezing to death.
Cannoneo says:

November 16, 2011 at 8:17 pm

I’m quite optimistic that if the encampment phase is indeed petering out, that the committed, organized, and globally networked core will build a more agile movement. If people really do agree with their complaints — and as Rod pointed out, most people actually agree with their positive goals of taxing the rich and taming the banks — then at some point these bystanders will have to stop with the social contempt and explain what they are doing to advance their own stated beliefs.
Ignominious says:

November 16, 2011 at 8:27 pm

Brian: I think people agree with the main complaint of OSW, which is that the government has unjustly favored Wall Street’s specific interests over the general welfare of the country. But the “goals of Occupy”, to the extent that there are any, seem to lie somewhere along the spectrum between garden variety conventional liberal solutions and barking mad lefty lunacy.

I wonder. If from a bygone era William Jennings Bryan could somehow come back, could he have rallied broadly popular support for curtailing the influence of Wall Street?

Would he have said “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of Credit Default Swaps.”
Nemesis says:

November 16, 2011 at 9:27 pm

The Tea Party and OWS must stay alive and collaborate at least to the point of removing their respective incompetents and criminals from office.

Like the Tea Party, OWS knows something smells bad but they haven’t quite tracked it to specific sources. The camps are OK as a visible sign of revulsion and anger, but what is really needed is prosecutions and law suits. Those college students should be researching the activities of individual brokers and brokerages, helping prosecutors come up with solid cases. The government should be drowning in FOI Act requests
Sundown says:

November 16, 2011 at 9:31 pm

JustMe,
Thank you for reminding us of this violence that many police agencies are engaging in. Just recently, some cops felt the need to pepper-spray an 84 year old woman in Seattle. Seriously. Whatever your thoughts are regarding the Occupy movement as a whole, even if you disagree with everything they stand for, there is NO excuse for this brutality.
TWylite says:

November 16, 2011 at 9:50 pm

Nemesis has the right idea. The viral Venn diagrams that showed the overlap between the Tea Party and Occupiers illustrates the only valid reason for both movements’ continued existence: to fight against the kleptocratic collusion of big business (particularly finance) and big government. The rest of what they stand for is just the usual right or left wing noise: totally irrelevent moral narcissism.
Todd says:

November 16, 2011 at 10:27 pm

“The Tea Party is now more popular than Occupy. Think about that.”

Okay.

If OWS were running for political office, they would hire an image consultant, and position themselves with lobbyists to outmaneuver the TP.

I think there are a lot of media savvy people who want to go Animal Farm on general public. And they know how to do it fairly effectively.
Andrea Francine says:

November 16, 2011 at 11:47 pm

While I was never quite a supporter of the OWS protests, I thought much of the anger was on the side of the angels but the solutions, such as they were, were not exactly shaming the devil. (The answer to Wall Street corruption is not more money and power concentrated in the hands of elected officials and government bureaucrats who are all but owned by Wall Street.)

So when the protests were about the State-sponsored corruption on Wall Street, I could see having common cause; however, but I stopped taking the movement seriously as a whole when its message shifted to a resounding “Gimme.” Then OWSers resembled not the self-anointed champions of the so-called 99%, but rather over-indulged children, Veruca Salt in legion, who having encountered circumstances not entirely to their liking do what all spoiled children do – throw prolonged public tantrums. The image was reinforced with every report of OWSers referring to the homeless and hungry as “freeloaders” and turning them away from their food service lines. And when off-site they availed themselves of resources at shelters (over the pleas of those who operate them) that are meant for the actual poor and destitute. They ought to have been loath to take from those who already have nothing, but apparently social justice in the OWS is a “me-first” proposition.

As is the way with these sorts of things, The Cause is more important than actual human beings. (Which goes to why some OWS leaders were allegedly urging victims and witnesses of assault to not report attacks to the police.)

I am sure there are still many peaceful, principled protestors but it is hard to hear them over the cries of “mic check” and calls for revolution, violent if need be. (I really hope that the peaceful voices win out, especially tomorrow, which is supposed to be another big day in the movement. I fear more police crackdowns will have consequences beyond OWS.)

My growing cynicism of the OWS movement aside, I just recently started reading your blog, Mr. Dreher, and I have really enjoyed your protest coverage as well as the other items that occupy (sorry for the pun, it was inevitable) your thoughts. Thank you.
Pingback: The American Conservative » Daily Round-up: Kool-Aid Socialists, OWS Mocks Itself, Foreign Films & The Antiwar Mindset
michael says:

November 18, 2011 at 2:03 am

occupiers may be collectively capturing the record for most total media coverage, due cell phone cameras and the general flattening of journalists. that must play the psyche of all involved.

also a record for data communication.

these are very new components to movements and so far they have only been positive.
Pingback: The American Conservative » Weekly Round-up: Conservatism’s Clash with Evangelicals and Interventionism, Occupy Wall Street Losing Fans