Occupy Everywhere
December 1, 2011
Reflections on the movement from the Washington Program
To say that Washington lives and breathes politics is not an exaggeration – and as a self-declared political nerd, I have finally found my place. Here in D.C., I have debated the intentions of the Founding Fathers with my fellow pocket Constitution-toting politicos. I have discovered the intricacies of U.S. foreign policy and the federal budget in a classroom of Claremont’s finest. I have seen (and heard) all forty vehicles of the presidential motorcade race down the street too many times to count, and I’ve attended numerous Congressional hearings on national security and foreign assistance.
Yet, with nearly a semester of experiences such as these behind me, it’s too easy to let Washington’s charm wear off, and to begin to take it all for granted. Luckily, every time I walk out of my office and catch a glimpse of the White House, I am reminded that I’m in the political center of the world. As I push through the crowds of tourists and Secret Service agents that enshrine 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it’s a rare day when I am not greeted by picket signs and slogans.
As anyone whose so much as visited D.C. knows, protests are as integral to the experience here as the Metro and Georgetown Cupcake. Demonstrations abound. Everywhere you look, people are seized with a Thoreauvian desire to fight injustice in one form or another. On my lunch break alone, I’ve born witness to an anti-Ahmadinejad campout, an “Obama is a war criminal” march, a duct-tape-over-the-mouth pro-life rally and, for the past two months, the infamous Occupy D.C. encampment.
What clearly sets the Occupy D.C. protesters apart from the others I have observed is their persistence. While the “Obama is a war criminal” marchers, for example, were here one day and gone the next, the “occupiers,” as they have come to be known, are in it for the long haul. McPherson Square in downtown Washington is now home to an encampment of more than one hundred occupiers, complete with a food service operation, two generators, a medical and dental tent, and even a library. The occupiers aren’t leaving anytime soon.
The ongoing Occupy movement has given a modern face to bold, symbolic dissent. The occupation has catalyzed debate, challenged the inertia of the status quo, and refused to acquiesce in the face of injustice. The occupiers have brought to the surface questions of equity, inequality, and the power of corporations and financial institutions in politics.
Until last week, I stood behind these goals of the Occupy movement, and fully sympathized with the protesters. Given the chance, I had even considered joining in during my lunch break. However, when the Occupy D.C. protesters wrongly occupied my building, my opinion of the movement was drastically altered.
On a Thursday morning like any other at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), about twenty-five occupiers arrived outside the building. Accompanied by droves of police officers and a model of a foreclosed home, the occupiers marched to the offices of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) – or so they thought. They chanted repeatedly, “human needs, not corporate greed,” and demanded that the federal agency responsible for overseeing the housing market do more to help homeowners who are “underwater.” My co-workers and I watched unimpressed from the third floor window as the “occupation” wore on for thirty more minutes. Eventually, the protesters realized their mistake and left, but not before shouting into a megaphone that they were headed to the “other FHFA building.” In that moment, my respect for the occupiers was substantially diminished.
Ironically, CFR is a non-profit, and more representative of the 99 percent than the 1 percent. Although the FHFA offices are around the corner from CFR, this organizational blunder demonstrates the evolving face of the movement. While it started with passion and clarity, as the weeks wear on, the Occupy movement has become so decentralized and unwieldy that its original vision has been compromised. The Occupy movement will likely continue into the coldest months of winter, but it may have already seen its organizational and effectual peak. Sadly, I’ll be leaving Washington at the end of the semester, but the occupiers won’t be going anywhere anytime soon.
Related Posts
5 Responses to “Occupy Everywhere”
Leave a Reply
Claremont Port Side (CmontPortSide)
Claremont, CA
553 followers
804 tweets
Tweeting since July 27, 2009
Latest Articles
CMC Financial Aid Changes
CMC has changed its financial aid policy to allow up to $4,000 in loans in its financial aid packages starting with the class of 2018. The Port Side takes a look into the reasoning and ramifications behind this policy change.
Tenure at the Claremont Colleges
The Port Side published an infographic spread on tenure at the 5Cs in our last print issue. Here, we go in-depth into who gets tenure at the Claremont Colleges.
Pomona Dining Hall Workers Vote to Unionize
This past Tuesday, Pomona College's 83 dining hall workers voted in favor of union representation. They now look to work out a new contract with the college administration. What do the workers hope to gain from this new contract, and how is national organization UNITE HERE involved? We've got all the details after the jump.
Exploring Online Education
Over the past decade, technological advancements have opened up new possibilities for the future of education. Maryl Evans explains some of the pros and cons of bringing the internet into the classroom.
Prof. Segal on SJP Incident: An Open Letter to CMC Faculty
In this open letter sent to CMC faculty, Prof. Segal weighs in on the administration's report on the confrontation between Najib Hamideh PZ '15 and CMC Professor Yaron Raviv. He claims the report ignores key facts and blames the incident's victims, the SJP demonstrators.
CMC Campus Climate Report
The CMC Campus Climate Task Force recently released a report of its findings and detailed a series of affirmations and recommendations for CMC.
An administrative mistake that interrupted your workday for 30 minutes causes you to drop your support for a movement that has “brought to the surface questions of equity, inequality, and the power of corporations and financial institutions in politics”? Seriously?
You must have had an awfully strong reaction to the “unfortunate incident” in which NATO forces killed six Afghan children last week. At the very least, you’ve dropped your support for Barack Obama, right?
PS: The Council on Foreign Relations is “more representative of the 99 percent than the 1 percent”? Are you serious? Just look at the CFR’s Board of Directors. It includes our near and dear friends Pam Gann and Henry Kravis, both of whom are pretty clearly members of the “1%.” Not to mention the current/former CEOs of Caterpillar and FedEx and billionaires like Penny Pritzker and David Rubenstein. These folks’ wealth doesn’t make them evil or anything, but they sure aren’t the 99%.
Great article Sara!
To the person above, I do not believe Sara stated in her article that she ever dropped support for the movement she merely explained that her opinion of the occupiers had been changed and I believe rightfully so. The occupy movement is far from perfect and of all of the places in Washington DC to occupy, the Council on Foreign Relations should be towards the bottom of the list especially since these people do not in fact impact any legislation that would perhaps change the situation for the 99%. Regardless of their influential board of directors, the Council on Foreign Relations is a non-profit and provides educational opportunities and advocates for foreign policy as well as publishes Foreign Affairs. The CFR publishes significant research that is publicly available, hence not catering to the 1% but the 99%. If you understood DC and how our political system actually works you would understand Sara’s article and message. Before you take on a well-writen article self-righteously for the sake of defending causes you cannot even define maybe you should check your facts.
Also, what does NATO killing six Afghanistan children last week have anything to do with what was written? If you knew Sara, you would know she is in is very interested in IR and likely read 4 articles about it before you knew it happened and is a strong supporter of Barack Obama.
And let me guess…you were one of the people protesting Condoleezza Rice last night and you’re probably #occupyingclaremont?
The Afghanistan thing is about consistency. If honest mistakes — as OccupyDC showing up at the CFR surely was — is sufficient reason to “substantially diminish” your respect for a group, then the honest mistake (or worse, negligence) of NATO forces killing Afghani children should likewise be sufficient reason to “substantially diminish” your respect for the person ultimately responsible. And that person is Barack Obama.
I do understand how our political system works and the CFR’s role in it. I think you don’t: you simultaneously say that the CFR “do[es] not in fact impact any legislation that would perhaps change the situation for the 99%” but that they “publishes significant research.” I don’t think they can be significant if they don’t impact anything… Or do you think that their work on foreign policy doesn’t affect unemployment or economic justice? On the contrary, I think America’s free trade deals (which lack serious environmental and worker protections) and numerous wars and “kinetic military actions” in the Middle East do have an effect on the domestic economy.
And no, no protests for me.
Hey seriously, what about an Islam whose core belief structure places women below men, encourages honor killings, beheading those who do not believe as you, and the Ayatollah running Iran say things like Israel must be destroyed and all Jews along with it. . . .
Do you not see that just maybe we might be a little better than they are?
The NATO killing babies chant is drawing a little cold when one billion people live under threat of death by stoning for being homosexual, allowing abortions, drinking liquor or that horror of horrors, being Christian. There is no Occupy movement in any Islamic nation. Period. If women appeared to Occupy areas in a protest with men they would be arrested and tortured — look very carefully at those photos of the Arab spring . . .
There is not a single Liberal icon who is not clearly and carefully ensconced in the 1% economically. Obama. Gore. The Clintons. The Hollywood idiots. Michael Moore – all of them and one of them – 1% ers.
As I have said before – cui bono. Who benefits. Answer that question for any person advancing or opposing a cause and there is your logic and form there – you can figure out for yourself which side you want to support . . .
“what about an Islam whose core belief structure places women below men”
What about Christianity which also places women below men?
“the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”—1 Corinthians 11:7 – 9*
Religious fundamentalism is religious fundamentalism, Christian or Islamic. Just as there are Islamic fundamentalists who take their religion literally, there are Christian fundamentalists who do the same. Both (and all) religions contain potential justification for atrocities. Claiming that Christainity/the West are inherently “better” shows a blatant disregard for values other than your own, not to mention your use of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’ demonstrates your inability to recognize that most Americans do not support a religious crusade against Islam.