Hipsters and Occupy Wall Street

Freddie deBoer lights up an unsuspecting hipster in his uniquely beautiful, brutal way:

The idea that the Occupy protests have no core complaints is and has always been a pure media phenomenon. It is an invention, fobbed off on people like Tom Bridge or Beardo McNotFunny here by a media that plays them for fools. I’ll say it again– there are those who are so deeply savvy that they become immeasurably stupid. (Think almost everyone who writes for New York magazine.) Here’s all you need to know. For the large majority of our country’s people, the engine of economic improvement has stalled. You can look at any chart of inflation-adjusted dollars and see that for the average American worker wages have been stagnant since the early 1980s. Meanwhile, for a tiny sliver of our population, wealth has exploded beyond the dreams of avarice during the same period. And this sliver represents the same people who ruined the economy and cast millions into unemployment. What Occupy represents is the loud and angry reaction to that fact. 

Earlier in the piece, deBoer argues that “Occupy represents…the death of the idea that you can be protected from political impotence by apathy and your cultural convictions.”

And while I hope that he’s right, I’m still not convinced. At its best, that sort of hipster rebuke might be in the cards. The Occupy Movement might be the resuscitation of a meaningful grassroots Left. There’s evidence giving reason for hope. But…

At its worst, Occupy actually represents the idea that politics can be practiced without any content in our convictions. The protesters have “core complaints,” indeed. There’s no serious—empirical, philosophical, or otherwise—rejoinder to deBoer’s indictment of the failure of American social and economic policies. The problem is that Occupy isn’t making that case in any new, substantive way. Take this example, from Washington City Paper‘s Lydia DePillis:

The explicitly political content of the occupation shows up on signs and during daily forays into surrounding areas for protests. But the occupiers don’t actually spend much time talking about what they want from government. Having specific demands would just legitimize the system, some say—not to mention alienate participants who might not agree with them, and set the standards by which they might succeed or fail.

Leaving aside fair complaints about the “some say” modifier and all the concomitant caveats about general trend reporting, DePillis’ summary matches my experience with the DC protests. Occupy isn’t exactly ringing with convictions here in DC.

In a desperately sad way, Occupy could prove to be the perfect embodiment of the current American Left: aimless, furious, politically skeptical, and rhetorically incoherent.

This isn’t something that I celebrate. It takes up a good chunk of my professional life. On the balance, I still prefer American politics with the Occupy Movement than without it. I just remain skeptical that it’s a movement with the momentum that the Left so desperately needs.