The HPR reports on a Forum discussion of the #Occupy protests.
5:56 Sarah Coughlon here! Really excited for the IOP’s discussion of the #Occupy protests. The speakers are: Marshall Ganz, Senior Lecturer in Public Policy at HKS; Todd Gitlin, Professor and Chair, PhD program, Columbia Journalism School; Ed Rendell, IOP Visiting Fellow, Governor of Pennsylvania (’03-’11), Mayor of Philadelphia (’92-’00), and Chair of the DNC (’99-’00); Vanessa Williamson, PhD Candidate in Government and Social Policy at HKS, co-author of “The Tea Party And The Remaking Of American Conservatism.”
5:57 Zeenia Framroze is here!
5:59 Zeenia – Sitting in the IOP, with a fairly sized crowd gathering. We’re looking forward to hearing from Ed Rendell who served as the 45th Governor of Pennsylvania from 2003 and 2011. A capable politician, no doubt, his popularity seems to stem from his frankness, political pragmatism and approachability. A faculty member at the Fels Institute of Government at UPenn, and a chair of the Team Pennsylvania Foundation, Rendell has proven himself to be both politically savvy and erudite. Having earned the nickname, “America’s Mayor,” from Al Gore, it will be interesting to see what his perspective on Occupy Wall Street will be, as a Pennsylvanian, and as an American.
6:09 Oh the trials of lapel microphones.
6:10 And we’re getting started. We’re getting a brief contextualization of Occupy Wall Street. “Polarizing issues otherwise muted, bringing to light issues often swept under the carpet,” is how some are describing it. Marshall Ganz asks, “Is it a movement or a moment?”
6:16 Introduction of the speakers. Each will comment for about five minutes, then they’ll open up the discussion.
6:18 Vanessa has a copy of the “Occupied Wall Street Journal” – love. She’s quick to point out the vast ideological gap between the Tea Party and Occupy: she says that the anti-Wall Street sentiment in the Tea Party is exaggerated.
6:19 Vanessa Williams: She’s visited Occupy Boston, and has been at Occupy Wall Street in this past week. She asserts that there are two main features that are particularly intriguing: the first is the degree of diversity on the ground,with veterans from university grads taking part in the movement. the second, is the level of organization. She tells us that they’re even publishing their own newspaper (“their own Wall Street Journal”).
6:19 History of the Tea Party from Williamson: she’s highlighting the differences in media treatment of the different movement, perhaps largely because left-wing media doesn’t have “the same coherent mobilizing structure as the right.”
6:20 Final note from Williamson: the Tea Party wanted to stop change, the Occupy protestors want to create it. The latter is a lot more difficult than the latter.
6:23 Todd Gitlin asks, “What took so long?” A poignant question that has few simple answers. Gitlin alludes to the degree of hurt that the American population is feeling. He says, “There are no formulas…nobody in the Social Sciences ever predicted the ’60s.” He believes that the movement is now going to force people to respond, not pontificate.
6:25 Gitlin describes the importance of organization. Will a hierarchal system be the most successful? Individual impulsive action? An interesting point that he makes about the timeframe of this movement – “If Obama hadn’t won the election, this would have happened two years.”
6:28 Excellent, here comes Rendell. He starts off with a bang, challenging one of Williams contentions. Rendell believes something needs to change, and that is as good a time for change as any. In Rendell’s opinion, it is the when the average, usually apathetic individual takes interest, and raises their voice, that change might actually be effected.
6:30 Rendell definitely behind the idea of protesting against rising economic equality: median income is falling, and that’s not right. However, he’s very concerned that they “be careful not to lose the support of Susie Housewife and Joe Sixpack” through violence.
6:31 Referring to the police-civilian clashes seen earlier in this week, Rendell warns the Occupy Wall Street protestors to steer clear of violence, thus keeping the inclusivity that Williams mentioned alive.
6:32 Rendell: The increased influence of special interests “absolutely disgraceful,” calls out Citizens United as decreasing our ability to monitor them (SuperPACs, non-disclosure). Also says that the only path to real campaign finance reform is to change the Constitution, though that it “awfully hard.”
6:35 Rendell draws an interesting parallel between the United States and Iran (Incidentally, he was interviewed yesterday about the Ahemedinajad’s remarks about the “American Arab Spring” that would lead to collapse). However, he makes the distinction that the United States has the institutions and structures in place to allow for reform, unlike the Iranian Republic.
6:36 Rendell sees the first step in overcoming special interests as voting: “The reason poor people – and I include the out-of-work middle class in that – is that a lot of us don’t vote.”
6:38 Marshall Ganz, the moderator, opens up the floor to questions (that seem to be assertions with a upward tone at the end. Or ending with a “Don’t you agree?” or “What do you think?”).
6:41 An interesting theme of today’s forum discussion in the IOP appears to be the issue of voter registration. ”If the members of Occupy Wall Street haven’t even registered, why should people be listening?”
6:42 Replying to Zeenia’s comment, I thought that Governor Rendell’s comments on voter suppression were very interesting – that’s an issue that the Democratic Party is really mobilizing against.
6:44 Gitlin (ever the academic, it seems) is most articulate about the factors affecting the movement. One of his more interesting comparisons was that of the current movement to the actual Obama election.
6:46 A visionary’s question: Should we have a third party in the American system? One that is not so polarized, one that doesn’t cater simply to swing states, one that (though it might not win in 2012) can actually appease Americans. Vanessa Williams responds to this by putting the Tea Party in this role (how this answers the “non-polarized” part of question, I don’t really know). She contends that perhaps an ideologically driven party, as opposed to party-driven, might actually accomplish something.
6:51 Gitlin (ever the academic, it seems) thinks that maybe we ought to take an approach to changing the constitution, instead of trying to subvert the presidential system. Rendell is painting a picture of the “Republican Apocalypse.” Rendell: “If you don’t like Obama, well he might turn out to be the last guardian to the gates of hell.”
7:00 7:01 Governor Rendell is ready to go Buffett (confronted with the 7% decrease in the median wage). Also, this is amusing. Williams has to leave early…she is now leaving…
7:01 We’ve well established that questions are difficult to ask and that Jeopardy is more fun with Alex Trebek than with IOP speakers… note to future Forum attendees: Please keep it short and avoid rants that end with “Do you agree?”
7:04 The Forum just ended with a “MIC CHECK!” for the People’s Mic, a sort of call-response form of communication that protestors use when they’re forbidden sound amplification. #OccupyTheForum
7:05 And now we’re moving to Occupy the Forum with some informal discussion. An interesting debate indeed, often too hypothetical, and perhaps pandering to the predominantly pro-Occupy audience. The panelists were all clearly coming from different backgrounds and perspectives, but it was clear that they all agreed that Occupy Wall Street seemed to be the culmination of years of American frustration with government. The future of the movement is uncertain: Will it retain it’s non-violent attitude? Will its diverse array of protestors succeed in maintaining their cohesiveness? Interesting questions that the next few weeks will surely address. Sarah and I had a great time! Wish you had been here!