Reprinted below is a comment I was in the process of leaving on a talkback about the "Occupy Wall Street" movement on BAD as word was coming down (and continues to come down) that protesters at Occupy Boston are being beaten and overwhelmed by the Boston Police. Not a good night here, obviously...
These things are always tough for me, in the macro, because my commitment to clear reason (call it "cynicism" if you like) doesn't permit me to dial-back my overall-negative assessment of humanity when it's a swath of humanity I'm sympathetic too; as is the case here.
My cold-water-in-the-face "read" of this "Occupy" business is that it IS the "left" version of the Mark I "Tea Party" business: largely fueled by not-particularly-sharp folks with a simple-to-nonexistent grasp of politics getting smacked in the face all at once by the realization that The System is FUCKED and reacting by focusing the blame on whatever their vague political/personal prejudices already had them seeing as The Bad Guys - i.e. the Teabaggers reflexively blamed minorities, gays, non-christians and foriegners; the kids at Occupy reflexively blamed "Corporate America." Yes, the INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT distinction is that "Occupy Wall Street's" choice of bad guy actually IS The Bad Guy; but I'm unable to fully "get down" for the romanticism of it. I don't "like" looking at it that way - as I'm typing this, the news is coming in that the Occupy Boston crowd is getting savaged by the cops and I'm pissed as HELL about it - but there you go.
Just as the Teabaggers hadn't existed for long before they became (largely) unwitting-dupe mercenaries for the GOP; if these kids can hold out maybe, just maybe, some form of leadership can either emerge-from or "hook up" with them and they can be an instrument of ensuring the all-important goal of preventing "conservatives" from attaining one more shred of power or influence until the ability of their policies and beliefs to do lasting damage has been permanently (constitutionally?) shielded against.
I know whose side I'm on.
I stand by that, overall - being unromantic about something doesn't mean you can't be sympathetic toward it and vice-versa. Is "Occupy Wall Street" primarily just vauge, petulant anger at "the man?" Yes, I think it is. Is there any kind of important, cogent political/philosophical "point" to be had from it? Not really, no. BUT! Are they are at least aiming their anger in the right direction? YES. Should they be getting bludgeoned by cops? NO. Do they have my support, whatever little it's worth? ABSOLUTELY.