The Problem With Occupy Wall Street
I went to the Occupy D.C. protests hoping to find a movement. Instead, I found people too disorganized and idealistic to actually change the things they criticized.
I went to the Occupy D.C. protests expecting to find enormous meaning.
Just that afternoon, I had received my first student-loan bill from Sallie Mae -- a slim, sinister white envelope that promised to strain my paycheck for the next 120 months. My roommate and I stood in the kitchen of our little basement apartment, comparing interest rates and repayment programs and wondering if this spelled the end of our modest social lives. We had a similar conversation when we got our first paychecks and saw the chunk that disappeared to taxes. And we had commiserated when we looked at apartments -- dozens and dozens of apartments -- and, at 22 years old, never seemed to have enough credit to sign a lease.
These, of course, are relatively small concerns. Half our friends don’t even have jobs. Of the employed half, many work at cafes, bars or pawn shops. Their parents pay their rent. On Gchat and by phone, we talk about the slow progress of their searches: the endless applications, the dead-end interviews, the infinite, overwhelming frustration. Sometimes I feel guilty for having a job.
From just $107.88 $24.99 for Kiplinger Personal Finance
Be a smarter, better informed investor.

Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free Newsletters
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more - straight to your e-mail.
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice - straight to your e-mail.
But while signs on the perimeter of D.C.’s McPherson Square seemed to indicate that the Occupy protesters share my fears and concerns, I couldn’t figure out exactly what they want. The diffuse crowd of 150 occupiers represented a wide range of ideologies and political parties: socialists, libertarians, Tea Partiers, people who do not or cannot vote. A 25-year-old guy on a fixed-gear bike told me he didn’t go to college because he hated banks too much to take out a loan. (“Where’s your money?” I asked. “A shoebox,” he fired back.) A hyper college kid named Anthony saw me taking notes and offered to find me an authority to speak to.
“Just one thing,” he said. “Don’t write about how disorganized this is.”
But as I told Anthony then, and still believe now, disorganization seems like the hallmark of the Occupy movement. There exist no spokespeople, no leaders or organizers, to articulate the movement’s direction. In D.C., as in other parts of the country, occupiers make decisions entirely by consensus. One person (a "facilitator," never an “organizer") stands up and addresses the crowd, who make hand gestures to indicate approval or dissent. As a result, everyone has a literal hand in the process -- and the process is excruciatingly long.
To protesters, this faux-Athenian model sounds fairer and more representative than a representative system. But while consensus may work for 50 people sleeping in a park, there are a few key logistical differences between a modern social movement and a tribal village. Let’s imagine that the Occupy movement decides to draft an actual set of policies or goals. Will they convene protesters from all participating cities to weigh in on the process? Will they crowdsource it online? (Is that fair to the tens of millions of people in the 99% who can’t afford to access the Internet?)
Then again, the lack of specificity -- and the contradictory motives -- also serve as markers of the movement. Note the slogans that occupiers unite behind: “We are the 99 percent.” “Banks got bailed out, we got sold out.” They share a common frustration and the obvious, uncontroversial belief that the American financial system does not work for everyone. Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney called it a “generic liberal” agenda, a set of beliefs so vague that anyone can get behind them. Gregory Djerejian, writing on TheAtlantic.com, lauded the movement for its lack of concrete demands, which “might risk ideologically ring-fencing them.” But in the absence of both demands and political ideology, Occupy becomes a loose conglomeration of unlike-minded people, more a bandwagon than a unified movement.
In some respects, of course, that’s fine. If Occupy wants to be a “space of radical imagination,” in the words of one liberal blogger, where people can vent their collective frustration and disappointment, than it already succeeded.
But when I went to McPherson Square, I hoped to find a group of united, articulate, organized people who could actually address my student debt and the unemployment rate that keeps my friends from finding work. I found nothing of the sort. Without effective leadership and concrete demands, the Occupy movement -- at least in D.C. -- looks less egalitarian and more anarchic. On Twitter, the only coherent and oft-repeated sentiment is the need and desire for more pizza donations. In the square, people hold signs, some of them more intelligible than others, and chant about banks and big business and structural inequality. As much as I might sympathize with them, I can't get past the sense of futility.
“So would you describe the mood here as more socialist or libertarian?” I ask the petite, blue-eyed authority Anthony procured. “Do the occupiers want more government or less?”
"We want both," she says.
I pause. We just finished marching and it’s still hot outside, so maybe I misheard.
“Sorry,” I say. “I don’t get how that’s possible.”
"Well, it's not possible under the current system," she explains, patiently. "But we're interested in a new system where that would be possible. We want none of the bad and all of the good, basically."
“Oh. I see.” I don’t know what to say. “Well, that makes sense, I guess.”
And as much as the sentiment does make sense -- because we all want “all of the good,” don’t we? -- it doesn’t make sense at all.
Profit and prosper with the best of Kiplinger's advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and much more. Delivered daily. Enter your email in the box and click Sign Me Up.
-
Should You Buy Gold as It Tops $4,000? Here's What the Experts Say
Rate cuts, a weak dollar and macro uncertainty have helped create a "perfect storm" for gold this year. Should investors add exposure or is it too late to buy?
-
Another IRS 1099-K Threshold Change to Know for Your 2025 Taxes
Tax Law After years of uncertainty and changing requirements, the 1099-K reporting rules for 2025 are now set, and the thresholds have changed since last year.
-
Apple Readies for AI Upgrade with New iPhones
The Kiplinger Letter The tech giant has stumbled when it comes to artificial intelligence, but a new batch of iPhones will help it make headway.
-
Japan Enters a New Era of Risk and Reform
The Kiplinger Letter Japan has entered a pivotal moment in its economic history, undertaking ambitious policy and structural reforms to escape from decades of stagnation.
-
How Consumers Are Tinkering with Cutting-Edge AI
The Kiplinger Letter Companies launching artificial intelligence tools are jostling for consumer attention. Some products are already building a deep connection with users.
-
After Years of Stagnant Growth, Hope Emerges for EU Economy
The Kiplinger Letter Can a German fiscal push outweigh French political peril?
-
Small Businesses Are Racing to Use AI
The Kiplinger Letter Spurred on by competitive pressures, small businesses are racing to adopt AI. A recent snapshot shows the technology’s day-to-day uses.
-
How AI Puts Company Data at Risk
The Kiplinger Letter Cybersecurity professionals are racing to ward off AI threats while also using AI tools to shore up defenses.
-
AI Start-ups Are Rolling in Cash
The Kiplinger Letter Investors are plowing record sums of money into artificial intelligence start-ups. Even as sales grow swiftly, losses are piling up for AI firms.
-
What is AI Worth to the Economy?
The Letter Spending on AI is already boosting GDP, but will the massive outlays being poured into the technology deliver faster economic growth in the long run?