Take the 2-minute tour ×
Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In September 2011 and onwards, Occupy Wall Street and its many spinoffs occupied squares all over the world. The meetings shared some degree of dissatisfaction with present systems, but clear aims were not really formulated, nor were there any clear leaders.

Now, we are more than a year further, and the question is: has anything changed? Apart from initiating limited debate on the financial system and related issues (for example, it triggered me to move part of my savings to an ethical credit union), has the Occupy movement had any lasting political influence?

For example, from this Huffington Post article: Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said:

"[W]e have to be careful not to allow this to get any legitimacy," he warned. "I'm taking this seriously in that I'm old enough to remember what happened in the 1960s when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy," he said. "We can't allow that to happen."

Indeed, the civil rights movement in the 1960's did influence policy. Is there any evidence that Occupy Wall Street has shaped any policy?

share|improve this question
    
You should probably define "tangible achievements" more specifically. –  DVK Dec 16 '12 at 21:58
1  
<comments removed> Please keep comments focused on improving the post and try to not to turn comment threads into miniature chat rooms. Thanks. –  Robert Cartaino Dec 18 '12 at 19:06
add comment

1 Answer

In a purely subjective way, based on my impressions from several visits to the NYC site, I do not think the various OWS happenings changed the minds of a significant number of people. In most instances, there were more curious onlookers and gawkers than actual occupiers. The occupiers did not seem to have coherent agendas. They seemed more to be gathering places for barely connected islands of opinion.

People who were already inclined to think that somehow, somewhere, someone owes them some money did not change their opinion. People who did not think that a sociology major with a concentration of revolutionary organizing was going to pay for $200K in student loans were not impressed.

They did form useful props for politicians who already espoused or supported similar views in the first place.

share|improve this answer
    
OWS was not really about money, though. Your link seems to show that. But I agree with your point about gathering places. –  gerrit Dec 18 '12 at 9:43
2  
@gerrit - a large portion of OWS demands were about "gimme this for free". College loans, college education, loan forgiveness... –  DVK Dec 18 '12 at 18:38
    
To me the only coherent message seemed to be "We like protesting and are trying to relive the 60's" –  JohnFx Dec 19 '12 at 2:48
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.