Perhaps it is the specific media coverage of the issue, but it does appear that the ‘Occupy’ movement is indeed fading away. All mass movements must fade away eventually, but sometimes they leave a noticeable impact on the world. I am not sure the ‘Occupy’ movement is leaving behind a specific impact. Certainly we heard their cries and their shouts. Many people, myself included agreed with the very essence of the message, which was that ‘have nots’ of the world are tired and frustrated with the treatment being metted out to them by those with the power and money. Their message of equality and social justice I am certain would resonate with the vast majority of people. 

However, their approach appears to be ineffective. It is their approach to the process that I feel will prevent the movement from having a lasting impact. An editorial in the USAToday, made just such an argument.

Tea Partiers, the conservative counterparts to the Occupiers, effectively used protests to establish themselves. This, plus a carefully crafted news media campaign, an explicit set of objectives and voter turnout drives, helped bring about conservative gains in the 2010 elections.

That is a useful model for the Occupiers. If their goal is to promote public policies that will lessen income inequality and punish bank misbehavior, the way to do it is to bring pressure where it matters most — at the ballot box.

That approach has been successfully deployed by liberal activists in Midwestern states angered by the work of Republican governors and legislatures. In Ohio, for instance, voters overturned a controversial law restricting collective bargaining for labor unions.

The demographics of the Occupy movement skew young. And young people have an abysmal track record of voting. Even in 2008, when the youth vote surged, it lagged the overall turnout. Then, in 2010, it fell off again, with just 21% of eligible voters ages 18 to 24 showing up, compared with more than 60% for voters 65 and older. That helps explain why Congress caters to seniors, as well as the wealthy interests that underwrite campaigns.

If the Occupiers want to do something useful, they should recruit candidates, get supporters to the polls and forget about the urban camping.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-09/Occupy-movement-wealth-income/53032740/1

The authors point is well received by me and I think the Occupy movement may want to take up this line activism. However, it is indeed possible that I am biased towards a strategy of activism and protestation that has been known to work in the past. It is indeed very possible that the Occupy movement has introduced the world to a very different way of obtaining change in the attitudes of people. Only the hindsight afforded by posterity, will inform as to whether the ‘Occupy’ movement was able to achieve anything significant. We wait and see.

An interesting point raised by a commentator for the above titled article in the New York Times. Published on November 4, 2011.

Waving one’s fingers in the air to agree or disagree might work in a group small enough to fit in a park, but it hardly runs a city much less a state or nation. To effect change, access and, yes, elected office become necessary. In recent years, California, with its referendum system, has involved the masses directly in policy making. That does not seem to work very well much of the time on a larger stage. 

Personally I think that while the 1%/99% is a catchy slogan, it is a distorted message. There is a vast range in that 99% from folks who are relatively affluent all the way down to the very poor - the needs, wants, and opinions of that large a group diverge in many ways.

I agree whole heartedly with the view expressed above. Even if you look at the supposed 1% that the OWS seem to be angry with, there is significant amount of diversity of ideas and behaviours. For instance, let us take a look at Bill Gates. This man certainly sits atop this listing of 1 percenters with his immense wealth. Yet at present, there is no one with his resources that has done more to help in reducing poverty and general social inequality. 

On another note, what I have found to be absolutely hilarious about the Occupy Wall Street Movement, is the so-called support they get from celebrities. The likes of Jay-Z, Kanye West, Russell Simons, the son of John Lenon etc…. These celebrities are all absurdly wealthy. Their wealth was accrued by the very same cut-throat economic activities that the OWS protesters are against. Take Jay-Z and Russell Simmons for instance. Those two are darlings of the music industry, which is made up of large corporations, that maintain their wealth through nefarious practices. Mr Z and Mr Simon amassed their wealth by playing to the demands of those large corporate entities. Am I the only one that finds it a bit paradoxical that  wealthy celebrities of any kind would claim they are against the supposed super wealthy one percent?

(Source: The New York Times)