October 12, 2011  ·  Lessig

Like a fever, revolutions come in waves. And if this is a revolution, then it broke first on November 4, 2008, with the election of Barack Obama, second, on February 19, 2009, with the explosion of anger by Rick Santelli, giving birth to the Tea Party, and third, on September 10, 2011 with the #Occupy movements that are now spreading across the United States.

The souls in these movements must now decide whether this third peak will have any meaningful effect — whether it will unite a radically divided America, and bring about real change, or whether it will be boxed up by a polarized media, labeled in predictable ways, and sent off to the dust bins of cultural history.

In the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., championed a strategy of non-violence: that in the face of state sponsored and tolerated aggression, the strongest response was a promise not to respond in kind.

In this movement, we need a similar strategy. Of course a commitment to non-violence. But also a commitment to non-contradiction: We need to build and define this movement not by contradicting the loudest and clearest anger on the Right, but instead, by finding the common ground in our demands for reform.

So when Ron Paul criticizes the “Wall Street bailouts,” and attacks government support for “special businesses” with special access, we should say, “that’s right, Congressman Paul.” Bailouts for the rich is not the American way.

And when Rick Santelli launches a Tea Party movement, by attacking the government’s subsidies “to the losers,” we should ask in reply, what about the subsidies “to the winners” — to the banks who engineered the dumbest form of socialism ever invented by man: socialized risk with privatized benefits. What, we should ask Mr. Santelli, about that subsidy?

Or when Republican Senator Richard Shelby tells NBC’s Meet the Press that the message in bank reform “should be, unambiguously, that nothing’s too big to fail,” we should say that’s right, Senator, and it’s about time our Congress recognized it.

Or when Sarah Palin calls GE the “poster child of crony capitalism,” we should say “Amen, Mamma Grisly”: For whether or not we are all believers in “capitalism,” we should all be opponents of “crony capitalism,” the form of capitalism that is increasingly dominating Washington, and that was partly responsible for the catastrophe on Wall Street in 2008, and hence the catastrophes throughout America since.

We should practice “non-contradiction,” not because we have no differences with the Right. We do. We on the Left, we Liberals, or as some prefer, we Progressives, have fundamental differences with people on the Right. Our vision of that “shining city on the hill” is different from theirs. Our hopes for “We, the People,” are more aspirational. More egalitarian. More ideal.

But even though our substantive views are different, we should recognize that we have not yet convinced a majority of America of at least some of our fundamental views. And that in a democracy, no faction has the right to hold a nation hostage to its extreme views, whether right or not. We should fight in the political system to win support for our Liberal views. But we should reject the idea that protest, or violence, or blackmail are legitimate political techniques for advancing views that have not yet prevailed in a democratic system.

Instead, we should use the energy and anger of this extraordinary movement to find the common ground that would justify this revolution for all Americans, and not just us. And when we find that common ground, we should scream it, and yell it, and chant it, again, and again, and again.

For there is a common ground between the anger of the Left and the anger of the Right: That common ground is a political system that does not work. A government that is not responsive, or — in the words of the Framers, the favorite source of insight for our brothers on the Right — a government that is not, as Federalist 52 puts it, “dependent upon the People alone.”

Because this government is not dependent upon “the People alone.” This government is dependent upon the Funders of campaigns. 1% of America funds almost 99% of the cost of political campaigns in America. Is it therefore any surprise that the government is responsive first to the needs of that 1%, and not to the 99%?

This government, we must chant, is corrupt. We can say that clearly and loudly from the Left. They can say that clearly and loudly from the Right. And we then must teach America that this corruption is the core problem — it is the root problem — that we as Americans must be fighting.

There could be no better place to name that root than on Wall Street, New York. For no place in America better symbolizes the sickness that is our government than Wall Street, New York. For it is there that the largest amount of campaign cash of any industry in America was collected; and it was there that that campaign cash was used to buy the policies that created “too big to fail”; and it was there that that campaign cash was used to buy the get-out-of-jail free card, which Obama and the Congress have now given to Wall Street in the form of a promise of no real regulatory change, and an assurance of “forgiveness.”

“Forgiveness” — not of the mortgages that are now underwater. The foreclosures against them continue. “Forgiveness” — not even of the sins now confessed by Wall Street bankers, for our President has instructed us, no crimes were committed. “Forgiveness” — just enough to allow candidates once again to race to Wall Street to beg for the funds they need to finance their campaigns. The dinner parties continue. The afternoons at the golf course are the same. It’s not personal. It’s just business. It is the business of government corrupted.

There is no liberal, or libertarian, or conservative who should defend these policies. There is no liberal, or libertarian, or conservative who should defend this corruption. The single problem we all should be able to agree about is a political system that has lost is moral foundation: For no American went to war to defend a democracy “dependent upon the Funders alone.” No mother sacrificed her son or daughter to the cause of a system that effectively allows the law to be sold to the highest bidder.

We are Americans, all of us, whether citizens or not. We are Americans, all of us, because we all believe in the ideal of a government responsive to “the People alone.” And we all, as Americans, regardless of the diversity of our views, need to stand on this common ground and shout as loudly as we can: End this corruption now. Get the money out of government. Or at least get the special interest money out of government. And put back in its place a government dependent upon, and responsive too, the people. Alone.

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil” — Thoreau, 1846, On Walden — “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at the root.”

If this fever is to have its effect, if this revolution is to have any meaning, if this struggle — and the carnival notwithstanding, it is an obvious struggle to sleep on the streets — is to have real consequence, then we all, Left and Right, must strike first at that root.

“It is the duty of youth,” they say Kurt Cobain said, “to challenge corruption.” He may have meant a different corruption, if indeed he uttered this poetry too. But whatever he meant, embrace his words. It is your duty to challenge this corruption. And once you have ended it — once we have restored a government that cares about what its people care about first, and not just its funders — then let us get back to the hard and important work of convincing our fellow citizens of the right in everything that is left.

  • http://sethf.com/ Seth Finkelstein

    “It’s time to choose our words and tactics carefully so this movement grows.”

    Ehhh … Is there anyone reading here who, *themselves*, is going to say:

    “Before, I thought the right tactic was to expose the copyrapist corpscum for what they are, but now I am enlightened and realize it is a matter of all good men and women reasoning together”?

    I’d be happy if we could achieve not killing OURSELVES in liberal/radical infighting, much less having everyone play nice :-)

  • Rob

    I like to think the movement will grow if its principles are seen as worthy of support regardless of the strident mudslinging from the opposition. However, it is increasingly evident to me that the majority of Americans are more impressed with one-liners and zingers than with reasoned arguments and detailed debates. You score more points by saying “lessig’s an idiot” than you do with saying “lessig is mistaken”. It’s the world of the WWF, Jerry Springer and Average Joe Millionaire Survivor, and the radical conservatives have mastered playing by its rules.

    With regards to being divisive…anything said in opposition is by definition divisive. It’s just a question of how you go about being divisive, appealing to emotion or appealing to reason or some blending of the two, that determines whether people will think of you as an intellectual or as a crackpot. On this blog I hope we will at least lean towards the intellectual over the emotional.

  • Fuzzy

    Rob writes, “anything said in opposition is by definition divisive”.

    You bring up an interesting idea, but I think you may have overlooked some options. There are ways of pointing out alternate viewpoints that, when considered with an existing statement, can help to bring about change.

    I think that emotion is a good initial motivator that can help propel someone’s intellect to take action.

    I think action in many cases, whatever the motive, is likely to appeal to people.

  • Fuzzy

    Siva writes, “Back in 1998, when … the copyright cartels got everything they asked for….”.

    1998 was a bad year – the 1998 DMCA, the 1998 CTEA.

    But as far as I can tell, the copyright cartels are still getting everything they ask for. Witness the continued attempts to add copy protection to CDs, the growing use of digital rights management software (Apple iTunes; Microsoft Janus), the DirectTV ‘guilty until proven innocent’ smart card suits, the 2002 loss in MPAA v. Corley, the 2003 loss in Eldred v Ashcroft, the 2003 FCC broadcast flag.

  • Joe Buck

    Speaking of avoiding language that causes offense, be careful with the use of “creative communities” to describe only those whose creations are artistic and literary, as opposed to technical. Besides the fact that a lot of geeks resent it, it builds unnecessary walls. Many on Jack Valenti’s side of the divide treasure their creative freedom and fight like dogs against any who would block it. They would never dream of permitting a system in which every film had to be approved by the state, but they are advocating a system in which every program has to be approved by the state, because a lot of them think that all programs come either from faceless corporations like Microsoft or from criminal vandals.

    We software creators need to insist that “creative” applies to us.