COMMENTARY
I cannot agree with the conclusions of this essay, and it may be that I am 'projecting' what I see as the goals of the Occupy protests from my own analysis of the socio-economic crisis that we all have to face.

In my view the core people driving the protest have not got an agenda for change, but they are 100% aware that change must happen, and want to help it to happen. I cannot find people in the core groups that are willing to define a strategy for change, or even to prioritize what they consider to be the biggest problems.

This fits my own view of the problem. The fact is that the problem has been getting more and more out of hand for something more than thirty years and there are a huge number of issues ... many of them interconnected ... that will have to be addressed in order for the US and global society and the economy to reach a satisfactory condition. It can be done, and it will be done. My guess progress is going to be facilitated by many different 'agendas' being promoted flat-out by a whole host of different actors, but all going in more or less the same direction.

In the main the core Occupiers are not opposed to a market-oriented economic system ... but they are appalled by the way the markets are rigged in favor of a powerful elite. In general there is little opposition to wealth, but real anger at wealth which seems to have come at the expense of the working segment of the population. The idea that 'the banks got bailed out, we got sold out' reflects anger at the abusive operations ... or shall we say criminal and fraudulent operations ... of the banks during the housing bubble build-up, which broke banks and broke people, but it is only the banks that got saved and not the people. There were despicable business practices, and yet the big bankers have not had to face much in the way of criminal proceedings. See some more on this at TO COME
Peter Burgess

Analysis Brief ... Council on Foreign Relations writes about Weighing Occupy Wall Street's Impact

IMAGE Occupy Wall Street demonstrators march over the Brooklyn Bridge during a 'Day of Action.' (Jessica Rinaldi/Courtesy Reuters)

The Occupy movement has faced a police crackdown throughout the United States, most recently, at the University of California, Davis (Slate). In New York, Occupy Wall Street protesters clashed with police during a national 'Day of Action' (VOA), two days after police dismantled (NYT) their encampment. Across the Atlantic, legal action was also taken to evict Occupy London protesters camped outside St. Paul's Cathedral.

The trajectory of the global movement remains uncertain. Yet, OWS continues to galvanize a debate over economic inequality in the developed world, elbowing into a policy discourse that had been largely focused on debt, deficits, and budget austerity.

What's at Stake

For the Occupy protesters, the stakes run broad and deep. They say intensifying unemployment, spending cuts, and income stagnation are hurting the so-called '99 percent.' They are frustrated with the response to the global recession that they blame on Wall Street, and what they regard as tepid government action to spur the economy. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2010, real median household income has declined 6.4 percent since 2007. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent continues to rise.

The biggest economic factor driving the Occupy movement is youth unemployment, which is nearly 15 percent, says CFR's Terra Lawson-Remer. She argues that issue is the 'common thread' between 2011's pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, Spain's indigenous movement (Reuters), and the Occupy movement.

The Debate

Some analysts say the Occupy movement should form coherent policy aims and mobilize politically. The New Yorker's Jane Mayer suggests that the 'freeform, leaderless' protesters should learn from the 'agenda-driven campaign' against the Keystone XL pipeline, which succeeded in getting the project temporarily halted. Writing in the Boston Globe, Joshua Green says that OWS has done nothing to garner political support in Congress or the White House, the 'institutions best positioned to address their grievances.' The Economist suggests that it's time for OWS to 'get on with the tiresome and frustrating grind of actual democratic politics.'

For other observers, the Occupy movement has staying power precisely because its demands are broad and its powerbase outside electoral politics. The energy of OWS will certainly spill over into the 2012 presidential campaign, and has already begun to shift the political discourse in the media, New York University's Bill Caspary told CFR.org. Salon's Andy Kroll says the movement won its first victory earlier this month when Ohio voters overturned a law that cut bargaining rights for labor unions.

Policy Options

Jeff Madrick of the New York Review of Books says policy responses to pursue include renewed fiscal stimulus, investment in public works, and a higher minimum wage. But CFR's Lawson-Remer predicts that OWS will not mobilize for specific policy prescriptions. Instead, she says, it will 'raise consciousness' about broad issues, such as student debt, housing foreclosures, and wealth inequality. Similarly, NYU's Caspary says it would not make sense for OWS to throw their lot in with the Democratic Party, as the Tea Party did with the Republicans. The Democrats are a part of the very corporatized system OWS is protesting, he says, adding, 'They are funded by the 1 percent.'

Background Materials

In the New York Times, David Carr asks whether OWS will keep its hold on the collective media imagination.

In Foreign Affairs, Rory McVeigh says the impetus will be on OWS to meet violence with nonviolence.

Volatile global economic conditions have prompted hundreds of thousands of people around the world to demonstrate in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, explains this CFR Analysis Brief.

Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.