Occupiers and Values Voters: What I Learned in 36 Hours
On October 7, I traveled to New York City to interview the “occupiers” protesting in Zuccotti Park. The next day, I attended the Values Voter Summit, the annual gathering of social conservatives hosted by the Family Research Council.
I wish I could say I had the foresight to plan this. I had been invited to attend the Summit as a "featured Tweeter" weeks earlier, while the New York trip occurred just days after a colleague joked about giving away books to the protestors. So, whether by providence or dumb luck, it happened that in fewer than 36 hours I experienced a sort of ethnography of the ends of American political culture.
What I learned in New York left me enlivened and optimistic for the future. I walked away from the Values Voter Summit burdened by the dysfunction of a brand of conservatism that is so much smaller than it could be.
__________________________________________________
As I descended the steps into Zuccotti Park, I reaffirmed my commitment to fairness. It would be easy to identify the most-pierced or most homely looking for juicy quotes. My goal was different. I wanted to learn and, perhaps, to share my own perspective. So, I put on a disposition of warmth and generosity.

Walking around the park, I made a point of interviewing those who had been involved from the beginning, were viewed as leaders, and weren’t bombastic (i.e. they would not support defecating on police cars). I’ve experienced the frustration of media reports that stereotype “Tea Partiers” by the actions of the most radical, fringe members. Honesty and loving-kindness required me to be more responsible.
It quickly became clear that the protesters, or “occupiers,” are wrong on policy. While the decentralized, diverse nature of their protest makes it impossible to criticize “their” demands, it is fair to characterize the general impetus of their preferred policies as far-left progressivism. I saw protesters advocating higher, more redistributionist taxes, deep cuts in military spending, increased spending on big government programs for health care, education, and green energy, an increase in the minimum wage, free college education and so on.
Most occupiers are long on conviction but short on sophisticated thinking. Contradictions abound: Some oppose crony capitalism but support preferential treatment of green energy firms like Solyndra. Others are concerned about the deficit and national debt, but want free college education for everyone. Some detest capitalism, but willingly accept and distribute donations purchased online from Amazon.com and delivered by FedEx. They eat pizza from the shop down the street and document their experiences with iPhones.
None of this surprised me. The occupiers are blind with frustration. They lack job prospects, having been let down by the first president they ever voted for—a man who was supposed to change things. Many are the products of American higher education, the last stronghold of their hippie predecessors-turned-professors who continue to espouse ideas otherwise discarded on Reagan’s heap of ashes.
All are wanderers, lost in the ever-lengthening void between childhood and maturity, unmoored and anxious. Twenty years ago, Christopher McCandless tramped his way to Alaska in a Kerouacian search for significance (chronicled in Jon Krakauer’s classic book Into the Wild). Twenty years later, these are his kids.
Despite the ignorance and self-evident hypocrisy, I found myself drawn to the protesters. Despite their wrongheaded policy views, they are driven by a desire for justice, peace, freedom, fairness, and—yes—for prosperity. They are animated by the belief that we can be better than we currently are.
In fact, their movement is a microcosm of American exceptionalism. Here we see a few dozen strangers who have descended on an empty plot of land and formed a community. Within a few days, as individuals began to see the unique contributions they were able to make, they had established a library, a post office and a kitchen. Someone recognized the need to wash the dishes piling up in the kitchen, so they built an elaborate system of water filtration out of dirt, rocks, plastic barrels and PVC pipe.

Someone makes buttons. Another trades drawings for books, food or anything else that might be useful. It’s a marketplace, driven by the entrepreneurial spirit to contribute to the common good.
Quickly, the protestors realized that if their community was going to work, they needed rules—and a system to encourage compliance. I met Sophie who described her role as a “community mediator.”
“There were some disagreements about substance use in the park. So we have to work that stuff out,” she explained.
Every so often, a protester would yell out, “Mic check!” Those nearby would echo, “Mic check!” The process was repeated until everyone was listening. Because bullhorns aren't allowed in the park, the protesters used this system to echo an individual's message to the entire group. “Five volunteers are needed to sort the mail.”
As I explored Zuccotti Park and interviewed its citizens I thought of Tocqueville. The occupiers are quintessentially American—and many are conservatives. They just don’t realize it.
This intuition was confirmed during my favorite conversation of the day. When I first saw Eddie, he was sitting Indian-style on the ground next to another young man. He wore a camouflage jacket, beaded necklaces, and rainbow-colored spandex pants. They were singing what I later learned was an anthem of the Lakota nation. Eddie's outfit caught my eye, but the chorus he sang captured my curiosity:
I love you so, so, so, so much.
I love you so, so, so, so much.
Eddie later explained to me that he had been arrested during the protests and that he was harboring animosity towards the police. The song was an attempt at forgiveness. A little weird, sure, but the underlying sentiment is admirable.
After a few minutes, Eddie got to talking about healthcare. He surprised me by admitting that he didn’t think the federal government could do a very good job at managing it. He described a vision wherein each state was charged with providing care as it saw fit. Such a system would enable 50 laboratories of innovation that could experiment and share best practices.
Dumbfounded, I said that his idea sounded a lot like the plans of some Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan to give states block grants of federal money and allow each to determine how to best spend the money.
“What do you think?” I asked.
“Awesome! I think that's a great idea.” He exclaimed.
It’s unlikely that Eddie woke up the next morning, shaved his goatee, and applied for a job at The Heritage Foundation. But our short conversation planted a seed and showed Eddie that maybe conservative ideas aren’t all bad.
__________________________________________________
Whatever hope I had for the natural conservative impulse I discovered at Occupy Wall Street was dashed the next day.
The Values Voter Summit was tainted by ideologues and infighting. The hate speech was sickening. It was conservatism defined by antipathy. It was anti-gay, anti-Muslim and anti-Mormon. The disdain for our fellow citizens was surpassed only by the fearful prospect of four more years of Obama.
As the crowd of over 3,000 applauded, I sat. “Is this really what we are about?”
The final event of my day was a break-out session for young conservative leaders, moderated by my friend Darin Miller and featuring prominent young activists Lila Rose and Jason Mattera, author of the New York Times bestseller Obama Zombies.
After listening to Mattera mock liberals and congratulate himself for a series of guerrilla-style interviews of prominent politicians and activists, I left. Later, via Twitter I asked him, “Do you worry about your style alienating potential conservatives?”
A few minutes later he responded: “Nah, I’m just being me.”
“Due respect,” I wrote back, “but that’s a cop out. Your whole thing is education, why not expect more of yourself? We need to be effective. Presumably (and correctly) you wouldn’t accept an 'occupier' saying, ‘I’m just being me’.”
Mattera replied, “If tightwads are offended by my 'style' (read: my personality), oh well. They need a life. 'Occupiers' have no reason for existence. They don’t even have the insight to know what ‘I’m just being me’ means.” (Note—this is slightly edited for clarity and grammar)
Back to me: “To sum up, your reply to the fact that your rhetoric may make it harder for your fellow conservatives is ‘get a life?’”
Mattera: “Yes. And, if can add, grow some balls.”
Jason is a product of a contemporary conservative movement that has lost any sense of the artfulness and humanity required if we are going to appeal to the majority of Americans who don’t align inalterably with the Right in American politics. His tutors were on stage. In eight hours at the Summit, not a single speaker articulated an argument about the justice inherent to free enterprise. No one explained why conservative policies are the most fair. No one said a word about helping the poor.
Conservatives complain that we are depicted as heartless, concerned more with tax rates and fidelity to the Constitution than the homeless and single working mothers. It isn’t true. I’m a conservative because my faith compels me to love my neighbor. I’m an advocate of the free market because I know that capitalism is the system that makes everyone wealthier, healthier, safer, and more educated. I felt alone at the Values Voter Summit. The rhetoric flowing there had the affect of inoculating me—a committed conservative—from wanting to hear any more. Imagine how off-putting it is to those on the fence.
__________________________________________________
It’s time for a new kind of conversation. Articulating the conservative vision should be a romance. Conservatives can woo the undecided to our side and recapture the hearts of those whose fidelity to progressivism is shallow.
Like dating, this will take work. We have to keep the end-goal in mind. It’s a process, requiring patience and the portrayal of our best selves. This means demonstrating an ability to engage in roundabout, inefficient dialogue. It means affirming the other, gently and gracefully offering alternatives (or not). It means putting out an attractive quality that compels the other to want to know more.
Share this Article
Recent Comments
-
I can't find a non-itunes rss feed for the podcast - any help?
-
Obamacare is too costly for our nation
Andrew Stanton in Obamacare and the Concession on... -
The author contends that the selfless characteristic of Biblical Christianity does not harmonize with the libertarian view of self-interest.
-
The government will never make "wise" budget cuts. They'll never make any budget cuts at all. Only in the fantasyland of DC can a 4% (instead of a 6%) *increase* be called a cut.


13 people are talking about this
Eric: Thank you. Anger can rally mobs, not movements. We need thoughtful, gracious leaders who are willing to engage in balanced discourse and lead lives of compassionate integrity. Thanks for your example and for calling us to that posture.
Great post, and thanks for the honest coverage of OWS. You're spot-on that the only way to shift the political paradigm rightward is to ground our discussion on justice—not just for those in the middle, but those on the left, as you point out. Much of what has damaged the conservative cause, like Christianity, has been misrepresentations of it on both sides. AEI chose the right guy to head up V&C.
Thanks Wesley. It's not just me - our generation gets this. Unfortunately, because we get it, we tend not to be the most vocal members of the conservative side. We need to drown out the more embarrassing voices with constructive dialogue and values-based rhetoric.
Eric -Thanks for this helpful and thoughtful post. Dean
Eric, like that you recognize the hubris and avarice in your party. However...
Call Solyndra a case of corporate cronyism hijacking public policy. Then Green energy policy is a form of corporate cronyism in disguise. It is the public sector’s attempt to accelerate the market forces of creative destruction in the energy market. The difference is the vast majority of scientists argue that it is a form of cronyism that will greatly benefit the masses. Thus no hypocrisy.
The Solyndra failure does not negate the effort. Investors lost trillions on the 2000 internet bubble, yet the internet sector is changing the world today. Markets don’t always get it right the first time and neither does the public sector. Thus not necessarily bad to push green energy.
The deficit and national debt was being addressed until Bush reduced taxes and increased spending in a way not done since Reagan. Obama’s spent money to prop up the financial markets AEI is so interested in protecting from ‘regulation’. Democratic presidents did not create the majority of public debt, Republicans did.
The hypocrisy lies in the calls for less regulation of the very markets that caused the current economic disaster we are in now which in turn was caused by deregulation and lack of new regulations. Many in the OWS are keenly aware of this, not just blind in their knowledge.
Some detest capitalism. Ok, but OWS is by no means a call to communism. The average lefty is not looking to create some Marxist utopia. We all get it. We all saw how Russia turned out.
On the surface there is irony in the enthusiastic patronage of large corporations by OWS protestors. Yet Adam Smith himself said that markets need to be well regulated. Markets that allow Goldman to create and sell CDO’s with the purpose of purchasing credit default swaps to bet against them are not well regulated. Without government intervention your precious market leaders would be gone. OWS know this. Just because I enjoy a latte at Starbucks doesn’t mean they can fill it with arsenic and bet that I am going to choke and die on it. An extreme example? Maybe, but so was the asbestos filled high school I went to. That wouldn't have gone away without the public sector.
What you haven’t mentioned is much of what OWS is really calling for. Real wages have stagnated. Middle class jobs have been under pressure of personal productivity (thank you computer) and global markets. The irony is the 3rd world has been creating a middle class while we have been losing it. Financial markets got a bail out, but the homeowner got none. The 99% were crushed by the financial crisis, but have received no bailout other than longer unemployment insurance.
The average working person has less much less value nowadays. The above average working person has much more value. Most are losers, a few are winners, and a very few are extreme winners in this economy. We need to find solid policy to help this trend. Or do you think that all this is just misplaced anger and the markets will resolve it all for us? Do you really think that the crisis is US debt?
Chris - thanks for your thoughtful response. Are you an occupier? Your description of the movement is quite consistent with my experience in New York. I actually don't think you all are Marxists or Communists and don't believe I said anything of the sort in my piece. Your response is a reminder that often the disagreements between conservatives and liberals is a matter of degree: not whether ANY regulation is required, but how much, for example.
Sobering observations, Eric. While I wouldn't identify with Mattera, I wrestle with more disdain for "occupier types" than you do. Could it be because of media? Your article notwithstanding, I've not seen a single unvarnished engagement of OWS by either side of the media community. The left are co-opting it into their own vehicle for fomenting more ambiguous rage (thus focusing on protestor anger above most else), and the right are highlighting "the most pierced and homely-looking" for purposes of conveying a picture of mass stupidity. I suppose those of us who aren't blessed with the opportunity to work in this space will have to depend on niche entities like V&C for balance. No pressure!
This is really good, ET. You'll find that Prager University feels the same way: http://www.facebook.com/prageru
Fantastic article. Should be read by every conservative--especially conservative leaders. I had the very same conversations with "occupiers" here in San Diego and my reaction was nearly identical to Eric's. We need to be happy winsome warriors!
Hi Eric~ It was Prager University that highlighted your fine article for me. As a follower of Jesus and a person with conservative values, I too find much of the conservative leadership lacking and those who claim to represent Christ hypocritical with their many references to educational background and accomplishments to add weight to their "spokesman credentials" --when Christ typically chose just the opposite to follow Him and serve for/with Him.
Thank you for keeping it real in your work and sharing your thoughtful insights.
Eric,
Great article. What an amazing experience. I think this confirms that it is our younger generation of conservatives that is going to have to change the way we communicate. We need to shift the focus of the conservatives back to the basic tenets of free enterprise so that we can truly love our neighbor as you mentioned. I honestly believe that those on the left also want to fight poverty, make everyone healthier, wealthier and safer. Unfortunately, I think they are going about it the wrong way. If we stop the name calling, the insults and the abrasive tactics that those on the right use, maybe we can reach out to others. We are working towards many of the same goals so let's just ask to try it a different way.
I found the tone of your post to be rather demeaning. You would probably do well to simply come to #occupy as yourself, acting genuine, instead of putting on this air of loving kindness, warmth, and generosity you purport to have.
Occupiers are not "wrong on policy". The policy is confusing. This world is confusing. The very question of how we reconcile the resources we are addicted to using (things like computers, cell phones, cars, even running water) with ethics (environmentalism, social responsibility) is a *massive* conundrum. Sure, streaming video to all corners of the planet on a cell phone is a huge win for transparency but, yeah, the fact that the cell phone streaming that is streaming the video was an environmental nightmare and was assembled by slave labor is a terrible thing. Occupiers are not "wrong" nor hypocritical for having conflicting or inconsistent views, even within their own philosophies. The very act of *existance itself* in a city, consuming food and resources imported from outside the city, creates such a duality. And many of us were born into it. Finding the proper way forward is a topic of ongoing controversy. Surely this discussion is not the least bit as shortsighted as you claim. Lay off the hypocrisy alarm.
"All are wanderers, lost in the ever-lengthening void between childhood and maturity." Excellent. A thinly-veiled way of saying you find all of these people to be immature. Okay, fair enough Loving Kindness dude. That's your opinion. I guess we are on "Values and Capitalism" so bringing your subjective value system to bear is fair game.
Yes, I too hold the belief that many of the occupiers are more open to conservative ideas than they think they are. But you know what? You don't own conservatism. I'm a Left Libertarian and consider myself to be extremely economically conservative. In fact, I suspect you would probably call most Left Libertarian ideas wildly liberal because of how conservative they are. These terms are practically meaningless. No, you are not a conservative because your faith compels you to love your neighbour. Faith has nothing to do with it. You are a conservative because you ascribe the meaningless label to yourself. We don't operate on a political spectrum anymore. Our world is too complex to be bucketed in such ways and I wish people such as yourself would advance the dialog beyond this clumsy rhetoric. You yourself note that you seem to find yourself having little in common with the other "conservatives" you met with the following day. Bail on that label - it isn't doing you any good. I have no idea what you mean by it.
This whole post is a PR hit. You're posturing yourself way too much, trying to market your faith bundled up and hidden in your politics. You slip it in hoping people don't notice. They do notice. Drop the pretence. Separate your faith from you politics. Say "I'm a Christian who happens to have the following economic opinions." not "I'm a conservative because I have a mandate from God." It's hard enough to field a purely political argument without having the faith issue thrown in to boot. It makes me feel nauseous just thinking about all the cultural bathwater that would have to be waded through to come to any sort of understanding under such terms. The sooner we get faith out of the American political discourse the better.
Some (because nobody with OWS movement is 100% the same page) of us believe that the way this would be possible is simply because everything of material value to society, all the houses, cars, business assets, etc. were produced by working class individuals. Which means that if we as workers decide what we need as a group to make our lives better (lots of us are living in poverty and neighborhoods full of violence..) we could still produce it without Capitalism, simply because we make ridiculous amounts of value as workers every day and because of Capitalism we rarely get more than 10 percent of what we actually produce.
The rest of our value, labor or otherwise is sold by the boss for sometimes many times more than what the people who actually produced the item or did the work were paid. This is why there are people who work as hard as they can all their lives, two jobs, some 14 hour days, et cetera. And they still will never see home ownership let alone a college fund for their children.If you follow the money, it seems to be stocked up at the top, with the people who take another's value, whether it's ore extracted from the ground by a worker or a MP3 player, and sell it for a profit getting ahead (EXPLOITATION or "Capitalism"), and the ones breaking their backs keeping on doing so for the rest of their lives, only to retire in poverty. Capitalism relies on exploitation of society's most vulnerable (McDonalds, Walmart jobs etc would not function without poor impoverished people, capitalism relies on large amounts of impoverished workers). Only a PRODUCTIVE class (workers) can build a society free from exploitation.
"Some oppose crony capitalism but support preferential treatment of green energy firms like Solyndra."
Oil industries have a history of corruption and EVERYONE but the top folks (Oil execs, bankers) benefit from green energy.
"Others are concerned about the deficit and national debt, but want free college education for everyone."
That is kind of a contradiction, yes but with the value we produce which gets taken from us, we are now too poor to afford it. If we do not do something, College or univerity will be reserved for the rich only.
"Some detest capitalism, but willingly accept and distribute donations purchased online from Amazon.com and delivered by FedEx. They eat pizza from the shop down the street and document their experiences with iPhones."
You are assuming that the Internet, Delivery services, and pizza and cell phones would be IMPOSSIBLE without someone at the top directing it to be done. The Internet runs on servers built by workers, Fed Ex, etc is sorted and delivered by workers, Pizza is cooked and by workers, and cell phones and their networks are built and operated by workers. Why couldn't we take control of our lives (organizing, union or otherwise) and determine what our labour is used for?
Nevertheless, thanks for not being an arse like most of the non-Occuiper bloggers that went down there. I respect that.
Join the Discussion