“Occupy” Dilemma–Violence Attracts Attention but Risks Public Support


The Occupy movement faces a dilemma: Conflict and confrontation, which have helped make it a national phenomenon, also can derail it, says USA Today. The scene in Oakland, where a few protesters fought with riot police, trashed stores, built barricades and started fires, reminded activists and historians that a movement suffers if conflicts with authority turn violent. “For the past century, violence has almost always been counterproductive in American politics. The anti-Vietnam War and civil rights movements were strongest when they were faithful to their non-violent roots,” says Maurice Isserman, co-author of America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s.

Occupy Wall Street, which started it Sept. 17 in New York City, was ignored by much of the news media until a police commander was videotaped pepper-spraying two female protesters, and about 700 protesters were arrested for allegedly trying to block the Brooklyn Bridge. Occupy Oakland got noticed more after protester Scott Olsen, an ex-Marine and Iraq War veteran, suffered a fractured skull when hit by a projectile as police and protesters clashed. Violence undercuts public sympathy for the protesters’ cause, says Terry Madonna, a polling expert at Franklin and Marshall College He wonders whether Occupy, a movement that has no publicly identified leaders or hierarchy, can stop violence within or outside its ranks. The vast majority of Occupy members have been nonviolent.

Comments are closed.


You have Free articles left this month.

Want access to all our reporting? Subscribe for unlimited access or login.