Lessons for Occupy Princeton

Last Sunday, Russians started protesting the results of their Dec. 4 election. According to The New York Times, protesters were predominately young middle class professionals. Their message is simple: That Russia could plainly see that election fraud occurred. As The New York Times attests, their methods were smart: The protesters held up graphs and charts to prove their case of election fraud. The protesters have a clear course of intended action: Russia should have a free and fair redo of the election. Simple, smart and clear: This is exactly how protests should work — Occupy Princeton has much to learn from the Russians.

This tactic is something Princetonians have used successfully in the past. In 2008, Princeton students quite successfully conducted a “I Could Be John McCain’s Econ 101 Teacher” protest. The protest consisted of a repeating skit outside of Frist Campus Center, in which one student played a teacher explaining basic economics to another student playing John McCain. Roles were clearly delineated by labeled t-shirts which read either “teacher” or “John McCain” on the back. Organized by James Coan ’09 and largely run by Princeton Progressive Nation staff, the protest achieved national recognition. Images of the protest — a white board, supply and demand curves and “John McCain” being lectured at — proved to be powerful and easy to understand. The message was simple: McCain does not understand basic economic principles. The protest was funny and memorable. And most importantly, it was exactly clear what the protesters wanted — for voters to select a president who has a firm grasp of economics.

By contrast, look at the protests of Occupy Princeton. They held “mic check” speeches at J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs recruitment events, which consisted of the protesters repeating in unison each line spoken by a “point person.” The protests were neither simple nor clear: Despite numerous news articles and opinion pieces about Occupy Princeton in this paper, and a national Occupy movement to follow, I’m still not entirely sure what the central message of the movement or any of its protests is. The protesters feel disenfranchised and disempowered. However, without a clear idea of what they seek to achieve, their supposed disenfranchisement and disempowerment are meaningless. The best explanation seems to come from Miriam Geronimus ’12’s Dec. 9 column titled “Occupy Princeton,” which lists “economic inequality, racism, sexism, homophobia, environmental injustice” and explains that “none of these is a new problem, but the promise of a chance to be heard, taking inspiration from the Arab Spring and the indigent movements in Greece and Spain have galvanized a group of people that might otherwise have sat frustrated at home.” That writing makes for a cool manifesto, but I’m still at a loss about what Occupy Princeton is about. Occupy sounds like a writing seminar professor telling a student to simply “write better,” without being able to specify exactly how to achieve that goal when pressed.

“I Could Be John McCain’s Econ 101 Teacher” and the Russian protests were well executed protests. These campaigns followed the principle of “Hey stupid, keep it simple, smart and clear.” People are lazy and self-focused. To protest is to say “I think I know better, and I care enough that I want overcome your self-centeredness in order to get you to agree with me.” Protesters need to convince the general population in order to recruit more protesters and effect change. They should present problems in an easy-to-understand manner, and they offer solutions. Occupy currently does none of that.

Last year in regard to the lack of a significant Princeton Tea Party movement, I wrote that “what really lies at the heart of the issue is that Princeton students have little interest in the Tea Party’s sole distinguishing trait, its loud protests,” and that, “we know that it is impossible to boil down politically and socially complex issues to a single banner, and we are too busy to try.” At present, based on their thus-far chosen methods, Occupy Princeton seems to be more concerned with being loud than being heard. One has to respect the Occupy movement for breaking the mold by making time for activism on campus, but Occupy needs to simplify their movement into definite and easy-to-communicate ideas. If their ideas are too complex and diverse, then protesting is the wrong medium for them to use. There’s a reason political parties use speeches, advertising and door-to-door campaigning: They have broad visions which are beyond the ability of slogans and chants to convey.

Being visible is very different from being listened to. Much like the Tea Party movement, the Occupy movement lacks a centralized message, so it’s difficult to accept their views and easy to ridicule them. Occupy Princeton needs to overcome that flaw if it is to be effective.

Christopher Troein is an economics major from Windsor, England. He can be reached at ctroein@princeton.edu.