Ask the Author Live: Hendrik Hertzberg on O.W.S. and the Tea Party

In this week’s Comment, Hendrik Hertzberg writes about the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements. Today, Hertzberg answered readers’ questions in a live chat. Read a transcript of the discussion below.

THE NEW YORKER: Hendrik Hertzberg will be joining us at 3. In the meantime, submit your questions in the console below.

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: Hello, everyone. Welcome to Occupy Live Chat.

QUESTION FROM CHARLIE : Did the tea party protesters ever get arrested? It seems the Occupy movement is more interested in civil disobedience as a means. Does this strategy have the hope of more political impact?

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: I do think the civil disobedience could prove problematic. It seems to work best when there is a clear connection between the type of disobedience and some specific goal, usually a goal that is a step toward some larger goal. Rosa Parks protested being made to go to the back of the bus by taking a seat in the front of the bus. The student sit-ins in North Carolina protested whites-only lunch counters by sitting down at whites-only lunch counters. Gandhi protested the British salt monopoly by marching to the sea and picking up a pinch of salt. The connection between occupations of parks, etc., and income inequality, etc., is not so easy to grasp.

QUESTION FROM ST : Hi Rick, how do you respond to the critics who say that Michael Moore has benefited greatly from the “bad” corps who release who his movies?

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: Just about everybody who has a job has to work through “corporations” in some manner. Occupy isn’t against corporations per se, as far as I know. It’s against corporate domination of politics and policy.

QUESTION FROM ARF : The GOP establishment co-opted the Tea Party very early on, pushing the grass roots activists to GOP “free market” ideals and goals. HOwever, since President Obama has exhibited 3 years of compromise, where can OWS go for political allegiance and activism with no 3rd party in sight?

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: I’d like to see OWS, or at least OWS people, get involved in Congressional and state legislative races. A third party, though, would be a disaster for what OWS wants as well as for Obama and the Democrats. The Presidential choice will be between Obama and a Republican who is deeply hostile to what OWS is about. For all of Obama’s compromises, etc., isn’t that choice a no-brainer?

QUESTION FROM CARL CARTER : John Anderson didn’t quite see that logic, as I recall.

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: Neither did Ralph Nader, with far more catastrophic results. Carter would still have lost without Anderson in the race, but Nader made George W. Bush President.

QUESTION FROM KIR : Do you think the developing demand that the definition of corporate entity be legislatively revised has any chance? Seems to me that is truly revolutionary, even beyond the political donation aspects.

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: It’s a very good idea. As a “demand,” it has the problem that any “demand” will have, which is that given the near—no, absolute—certainty that the Republican right will have veto power over legislation via the filibuster for years to come. Abolishing the filibuster should be at the top of any list of reforms.

QUESTION FROM KATHE : No, the Supreme Court made George W. Bush President.

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: But Ralph put the Presidency within judicial stealing distance.

QUESTION FROM CAPITAL : I am really amused how the supporters of the protests think that the fact that they are “regular” people is a selling point. I, for one, don’t want major policy decisions made by people who mean well, but don’t understand the issues.

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: That’s an argument against populism generally, not just OWS. Indeed, it’s an argument against democracy.

QUESTION FROM RUDE : You need the “1%” they are New Yorker subscribers. Who else would buy $15,000 Chopard watches and Hermes stuff that you advertise ?

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: Our dear readers will still be able to afford that stuff even if they have to pay as much taxes as they did when Bill Clinton, George Bush senior, and Richard Nixon were President.

QUESTION FROM RAFAEL : Do you think there is room for defining a legislative agenda around the Occupy movement? Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall has already been mentioned by the protestors and somehow overturning Citizens United, but what else would be productive to demand? Repeal of Taft-Hartley, for example, would change this country’s political landscape dramatically!

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: All good ideas. Ditto a financial transactions tax, big infrastructure spending, and (as mentioned) abolishing the filibuster. But camping out in public spaces until these things actually happen, or even until the Democratic Party puts them in its platform, is not really practical.

QUESTION FROM JOANNE HUDSON : But wasn’t Ralph right, about the corporatization of America?

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: Of course he was right. But I notice that his campaign in 2000 didn’t move the country toward doing something about it. On the contrary.

QUESTION FROM ALAN B : Campaign finance reform is at the center of all this. The democrats will never pursue a platform against corporate power when so many of their donors are corporations.

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: To the extent that there is opposition to excessive corporate power within the existing political system, that opposition is to be found within the Democratic Party. The Supreme Court Justices who have eviscerated what little campaign finance reform we had were all appointed by Republican Presidents.

QUESTION FROM JERMRUSS : Early on, my hopes were that OWS wouldn’t divide. The insinuation behind 99% was that the problems affect everyone. Yet, still, there seems to be party-line division…are there any hopes that one day a majority of Americans will agree on something, and further, be able to act on it?

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: A majority of Americans agree on plenty. E.g., higher taxes on the rich, short-term spending on infrastructure. That’s also what a majority of senators want. But what “a majority of Americans” or even a major of senators want is not what we get. Our political system is fairly good at protecting civil liberties but very bad at concerted, coherent action on behalf of majorities.

QUESTION FROM JOANNE HUDSON : Is there any way to overturn a Supreme Court decision? (such as Citizens United)

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: The only way is for Obama to remain President long enough to appoint a couple more Justices to the Court.

QUESTION FROM ARF : Not only is camping out not pratical but OWS will eventually devolve into a story about the protestors and their will to continue and not about the underlying issues and how to achieve them, if possible. Do you believe the OWS movement must mainstream, mass protests etc, or fizzle out?

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: That’s my worry, too. I wish I had the answer to how OWS can avoid that trap.

QUESTION FROM DEE : Do you think it is possible that OWS and Tea Party could ever become viable 3rd (and 4th) party movements? And if so, do you think that would be a good thing, or would it further polarize and alienate the American people?

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: This is a complicated question, but, at the risk of beating one of my favorite dead horses, we don’t really have “parties” in the sense that most democracies do. The Democratic and Republican “parties” are really more like baseball leagues. The Tea Party is like a team in the Republican League, and as of now they’ve won the pennant. I wish OWS could understand that they’re essentially a team in the Democratic League. Otherwise I don’t see how they ever get into the political World Series.

QUESTION FROM JOANNE HUDSON : It seems to me the OWS protesters are teaching themselves how to do this and I believe they will evolve not devolve.

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: I think you’re right about that. I certainly hope you are. There is something inspiring about their fluid, improvisational approach. They’ve surprised everybody, including themselves. Here’s hoping they improvise their way to the next step. Thanks for participating, everybody. See you next time.

THE NEW YORKER: Thanks to readers, and thanks Hendrik Hertzberg.