Differing Strategies of Social Media: A Comparative Analysis of #OccupyWallStreet and the Bernie Sanders Campaign
History is an elusive topic to study. What is perceived as ground breaking can be quickly washed over. What is seen as revolutionary can be easily diffused and brushed away, leaving no trace in textbooks or in the course of history. Nothing was more enigmatic than two of the most volatile and quickly rising movements of the last decade. Characterized by rapid success and polarized by their questionably vapid results, the #OccupyWallStreet movement and the rise of Senator Bernie Sanders for President represent two coherent movements that in the last five years have caused momentary blips challenging the status quo. While a retaliation against political elites and big money characterized these two separate movements, they found common ground in other aspects as well. Positioning them next to each other allows for a careful analysis of their tactics of recruitment, their mobilization efforts, and the short-term effects that they had within the social and political spheres of the United States. Both of these heavily populist movements centered around the individual and used a plurality of perspectives to retaliate against both a hypothetical and political elite. However, it is decidedly true that the tactical use of social media during Bernie Sander’s rise is what made it out perform and eventually outlast its OWS counterpart. The best way to understand the differences in the two campaigns is through a three segment analysis of both movements. The three segments are: the campaigns beginnings and initial infrastructure, the campaigns peak and fully formed message, and both campaigns ultimate legacy and how they fell short in achieving their goals.
The #OccupyWallStreet movement started and was birthed from social media. In a post on the blog Adbusters, a call for revolution was echoed telling all to assemble in New York City on “World Revolution Day” or September 17th, 2011. Adbusters was a collective of “creatives” who generated false advertising projects and used an intricate network of graphic designers and coders to spread ads that run against the products that are included in them. Their sparking of World Revolution day, while differing from their other projects, fit along their iconic chain of denying capitalism and consumerism and rising against business elites. The referendum was posted two months before the day it proclaimed, giving people time to assemble into groups and allowed them to target Zuccotti Park as a primary meeting ground for the establishment of the occupation camp. Many mechanisms were used as platforms of spreading the OWS message. Kalle Lasn, the editor at Adbusters that started the OWS movement, had this to say about the movement in October 2011:
The original Adbusters call envisioned 20,000 people flooding the Financial District on September 17. A tenth of that probably ended up being there that day. Despite a massive Anonymous-powered online social media blitz, lots of people simply didn’t know about it, and traditional progressive organizations like labor unions and peace groups were uncomfortable signing on to so amorphous an action. Over the course of a difficult first week, with arrests happening just about every day, new faces kept coming, as others filtered out to take a break. The media coverage after last weekend’s mass arrests and alleged police brutality has brought many more. Now, during the day and into the night, one finds 500 or more people in the plaza, and maybe half that sleeping over. At any given time, several thousand people around the world are watching the occupation’s 24/7 livestream online.
When September 17th came, the initial launch of the occupy movement, there were mixed results. But that is the intricacy of social media and the service it can provide. While social media can be used as an organizing mechanism, it can also create the sustainability of a movement. New protesters consistently filtered in as a result of an ever growing social media presence. As the protest continued national attention began to grow. Social Media acted not only as an organizing software in this sense, but also as a broadcasting software that allowed for mainstream media to pick up and nationalize the movement. This initial strength was sustainable over a period of about a year, but social media and it’s limitless possibilities can change over the course of a movement.
The earliest moments of the Bernie Sanders campaign were in every way different than the start of #OccupyWallStreet. A populist independent turned democrat, Bernie Sanders announced his campaign for president in a typically institutional way. From his hometown in Burlington, Vermont, he announced on CSPAN that he was running for President. Yet, his institutional apparatus did not diminish his populist message where, minutes after announcing he was running, he stated, “Enough is enough, this great nation and it’s government belong to all of the people, and not to a handful of billionaires.” On content, this message echoes the precise blame that OWS had and his replication can be seen as an extension of the previous movement. Quickly, Bernie’s team began to establish a network that would allow them to generate the most successful mechanism for individual political donations of all time.
The multiple facets of a successful digital campaign mean controlling the content that is generated and gaining popularity and exposure to as many people as possible. Bernie Sanders was able to do was just that. Capitalizing on individual donations, Bernie’s campaign finance team was able to raise over 200 million dollars from small donors. Howard Deans’ strategy of email solicitation was taken even farther in the campaign and boasted even larger results than that of Barack Obama’s 2008 run. Such an extrapolation makes sense, since 2008 and even since 2012 the online multimedia market has grown dramatically and this can cause a massive sway in the number of online individual donations. At the center of this entire mechanism was a well-developed social media presence that greatly boosted not only the likelihood of a Bernie Sander’s presidency, but also the message and the effect. Where the rise of Bernie Sanders deviated from the OWS was where it succeeded in this attempt to gather, inform and mobilize from a massive donor base. This was crucial for a presidential campaign that had to use social media to generate nationwide lasting support.
OWS translated incredibly well and rapidly on social media because of it’s inherent ability to incite emotions across those who felt hopeless as well. Images could immediately be shown of the hundreds or thousands of protesters in tents across Zuccotti Park. Graphics of signs shaming the largest banks were easily related to as the pain of the financial crisis was still present. In mid-October, Kalle Lasn spoke to a reporter from The Nation. He had this to say about their initial results, “Currently this leaderless, demand-less movement — that is still growing in leaps and bounds — I think it is fine the way it is. After these assemblies have been conducted and debates have been had in cities all around America, demands will emerge.” But this is where Lasn was wrong. As the movement grew older and reached as far as six months, the momentum created very little political results. Dr. Ruth Milkman, a professor of sociology at UC Berkeley, even noted that a majority of protestors were white college educated young adults whom carried substantial student loan debt.
As these two movements individually matured, their messages became more complex. OWS and Bernie Sanders both had populist messages, but the electability of Sanders made it easier to support his message. With Bernie, the simple fact that he was running for president elicited a tangible goal that had a deadline and could be met. Support for his platform could be measured by polling and subsequently national support was tallied by how many people went out and voted for him. Social media is the only useful platform for this engagement but without support from the entirety of the United States, a movement could not gain momentum. Infrastructure was a point of weakness for the OWS campaign, yet it created the backbone of a lasting Sander’s campaign.
The lack of infrastructure and sponsorship for the protests immediately undermined their effectiveness. Without legitimacy, blind financial support from across the United States could not exist as people would not trust giving their money to a blind cause. These mechanisms work hand in hand with social media at their roots. Since Howard Dean’s campaigning revolution, online donations are the primary tool that drives political campaigns across the country. OWS did not have this and failed to connect the financial support needed for lasting growth with the social media reach that they constructed.
The presidential campaign is a much more convenient way to broadcast a national message allowing for a candidate to speak to all fifty states evenly. This alone changed the social media landscape for both movements. The early momentum for OWS quickly disappeared as a critical analysis of the movement took place and no results could be seen. While Bernie gained momentum over his first year, OWS fizzled out as the infrastructure needed to continue did not become sustained. In every way, the support for Bernie was able to improve upon the faults that existed naturally for OWS and was able to better catalyze national populist support for his message.
Subsequently, the OWS lacks a national approach to change that would have allowed for a successful message to be clearly translated nationwide. In September 2011, nearly three quarters of Americans supported tax hikes on earners over one million dollars, a policy goal that aligns with the aims of the OWS. Nationwide, there was support for the policies of the movement, but their geographic and heavily urban structure disrupted any chance at a national message. While OWS did well at generating large crowds in New York and Oakland, they did very little to mobilize and engage with the 37.3% of Americans who lived outside of urban areas. As a concentration of OWS protesters formed in New York and San Francisco, they gained national media coverage, local television interviews, but failed to establish a protocol or collective action that would build upon their initial success. San Francisco and New York represent two of the largest financial centers in the country, but are not centers of policy or government work. While OWS demanded changes from the government to affect these large banks and those in the 1%, they aimed their message at the bank’s vaults instead of policy centers across the country. Statehouses nationwide felt very little ripple from these protests, as their messages targeted the culprits and not those who could provide solutions.
The presidential campaign worked inverse to this. As Bernie Sander’s campaign gained national attention, it allowed him to reach across and into states where he previously could not have campaigned simply as a Vermont senator. It was social media that allowed for this entry and strengthened his nationwide approach. As Twitter reached a record number of users in 2016, the benefit was passed on to those running for president. Household political dynasties like Bush and Clinton were easily recognizable and transportable, but a relatively unknown senator from Vermont had little political clout to throw around the country. Where the direct participation in protests limited OWS, the increasing number of political rallies across the country strengthened Bernie Sanders. Living streaming, tweeting, and sharing images and stories of his rallies became commonplace as the sensationalization of a political rally transformed it into a life changing experience. Combining an aggressive nationwide schedule with this outpour of social media support, these rallies became convenient ways for Sanders to visit places and spread his message in a deeper, more meaningful way. While Sanders never lead a march on state capitol buildings, he was effective at spreading his message reshaping the rhetoric of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as they campaigned as well.
The content of these movements is the same yet the trajectory is entirely different. The OWS was unable to generate the type of national support of Bernie because they simply lacked the foresight and planning that Bernie’s team had. These two movements carried the same core message, yet as a political movement matures, so must the operations and functions of it’s members. Bernie successfully incorporated social media into the middle of his campaign and used it to create support at his rallies and generate the capital needed to continue to grow. OWS initially succeeded in wide margins by generating a powerful social media presence but ultimately failed when it was unable to convert that presence into a tangible effect.
As OWS fizzled out of the national spotlight and as Bernie slowly lost the Democratic nomination, we saw these two movements come to an immediate and surprising halt. Yet, neither were over and both movements resulted in a national legacy that is still functioning today. Recently, the five-year anniversary of the OWS movement passed which has given the United States a tangible amount of time to see how this movement has affected our country and how and if a legacy has formed. The largest outcome to result from this movement is the simple phrasing of the “1%” and “99%.” Previous to 2011, income inequality was not an often discussed topic in the United States. But, the financial crisis highlighted the impending fact that the wealth could control this economy and even when harmed by it, it would come out remarkably better. Dr. Theda Skocpol, a sociologist and political scientist at Harvard University, who has analyzed the Occupy Wall Street movement said, “Occupy’s biggest accomplishment is the 1% phrase, It’s become an important way to talk about income inequality in public.” This is a subtler shift of national attention to a focus on policy that will fix inequality in the United States. While previously most economic thinking focused on the health of the economy, this shifted the view that a healthy economy included a lower level of inequality. Previous to this, reported gains in GDP, changes in the total size of the economy, and inflation were key economic indicators. But now inequality has entered into that discussion and this is a direct result of the Occupy Movement.
Subsequently, this has shifted focus onto student debt and the minimum wage as harbingers of this inequality. As year after year more people enter college, the increasing size of student debt became a focus of this movement as the number of quality jobs decreased.The candidate pool grew even larger and the displacement and underemployment of millions became a growing problem in the country. Compounding the problems were rising inflation that lead to constantly shrinking minimum wage. Michael Levitin, of the Atlantic, points to the gains in minimum wage since 2011 as a key victory because of the Occupy Movement. He says:
One of Occupy’s largely unrecognized victories is the momentum it built for a higher minimum wage. The Occupy protests motivated fast-food workers in New York City to walk off the job in November 2012, sparking a national worker-led movement to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. In 2014, numerous cities and states including four Republican-dominated ones — Arkansas, Alaska, Nebraska, and South Dakota — voted for higher pay; 2016 will see more showdowns in New York City and Washington, D.C., and in states like Florida, Maine, and Oregon. From Seattle to Los Angeles to Chicago, some of the country’s largest cities are setting a new economic bar to help low-income workers.
While not occurring immediately after or as a result of OWS, these gains were substantial as the minimum wage saw very little movement over the previous ten years. This is the most substantive policy legacy that OWS was able to promote. The federal income tax hike was stalled by a republican controlled congress and while states like California and New York increase state income taxes, the entire country did not follow.
The final effect of OWS, and perhaps the most lasting, was in its inspiration and message that it delivered across the country. OWS struck a chord with most Americans who saw what happened in 2009 and said enough was enough. The most tangible way to measure this was directly through the rise of Sanders. Through comparing these two movements it is easy to see the connection between Sanders and OWS. While occupy fizzled out and ultimately didn’t influence the national congress, Sanders represented the late candidate of this movement. It is important to see that the movement may have stalled, but the sentiment remained. The large primary support for Sanders showed the United States that income inequality was a real issue and that even five years later, OWS still had an effect.
Now, while Sanders’ rise was a direct result of the previous movement, his legacy is entirely separate. Sanders expanded upon the progress made by OWS and contributed deeply to the legacy that it could continue on. Infrastructure was added to the populist message and Sanders’ voter contact sheets have allowed for future leaders and sympathizers to contact voters across the country. Through his massive social media presence, Sanders has a podium in which now he can speak nationally for his progressive agenda and change the foundations of the democratic party. As Bernie’s influence increased around the election, so has his power in the Democratic Party. An endorsement from Bernie now means more, and his political clout is much higher as he looks to rebuild the party that recently lost the election. But, more importantly, his legacy will last in the structure of his campaign and the message he intended to send.
Bernie, through small donations and massively energized rallies, made the individual feel part of this election cycle again. By being a populist candidate and breaking down the elitist wall of politics, Bernie was able to show the average American that their voice could be heard and their location and income would not diminish their effect. Through his denial of PAC money and his reliance on individual donors, Bernie has helped catalyze a movement that has given the democratic party back to the people, and his legacy will rest on how long that ownership lasts.
History, however, will ultimately shape the legacy that these movements can create. With a new presidency on the horizon, it is incredibly hard to anticipate the effect that both Bernie Sanders and OWS will have on this country as the new president’s policies unfold. We cannot determine whether Bernie will be remembered or forgotten, and ultimately if his individual donation base will be utilized or tossed aside. As the OWS movement and Bernie Sanders lost momentum, the country now faces the wealthiest cabinet that a president has ever assembled. Filled with billionaire donors and Wall Street executive, the President-Elect has embraced the greed of the 1% and shown the American people that money really is power. Bernie’s legacy and the ultimate #OccupyWallStreet legacy is too recent to measure, but a consistent struggle between them and the status quo will continue.
Works Cited:
Berman, Jillian. “Vast Majority Of Americans Favor Buffett Rule’s Millionaire Tax:
Poll.”The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Sept. 2011. Web. 6 Dec.
2016.
Sanders, Bernie. “Bernie’s Announcement — Bernie Sanders.” Bernie Sanders. N.p., 26
May 2015. Web. 16 Dec. 2016.
Hyer, Virginia. “U.S. Cities Home to 62.7% of Population but Comprise 3.5% of Land
Area.” The United States Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau, 04 Mar.
2015. Web. 6 Dec. 2016.
Elliot, Justin. “The Origins of Occupy Wall Street Explained.” Salon. N.p., 4 Oct. 2016.
Web. 6 Dec. 2016.
Goldmacher, Shane. “Bernie’s Legacy: One of the Most Valuable Donor Lists
Ever.”POLITICO. POLITICO LLC, 06 June 2016. Web. 6 Dec. 2016.
Kopf, Dan. “Trump’s 17 Cabinet-level Picks Have More Money than a Third of US
Households Combined.” Quartz. N.p., 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 16 Dec. 2016.
Leonhardt, Megan. “The Lasting Effects of Occupy Wall Street, Five Years Later.” Time.
Time, 16 Sept. 2016. Web. 6 Dec. 2016.
Levitin, Michael. “The Triumph of Occupy Wall Street.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media
Company, 10 June 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2016.
Schneider, Nathan. “Occupy Wall Street:FAQ.” The Nation. N.p., 29 June 2015. Web. 7
Dec. 2016.
Seitz-Wald, Alex. “Bernie Sanders Shatters 2016 Turnout Record with 28,000 Crowd.”
MSNBC. NBCUniversal News Group, 10 Aug. 2015. Web. 6 Dec. 2016.