Michael Moore thinks that what Occupy Wall Street should do is endorse a list of demands. Laying out some desirable measures, among them reinstating Glass-Steagall and campaign finance reform, Mr. Moore admirably makes it clear that he speaks for no one but himself. He’s just a fan of the movement who’s been looking at these ideas for a while and has some suggestions. But the question left lingering is the one that buzzes on the tip of the tongue every time anyone – Mr. Moore as well as commentators less sympathetic than he is to the cause – recommends that the occupation make demands. That question: what good would demands do Occupy Wall Street?
Presumably, the point of making demands on the government would be to try to influence the national dialogue to address the issues there contained. It must be this. Surely, no one thinks that, were the General Assembly to endorse a list of legislative demands, the government would send delegates to negotiate these demands with the occupiers; this is not a hostage situation, after all, but a social movement. Short of this fantasy, the extent to which demands would further legislative initiatives would be by helping to build public consciousness about the implied grievances and consensus around the solutions prescribed.