I stand inalterably against incoherence -- it was part of my brief against the tea party movement, which at least can articulate a general goal (smaller government!) while remaining very vague about specifics -- and so, for now, I stand against this occupation, which in many ways appears indistinguishable from a parody of social protest.
There have been a lot of high-minded (and not so high-minded) criticisms of Occupy Wall Street for not having specific goals or, even, much of a point. But it seems to me, particularly as it keeps building and spreading, that however mixed and mixed-up the messages on the signs and placards are, the size of the crowds is the message and the point and the goal.
It all boils down to a general reminder to politicians, banksters, the media, and each other that there are more of us than there are of them.
The goal is obvious too. We want to live in a country that isn’t run just for the benefit of bankers, hedge fund managers, and a few sociopathic rich people like the Koch Brothers.
How to achieve that goal needs to be worked out, but it was very exciting to me when I was watching the final episode of Ken Burns’ Prohibition last night to learn that although the evils wrought by Prohibition and the Volstead Act were well known and popularly regretted for years and that the forces behind it were suspect either as hypocrites or political reactionaries with a mean anti-immigration streak---the Ku Klux Klan were sworn tea-totallers, so there you have both hypocrisy and reactionarysim---a movement to repeal the 18th Amendment made no progress until a determined rich Republican named Pauline Sabin got fed up with the hypocrisies and the meanness and set to work mainly getting people to show up to voice their support for repeal.