Since its inception, Occupy has been criticized for everything from aroma to Zuccotti.  Most of these criticisms have been rooted in a basic lack of understanding of protest techniques and objectives.  Every once in a while, however, criticism comes along that should be heard, pondered, and used as an outline for improvement.  Recently, that criticism came from one of my favorite cynics: Bill Maher.

Maher has a knack for hitting the nail squarely on the head and with great force.  He holds nothing back in his flagrant (and hysterical) verbal abuses.  He is grounded so firmly in reality, it is often frightening, and his straight forward approach leaves no room for misunderstanding his message.   His “New Rule” called “The Tent Offensive” was no exception to his routinely clean and cutting routine.  If you missed it, you can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmtFXp9NuRk.

The point Maher made was that Occupy’s goal of world revolution is futile without distinct and focused political action within (not just against) the current political system.  He made reference to how Occupy needs to become the “Tea Party of the Democratic Party.”  While I understand the profound desire for the Occupiers to prevent the movement and its message from being co-opted by any other group – especially existing political parties, and I do not agree that becoming the left’s Tea Party is the course we need to take, I do strongly agree with the fundamental idea behind his criticism.

Throughout American history, and all political histories, parties have come and gone, rulers have ruled and perished – leaving behind them messes or legends for later generations to contend with.  What started out as Whigs and Tories in the United States became Federalists, a recognizably Republican Democratic party, and a party of Republicans that resided their beliefs firmly in the ideals propagated by today’s Democrats.  Things change, but they rarely change without organized political influence.  Even when we rose up against British tyranny, we did not do so without sending ambassadors across the pond.

There are two ways to free an imprisoned people: fight or negotiate.  However much a fan of camping and marching and music I may be, I do not believe that the world’s foremost superpower will crumble to civil disobedience and a “guitarmy.”  It just seems like the job will take longer, will be far less efficient, and would unlikely be able to withstand the real slings and arrows – which, I can assure you, the powers-that-be have not even begun to fling in our direction.  So a conversation needs to be had about how we can more effectively and swiftly move this movement into the future and toward its ultimate goal of a changed political system.

Occupy has quite effectively used today’s technologies to push itself forward despite being shunned by mainstream media.  We did this by reaching into the existing media network and creating lines for ourselves.  Then, we built those lines into powerful threads for communication, promoting Occupy around the country and around the world.  We infiltrated an existing system, propelling ourselves forward using the tools available.  Why would a political maneuver be any different an approach?

The network is already in place.  It already has the power.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to push ourselves into the current system, create lines for our movement’s message and objectives, and obtain the power to change the system from within, than it would to attempt to use cardboard signage and marching folk music to bring an empire to its knees?

This has long been where Occupy has lost many of its would-be supporters.  Many Americans agree with the messages of Occupy and want to see the same changes Occupy speaks about, but they do not want to sign on to a group that is attempting to conquer an enemy it hasn’t fully assessed for realistic victory.

Occupy is organizing protests, sit-ins, and marches – all vital as the heartbeat of the movement, as well as conferences, committees, and teach-ins – vital as the brains of the organization, but it has yet to put its feet and fingers to work, taking the movement to new places and manipulating the highly valuable and imperative channels we could and should be accessing.  Meanwhile, thousands – if not millions – of would-be supporters are still sitting on the sidelines, worrying about and brainstorming ways to effectively change the system.  They are still staring at the same old options – vote against someone they hate, while voting for someone they don’t really believe in, or wait it out and pray we don’t end up the peasants in a neo-Feudalistic system controlled by a Fascist aristocracy.

So, taking Mr. Maher and his cutting criticism to heart may be more than just demonstrative of putting on our big boy pants and facing ourselves in the mirror.  It might just be the key to our success as a movement.

No legislation was ever written or repealed, no political system was ever given power, no set of rulers were ever overthrown by people who stood outside the gates walking in circles asking to be heard.  Governments are like people.  Change comes from within.  Get in there and change it.