Occupy Wall Street is mentioned in two episodes of The Bob Zadek Show, in neither case as the topic of the hour. Both references are brief and occur inside broader discussions — in the first, an interview with Gary Johnson about drug policy and executive experience; in the second, a conversation with Larry Klayman about constitutional renewal. The excerpts supply no information about the movement’s founding, organization, demands, or duration.
Gary Johnson: the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street as parallel outrage
In the January 21, 2012 episode, Gary Johnson, described by Bob Zadek as a two-term Governor of New Mexico, was asked how he had dealt with a legislature hostile to some of his views. Johnson said he had the distinction as Governor of New Mexico of having vetoed more bills than perhaps the other 49 governors in the country combined, and he framed the veto as significant in a good way The Triumph of Principle Over Politics (2012). He said that “No” really boils down to less time and less money that you and I have to spend complying with government rules and regulations and laws that don’t make any difference in our lives. He added that in New Mexico he did not pass so many laws because he felt he was able to predict the unintended consequence that went along with it, and that the unintended consequence always had a basis in time and money.
Johnson then said that all presidential candidates talk about all the things they are going to do for you and I, and that he would like to focus on all the things he is not going to do. He called not going to do really positive, and identified it with two movements at once: the outrage of the Tea Party, which is “let’s slash spending,” and the outrage of Occupy Wall Street, which is “this country’s unfair, we deal it out unfairly, it’s for sale.” From that pairing he drew a single prescription: “let’s stop crony capitalism” The Triumph of Principle Over Politics (2012). The excerpt breaks off at that point, mid-sentence, as Johnson begins to speak again about his time as Governor of New Mexico.
The passage is notable for what it does with the movement rather than what it reports about it. Johnson did not describe Occupy Wall Street’s composition, its encampments, its demands, or its relationship to any organization. He characterized its complaint in three quoted clauses and treated that complaint as one half of a bipartisan or anti-establishment pair, with the Tea Party supplying the other half. The two are presented as sharing a target — government that spends and rules without making anyone safer or better off — and as differing in what they emphasize: spending in one case, fairness and a system for sale in the other. Johnson’s own conclusion, stopping crony capitalism, is offered as what follows from taking either complaint seriously.
Bob Zadek’s own framing in the episode concerned drug policy, which he argued by analogy to alcohol prohibition, citing Ken Burns’ five-part documentary and saying that someday Americans will look back over the war on drugs and ask the Americans of the 1980s and 1970s and 1990s what they were thinking. He also said the policy harms third-world economies who become the feeders of the illicit drug market. None of this touches Occupy Wall Street; the movement enters only in Johnson’s answer about vetoes and legislation.
Larry Klayman: a movement that at least acted
The April 14, 2012 episode featured Larry Klayman, identified by Bob Zadek as the founder of Judicial Watch and of Freedom Watch. The discussion ranged over constitutional conventions, recall provisions, term limits for the Supreme Court and for federal judges, and the moral condition of the society. In his closing remarks, Klayman said that whatever method is chosen — a constitutional convention, lawsuits, or civil disobedience — he thought it is going to come to civil disobedience. He then said that although he did not agree with Occupy Wall Street in their goals, at least they were trying to do something about it, and that we libertarians and conservatives sat on our rear ends during this period Who’s Looking Out for Us? (2012).
The statement is a concession and a reproach, and its object is as much Klayman’s own side as the movement. He did not say what the movement’s goals were, only that he did not agree with them. He did not describe what the occupiers did, only that they were trying to do something. The contrast he drew was with libertarians and conservatives who, in his account, did nothing during the same period. He went on to say that he agreed with Bob Zadek in a personal perspective that Obama has to go legally, and that above all we need to come up with a way of dealing with ourselves in society and a sense of ethics and morality, quoting John Adams to the effect that without ethics, morality, and religion there will not be a lasting liberty.
Earlier in the same episode, a caller identified as Max argued against putting all trust in one person and proposed a many-to-many or networked model rather than a hierarchical one. Bob Zadek responded that the founders never envisioned such a strong president, that the president was simply supposed to be a chief executive sort of running the government, and that the concept of a president with so much power would have frightened the founders. Zadek said that if he had to make one change it would be term limits for the Supreme Court, and Klayman agreed, adding term limits for federal judges as well. Occupy Wall Street does not figure in that exchange; it appears only in Klayman’s final summary.
Across episodes: no development
The two episodes touch Occupy Wall Street only in passing, and the excerpts show no development between them: Johnson in January 2012 treated the movement’s complaint as one expression of a broader anti-cronyism outrage shared with the Tea Party, while Klayman in April 2012 treated it as an example of action by people whose goals he rejected, contrasted with the inaction of libertarians and conservatives The Triumph of Principle Over Politics (2012) Who’s Looking Out for Us? (2012). Neither speaker revised or responded to the other; the two remarks are independent asides in interviews about other subjects.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not state when Occupy Wall Street began, where it was based, who organized it, what it demanded, how long it lasted, or how it ended. They do not name any participant, spokesperson, or affiliated group, and they do not describe any action taken by the movement beyond Klayman’s general statement that it was trying to do something. Neither speaker addresses the movement’s relationship to the Democratic Party, to labor unions, or to any legislation. Everything the sources offer is two characterizations of the movement’s grievance and one judgment on its willingness to act.