The Occupy Wall Street movement was once a front-page story. Now, it’s an afterthought in the minds of Americans.
It captivated our nation, placing a spotlight on our vast income inequality, the corrosive power of too-big-to-fail banks and multinational corporations that have prospered at everyone else’s expense.
OWS began during September of last year in Manhattan’s Financial District and spread to more than 100 cities in the U.S., with demonstrations in more than 1,500 cities globally.
Unfortunately, these aforementioned statistics no longer hold true because the popularity of the OWS movement fell just as quickly as it rose.
OWS certainly isn’t in the most optimal condition right now, but the movement is still salvageable.
The most recent demonstration in New York grew to a mere 100 protestors – an extremely decent turnout in the movement’s current state.
Why did a movement that captured the nation just a few months ago vanish so quickly?
Many people look to protestors’ eviction from New York’s Zuccotti Park – the initial and primary site of the OWS protest camp – as the reason for the for the movement’s steady and rapid decline.
Others look to the weather as the culprit for disenchanting protestors and impacting their desire to continue outdoor camping and demonstrations.
Neither of these are valid arguments.
For one, it has been an unseasonably warm winter as temperatures have climbed to unprecedented levels in cities such as New York, Boston and Washington, which are the three most common venues for OWS demonstrations.
The Zuccotti Park eviction did negatively impact the OWS movement, but it is by no means the reason why the protests have fled from the public consciousness.
The OWS movement had already started losing steam before the Zuccotti Park eviction.
Web searches for OWS, which peaked Oct. 15, had fallen 66 percent by Nov. 11, four days before the eviction, according to Google Trends. Additionally, Pew Research Center’s weekly news index showed OWS diminished from 10 percent of total news coverage on Oct. 1 to less than 4 percent on Nov. 11.  
There are two genuine reasons why OWS has been unsuccessful. First, Wall Street financiers have not been affected by the protests. Second, the movement lacks a strong leader who can provide organization and a clear message.
In order for the OWS protestors to accomplish their goals, they have to significantly affect the targets of their activism – CEOs and bankers – with their demonsrations. 
For example, OWS members decided to organize a large protest on the steps of Washington in favor of placing legal controls on executive pay. For OWS to accomplish this concrete goal of political reform, it is absolutely necessary for demonstrators to demonize their target by having a protest that gains enough attention to spark a national outcry.
But occupiers are too passive and fail to get in the faces of Wall Street financiers, then continued attempts at reform will be to no avail. Another prevalent criticism associated with OWS is its lack of clear message, collective goals and organized voice.
These and nearly all of the problems facing OWS can be overcome, and the viability of the movement greatly enhanced by obtaining a leader.
The addition of a leader will allow OWS to pinpoint issues they feel need reform and come up with sensible solutions. This is the next and only step for the movement to have a shot at achieving real change.
Look at the Tea Party. If they can get people like Michele Bachmann in Congress, then this movement is more than capable of passing a few reforms in Washington.
OWS: Stop being such hipsters, and accept a leader for the greater good of the movement.
Jay Meyers is a 19-year-old economics major from Shreveport, La. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_jmeyers
 
—- Contact Jay Meyers at [email protected].