Dan Kervick's picture

    Achieving Clarity about the "Occupy" Movement

    By Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 11:33am |

    Last night I went down to Occupy New Hampshire to drop off some supplies - some food, a tent and some pallets - and then stayed for a long three hour General Assembly meeting.   I won't go into all of the various topics and discussion points that were raised in the meeting, or the way the meeting was conducted.   But I came home with a fairly negative feeling of revulsion, and had to have a difficult internal talk with myself about who I am and about my fundamental political values.

    One of the organizers posted some thoughts and follow-ups on the GA on the online forum.   I first replied as follows:

    "Thank you for the comments, Keith. Tonight was my first General Assembly. Some of what I saw was truly inspiring, especially one woman who spoke of her desire to speak in her own voice, and not have lawyers speak for her.

    "But I also found a lot of what I heard just plain frightening and disturbing, and left the meeting feeling very alienated. I hope people won't mind if I contribute some ideas from time to time to the forum, but I don't think I'll be able to offer more active participation, because I just didn't come away with the feeling that the majority of people in attendance share my views about what political progress would consist in, or about the best means of achieving that progress."

    Some other members of the group then inquired about my feelings of fear, and asked me not to give up on the group.  So I decided to clarify and elaborate on my position:

    "Well I can tell you some of the things that are at the root of my fear:

    "Some of it has to do with the whole language of "occupation". An occupation is an aggressive and violent act. It's what the US did to Iraq, for example. So when it comes right down to it, I don't want my state to be "occupied." I respect my neighbors and fellow-citizens too much for that. It was one thing to "occupy" Wall Street, the commercial center of the American plutocracy. To my mind that language signified an effort to take back the United States government, and its precious democratic institutions, from the corporate feudal barons who have infiltrated it and corrupted it with their money. But when people are talking seriously - not just in a rhetorical manner - about "occupying" the state I love, or other states and cities in this country, then I'm afraid I find that a massive turn-off, and you have to count me out.

    "Another aspect of my fear is due to the process. Democratic peoples and governments have evolved very effective parliamentary procedures for governing themselves, and use these procedures successfully all over the country and throughout those parts of the world where democratic government thrives. In the English-speaking world, these procedures are called "Robert's Rules of Order". They work. Why has the Occupy movement deemed it necessary to invent entirely new rules of procedure? The new rules might seem more democratic, but I don't believe they are. They are based on an unworkable consensus model of government which effectively leads to the group being directed by vague clouds of emotion rather than rationality, and a kind of mob groping, and otherwise seem designed to thwart decision. Why not just do what most people do? You give everyone a chance to discuss and debate some issue, and then you vote. Usually, majority rules. But if you want you can decide in advance on the need for a 2/3 majority or a 3/4 majority, or some other number, that's fine too. But there is a workable procedure for making decisions. If the occupy movement isn't even committed to the process of voting, then it doesn't represent my ideals of democracy.

    "Finally, the revolutionary discourse repels me. The movement keeps talking about "the 99%". But I see little effort to formulate a position or a general stance on means and approaches that has any hope of appealing in the end to the bread-and-butter concerns and social commitments of even a bare majority of Americans - much less 99% of them. If you believe that 99% of Americans are interested in plotting the revolutionary overthrow of their government, I think you are seriously deluded. Most Americans are patriotic. And I don't mean in a sort of Mel Gibson, kill-the-redcoats-with-an-ax kind of patriotism. I mean that they revere their system of government, for which several generations of people have already fought and died defending, and just want to reform it and make it more representative of the whole body of its citizens.

    "My ideal of a movement for progressive change toward a more egalitarian society is a movement that aims to educate and organize its fellow-citizens to take back their government from the plutocracy, simply by voting the bastards out of power. I am fully convinced that can be done, by finding ways of communicating with each other and organizing each other that circumvent the channels of communication that are owned by the plutocracy. That ownership is the whole reason why the plutocracy runs the country: running a campaign using the standard modern technologies of communication costs money, and therefore candidates running for office often have no alternative but to suck up to those who have money. But there are new means of communication which are very inexpensive, and also large numbers of people who agree on an agenda can pool their resources to work effectively to counter the messaging of the ultra-rich.

    "America is not Egypt, and it's not Syria, and it's not Tunisia. Those countries have no democratic institutions, so they have to try to overthrow their existing governments in order to create a democracy. I don't believe that America is like that, and I think we can get real change without blood in the streets, and without actually toppling our government.

    "Finally, I am a pretty ordinary middle-class guy. My life is organized around my obligations to my family. I go to work everyday in an effort mainly to hang onto my job in the corporate battles, and so I can then provide for my family - including keeping my house, sending my son to college, and achieving a secure and comfortable retirement for my wife and me. The whole reason I'm working for change is because I see my way of life of life being threatened by rich bastards who are stealing it all from me and millions of people like me, and sucking the country dry through exploitation, mass unemployment and thievery. But I have never been arrested; I have never even been inside of a courtroom. And I don't plan to start now. For some young people, or some people who have been arrested multiple times, or for some professional activists or revolutionaries, courting arrest might seem like no big deal. But for me it would be an extraordinarily big deal. For one thing, I would almost certainly lose my job. And keeping myself from becoming unemployed is part of the reason I'm fighting in the first place.

    "You might look down on my life choices and priorities. But millions and millions of people are like me. So if you plan sincerely on appealing to the 99%, you will have to find a way of reckoning with the existence and values of people like me."

     

    Finally, on another thread devoted to Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which specifies a "right of revolution,"   I wrote the following:

    "As I mentioned on another forum, I am personally uninterested in carrying out or participating in a revolution. I believe in the latent power of elections and the democratic process. Reflecting on what seemed to be the contrary sentiment of the others there at the meeting, I realized it would be best for people like me to look to create an alternative reformist movement, dedicated to building a more egalitarian society through traditional democratic means."

    Another fellow in the group then try to engage me further in dialog, but the interaction only underscored my feelings of alienation not just from the group's approach and tactics, but from its main ideals as well.  For example, after I offered the New Deal as an example of a far-reaching progressive program that was implemented through standard democratic and legislative means, this guy lambasted the New Deal, which he believes "bankrupted" the country.  The rhetoric was completely straightforward Tea Party stuff, no different than what you typically hear from those groups about the New Deal.   But when I told him that if I wanted to be in a Tea party, I would have joined the first one, he insisted that he "hated" the Tea Party.   I think, frankly, he's just incredibly confused.

    There is just way too much Tea Partyism, radical libertarianism, anarchism and free-stater stuff in the New Hampshire group for my taste.  I'm a politically mature left-progressive, and I don't have time to waste searching for minimal bits and pieces of common ground with people who are fundamentally hostile to the core elements of my political belief system.  I also know enough about history to understand how futile these sorts of sporadic revolts typically turn out to be.

    I don't know what kinds of experiences people have had in other states, since I know New Hampshire is "different".   But if anybody else has had experiences qualitatively similar to mind, and feels they are simply either too old or too clear-headed to waste time with some kind of Wachowski Brothers youth revolt,  I would encourage them to go their own way and develop alternative reformist groups, so that mature and committed left-progressives can try to seize the moment and take advantage of the energy for change on behalf of an egalitarian agenda, without spinning our wheels in this kind of muddy adolescent confusion.

    Comments

    I plan to attend a General Assembly this weekend, so this is very interesting to me. I share some of your reservations about this, "You say you want a revolution," business, even though that makes me feel like a fuddy duddy. I do think we should protest, I just don't want a starring role in some anarchist's idea of how it should play out.


    by Donal on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 11:47am

    I hear you.  But I just decided I had to stop self-hating my fuddy-duddy side and embrace my maturity.  I'm perfectly willing to stand in a park and on the street corner with a sign, and chat up reporters as they come by, as part of an effort to reach out to the American public and communicate a progressive vision to them.

    But this group in New Hampshire isn't even clearly anything I would identify as progressive.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 11:59am

    Thanks again Dan.  I guess I feel like the demonstrations are a healthy thing in and of themselves, notwithstanding the legitimate reasons for the reservations you have.   I continue to believe that the key is what happens in transition to the long-term, i.e. when the consensus is that it's time to leave the parks and enter the fray. 


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 12:45pm

    Sorry to hear it is so challenging in NH Dan.

    I am not overly thrilled by the use of the word 'occupation' either and I have pushed back very hard on the idea that this movement should produce 'demands' as this was the media's idea.

    It was just Sunday that I realized how much an inner group of people were making decisions on behalf of the group and that the General Assemblies we were having were not necessarily being acknowledged as notes were not being posted and according to what I was told these same people were not even making themselves aware of the decisions the assembly had made when they were not there.  Apparently if the note taker never turned in notes that left us operating with a wild and vague notion among those that were there and those that weren't about what the group was doing. 

    And the push back and what I am guessing is fear from this inner group around identifying the slightest unifying energy was sad/  There seemed to be some projection that any sort of unification around any idea was 'wrong' or 'limiting'  I don't know... but it convinced me to walk away.

    I am pretty sure it will be much easier in Boulder.   So I might as well make things easier on myself and see what they are up to.


    by synchronicity on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 1:15pm

    This fella's take on #OWS resonates with me.

    You don't care to be occupied. You don't want a revolution. You want to use the tools at hand to address the current situation. The same tools that were used against the populace and got us to where we are now. Manipulate the votes that elect the stinkers that change the laws that will screw the masses that will erase any societal gains that were made to elevate the human condition. Been there. Done did that. Only took 40 years, and look at the costs we are now paying. Look at the load our children must now carry.

    Dan, I don't have 40 years left on this planet. I cannot wait 40 years to regain all that's been lost. And my kids will be in their 70's before they will be free of the fear of falling into poverty because of these whims of the uber-rich to gather all the wealth to themselves.

    I get that you are a stickler for rule following. I get that semantics are sticking points for you. I get that it's not that you don't want to participate, but that you want to participate in a manner nearer to your own comfort zone. Maybe you'll find a way around the uneasy parts. Who knows? But, this is a new, wild thing, Dan. This is not your father's Oldsmobile. This is the new generation's response to seeing their promised bright future dulled by greed.

    This is a new game that needs new rules.


    by wabby on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 1:25pm

    I don't see how the result of "wild" is likely to be any better than what we have now.

    I also didn't find any consensus at the New Hampshire event that the cause of our problems was either "greed" or "Wall Street".  I think that was the opinion of some, but most of them were of the opinion that the cause was too much government and the state.

    One of the organizers read the "Declaration of the Occupation of Wall Street" out loud and asked for an endorsement.  But many of those in attendance put a "block" on it.   I believe it was too left wing for them.   I got no impression that the people in attendance could ever come together to endorse the kind of activist government that will be needed to end unemployment and redistribute income.  However, they do seem to have this vague sense that if only we destroyed the banking system and went back to gold or clam shells, everything would work out somehow.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 1:51pm

    Clamshells? Oh, wow. Maybe it's a regional thing, then. Maybe the vibe in NH is less urgent than what is experienced here in Michigan. We have what amounts to third world problems here so our protestations are a little more gut level. Not too many concerned with destroying the banking system. More concerned about staying above a subsistence level lifestyle.

    Come to Michigan, Dan. Hold your sign up here where you'd be better appreciated.


    by wabby on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 8:20pm

    You so totally rock.

    Dan seems to be afraid of words and what they might mean. If words scare people, then I doubt they're willing to get down into the mud where the battle will be fought.

    It seems to me that fear of wallowing in the mud is why we're neck deep in it.


    by bwakfat on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 11:32pm

    This all reminds me of the environmental movement condensed that can be summed up with an event I helped organize for a local earth day celebration.  We brought in Paul Watson of Sea Shepard fame to speak.  He immediately launched into a rant about how those who just write letters to Congress, etc weren't real environmentalists.  Real environmentalists were doing things like they were doing with Sea Shepard or the one driving spikes into trees to stop loggers. 

    The crowd came willing to listen and maybe to be inspired.  Instead they were insulted because the path they might have chosen didn't match his sense of urgency. The whole event was dismal as some pushed back against his attitude, esp. the part of supporting the use of spiking trees which can cause serious harm to loggers. 

    Everyone is going to chose the rules they want to play by.  In a movement that is at the very least national in scope, this is going to bring in a whole lot of variety.  A lot of folks will want to play by the old rules, and it may not have anything to do with staying comfortable or avoiding sacrifice.  The person may believe that it is the most effective path to go in order to achieve positive results.

    Because I can just as easily say that this the same old game that has been played throughout human history, and it is always played by the same rules.  The only things that might change are the people involved, the exact methods of actions and counter-actions, and the exact slogan on the signs, all of which makes it kind of seem new and wild.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 2:26pm

    I need to clarify something.

    When I say "wild", I am not defining the Occupy This as out of control. I mean it as something organic that evolved naturally. In botany and biology they call this a "sport". Not totally unexpected, but maybe a little different than envisioned. Nevertheless, it will find its own value.

    And, you know what, Trope? You can easily say this is the same old game played throughout history and you would not necessarily be in error. The difference is, this is happening now, in this day and in this age, and it's happening to us. Specifically, it is happening to a newer generation. It isn't fair to not allow this newer generation the opportunity to define themselves separate from the older one. That is what is new. That is what is wild.


    by wabby on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 9:21pm

    The older generation will typically say we know a thing or two that maybe you could benefit from listening to, young whippersnappers.  The younger generation will typically say that you, the older generation, failed so what do you know?, and in any case history becomes bunk when the fuddy duddies who didn't succeed go about unintentionally, perhaps, ensuring the younger generation will repeat the same mistakes or failures they did.  And so it goes...


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 9:33pm

    'zackly! That's why I'm always typing, "Who knows? Not me."

    smiley


    by wabby on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 9:57pm

    I am in no way advocating that any generation, group, or individual not be allowed to define themselves (although as a post-structuralist, I do have some ideas about just how much freedom one has in this regard as a consequence of societal/cultural dynamics).

    Heck, when i was youngster in the late 70 early 80s I chose in part the path of the punk rocker in my attempt to define myself from the older generation and to express my political views (i.e. no future, no future, no future..)

    The difference here is that this is part of a movement which is calling for my participation.  It is asking me to define myself as part of it. 

    And sometimes those things that are new and wild and exciting can be enticing just because they are new and wild and exciting.  Sometimes that organic unfolding like a poem discovering itself within oneself can be the most exhilarating of human experiences. 

    Ezra Pound said "Make It New."  Unfortunately, just because whatever it is that is new doesn't mean it is inherently good (nor bad - for those who are partial to the tried and true ways).


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 9:14am

    Agree Dan with your observations and commentary. It will take more time, hopefully not 40 years (!) for this country to get on track. The clowns running for the GOP, and a recent poll showing people blame government for the bad economy as much as Wall Street bubble blowing financiers, might mean we have a way to go. People must know that government is the only institution on their side, it failed in the responsibility to rein in the bankers, but it will do its job only of the voters demand it. A comment on a Krugman article at the NYT summarized in Acts how the Great Recession may be developing, I added some of my own alterations:

     

    When events of the magnitude of the great Recession come along, there’s always a familiar arc.
    Act I is always The Bailout Phase. In this phase the Masters of the Universe call in their chips with their bought and paid for politicians and the public fronts up the money.
    Act II is the We Got Away with IT phase. This phases always lasts 2-3 years....the Masters of the Universe make sure no form of control is successfully implemented.
     Act III .....two to three years later.....most still believe things will sort out OK, but with the economy coasting downhill and the rich sucking the last dollars and life out of main street, protests and calls for action begin, aimed at dethroning the influence of big money...this is met by the Masters increasing the propaganda to portray this as an attack on democracy...
    Act IV the people demand real change and action, the the political classes move to outdo one another in throwing the Masters under the bus or into jail, real regulations are passed, programs are implemented, laws are enforced.

    Robert Reich in a column this week also talked of an arc:

    ...This concentration of income and wealth has generated the political heft to deregulate Wall Street and halve top tax rates. It has bankrolled the so-called Tea Party movement, and captured the House of Representatives and many state governments. Through a sequence of presidential appointments it has also overtaken the Supreme Court. ....Yet the great arc of American history reveals an unmistakable pattern. Whenever privilege and power conspire to pull us backward, the nation eventually rallies and moves forward. Sometimes it takes an economic shock like the bursting of a giant speculative bubble; sometimes we just reach a tipping point where the frustrations of average Americans turn into action. ...Look at the Progressive reforms between 1900 and 1916; the New Deal of the 1930s; the Civil Rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s; the widening opportunities for women, minorities, people with disabilities, and gays; and the environmental reforms of the 1970s.  
    In each of these eras, regressive forces reignited the progressive ideals on which America is built. The result was fundamental reform.
    Perhaps this is what’s beginning to happen again across America.

    I hope Reich is correct in his forecast, and the fourth Act leads in the progressive direction, and not further to the right.

     


    by NCD on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 2:12pm

    I am like you Dan; I prefer a peaceful method, but I am afraid the war on the middle class is too far advanced.

    Having temporary peaceful protests is somewhat acceptable, to the owners of our country. No armed conflict would be an ideal situation for those that want to tighten the grip around our throats. I don’t want violence either, but is there really an alternative?  

    I am sure there were many who didn’t want to hear of, or see, armed conflict against their, King George

    We were civilized British subjects. Surely King George would come to his senses, see the reason presented by our representatives before his court. To empathize with the colonists who were angry.

    We didn’t want war, we wanted our grievances addressed, we petitioned time and again, but were always ignored.

    It was only when it was concluded that our petitions to address the grievances were never going to be addressed;  that King George would never change; did our forefathers say “ what else can we do”?   

    Go back and tell our fellow citizens we tried and we failed; were just going to have to accept that we will be forever enslaved to those who feel, America belongs to them, their money bought it, and they own it.

    Really Dan, what more can the victims of this corrupt economic/political system do? Keep petitioning for our grievances to be heard?

    Been there done that  

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry

    “Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?.......It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope and pride. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it……….

    They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?.....

    If we wish to be free; if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms, and to the God of hosts, is all that is left us.

    It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, peace! But there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? …….”

    Dan you can cry Peace, peace but there is no peace, there is no political chance our grievances will be heard or that they will ever be addressed.

    While you are hoping; the peoples collective interests would be served, rather than the moneyed interests who are strengthening their positions.  

    Money controls the Congress, it controls the Statehouses, it controls redistricting, it controls everything that could be used against it.  

    There is no hope, it’s an illusion intended to pacify dissent. Protest peacefully then go home.    


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 2:22pm

    Revolution in America would end badly.   You know who has the guns?  Not liberals and progressives.  The people with the guns are the white supremacists, the tea partiers, the militia men, the military and the ex-military.  Gosh, I'm sure they will bring in a golden age of equality and decency!


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 2:26pm

    I agree Dan, It will end badly,

    I do not wish this event to occur, where will we hide?  

    If this protest moves underground, the elites will be hard pressed to get the people to have anymore faith in their government.

    This should be the fear the plutocracy/oligarchy should have, for they have, everything to lose.

    I really don't want this event to occur; so why doesn't the 1% prevent it? Is it because they have no fear?

    You and I fear it will end badly;  does the 1% fear or do they think, their gold will protect them?

    I may have asked you before; which armed camp will you belong to? 


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 6:10pm

    Oh, I think what is most likely to happen is that the movement will evolve into something a little bit more mainstream, and politically effective, and then in about five years we will have a more liberal Congress and a more liberal President..

    The thing with the plutocracy is that they are now so small and concentrated that almost everyone now feels the wealthy are sticking it to them.  So the pendulum will shift leftward, as it has during similar downturns.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 6:17pm

    Sorry I don't see that vision.

    What I see is the naivety of the US electorate who have not benefited from the corrupt two parties, adopting what the more seasoned Europeans have concluded.

    Change has to be forced upon these Barons. They are not going to give up power without a fight. Why should they? 

    It would be one thing to say the grievances and protests are local, easily  fixed, by voting for someone who tells you what you want to hear. (Been there to many times, to put anymore trust in that system)  but you know it's a global concern, bigger than anything I've seen in my lifetime or that I recall. 

    I remember the SLA, I remember the bombings of Federal Buildings.

    Think; the greatest Army in the world is having a hard time beating an army of poppy growers. You think we'll resort to drones here in the USA.

    The Mexican cartel has already got the army and the guns here.  

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army

    We need to remind the barons "the only thing they have to fear, is fear itself; works both ways. Working class Americans are in fear.  

    As the baron class takes our houses, taking our savings and retirements, sending  our jobs overseas, in order to undermine our standard of living. Bringing in replacement workers to counter our leverage, and then treat us as though were too stupid, and that we believe when the barons say, they have our best interest at heart. It defies credulity.

    Steal our future and then lie to us, over and over again.

    Europeans have had centuries to draw a conclusion, Americans are almost there.

    The system is rigged, to benefit the barons.    

    In the end their Gold will not save them. 

    File:Cole Thomas The Course of Empire Desolation 1836.jpg

     


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 7:35pm

    And who led the American Revolution: the landed wealthy elites.

    And who would we put in charge of the new order after this revolution that we avoided electing into power through our democratic elections?


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 2:37pm

    Just pray it's not another Hitler or Stalin? 


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 7:41pm

    Dan. Your points are worth debating, but it doesn't help when you throw out the compulsive insults about those backing Occupy being "adolescent," (and corresponding labelling of your own views as "mature.") You do this a lot recently, and it adds nothing, other than making you - and a handful of others - feel a bit better, what with the back-patting and posing as "the only adults in the crowd."

    Shorter: you may be older, but your ideas can still be crap. Labelling them as "mature" adds nothing.

    *

    Let's ignore your initial reasons for fear (the name "Occupy" etc.) and turn to your more "mature" idea:

    - "My ideal of a movement for progressive change toward a more egalitarian society is a movement that aims to educate and organize its fellow-citizens to take back their government from the plutocracy, simply by voting the bastards out of power.

    - I am fully convinced that can be done, by finding ways of communicating with each other and organizing each other that circumvent the channels of communication that are owned by the plutocracy. That ownership is the whole reason why the plutocracy runs the country...: 

    - But there are new means of communication which are very inexpensive, and also large numbers of people who agree on an agenda can pool their resources to work effectively to counter the messaging of the ultra-rich."

    Now, this little riff apparently relates back to your view that the existing democratic institutions can be made to work. In fact, you say it's simple - "vote the bastards out of power."

    And doesn't that sound mature? As opposed to "revolution" (which is apparently all your local Occupy people want to talk about, and see as their preferred way forward), which must be a more "adolescent" way of talking, right? 

    Except that, there IS this little problem with the history of the last few decades. Yes, the "kids in the street" approach hasn't produced any fully-fledged Revolutions locally, or lately, but, ummmmm, facts is facts. And it's YOUR oh-so-adult "vote the bastards out" approach which has actually ruled the day, and which has performed by landing us... here.

    Right here equalling = the lap of fascism, an economy in the ditch, numerous endless wars, science losing ground to batshit craziness, and the entire system owned by the rich.

    That's right. Your approach - to simply vote the bastards out - is PRECISELY the one Americans have tried and tried and tried, under a dozen different flags, lo these past 3 or 4 or more decades.

    Shorter? Your ideal has a solid track record of failure.

    *

    Now. You then go on to talk about... finding ways to communicate with each other that circumvent the channels of communication that are owned by the plutocracy. 

    Well, not wanting to rain on your parade or anything, but that right there? That can't be accomplished BY voting, as you note. Which means, we're not really talking about just reform, are we? Not just "voting the bastards out."

    No, it's actually a much more radical proposal than that. Because, for starters, it appears to mean... no traditional TV, or newspapers, or radio, etc. etc.

    So how's that gonna work, Dan? We going to use the blogs to drive the political changes required? And when I say "blogs," of course I mean those not built on the corporate-owned channels of on-line communication.

    And if we do this by acting online (which is perhaps where you were going with this? Hard to tell), then we're into a whole world of process-related decisions, aren't we? I mean, there are fake people online and anonymous people and paid trolls and corporate fronts and all that. 

    And you know what, Dan? I defy you to use Robert's Rules of Order to run that online movement. No chance. No way. No how.

    And how are you gonna decide how to do that process? By vote? Gee. And how are you gonna keep the Tea Partiers out of voting? 

    Hint: You probably aren't. 

    In sum, your "mature" views don't appear to have thought a lot of things through, and seem to gloss over a whole range of complications the Occupy people are alread struggling with.

    In ways, much of your view seems to amount to.... being afraid. 

    It's like a lot of people here, and beyond, who tend to slip their fears into the discussions, and then tart it up with a whole lot of extraneous theory or talk about psychological maturity or somesuch. Some fear the fact that anti-Semites show up at these things. For others, it's the fear of Bloody Revolution. Or of Vocal Intimidators of isolated voices. Or the presence of the despised Tea Partiers. Or even, the fear of the "Apparatchiks" - a term which apparently now covers off people at Adbusters (an image which almost made me pee myself laughing.)

    Look. It's early days. Why is anyone expecting this Occupy business to swing into tightly formulated policy positions, the creation of voting blocs, the pushing forward of media-friendly leaders? Why is anyone expecting a movement whose core consists of pissed off college kids to have to all together? Why is anyone expecting a completely open gathering in the streets process to be able to sort out anti-Semites and Tea Partiers? 

    Why?

    You have absolutely no historical evidence that shows things must unfold in your "ideal" way. Do you? Not the American Revolution. Not the 1930's and the creation of the New Deal. Not the 50's and 60's and the birth of the Civil Rights, Peace, Women's or Green movements. Not even the election of Obama.

    (Even the component parts of your ideal ways are wide open for debate. I've heard plenty of people say you MUST have leaders. Whereas I've been a 24/7 active member of the Green movement for 30+ years, a movement which has made massive strides worldwide, and yet, a movement which has been essentially lacking (or "free of") a named leader through that entire time.)

    You just have some imagined way that YOU'D like it to be. And unless it becomes that, you're convinced it "won't work."

    And you know what? On many of your details, I suspect you're right. I place almost no odds on this movement, as presently constituted, electing the next President, throwing the Moneychangers out of the Temple, getting corporate citizenship revoked, or any of those fine goals.

    But then again, do I expect to see movements arise that are LIKE this, as we move towards those goals?

    Yes, I do.

    And do I think that helping people to learn from these processes, and within these processes, will be helpful toward those goals? 

    Yes, I do.

    I hope they'll learn things like... there are a whole lot of bullshit ways to seek consensus... that voting can be useful... that slowly articulating some core principles or demands is useful... that finding ways to stand apart from racists and from the violent fringe is required... 

    I hope all these things, and most of them, I suspect I share with you, Dan. 

    But why so much disdain? Why imagine you could have your online movement to overthrow money, and not face the same issues these kids are facing? 

    And I guess more than anything, I have the same question for you, as for others here who have trotted out their bogeymen --- Why so much FEAR? Doesn't that interest you? It does me. When I find myself using the word fear, I try and treat it as an alarm bell to search my own thoughts, my own feelings. I find it's often far more useful doing that, than finding semi-rational reasons to back up my fear-filled reading of the world.

     


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 3:07pm

    There's a lot of good stuff here. I'm mulling over writing up something about fear/caution and bravery/recklessness, but it's still not quite coherent in my mind yet. The gist is that, amongst progressives one can loosely group us into cautious (dare I say "conservative"?) and bold (arguably more "anarchic") groups. I think it's clear which group I fall into, and I agree with you that labels sometimes get in the way, which is why in that second sentence I attempted to use both positive and negatively connotated labels in combination.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 3:58pm

    My fear is primarily grounded in the fact that I have responsibilities to my loved ones.  Those responsibilities are the central organizing principle of my life.

    As for history: I feel like I have seen some of this psychodrama before, and know how it turns out.   The sixties counterculture was often animated by the same radically individualistic and vaguely anarchic spirit of freedom, rather than a spirit of civic cooperation and democratic process.  Lots of people talking about revolution; lots of clenched fists in the air, lot's of romances of anarchic destruction, etc.   The counterculture thought this somehow presaged a new, more just and equal order.  But in fact that, apart from the temporarily unifying theme of the draft, it was largely an index of an individualistic spirit of rebellion, which was more about dropping out of society and community than building society and community.

    As they got older, the supposed leftists spent the next few decades liberating themselves - essentially liberating themselves all along the way from each other and from society, in the pursuit of personal fulfillment and gratification.  That aspect of the counterculture spirit in the educated class thus easily morphed into the renewed love affair with laissez faire economics, market fundamentalism and deregulation, which are based on the same "get off my back, man" and "I want mine" outlook that generation ran with when they were younger, and which promise the individual the freedom to pursue a personal economic dream in disregard of others, and without any obligation to share.  The rise of those economic philosophies destroyed the postwar democratic order, and are the direct cause of the hideously unequal economic order we have today.  They destroyed labor; they destroyed civic spirit and cooperation; they destroyed the progressive tax code; they destroyed the sense of mutual obligation and fellowship in a society of equals.   They even destroyed a lot of families and friendships.  In a way I fell like a casualty of this long-running narcissistic social pathology.

    So now, whenever I see some young anarchist, whose philosophy is all about the sacred and inviolable purity of his own individual desires and freedom, I see the robber-baron capitalist of 30 years from now, who will still be pursuing his own poisonous individual desires and glories, on the backs of his workers, business competitors and community.  He'll just have a lot more money then.

    A lot of these supposed revolutionaries - with their "drenching the roots of the tree of liberty melodrama" - tell us they have tried the democratic path, and found it doesn't work.   I don't buy it.  I'll bet hardly a single one of them has ever gone to a town meeting, or a school board meeting, or a legislative session, or even written a letter to their members of Congress.

    Again, I might be overly fixated on the New Hampshire brand of the movement, which seems permeated by Tea Partiers, libertarians and free-staters.  For those of you who don't know what the "free state" movement is, it's a gang of radical libertarians who targeted New Hampshire for a sort of peaceful invasion, and have now settled here along with their "Leave me alone and don't tax me or anyone" attitudes.  They are politically active, that has made it even harder for progressives to work on building a more fair and equal community in this state.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 4:29pm

    I'll bet hardly a single one of them has ever gone to a town meeting, or a school board meeting, or a legislative session, or even written a letter to their members of Congress.

    From AA's link below:

    In a somewhat informal New York magazine survey of 100 protesters in Manhattan, only 39 percent reported having voted in the 2010 midterm elections.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 4:35pm

    That's actually a little bit higher than I would have guessed.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 4:53pm

    And of those who voted, I am guessing only 23 percent expected their vote to be actually counted.

    Did you read Q's critique above? Have you actually stepped back and seen just how poorly your "vote them out" schtick resonates with those who look at the results of politics-as-usual for these last thirty years?

    Do the adult thing, right? Place your faith in our elections. "Did you vote, young man? {Sniff}!"

    Hell, DanK, were you even THERE for the 2000 Presidential election? The 2004 election in Ohio? Waukesha for the WI State Supreme Court race? How about going back to Max Cleland's race in GA against Saxby Chambliss, where Cleland won every poll taken in overwhelming fashion EXCEPT for the final poll tallied on the black box voting machines?

    Who's the fool here? The mature guy? Or the kid with the jaundiced eye?

     


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 5:19pm

    Dan, you're gone on this rant about whatever happened to the 60's radicals before... and I hesitate to bust up your show... but you really don't have very much reality to base your rant on... other than, I very much suspect, some personal friendships or acquaintances of yours that have pissed you off. 

    I mean, this rant about how leftists became all personal-focussed and tuned to the Right and blah blah blah, while it sounded great and snazzy when the first RW commentators tried it out in the 70's and then Newsweek and others glommed onto it, has NEVER had more than the faintest sniff of empirical reality to it. 

    What I'm saying is that it was false. And more, a lie. Both back then, and today. I spent years of my life pounding through the detailed data in the 80's, and the facts were that there was never some overwhelming majority of young people in the 60's with strong Left views, and of those that had them, there was never any such mass shift to the Right.

    If you want the nasty polling and electoral-based facts, it was often people from less-educated segments of the population who got pulled by their religion, and by race and similar motivating issues, toward the Right - far more than any groups of educated young 60's lefties.

    But I've read you giving this rant, again and again, so it clearly hits some buttons for you, your family and friends. Not so much for me. 

    Perhaps you'd prefer a bottom-up, empirical refutation. Ok. In this blog, as in previous notes, you've gone on about the individualism of these Lefties, and their narcisssim and such. Well, my adult life has been spent with and often within the Environmental movement. Which has probably achieved as much or more lasting economic, technological, environmental and cultural impact as any movement of the 20th Century.

    And it has been led, lock stock and two smoking barrels, by 60's Lefties. The environmental movement in Canada is fully and completely aware of the fact that it received an enormous influx from the US and its 60's radicals. Their work has been, for decades, more practical, more house-to-house, more determined and more decentralized than that of any other movement. They've been into your trash, into your attic, into your garage, into your fridge, all over your lawn, up on your roof.

    You name it, they've touched it and changed it. 

    And they have done this by building, block by block, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, community by community. I say this as someone who has had the chance to be in (really really literally) hundreds of such communities, in the USA, UK, Canada and beyond.

    And they understood perfectly well the need for responsibility, in fact, they felt they were living it, day by day, dollar by dollar, inch by inch. As for not attending political meetings and taking up their civic roles, on the contrary, they've been endless. And they didn't destroy labour, they created jobs.

    They didn't destroy civic cooperation, they bloody well exemplified it. 

    So how am I supposed to react when you hit the same goddamn button, smearing this crap about "long-running narcissistic social pathology" on them, 60's grads, and lefties? I know there's a view held by some on here that no one should take this sort of crap personally, so how about I simply turn it around?

    What's the psychological deficiency YOU have, to keep on with these fact-free - but obviously personally-driven - rants about 60's Lefties? What's YOUR adolescent psychodrama? What social pathology do YOU have that you keep on repeating these exhausted Rightwing smears, and always with a complete failure to provide relevant evidence? What kind of mental block do YOU have, that you can't even see examples like the Environmental movement, right in front of your face? 


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 5:13pm

    I have psychological deficiencies too numerous to mention.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 5:30pm

    As do I (pretty obviously.) I guess my point is that while psychological language may give us some limited grip on very wide-scale or long-term shifts in society, I'm not sure it really gives us much when describing particular political formulations and particular moments. 


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 7:05pm

    And just let me say, Dan, I very much suspect you and I would end up thinking a lot of the same thoughts, as we participated in Occupy New Hampshire. I don't much doubt your view of what you are seeing, in the particular cross-section of individual confrontations and discussions you describe. i.e. The existence of larger-than-expected numbers of Tea Partiers etc.

    What I do very much doubt, is the extension from this... to a much larger, and deeper, storyline, in which you condemn an entire swath of 60's radicals... and the Left. And I very much doubt its extension across the Occupy movement itself. In particular, the pseudo-psychological descriptions and labels. 


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 5:34pm

    The point wasn't really to condemn the 60's radicals as much as to warn about where things can go if people aren't thoughtful and organized abut the kind of society they are trying to achieve.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 10:08pm

    I don't have polling data, either, but here are my two cents.

    • Agree with you on the "less educated" (largely working class, perhaps) being pulled to the right. Felt alienated by the social issues the left took up and the left's apparent condescension toward traditional values.

    • No doubt, some lefties kept on and in the environmental movement. But I sensed many "fellow travelers" who sort of tagged along and felt generally aligned with the left, drifted away and became focused on their careers. I remember Jerry Rubin, for example, reinvented himself hosting business networking get togethers, or some such.

    • The organizing principle for the Left back then was primarily opposition to the war, which leaves open the question, "what were they for?" It wasn't hard to be against the war and not be for a Leftist agenda. So when the war was over, then what? IOW, most of the people who might have been counted among the Left really hadn't formulated a Leftist philosophy, but were primarily against the war.

    • Again, without evidence except my own experience, a good number of these "fellow traveler" types were attracted to libertarianism because it allowed them to hold to an anti-war position, an anti-government position, an anti-interventionist position and pursue their own lives without guilt about what was happening to their fellow citizens.


    by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 10:13pm

    Peter, just to say, this is simply a list of the worst sort of Right Wing propaganda, and with barely a hair of reality to cover its bare ass. 

    * Alienated by the left and their condescension? How about, as an alternative read, "the working classes and the churchgoers had their goddamn prejudices appealed to by a batch of manipulative hypocritical bastards in the Republican Party who have now explicitly revealed what they were doing and how they were manipulating things."

    But somehow out of this, it's the left who is "condescending?" Fuck. That. Noise. 

    * The Rubin story was made for frigging TV. Seriously, it got turned up into some grand myth about how the 60's radicals were all going to the right, Newsweek and company loved it, it was during the rise of Reagan, and apparently you not only ate it up then, you're still repeating it.

    Jesus man, did you ever even bother to check in on the rest of the Chicago 7, for instance, to see how they were moving Right? Might have been informative. Hoffman, Hayden, Dellnger et al? 

    And only a "few" went green, while "many" turned to their careers? How about this. You go find some poll data to support that view. I spent thousands of hours mining it, and all I could see was a gigantic con job by the Right. A spin machine.

    Don't think so? OK, SURE, some politicized lefties went to the right. But you know what? WAY MORE people who were actually right-wing during the 60's ended up moving LEFT over time. Like all those people who claim now to have been anti-war or pro-civil rights.

    But that's not in your memory spot, is it? Because you got fed the other line. Fact is, the children of the 60's have moved left over time. What happened was that some of the later generational cohorts - those younger - were more to the Right than the 60's folks IMAGE was, and the media ate that up. Because that image was one that worked for the money machine. But they had to have a story about what happened to the left. Enter: Jerry Rubin. 

    * In your view, the left was just anti-war, and had no positive alternative. Again, I'm just gonna ask you to sit back, reread that and then... think about it. Because if you can possibly name another generation, in the last 100 years, which more thoroughly, root and branch, attempted to critique modern society and to CREATE ENTIRE ALTERNATIVES TO IT, then please name them. I mean, the 60's generation was called the counter-culture because.... it was a shitload more than just marching in the street.

    And the view that people were just against the war? What the fuck was civil rights? The Women's movement? The environment? And the alternative energy, food, living, health, education, tools movements?

    * Libertarians? How many of these peckerheads were there, actually, early enough to be coming out of the 60's? I'm sorry, but I just don't remember the 70's and 80's being over-run with them. But in your experience, life has just been chock full of lefties who became libertarians, because this enabled them to remain anti-war and yet rip off consumers or employees everywhere? 

    You know what? I'm just gonna say it - if this is the case, then your friends are anomalous Peter. 'Cause there's nothing I have seen or read in the larger, social or political data, that tells me large numbers of 60's political lefties became libertarians.

    In short - this was quite a litany. I don't buy any of it. I'm sorry you do.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 12:06am

    Consistent with your thoughts are poll after poll, year after year, showing strong majorities of the American public saying they are for things like full employment, focusing tax increases on the wealthiest, reducing the influence of money in politics, for at least a public option UHC if not single payer, etc., etc.  Yet we observe public policy outcomes that don't reflect these preferences.  Suggesting...a serious imbalance between what the supposedly "center-right" US public says it wants and what it actually gets.  

    If so, how to explain this, then?  Well, is it possible that at least part of the explanation is that many who support these generally progressive polices, or say they do when asked, have checked out, don't vote, aren't organized or trying to be?  If there were huge numbers of available votes for such policy positions why don't we have considerably more progressive policies on these issues in the US?  I had thought that was part of Dan's point, to say "Look, progressives actually have the numbers, if many more people engage instead of disengage--from electoral and legislative politics as well as protest politics."  Therein part of the point--the degree of organization of progressive forces in the US is generally weak, or at least relative to what public opinion polls suggest the US public wants in most policy areas.  

    I insist that engagement in "dirty" electoral and legislative politics, as well as "pure" direct action and protest politics, are not mutually exclusive.  The latter historically very often lead over time to the former, followed by major legislative or constitutional progressive policy accomplishments.     

    Dan wasn't saying the vote, as exercised currently in the relatively disorganized and non-mobilized, from a progressive point of view, political lay of the land in the U.S., automatically gets us anywhere.  

    If more progressives not now involved--perhaps energized by OWS and similar efforts-- get involved and participate in organized efforts to mobilize progressive pressure--on the system to change its rules where necessary (say, repealing Citizens United, or pressuring the Senate to restore majority rule as the normal mode of operation in that body), and in the form of an organized, highly visible and active constituency for not watered-down lousy policy compromises like the UHC we got but public option or single payer, full employment policies and real regulation of the financial sector, etc., which holds public officials accountable for supporting them...well, there are some real, and very realistic and attainable possibilities down that road.  At least that's what I took him to be saying.

    If OWS and related efforts--over time--have the effect of generating focused, productive, effective pressure to support necessary structural changes and put politically off-the-table progressive policy alternatives such as ones mentioned above squarely on the table, it can have an enormous positive impact.  The power is ours--if it is organized and in time used, to affect instead of wash hands of electoral and legislative politics as well as to bring about changes through other means such as direct action, increased consciousness and awareness by individual citizens of the impact of particular choices we make, etc.  

    Cynics who were sure our system could and would never be made to deliver real progressive change in this country have been shown to be wrong over and over again in our history.  Some who are focused on needed public policy changes are anxious to get to the "organized" part asap ("organized" being necessary to bring about public policy changes favored by majorities over highly organized minorities in our system).  Who can blame them?  Clock is ticking, Rome is burning.  Others are saying it's going to take more time, and please check into OWS or related efforts instead of writing them off on the basis of things being messy and pretty inchoate at this point.  There is so much that needs to be done and can be done that there are roles for virtually anyone who chooses to become involved in some form, whether it be through OWS or current related efforts, or in other ways.


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 4:31am

    If so, how to explain this, then?

    Perhaps part of that is that maybe like half of those who say they support those policies in principle think the problem is that our federal government (the evil Washington D.C.) is not capable of delivering those things fairly:

    Poll: Washington to blame more than Wall Street for economy

    USA Today, October 18

    [....]

    "You see the frustration that there's some serious things wrong with capitalism in America, but you also see the conundrum — how do we change it?" says Terry Madonna, a political analyst and polling expert at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa. "This crisis coincides with a huge debate over the role of government." He says some of the 64% who place primary blame on Washington fault it for too little government regulation, while others blame it for too much regulation.

    Support for the Tea Party movement and its conservative agenda is roughly the same as Occupy Wall Street's, the poll found. About a fifth of Americans (22%) describe themselves as Tea Party supporters and 27% as opponents. Almost half (47%) say they're neither.

    [....]

    Many also might have an unrealistic understanding of how much in taxes such things require:

    Asked what the wealthiest 1% of Americans — the ones excoriated by Occupy Wall Street —should pay in taxes as a percentage of their income, more than a quarter of people — 28% — have no opinion. Another 21% say the richest should pay 10% or less, and only 18% say they should pay more than 30%.

    and might be against them if they knew.

    I often see the counter-argument in the blogosphere to libertarian types of "well, don't you like having police and firemen and roads and schools?" And I think, well, that's not going to sway many of those people, as they don't see those services as coming from Washington D.C. or the taxes paid to the federal government.

    Also, about the disconnect many see with many working class or working poor being Bluedog or Republican leaners, I have always understood that like this: if anyone you know has ever had to apply for welfare or has had to deal with social workers involved in their family troubles, or has someone from the family in the court system or jail or prison, government bureaucracy is just another part of "the man" trying to put you down, government is not your friend, rather, it makes trouble for you. There is little personal interaction with government, especially the federal government, where government is your friend, rather, it is something to be feared. Any government office you have to go to means an unpleasant if not fearful experience.

    There is sympathy with any anti-regulation talk because "the revenuers"as it were are not seen as friendlies to many in the lower classes. And as regards Social Security and Medicare that is often the counter argument with this, I think many are happy with those two because it is believed they are programs separate from "the federal government," paid for with individual targeted tax accounts, things " government" can't touch and mess up.

     


    by artappraiser on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 6:11am

    But as the report says, about half of those who blame Washington blame it for delivering too little regulation.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 1:31pm

    Hey Q,

    I'm a bit torn here, because what I'd really like to do is hear about the research you reference. What you did; how you did it; why you did it; and what you found.

    So if you feel like it, I'd like to hear it. I'd particularly like to hear about the leftists who moved to Canada, as you mentioned. Why; why they didn't stay here, etc.

    Anyway, I'll try to respond to your points:

    • I do agree that the right exploited the condescension meme, but it was basically there to exploit. I don't mean that the New Left consciously set out to do this, but a lot of the language (Police=Pigs), SDS actions, particularly the bombings, and then Chicago were, I believe, profoundly upsetting and off-putting to traditional workingclass people who believed in working hard and trying to get ahead.

    Almost none of the workingclass kids I knew in college participated in demonstrations. They were there to get an education; many were working nights just to stay there. They weren't going to sit in at the dean's office and risk getting thrown out of college. There was definitely the feeling that they couldn't afford that luxury.

    • In some of this, I think there's a problem with whom we're referencing--the leaders or the rank and file. And if the rank and file, which ones? Those who had actually thought through their politics and were committed to "living them," or the greater number who were mostly anti-war.

    Post-war, there was definitely the feeling that the steam had gone out of the New Left and the counter culture. Yes, I agree, there were those who continued on, but the sense of a large wave of change sweeping up large numbers of people was gone. I don't have data for you, so I'd be interested in yours, but that was definitely my impression.

    As to the other Seven, well, Hoffman eventually committed suicide, as I recall. Hayden, I believe, has gone mainstream politically. Rennie Davis, I read, became a follower of Guru Maharaji and a venture capitalist (meditate and grow rich?) Froines I believe is a college professor. Dellinger, of all of them, remained truest to the original vision.

    • I don't say the left was just anti-war, but I do say it was the over-arching organizing cause that brought in LARGE numbers of people. When it was gone, large numbers of those people drifted away from politics. The counter culture vision of an alternative society fizzled--not among everyone--but among the big numbers the "movement" had swept up.

    It was certainly impotent against the rise of Reaganism and movement conservatism (which we can see because of, as you say, where we are) and it swept up large numbers of the traditional leftist bloc--people who had been turned off by the antics of the New Left. (I see an echo of this in Dan's gut reaction to ONH.) And I do believe they started voting Republican. Again, I'm eager to see your counter evidence to this. I don't have a position I'm defending; just telling you what I saw--or, if you want, think I saw.

    • If your evidence shows that the children of the 60s moved left, okay. I'd be interested in seeing it or your pointing me to it. My impression is that large numbers became largely apolitical, if still vaguely liberal, and focused mostly on their personal lives. Environmentalism probably held them most strongly, but your list points to the problem: the left lost any sort of overaching vision about society and splintered into various sort of interest-group movements: woman's movement, gay movement, etc.

    • I don't say a lot of libertarianism came out of the 60s, but I do think that libertarianism now has a strong attraction for some hefty number of these folks because of the alignment of the positions I mentioned: anti-government, anti-interventionist, etc. It seems to appeal across traditional categories (see Karl Hess) and pull in people for a lot of contradictory reasons. It began its rise along with movement conservatism. I happened to know a good handful of people in this boat who will tell you they were turned off by the attitude and tactics of the left.

    My best friend who fits this category, however, has moved way left now. And now that people can see what the right has wrought, folks are moving left--but it took them 40 years and a lot of conceptual and policy and organizational ground has been given up in the meantime.

    Anyway, I'm not interested in fighting with you, Q, or defending me, my friends, or what I witnessed. I'm happy to entertain your thoughts and evidence to the contrary.


    by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 8:27pm

     

    * Yes, the revolutionary-style kids upset some people. But by 1980 and Reagan, the working class "Reagan Democrats" were moved more by race and family economic pressures and national security against the Russians than by long-gone, long-haired extremists with bombs.
     
    For example, when Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign he went to Philadelphia Mississippi, where Schwerner, Goodman and Cheney had been murdered, a choice that highlighted race, not some site which would have highlighted kids calling the cops "pigs."
     
    Also,the economy had been struggling mightily for working people through the 70's, and Reagan seemed to have identified a cause ("Government") as well as a way forward. Patty Hearst had less of an impact on working class voters than race and jobs.
     
    * Just to be clear about the Chicago 7/8, Hayden was a solid leftie politician, for many years. I heard him speak in 1980, and at that point he was still brilliant. Hoffman also kept on with a variety of activism, and Dellinger, etc. Davis went for the Maharji.
     
    What I'm pointing out is that Rubin was made into a posterboy by the media, and for a reason... while the others faded into media non-existence. Rubin got air-time for leading some Yuppie vs Yippie speaking tour they did, and the media pumped that "yuppie" meme HARD. There were a lot of powerful forces that wanted the world rolled back over into mass consumption, and they said what was necessary to convince people that "everyone" was going that way. Like... look at Jerry Rubin! 
     
    * I think the oddest thing here is the inability of most commentators to get perspective on the numbers that were ever involved with the 60's radicalism and anti-war movement. Baby Boomers only formally began even entering college in 1963, and Boomers like me were precisely 9 in 1968 and 13 in 1972. So it's a small subset of even this one generation which ever directly participated in the anti-war movement, and a very small number affected by the draft. If you the look at the attitudes of those involved, I don't believe I ever saw anything which showed a majority of that generation being anti-war, at the time.
     
    So... 1) Boomers were a subset of the population as a whole...
    2) And many Boomers were far too young to be directly involved...
    And 3) the majority of that age group were actually pro-war or neutral at the time (though they claim differently now, the same as a large majority claim to have voted for JFK, supported ML King, etc.)
     
    And yet, somehow you imagine that this small slice of the population was supposed to roll like a tsunami over the countryside? In 1968 and 1972, when Nixon won office, there were only 3 and then 7 years worth of the Baby Boomer cohort even eligible to VOTE. So, sure, the end of the draft plus 2 Nixon elections (backed by the older voters) kindof dampened anti-war sentiment and activism, obviously... but it's useful to remember that only 5-15% of all voters were, as of 1972, even drawn from that generation. So again, what did you expect? 
     
    * After that, when you say the Left lost any over-arching vision and and "splintered" into various sort of interest groups, like women and gays and such, you DO understand that your very description is... fairly "slanted," right? As a counter version.... when I took up the green flag, it wasn't as part of any "interest" group, and it wasn't because I lacked a big vision of things. On the contrary, I'd spent years on the big picture. What I felt was that our big picture was lacking in some flamingly obvious environmental goods, lacking an ability to deal with some serious problems, and that it could, right in its inner workings, be made better - even in terms of jobs and income and such - if it began to understand how we could improve the environment. 
     
    What I heard BACK from the traditional Left political parties was a load of economic claptrap and Reaganite rhetoric, from some fairly corrupt, and quite frighteningly meatheaded people. Who were in charge. Of the political machinery. Of the traditional "Left." 
     
    So, even though I had Science on my side, Technology on my side, and Economics on my side... it didn't matter a whit to them. 
     
    As it turns out, I won, science and technology won, people have chances to improve their environmental lot nowadays, the economy is being dragged OUT of the shitter by greening, and my old leftie parties - suitably transformed - win a lot of elections.
     
    Now. Rerun your storyline about who was "splintering" things. Do you seriously think I was? Or do you think that maybe they were old, crusty and a fair bit corrupt? You really wanna tell me I lacked an overarching vision, as opposed to these clowns?
     
    And a lot of African Americans and Women and Gays will tell you the same thing as I have. Do you really think the Civil Rights leaders felt they lacked an overarching vision? Do you really think these groups didn't have extended discussions about societal visions, running way beyond race? And when things "splinter," is it always the fault of African Americans or Women or those into the Environment... or sometimes is it perhaps a bit the fault of a Party Machinery?
     
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but my college classmates and friends worked in the "individual" movements (Green, Women's, Anti-War, Gay and African American), but then when they saw the chance, they also walked into Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and organized and led the construction and operation of his electoral machine in numerous states. 
     
    Same with the green leaders here in Canada, many of whom were draft-dodgers or counter-culture types, and who - just from ones I know - have run a dozen organizations in their time here, run the Green Party, created recycling from scratch, led the climate change work, led forest protection, you name it. They were brilliant, committed, created tens of thousands of new jobs, and didn't once fall over in a pant for Ronald Fucking Reagan.
     
    I guess I'm just dead tired of the repetition of political propaganda that has so little under the hood. You know, like how a whole generation made like fucking Jerry Rubin and then things all went to the Right and woe is us. Hell, you even refer to the 60's lefties and counter-culture and the baby boomer generation as being "impotent" against Reaganism. Well, exactly what did you expect of a slice of voters who were only aged from 21-34 in 1980 and then 21-38 in 1984? Seriously. Should I ask if you can count?
     
    This sort of stuff pisses me off. Just try this - it is a black patent fact that it was the generation OLDER than the Boomers, the great and mighty and endlessly praised war-time generation, that bought into Reagan's bullshit in the greatest numbers. But you don't hear it half as much as the "all the boomers went to the Right and sold out" storyline.
     
    *As for the voting data and the attitudinal data I was chowing down through the 80's, it would take me weeks even to try to find that stuff online now. All I can say is that it's a fascinating subject, and I'm sure there are wonderful new works done on it if you want to pursue it. 

     


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:43am

    Uh, Q? Did you know that the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 on July 1, 1971? As a result of 1960's anti-war activism especially?

    So those boomers entering college in 1963 weren't exactly allowed to vote, even though they could go die in large numbers throughout the 60's.

    Curiously enough, a friend of mine thought Nixon backed out on his promise to end the war. But most of the US troops left by end of 1971. Which may have helped his re-election, don't know.

    But it's easy to think that protests were futile if you think the greatest protest had no effect. Which I guess was part of the great right smear against hippies - that their anti-war effort was ineffectual.

    Actually it was extremely effective, especially when you think that Nixon came down from 500,000 troops in 3 years, while Obama only went from 100K troops to 47K troops in 3 years using W's already implemented plan. (And Obama would have kept troops in after the new year if the Iraqis had given us immunity from prosecution)


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:20am

    I've never understood the view that the anti-war protests never had an impact on the war. I mean, for starters, LBJ decided not to run. And getting a President not to run is a fairly tough chore. Plus, Nixon at least had to talk about ending the war, and this was a guy who wanted to nuke China just a decade before. 

    Anyway, yeah. Apparently a failure of the anti-war movement, and the hippies, and somebody threw a bomb, so justifiably the working class hates Democrats. Christ, Karl Rove might as well be writing this stuff.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:50am

    Very amusing stuff, the anti-War activists had no impact on the war. In 1964 when Johnson approved Operation Rolling Thunder, Nixon pushed forward with ORT. The War officially ended in 1975. Nixon of course as we all know now in 1969 began a secret incursion into Laos and Cambodia, which was an escalation of the war.

    Yes activists pushed LBJ out in NH. And it didn't turn out all that well for America did it. All the unrest including what happened during the '68 Democratic convention kept America divided and ushered in the Presidency of Richard M. Nixon. That isn't winning, that is losing, big time. Nixon did promise to end the war, but he did no such thing, he escalated it, in secret. Republicans did go full steam ahead on the Southern Strategy, and it was Roger Ailes who was behind the move to create a wedge between the working class and progressive politics and legislation, and they did it by fear mongering.  Would we have been better off with another term of Johnson, the man who helped usher in Civil Rights or Nixon? I say Johnson with all his problems, since you know Nixon didn't really get us out of Vietnam, he excalated the war and moved it onto new territory.

    Your view is an oversimplified view of what took place back then.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:26pm

    Sorry, but Johnson said the anti-war movement had an impact.

    So. I'll let you argue with him. See, all I said was that they had an impact. Which is apparently a step too far for you. Too concilatory with those youthful scums, eh? 

    Anyway. You're wrong. And confused. Let's take an example.

    1. LBJ is a hero because he passed Civil Rights...

    2. And yet, it was Civil Rights that ushered in the Southern Strategy

    3. Which LBJ himself thought threatened to hand Republicans the upper hand (rough paraphrase)...

    4. Therefore, the ones who are to blame for the Republicans gaining steam on thge Southern Strategy is... THE ANTI-WAR KIDS! HUZZAH! TMAC LOGICKS!!!1

    Or let's take another round. The anti-war people had no impact on the war, according to you, other than to doom the Democrats in 1968, somehow.

    Still, you might have noticed that Bobby Kennedy opposed the war, and was a Democratic politician. If we're getting to do alternmative hitories, then maybe things might havegone differently under him? Or did the anti-war kids kill him too?

    How about that McCarthy fella (odd name, that.) HE was anti-war too. And a Democrat. And he opposed LBJ. Was he wrong to be anti-war? To oppose LBJ? Is he the one responsible for the losses of recent decades?

    And both these people were supported by young anti-war people.

    Gosh. It's getting complex, isn't it? See, there appear to be numerous anti-war people, of different stripes, many backed by anti-war young people, and many appearing to have an impact on history.

    And yet.... the anti-war kids had no impact.

    TMac. Why don't you get back to me once you've figured out whether LBJ and the Democratic Party and HHH and RFK and McCarthy and ML King and company were anti-war or not. 

    And then, whether them being anti-war had any relationship to young people's views. And then, whether they had any impact on the actual war. 

    And how about you not bothering to just hit the little propaganda button you got beside you, that makes you blurt out whatever line you think makes the Democratic Party look best? 

    It was 40 years ago. Nice of you and Dan and Trope to still be flogging those youthful anti-war types and hippies and all, of the failure of the Democratic Party over the last 40 years, but I suspect the ownership and the dspoinsiubility atually lies elsewhere now, don't you? Or are the anti-war kids still in control of your local party too?

    Those darned kids.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:54pm

    Well, your view is generous with hyperbole. While Nixon may have upped the bombing going for a settlement, there's no way any US troop levels in Cambodia or Laos countered the drawdown in SE Asia - US troops in Cambodia were principally 50,000 in 1970 only for several incursions. (these same troops would be listed below for Vietnam as well)

    If you look at the numbers, it's pretty obvious Nixon was withdrawing troops for real through his whole first term.

     

    US Troop Levels Vietnam

    Year Troop Level

    1959 760

    1960 900

    1961 3,025

    1962 11,300

    1963 16,300

    1964 23,300

    1965 184,300

    1966 385,300

    1967 485,600

    1968 536,100

    1969 475,200

    1970 334,600

    1971 156,800

    1972 24,200

    1973 50



     

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:23pm

    I think there is a difference between various groups having an over-arching vision and set of values and communicating them in a way that sways the "99%" with them.

    The reality and what is received intersect on the political playing field. You say the numbers were small. Well, in a sense, that's my point: Unless you can dramatically enlarge the numbers (and how do you do that?) then you will fail.

    Having lived through that period as a college student, I think you downplay the impact of the violence, the language, and the antics on a whole group of people who formed the core of the traditional left constituencies (unions, workingclass) and who are now being heralded and fought for (Wisconsin).

    I agree with this:

    "But by 1980 and Reagan, the working class "Reagan Democrats" were moved more by race and family economic pressures and national security against the Russians than by long-gone, long-haired extremists with bombs."

    But I think you have to look at the lead up from Chicago through the 1970s and what the left, old and new, at least seemed to be holding out as an alternative to the rising Right. Its inability to articulate a clear set of unified principles that the average person could relate to and hold on to.

    Now you can say, "They were doing that, but dolts like you, Peter, were simply swallowing the corporate-media-created line." Well, maybe--but so what? Your opponents are always going to smear you, or try.

    If your message isn't getting across in a compelling way that moves lots of people, whose fault is that? Are you always going to blame someone else while Teabagger Nation walks in and takes over the House?

    Not to shift this over to Dan, but his reaction did give me pause. You can pound on his head for being a scardy cat or not having the revolutionary right stuff, but that's just a way of dismissing his reaction.

    You were right to ask him to think about what he was/is afraid of. But if someone as smart, articulate, and committed to a leftist vision as he is felt "revulsion" and a conflict between what he saw at the meeting and the core of his life, then I think it's ALSO worth considering the other side of the coin.


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:01am

    Peter. I'm sure these kinds of stories are comforting to you, but in terms of connecting to reality... they don't.

    So you should give them up. Because you're projecting blame onto others, and you need to think about it.

    As follows: 

    You talk about the Left's message not working, and so Teabagger Nation walks in and takes over. Hint. And do please pay attention, because this is important:

    YOU GUYS are running the Demoratic Party show.

    It's YOUR message.

    Not the lefty movement types.

    Try this. Turn on your television. See the Wall Street kids? Those are lefties and independents.

    Now see the President? He's the guy with your message.

    So. If the Teabaggers are causing trouble, then do you know who holds primary responsibility for putting an alternative, overarching vision out there? Yeah. You guys.

    Instead, you're on here, blowing stories about the New Left and their "antics" being responsible for the losses in the 60's, 70's, under Reagan in the 80's, and now, the Teabaggers. 

    It's daft.

    Let me quote you, only this time, think about it in terms of Centrist Democrats, and see if it fits better than for the OWS kids:

    "If your message isn't getting across in a compelling way that moves lots of people, whose fault is that? Are you always going to blame someone else while Teabagger Nation walks in and takes over the House?"


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:06pm

    Um, I'm not claiming that Obama and mainstream Democrats are doing a good job articulating their message and swaying a lot of people.

    In fact, they are having a lot of trouble. That said, they've had more success electorally than the New Left and its heirs.

    This is a straw dog you're setting up, and I'm not sure why you're doing it.

    If your message isn't getting across in a compelling way that moves lots of people, whose fault is that? Are you always going to blame someone else while Teabagger Nation walks in and takes over the House?"

    If we're talking about Obama as a stand-in here for mainstream Democrats, he DID do a good job of putting forth a compelling message and swaying a lot of people.

    Remember 2008? Compelling message (clearly) and a lot of people were swayed.

    No question that he's faltered (I'll leave it there to avoid that conversation) since then and the Teabaggers walk in. Agreed.

    I would argue that something similar happened--in broad outline with many different details clearly--with the New Left and also LBJ, Bobby, Gene, George, Edwin and the Democratic Party as a whole starting at the beginning of the 1970s or thereabouts.

    This gave the right-wing an opening which they exploited.

    All this said, I do believe the environmental movement, women's movement, etc., have had important impacts on society. I do agree the anti-war movement contributed to the end of the VN war.

    But there is something important to be said for controlling the government and for setting the big themes and what you might call the "conventional wisdom" about basic issues, e.g., austerity, how the economy works, are the rich taking over and why. Gaining control of those levers gives you more leverage than just fighting issue by issue.

    The left...from the New Left to centrist Democrats...did a poor job of that in the 1970s and 1980s and are still struggling to come back.


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:20pm

    Q, please don't EVER go away. You have hung a lot of meat on the bones here. I appreciate it!

    Overall, I think you covered the territory quite well, especially in addressing the "fear" factor and in acknowledging the impatience that is expressed with a nascent group that hasn't even got its legs under itself yet.

    Bottom line for me? I have great difficulty understanding why anyone who is opposed to the trend toward disparity of power and wealth in these last thirty years would choose to remain as an observer looking in on the OWS movement. Anyone can recognize that this uprising presents the best chance we have been offered to do something different; something that can produce a different result than we've experienced under the "Vote the bastards out" futility that you so aptly criticize. Why wouldn't you own your piece of it and help shape it in democratic fashion, rather than wait for someone else to do it and deliver it to your doorstep for your thumbs-up-or-down approval?

    Immature I might be. But I've had years of practice. ;O) Let's get busy!


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 5:07pm

    And you, too, DanK! You have also taken great care to make substantive arguments here. It is appreciated. They cause me to reconsider my perspectives and - at a minimum - they help clarify my arguments in response. ;O)

    It is frustrating that work continually interrupts my ability to remain engaged. And so it is now. I gotta' go. But I will be reviewing and thinking about the things you have written here as I drive all night, back and forth between Madison and Milwaukee. I hope to have a more detailed response tomorrow.

    Again, thanks! and... Later!


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 5:55pm

    Dan, thanks for reporting all of this to us. I have to admit that it is discouraging from some aspects, but having these direct impressions is very valuable.

    I know I am way too long in the tooth to participate in rallies of any kind. Like you, I wouldn't put myself in any situation to be arrested.

    I tend to think that the basic system is not the problem, it's the imbalances in the system. I agree with you that that is changed primarily by voting.

    But I think that what is most important about the movement is that it gives a voice to a new moral consciousness that the system is out of balance. And also there is the International aspect of the movement which to me is the most striking thing about it.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 3:16pm

    Some points here might interest you, Dan:

    The Geography of Occupying Wall Street (And Everywhere Else), by NATE SILVER, October 17, 2011
     


    by artappraiser on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 4:16pm

    An excellent contribution as usual, AA.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 4:22pm

    Yes, interesting article AA.

    I was going to bring up the issue of the European protests at last night's meeting, but the "stack" was too long, so I didn't.  My impression was that very few people there were aware of them.  At least nobody mentioned them if they were.

    America has deeply ingrained traditions of civic republicanism and democracy, the traditions Tocqueville described so well after he visited the United States.  I think we are much less prone to take to the streets than their European cousins, who have traditions of peasant revolt dating back long into the pre-democratic era.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 4:45pm

    I think there's a false dichotomy between actual revolution and working within the system. I think a certain amount of, "taking to the streets" can influence the workings of the system and lead to more lasting change than revolutions, many of which accomplish very little other than killing a lot of folk that couldn't get out of the way.


    by Donal on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 8:13pm

    This is my thinking as well.


    by synchronicity on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 8:17pm

    other than killing a lot of folk that couldn't get out of the way.

    Who would you blame? The intransigent 1%; or the 99% who should be more like sheep at the shearing?


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 8:42pm

    Plenty to go around, if blame is your game ...


    by Donal on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 8:46pm

    I'd start with those doing the killing before I started looking for secondary factors...


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 8:48pm

    Oh you mean like those barons that lied us into war, getting us killed?

    They can wash their hands, because they didn't pull the trigger?

    When Syria's Assad opened fire on demonstrators, should he be held accountable or should the protesters for having pushed him to address their concerns?

    .   


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 8:55pm

    They're guilty for their crimes, and anyone who kills them is guilty for theirs. Remember what God said to Cain in the garden?


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 9:06pm

    I remember what the unrighteous man Cain said, "He was not his brothers keeper"  

    I don't have any intention of disregarding Gods will, when he said "Vengeance is mine" 

    On the other hand; the hordes of unrighteous, are not "waiting upon god" to bring justice.

    I can only try to understand, why many will resort to violence, having lost hope and trust in a system that has beat them up. 

    Whereas; I place my hope and trust in him; that conquered the world. Who told me "return evil to no one" A peaceful man, who endured torture at the hands of so called civilized men.  

    Is it unreasonable to expect, that  if people can torture an innocent man, how much more restraint is there, against perceived supporters of injustice, those who committed fraud, who benefited by the corruption, as they fleeced their neighbors. 

    I'm sure when the barons are faced with the angry mobs, they'll try to remind the mob about what god said about Cain? But I don't think the unrighteous care about what god said about anything ? 

    Judgment day; not by Gods hands but by people, tired of being skinned and cast outside. 

    I'll wait for my deliverer, my shield, to help me escape the fratricide, that is sure to come. 

    Ignore the warning signs at your peril.


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 9:56pm

    Alternatively, we could find ways to avoid the orgies of fratricide you anticipate and not all die.

    In any case, surviving the catastrophe sounds like another 1% solution. "I have got mine, jack. Too bad about you."


    by moat on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 10:11pm

    Are you always this twisted or crooked in thought?

    In any case, surviving the catastrophe sounds like another 1% solution. "I have got mine, jack. Too bad about you."

    In your twisted mind,

    Those who heeded the warnings and were spared and survived the catastrophe, are like the 1%?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihN1qYVhka4&feature=fvwrel

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcoDQ9fRvAQ


    by Resistance on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 2:00am

    I don't know what the saved are like well enough to compare their qualities with others. I was referring to your often repeated warning that there will be winners and losers. You sound pretty confident that you will make the cut. The confidence gives the impression that you are speaking from a commanding height, like a wealthy person explaining to a poor person how to become a millionaire.


    by moat on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 12:39pm

    Genesis 4:15:

    ... Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. ...

    Also remember Jesus' words on eye for an eye in Matthew 5:38-39:

     

    Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 8:02am

    You evidently have knowledge of the scriptures, but the scriptures you provided are of little use in this discussion. These scripture will not be accepted by the unrighteous, looking to mete out justice. 

    The ones you need to fear, are those who do not fear the Great judge, who said wait upon him, to mete out justice. As I wrote above, when Gods word said "vengeance is mine"  I will be obedient and let him judge mankind.

    What scripture will you use on those who don't want to believe in a god? What scripture will you use on those who don't care what god says?  

    Giving me these Scriptures as a reminder, doesn't stop the civil war, the class war. 

     

    Heres a few appropriate scriptures for you to consider. Scriptures of gods warnings to HIS people,  and the signs to look for. Scriptures containing warnings  of the coming calamity, telling his faithful servants that the Nations would grow wrathful. 

    Because the Kingdom's instituted by man upon the Earth. continued to ruin They would be removed, destroyed. (Not by my hands, but by his) . 

    Matthew 10:7  7And proclaim as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

    Daniel 2:44  44And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,

    Matthew 6:10  10 Your kingdom come, your will be done,[a]
        on earth as it is in heaven.

    English Standard Version (ESV)

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A7%2CDaniel+2%3A44%2CMatthew+6%3A10&version=ESV

    The book of Daniel also contains the account of Nebuchadnezzar nightmare, about the large image with the ten toes made of clay and Iron.

    To those attuned to the prophecy, it represents the United Nations..."In the days of those Kings"


    by Resistance on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 10:42am

    Just roll the magic eight ball again to get the scripture that supports your position.


    by Donal on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 10:51am

    Donal,  from my perspective, your reply makes you look like someone unfamiliar with the Word of God and the proper use of the scriptures. 

    You speak as a babe, unable to comprehend, the deeper things of God,

    As you mature in the knowledge, your insight will grow.

    That all depends upon whether you want to mature.


    by Resistance on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 3:13pm

    Resistance, from my perspective, your reply makes you look like someone unfamiliar with the Word of God and how its been used through history. You seem to believe that the passages you're citing accurately predict the current events. Do you have any idea how many past events could just as easily be matched to those scriptures with an equal degree of accuracy? I gave you very precise, specific scriptures that were very relevant to the question at hand. In response, you found scripture that you could massage to support your preconceived expectations. I'm obviously not a believer in scripture, but I do believe that I'm the one giving them proper respect here.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 3:32pm

    I'm obviously not a believer in scripture, but I do believe that I'm the one giving them proper respect here.

    You could just as easily tell me "I'm obviously  not trained in open heart surgery, but I do believe that I'm the one people should listen too? 

    What is obvious; everything you have to to say about prophecies or the use of scriptures is seen through the eyes of someone consumed with his own arrogance. I let God speak for himself. 

    You can ignore the prophesies, rationalizing why you don't need to recognize them. 

    What people do need to know, is you're an admitted atheist. I would add an arrogant one at that,

    Why would anybody who will truthfully admit, that rulership under man, has failed on so many levels.

    Why would anybody with humility, keep thinking man will ever solve the problem.

    It takes a humble person to accept listening to God. 

    If an honest person were looking for the cure to what ails his physical health, why would he go to someone with inferior knowledge.

    A foolish man would say Doh!  Lets get more, failed wisdom and counsel from an atheist; rather than getting Godly wisdom  from a servant of god?

    Because you are unable to discern prophesy, and you are not able to teach others how to recognize them. A blind guide is what you are. 


    by Resistance on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 5:06pm

    It takes a humble person to accept listening to God. 

    Perhaps, but you're not listening, you're projecting. You're as arrogant as I am, but at least I'm willing to cop to it. You think you're some expert on what God is saying, so much so that you get to pick and choose which verses are important in a given situation. I take it back, you're not as arrogant as I am. You're more arrogant.

    OK, so that was a little heated, but listen to what I'm saying. Listen to what you're saying. If humility is important, be humble. I'm not asking you to renounce your faith. I'm asking you to embrace it, to understand it. Don't go looking for something that God said that supports your preconceived notions. Find what he's actually saying.

    As for the open heart surgeon analogy, I'm obviously not claiming to be one. What I am claiming is that you're not one either, even though you seem to be pretending to be, and if someone was seriously hurt and we were the only two people who could help (which would be a dire situation indeed), I think I could do a better job of helping.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 5:47pm

    And what part of John 18:36 don't you get? Your use of scripture for prophecy regarding current events is heretical to most forms of Christianity. And in many of your uses of OT, you totally disregard the redemption that is the essence of the Christian faith, Luke 22:20. It's hard to believe you are a Christian, looking for magic in the book.


    by anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 5:49pm

    Ten years of CCD, and four years of Jesuit high school will do that to a guy.


    by Donal on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 4:03pm

    Well, it's always possible that when people are talking about revolution they just mean something like "significant reform".

    But by "revolution" I mean an extra-constitutional removal of the government.  And that's the impression I get from some of the "occupiers" as well.  After all, they talk about Tahrir Square and the other Arab revolts as models.  And if they keep talking that way, I don't think they are going to get a lot of support.  Instead, people who would otherwise support major, structural changes in our economic order - brought about by purely legal and democratic means - will be turned off and silenced; progressive politics will be further discredited and the right wing drift of the country will continue.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 10:21pm

    Tahrir Square was certainly exciting, and seeing Mubarak sent off was heartening, but that's about as far as it went, so far. Despite all the passion and martyrdom, it is my impression that the same people are in charge behind the scenes. So that's not the model I want.


    by Donal on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 8:15am

    I've got to say it even though it may cause a commotion. Something that stood out in the piece for me, among other things:

    Perhaps it has something to do with race, for instance. Cities where African-Americans make up a majority of the population, like Detroit, New Orleans and Cleveland, have tended to have underwhelming numbers of protesters and poorly organized Occupy groups. (There are plenty of those cities in the South, the Northeast and even the Midwest — but not really in the western United States).

    Back when you put up your Open Letter to President Obama post, I went through about 15 pages of http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ that you cited and the relatively small number of faces of color I saw was kind of jarring to me. But I decided against pointing it out then. Nate Silver's paragraph made me decide to point it out now.

    At the time, I checked out what was being published at The Root. Not much about OWS, but I found this and this, with the latter having the conclusion-

    More needs to be done. Elected officials need to get to work. They have jobs. An estimated 14 million Americans do not. A good first step for Congress would be to work with President Barack Obama on his $447 billion jobs bill.

    BTW, another interesting thing on the "we are the 99 percent" website was this at the end of the "Allow us to introduce ourselves" page:

    NOT affiliated with MoveOn.org

    Why is that there? To make it clear that "we are not just 'liberals'"?

     


    by artappraiser on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 6:43am

    p.s. from May of this year:

    Meet the New Optimists: African Americans

    and here

    The Economy Across Race and Region: Unemployment Fails to Dampen Positive Outlook Among African Americans and Latinos

    and from October 7:

    Why Whites Are More Pessimistic About Their Future Than Minorities
    Optimism is plummeting among working-class whites, but it is holding steady for minorities. What does this great divergence in hopefulness mean for the 2012 presidential election?

    has this chart from the May National Journal poll


    by artappraiser on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 7:10am

    Why is that there? To make it clear that "we are not just 'liberals'"?

    I don't think so.  I think the more specific message is, "We are not the Democratic Party."   The people who helped organize this movement believe that MoveOn is primarily a Democratic Party fundraising group.

    Right now, the "We are the 99%" slogan seems slightly hollow, though well-intentioned, because there is little outreach to build a majority national movement.

    Instead, there seems to be a lot of "inreach" by the curious, who are eagerly trying to understand the goals and values of the movement.  But the message they are mainly hearing from the occupiers at this time is, "We'll tell you when we figure it out."

    I continue to think that they way the movement is organizing itself at this point is going to lead in the long run to a lot of feelings of exclusion and alienation, unless they reach out and organize ways for those who are not among the "occupiers" to feel both connected to the movement, and believe they are real participants in it.

    However, many in the movement seem to have a vision of building a kind of alternative countercultural democratic society from the ground up, through these encampments.  And they possess a strong sense of generational identity.  For them, the point of the tent cities consists in the tent cities themselves, and has nothing to do with pressing for any particular demands or agendas.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 11:28am

    Instead, there seems to be a lot of "inreach" by the curious, who are eagerly trying to understand the goals and values of the movement.  But the message they are mainly hearing from the occupiers at this time is, "We'll tell you when we figure it out."

    This is another example of the 'there are two types of people in this world: those who play tennis and those who don't.'  It just brings up the true difficulty in generating a movement of any scale.  It takes more than just having people feeling some common feeling of frustration, fear and anger.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 12:26pm

    I don't think the people in the movement only feel frustration, fear and anger.  But many of the most idealistic members of the occupation groups believe they are creating on the fly a revolutionary alt-democracy or indie-democracy.   They are not trying to reform the existing system, or work toward legislated solutions to our problems within the established political order.  They believe they are creating a new society.   The occupation sites are then seen as a sort of colony or new world, except that they are being built in the heart of the old one.  Hence the "occupation" idea.

    The term "occupation" seems to be used in the movement in a broad sense meaning something like "be present in".


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 12:37pm

    Interesting remark about how the term "occupation" is being used. I was thinking the use of the word referred to the act of squatting; moving into a space and taking up habitation there on the grounds that the place had been abandoned.


    by moat on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 7:15pm

    Well, it doesn't really jive with the demographics. DanK doesn't seem to be aware of them.


    by bwakfat on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 11:19pm

    There is the moral of all human tales;

    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,

    Hath but one page...

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Course_of_Empire


    by Resistance on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 7:57pm

    I have really enjoyed having the opportunity to read through this thread.  Nice work all.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 10:49pm

    DK: ""Finally, I am a pretty ordinary middle-class guy. My life is organized around my obligations to my family. I go to work everyday in an effort mainly to hang onto my job in the corporate battles, and so I can then provide for my family - including keeping my house, sending my son to college, and achieving a secure and comfortable retirement for my wife and me."

    Your comments to this effect strike me as on target. One of the mistakes of the New Left back in the 1960s is that they alienated one big chunk of the traditional left: labor. Most people in labor were and are interested in the same sort of values you espouse above and in other places in your post. The New Left attacked these traditional values or looked down on them with something like disdain.

    Many segments of labor were swept up by the right which championed these traditional values. We need to avoid making this mistake again.

    The environmental movement provides a particular challenge, IMO, because certain initiatives, e.g., pipelines, offer the possibility of creating lots of jobs for labor even as they hurt the environment. Traditionally (I believe) the left didn't have to worry about this conflict because environmentalism barely existed, if it existed at all, and the focus was simply on creating good-paying jobs.

     


    by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 10:50pm

    Apart from any values espoused - and I didn't hear anything last night that suggested any hostility to my lifestyle - the manner of the protests and method of organizing offer few channels for people like me to participate.  Basically, it seems you're either a civil disobedient "occupier" or you're outside the movement.  For all those people who can't drop their lives and jobs and abandon their families to go live in tents in a park, what are they supposed to do?  How are they supposed to participate?   Why has the movement chosen a method of demonstration that seems designed in advance to exclude and then alienate the vast majority of Americans?  Do they not want those other Americans to participate?

    And why is there so little outreach?  The response to straightforward and non-hostile questions like, "What are your goals?  What do you hope to accomplish?" seem to be met with a response like, "Screw you man; stop trying to make us define ourselves."


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 11:13pm

    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/17/occupy_tpm_cafe/ 

    Occupy TPM Cafe. Well, why not?


    by bwakfat on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 11:38pm

    Shit is fucked up and bullshit.  Rotwang made my week.  Required reading for this thread, I'd say.  Thanks.  Been some time since I looked in at the cafe.


    by kyle flynn on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 1:25am

    Occupy!!


    by bwakfat on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 11:20pm

    Thanks so much for the link. This was a really great read! Rotwang nailed it! I love his perspective, and especially this:

    ‎"Don't go to Washington. There are already people in Washington. The problem originates on Wall Street. Ignore the clowns; concentrate on the ringmaster."

    This is a profound prescription for those who would truly attempt to understand OWS.

    Great read! Thanks, again. 


    by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 10:22am

    What are your goals? and What do you hope to accomplish? could reasonably be heard as hostile questions under certain circumstances.  What are our goals?  What do we hope to accomplish?  Do me a fav and try it from there.


    by kyle flynn on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 1:06am

    Bullseye! Brilliant!

    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 1:36am

    That kind of language will seem presumptuous to me.  If someone is approaching the movement for the first time, and trying to decide whether to be a part of it, they are not going to feel comfortable saying, "What are our goals?"   They want to know what the people who are already in the movement are trying to achieve.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 12:22pm

    Fair enough.  My point is the questions you assume aren't hostile might be to some.  They don't strike a particularly harmonious chord with me.  And hey, I'm more than willing to move away from this quibble.  I think a take away from this could be that, whether we embrace it or not, we're all already in the movement.  What are some of our goals?


    by kyle flynn on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 12:44pm

    There is a danger in defining yourself and your goals too early when you're trying to do something new. Once you say you're for X, then it's easy for others to define you as all and only about X and then pick apart X. And if you come up with a list, then the list is hard to hold onto, and it's easy to pick apart each item on the list one by one.

    At this point, the protests have their biggest value in the energy with which they just are. People understand that, overall, OWSs are protesting the growing inequality and the power of the wealthy to maintain and increase that inequality. Driving home the wrongness of that...and demanding that that change...needs to be burned into people's consciousness. IMO.


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:11am

    I think there's something to this, although initially I would've disagreed (ironically when it would've been even more true). Furthermore, there's something about group psychology that suggests it might be better strategically to get people agreeing on the simple things before moving on to more complex things - a sort of "foot in the door" psychology.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:50am

    The line between management and "labor" has changed a lot since the sixties.

    Some of the advantage gained by the right has been made possible by being organized to use the confusion of the changing workplace to promote simplistic agendas. 

    The reverse of that tendency would be an appetite to look more closely at the details of the deal. In that sense, the "environment" is the large mammal in the room:

    It doesn't fit any of our rhetorical chambers so maybe it doesn't exist at all.


    by moat on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 11:44pm

    Robert's Rules of Order.  Good one.


    by kyle flynn on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 1:27am

    Why, it's not hip?  I don't think OWS needs to apply Robert's Rules, but at some point--and not now IMO--I think the movement needs to work to build a structure upon which they can make change.   Perhaps Robert's Rules are an imperfect metaphor, but I think it's an apt one.  Did you see the way they did it down in Atlanta when they decided that it wouldn't be appropriate to let John Lewis speak?  Every time someone said something the whole group repeated what was said.  That's OK, I guess, but in the end it's basically just goofy--and maybe hip to some.


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 7:51am

    Exactly this. I'm not sure if the time is now, but there will come a time when some sort of order will be required.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 8:06am

    "Order" comes in a lot shapes and sizes.  I just spent the morning hanging out at "Occupy Olympia."  One of the many things that struck me was how physically organized it is.  Shelters, media, medical, supplies, calendars, waste, signs, art, food.  The whole village is set up and functioning beautifully.  Another was how accessible information is. The scheduled GA times are posted.  Workshops, meetings and agendas are all announced in bright colors on battered dry-erase boards.

    It's morning in America, folks.  I think it's time we start unlearning some of the horseshit we were all fed as kids.  So let's set aside our traditional notions of "order" for a spell.  How about we let go a bit of our familiar, comfortable ways like Robert's Rules of Order and give a different approach a fair shake.  Hell, our future may depend on it. 


    by kyle flynn on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 1:53pm

    I've experienced such a protest encampment that lasted an entire summer, and it is pretty amazing.  So I'm not knocking the untraditional methods of order that you are witnessing.

    But there are more than one thing going on here.  Sitting up a physical encampment and running it smoothly is different than coordinating and facilitating the growth of a political movement that spans a much greater physical landscape and will need to sustain itself over a much longer period of time.

    There are definitely new ways of thinking about things.  And there are lessons learned from movements over time.  We shouldn't disregard the elders, nor should we turn our back on the children. 

    Encampments like you experienced are able to function as they do because the group of people are basically all on the same page from the get go.  And if political movements such as being envisioned by the various groups across the country are to happen it is because they are able to gather together many people who are not on the same page from the get go.  Processes like Robert's Rules are effective when there are individuals who have very strong disagreements about the issues before the group. 

    I remember before that particular long protest, there was plenty of meeting beforehand to get agreement about how to proceed.  The decision on whether the coalition would consider acts against machinery in alignment with the non-violence principles was particular heated.  We didn't use Robert Rule per se, but there was an agreed upon method for who spoke, for how long, the voting methodology etc. - basically RR modified to fit the sensibilities of those particular activists.  And my guess is that the encampment which you visited has a similar agreed upon methodology at coming to a decision.

    What is key is that there was time ahead to sit down and come to that agreement.  As a movement spreads out to include more and more people, it become more and more difficult to get them up to speed on some unique system designed by the original group.  So it is just easier to utilize a system which has already had a long history and more easily accessible by the greater numbers of people.

    Just keep in mind that just because corrupt governments use something like RR doesn't mean that the RR are a function of that corruption, and part of some horseshit fed to people as a means of keeping them placated and stupid.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 2:22pm

    but there will come a time when some sort of order will be required.

    Universal order?

    When mankind gets back into harmony, with the rest of the creation?  


    by Resistance on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 3:20pm

    The repetition by the whole group is called a "mike check".  It's designed just as a way for a speaker to be heard in a large group, without benefit of electronic amplification.  It was developed spontaneously in NYC, I believe, and has caught on across the whole country.  I actually enjoyed that part of the meeting a great deal.  For example, one small woman spoke at our meeting.  She did not have a powerful voice, and English was not her native language.  She would say a few words, and then everyone who could hear her would loudly repeat those words.   It has a powerful and sometimes moving effect, because everyone in the group has a sense of participating in helping small people have their voices heard.

    When people see it in action the first time, they might get the wrong impression.  They think people are mechanically repeating the words as though it's some kind of mass group consensus or ritualistic agreement.  But that's not the point.  You are supposed to help with the mike check even if you do not agree with what is being said.  Then you can speak later and take an opposing position if you want.

    My reservations about the meeting style is that it is not based on traditional democratic forms of proposing things and voting on them, but instead seeks to implement a novel form of deliberation that aspires to consensus, where each person is encouraged during the process of debate to give up some piece of their views in the process of evolving a group view, and then the group is supposed to accept the consensus proposal at the end.  You don't vote on the proposal and count votes.  Instead, you ask if there is any person who wants to put a "block" on the proposal.  The block - as I understand it - signals that the person blocking is so strongly opposed to the proposal being considered, that they might feel compelled to leave the movement if the proposal is enacted.

    There is more to the procedure than this.  And I don't understand it all.   It's interesting and very idealistic - and I believe it is the younger generations natural response to the ideological gridlock they see all around them.  The desire to avoid factionalism is very strong.   The process is slow, but the ideal is that once decisions are reached, there is more solidarity behind them.   But nevertheless I think that traditional democratic procedures probably work better in the end.

    Here is the philosophy, which was developed in Spain by the Puerta del Sol Protest Camp.

    http://occupytogether.wikispot.org/General_Assembly


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 12:17pm

    more background on that, for those interested, on David Graeber, et. al.:

    Intellectual Roots of Wall St. Protest Lie in Academe
    Movement's principles arise from scholarship on anarchy
    Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 16

    note that
    ...Mr. Graeber spent six weeks in New York helping to plan the demonstrations before an initial march by protesters on September 17, which culminated in the occupation.....


    by artappraiser on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 1:49pm

    I'm reading Graeber's book on the history of debt.   It's really interesting, and you don't have to be an anarchist to like it.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 2:44pm

    My reservations about the meeting style is that it is not based on traditional democratic forms of proposing things and voting on them, but instead seeks to implement a novel form of deliberation that aspires to consensus, where each person is encouraged during the process of debate to give up some piece of their views in the process of evolving a group view, and then the group is supposed to accept the consensus proposal at the end. 

    From what I have read and seen, these meetings remind me of descriptions of Quaker business meetings.  Hardly new but very idealistic and also very vulnerable to manipulation by a skillful 'leader'  They work best for groups with shared values and very high principles.  Not sure that includes OWS at this point.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 4:33pm

    "Block"...as in what Senators can do?

    Or does the group sometimes say, "Well, then, if you feel that strongly, leave"?


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:14am

    Frankly, I couldn't tell.  There was no real procedure for voting as far as I can tell, so the groups can't tell that individual anything.  The facilitator proposes something, and if it isn't blocked, you stop debating, move on, and consider it decided.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:09pm

    This dagblog post came up as a topic of discussion at the Occupy NH forum, so I would like to post the reply I made there:

     

    "Since I'm the guy in question who posted the dagblog remarks, let me say that I did not label the Ron Paul supporters "plants". I did not suggest there is anything sneaky or deceptive about Seth's participation or the participation of other supporters of Ron Paul, supporters of the free state movement, and others of the small government libertarian persuasion. On the contrary, Seth has been completely open and honest about his views and open to discussion. But what I did say is that I personally believe these tendencies push very much in the wrong direction, and that as someone who was looking for a progressive movement to participate in, and was under the impression that the Occupy movement was indeed such a movement, I was disappointed to find out how prevalent these alternative approaches were in the New Hampshire version of the movement. 

    "I don't think the New Hampshire mix is really representative of the national movement as a whole, as I understand it. As the national Occupy movement continues the slow process of defining itself and its hopes and goals more fully, I suspect a fairly clear progressive orientation will continue to emerge. That means the movement will call for policies that require expanded government participation in the economy to deal with issues such as unemployment, a more comprehensive social safety net, the regulation of corporations and the financial sector, and pro-active legislative moves to promote income equality and employment security. Since these are policy approaches that Ron Paul and other defenders of laissez faire economics tend to oppose quite strongly, eventually they will have to make a choice about where they want to go.

    "I also believe that as the members of the movement consider to educate themselves about the nature of our financial and monetary systems, and our economic system overall, they will come to appreciate the role of misinformation, confusion and sheer demagoguery in the hysteria over the federal deficits and federal debt and in the calls for government "belt-tightening" or austerity. (This fear-and-austerity approach is strangling our economic recovery, and is especially strangling the economies of Europe right now.) The members of the national movement will also grow increasingly skeptical and uninterested in views that pin the blame for our troubles on the central bank or on fiat money, and that look for solution in such realms as the gold standard, bitcoins, free-banking and the like. I posted a few of my views on these topics in a reply to a post by Leah on the Fed.

    "Right now, it is understandable that there is a strong hostility toward government - especially among young people - since the current incarnations of government, and the elected leaders of both major parties have totally failed us, and remain the servants of concentrated private wealth. But as the people in the movement come to see themselves increasingly as an empowered and unified political force with national scope, they will come to appreciate that they are actually preparing themselves to become the government - not through "revolution", but through the entirely viable process of contesting and winning elections. And once they start thinking that way, I believe they will stop seeing government as an inherently alien and oppressive force, but as an instrument of social progress, equality and decency. They will increasingly think more about what they want government to do, once they are in charge of it, and somewhat less about what they want government not to do. So in the end, I expect this movement will mark the beginning of an era of expanded action and energy on the part of a more democratic and popularly-oriented national government, with an expansion of the public sector, and a roll-back of the tendency toward deregulation, market fundamentalism and laissez faire that we have experienced as a nation over the past three decades or so.

    "I continue to appreciate the opportunity to present my thinking in an open forum."


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 8:16am

    Well done!

    "I also believe that as the members of the movement consider to educate themselves about the nature of our financial and monetary systems, and our economic system overall, they will come to appreciate the role of misinformation, confusion and sheer demagoguery in the hysteria over the federal deficits and federal debt and in the calls for government "belt-tightening" or austerity.

    Yeah, like I wonder just how many free-market libertarians are marching today in Greece. LOL!

    They are certainly pissed off at their government. But I kinda' doubt they're all ready to replace Parliament with a corporate board of directors at this point. Or deregulate the banks, either.


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 12:26pm

    Dan is definitely not revolutionary material... The problem that OWS has identified is that the system is broken and that the only way to initiate change is from outside the system. In a sense this is revolutionary in intent. The "Tea Party" has chosen that name to symbolize an act of rebellion, "Occupy Wall Street" serves the same function. People are pissed off and the system is corrupt... What else is left, but rebellion?

    by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 2:38pm

    What do you mean by rebellion?  Does it include killing?


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 7:04pm

    There are drugs that will prevent you from going 0 to 60 in an extreme direction, dude.

    Ask your doctor.


    by bwakfat on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 11:23pm

    Why is my question in an extreme direction, bwakfat?  To me the word "revolution" calls up the most famous, paradigm examples: the American Revolution, the English Revolution, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution.  All of them involved widespread slaughter.  So I think it is appropriate for me to ask people who purport to be enthusiasts for revolution if those are the kinds of things they have in mind.

    Or are they just thinking of revolutions in some more figurative sense.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:50am

    It isn't extreme Dan.  People sometimes don't like being called on their choice of words.  They just want to have the positive connotation and not deal with the potential negative connotations.  They want to call for a revolution but bristle when the French Revolution is brought up.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 7:00am

    It's extreme. The French Revolution was a particularly bloody one. There are plenty of more recent revolutions that are a more apt comparison.

    You are fearmongering. It's stupid.


    by bwakfat on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 7:26am

    Gandhi never killed anybody. The people getting killed would probably be the rebels, if you examine the asymmetry of physical forces.

    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:27am

    So you can guarantee that everybody in the next revolution will be just like Gandhi? And let's not forget the violence that was unleashed as the mass movement people between Pakistan and India. 

    Yes, the state has more capacity and is more likely to unleash violent force than opposition forces, but some of the great acts of slaughter in human history has been from the "rebels" - especially once they achieve power and move to both consolidate that power and maintain it.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 7:06am

    If you need guarantees, then maybe this movement isn't for you. Or any movement.

    Just hide under your bed. It's safe there.


    by bwakfat on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 7:31am

    I don't need guarantees, but I'm also not going to be blinded by idealism to think just because something starts out with good intentions and a reverence for folks like Gandhi that there isn't a potential for unleashing something just as awful if not worse. 

    Protests, rebellions, and revolutions are confrontations - and as such it can bring out the worse in people. (Sometimes like during the Velvet Revolution, one also sees the best brought out in people). The more one stokes the fears, anger and frustrations of people, the more one runs the risk that something or someone gets out of control.  It is part of the risk of taking the confrontational road, regardless of one's own commitment to non-violence. 

    That risk is by no means a reason not to consider this path of change, but one does need to go down that path with one's eyes wide open - as at least as wide open as human nature allows.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 9:33am

    I remember Camus from back when profile pics attended comments. But more and more, I envision Eeyore. There is no joy or adventure so attractive that it can't be marginalized by the greatest intellect of 'em all. LOL!

    "He has risen!" sayeth Mary Magdalen.

    "Well, I'd be careful about saying that out loud," responds trope. 


    by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 10:34am

    I don't understand your complaint. Are you seriously suggesting that caution is completely unwarranted and that instead we should all be shouting "Hallelujah!"? Isn't there room to consider the pros and cons without being implicitly labeled a concern troll? Or, are you suggesting there absolutely are no cons?


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 10:39am

    Absolutely there are cons. But my comment was directed specifically at trope who - god bless his soul - would seemingly pause mid-orgasm to question its sincerity or its appropriate application.

    It's a valuable service, I suppose, to always be the one who picks apart anything looking for the downside. But it's gotta be a pretty miserable perspective. I was just reflecting upon that. Eeyore is a lovable character. But no one idolizes him or models such behavior as an attractive way to embrace the world.


    by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:03am

    But it's gotta be a pretty miserable perspective.

    It might be for you, but I don't think it is for him, and it isn't for me. Neil deGrasse Tyson has an excellent talk where he mentions how some people look at our place in the Universe and come away feeling insignificant. Such people therefore might not want to think about the enormousness of the Universe very much. Tyson, however, says that he looks at our place in the Universe and marvels at how wonderful the Universe is.

    What you identify as "picking apart", I identify as "analyzing". I don't agree with everything he says (or everything I say, for that matter), but I usually find his analysis at least interesting, if not insightful.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:47am

    One reason that political movements are so difficult to sustain is because too many people require the experience be wrapped solely in purity and positiveness - that someone merely pointing the potential realities that rest within human nature marginalizes the experience for them.  Political movements are nothing more than people who make them up - and, thus, one has to take the whole of humanity - the good and the bad - as one goes forward.  One would be a fool to think if things reached the actual level of rebellion or revolution that everyone would be Gandhis.  Sorry that pointing that out sucks out all of the joy and adventure from the experience.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:04am

    Jesus Trope, get a grip. I remember reading a whole hallelujah chorus from you about your fabulous protests in the woods of BC, the largest etc etc. etc. And those confrontations in the woods included violence, and violent people, and violent rhetoric, and the whole same damned mix of humanity that the OWS protests do. 

    But this time, you've decided that even the use of a word like revolution, or rebellion, is a step too far, and ohhhhhh WARNING from the wise old man, that VIOLENCE is inherent in our natures, and whine whine whine.

    Do you even read what these guys are saying, what they're studying, how they're working to keep it peaceful? Have you seen any evidence that shows these kids to be more vilent than, say, the cops guarding them?  

    Look. Dude. At this point, I call hypocrite. Say what you want, spin it as you want, you're blowing the Hypocrite's Horn, and you need to step back before you blow your own youth right straight out the memory hole.

    I mean, the blood's hardly up past my ankles so far. ;-)


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:14pm

    Not to get into a whole thing on this - but the whole time in the months of planning and organizing before the event and the facilitation of the event, the various organizers (leaders) of the action were quite aware of the potential for violence.  Workshops in conducting non-violent direct action were conducted for those who were new to the game to help ensure the likelihood for violence was decreased.  Never once did someone say - we don't have to worry about passions getting out of hand.  It was discussed and dealt with on a daily basis. 

    And as far as those who were there from the beginning and worked to make it a reality - no one talked about insurrection or revolution, or had some idea that the event would lead to an overturning of the economic system that drove the brutal clearcutting methodology used by the multinational corporation.  The goal was always to put the pressure on the government to step in and broker a deal with the multinational, not overturning the government so the new ones in power could stop the cutting.  It was also about working with the First Nation population whose poverty and unemployment drove for the need for jobs in the area through logging.

    But in the end what you want it seems is to be able to talk about the Revolution, get all excitied about the Revolution, to use the rhetoric of the Revolution, but not deal with the realities of what the Revolution entails.  In other words, not to be taken seriously.  Just having some fun, and getting bent out of shape when someone jumps in and harshes on your mellow about the new order arising. 

    Because I am not talking about violence arising from the encampments of the occupy movement.  Of course, as long as it remains just encampments it ain't going to be any new dance halls built upon the ashes of the old regime.  To get from point A to point B there is going to have be some serious morphing of the movement beyond the peaceful encampments we see today.  You're the one saying it's heading to point B - that an insurrection is brewing.  But if you can show me how that can happen with just the peaceful encampments that currently exist, I'm all ears (or I guess it would be all eyes being this is a blog)


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:48pm

    What's wrong with you?

    1. You say I'M the one talking about Revolution? I haven't said a gooddamn word in favour of any Revolution! I think it's useless kids talk. I'm just NOT WORRIED ABOUT IT. Not peeing my pants. Not talking about people getting killed and such. As you guys are.

    2. You say I'M the one talking about an insurrection? I've said no such thing, thank you. I think I made it very clear earlier that I DIDN'T expect this event to lead to any such explosion, but to a whole series of further developments. 

    3. As for BC, it's grand that you and your buds were full of training and learning all that good stuff, but I know lots of people who went into the BC woods across numerous stages, and lots of them were into WTO stuff and Anarchist stuff and the whole schlamozzle. So, if you think there were no people talking Revolution or open to violence, then you're just... well, you're just talking bullshit.

    I shouldn't be surprised, I guess.

    Anyway. I'd go looking for that rocker if I were you.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:09pm

    I never said there weren't people who personally felt revolution, anarchy etc was the ideal path.  Which is of course why it needed to be confronted and talked about constantly, and why I feel it necessary to talk about it now.  The same folks basically are going to be showing up to the occupy camps, and, in my opinion, need to be know that their kind of violent crap isn't to be tolerated.  When people start talking "revolution" etc then well it just feeds them.

    And as was clearly shown at WTO in Seattle, they're generally going to do what they're going to do (along with the just the angry youth who aren't political but like throwing things through a Starbucks window), and then the police over-react, and you then you have a real freakin' mess on one's hands.  So the more one feeds them, the more likely non-violent organizers are going to struggle keeping the fringe violent groups marginalized.

    But that is just my opinion - for what it is worth. 

    And the truth be told when I wrote that response, I didn't notice that sleepin' had changed into Q.  But, hey, you felt it necessary to opine about what I should and shouldn't say, so as far as I am concerned, you're consenting to the unnecessary and unproductive (and quite possibly counter-productive) rhetoric. 

    Now if you don't mind I need to go find my rocker.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:50pm

    This evening at the occupywallstreet.org website they are proudly trumpeting that 70% of the respondents to their poll define themselves as Independents.

    Their bold, not mine:

    70% of #OWS Supporters are Politically Independent
    Posted Oct. 19, 2011, 5:11 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

    Two weeks ago we conducted an anonymous poll on this website to learn more about our visitors. We asked Héctor R. Cordero-Guzmán Ph.D, sociologist of the City University of New York to look at the data, which he analyzed to create an original academic paper titled "Mainstream Support for a Mainstream Movement".

    His analysis shows that the Occupy Wall Street movement is heavily supported by a diverse group of individuals and that "the 99% movement comes from and looks like the 99%." Among the most telling of his findings is that 70.3% of respondents identified as politically independent.

    Dr. Cordero-Guzmán's findings strongly reinforce what we've known all along: Occupy Wall Street is a post-political movement representing something far greater than failed party politics. We are a movement of people empowerment, a collective realization that we ourselves have the power to create change from the bottom-up, because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians.....continues

    That should clarify things at least a bit. wink

    Next question: Does "we don't need politicians" mean you are not planning to vote in the current system?


    by artappraiser on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 7:56pm

    I posted the following on the OWS site in response:

    Political independence is one thing. But there is no such thing as a "post-political" movement. Human beings are political animals. Politics is is our blood, and people shouldn't be afraid or ashamed of being political. If you are creating change from the bottom up, you are engaging in politics. If you are speaking in a General Assembly you are engaging in politics. If you are participating in a resistance movement you are engaging in politics.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 8:30pm

    Avoid "you should" statements. They are condescending.


    by bwakfat on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 11:27pm

    So is a string of harassing snarky comments from people with nothing to say.

    By the way, is the imperative mood somehow less condescending than "you should' comments?


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:08am

    There are drugs that help you not go from 0 to 60 in any extreme direction.

    Ask your doctor.


    by bwakfat on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 11:24pm

    Huh? It's more like I need an interpreter to figure out your reply to my comment. A comment which merely meant to point out that occupywallstreet.org group is starting to define itself on its website.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:16am

    Over the top negative assumptions should be called out.

    DanK thinks people are planning on killing people and you think they plan on not voting.

    Both are rather extreme negative reactions. I'm ridiculing them.


    by bwakfat on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 7:28am

    Are you participating in an occupation somewhere.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 9:46am

    Occupy dagblog counts. Just sayin, is all.


    by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 10:36am

    Reminds me of being accused of being a negative party pooper in 2008 because I wanted to discuss Obama's actual policy positions instead of "supporting the messiah."

    If you read negativity into that, it's in your head. I'm simply not that interested in reading or writing "rah rah, go team."

    Edit to add: I can assure you I have no negativity towards Independents; I've been registered as one since 1983.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:47pm

    Well, bwakfat, it appears you and Jeezus really need to get yourself down to Zuccotti park to call out all those other over-the-top types at General Assembly who voted down a statement because of similar questions about its meaning about voting.  I don't know if it would be wise to start suggesting taking drugs, though.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 1:19am

    Huh? Is there a secret decoder ring available that I missed out on that allows me to understand otherwise obtuse comments? These remarks make no sense. And doubly so after following the link. Huh?


    by SleepinJeezus on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 1:41am

    I hear there are also drugs that help people avoiding repeating the same snarky comment twice in the same thread.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:10am

    Some people just don't like their ridiculous over-the-top assertions being tossed back at them.

    Kinda like "do you plan on killing anyone?" 

    Utter nonsense.


    by bwakfat on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 7:30am

    You're a fool.  If people are explicitly calling for a second American revolution and appealing to the first one as their model, then it is a reasonable inference that they might be calling for violence - given that the first American revolution was a bloody war for independence.  It's at least reasonable to ask people to clarify their views on the subject.

    It's also reasonable to ask them if their intention is to topple the government and replace the existing constitutional order with a new one, or if their goal is to work entirely within the existing constitutional structure.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 9:51am

    It would seem to me that it would only be a fool who would hear all the attention paid to non-violence by the Occupy crowd, but still worry about violent revolution. Will violence happen? Probably. Already has, in fact. But it won't be an armed insurrection by the OWS crowd, but rather a response from those who won't relinquish power without a fight.

    I, for one, have no intention of working "entirely within" the present political system as it is constituted, and I don't think most of the Occupy crowd does, either. And THAT, I believe, is what worries you - even as you claim it to be "the existing constitutional structure."

    It's a revolution. It's an insurrection. It exists outside the voting booth and the cash used to buy votes and the voting machines installed to make sure the votes are tallied "properly."

    The Occupy crowd doesn't much give a shit about talking heads and their horse race political game that is carefully constructed to look legitimate but that is nevertheless run by the corporate mobsters and Wall Street.

    Shall I go on? Bottom line is that the Occupy crowd really doesn't give a shit about Obama or the Dems or the Repubs or anything else connected to the corrupt and fetid corpse of a political system that used to be our democracy. And I know that scares you very, very much. But the jig is up. Time to quit responding as they call the tune and time instead to occupy new territory and rebuild the dance hall.


    by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 10:56am

    Sleepin, all I can say is that I have actually attended a General Assembly and heard the varieties of views being expressed there.  And I think only a few other people here have done the same.

    If you've read my stuff, you know that this has nothing to do with Obama or the two major parties.

    But at some point, maybe some of these revolutionaries could paint a road map for change?


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:07am

    And maybe even give a small idea on what this shiny new dance hall is going to look like once the insurrection and revolution is done doing its thing.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:23am

    I see a couple of rockers are missing their riders.

    Guys. I'm sure I've heard the word revolution used by a couple of politicians, a couple of activists, a couple of human beings these past 50 odd years. And funny enough, it didn't always lead to people losing their minds and talking about the French Revolution and Insurrection and such.

    Anyway. We've got a soft room full of soft toys if you guys would like to go take a brief time-out. 


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:28pm

    Depends on the toys, but I could use a little R&R.


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:08pm

    Me too.

    I just think both peoples' hopes AND their fears are running a bit wild on this OWS stuff.

    Hopes-wise, I'm not counting on OWS exploding into a grand transcendent moment where we abolish corporate personhood and end the influence of money on politics. I mean, I'd like to see those things, and this is a potentially useful step on that path, but.... I'm not expecting to see that til at least next week. 

    But likewise, this business of talking about blood and death and killings? This is just daft. It's peoples' weird fears running away with them. And then the going back to peoples imaginings about the 60's and all these frightful stories about how the last time kids took to the streets it caused Reaganism and Republicanism to dominate for 40 years..... holy shit.

    So maybe you're right Bruce. I'll take the soft toys and the padded room, and let other people stretch out here with their terrors.

    {pad pad pad}

    TEDDY!!!! 


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:20pm

    I'm sure I've heard the word revolution used by a couple of politicians, a couple of activists, a couple of human beings these past 50 odd years. And funny enough, it didn't always lead to people losing their minds and talking about the French Revolution and Insurrection and such.

    But here is the kicker - you're gonna love this: during the past 50 odd years the system has pretty much remained the same, in fact it has if anything increased in its power to sustain and replicate itself. 

    So if all one is really thinking about is some folks talkin' some revolution and rebellion, and then going home, leaving the system just pretty much the same as it always was (same as it always was, same as it always was), yeah all this French Revolution stuff is pretty much going over top.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:11pm

    So what is it Trope? Are we to worry about bloodshed, or worry about falling asleep?

    Do tell.

    Meanwhile, I'll go looking for commentary that isn't completely off its meds.

    Have a good one, dude.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:29pm

    Tell me what it is you want to accomplish and how you plan to accomplish it, and Ill give you my two cents on what I think you should be worried about.  I could go on and on about what to worry about if you want to do some community neighborhood organizing around some anti-poverty initiative.  Or maybe you want revolution and the end to capitalism.  Just let me know the details. smiley


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:49pm

    Keep on, keepin' on brother. Seriously, just a bit of the Middle Path and I'm happy. Not too down on it all, not too worried about guillotines, and maybe we can help this thing keep itself between the ditches. Peace out.

    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:14pm

    I'm sure these sneering and condescending remarks make you feel more comfortable.  But I have eyes and ears.  I've been around, and seen and heard lots of varieties of political talk, and I know how to distinguish people who are merely talking about something like "the Reagan revolution" from those who are talking about a far more radical abolition of the present sytem of government.

    By the way, the people who were the most strident were the right wingers.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:18pm

    What? And you're shocked that some Rightwingers talk about violence? You're shocked that they showed up at an open OWS process? 

    Wow. 

    Dan, those things were predictable. It's like the fact that some loud anti-Semites are gonna show up. 

    Thing is, I seem to find those same kind of people insidee... unions... churches... political parties... and in damned near any movement or march I've been associated with.

    But this thing talking about killing and the French Revolution? Because of them? Too much.

    Dial it back, is all.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:28pm

    Well, as I think I tried to convey in the original post, I think it is right and reasonable for people to withhold their support from some movement until they understand quite clearly what the movement aims to accomplish, and what means they plan to use to accomplish it.  And I have also said I believe that the OWS movement will be held back as an effective agent of progressive change, and a movemnt capable of attracting mass participation and support, until it succeeds in kicking some of its more extreme and discordant elements to the curb.

    FWIW, I have been trying to follow the New York movement more closely, and worry less about my local chapter, because I believe the New York group is much further along in the process of clarifying its values, ends and means.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:02pm

    If voting isn't their goal they are destined to never have an impact or to effect change. This is not the middle east, we don't live under a military dictatorship. If these people don't give a shit as you say about voting, then the jig is up, they will never do anything but sit in a park and protest.

    You can't change the system by not participating in the system. The reason conservatives and their offshoots gain power so quickly is that they find candidates that are as crazy as they are (Joe Walsh, Joe Wilson et al) and they get them into office so they can wreck the government even more. There is no starting over Jeebus, this isn't 1776 anymore, not voting means either a President Perry or Romeny, it means an even more conservative Supreme Court, it means a more conservative, reationary federal bench, it means less services for people, it means the TeaParty and Republicans will be in control for longer. It is a complete cop out to not vote, and if you don't vote then you don't get to complain.  Those activists could be creating their own party, joining the Green Party or attempting to take over the Democratic Party so there is more progressive representation, but instead they cop out. Okay, then live with what happens.

    Our revolutions are elections, you want change, you'd better get off your asses and vote or your done because the TeaParty will fill the void left by all those who have decided not to vote.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:23am

    Those activists could be creating their own party, joining the Green Party or attempting to take over the Democratic Party so there is more progressive representation, but instead they cop out.

    Just to be clear, based on the small sample survey AA posted earlier, many of those activitists are voting even in the off-elections, and most will probably be voting in 2012. (And, of course, as you point out, this is a good thing.)


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:40am

    And the ultimate long-term result of the Tea party in ascendance will be different just how, tMac?

    Your politics-as-usual hasn't quite produced results as promised these last thirty years. We now have Korus and CAFTA and whatnot to make certain we continue the trend. We have successfully undermined health care reform to instead achieve a Health Insurance Industry Profits Enhancement and Protection Act. We have strengthened and expanded the National Security State. We have widened the gap between rich and poor. We have broadened our economic dependence of the Military-Industrial Complex as the engine that drives our economy.

    I absolutely understand your point about needing to fend off the Tea Party crazies and the Repub extreme.

    But who will protect us from ourselves, who are so fearful of the extremist that we allow the corporate whores to remain in power as a chosen alternative? There simply HAS to be a REAL alternative - one that actually represents the interests of the 99%.

    And yes I will be voting. But don't count on it. And that's the dilemma that the Dems face now, and it will only be getting worse if things don't change. This shit's gotta stop. And all your hand-wringing about the bogeyman is no longer effective in fending off the people who are sick and tired of the corruption that infects EVERYTHING (Yes, Dear. Even DEMOCRATS! GASP!) in Washington. Get your arms wrapped around THAT reality and then maybe you begin understanding what the "revolution" that is sought is all about. It's coming. Part of the solution? Or part of the problem? At present, you seem to be of the latter category.

    Gotta go! Wish I had more time. Later!


    by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:59am

    Although it would seem you have had to go, I would put the adage out there coined by Herbert Blau: if you're not part of the problem, you're not part of the solution. 

    Which is another way of saying that if there needs to be change in Washington DC, and at the state and local level I might add, then the solution can be found in getting the right people elected.  That requires some folks to step up to the plate and run for office who will offer an alternative.  If we are truly the 99% surely there are a few Mr. Smiths out there.  Heck with the support of the 99% they will have no problem getting in there and achieving real change. If there isn't then maybe there simply may not be a real alternative. 


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:02pm

    I suspect some might not get the Mr. Smith reference: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:05pm

    Just get up off the ground, that's all I ask. Get up there with that lady that's up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won't just see scenery; you'll see the whole parade of what Man's carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so's he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That's what you'd see. There's no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties. And, uh, if that's what the grownups have done with this world that was given to them, then we'd better get those boys' camps started fast and see what the kids can do. And it's not too late, because this country is bigger than the Taylors, or you, or me, or anything else. Great principles don't get lost once they come to light. They're right here; you just have to see them again!


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:15pm

    Great principles don't get lost once they come to light.

    Who told you that?

    Darkness can overcome a light.

    A weak flashlight, with barely enough light to guide your footsteps, as you crawl though the darkness.  Lost, even though you have a light.  

    Great principles don't get lost, NO; they just get cast aside as having little or no value, to those who benefit from the darkness.

    They didnt lose it as though saying "oh my we lost it"

    There are those who love the darkness, they perfer the darkness, they don't want the light.

    The darkness associated with corruption, will try to block the light.

    Great principles are as Great rules. Whoever has the Gold, rules. 

    How many would accept their thirty pieces of silver for betraying Great principles, for greater principal?


    by Resistance on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:04pm

    Ta-Nehisi Coates riffing along the lines of Mr. Smith, though not as adverse about the grownups.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:22pm

    I'm not short of memory. We were told that getting Obama elected was just such an instance of "getting the right people elected."

    Look around Grant Park on the night of the election in 2008. Look into the faces of those who gave their heart and soul into the effort to elect THEIR President. Those people were not celebrating a continuation of GW Bush's Imperial Presidency. No, they were in fact looking forward to being relieved of it at last. And they were in fact looking for a strong rebuke - if not actual pursuit of legal sanctions - against those who had so sorely abused the Office of the President and our Constitution.

    Those people were looking forward to progressive change such as health care reform. But they certainly never envisioned an effort that established as job number one the protection and preservatoon of the insurance industry at whatever cost it might have on the future prospects for achieving universal health care.

    These people were not looking for years more of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and secret wars in Pakistan and throughout the world. Drone assassinations, even of American citizens? Probably not on the menu. In fact, probably deemed impossibly abhorent to those people in Grant Park.

    These people were not looking for more no-bid contracts for defense contractors, nor for money to disappear by the pallet-full into our defense contractors maw to support our privatization of the military.

    These people were not looking for more largesse for Wall Street banksters and virtual abandonment of consumers who are encouraged to fend for themselves against these banksters.

    These people were not looking for continued excuses that the government would be happy to serve their interests except for those pesky old lobbyists and their owned pols in Washington who simply get in the way, danggit!

    These people were not looking for a fight over cuts to social programs like Social Security and Medicare robbing all the oxygen in Washington whilst their friends and families suffer the consequences of the worst recession in at least a few generations.

    These people were not looking for a resurgence of the Republicans and their thirty-year failure in Reaganomics. They rightly considered that they had them flat on their back - fully discredited - and looked forward to pounding them into oblivion.

    We elected Barack Obama as "the right person to get elected" to represent the 99%. We got Bill Clinton and the DLC redux instead. And we watched in horror as the country slid even more and more into the grasp of Wall Street and the thirty year horror of the ascendancy of the 1% continued almost without a hiccup.

    I could go on and on outlining the abject failures of Democrats to deliver progressive victories that were easily within their grasp thanks to those who "voted for the right guy" in 2008. Forgive me if your insistence now that we put our eggs all in the "vote Democrat" basket rings a little hollow. Kinda like three card monte, where despite past experience we are assured that this time we will win. It's a simple game. Just put your money down, kid. Everyone's a winner. How can you lose?

    Fuck it! We ain't playing that same old game anymore. I hear the complaint that we can't let the Tea Baggers win, and it resonates. But there's gotta be a different choice than simply losing anyway in perhaps a less extreme decline but a decline nonetheless.

    The political system is broken, and the OWS crowd recognizes that as a primary concern. Telling them to put their faith in that system (as presently constituted) to fix itself is pretty much crazy-talk. Perhaps it's time for YOU to look at the problem and arrive at a suggestion how it might be resolved. For the corruption of the political system is indeed a problem and no amount of voting is going to cure it. The election of 2008 was a bust and I am extremely angry for the opportunity cost of electing a needed reformer and getting the DLC instead. But at least it showed just how endemic is the corruption and removed all assurance that we could win this game that is so completely fixed against us.

    It's time to do something else. Before it's too late.


    by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 6:47pm

    I would interpret "we don't need politicians" to reflect a disdain for participating in the political game as presently constituted, where the corporations and the elite get ultimate veto authority over any and all reforms and everything exists as a pretense to actual democracy.

    I would expect most will be voting. But I think Dems (in particular) will find it more and more unacceptable and strategically unsupportable to play both sides of the fence as in, for example, protecting insurance company parochial interests at the expense of legitimate and highly popular and sensible health care reform (e.g. "single payer" or "public option") or caving on fin/reg reforms at the behest demand of Wall Street campaign contributors.

    There's a fundamental shift afoot that takes away the political horse race as the only game in town. Can't even say for sure how it ends up, but it's apt to bring revolutionary change to a corrupt and fetid political system.


    by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:15am

    To clarify further: No longer will people accept Obama or Reid or anyone else in Washington wringing their hands before the people and saying things like "You know? We understand how much people supported the public option. We really TRIED to get some manner of single payer health care into law. We really did! Honest! But we just couldn't get Baucus and Lieberman and the lobbyists to go along with it. There's only so much we can DO, after all!"

    Lobbyists and campaign bagmen and their quid pro quo corruption of the system is entrenched almost like law itself these days. And people understand how it has contributed to the increasing disparity of power between the 1% and the rest of us over the last thirty years. It cannot be sustained, and will no longer be tolerated as it has been in the past.


    by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:30am

    Amen

    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 5:44am

    Turns out the General Assembly addressed my question about language implying not voting on Wednesday night. The applicable excerpt from their Oct. 19 minutes, my bold highlighting.

    "Questions" marked with a "Q," are for information/explanation; "Concerns" marked with a C, are like objections; "Temperature Check" is a hand vote. There were too many negative votes on the language of the statement and it was tabled for the working group to refine it and resubmit to General Assembly later.

    3) A STATEMENT TO BE RATIFIED BY THE WE WILL NOT BE CO-OPTED WORKING GROUP

    We Will Not Be Co-Opted representative: Hi folks, brothers and sisters, peace and love! We have a proposal. The mainstream corporate media is trying to dismiss this movement. They are constructing a narrative that we are the puppets of the Democratic Party. The Tea Party was co-opted by the Republican Party; we will not be co-opted by the Democratic Party.

    *Cheering!*

    The statement we’ve written hopes to ensure that the Democratic Party or the Republican Party cannot use our movement to drive votes and money to the 2012 campaigns on behalf of the same people who are already committing crimes against us.

    This is the statement we are asking you to consent upon:

    “The Democratic and Republican parties do not represent the people because they’ve been bought and corrupted by Wall Street, and the occupation does not support their candidates. In collusion with both parties, the top 1% has profited at the expense of everyone else. We have moved beyond false hopes and submission to eloquent speeches and populist manipulation. We rely on cooperation and solidarity to imagine and create the changes needed for a sustainable world. From diverse multicultural, racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual backgrounds, and from different walks of life, we have begun to unite on common ground to oust the global financial powers that have bought our government and who hold us hostage to their greed.”

    That’s it.

    F: Temperature check! Negatives? Yes.

    F: Clarifying questions?

    Q: My question is about voting. Does this mean we are encouraged to not vote? Because if we are, I have a problem with that.

    A: We are in no way discouraging people from voting and we didn’t enter that into the statement.

    Q: What is this statement going to be used for? Who do you plan to give it to and are you going to claim it represents consensus by the GA?

    A: The point of this item is for the GA of people occupying Wall Street to come to a consensus about whether this statement represents us. If we have consensus on this statement, then it becomes a representation of the beliefs of this GA. I think. The question of to whom this statement will be given is everyone—the media, the Internet, my grandma, and President Obama.

    Q: Would the group consider an amendment to target lawmakers instead of parties in government in its language?

    A: How do you define lawmakers?

    Q: Congress and people in government.

    F: Point of Process: This is a friendly amendment, not in order. Just questions right now.

    Q: Does only mentioning the Democratic and Republican parties mean that this General Assembly might support other parties?

    A: Currently there are two dominant political parties that are on the payroll of Wall Street. They want to dismiss us and we won’t let that happen. That’s why we’re focusing on them. There are more involved questions that can be dealt with at a later date.

    F: Any more questions?

    Q: In what way is your statement materially different from the Principles of Solidarity and the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City? It seems to me that your statement is quite similar aside from being addressed to those two parties.

    A: What we propose, from the input from many people involved in those principles, is that this is in solidarity with those, with the exception of pointing out that we will not be co-opted from the two Wall Street political parties. I hope that answers your question.

    F: We’ll now open for concerns. When asking for concerns, I’d like to keep the workshopping to a minimum. If we want to change a lot, we should take it off the table, rework it, and bring it back to the group.

    C: To be clear, we are in a very good position. Never in my life has a political party been trying to co-opt my agenda! We’re doing very well. We’re reframing the discussion, like certain groups on the other side have been doing for 40 years. If we want 99% to be with us, that includes a lot of people who, for their own reasons, have determined it’s important to engage the political parties that exist. This includes a lot of effective communities. I don’t think now is the time to put up barriers to potential allies. I think now’s the time to kick Wall Street’s ass, to do it a lot, and to co-opt them. Because right now we ARE co-opting them. But I don’t think we should officially endorse any party.

    C: My concern is we only have one government, one system, so if we reject parties, we cannot participate.

    C: I love this statement; however, I am concerned about the language, which seems kind of negative and aggressive, and so I feel that this statement would benefit from further workshopping with more people.

    C: My understanding is that movements can be co-opted or lost in three ways. The first is to die out. That’s not gonna happen. The second is for a party to take over a movement. The third is what happened in May 1968, when the entire system recoiled and found ways to invigorate itself. My concern is this does not address May 1968 and what happened to that movement.

    C: My concern is that we have left out language regarding voting and therefore some people may see this as a call to prevent people from voting, to ask people not to vote. And that could backfire rather badly.

    F: It seems as if many people have major reservations with this statement. Temperature check? *mostly negative or on the fence* In light of that it seems appropriate to table the statement for the moment. I would ask that this working group workshop this statement further and bring it back to the GA at later date. There will be an announcement in the announcement section about how you can participate in this process.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 1:27am

    Dan, how does this dovetail with what Van Jones is doing?


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:16am

    I don't know exactly, Peter.  The right-wingers in the group seem to have very, very strong anti-union views, which definitely puts them at odds with Van Jones.  I asked at one time whether we were getting any assistance from experienced organizers in the labor movement, and they filpped their lids.  It was like I asked if we were getting any help from the Red Army.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:24pm

    New York has put up an "improved," but still "beta," Online General Assembly

    here:

    https://www.nycga.net/

    There is a slideshow overview of the site here:

    https://www.nycga.net/resources/web-site-help/

     


    by artappraiser on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:39pm

    Wondering if Genghis helped with this. I don't know how to tell what the software architecture is. But I do see some evidence of use of the products provided by the corporation Google, so I am curious if the Internet Working Group team won out over the "open source only" stalwart Genghis described here.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:16pm

    I've advised Genghis to assert his right against self-incrimination (see below, h/t lulu)

    http://warisacrime.org/content/npr-gets-producer-fired-occupying


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:26pm

    Oops, there go my NPR dreams.

    PS Why does Fox get to send Glenn Beck to the Tea Parties, but NPR feels that it can't employ an freelance opera host who participates in OWS? Insanity.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:36pm

    I helped a little bit, sort of. I was in Chicago for the past 10 days and fell out of the loop.

    The developers have mostly ignored my user experience recommendations, but to their credit, they've been really busy getting this thing running, and it seems to work pretty well. I would like it to be more helpful for newcomers, but maybe they'll get to that when they have time.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:31pm

    You're not the first client to ignore counsel (sigh).


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:34pm

    What the protests have also done is feed America's gargantuan appetite for paranoia. New York's rich are, for the first time in my experience, imitating their Russian, Spanish and Mexican counterparts. Personal security firms are reporting a doubling and tripling of business. Goldman Sachs executives are building security gates round their homes after one protester waved the effigy of Lloyd Blankfein, the bank's boss, dripping with blood on a stake.

    Heh. Welcome to Sao Paulo.


    by Donal on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 8:27am

    Ya know...


    Little do the likes of an egotistical type such as a Lloyd Blankfein, or any of these other paranoid rich stuffed suits realize that nature's grim reaper wins in the end...

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 2:08am

    The movement is evolving Dan, you might want to talk to some people again sometime instead of turning your back on it all.

    I have a lot of experience in organizing and the consent process of decision making is nothing that OWS just invented yesterday: its been around for awhile and is an accepted method for conducting meetings.  It is longer, more drawn out and can be tedious at times, but for a group where inclusion is important and if you have good facilitators, it works.

     

    I disagree with your assumption that we can just simply elect new officials and the birds will sing and all will be right.  The system is corrupt to the core, the only officials that come to be elected are millionaires who can wade through our corporate-owned political system and bow down to the alter of the plutocrats and kiss their ring to get their blessing.  That is not democracy and that needs to change.

    Its been a long time since there was any real political action among the working people in New Hampshire and there are many people who are frightened, uncomfortable and unsure of what is taking place.  That's ok, everyone will learn as they go along.

    I am also frustrated with the apparent lack of union participation, but we are working to change that now.  I also was frustrated with the lack of internal organization and direction, but we are working to change that now.  Things are getting organized and coming together although there will continue to be no key leader.  Leaders will come and go, rise and fall with the ebb and flow of the movement, which helps to keep the movement alive and going.

    I also agree that the "occupy" language may not resonate in the same way that it does in NYC, but its important to show our solidarity with that movement many people feel.  Also, the "occupy" movement brings up a fundamental point about access to public space and NH is not the only state grappling with this, as in Chicago they have curfews as well.

    The lack of an "occupation" of sorts does change the flavor of the NH occupy somewhat, but has no effect on the original purpose, which is to get people talking, thinking and participating in their democacry.

    And that is really the issue Dan.  This is a start across the country to get a people that have been subsumed by the powers "that be" for far too long and have been stripped of their understanding of their responsibility to speak up and speak loudly when they suffer injustice.  We do not have to tolerate this situation and we must act, however clumsy it may seem at first.

    I hope that at some point you'll decide to revisit the Occupy and participate with them again.  While everything isn't perfect Dan, remember, its the action right now that counts, the rest will come after, I believe strongly that it will.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 8:23am

    Latest Comments