dagblog - Comments for "Occupy the Election"

Oh, in my case my idealism

Saladin — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:08:27 +0000

In reply to I'm hardly an idealist. And

Oh, in my case my idealism creates my cynicism. I just see endemic structural flaws and I have a hard time seeing ways around them. Its easy to blame the voters, but they are often powerless. When 40 douchebags representing 11% of the population can essentially control everything but war-making, its really hard to see how votes everywhere else count. Its even easier to blame politicans but they are hemed in by the same structure.

That said, of course I vote--one is foolish not to use what tools one has, limited though they may be, but it doesn't really matter as I live in a safe blue district where the candatite is often pre-determine.

It matters little to me

Kudra — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:36:51 +0000

In reply to Occupy the Election

It matters little to me whether the OWS folks get with a party, or streamline their agendas. I like the diversity of the messaging. I just hope they vote when the time comes for whatever candidates and legislation that are closest to their purposes. The rubber has to meet the road at some point.

I'm hardly an idealist. And

Ethanator — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:32:43 +0000

In reply to Your civic idealism is

I'm hardly an idealist. And I'm sure it's more complicated than I laid out in a five sentence comment on a blog, even though I'm apparently not as sophisticated as some about these matters. I would further suggest that your cynicism is every bit as responsible for the lousy state of our politics as the apathy of the less sophisticated, more apathetic types that can't drag themselves to the polls once a year.

But it's a little unfair to lay all of the blame on politicians for their failure to listen to average Americans when those Americans don't even expend minimal effort to hold those politicians accountable for their failings.

Your civic idealism is

Saladin — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 05:55:08 +0000

In reply to "If no political

Your civic idealism is touching. As a sophisticated cynic type I think its a bit more complicated then that but it is good to see folks fighting the fight.

You don't happen to live in a battleground state do you?

^_^

Red Planet — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 04:43:25 +0000

In reply to I think I have a crush on

^_^

I think I have a crush on

Dan Kervick — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 04:14:44 +0000

In reply to Great television. Gotta love

I think I have a crush on Ketchup.

Great television. Gotta love

Red Planet — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 04:12:33 +0000

In reply to By the way, this is pretty

Great television.

Gotta love when Colbert accuses Ketchup of "dehumanizing the corporation."

Thanks for the link, and the one to Occupy Oakland/reflections, too.

Thoughtful comments on the Occupy Oakland site. I've been impressed by the reaction today from the movement, and from officials. Looks like both sides are learning how to avoid overreaction.

It is pretty remarkable, to me, that this movement, in its infancy, is self-reflective, learning, inclusive and developing a voice. For the first time, really, since the 1980s, I'm beginning to feel hopeful.

Now where did I put that lithium carbonate?

By the way, this is pretty

Dan Kervick — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:32:48 +0000

In reply to Hi Red Planet, I agree that

By the way, this is pretty funny stuff from Colbert. Watch both parts:

http://occupywallst.org/article/ketchup-and-justin-foil-colbert-optation/#comments

Hi Red Planet, I agree that

Dan Kervick — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:58:03 +0000

In reply to I'm not in a hurry to put too

Hi Red Planet,

I agree that the OWS movement should stay outside the political party structure. I do think they should participate in advocating ideas that candidates can run on and enact into law. But it would be good for the vitality of the movement, and its moral and intellectual integrity, to avoid entanglements with established party structures.

I also think the movement needs to continue with various kinds of direct actions and protests. They shouldn't turn entirely to conventional politics. But participation in winning elections and influencing legislation should be part of what they do.

Also the tent encampments are good. Keep the tents. They show dedication and commitment. But the movement is much bigger than the people living in the tents. And there don't have to be as many tents. The tent encampments are the home base and the visible symbol the movement's attempt to claim the future of the country. They are a place where meetings can be held and around which people can rally, especially in times of crisis.

I do think that there needs to be some better focus on general political goals and philosophy - strong and unwavering commitment to non-violent change, commitment to democratic government; commitment to economic justice and equality - and effective communication of those goals and philosophy to the general public, in word and deed.

I am very heartened by the self-reflection that is going on over at the Occupy Oakland website. There seems to be overwhelming majority sentiment that the violence late last night was harmful and wrong, and undermined the message of the rest of the day. There are lots of thoughtful and constructive statements. The movement is undergoing an impressively rapid political maturation:

http://www.occupyoakland.org/openforums/relfections/

I'm not in a hurry to put too

Red Planet — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 18:09:27 +0000

In reply to I agree that the direct

I'm not in a hurry to put too fine a point on OWS, Dan. The first protest was in mid-September. Six weeks and growing. I'd like to see it fester for six years, or sixty.

Well, maybe I'm exaggerating. But in six weeks OWS has gone from zero to 453 million search results on Google. That's a start. And as you pointed out in another post, the basic message is pretty easy to understand and it resonates. The financial distortion field emanating from Wall Street is hurting 99% of us and that needs to stop.

I've read articles recently comparing OWS to civil rights, looking back on that movement and presuming to see a clear set of goals and a laudable simple-mindedness of purpose. The parts that I lived through, beginning with school integration in the late 50s, were messier than that. Everyone remembers Martin Luther King, Jr. and the SCLC, of course, but there were the NAACP, SNCC, CORE, the Urban League, the Nation of Islam, the Black Panther Party and more. Messy, often at odds with each other, with demands that ranged from ending segregation, to ending capitalism, to others that were quite extreme. And that's only a snippet of time plucked out of the middle of a multi-generational effort.

One striking thing about civil rights is that the movement did not identify itself with one political party or the other. Instead, it drove the national dialogue at a critical stage in our history, without being captured by either party. Change followed.

Here's a headline from CNN today:

Bernanke chides Occupy Wall Street 'Misconceptions'

Bernanke says that OWS doesn't understand that the bailouts were motivated by "what's in the interest of the broad public," and not just to "preserve, you know, banker salaries."

That's what you'd expect him to say, but what's interesting is that CNN and Bernanke are talking about this now because of OWS. Even more interesting, the reporter goes on to say:

And are their [OWS] complaints really based on misconceptions? Just last month, an investigation by the Government Accountability Office turned up numerous instances of conflicts of interest on the boards of the Fed's 12 regional banks.

Among the findings, it identified 18 former and current members of the Federal Reserve who have personal ties to companies that received bailout funds from the Fed.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who spearheaded the report, called it "exactly the kind of outrageous behavior by the big banks and Wall Street that is infuriating so many Americans."

As if high unemployment and a distressed housing market weren't enough to bring Fed bashing into vogue.

Wow. That's CNN (Fox Lite) talking.

I'm hoping OWS does not allow itself to become the pet of any political party. Does not define itself too narrowly, too soon. And I'm hoping it is here to stay.