"The lack of a message for Occupy Wall Street" by Joshua Green | November 17, 2011
The various groups have never sought to explain, or even made a pretense of caring about, how they would sustain themselves and grow beyond simple street protests. Stubbornly ecumenical, they have refused to issue demands or devise a clear political agenda.
Actually, they have but AmeriKan media flaks still pushing the agenda-pushing propaganda points.
And you wonder why I'm sick of the Globe?
While they have succeeded in drawing global attention to problems such as income inequality, they’ve done nothing to force the hand of anyone in Congress or the White House - the institutions best positioned to address their grievances.
After the last ten years I've quit believing in those guys. We went from Republican control to Democratic control and nothing changed. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, more wars were started, the spying hasn't ended, and on and on. The only difference is who gets control of the tax loot and how much they dole out to their friends, and the handful of decent individuals that are down there have their voices drowned out by leadership.
One critical difference between the Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street is that the former worked within the existing political system, while the latter insists on working outside it. From the outset, Tea Party activists loudly infiltrated the town hall meetings of their local congressional representatives and gladly accepted the help of Washington lobbying groups like FreedomWorks, which is headed by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey and funded by corporate donors.
Setting aside the co-option of the grass roots movement (some left-wing groups doing it to Occupy right now) by corporate bucks, I seem to remember it BEING A PROBLEM that TEA PARTY PATRIOTS DID THAT!
And WHY DO WE HAVE TO WORK SO HARD to get politicians -- those DECENT, HONORABLE, STATESMEN -- to DO THE RIGHT THING and WHAT WE SENT THEM THERE to DO, huh?
They held regular protests on Capitol Hill, and often roamed the halls of Congress buttonholing lawmakers.
Yes, those were CRITICIZED and CALLED SHAMS back then -- and maybe some of them were.
They also organized on behalf of right-wing candidates in Republican primary elections, contributed impressive sums of money, and often fielded candidates of their own for local and national races. Everyone in national politics was acutely aware of the movement and its power, and that is a big reason why it largely succeeded in turning Washington’s agenda to slashing government and reducing the deficit.
Ever notice some agendas in Washington never change? Israel is still getting fat aid checks, right?
In theory, Occupy Wall Street could have a similar effect.
Yeah, right, divert the movement and its energy into the cesspool of politics.
Polls have shown that a majority of Americans share the protesters’ anger at what’s wrong with the economy. Americans also say they support tax increases on the wealthy, which would help to reduce income inequality.
I sense a "but" coming.
But Occupy Wall Street hasn’t focused on such tangible goals, confining itself instead to erecting communitarian protest encampments and clashing with local police.
Sigh.
This is causing support to fall. A survey released yesterday from Public Policy Polling showed that just 33 percent of respondents continue to support the movement.
And now you know why I never believe any polls cited by the AmeriKan media.
“What the downturn in Occupy Wall Street’s image suggests is that voters are seeing the movement as more about the ‘Occupy’ than the ‘Wall Street,’ ’’ Tom Jensen wrote in an analysis. “The controversy over the protests is starting to drown out the actual message.’’
THANKS, AmeriKan media!! THANKS!!
On Capitol Hill, that message has been mostly ignored....
But CHANNEL YOUR ENERGY into WASHINGTON POLITICS, right?
Even so, Democratic pollsters and strategists are scrambling to tap into the new energy on the left.
Related: Young voters' ardor for Obama has wilted
Fool me once, kids?
One difficulty is that Washington’s balance of power doesn’t lend itself to the kind of clear moral drama that the Tea Party was able to exploit by blaming the Democratic Party, which controlled the White House and Congress. Democrats still hold the White House and the Senate, muddying the question of blame.
Yeah, I'm wondering why they FAILED $O MI$ERABLY when they had that $uper-majority the voters gave them!
Indeed, a good deal of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are disaffected liberals angry at President Obama.
But not all; the protests are a vast cross-section of the American people -- almost as if they represented around 99% of us. And they ain't the only ones angry at Obama.
Strategists say it’s more likely that the movement’s energies will manifest in House and Senate races, including the contest for Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown’s seat, where an outsider’s critique of the incumbent can still be an effective tactic. But even the movement’s most hopeful supporters acknowledge that its influence will be diffuse.
One point of comparison is Ned Lamont’s insurgent campaign against Senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s 2006 Democratic primary.
I'm glad he brought that up. Lieberman stole that election. And the use of the word insurgent tells you what point-of-view the opiner is coming from. I didn't know Lamont's platform included attacking U.S. troops.
“That gave Democrats the courage to run more aggressively on Iraq and George W. Bush’s failures,’’ says Jeff Hauser, a media strategist for the AFL-CIO. “In the same way, we’re already seeing a more populist tone on the Hill and from the White House.’’
And what did we get out of it? A SURGE of TROOPS INTO Iraq!
Related:
2006: "Shea-Porter won with a grass-roots, fiery message centered on opposition to the Iraq war and the president's agenda."
2010: "Shea-Porter also promised to continue fighting for new contracts at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and to draw the U.S. Air Force Cyberspace Command computer project to vacant property there.... Shea-Porter also supports building more F-22s"
I see a problem, do you?
For liberals, that’s something, but not much. Whatever its path forward, it’s hard to imagine Occupy Wall Street having anything like the force of the Tea Party.
--more--"
"NYC protesters vow to continue; Occupy Wall Street vows rally, to ‘raise a ruckus’" by Charles Mead and Esme E. Deprez Bloomberg News / November 17, 2011
Occupy Wall Street protesters vowed yesterday to keep fighting against economic inequality, even after losing the campsite that had served as the symbolic headquarters of their now-global movement
Demonstrators plan to “raise a ruckus and clog up the works’’ in the city’s Financial District during a rally this morning. They will then ride trains from subway stations around the five boroughs in the afternoon and march across the Brooklyn Bridge after a rally near City Hall....
--nomore--"
Not from the Boston Globe anyway:
"Wall Street Protesters Lose Campsite But Not Appetite for Fight" by Esmé E. Deprez and Charles Mead, ©2011 Bloomberg News, Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York vowed to keep fighting against economic inequality, even after losing the campsite that had served as the symbolic headquarters of their now-global movement.
Demonstrators plan to "raise a ruckus and clog up the works" in the city's Financial District during a rally tomorrow morning. They will then ride trains from subway stations around the five boroughs in the afternoon and march across the Brooklyn Bridge after a rally near City Hall at about 5 p.m., said Mark Bray, a spokesman for the group.
More than 1,000 protesters returned to lower Manhattan's Zuccotti Park last night through designated entrances framed by metal barricades before disbanding to apartments and churches around the city, said Bray, 29, a doctoral student in history at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Protesters also broke into small groups to discuss the future of a movement without a Zuccotti Park campsite, he said....
New York City police in riot gear shut down the more than eight week-long encampment in the privately owned public park beginning around 1 a.m. yesterday to remove the demonstrators and their gear. City cleaning crews in orange vests hauled away dumpsters full of the camp's remains. About 200 people were arrested, police said....
They just trashed people's property, 'eh?
After that it is a total rewrite that omits the references to the Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle protests.
What is with the SHELL GAME CENSORSHIP of the FREE (not really, i$ it?) PRESS?
Similar camps have cropped up in cities nationwide to protest economic disparity. Demonstrators say they opposed high foreclosure and unemployment rates that plague average Americans while bonuses were issued by U.S. banks after they accepted a taxpayer-funded bailout.
Officials who've shut down encampments in other cities have cited an overtaking of the movement's original core group of protesters by homeless, street youths and criminal elements. Deaths, sexual assaults, drug dealing and theft in the tent cities threaten public safety, officials said.
Word on the blogs is the police not only let them in but sent them in.
"Occupy’s court win preempts eviction; Temporary order bars park removal" by Martine Powers Globe Staff / November 17, 2011
A Suffolk Superior Court judge issued a temporary restraining order yesterday against the City of Boston, barring police from removing the protesters from their downtown encampment until a Dec. 1 hearing.
The city maintains it has no current plans to take action against the Occupy Boston protesters, but Judge Frances A. McIntyre ruled in favor of the protesters to protect their right to expressing their views on public property....
--nomore--"
Yeah, you gotta pay.
Also see: Globe Grabs Gauntlet For Protesters
Didn't hold it for very long.
UPDATE: LIVE COVERAGE FROM OCCUPY WALL STREET
