What liberals need now: ballots
So let me say first that I think initial coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement — and similar protests and rallies staged by groups like 350.org — was terrible.
The mainstream media downplayed, trivialized or simply ignored an important chorus of voices, raising concerns every bit as salient and thoughtful as those raised by the tea party.
A lot of ink has been spilled already about why that has happened. It’s an important question and I follow those discussions with great interest.
But I want to wrestle here with what I think is the major shortcoming of the “liberal movement” itself and that’s the lack of a clear linkage from the current activism to the spirit and process of practical, real-world democracy.
I’ve covered left- and right-leaning populist movements in the US for many years.
Conservative groups often have the trappings (guns, uniforms) and rhetoric (revolution, take back our country) of militancy.
But by and large, with the exception of very rare fringe elements, the right tends to remain fiercely engaged in the business of winning elections and controlling the machinery of democratic policy making.
The far-right changed the Republican Party not by abandoning it and marching in the streets, but by engaging it and marching in the streets.
Long before the tea party staged big rallies, movement conservatives had taken over the inner operations of many GOP party affiliates around the country.
From that linkage, there exists a clear and logical path to the kind of focused activism that wins elections, shapes democratic power and changes the direction of the country.
The modern left, meanwhile, tends to be much more distrustful of and disengaged from democracy.
The kinds of consciousness-raising that goes on in big rallies like the one now on Wall Street, or the 350.0rg gatherings in Washington earlier this summer, generate huge amounts of interest and energy, especially among young people.
But despite the looming 2012 elections, the leaders of these movements draw almost no connection between their values and their policy desires and the ballots that will be cast thirteen months from now.
To the extent that they talk about the Democratic Party, the tone is one of disdain, disappointment and dismissal.
Liberal leaders have been remarkably unsuccessful at recruiting and supporting candidates who reflect their views.
Even when suitable candidates do appear, there is enormous cynicism about “the process” and “the system” now in place.
It’s worth noting that it wasn’t always this way. When activists headed South to battle Jim Crow, one of their chief weapons was voter enrollment.
Some of the earliest progressive causes — and hardest-won reforms — involved voter rights and the direct election of US Senators, measures intended to put more democratic power in the hands of average citizens.
Indeed, one of the weirder aspects of the current liberal disenchantment with democracy is that our present system — flawed as it is — is fairer, more transparent, and less corrupt than at any time in US history.
Yes, recent Supreme Court decisions have increased the power of money and corporations in our elections. That’s worth debating and fighting over.
But through most of the last two centuries — including periods when some of the most important liberal gains were being made — rich and the powerful elites held far more sway over our politics.
Even if you accept the left’s notion that democratic politics are too sullied and money-soaked to warrant their involvement, an obvious question is raised: How do you make the changes you want, if not through democracy?
If you want major reforms on Wall Street, or new laws restricting carbon pollution, or higher taxes for the wealthy, how do you make those things happen if not through the slow, complicated and tedious democratic process?
There has to be a mechanism that translates passion and activism and rage into the kinds of decisions and policies that move a society forward.
That mechanism is the ballot box.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
.jpg)
First, you will probably not read any media reports about the 50 or so protesters in Glens Falls yesterday because there were no reporters there.
Second, the left and many young people were energized in 2008 to back Obama, and while Obama is certainly better than what might have been, the left thought that their support made a statement–but the left was promptly sold-out to the monied interests.
third, while elections may be more fair than in the past the level of sophistication that the monied interests have developed for stealing electoral power has increased many-fold. Voters are challenged at the polls in minority-majority districts, redistricting in many states has created more power for conservatives and many other much more sophisticated manuevers are used to dilute the will of the majority in favor of the wealthy and powerful.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is working to counteract the sly power of the few in a way that can’t be co-opted by political parties. Let’s hope they remain successful, but the point will come (as it has already in Italy) when infiltrators (probably police) will work to discredit the movement.
KHL –
Good points.
Let me ask you a question: You say that OWS is “working to counteract the sly power of the few in a way that can’t be co-opted by political parties.” My question is How? I understand that these voices should be heard and respected. But what is the actual mechanism by which this action counteracts some other influence or power?
–Brian, NCPR
The rightwing activists tend to like authoritarian control. They stick to the message. Left wing activists tend to have lots of different opinions frequently that are mutually exclusive. This doesn’t lend itself to party politics. In our recent history (last 100 years) the left has been more willing to have demonstrations and have had more media influence because of that. The tea party demonstrations is an anomaly – as was the “party line” of the Stalinist communists of the 50s.
That is why, despite my disappointment in his leadership, I continue to support Obama. I wish that he had been more assertive and less focused on being bi-partizan. That was and is his greatest weakness because those who want his presidency to fail need only refuse to compromise in order to achieve their goal. At the same time we have no other hope for reform on the Republican side. At this point reelection of Obama would “send a message” to the money and power elite that the rest of us care what happens and maybe it would stiffen Obama’s spine.
My view is that here is a cultural disconnect combined with the fact that young people are flaky, I mean most don’t even vote.
To translate occupy Wall Street into power you need to get organized labor, teachers, construction workers, firemen, cops, etc involved. You also need to get rid of the goofy fringe stuff or at least make sure that the media is not focused on the goofy fringe stuff (which happens in every political movement including the tea party).
There is still a feeling among many middle aged working people that I have talked to; that this movement is largely over educated upper middle class college kids who will abandon them as soon as they fall back into the suburbs with their parents or figure out a way to pay for their overpriced student loans. I don’t think that is true, but that is the image being portrayed. When the media interviews spokespeople for these movements you need to have some big beefy truck driver stand up and say we want our country back,! Not some guy whining about college loans and western colonialism.
Brian, do you really believe “our present system — flawed as it is — is fairer, more transparent, and less corrupt than at any time in US history?”
As long as money buys the votes of politicians, there is nothing fair or less corrupt.
If the 1% doesn’t wake up and smell of the coffee, they could find themselves facing the same fate the rich faced during the Russian and French revolutions.
They may have the money but they do not have the numbers.
Brian, I think you have a major blind spot in thinking there are actual powerful liberals in Washington. There just aren’t. Real liberals have been completely marginalized or forced to morph into Politico-approved centrists, which means they often roll over to big financial interests so long as they’re not asked to completely outlaw abortion or roll back the civil rights act. You seem to think liberals are lame for not being able to recruit the Koch Bros or Richard Mellon Scaife to fund voter-registration and buy, say, Fox News time.
I think you’re also ignoring that the OWS movement has shifted public debate from deficits to jobs, and the focus of evil from the Republicans’ “big government” to a more reality-based “big finance,” which indeed created our latest problems. That’s a success. The growing grass-roots movement to close accounts at the big bailed-out banks is another.
It’s also a bit puzzling that you believe the Tea Party protesting for lower federal taxes in a time when federal taxes are at their lowest point in 80 years is realistic and smart politics, while the OWS people are naive (and a little selfish? On dope?) for not sufficiently appreciating that the current system is better than Jim Crow.
You’re right, though, in thinking more specific demands to the political system are in order (though what were the Tea Party’s, besides showing the birth certificate and making sure nobody took away Medicare?). Matt Taibbi offers some good ones, here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/my-advice-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-20111012
A bit of a tangent, but below is another link that applies here, as it pertains to coverage of such things as Wall Street protests. Would be good to filter all news with one question–is it coming from the Church of the Savvy?
http://jayrosen.posterous.com/the-savvy-press-and-their-exemption-from-the
Liberals and progressives have nowhere to go for political expression other than the streets. The media and politics have moved so far right that the only way to get noticed is making noise in the street. And look how long it took for any MSM to start reporting on the OWS movement.
Look at the political/news shows. How many have had someone like Senator Sanders on to discuss progressive solutions to the debt, economy or Social Security? And he seems to be about the only politician not in the pocket of Wall Street and large corporations. Obama has been an abysmal failure in many areas, especially with the inadequate response to the financial crisis that bailed out those responsible for the crisis but demanded no personal accountability.
Many of the progressive movements in the past have had a base of political support, usually within the Democratic Party. Today Democrats are afraid of their own shadow and losing contributions from big money corporations. Many of the progressive changes also took street activity, marches and protests to be noticed – most peaceful but some involving riots.
OWS is no surprise. When you let income and wealth disparity become as extreme as it is today in the US; when you allow high levels of long-term unemployment to exist; when you allow corporations to privatize gains and socialize losses and hold no one accountable; when you bailout Wall Street and banks but forget about the middle class; when you let military spending dwarf domestic spending on things like infrastructure and education – it is no surprise that a movement representing this frustration takes to the streets.
But that is not really true. Liberals and progressives elected our current president, largely by turning out organized Labor, energizing young people and getting huge percentages among blacks and latino’s. So yes there is a route to power and votes for the occupy wall street groups.
I do agree with OA that if nothing else they have kept the debate about the bank bailouts about that rip off in the public eye and about how those who actually did create this bubble also got our tax dollars to continue to rip off the country. How many Bankers, real estate mortgage lenders and Wall street mortgage packagers, have been convicted? I mean the Enron guys who in retrospect hurt far far fewer people than these guys are all in prison, some of them are dead largely due to being in prison. Why did that not happen to those at Goldman Sachs, at Countrywide, at Fannie Mae?
I think people smell a rat and they are right.
Yep, as others have said… the progressive movement DID use ballots to try to get the changes they wanted… just 3 years ago. Why is that so hard for people – especially people in the media – to remember?
The left was very successful at the ballots – but as it turned out that success did not translate into the policy or legislation that they wanted. There are lots of reasons for that… you can blame Obama, or the filibuster strategy of the GOP…
Whatever the specific reasons, the fact is that the progressive movement DID win at the ballots… and not much has changed in their eyes.
So can you really, honestly, blame them for pointing to the “system” and the “process” this time around?
Why didn’t it translate into what they wanted?
Personally I think there is a massive unrealistic expectation of what government and the system etc can do, both by the Tea Party and from the Occupy Wall Street people (progressives).
Sometimes things just suck and that is called life.
If we went up the hill and sacked the homes and confiscated the assets of every multi-Million dollar hedge fund banker and every billionaire in the USA and simply gave that money to the government, would things change?
Of course not it would make not one difference. Depressions are like a weather event you just have to figure out ways to protect people and mitigate the damage governments have never been able to stop depressions and recessions.
Most of these posts make valid or, at minimum, thought-provoking points.
An additional factor to consider is time. For goodness sake, the conservative right is still chipping away at the New Deal; these folks don’t shrug and quit after losing an election or finding their candidate less-than-expected. They just keep chipping and chipping. Do progressives have comparable stamina?
I’m not sure.
All of the issues in the last paragraph of my previous post have gotten worse under Obama’s presidency. Despite the constant whining of Republicans, FOX News, talk radio, etc. Obama’s policies and decisions have been those of a moderate-right Republican (not that there are actually any of those in today’s Republican Party). Even Obama’s health care program is a version originated by Republicans.
The change Obama talked about as a candidate has not happened. Most of his platform unfulfilled. Why should it be a surprise that the disenfranchised take to the streets when the promises via the ballot box are broken? Fool me once……..
Rarely do politicians lead change. The positions they take are usually from the security of support from the majority of their constituents or more frequently, those of their major contributors. In order for substantial change to take place there has to be a large groundswell of public opinion that often manifests itself in protests or other displays outside the political process. At that point more progressive politicians will hopefully step forward and give a political voice to the movement for real change that will benefit the majority of Americans, not just the too big to fail corporations and the lucky 1% that run them.
What is that saying that Bill Clinton had?
“Democrats want to fall in love – republicans want to fall in line”. When the primary fight is over republicans will do just that.
There is a lot of passion in these groups but with out a similar measure of realism that can translate into something on the electoral front like Brian describes they will probably fall short.
I don’t think the Occupy group is interested in change through the ballot box.
They don’t like the country they live in, anyway. Why should they be interested in democratic process.
It is only a matter of time before they start showing their true colors. Violence and revolution to bring about change. Obama will be right out in front. He’s that kind of guy.
Your opening statement about inadequit media coverage couldn’Rsrd82t be farther from the truth! The newspapers might be less than the TV but plenty of attention has focused on these groups. There first problem is they are unorganized and seem to have different desired outcomes. The only reoccurring theme I’ve heard is I want a job. It was these same young people who put their faith and trust in Obama for HOPE and CHANGE. That no only hasn’t happened but doesn’t look like it will happen. Many will be college grads with no job. I think this should send a huge message to the Democratic party that you may very well loose this part of your base.
If I were to ask you what do Tea Party people want I’d guess you would say lower taxes and less government. What do these young people want? Depends on who you are talking to, health care, jobs, going green and hydrofracking. I would appear that they gather just for the sake of protesting!
I feel for these young people. From what I have observed today’s twenty somethings are having a tougher time getting started in life than that age group has had in 70 years. As for the protests, it is pretty plain that “corporate greed” is about the role of the corporations in our society. The resulting concentration of wealth and power is unhealthy for both our economy and our democracy. The lack or regulation and self-restraint on the part of corporations caused the financial crisis back in 2008. There is a great deal of anger that the taxpayer has been left holding the bag, and that millions of Americans are suffering as a result. There are a handful of reforms that could start to correct this. Our left-right politics has failed us miserably and I think the protesters understand that intuitively and are leery of both parties at this point. All this is certainly resonating among many people across the political spectrum both here and in many other countries. It is way too early to talk about long term impacts, but if Lech Walesa comes to NYC to support Occupy Wall Street as he has indicated, things could move to a new level.
There is value in shaping the debate. I mean personally I would be pretty far from these guys in the Occupy movement, I probably disagree with most of them about most things, BUT they have a point about greed, materialism and the disparity between the ultra rich and the rest of us. So that is okay, I mean people are talking about this that in itself has value.
Now here’s leadership for you.
Sharpton said, “If you won’t get the jobs bill done in the suite, we will get the jobs bill done in the street!”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-marchers-rally-for-jobs-and-justice/2011/10/15/gIQAFWmvmL_print.html
@Brian: “You say that OWS is “working to counteract the sly power of the few in a way that can’t be co-opted by political parties.” My question is How?”
All I can give is my perception. As I understand this movement the mechanism for change is through changing the consciousness of people. Political movements are easy to co-opt through the use of money. Opening people’s minds to a different way of thinking makes for an electorate that is difficult to control through traditional means. The OWS people are practicing a radical form of direct democracy in a way that I doesn’t seem to have an exact precedent. Where it goes, I don’t know, but there is beauty in the spirit of the whole thing–wild, undirected, non-violent democracy.
This could be a Gandhi moment in history without the Gandhi figurehead. So my question back to you, how did Gandhi defeat the British Empire by making salt?
Mervel, I don’t know why you think you would be so far removed from the OWS people–sounds like you are pretty much in agreement.
Why should OWS get any more press than tea party? Which I think it already has at the equivalent state of the effort. The Washington Post was explaining the tea party a year and a half after initial efforts. (September 2010 after initial activities in early 2009.)
If they expect action they had better get a coherent message with solutions rather than the slogans. They say we want this or that, so does everybody else and no one has a logical plan. The vehicle is an understandable message. It hasn’t gelled yet.
Economically, to move forward there needs to be some stability in future regulatory expectations- including taxation but not necessarily lower taxes. The first slow-down of recovery came when it was uncertain if the “Bush” tax cuts would stay or go. No one knew what to expect. Sure many had hopes for extension and some wanted the end. But all held back until they knew the direction.
Corporate greed? Sounds like someone making a worthless slogan for OWS. I say worthless because there is no thought behind it. The sign carriers can’t explain a solution other than take from the rich. Who wants low prices every day? Sign carriers and just about everybody else. Who chooses what products they buy? They do. Who bought the less expensive products so they could buy more of something else? They did. Who buys furniture made of particle board rather than solid wood? Did they buy the bag of apples from Washington or those grown 40 miles down the road? Did they buy potatoes from Franklin County or Maine or Idaho. Greed, bah, we want our own money to go as far as possible. They use the corporate label just to differentiate from themselves. They are no less greedy. People have chosen to buy on price so products are made where labor is least (since shipping by boat is so cheap). Who was so greedy to throw reason out the window and accept that they could get a house mortgage for no money down? Oh the lender’s said it was ok. They call that the Milgram experiment. People not thinking for themselves. Lack of conviction. So they get riled up and blame someone else. Is there an adult in the house?
I want those investors to do well with my 401K and my stocks so I can retire and not have to live on the government dole. When they do well school retirment funds that are invested and European retirement funds that are invested etc. all do well. Oh they make money when stocks are traded downward to- when I lose. Kind of like our electric suppliers today, they no longer make electricity, they are the conduit. They don’t manufacture they retail. They want to make money. What a concept!
Jeff, Very well stated. I couldn’t agree with you more!
@Jeff: “I want those investors to do well with my 401K and my stocks so I can retire and not have to live on the government dole.”
Jeff, I see that you have bought into exactly the paradigm Wall Street tried to sell you. You put some money in, the government (the taxpayers) provide an incentive through tax incentives, and Wall Street gets to play with your money in ways that often work against your best interests. If your 401k goes up, good for you. If you lose half of it, too bad. Meanwhile you walk around feeling like you’re a part of the Investor Class when in reality you are just another sucker who is being played.
KHL- You speak of that which you do no know. You don’t know me. You create an epithet of “Investor Class” as an attempt at a put down. My interest is taking care of my own. I help many others too- as I see fit. Not a liberal thought I realize. Unless one works for an organization with a retirement program, savings and investment are the only alternatives for taking care of oneself. Of course the government is bailing out failed companies with retirement plans so why shouldn’t I expect the government to bail me out? Why even go to work? I’ll go occupy.
It is not necessary to elect people who already support change;rather it necessary to give voice to the need for change loud enough and long enough so that the politicians get the message. Eisenhower tried to ignore Brown vs. Board of Education, becoming engaged only after witnessing the actions of the Little Rock Nine. Nixon began to bring troops home only after public opinion against the war had reached a fevered pitch.
If OWS translates into electing more Democrats it will not have achieved its purpose. Change is difficult, and it will take all of our efforts, for a long time.
What really troubles me is the failure, so far, of liberal groups to come up with a realistic program, and promote it. Especially when a model, the New Deal, provides one. Imperfect and error-filled as it was, the formula “Relief, Recovery (through public works programs,, and Reform (reasonable regulation of the finance industry, and insuring bank deposits)” was effective is reducing unemployment, foreclosures, and economic stagnation for 4 consecutive years. Then, in 1937, FDR gave in to the conservatives cries of “unsustainable deficit”, and the economy promptly crashed again.
Tragically, it took Hitler & his friends to force and end the depression.
WWII saw the mother and father of all stimulus programs , massive increases in govt. spending, on weapons and soldiers to operate them, (rather than bridges and dams, and workers to build them), unprecedented deficits, much higher taxation (including the first payroll taxes), and the economy boomed. And it kept booming for thirty years after the war.
Without the boom-and-bust cycles of the good old, laissez faire capitalism days. Then the conservatives came back, and it’s been downhill, except for the plutocrats, ever since.
I guess my point is, there is a formula for success out there. (Obama & Co. pursued it in a half-hearted way, and got half a recovery.)
We need leadership to effectively develop modern alternatives to the 3Rs.
Maybe the OWS will produce some. One can hope.
Brian – you asked: “what is the actual mechanism by which this action counteracts some other influence or power?”
I’d like to turn that around on you and ask what mechanism has existed so far has counteracted the power and influence of the corporations and the elite?
OWS has done more to raise awareness of these issues than anyone, including the media and politicians who are, I might point out, PAID PROFESSIONALS.
You critique from a failed position, demanding to know what OWS will do. They are doing what every other mechanism has failed to do (including the media) – help people make the connections that explain how Americans are worse off than India, China, and Iran, when it comes to economic disparity. How corporations got to be treated a people and now corrupt our elections. Why wages are stagnant at the level of the 1950s for most people, while the rich reap overwhelming profits. Why most Americans are in overwhelming debt.
OWS is asking you – why has the media and our politicians allowed this to happen? And you answer by claiming OWS doesn’t have a plan. Where is your plan? How has your plan worked out?
John,
50 people get a news story written about them and you say the media has allowed this to happen?
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/18603/20111017/wall-st-protest-occupies-saranac-lake
Clearly you have the minority getting a pretty good amount of unwarranted publicity.
Squeaky wheel gets the grease I suppose? But the whole premise of your comment is off.
Here it only took one person to get the attention of the media in the Occupy Myrtle Beach protest:
http://www2.scnow.com/news/2011/oct/15/florence-goes-unoccupied-oct-15-protests-ar-2561062/
“OWS has done more to raise awareness of these issues than anyone, including the media and politicians who are, I might point out, PAID PROFESSIONALS.”
This is simply a false statement. I bet one Frontline story on PBS covering Enron has raised more awareness of corporate greed than the largest of these OWS protests to date.
In trying to get more detail of “demands” of OWS I searched and came across this excerpt from a commentary written by a fellow who went to a meeting last Friday night. He wrote:
“It made me wonder if there is enough of a shared sense of what the problems are for there to be coherent demands. But the various possible diagnoses of what is wrong with politics, the economy, rampant financialization and inequality and so forth, did not get discussed much. ”
“The core disagreement of the panelists seemed to be about whether the movement needs clear demands in order to grow, or whether the lack of demands allowed the movement to be flexible enough to assimilate more people and ideas, and attract more attention. ”
“So basically the debate seemed to go in circles for me. ”
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/150061-/
From Forbes five days before:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2011/10/10/what-is-occupy-wall-street/
“If the Occupied Wall Street Journal is a good source, the answer is contained in this simple sentence: “Rebellion will not stop until the corporate state is extinguished.””
Slogans not solutions. Emotions not wisdom. Will not move the ball. Extinguishing the corporate state is about as stupid or helpful as calling the president Hitler. Wall Street is not responsible to itself but to its clients. If the occupiers really want influence, become stake holders or influence stake holders. I read of a fellow who didin’t like the sugar plantation policies of a company. So he bought one share and went to the annual meeting and spoke. And kept at it. he eventually made a difference.
Above, Brian Mann said “The modern left, meanwhile, tends to be much more distrustful of and disengaged from democracy.”
Well they will either have to fish or cut bait. Destroying the boat is not progress.
The problem with the progressive left (not to be confused with corporate Democrats) is not that they are distrustful of democracy. It’s really the opposite problem. They (and I say this as one who’s been to many Greens meetings) seem to believe that structure and organization are “authoritarian.” Their internal workings are TOO democratic to the point that the only winner is inertia (and the medieval, theocratic right).
Surveying the media coverage of the OWS today it is all over the lot. A libertarian blogger discusses diverse support for the OWS and calls the protests “post-partisan”. NYC residents are very supportive of the protests, according to one poll while another shows NYS residents’ support for continuing the millionaire’s tax increasing. The recruiting effort of the AFL-CIO has had an increase of 25,000 queries in one week. There are also a fair share of negative commentary. The point is perhaps that raising consciousness and giving expression to people’s frustration and concern is inspiring people to take steps on their on where they see fit to do so.
Second to Brian-MOFYC, above. I attended and OWS rally a few days ago, and the lead speaker had been to the Wall Street occupation. And all he talked about was process. How they used that “human megaphone” thing to communicate, and all the different groups they had, and how nobody wanted to be a leader. Nothing about formulating principles, goals, objectives, or strategies. Many of those people seem to think that democratic, non-hirarchical process is an end in itself.
But, they’ve gotten something started that was not happening until now, and for that I give them enormous credit.
“Well they will either have to fish or cut bait. Destroying the boat is not progress.”
perhaps destroying the boat is an equalizer.
regardless, When i fish i cut my own bait. obviously some fishermen feel it’s beneath them to toil for their benefits.
Jeff, I didn’t create any epithet, least of all “investor class”. A quick google search provides thousands of references, some like this one from 2004 in Bloomberg Business Week:
“Republicans see opportunity in this growing bloc. “With $5,000 in stock, you become 18% more Republican,” declares Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. No wonder President Bush has begun to roll out an Ownership Society agenda.”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_36/b3898009_mz001.htm
By the way, I found that quote by accident just by doing a google search, but it is a perfect example of how the sly power of the few is used to manipulate the electorate.
“a perfect example of how the sly power of the few is used to manipulate the electorate”
knuck, well said.
This a perfect way to describe OWS. Isn’t this what the protesters hope to accomplish? That is what protesting is all about. A small group hopes to manipulate (maybe not in a negative way in many peoples views) the electorate.
Occupy Elm Street scheduled for 1100h on 22 October in Potsdam. (NCNow News)
A small group hopes to manipulate the many? Yes!
That is what the 1% are doing and have been doing with their money.
They buy elections, they buy those who their money elected, they buy judges. And the beauty of it is they get to write it off on their taxes.
Pete, all the 1% that you describe, 3 million people, probably make a larger group than all the OWS protests combined (isn’t the largest protest maybe 15,000 people with some of them being part of the 1% (Michael Moore for example). Plus many people support the 1% and don’t think they are all bad like some describe.
So yes here you have what is probably a smaller group hoping to manipulate the many.
In NYC the OWS group has already voted to ban all drugs and alcohol from the group. Sorry, you can already count me out of that “country”! So I guess we have a few solid platform items starting to develop here. Prohibition for one.
Paul, I’ll give you credit: You’re leaving no stone unturned looking for a reason not to like the protest. Might be easier, though, just to say you don’t like the protest and be done with it. It’s OK. Big world. Lot of different tastes!
Wait if they are protesting the 1% they need to get out of Lower Manhatten and head for Greenich.
Let’s get real who are these 1%? We have several right here in the North country occupy market street should leave market street and go occupy Thousand Islands there are NO rich bankers in Potsdam, in fact those are the community banks that we want to keep. Come on we have Sandy Weill one of the biggest instigators of the whole crash living right up there in Lake Placid.
If you are going to make this about people who are these people, specifically?
How much money does NCPR get from people who work on Wall Street and have summer homes here? St. Lawrence is very tied to Wall Street both in it’s trustee’s and in how much money is raised. Should we protest SLU as part of this corrupt beast? You could make a case that without Wall Street SLU would have a hard time existing at all.
We need to think about what is being protested and what the implications are.
Mervel, are you saying that we should overlook the misdeeds and inequities of Wall Street because a few local institutions get some money from them? What is the price for selling our souls?
If anyone missed the show today it is worth listening to the On Point segment about Prosecuting Financial Titans.
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/programs/national/onpoint.html
And here’s some more good listening from our friends at NPR (finally getting with the story): Ronald Reagan (remember him) thought that the rich should pay their fair share in taxes, an amount far higher than they pay today.
“Keep in mind that one of the most important elements of that deal was that Ronald Reagan agreed to raise the capital gains tax rate from 20 percent to 28 percent, because he agreed with the Democrats that capital gains and ordinary income ought to be taxed at the same rate,” says Brooks, who is also the author of The Benefit and the Burden, a new book on tax reform.
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/17/141407285/times-have-changed-since-reagans-1986-tax-reform
The tax rate on capital gains is 15% now –5% less than the rate Reagan thought was TOO LOW.
And for all of you who complain that there are so many poor who don’t pay income taxes (from the same story):
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 shifted a large part of the tax burden from individuals to corporations; it also exempted millions of low-income households from federal income taxes. Reagan called it “a sweeping victory for fairness” where “vanishing loopholes and a minimum tax will mean that everybody and every corporation pay their fair share.”
Worth repeating, Ronald Reagan called shifting the burden of taxes from the poor to corporations “a sweeping victory for fairness”.
So I suppose some of you will be angry that Ronald Reagan wanted class warfare.
I am saying we need to be consistent.
Corporations ARE people, they are the people with second homes in Lake Placid and summer homes in the Thousand Islands.
Its like anything else people like to complain about teachers, until you talk about their teachers, we like to complain about “wall street” and “corporations” until we start naming names, I mean we like OUR Wall Street guys.