Slog
News & ArtsMonday, October 17, 2011
Occupy Over 70,000 Protesters, Mostly Nonvoting Liberals
Posted by Unpaid Intern on Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:44 AM
Posted by news intern Paul Holmes
Nate Silver, as always, has something useful and informative to say about the Occupy movement. After looking through hundreds of local media reports for global protests this past Saturday, he's concluded that there were somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 protesters in the United States. New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle had the largest protests. For a city-by-city breakdown of attendance last weekend, look at this graphic. Meanwhile, several European cities kicked our Yankee asses with hundreds of thousands of protesters each.
Silver floats the idea that it's mainly nonpartisan liberals out there:
I suspect that more than anything, however, it reflects the politics of the protesters. Specifically, they tend to be more liberal than they are Democratic partisans. Take liberalism, subtract the Democratic Party, and the remainder might look something like Occupy Wall Street...
So perhaps the protesters are more ideologically minded than they are interested in partisan politics. In fact, they may be relatively disengaged from “politics as usual.” In a somewhat informal New York magazine survey of 100 protesters in Manhattan, only 39 percent reported having voted in the 2010 midterm elections.
All of this could create headaches for the Democratic Party — and for the protesters — if it tries to co-opt the Occupy movement.
Read the whole thing.
1
Try this on, dipshits: the reason "politics as usual" is like that is because you don't fucking vote.
The idea that people can encourage their representatives in government to be more to their liking by not voting is ABSURD. OCCUPY THE VOTE, nimrods.
The idea that people can encourage their representatives in government to be more to their liking by not voting is ABSURD. OCCUPY THE VOTE, nimrods.
2
Excuse me for saying this...wait, fuck that. Anyone who doesn't vote can't fucking complain when things go bad. That's the way I feel about it. Our political system would look a lot more like they want it to look if they voted. So, if it's true they don't vote- fuck them.
3
I've voted in every single election I was eligible for since I turned 18. I carefully research who I'm voting for and read the endorsements from both very local and national sources.
And yet I think I hate every single elected official in both Washingtons. They are all part of the problem.
So, tell me again, what is the point of voting? Based on the actual evidence and results, there doesn't seem to be much of one.
My vote is trivial compared to the billions of dollars corporations pump into politics. Until that situation is changed, until there is more separation of corporation and state (an obvious goal of the OWS protests), I'm failing to see the point in voting just because we were all told it was one of the most important aspects of American society in our 3rd grade social studies class.
Maybe it was... at one point. Times change, and not always for the better.
And yet I think I hate every single elected official in both Washingtons. They are all part of the problem.
So, tell me again, what is the point of voting? Based on the actual evidence and results, there doesn't seem to be much of one.
My vote is trivial compared to the billions of dollars corporations pump into politics. Until that situation is changed, until there is more separation of corporation and state (an obvious goal of the OWS protests), I'm failing to see the point in voting just because we were all told it was one of the most important aspects of American society in our 3rd grade social studies class.
Maybe it was... at one point. Times change, and not always for the better.
4
May be they don't vote because neoliberals control both parties and the resulting policies aren't very different? If nearly half the political spectrum of ideas wasn't missing from national discourse, may be they'd go vote?
5
#1 - The problem lies with the American political system, which actively disenfranchises anyone who does not agree with the policies of the Democratic and Republican parties. In a parliamentary system such as the European democracies, it is much easier to remain engaged, to find a group that reflects your ideology or to start one up. In the United States, that is exceedingly difficult: the result has been that very large numbers of American voters just don't vote, and typically see politics as a no-win game so why bother being involved.
And, of course, the Two Party goes out of its way to encourage such defeatist thinking.
And, of course, the Two Party goes out of its way to encourage such defeatist thinking.
6
So... one non-problematic thing the Democratic Party can do is register these folks to vote. We've had people registering at the major Eugene events and have had a fair amount of success (which, of course, means that there were fewer people registered than I would have suspected). Not that all (or even most) of the protestors will register as Democrats, but I suspect a voter registration drive at the Occupy events will ultimately benefit Ds more than Rs.
I hope the Democrats in Seattle (and in NYC for that matter) are doing the same (if not, perhaps Slog can encourage them to do so?).
I hope the Democrats in Seattle (and in NYC for that matter) are doing the same (if not, perhaps Slog can encourage them to do so?).
7
so these worthless moocher shits want to throw out the system but they are too fucking lazy to even vote?
exactly what we would have predicted.
exactly what we would have predicted.
8
@3, "until that situation is changed". There's the crux of your problem. That situation isn't going to be changed.
And if it is, it's going to be changed by your elected officials -- but since you have lost the capacity to distinguish between D and R, there's no chance that can ever happen.
Similarly, @5, you are living in a dream world. The two party system isn't going anywhere, and if it did it would never in a million years be because people didn't vote. Also, your understanding of the level of "engagement" and the efficacy of finding a group that supports your ideology in "Europe" is mistaken. Someone still wins in all of those countries. And sometimes it's Berlusconi, which is not an improvement.
@6, if voter registration results in more left-wing third party voting, it absolutely will help the Republicans over the Democrats.
And if it is, it's going to be changed by your elected officials -- but since you have lost the capacity to distinguish between D and R, there's no chance that can ever happen.
Similarly, @5, you are living in a dream world. The two party system isn't going anywhere, and if it did it would never in a million years be because people didn't vote. Also, your understanding of the level of "engagement" and the efficacy of finding a group that supports your ideology in "Europe" is mistaken. Someone still wins in all of those countries. And sometimes it's Berlusconi, which is not an improvement.
@6, if voter registration results in more left-wing third party voting, it absolutely will help the Republicans over the Democrats.
9
Since only 35% of eligible voters in New York state voted in the 2010 midterm election, these Manhattan protesters are more engaged than your average citizen. Which is kind of pathetic.
10
Maybe they don't vote because they understand the economics of voting means your vote doesn't really matter, anyway. Every single one of these people could all have voted the same way on various issues related to the current financial/social situation, and not changed the outcome one bit.
11
I never get tired of the old "if you don't vote you can't complain" claptrap. It's a perspective used to stifle action.
I prefer Emma Goldman's take: "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
For a more contemporary perspective:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blo…
I prefer Emma Goldman's take: "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
For a more contemporary perspective:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blo…
13
Um ... fuck the Democrats. There are no viable third options. There are no other representative voices. The Democrats sell us out to monied interests faster than we can blink. There is no reason to vote because whether you do or don't, it all goes the same direction anyhow. Maybe if President Perry gets this car in the ditch a little faster, it'll end all the complacent bullshit from the armchair liberals on this blog.
14
@11 Yeah, there's some bitter comments here. I'm sure this type of antagonism will help the Dems GOTV! Fuck 'em.
http://sinkers.org/stage/?p=975
http://sinkers.org/stage/?p=975
15
@8 - I get that a left-wing 3rd party could take votes away from the Ds. But in a theoretical world, if all of the folks registered vote for a 3rd party, that doesn't hurt the Ds at all, since those voters weren't going to vote D anyways (since they weren't registered). If there was a 3rd party that was large enough to be a viable contender with Ds or Rs, then the story would be different, of course.
In reality, I heard anecdotally that most of those registered were Non-Affiliated Voters (OR's version of undeclared/independent), with the remainder being primarily Ds and secondarily Rs/Libertarian/other 3rd party. That fits with the Occupy narrative, I think (both major parties are the problem, etc.), and the fact that there's not a single 3rd party stepping up to receive the protesters.
In reality, I heard anecdotally that most of those registered were Non-Affiliated Voters (OR's version of undeclared/independent), with the remainder being primarily Ds and secondarily Rs/Libertarian/other 3rd party. That fits with the Occupy narrative, I think (both major parties are the problem, etc.), and the fact that there's not a single 3rd party stepping up to receive the protesters.
16
GAH.
It's infuriating whenever I come across a statistic of how few people are actually voting. REALLY PEOPLE? WHY DON'T YOU VOTE?
If 100% of people voted I guarantee we'd be having a totally different conversation right now. The Bush Jr Years wouldn't have happened, we wouldn't have been in multiple wars for 10+ years and the nation would be in a very different place.
VOTE MUTHER FUCKERS.
It's infuriating whenever I come across a statistic of how few people are actually voting. REALLY PEOPLE? WHY DON'T YOU VOTE?
If 100% of people voted I guarantee we'd be having a totally different conversation right now. The Bush Jr Years wouldn't have happened, we wouldn't have been in multiple wars for 10+ years and the nation would be in a very different place.
VOTE MUTHER FUCKERS.
17
I have to wonder how much of that reported 61% of protesters who didn't vote in the last election can be accounted for by the fact that they were actually TOO YOUNG to vote last time. (We need to keep in mind the age demographic of the protesters here)
Also: Doug @9 FTW!
Also: Doug @9 FTW!
18
If you don't vote, you're part of the problem. It may not be perfect, but it's sure as hell a lot more effective a means of change than sitting on your ass in a park.
19
In addition to voting, what if we 70-100K people all decided to occupy the Democratic party? Start showing up. Take it over. It's just sitting there, all built and ready to use. No need to start a new party from scratch. It worked for the Tea People, and they reportedly only have about 20K.
20
"the reason "politics as usual" is like that is because you don't fucking vote."
Quite a bit of turnout in the last election for Obama, didn't really change that much at all. Just hardened and normalized the neoliberal economic policies and neocon warmongering and police statism of Bush. In fact, on the police state front, Obama's clearly moving in the wrong direction.
Since more people voted for Dems in 2006-2008, it doesn't really hold up at all. We may have had a cosmetic reprieve from some things but it's mostly been shit and these guys (THE FUCKING Rs AND Ds) are proposing austerity in the middle of a depression. There will always be an excuse for these bastards (and you'll be the first one obediently pilfering it, Fnarf) to not do what you want. Let's see, first they said they weren't filibuster proof when they had four years to change the rules with a majority vote. Then they hastened to get their vote total under 60 (yes, I really think that) so they didn't have to come up with some other bullshit nonsense. So, clearly, keep voting and keep voting D!
Quite a bit of turnout in the last election for Obama, didn't really change that much at all. Just hardened and normalized the neoliberal economic policies and neocon warmongering and police statism of Bush. In fact, on the police state front, Obama's clearly moving in the wrong direction.
Since more people voted for Dems in 2006-2008, it doesn't really hold up at all. We may have had a cosmetic reprieve from some things but it's mostly been shit and these guys (THE FUCKING Rs AND Ds) are proposing austerity in the middle of a depression. There will always be an excuse for these bastards (and you'll be the first one obediently pilfering it, Fnarf) to not do what you want. Let's see, first they said they weren't filibuster proof when they had four years to change the rules with a majority vote. Then they hastened to get their vote total under 60 (yes, I really think that) so they didn't have to come up with some other bullshit nonsense. So, clearly, keep voting and keep voting D!
21
I challenge any of you to name ONE positive social change in this country that wasn't a result of mass action. The empty suits you vote for only act out of influence. Usually that influence comes from the moneyed interests; the only way for us little people to have similar (if not more) influence is by taking to the street.
22
@11, everything Emma Goldstein ever worked for happened in the halls of elected government or it didn't happen at all.
I understand the attraction of magical thinking. If we just want something hard enough, maybe it will happen! But it doesn't work that way. The real problem for you is that most of the people in America don't agree with you. Fortunately, we have a process established for deciding disputes between people who disagree on political matters. It's called the American political system. It has been called "the worst of all possible systems, except for all the others".
But if you don't like it, you are screwed, and no amount of protesting is ever going to make a difference. If you want a real revolution, meaning kicking out the current government by force and replacing not just them but the system, you are never going to get your way. Almost no one agrees with you.
If you DON'T want to overthrow the government, but want it to be more responsive to your desires, you need to work the system. Period. There are no other ways around. And the fact is, people in government always, always, always ignore people who don't vote.
I understand the attraction of magical thinking. If we just want something hard enough, maybe it will happen! But it doesn't work that way. The real problem for you is that most of the people in America don't agree with you. Fortunately, we have a process established for deciding disputes between people who disagree on political matters. It's called the American political system. It has been called "the worst of all possible systems, except for all the others".
But if you don't like it, you are screwed, and no amount of protesting is ever going to make a difference. If you want a real revolution, meaning kicking out the current government by force and replacing not just them but the system, you are never going to get your way. Almost no one agrees with you.
If you DON'T want to overthrow the government, but want it to be more responsive to your desires, you need to work the system. Period. There are no other ways around. And the fact is, people in government always, always, always ignore people who don't vote.
23
@20, the policies that you want Obama to take, but which he hasn't, ARE NOT POPULAR POLICIES. You folks always act as if only Ralph Nader would run for president, he'd win in a landslide and everything would be hunky-dory. But Ralph Nader HAS run for president, and the only thing he ever accomplished was GWB. If Michael Moore or whomever your current hero is ran the same thing would occur.
There are a number of things you can call people who take to the streets and demand political changes that the vast majority of people do not want. "Democracy in action" isn't one of them.
There are a number of things you can call people who take to the streets and demand political changes that the vast majority of people do not want. "Democracy in action" isn't one of them.
24
@20,
Well gosh gee, we turned out for the Presidential vote, and since the President has unlimited powers, that's all we needed to do.
OF COURSE NOT. There are tons of veto points in the American system, and many of them are occupied by Republicans or moderate/conservative Democrats. The Tea Party was successful because they put up primary challenges against Republicans that were deemed insufficiently conservative. Until this movement does the same against moderate Democrats, they're not serious.
And for those of you who think voting can never change anything: just LAST YEAR there was an initiative in Washington to make our tax structure far more progressive by creating an income tax. It was crushed at the polls. If you didn't bother to vote for that and are now in the streets protesting the distribution of wealth you've already blown your best chance to get what you want.
Well gosh gee, we turned out for the Presidential vote, and since the President has unlimited powers, that's all we needed to do.
OF COURSE NOT. There are tons of veto points in the American system, and many of them are occupied by Republicans or moderate/conservative Democrats. The Tea Party was successful because they put up primary challenges against Republicans that were deemed insufficiently conservative. Until this movement does the same against moderate Democrats, they're not serious.
And for those of you who think voting can never change anything: just LAST YEAR there was an initiative in Washington to make our tax structure far more progressive by creating an income tax. It was crushed at the polls. If you didn't bother to vote for that and are now in the streets protesting the distribution of wealth you've already blown your best chance to get what you want.
25
@22: It's Goldman, FYI. Yes, often the RESULTS of protests and social movements happen in the halls of elected officials but it starts somewhere else. Those results are never possible without people in the streets. It's not "magical thinking" it's an analysis of social history.
26
@23 An argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.
Unpopular policies (according to Fnarf):
-medicare for all
-Progressive tax fairness
-Actually doing shit for working class folks in a depression instead of being a complete clueless jackass
-recognizing basic Constitutional rights
-Labor rights
I don't get how you think I'm a Naderite; actually the guy personally is not appealing. I don't have any such "magical thinking." We're trapped. It doesn't mean I have to buy into your magical thinking trap that voting will improve things. That's bullshit that you can't even coherently defend.
You're wrong about Goldman, btw. She was an activist in every sense of the word and it's only because someone like her ahead of her time was willing to do things outside of the system is how there was electoral change later on.
Unpopular policies (according to Fnarf):
-medicare for all
-Progressive tax fairness
-Actually doing shit for working class folks in a depression instead of being a complete clueless jackass
-recognizing basic Constitutional rights
-Labor rights
I don't get how you think I'm a Naderite; actually the guy personally is not appealing. I don't have any such "magical thinking." We're trapped. It doesn't mean I have to buy into your magical thinking trap that voting will improve things. That's bullshit that you can't even coherently defend.
You're wrong about Goldman, btw. She was an activist in every sense of the word and it's only because someone like her ahead of her time was willing to do things outside of the system is how there was electoral change later on.
27
@24 FTW.
@21, ever heard of the Sixteenth Amendment? Remember all those discussions about how the top marginal tax rate is lower than it was under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or Bush I? (If not, I can wait). How do you think those earlier, higher rates got there? Direct action in the street? Uh-huh.
In contrast, I would defy you to name a single positive social change that DID come about because of direct action in the street.
@21, ever heard of the Sixteenth Amendment? Remember all those discussions about how the top marginal tax rate is lower than it was under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or Bush I? (If not, I can wait). How do you think those earlier, higher rates got there? Direct action in the street? Uh-huh.
In contrast, I would defy you to name a single positive social change that DID come about because of direct action in the street.
28
@11,
Voting has been illegal or simply not existed through the majority of human history. People have fought and died for YOUR ungrateful ass's right to vote. It was illegal for women to vote the entire time Goldman lived in the United States.
Fuck you AND Emma Goldman.
Voting has been illegal or simply not existed through the majority of human history. People have fought and died for YOUR ungrateful ass's right to vote. It was illegal for women to vote the entire time Goldman lived in the United States.
Fuck you AND Emma Goldman.
29
@23 I know I've read more than once that there is 60%+ support for things like pulling out of Afganistan, raising taxes on the rich. Many of Obama's policies that anger liberals are things that benefit the power structure and monied classes and do not at all enjoy popular support.
31
@24, This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen. That those of us who don't want the President to be a fucking Reaganite accuse him of having unlimited powers. Bullshit. We expect him to be the president though and not hold contempt for us. He's also the head of the Democratic Party and can persuade people in his party to vote the way he wants. If you have a hard time believing that, just observe that the President worked very hard to get Congress to pass President Bush's free trade agreements and when Kucinich was grandstanding and pretending he'd block Obamacare, Obama got him to turn very fast in a little plane ride on Airforce One.
There's plenty in Obama's purview, like:
-appointing neoliberal domestic cabinet members
-keeping the neoconservative appointees of the previous president
-signing death warrants for American citizens
-committing war crimes by refusing to follow the Geneva Conventions and obstructing justice
-signing an anti-choice executive order to get a Heritage Foundation health insurance and pharma bailout bill passed
You people think you've got some exclusive knowledge of how the system works--I'm not dumb guy, just aware.
But, no, just lazily say, "You guys expected the President to be Jesus! Doh!"
There's plenty in Obama's purview, like:
-appointing neoliberal domestic cabinet members
-keeping the neoconservative appointees of the previous president
-signing death warrants for American citizens
-committing war crimes by refusing to follow the Geneva Conventions and obstructing justice
-signing an anti-choice executive order to get a Heritage Foundation health insurance and pharma bailout bill passed
You people think you've got some exclusive knowledge of how the system works--I'm not dumb guy, just aware.
But, no, just lazily say, "You guys expected the President to be Jesus! Doh!"
32
Anybody who doesn't vote because they can't get everything they want doesn't deserve what they have. And that includes the Bill of Rights.
35
@27: You can't be serious, but here's a big one: The Civil Rights Act.
Otherwise, off the top of my head: the 8 hour workday, the right to collectivley bargain with employers, EPA, the end of the draft, FMLA, gay marriage (where applicable), and women's suffrage. Anyone else want to help?
@28: That little tantrum doesn't even make sense.
Otherwise, off the top of my head: the 8 hour workday, the right to collectivley bargain with employers, EPA, the end of the draft, FMLA, gay marriage (where applicable), and women's suffrage. Anyone else want to help?
@28: That little tantrum doesn't even make sense.
36
(Nobody seemed to notice, but I said the Tea People had 20K. That was an estimate from when they were first forming and building their platform wiki. Silver says 300K as of 2009.)
38
@23 "the policies that you want Obama to take, but which he hasn't, ARE NOT POPULAR POLICIES."
That must be why Obama is now campaigning on the left while he governs on the right. You are either clueless or disingenuous. Have you looked at the ~60% (on average) of the population supporting single-payer healthcare, taxing the wealthy, stopping wars, gaining austerity policies, etc ..? It's not because corporate propaganda successfully gets corporate tools elected that most people aren't on Obama's left.
That must be why Obama is now campaigning on the left while he governs on the right. You are either clueless or disingenuous. Have you looked at the ~60% (on average) of the population supporting single-payer healthcare, taxing the wealthy, stopping wars, gaining austerity policies, etc ..? It's not because corporate propaganda successfully gets corporate tools elected that most people aren't on Obama's left.
39
@30, the sufragettes used the moral authority of their argument to persuade men to vote for the vote for women. But that's about 1% of the story there. The suffragette marches were not the primary reason that laws were changed. The rights of women is an idea that had been coming into focus for a long time in many ways. History is complex.
If you want to pull out another example, try Prohibition. Wait -- oops!
@31, it must be nice to live in a dream world where there are no Republicans and your 10% views always take precedence no matter how unpopular they are. "Medicare for all" is lovely but IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You yourself are making it LESS likely, not more.
If you want to pull out another example, try Prohibition. Wait -- oops!
@31, it must be nice to live in a dream world where there are no Republicans and your 10% views always take precedence no matter how unpopular they are. "Medicare for all" is lovely but IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You yourself are making it LESS likely, not more.
40
@27 "In contrast, I would defy you to name a single positive social change that DID come about because of direct action in the street."
How do you think they "made FDR do it"? (clue: sitting on their couch until the next election isn't the right answer)
How do you think they "made FDR do it"? (clue: sitting on their couch until the next election isn't the right answer)
41
@39 It must be nice to live in a dream world where voting is the end-all be all, even with obvious proof to the contrary.
Medicare for all is unlikely. Thanks for that. I get it, goddammity. But you said it's unpopular. Is it?
Medicare for all is unlikely. Thanks for that. I get it, goddammity. But you said it's unpopular. Is it?
42
In more useless studies, a statistical geek said that, in a survey of Mostly liberal users if the FourSquare app who checked in to Occupy locations, it was mostly liberals.
Duh.
Phone surveys of those who don't screen calls revealed respondents to mostly by old white folks too.
Duh.
Only Feet On The Ground works any more, lazybones. Yes, that means you.
Duh.
Phone surveys of those who don't screen calls revealed respondents to mostly by old white folks too.
Duh.
Only Feet On The Ground works any more, lazybones. Yes, that means you.
44
Or shorter: What do with a problem like a two party political system + electoral college?
drink heavily then vote and hope for the best... seems to have worked out well for some 230 odd years, amirite?
drink heavily then vote and hope for the best... seems to have worked out well for some 230 odd years, amirite?
45
If somebody really cares about something, it shows in their actions. Even if voting only makes a tiny, tiny difference, a person who was truly concerned would demonstrate that concern by expending the minimal effort necessary to check a series of boxes on a ballot. Somebody who claims to care deeply about their democracy yet can't be troubled to participate in the simplest way is just preening.
Often it's the combination of sympathetic public officials and a loud public outcry that produces change. Lyndon Johnson sure as hell wouldn't have signed any civil rights legislation if his feet weren't to the fire (he reportedly said "we've lost the South for a generation." upon signing the Civil Rights Act, lamenting the bill's political cost to the Democratic Party.) But sign it he did.
That's how it works. Vote and make noise.
Often it's the combination of sympathetic public officials and a loud public outcry that produces change. Lyndon Johnson sure as hell wouldn't have signed any civil rights legislation if his feet weren't to the fire (he reportedly said "we've lost the South for a generation." upon signing the Civil Rights Act, lamenting the bill's political cost to the Democratic Party.) But sign it he did.
That's how it works. Vote and make noise.
46
"Vote and make noise." I agree with this to the degree that voting is consequential locally.
However, if someone wants to exercise their right to vote for somebody else that's their right. If they want to dispose of their right to vote, that is also their right and they're not somehow precluded from participating in the system. I don't see the benefit of lecturing them on how they're preening or supporting Republicans is even useful, especially given the argument above that only participating in Democratic politics is a worthwhile effort.
However, if someone wants to exercise their right to vote for somebody else that's their right. If they want to dispose of their right to vote, that is also their right and they're not somehow precluded from participating in the system. I don't see the benefit of lecturing them on how they're preening or supporting Republicans is even useful, especially given the argument above that only participating in Democratic politics is a worthwhile effort.
47
@35,
Right. It doesn't make sense that I'm pushing back against your highly offensive, flat-out wrong, and just plain stupid assertion that the powers that be are absolutely happy to "let" us vote.
You have the intelligence and maturity of a spoiled, 5-year-old brat.
The majority of that 60 percent doesn't vote. Why should politicians give a fuck what they think?
You know whom politicians listen to? The elderly, who vote in overwhelmingly large numbers and vote Republican. They're what happen to idiots like bhowie when they *finally* grow up.
Right. It doesn't make sense that I'm pushing back against your highly offensive, flat-out wrong, and just plain stupid assertion that the powers that be are absolutely happy to "let" us vote.
You have the intelligence and maturity of a spoiled, 5-year-old brat.
Have you looked at the ~60% (on average) of the population supporting single-payer healthcare, taxing the wealthy, stopping wars, gaining austerity policies, etc ..?
The majority of that 60 percent doesn't vote. Why should politicians give a fuck what they think?
You know whom politicians listen to? The elderly, who vote in overwhelmingly large numbers and vote Republican. They're what happen to idiots like bhowie when they *finally* grow up.
48
It should be noted when griping about how corrupt the system is: A major reason and very likely the primary reason corporate money has such influence over politics in this country is that it costs 8 arms and 10 legs to get elected to higher office and the reason it costs so much is that the majority of the American populace that actually gets out and votes lets their TVs tell them who to vote for. The ignorant electorate gets the government they deserve.
49
Can't voting AND direct action in the street be effective? AND other things, like writing, etc.? I don't get the black and white thinking. Fnarf, you say that history is complex but then you demand that people find some issue that was brought about by one type of action, in order to prove that protesting works. I don't get it. You might as well say, "Name one law that was passed without politicians' votes or a referendum" and use that to make your argument.
51
We definitely need to vote, but we also need to figure out a way to reform our system so that we actually have something to vote FOR, something our current system has been specifically corrupted to make it impossible to do. We need to make our vote worth something again by getting the money out of our elections, and just how the hell are we supposed to do that solely by voting, when the current system won't tolerate candidates that run on a platform of completely publicly funded elections? Pretty much everyone here is madly in love with Elizabeth Warren, but she’s only a coherent MODERATE. She only appears radical because most everyone else in office these days has already drank the neoliberal kool-aid.
We need votes and we need protests. We need to change the political reality our politicians live in. But really, do people doubt we won’t get people w/ populist platforms primarying Dems AND Repubs out of this? If OWS keeps gaining steam, how could we not? Of course it will likely splinter the movement some because many won’t want to play the game while it’s still rigged, but it will happen. Then we’ll see what happens when they run, how effective OWS is at supporting them, how effective Wall Street is at destroying them, and how they act once they’re in office if they make it. We’re the underdogs, pitting ourselves against the most powerful forces on the planet, we need to be in this for the long haul.
We need votes and we need protests. We need to change the political reality our politicians live in. But really, do people doubt we won’t get people w/ populist platforms primarying Dems AND Repubs out of this? If OWS keeps gaining steam, how could we not? Of course it will likely splinter the movement some because many won’t want to play the game while it’s still rigged, but it will happen. Then we’ll see what happens when they run, how effective OWS is at supporting them, how effective Wall Street is at destroying them, and how they act once they’re in office if they make it. We’re the underdogs, pitting ourselves against the most powerful forces on the planet, we need to be in this for the long haul.
54
@46:
I'm not so much concerned with lecturing people like you as with presenting a counter to your evangelism for disenfranchisement. If you were content to not vote and shut up about it, how would I even know to care? But what you are trying to do is convince others to march under your banner of self-righteously accomplishing exactly nothing in exchange for the reward of endless bitching rights about how the world wouldn't be so fucked up if everybody did things your way.
In this sense you're no different than a LaRouchie -- nobody can say your ideas are wrong because they've never been tried and they never will be. Hey, congratulations!
It's amazing how, when cynicism guides one's every action, it never wants for confirmation in the world at large. Betting on failure is always the safest bet, especially when you hold the power in your hands to ensure failure. The problem is that winning that bet means you fail.
If they want to dispose of their right to vote, that is also their right and they're not somehow precluded from participating in the system. I don't see the benefit of lecturing them
I'm not so much concerned with lecturing people like you as with presenting a counter to your evangelism for disenfranchisement. If you were content to not vote and shut up about it, how would I even know to care? But what you are trying to do is convince others to march under your banner of self-righteously accomplishing exactly nothing in exchange for the reward of endless bitching rights about how the world wouldn't be so fucked up if everybody did things your way.
In this sense you're no different than a LaRouchie -- nobody can say your ideas are wrong because they've never been tried and they never will be. Hey, congratulations!
It's amazing how, when cynicism guides one's every action, it never wants for confirmation in the world at large. Betting on failure is always the safest bet, especially when you hold the power in your hands to ensure failure. The problem is that winning that bet means you fail.
55
Also, for all of you who think there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats so who cares who you vote for, I have some rebuttals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Rob…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._A…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Th…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Sca…
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotom…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_G._…
Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer are all in their seventies. Hmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Rob…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._A…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Th…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Sca…
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotom…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_G._…
Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer are all in their seventies. Hmm.
56
@44 wins and this thread is inane.
Voting is not the entire democratic process. Without public debate (and yes, protests) there is nothing to vote *about*.
Should these apparently politically active people vote? Probably. Who they should vote for, I couldn't say. Democrats have been poor on the policies relevant to OWS and good only by comparison on most progressive social issues. Vote third party*? That is apparently vilified as idiotic, too.
People are asked to choose representatives from either D or R. Some of those people don't think either represents them. Their options are to opt-out (morons!), vote third party (might as well opt-out!), and/or make their case to the public (lazy hippies, many of them don't even vote!).
What do you propose as an alternative, Fnarf?
* I do, with some exceptions.
Voting is not the entire democratic process. Without public debate (and yes, protests) there is nothing to vote *about*.
Should these apparently politically active people vote? Probably. Who they should vote for, I couldn't say. Democrats have been poor on the policies relevant to OWS and good only by comparison on most progressive social issues. Vote third party*? That is apparently vilified as idiotic, too.
People are asked to choose representatives from either D or R. Some of those people don't think either represents them. Their options are to opt-out (morons!), vote third party (might as well opt-out!), and/or make their case to the public (lazy hippies, many of them don't even vote!).
What do you propose as an alternative, Fnarf?
* I do, with some exceptions.
57
Occupants are possibly rational actors who understand that the private economy, not government, holds their solution.
Same as the tea party.
58
@47 "The majority of that 60 percent doesn't vote. Why should politicians give a fuck what they think?"
Pols will give a fuck when these people are in the street. Note that history shows it is a 'when', not an 'if'.
Pols will give a fuck when these people are in the street. Note that history shows it is a 'when', not an 'if'.
59
@54 I am actually doing rather the opposite, that people do enfranchise themselves--but please continue to preach yourself, about one's motivations or ideas, how they care or don't when you don't know them, or derail them because they disagree with you. Congratulations, you've illustrated my point and have been a prick in the process! Good job at encouraging people to vote!
Interesting that you say my ideas have never been tried, because they rarely are, are they? And your presumptuousness about my ideas is no better than the rightwing trolls who infect this thread. I never really said I wanted magical fluffy ponies and unicorns, but I became pretty fucking concerned when those in power kept doing the same things--it's pretty conspicuous isn't it? I became concerned when I thought I voted for a moderate and he turned into the Tea Party president. So fuck you.
I don't have much cynicism in me. For that, look to yourself and Fnarf, minimalizing separate opinions of people and limiting rights to your belief in a system that's rigged from the beginning. You have no imagination, much less hope. My hope is far deeper than silly proselytizing or a pretense of defending the folks who can't read on their own without the benefit of Proteus' and Fnarf's didactic stories of suffering at the hands of EVIL "Naderism" and "disenfrangelism." But please keep teaching those who you think can't think for themselves!
Oh, and I don't care about failure. I really don't.
Interesting that you say my ideas have never been tried, because they rarely are, are they? And your presumptuousness about my ideas is no better than the rightwing trolls who infect this thread. I never really said I wanted magical fluffy ponies and unicorns, but I became pretty fucking concerned when those in power kept doing the same things--it's pretty conspicuous isn't it? I became concerned when I thought I voted for a moderate and he turned into the Tea Party president. So fuck you.
I don't have much cynicism in me. For that, look to yourself and Fnarf, minimalizing separate opinions of people and limiting rights to your belief in a system that's rigged from the beginning. You have no imagination, much less hope. My hope is far deeper than silly proselytizing or a pretense of defending the folks who can't read on their own without the benefit of Proteus' and Fnarf's didactic stories of suffering at the hands of EVIL "Naderism" and "disenfrangelism." But please keep teaching those who you think can't think for themselves!
Oh, and I don't care about failure. I really don't.
60
So fnarf, why is Obama campaigning to the left of where he governs if most folks aren't on his left?
61
@53 Oh, fnarf, please afford me some respect and not try to reduce me to a Naderite--IT'S SO FUCKING LAZY. I've said several times that I never and won't vote for the guy. He's actually not my favorite person. I sure as hell am not voting for Obama though. Blame away.
62
Given the demographics of the occupation, there are probably plenty of people at the OWS protests who weren't even eligible to vote in the 2010 elections.
63
@55 "for all of you who think there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats so who cares who you vote for"
Whatever people here think has no effect on the huge number of disenfranchised finding little actual difference between R&Ds. If either of the 2 parties wanted the mass of people to vote, they'd give them a reason to go vote.
Whatever people here think has no effect on the huge number of disenfranchised finding little actual difference between R&Ds. If either of the 2 parties wanted the mass of people to vote, they'd give them a reason to go vote.
64
Fnarf how do you not see a problem with saying in #8: fixing the broken vote-based political system is only possible via voting.
65
@59: I differ from Fnarf in that I'm all for people taking to the streets with their concerns -- provided they also vote. Your rap about how it doesn't matter who they vote for because both parties are the same is A: demonstrably false and B: pure political poison. I've heard it a million times from people who should know better and it never gets any smarter.
I'll say it again: Tell it to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who would still have their families and loved ones alive if the USA had elected a different president in 2000. To encourage people to opt out of a decision that carries that much real world consequence is unconscionable. I probably agree with you on a great many of your political positions, but the "don't vote" meme is pernicious and I'm going to say so every time I hear it, so get used to it.
I'll say it again: Tell it to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who would still have their families and loved ones alive if the USA had elected a different president in 2000. To encourage people to opt out of a decision that carries that much real world consequence is unconscionable. I probably agree with you on a great many of your political positions, but the "don't vote" meme is pernicious and I'm going to say so every time I hear it, so get used to it.
66
The first time I voted for a president was in '08 (I'm old enough to have voted for Clinton in '92) not because I totally bought into the "Change" bullshit but I thought Obama would be an improvement regarding war and civil liberties. I think that was the "hope" of many people who voted for him. I even got teary-eyed the night of the election.
Even though he had many mandates and a majority in the house and senate all I saw was more of the same--worse in fact. I was disillusioned before '08, then actually had some faith in the political system for a minute, only to have it permanently dashed on the rocks.
If you want to vote and find it meaningful, fine. I'm not going to wag my finger at you, don't go wagging yours at me. I've got years of life experience and a decent amount of historical analysis that says voting is NOT democracy. If you want to debate me, fine. It helps me better articulate my own positions. If you just want to heap insult riddled scorn on me you can go fuck yourself.
Even though he had many mandates and a majority in the house and senate all I saw was more of the same--worse in fact. I was disillusioned before '08, then actually had some faith in the political system for a minute, only to have it permanently dashed on the rocks.
If you want to vote and find it meaningful, fine. I'm not going to wag my finger at you, don't go wagging yours at me. I've got years of life experience and a decent amount of historical analysis that says voting is NOT democracy. If you want to debate me, fine. It helps me better articulate my own positions. If you just want to heap insult riddled scorn on me you can go fuck yourself.
67
@65 "Tell it to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who would still have their families and loved ones alive if the USA had elected a different president in 2000."
You couldn't tell that to 500k Iraqis who died due to Clinton's embargo. "Estimates of excess civilian deaths during the sanctions vary widely, but range from 100,000 to over 1.5 million."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sancti…
You couldn't tell that to 500k Iraqis who died due to Clinton's embargo. "Estimates of excess civilian deaths during the sanctions vary widely, but range from 100,000 to over 1.5 million."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sancti…
68
@65 I pretty much believe in the "simultaneous work" (foots in the streets and voting) hypothesis you just gave. Which is why I fully support OWS.
FTR, I'm a voter, even if I recognize and support the right to dispose of a vote doesn't mean I am doing that. There is a difference.
FTR, I'm a voter, even if I recognize and support the right to dispose of a vote doesn't mean I am doing that. There is a difference.
69
@65 And I'd like to know if support for the Dems has helped prevent the US' continued bellicosity as well. It hasn't.
70
"I differ from Fnarf in that I'm all for people taking to the streets with their concerns -- provided they also vote."
@59, but you are against them taking to the streets with their concerns if they choose not to vote? People are entitled to engage with the system in the way that seems best to them. Protesting is political action, if they think it's the best action available to them, that's what they should do--completely independent of whether they think voting is also a useful activity.
If you have political goals (eg. electing Gore in 2000) it falls to you to persuade others to take the action that suits you. It's important to get that straight. Some people think their best option is not to vote (and let's grant they may be making a horrible mistake, born of frustration or apathy). It's *you* who wants them to vote. If they don't vote enough for your liking, that's not their failure, but yours.
@59, but you are against them taking to the streets with their concerns if they choose not to vote? People are entitled to engage with the system in the way that seems best to them. Protesting is political action, if they think it's the best action available to them, that's what they should do--completely independent of whether they think voting is also a useful activity.
If you have political goals (eg. electing Gore in 2000) it falls to you to persuade others to take the action that suits you. It's important to get that straight. Some people think their best option is not to vote (and let's grant they may be making a horrible mistake, born of frustration or apathy). It's *you* who wants them to vote. If they don't vote enough for your liking, that's not their failure, but yours.
72
@70: It's a free country. They can march in the streets and not vote, they can stand on their heads and demand free pie if they want.
But let's not kid ourselves.
But let's not kid ourselves.
73
I am with Fnarf on this one.
It's infuriating and thoroughly indefensible that otherwise intelligent people don't vote.
I'm questioning the "intelligence" assumption these days.
I support protest without reservation. But it's not a very reliable means to long term change. Even when it is successful.
Participating in even a broken system is crucial.
It's infuriating and thoroughly indefensible that otherwise intelligent people don't vote.
I'm questioning the "intelligence" assumption these days.
I support protest without reservation. But it's not a very reliable means to long term change. Even when it is successful.
Participating in even a broken system is crucial.
78
@72, I'm not sure who is fooling themselves. It could be all of us.
But whatever you think about voting, what these people are doing is better than what you seem to be asking them to do, which is to stay home ashamed that they didn't vote in 2008. They can redeem themselves by voting party line in 2012, right?
But whatever you think about voting, what these people are doing is better than what you seem to be asking them to do, which is to stay home ashamed that they didn't vote in 2008. They can redeem themselves by voting party line in 2012, right?
79
@76, yes, that makes perfect sense, if you are six years old.
Personality cult much? It's not ABOUT Barack Obama; it's about the group of people and ideas that he represents -- not the president but also his cabinet and staff and many thousands of department heads and LET'S NOT FORGET JUDGES. That's who you're voting for.
If you're voting for some super-liberal, he or she doesn't have any of those things; and she or he doesn't have even the remotest chance of winning, or even influencing the vote in any way except a pro-Republican one. That's what makes him or her "Nader". Nader also is irrelevant as a person or as a proponent of ideas.
Ideas don't matter if you don't have power. Power comes from votes. Votes in the ballot box and votes in congress.
None of you have even the tiniest glimmer of a clue how to translate your desires into action. You somehow think that by protesting, by getting into pathetic little scuffles with cops over your tents is going to somehow convince the powers-that-be to just walk away from power? You think they're going to see a hundred people standing in the rain and think, "yeah, you know, I think I WILL vote for that tax increase"?
How's it going to go down? Just tell me that. How is anything on your laundry list ever going to make it into a bill before congress? Or, you know, revolution -- because a hundred of you, who can't even stop a handful of policemen from arresting you for sitting on the sidewalk, are going to overthrow the most powerful government in the history of the world? Huh? HOW?
You got nothing. I got not much more, maybe, but I'm at least a small part of the system. The ONLY SYSTEM THERE IS.
Personality cult much? It's not ABOUT Barack Obama; it's about the group of people and ideas that he represents -- not the president but also his cabinet and staff and many thousands of department heads and LET'S NOT FORGET JUDGES. That's who you're voting for.
If you're voting for some super-liberal, he or she doesn't have any of those things; and she or he doesn't have even the remotest chance of winning, or even influencing the vote in any way except a pro-Republican one. That's what makes him or her "Nader". Nader also is irrelevant as a person or as a proponent of ideas.
Ideas don't matter if you don't have power. Power comes from votes. Votes in the ballot box and votes in congress.
None of you have even the tiniest glimmer of a clue how to translate your desires into action. You somehow think that by protesting, by getting into pathetic little scuffles with cops over your tents is going to somehow convince the powers-that-be to just walk away from power? You think they're going to see a hundred people standing in the rain and think, "yeah, you know, I think I WILL vote for that tax increase"?
How's it going to go down? Just tell me that. How is anything on your laundry list ever going to make it into a bill before congress? Or, you know, revolution -- because a hundred of you, who can't even stop a handful of policemen from arresting you for sitting on the sidewalk, are going to overthrow the most powerful government in the history of the world? Huh? HOW?
You got nothing. I got not much more, maybe, but I'm at least a small part of the system. The ONLY SYSTEM THERE IS.
80
And it has devolved into all-caps raging.
Fnarf, I like you. You are a good influence on slog in many ways, but that rant was nuts. Breathe.
As for how it's going to go down: Democracy, maaaannnn. Public debate and 'pathetic scuffles' are part of the process that leads to those all important votes. How hard is it to understand that?
Fnarf, I like you. You are a good influence on slog in many ways, but that rant was nuts. Breathe.
As for how it's going to go down: Democracy, maaaannnn. Public debate and 'pathetic scuffles' are part of the process that leads to those all important votes. How hard is it to understand that?
81
Fnarf is nothing more than a denier of the history of popular mass movements that have led to political change throughout time.
82
Not voting and then bitching and moaning about how your fantasy projects never happen, while willfully ignoring the harsh realities of what it takes to push through legislation to change things is perfectly ludicrous.
This is ludicrous: "I've got years of life experience and a decent amount of historical analysis that says voting is NOT democracy." What is democracy then? You as dictator? Did it ever register that part of democracy is other people voting too, often ignorant people who are opposed to all the great things you support?
That said I think is off base saying protesting is ineffectual. Look how terrified grown up representatives and senators were of being heckled by tea party jackasses during the run up to the 2010 election. We for sure need some energy on the left to counter the sputtering rage on the right and OWS seems to be providing some of that, at least at the moment.
This is ludicrous: "I've got years of life experience and a decent amount of historical analysis that says voting is NOT democracy." What is democracy then? You as dictator? Did it ever register that part of democracy is other people voting too, often ignorant people who are opposed to all the great things you support?
That said I think is off base saying protesting is ineffectual. Look how terrified grown up representatives and senators were of being heckled by tea party jackasses during the run up to the 2010 election. We for sure need some energy on the left to counter the sputtering rage on the right and OWS seems to be providing some of that, at least at the moment.
83
@81, democracy is voting, pure and simple. People in the streets is not democracy. Voting is the method by which the will of the people is expressed. Come November 2012, guess how many electoral votes the protesters will get, as opposed to the two candidates? If you're not voting, you're not part of the discussion.
84
"not Obama" IS "Nader"
Christ, you don't even know the system in which you have so much faith. How is this true in Washington State, much less King County unless the Dems have monumentally fucked up even more than I thought?
Christ, you don't even know the system in which you have so much faith. How is this true in Washington State, much less King County unless the Dems have monumentally fucked up even more than I thought?
85
@83 Stupid, but also wrong. Discussions happen elsewhere. Democracy began with assemblies.
For Fnarf, things are complex when other people are talking, but when he's talking they're very simple.
For Fnarf, things are complex when other people are talking, but when he's talking they're very simple.
86
@82: Let me clarify: When I say voting is not democracy, I mean democracy is not ONLY voting. Voting can be a part of democracy but a truly democratic society is made up of so much more.
87
Fnarf, I often respect a lot of what you say on other threads but here you are way off. You fail to grasp the complexities of both social history and sociology. "Pure and simple" it ain't.
89
@83- "democracy is voting, pure and simple. People in the streets is not democracy. "
So that's why we didn't bother with the rights of expression and assembly...
Seriously Fnarf, just apologize for being pigheaded and move on.
So that's why we didn't bother with the rights of expression and assembly...
Seriously Fnarf, just apologize for being pigheaded and move on.
90
@83 As if voting and mass movements were mutually exclusive. I guess you never heard of direct democracy, for one example among many. The truth is you just don't know what you are talking about and when folks point out to you that you are factually wrong, not only do you just continue with a new line of argument as if nothing happened but you pretend to give lesson about the reality of politics. Why don't you educate yourself?
91
@56, your option is to either try to persuade your candidates and/or other voters that your positions are correct, or to SUCK IT UP. You don't always get what you want. You very rarely get what you want. But if you try sometimes, etc.
If you can't get votes your protests mean nothing, and no one will remember them afterwards.
@90, no, why don't you educate me? Oh, that's right, because you're soft in the head. Trust me, sunshine, I know plenty about what I'm talking about. Direct democracy? Terrific, as long as you live in a country with fewer than 100 people. In the US, "direct democracy" means Tim fucking Eyman: no thanks. And it is still about voting, isn't it?
I am not factually wrong. A person is free to disagree, and to go protest in the street if that's what floats your boat. But if you think it matters, you're mistaken. That is my message. Street protests are at best writing on sand; at worst, ammunition for your enemies.
If you can't get votes your protests mean nothing, and no one will remember them afterwards.
@90, no, why don't you educate me? Oh, that's right, because you're soft in the head. Trust me, sunshine, I know plenty about what I'm talking about. Direct democracy? Terrific, as long as you live in a country with fewer than 100 people. In the US, "direct democracy" means Tim fucking Eyman: no thanks. And it is still about voting, isn't it?
I am not factually wrong. A person is free to disagree, and to go protest in the street if that's what floats your boat. But if you think it matters, you're mistaken. That is my message. Street protests are at best writing on sand; at worst, ammunition for your enemies.
92
Elderly, conservative people vote at twice the rate of people half their age. If you hate Republicans, but were too lazy to get your ass to the polls to vote against them, then shut your whining gob. I've voted in every election since I turned 18 and will keep voting. If people my age voted at the same rates as 60-70 year olds did or better, then the kids wouldn't have to take to the streets demanding justice. No vote, no voice. Hate the status quo? Vote against it! Hate corporate bankers? Take your money to a credit union! Don't like jeezus nuts dictating law? Donate money to Planned Parenthood or Southern Poverty Law!
93
@79 For the record Fnarf, I wasn't saying that I think Obama is the same as Bush. He's better in some ways, very similar in some ways, and very much worse in others. I was just saying that if you get to generalize Not Obama is Nader, then I get to generalize Obama is Bush. I don't think Not Obama = Nader, just like I don't think Obama = Bush.
People should get to vote for who they want, their vote should not be restricted to the two establishment parties as you so seem to wish. People should have the right to vote their conscience. It's the job of the candidate to earn our vote, not our job to perpetuate a duopoly. If the establishment candidates ever actually want to earn our votes, they know where we are.
People should get to vote for who they want, their vote should not be restricted to the two establishment parties as you so seem to wish. People should have the right to vote their conscience. It's the job of the candidate to earn our vote, not our job to perpetuate a duopoly. If the establishment candidates ever actually want to earn our votes, they know where we are.
94
@91- Why do you assume street protests don't motivate people positively and/or function as cheap advertising for your cause? It seems you're arguing that these protests are somehow anti-voting when that's actually an opinion held by a minority of the protesters. 39% voted in a midterm election (according to a small poll), that's actually pretty close to average, isn't it? How many are going to vote in the next election? It's going to depend on what is being offered, and I hope (and feel some confidence) that some of these people (and everyone watching on the news) are going to show up for the primaries and help shift America's political discourse back to reality.
If you can't get the votes, you might not be remembered. If you do get the votes you might get a monument built to you. If you just sit at home except for one day a year then you're not really doing much at all.
If you can't get the votes, you might not be remembered. If you do get the votes you might get a monument built to you. If you just sit at home except for one day a year then you're not really doing much at all.
95
91: Okay, please, explain to me your thoughts on the labor movement and the civil rights movement. Is there any reason to believe that Hoover or Goldwater would have done differently? Maybe, but highly unlikely. In both cases concessions had to be made because of widespread unrest, and the ruling class was demanding it.
96
@91 You're just wrong about protests. How else do you persuade politicians? I gave you The Bonus Army, which had no small part in the election of Roosevelt and eventually Congress gave them what they wanted. And guess what? Roosevelt made some very nice concession to them but he didn't give them what they wanted. It wasn't Roosevelt, it was a fearful Congress who overrode Roosevelt's veto, IIRC. They saw what happened in 1932.
97
Furthermore, if you seriously believe that Obama wants to do the right thing (I don't) but is held back by one thing or another, this is EXACTLY what he needs to push a more liberal agenda. The ruling class doesn't like poor people to get anything, but to stem the tide of unrest they make politicians throw bones. Hence the Wagner Act, and many other examples.
99
Fnarf: "The Christopher Hitchens of Slog" (in case you were wondering, I mean this as a complement and an insult, but on this thread it's an insult)
100
Let's review your accomplishments to date: hmm, there doesn't appear to be anything here. Your abysmal turnout Saturday -- a fraction of the soccer game crowd at the other end of downtown -- tells your opponents, and more importantly your friends, that you can be safely ignored. Good job! You'll get some lip service from various factions, but the prevailing point of view amongst the people who matter is "hmm, interesting, that's still going on" (turns page or channel).
Now, for your history lessons: you people are deeply confused. For one thing, the progressivist reformist movements of a hundred years ago took place in a vastly different America. The left was different, and the right was different, and everyone was naive; nobody knew anything about it then. But this symbolic game had turned into tic-tac-toe by the anti-war (and everything else) protests of the late-sixties, and since that time all the moves are plotted out in advance. You're not exercising free will, you're acting out a script. In 1932 you could catch the right wing unawares, but not anymore.
But your Bonus Army example is ridiculous on the face of it. They were veterans demanding a very specific thing: cash money. Is that what you want, a payoff? I don't think so. Also, they won their battle after several of them were shot by police; is that what you want? It would probably help your public standing.
Parallels to the sixties college activism are more apt, but not to your favor, and I would suggest you avoid them as much as possible. Nothing, but nothing, agitates the right like the blinkered view of the sixties that they have in mind, and I have to say that in political terms I agree with them. Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman were, in fact, mercenary shit-stirrers with a suspect agenda that was half radicalism, half self-aggrandizement; Chicago '68 was, in fact, a deliberate provocation of a riot that they knew was coming; most of the classic sixties SDS/Weatherman radicals were, in fact, hard-core leftist lunatics who idolized Mao and Kim Il-Sung (notorious right-wing bugbear Bill Ayers wrote and performed a whole mess of bad songs about the glorious revolution in North Korea at one famous SDS/Weatherman meeting). The Black Panthers stormed the California State Capitol with rifles in their hands (that was back in the day when the RIGHT was promoting gun control, believe it or not). Lots of people who should have known better would seriously chat about overthrowing the government at the drop of a pin, and a lot of normal people, disturbed by how their world seemed to be falling apart (sound familiar), were terrified by it.
Idealized 68-72 nostalgia glosses over just how silly that season was, politically, but the results are pretty plain: Nixon in '68, Nixon by a massive landslide in '72. Remember, also, how blindsided the left was by '72; I think it was Joan Didion who said, "I can't believe Nixon won; I don't know a soul who voted for him". That's called being out of touch, and it's described left Democrats ever since.
And the war went on much longer than it would have. And then the Reagan went on much longer than it would have. And then the Bush went on much longer than it would have.
And this was a serious mass movement, or certainly appeared to be at the time; in hindsight, statistically speaking hardly anyone was politically active on the far left in the sixties, however much noise they made among the rememberers. You are not making that much noise. And you will meet with as much success.
The sixties and seventies were about far more than people marching in the street, of course, and the change that came about was genuine, or at least entertaining. But those days are also gone. It's your enemies who are energized by "the sixties" now (and who have adopted some of the same organizing methods, and alas some of the same weepy victimhood). Y'all don't seem to be aware of any of this, but because you still idolize the dimwits who went before you, you're bound and determined to repeat their mistakes.
And make new ones; because your enemies are much cleverer than they used to be, and they know all the signs and symbols and secret handshakes just as well as you, if not better, and they're using them against you. And you're getting creamed. They're better at theater than you.
By all means, keep up the conversation; it's a good one, and I have contributed to it here. You want to talk about CEO pay and marginal tax rates and everything else, let's go. Let's try to change some minds. Yell at your elected leaders; you have their phone numbers and emails. But standing around in Westlake with a sign saying something unintelligible about salmon while an indie rock band isn't a recipe for success.
More...
Now, for your history lessons: you people are deeply confused. For one thing, the progressivist reformist movements of a hundred years ago took place in a vastly different America. The left was different, and the right was different, and everyone was naive; nobody knew anything about it then. But this symbolic game had turned into tic-tac-toe by the anti-war (and everything else) protests of the late-sixties, and since that time all the moves are plotted out in advance. You're not exercising free will, you're acting out a script. In 1932 you could catch the right wing unawares, but not anymore.
But your Bonus Army example is ridiculous on the face of it. They were veterans demanding a very specific thing: cash money. Is that what you want, a payoff? I don't think so. Also, they won their battle after several of them were shot by police; is that what you want? It would probably help your public standing.
Parallels to the sixties college activism are more apt, but not to your favor, and I would suggest you avoid them as much as possible. Nothing, but nothing, agitates the right like the blinkered view of the sixties that they have in mind, and I have to say that in political terms I agree with them. Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman were, in fact, mercenary shit-stirrers with a suspect agenda that was half radicalism, half self-aggrandizement; Chicago '68 was, in fact, a deliberate provocation of a riot that they knew was coming; most of the classic sixties SDS/Weatherman radicals were, in fact, hard-core leftist lunatics who idolized Mao and Kim Il-Sung (notorious right-wing bugbear Bill Ayers wrote and performed a whole mess of bad songs about the glorious revolution in North Korea at one famous SDS/Weatherman meeting). The Black Panthers stormed the California State Capitol with rifles in their hands (that was back in the day when the RIGHT was promoting gun control, believe it or not). Lots of people who should have known better would seriously chat about overthrowing the government at the drop of a pin, and a lot of normal people, disturbed by how their world seemed to be falling apart (sound familiar), were terrified by it.
Idealized 68-72 nostalgia glosses over just how silly that season was, politically, but the results are pretty plain: Nixon in '68, Nixon by a massive landslide in '72. Remember, also, how blindsided the left was by '72; I think it was Joan Didion who said, "I can't believe Nixon won; I don't know a soul who voted for him". That's called being out of touch, and it's described left Democrats ever since.
And the war went on much longer than it would have. And then the Reagan went on much longer than it would have. And then the Bush went on much longer than it would have.
And this was a serious mass movement, or certainly appeared to be at the time; in hindsight, statistically speaking hardly anyone was politically active on the far left in the sixties, however much noise they made among the rememberers. You are not making that much noise. And you will meet with as much success.
The sixties and seventies were about far more than people marching in the street, of course, and the change that came about was genuine, or at least entertaining. But those days are also gone. It's your enemies who are energized by "the sixties" now (and who have adopted some of the same organizing methods, and alas some of the same weepy victimhood). Y'all don't seem to be aware of any of this, but because you still idolize the dimwits who went before you, you're bound and determined to repeat their mistakes.
And make new ones; because your enemies are much cleverer than they used to be, and they know all the signs and symbols and secret handshakes just as well as you, if not better, and they're using them against you. And you're getting creamed. They're better at theater than you.
By all means, keep up the conversation; it's a good one, and I have contributed to it here. You want to talk about CEO pay and marginal tax rates and everything else, let's go. Let's try to change some minds. Yell at your elected leaders; you have their phone numbers and emails. But standing around in Westlake with a sign saying something unintelligible about salmon while an indie rock band isn't a recipe for success.
101
Has no one yet made this point:
Although only 39% of the occupiers voted in the last election, you can damn well be sure 99% of them will in the next.
Although only 39% of the occupiers voted in the last election, you can damn well be sure 99% of them will in the next.
102
(It's called "activating the electorate", Fnarf, and--as you well know--historically proceeds about every democratic sea-change.)
103
@98, what? Who would have been Nixon? Goldwater? Your argument makes no sense. And I'm the one who's supposed to be ignorant. For the record, it was Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat -- a SOUTHERN Democrat -- who signed the Civil Rights Act. Arguably the greatest act by a US president since Lincoln. If you think Nixon, had he won in 1960, would have signed it, you are out of your bloomin' mind. Nixon is the one who picked up all those disaffected white southern voters who were "betrayed" by Johnson.
But again: the 1900s are over. The 1930s are over. The 1960s are over, more than forty years gone now. Fight 2011's battles with 2011's weapons.
But again: the 1900s are over. The 1930s are over. The 1960s are over, more than forty years gone now. Fight 2011's battles with 2011's weapons.
104
@93 Exactly how is Obama 'very much worse' than Bush? Completely asinine. Did cosmic rays wipe out your memory or something? It is statements like this that are convincing me more and more that wide segments of the left are in fact just as witless as the tea party mob.
105
@99, Jude, I only wish I deserved the epithet. But it's very kind of you to say it, and I don't mind at all that it's an insult. It's a pleasure to argue with as thoughful and intelligent opponent as you. Dirac, too, I don't have a problem with; I agree with most of what you say except most strenuously this one thing. Maybe I'm wrong and a glorious new era will ensue because of it. I doubt it though. None of you are wrong in your hearts; you're just naive. There's a reason I hang out here rather than some other places I could mention -- I'd rather hang out with the naive than the jaded and bitter any old day. And I am well aware that many or most of you feel the same about me (i.e., why won't the fucker just GO AWAY).
106
@100: I love it when people talk about "the protests of the '60's" and procede to only talk of the anti-war movement. Its outcomes are debatable, sure. However, one of the most successful social movements in history was in the same decade (the civil rights movement), but you failed to address that because it is impossible for you to discredit protest as THE key to its success. The SCLC organized a campaign of mass protests in the South in the Spring of '63, focusing especially on Birmingham where they essentially shut the city down. (Yes, they did a LOT of occupying too, then they were called "sit-ins.") By early June, JFK called for the Civil Rights Act.
107
@103: I mistakenly thought Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act after the '64 election, it was before, which means it would have been Nixon, not Goldwater, that would/could have signed it. That's all. My point still stands that it didn't matter if the WANTED to. They had to. Johnson was a total bigot, by the way.
108
OuterCow: if you aren't voting for Obama, and you're not voting Republican, but you ARE voting, who are you voting for? Because, without knowing, it's hard to say whether or not "Not Obama" = Nader.
If he has zero chance of winning, but enough support to ensure that Republicans choose the next several Supreme Court judges, then yes, in that case, "Not Obama"= Nader.
One of the worst things to happen to democracy in my lifetime is Citizens v. United. Take a look at who appointed the judges on each side of that, specifically, how the ones appointed by GWB decided. Justices appointed by Gore would not have let that piece of shit through.
But Gore would have been the same as GWB, right? That's the line I've heard from every fucking Nader supporter.
You're worried about your conscience? Please! How clean will it be if because of you - and your public "I'm not voting for Obama" broken record - Republicans pick the next few justices? I tell you: If I had voted for Nader, my guilty conscience would make me hang myself.
So, I plead with you: suck it up like the rest of us. It's hard to vote for someone you hate, I know. I fucking hated Gore; the last thing I wanted was a low-IQ Christian blowhard in the white house. But I held my nose and voted for him anyway. And to this day I wish that fucking loser would have won.
If he has zero chance of winning, but enough support to ensure that Republicans choose the next several Supreme Court judges, then yes, in that case, "Not Obama"= Nader.
One of the worst things to happen to democracy in my lifetime is Citizens v. United. Take a look at who appointed the judges on each side of that, specifically, how the ones appointed by GWB decided. Justices appointed by Gore would not have let that piece of shit through.
But Gore would have been the same as GWB, right? That's the line I've heard from every fucking Nader supporter.
You're worried about your conscience? Please! How clean will it be if because of you - and your public "I'm not voting for Obama" broken record - Republicans pick the next few justices? I tell you: If I had voted for Nader, my guilty conscience would make me hang myself.
So, I plead with you: suck it up like the rest of us. It's hard to vote for someone you hate, I know. I fucking hated Gore; the last thing I wanted was a low-IQ Christian blowhard in the white house. But I held my nose and voted for him anyway. And to this day I wish that fucking loser would have won.
109
@100: Furthermore, 40 years, 80 years, whatever, is not a long time at all in the course of history. "2011 tools" my ass, it's the same as it ever was: people interacting with each other IN PERSON for the same cause. THAT is what you fail to comprehend, and why so many on this blog snark and sneer. You cannot think beyond a two-dimensional world.
110
Just FYI, the Bonus Army thing was in response to @27. Getting the bonus arguably wasn't a huge social change, but it did happen in response to protests and the election of 1932 is credited to that to some degree. And yes, people WILL die if things don't change--I don't want that but I think non-violent civil disobedience will be necessary.
And I don't think things will magically change, btw, but pushing this system from the right or center is not my function.
It's the present, yep! Yes, it's not 2000, or 1960s, or 1930s or 1880s. I think everyone here gets that. You wanted examples though. OWS will be what it is, whatever that is. Some people don't vote. I won't call them idiots for that. I won't disparage somebody who votes third party. But I will challenge the notion that voting for the rightward drifting Dems will change it for the better. I don't need to look too far in the past for that--just 5 years.
And I don't think things will magically change, btw, but pushing this system from the right or center is not my function.
It's the present, yep! Yes, it's not 2000, or 1960s, or 1930s or 1880s. I think everyone here gets that. You wanted examples though. OWS will be what it is, whatever that is. Some people don't vote. I won't call them idiots for that. I won't disparage somebody who votes third party. But I will challenge the notion that voting for the rightward drifting Dems will change it for the better. I don't need to look too far in the past for that--just 5 years.
111
@91, etc... since I was invoked directly:
"your option is to either try to persuade your candidates and/or other voters that your positions are correct, or to SUCK IT UP."
But if Fnarf hears you try to do the first, your options are reduced to "suck it up" (in all caps!).
It seems to me that your argument reduces to "you have to vote because I don't believe in Democracy". It's quite a tantrum.
I'll continue to engage with politics in my own way, you should continue to do it in yours. I think the correct sentiment is to hope the other's voice isn't silenced by faults in the system.
"your option is to either try to persuade your candidates and/or other voters that your positions are correct, or to SUCK IT UP."
But if Fnarf hears you try to do the first, your options are reduced to "suck it up" (in all caps!).
It seems to me that your argument reduces to "you have to vote because I don't believe in Democracy". It's quite a tantrum.
I'll continue to engage with politics in my own way, you should continue to do it in yours. I think the correct sentiment is to hope the other's voice isn't silenced by faults in the system.
112
Fnarf @103: What are 2011-weapons? I am seriously curious, and if you say "vote" that means you don't have any idea.
Fnarf @105: I'm glad you were not offended (not that I thought you would be) and I definitely don't want you to go away..
Fnarf @105: I'm glad you were not offended (not that I thought you would be) and I definitely don't want you to go away..
113
@104: Bush never claimed he had the authority to order the murder of US citizens w/o any due process. That's a pretty big fucking deal if the rule of law is something you care about. Also, except for perhaps solely the decision to no longer torture prisoners, Obama is worse than Bush on almost every civil liberties issue.
@108: Right now, Free Lunch, I'm not sure who I'll be voting for for president in 2012. I haven't looked into who any of the normal 3rd Parties are running, haven't heard any names I like crop up yet, so I'll look into it once the Repubs have a nominee, there might even be a OWS party nominee by then, who knows. I just can't vote for him, Free Lunch. Not after he set the precedent that we don't investigate torture. Not after he illegally ordered the assassination of a US citizen. The damage he is doing while he is in office outweighs the SCOTUS concerns for me. And it's not like he's appointing liberal paragons to the bench as it is. I fully expect to be stabbed in the back plenty by Kagan. The bigger issue to me is we need to end the duopoly, and the sooner I join that fight the better (2012 will be the first presidential election where I don't vote D).
And no, I don't think Gore would've been as bad as Bush, but since Gore actually got more votes in FL than Bush, I believe blame is very wrongly placed at the feet of Nader voters. It was the Supreme Court, already corrupt enough even before Bush II, that betrayed us, not those who voted for Nader.
And regarding Citizens United, while it is indeed a fantastically horrible ruling, it was pretty much the unofficial status quo before the ruling anyway. Citizens United just brought the problem further into the light. Our system was already broken before Citizens United, Citizens united just made it official.
More...
@108: Right now, Free Lunch, I'm not sure who I'll be voting for for president in 2012. I haven't looked into who any of the normal 3rd Parties are running, haven't heard any names I like crop up yet, so I'll look into it once the Repubs have a nominee, there might even be a OWS party nominee by then, who knows. I just can't vote for him, Free Lunch. Not after he set the precedent that we don't investigate torture. Not after he illegally ordered the assassination of a US citizen. The damage he is doing while he is in office outweighs the SCOTUS concerns for me. And it's not like he's appointing liberal paragons to the bench as it is. I fully expect to be stabbed in the back plenty by Kagan. The bigger issue to me is we need to end the duopoly, and the sooner I join that fight the better (2012 will be the first presidential election where I don't vote D).
And no, I don't think Gore would've been as bad as Bush, but since Gore actually got more votes in FL than Bush, I believe blame is very wrongly placed at the feet of Nader voters. It was the Supreme Court, already corrupt enough even before Bush II, that betrayed us, not those who voted for Nader.
And regarding Citizens United, while it is indeed a fantastically horrible ruling, it was pretty much the unofficial status quo before the ruling anyway. Citizens United just brought the problem further into the light. Our system was already broken before Citizens United, Citizens united just made it official.
114
Fnarf, I fucking vote, so stuff it in your know-it-all piehole. I am so sick of your white-boy comfort level making you think you have it all figured out. You are so narrow minded it's unreal. You're like The Economist- informative, but really only telling people what they always want to hear. You paint everything with such a broad brush, I am surprised you can even see any colors besides black and white.
I started a non-profit in 2003 to get young people to vote and I saw first-hand that voter awareness goes hand in hand with lack of participation.The fact of the matter is, I am allowed to see that I am not really given a choice when it comes to candidates. Black box voting made the whole voting system a joke in the 00s. And every citizen eventually becomes aware that they really don't have a choice of people who will actually represent them.
I started a non-profit in 2003 to get young people to vote and I saw first-hand that voter awareness goes hand in hand with lack of participation.The fact of the matter is, I am allowed to see that I am not really given a choice when it comes to candidates. Black box voting made the whole voting system a joke in the 00s. And every citizen eventually becomes aware that they really don't have a choice of people who will actually represent them.
115
I am also allowed to see that picking between a shit sandwich and a turd milkshake doesn't mean I am not allowed to complain about being hungry.
116
@111, I'm sorry to hear that you don't know how to write a letter or an email, or use a telephone, or attend a political meeting. Or read my post; what I really said was "you have to vote because it's the only thing that stands a chance of holding off the right wing from total victory".
@112, will you accept "comment on blogs"? The answer is really "communicate with people who DON'T agree with you", counter to bhowie's assertion. You need to change their minds. Protests don't work because they're scripted. And yeah, vote.
@113, you are stupid and dangerous. The alternative to the duopoly is the monopoly. If the Republicans can win again just four years after Bush, after the series of debacles the brain-dead wing of their party has trampled the scenery, the Democrats will never recover. And a more progressive Democratic Party is an even less successful one. But then, being clumsy and short-sighted and stupid and counterproductive and damaging while trying to do good is pretty typical Democrat behavior, actually (and I am one).
@107, you are impossibly wrong about whether Nixon would have signed the Civil Rights Act. And of course Johnson was a bigot -- but he was OUR bigot, and he made a famously brave decision, for which he gets attacked to this day from both left and right. As for the civil rights movement, in that case you had your sit-ins and so forth, but what really made the difference was dogs and firehoses and Medgar Evers and four little girls in a church. The injustice there was perfect and media-ready -- a little girl in white trying to go to school while angry rednecks shouted obscenities at her. The clarity of justice in that instance was impossible to ignore on TV, though it had been ignored for a century. Do you know what the Westlake protesters look like on TV? That's who you are having a conversation with.
It also helped having the greatest orator in American history, at least in the recording era, on their side. Analogy fail.
More...
@112, will you accept "comment on blogs"? The answer is really "communicate with people who DON'T agree with you", counter to bhowie's assertion. You need to change their minds. Protests don't work because they're scripted. And yeah, vote.
@113, you are stupid and dangerous. The alternative to the duopoly is the monopoly. If the Republicans can win again just four years after Bush, after the series of debacles the brain-dead wing of their party has trampled the scenery, the Democrats will never recover. And a more progressive Democratic Party is an even less successful one. But then, being clumsy and short-sighted and stupid and counterproductive and damaging while trying to do good is pretty typical Democrat behavior, actually (and I am one).
@107, you are impossibly wrong about whether Nixon would have signed the Civil Rights Act. And of course Johnson was a bigot -- but he was OUR bigot, and he made a famously brave decision, for which he gets attacked to this day from both left and right. As for the civil rights movement, in that case you had your sit-ins and so forth, but what really made the difference was dogs and firehoses and Medgar Evers and four little girls in a church. The injustice there was perfect and media-ready -- a little girl in white trying to go to school while angry rednecks shouted obscenities at her. The clarity of justice in that instance was impossible to ignore on TV, though it had been ignored for a century. Do you know what the Westlake protesters look like on TV? That's who you are having a conversation with.
It also helped having the greatest orator in American history, at least in the recording era, on their side. Analogy fail.
117
@114, so what's your alternative? You say "every citizen eventually becomes aware that they really don't have a choice of people who will actually represent them", so what then? Violent overthrow? Is that where you want to go? Good luck with that.
If you're just complaining for the sake of complaining, then fine. Go to it. Don't pretend it matters, though. No one is watching.
If you're just complaining for the sake of complaining, then fine. Go to it. Don't pretend it matters, though. No one is watching.
118
@112, my answer was stupid and too quick. The answer is "play the media". Getting on TV with a sign that makes a quick point about an aspect of income inequality from a sympathetic member of the working class is good; getting on TV by jumping on the back of a cop, or standing in the rain in a black hoodie with a bandana over your face, or dressed as a sea turtle, or any of the other bad theater pieces, is bad. It's as simple, and as difficult as that.
119
No Fnarf, I was not making an analogy. You drew the wrong conclusion. You stated earlier that protests have never accomplished anything, I used the civil rights movement as an example of why you are wrong. I have no idea if the folks at Westlake are on to something and I would not have the audacity to compare the occupiers to the freedom riders.
Your bit about the media was a part of it, sure, but struggle was the whole of it. Besides, a life made by strategic rather than moral choices is no life at all. You cannot comprehend that. Your loss.
Your bit about the media was a part of it, sure, but struggle was the whole of it. Besides, a life made by strategic rather than moral choices is no life at all. You cannot comprehend that. Your loss.
120
Don't pretend that your head is brimming with solutions. Case in point, is that you can only offer violent overthrow as an alternative to making voters aware that they don't have many choices. No, my alternative is not violent overthrow, jesus fucking christ. You might think that way, but most people do not. Nice try with the attempt to put words in my mouth, though.
And no one is watching? No one is listening? Do you think the entire world is as apathetic as Fnarf? Actually, scratch that. You've been listening and watching here in nearly every thread. Exactly which demographic do you misguidedly believe you speak for? Not that I really care, but I'm sure the answer will amuse those of us whom you wrongly assume to know everything about.
And no one is watching? No one is listening? Do you think the entire world is as apathetic as Fnarf? Actually, scratch that. You've been listening and watching here in nearly every thread. Exactly which demographic do you misguidedly believe you speak for? Not that I really care, but I'm sure the answer will amuse those of us whom you wrongly assume to know everything about.
121
So, here you hedge, OuterCow, by saying Citizens vs. United didn't matter because it would have happened anyway. But you concede it wouldn't have happened under Gore. I don't see those statements as consistent.
And your comment that Bush wouldn't have won without a conservative SCOTUS - well, I had to force may jaw closed with my hand on that one. I don't think I need to elaborate there.
Presidents last eight years, tops. But SC justices shape the landscape for a decades. And while you're going through your litany of complaints about Obama, ask yourself how much of that would have been nullified - rather than ignored or supported - by a liberal bench.
And your comment that Bush wouldn't have won without a conservative SCOTUS - well, I had to force may jaw closed with my hand on that one. I don't think I need to elaborate there.
Presidents last eight years, tops. But SC justices shape the landscape for a decades. And while you're going through your litany of complaints about Obama, ask yourself how much of that would have been nullified - rather than ignored or supported - by a liberal bench.
122
@118, TV is the political weapon of 2011? Your creativity is stunning. I think even the Westlake people are doing better than that, certainly the Zuccotti park crowd is. And if not, your recipe for political success has still expanded to include quite a lot of activities unrelated to voting--right up to holding witty signs.
123
@118- So your point is (in the end) that good protest is good and bad protest is bad?
OK. I agree.
Why all the insults towards the protesters before? And why expect Occupy to have accomplished anything tangible in one month? This isn't a sitcom, things take time.
OK. I agree.
Why all the insults towards the protesters before? And why expect Occupy to have accomplished anything tangible in one month? This isn't a sitcom, things take time.
125
@91" no, why don't you educate me? Oh, that's right, because you're soft in the head. Trust me, sunshine, I know plenty about what I'm talking about. "
You don't even know (or you deny?) the basics of labor and civil right history as shown by your ignorance about the role of popular movements in bringing about political change. How am I supposed to fill the complete vacuum in your head within the space and time I am willing to give to these comments? Why don't you pick up a book on the topic like Piven's on the unemployed in the 1930's to get an idea of what it took for the political establishment to save capitalism from itself.
"Direct democracy? Terrific, as long as you live in a country with fewer than 100 people. In the US, "direct democracy" means Tim fucking Eyman: no thanks. And it is still about voting, isn't it?"
Nobody mentioned direct democracy as a model for a nation or a region. I gave you an example of a democracy that involved both voting and direct participation to a movement/association/etc, which is the basis for an informed and participating citizenry.
"I am not factually wrong."
You claimed the public wasn't for policies further left than advocated by Obama, which is false as shown by polls that show the public consistently on Obama's left (btw, you somehow failed to answer my question as to why Obama would be campaigning to his left if people weren't there on most issues). You also claimed that popular participatory movements were useless and that only voting mattered, which is obviously false as was pointed out to you in numerous examples by several people here and which you failed to address. Your not answering on point doesn't mean the argument doesn't exists; it only shows that your debating ethics aren't what they should be if you want to be credible.
More...
You don't even know (or you deny?) the basics of labor and civil right history as shown by your ignorance about the role of popular movements in bringing about political change. How am I supposed to fill the complete vacuum in your head within the space and time I am willing to give to these comments? Why don't you pick up a book on the topic like Piven's on the unemployed in the 1930's to get an idea of what it took for the political establishment to save capitalism from itself.
"Direct democracy? Terrific, as long as you live in a country with fewer than 100 people. In the US, "direct democracy" means Tim fucking Eyman: no thanks. And it is still about voting, isn't it?"
Nobody mentioned direct democracy as a model for a nation or a region. I gave you an example of a democracy that involved both voting and direct participation to a movement/association/etc, which is the basis for an informed and participating citizenry.
"I am not factually wrong."
You claimed the public wasn't for policies further left than advocated by Obama, which is false as shown by polls that show the public consistently on Obama's left (btw, you somehow failed to answer my question as to why Obama would be campaigning to his left if people weren't there on most issues). You also claimed that popular participatory movements were useless and that only voting mattered, which is obviously false as was pointed out to you in numerous examples by several people here and which you failed to address. Your not answering on point doesn't mean the argument doesn't exists; it only shows that your debating ethics aren't what they should be if you want to be credible.
126
@124 - Yes, I know. I get "corrupt" confused with "conservative" all the time. I'd say, "You Say Tomato, I say Tomato," but that doesn't come across so well in print.
What frustrates me is that OC's main complaint seems to be the growing, unfettered power of the executive branch. Well, shoot: If only there were some OTHER branch of government designed specifically to keep that in check.
So, go ahead, do everything you can to make sure we get the next several SCOTUS nominees controlled by Republicans. Trust me - a pill is harder to swallow when swallowing it takes 30 years.
What frustrates me is that OC's main complaint seems to be the growing, unfettered power of the executive branch. Well, shoot: If only there were some OTHER branch of government designed specifically to keep that in check.
So, go ahead, do everything you can to make sure we get the next several SCOTUS nominees controlled by Republicans. Trust me - a pill is harder to swallow when swallowing it takes 30 years.
127
I have said it once, I'll say it again ... and again likely .... the problem is the voters, not the corporations. Point the fingers at yourselves. If you want change, vote for it, otherwise you're just a bunch of wannabe hippies ... I mean "drum circles"? Com on.
128
@121 Just in case you’re still following this thread,
I didn’t say “Citizens United didn't matter because it would have happened anyway”. What I was saying was that the problem of corporations and money having not just undue, but a controlling interest in our elections, was the state of things before Citizens United. Citizens United just exacerbated a problem that was already off the rails.
And regarding your jaw, Gore’s lawyers also should have pushed for a full statewide recount in Florida. Still not the fault of Nader voters. If Gore wanted those Nader votes badly enough, he and his pollsters and campaign strategists knew where they were long before election day.
I care about a liberal bench as well, Free Lunch, but looking at Obama’s actions, his clear violations of constitutional law, and appointing blank-slate Kagan, I don’t have the faith in him to champion that position. It's my opinion that the only way to get real liberals on the bench is to get a real liberal in the White House. And that’s not Obama.
I didn’t say “Citizens United didn't matter because it would have happened anyway”. What I was saying was that the problem of corporations and money having not just undue, but a controlling interest in our elections, was the state of things before Citizens United. Citizens United just exacerbated a problem that was already off the rails.
And regarding your jaw, Gore’s lawyers also should have pushed for a full statewide recount in Florida. Still not the fault of Nader voters. If Gore wanted those Nader votes badly enough, he and his pollsters and campaign strategists knew where they were long before election day.
I care about a liberal bench as well, Free Lunch, but looking at Obama’s actions, his clear violations of constitutional law, and appointing blank-slate Kagan, I don’t have the faith in him to champion that position. It's my opinion that the only way to get real liberals on the bench is to get a real liberal in the White House. And that’s not Obama.
129
@116: The future is not yet written. We must try to make this a better world, not just a slightly less evil one. I won’t begrudge you your dogmatic pessimism if you don’t begrudge me my hope. Let us try to prove you wrong, Fnarf. We deserve that chance.
130
@129: *Ok, totally used the word “begrudge” wrong there. Change the “won’t” to “will” and take out the “don’t” in that sentence.
132
@128
How is allowing Romney or, god forbid, Perry to win the election getting a "real" liberal in the White House?
Face reality. There is no fantasy white horse liberal candidate out there that stand even the slimmest chance better than Obama in 2012.
Can you imagine the type of Genghis Khan nightmare judge the GOP will put on the SCOTUS? And you're complaining about Kagan?
Waiting until 2016 is going to be way too late. The damage will have been done.
Fnarf is completely right here.
"I care about a liberal bench as well, Free Lunch, but looking at Obama’s actions, his clear violations of constitutional law, and appointing blank-slate Kagan, I don’t have the faith in him to champion that position. It's my opinion that the only way to get real liberals on the bench is to get a real liberal in the White House. And that’s not Obama."
How is allowing Romney or, god forbid, Perry to win the election getting a "real" liberal in the White House?
Face reality. There is no fantasy white horse liberal candidate out there that stand even the slimmest chance better than Obama in 2012.
Can you imagine the type of Genghis Khan nightmare judge the GOP will put on the SCOTUS? And you're complaining about Kagan?
Waiting until 2016 is going to be way too late. The damage will have been done.
Fnarf is completely right here.
133
@132 Oh, yeah a Genghis Khan like John Paul Stephens? It's possible.
I swear, the only possibility for people is to play the fear card and I don't want to be afraid. So, if Obama's what we're going to get, fine, I'd honestly rather see the system crash faster then. We might as well face our destruction and see if we can rebuild sooner rather than later.
I swear, the only possibility for people is to play the fear card and I don't want to be afraid. So, if Obama's what we're going to get, fine, I'd honestly rather see the system crash faster then. We might as well face our destruction and see if we can rebuild sooner rather than later.
134
So, in other words it would be better for things to be more completely ruined than they are now because then things will be even more awesome when we completely rebuild? Jesus, do you ever listen to yourself?
The way to make things better is to make them better. If you can't accept moderate, incremental improvements then you will never get a single thing that you want. This idea that letting it all burn so that the people will "wake up" is pure fantasy. If our system crashes it will not be replaced with one more to your liking.
So, if Obama's what we're going to get, fine, I'd honestly rather see the system crash faster then. We might as well face our destruction and see if we can rebuild sooner rather than later.
So, in other words it would be better for things to be more completely ruined than they are now because then things will be even more awesome when we completely rebuild? Jesus, do you ever listen to yourself?
The way to make things better is to make them better. If you can't accept moderate, incremental improvements then you will never get a single thing that you want. This idea that letting it all burn so that the people will "wake up" is pure fantasy. If our system crashes it will not be replaced with one more to your liking.
135
Do you ever happen to listen to your didactic nonsense Proteus and wonder, "Hey, maybe I'm a projecting asshole?" Because you are. And I love the certainty that you have. You're unwilling to live with ambiguity, too afraid. The way to make things better is to make things better, good job! Thanks for that!
I have no such "fantasies." I have deep hope but I am also very pragmatic and realist. And my realism tells me this country is fucked. I'll even give you that It may turn around if some series of miracles happens (I mean who's closing their eyes and dreaming that we've had ANY incremental reforms for civil liberties or finance?), but please spare me you preachy nonsense and holier-than-thou tone. I've had about enough of ignorant assholes posing as wizened concerned grown-up realistic adults. You're nothing of the sort and it does nothing to help your argument.
Go fuck yourself Proteus--go fuck yourself right in your ear.
I have no such "fantasies." I have deep hope but I am also very pragmatic and realist. And my realism tells me this country is fucked. I'll even give you that It may turn around if some series of miracles happens (I mean who's closing their eyes and dreaming that we've had ANY incremental reforms for civil liberties or finance?), but please spare me you preachy nonsense and holier-than-thou tone. I've had about enough of ignorant assholes posing as wizened concerned grown-up realistic adults. You're nothing of the sort and it does nothing to help your argument.
Go fuck yourself Proteus--go fuck yourself right in your ear.
136
@135: As in, as opposed to letting things get worse so that later, they can get better. Which is exactly what you just advocated.
But since you brought it up, let's talk tone: How many ways have you found to tell anybody who thinks Obama is in any way preferable to McCain or Bush/Cheney that they are simply delusional? That anybody who votes for Democrats is either stupid or willfully making things worse? So you're the super-smart political analyst who's seen through all the lies, man, and you're here to clear up all those naive ideas we had about how we could make a difference by participating in politics as it is and not how it ought to be. So jaded. So world-weary and insightful. Thanks for knocking the scales from my eyes!
Historically, progressive politics has always been lousy with this problem of the perfect being the enemy of the good. I know I've heard this bullshit line a million times, and I'm tired of nodding and smiling when I hear it from people who should know better.
But since you brought it up, let's talk tone: How many ways have you found to tell anybody who thinks Obama is in any way preferable to McCain or Bush/Cheney that they are simply delusional? That anybody who votes for Democrats is either stupid or willfully making things worse? So you're the super-smart political analyst who's seen through all the lies, man, and you're here to clear up all those naive ideas we had about how we could make a difference by participating in politics as it is and not how it ought to be. So jaded. So world-weary and insightful. Thanks for knocking the scales from my eyes!
Historically, progressive politics has always been lousy with this problem of the perfect being the enemy of the good. I know I've heard this bullshit line a million times, and I'm tired of nodding and smiling when I hear it from people who should know better.
137
@136 My tone? "I know I've heard this bullshit line a million times," Fuck you, wizened shriveled asshole.
Can't help if since people are willing to choose delusional tribalism that I'd add a little dose of reality as a fucking MINORITY on this blog. Yeah, it's hard to let the lies slide through or superficial nonsense pass for politics, so excuse me fuckface for not toeing the party line like people who've heard some argument so many times. Why smile through that you passive aggressive prick? Afraid still?
Don't put words in my mouth asshole, never said you're dumb for voting for Democrats. You're trapped, that's for sure.
How about letting the mediocre being the enemy of the Reaganism? I know, it's DREAMING!
Can't help if since people are willing to choose delusional tribalism that I'd add a little dose of reality as a fucking MINORITY on this blog. Yeah, it's hard to let the lies slide through or superficial nonsense pass for politics, so excuse me fuckface for not toeing the party line like people who've heard some argument so many times. Why smile through that you passive aggressive prick? Afraid still?
Don't put words in my mouth asshole, never said you're dumb for voting for Democrats. You're trapped, that's for sure.
How about letting the mediocre being the enemy of the Reaganism? I know, it's DREAMING!
138
@137 Oh, and never claimed to be a political analyst. Just a concerned citizen in a downward spiraling police state on the verge of ecological, economic, and political destruction. My use of the word "destruction" previously was hyperbole. I was referring to the Democratic Party, but whatevs, call me naive and full of shit. If we have incremental reforms, my actual fear IS many people will die.
This "progressive" notion that growth or progress doesn't have its limits--that the economy will keep growing, that we can kick the can down the road on our wars and environmental destruction, that we can ignore war crimes and not realize consequences from that--it's just not going to work out well for us.
This "progressive" notion that growth or progress doesn't have its limits--that the economy will keep growing, that we can kick the can down the road on our wars and environmental destruction, that we can ignore war crimes and not realize consequences from that--it's just not going to work out well for us.
139
@134
Not wanting things to get worse is great but the evidence already points toward things getting worse. There is no moderate incremental improvement in most areas. On the contrary, the neoliberal race to the bottom goes on unabated with the complicity of many Democrats including Obama and that of his predecessors for the last 40 years. Giving another blank check to 3rd way Dems is a recipe for more of the same.
Not wanting things to get worse is great but the evidence already points toward things getting worse. There is no moderate incremental improvement in most areas. On the contrary, the neoliberal race to the bottom goes on unabated with the complicity of many Democrats including Obama and that of his predecessors for the last 40 years. Giving another blank check to 3rd way Dems is a recipe for more of the same.
140
For the record, Kagan dissented on United, just like Gore's TWO nominees would have done. So, all of you Nader idealists who voted your conscience: how does your conscience feel now? If you haven't learned your lesson, well - fuck - you're too far-gone to help.
Yeah, tell yourself it was the Supreme Court and not you. I'd be grasping at straws myself.
Yeah, tell yourself it was the Supreme Court and not you. I'd be grasping at straws myself.
141
@138, @139: If I were concocting a perfect troll to hang out on blogs and convince liberals to lie down and give up, it would look pretty much exactly like what you're doing. It's all "look, I'm on your side, but give up because politics is a sham."
I don't necessarily think you are a troll, Dirac -- dissolving into apopleptic profanity makes you seem more like you're probably a real person who's just too wound up about it. But in the end it works out the same -- you're counseling despair. I see no great difference between your outlook and things I hear Tea Party people saying about how the government is corrupt from top to bottom so we should all just stop paying taxes. Either way if enough people hew to your line of thinking a giant crash seems inevitable. (And when it happens you can take pride in issuing an accurate, if self-fulfilling prophecy.)
And, seriously? "We're fucked?" "Evidence already points toward things getting worse?" This passes for insight? Who isn't saying that? Ron Paul is saying that, LaRouche too. Hell, Glenn Beck says that. Any fool can say that.
I don't necessarily think you are a troll, Dirac -- dissolving into apopleptic profanity makes you seem more like you're probably a real person who's just too wound up about it. But in the end it works out the same -- you're counseling despair. I see no great difference between your outlook and things I hear Tea Party people saying about how the government is corrupt from top to bottom so we should all just stop paying taxes. Either way if enough people hew to your line of thinking a giant crash seems inevitable. (And when it happens you can take pride in issuing an accurate, if self-fulfilling prophecy.)
And, seriously? "We're fucked?" "Evidence already points toward things getting worse?" This passes for insight? Who isn't saying that? Ron Paul is saying that, LaRouche too. Hell, Glenn Beck says that. Any fool can say that.
142
Honestly, the idealism charge is baseless to me. Let's be clear: I NEVER wanted a pony. I didn't vote for Nader. But so what if people did or do? People in the Democratic party really need to get over that.
I wish I could diagram it. Your people suck. Therefore blame the people that don't want to give a pass to your people. Makes perfect sense! I just don't see how unfettered positive feedback to something effects change (and please, I'm just talking generally about the presidency--I don't need any bullshit about how I want to completely "ruin EVERYTHING, ZOMG"). But if you want to do that fine. Maybe even the Dems will have some come to Jesus moment magically without any consequences. But I don't blame you for extrajudicial death warrant, the lack of meaningful financial reform, or all the wonderful incremental things I'm supposed to SUCK IT UP and be grateful for. I really don't. Pinning the Bush Administration on some Nader voters in Florida is fucking weak and basically authoritarian.
I wish I could diagram it. Your people suck. Therefore blame the people that don't want to give a pass to your people. Makes perfect sense! I just don't see how unfettered positive feedback to something effects change (and please, I'm just talking generally about the presidency--I don't need any bullshit about how I want to completely "ruin EVERYTHING, ZOMG"). But if you want to do that fine. Maybe even the Dems will have some come to Jesus moment magically without any consequences. But I don't blame you for extrajudicial death warrant, the lack of meaningful financial reform, or all the wonderful incremental things I'm supposed to SUCK IT UP and be grateful for. I really don't. Pinning the Bush Administration on some Nader voters in Florida is fucking weak and basically authoritarian.
143
@141 "If I were concocting a perfect troll to hang out on blogs and convince liberals to lie down and give up, it would look pretty much exactly like what you're doing. "
Funny, this is exactly what I thought about you.
Funny, this is exactly what I thought about you.
144
@140
Did you notice how Democrats promptly proved that Nader was right about them when they gave Bush most everything he wanted?
What bush got with at most 51 GOP senators:
- no contest of a blatantly stolen 2000 election
- blank check to do whatever he wanted in Afghanistan
- John Ashcroft nomination
- Iraq war resolution
- Repeated Iraq funding resolutions
- 2001 & 2003 tax cuts
- Patriot Act
- Alito
- John Roberts
- Medicare Part D
etc
Did you notice how Democrats promptly proved that Nader was right about them when they gave Bush most everything he wanted?
What bush got with at most 51 GOP senators:
- no contest of a blatantly stolen 2000 election
- blank check to do whatever he wanted in Afghanistan
- John Ashcroft nomination
- Iraq war resolution
- Repeated Iraq funding resolutions
- 2001 & 2003 tax cuts
- Patriot Act
- Alito
- John Roberts
- Medicare Part D
etc
145
@141 Expanding on that...what you're doing is engaging someone who is your confederate in a totally antagonistic way--my interactions with you in particular have made me want to disengage. You say, I'm calling people stupid for voting for Dems. No such comments were made. If you want to read in to things, OK. If pointing out the truth, which many are unaware of, is trolling then call me a troll.
Yep, I did get worked up. When someone wants to be an asshole about a genuine belief, starts impugning my character because I profess belief there are some pretty fundamental problems we're facing and barely anyone is talking about them or addressing them, I get pretty fucking profane. Consider that this is how people on the 'disengaged left' feel and acting the way you or Fnarf have is not going to endear them to the cause of civic engagement. You say you aren't concerned about me converting me, but even your own argument against me can be used: other people may have my perspective too.
I regret that you think I'm counseling dispair, which I find to be bullshit. Do you need some data on how things are fundamentally not so great? Because there's a plethora of issues that are existentially threatening, not just requiring incremental 200 year plans. These are emergent situations to me. "Putting aside childish things" as partisans like to talk about, also requires facing directly the *real* problems, not the political minutiae of the day--the football game between blue and red.
I'm genuinely very sorry for disparaging you or anyone else. I'm usually at least dispassionate in person but I did get worked up about this too much. I need to take an extended break from Slog honestly.
Yep, I did get worked up. When someone wants to be an asshole about a genuine belief, starts impugning my character because I profess belief there are some pretty fundamental problems we're facing and barely anyone is talking about them or addressing them, I get pretty fucking profane. Consider that this is how people on the 'disengaged left' feel and acting the way you or Fnarf have is not going to endear them to the cause of civic engagement. You say you aren't concerned about me converting me, but even your own argument against me can be used: other people may have my perspective too.
I regret that you think I'm counseling dispair, which I find to be bullshit. Do you need some data on how things are fundamentally not so great? Because there's a plethora of issues that are existentially threatening, not just requiring incremental 200 year plans. These are emergent situations to me. "Putting aside childish things" as partisans like to talk about, also requires facing directly the *real* problems, not the political minutiae of the day--the football game between blue and red.
I'm genuinely very sorry for disparaging you or anyone else. I'm usually at least dispassionate in person but I did get worked up about this too much. I need to take an extended break from Slog honestly.
146
@141 "look, I'm on your side, but give up because politics is a sham."
My guess is I likely have been around for longer than you have and I have never given up but I have also never given in to the fantasy that anything positive would happen without Democrats actually delivering on the rhetoric they campaign on. Handing another blank check to the usual Democrats amounts to giving in to the 40+ years long race to the bottom (did you notice how they voted on the FTAs last week?). If you were to argue for challenging Obama in primaries and holding him accountable before calling to vote for him, we may be able to agree on something.
My guess is I likely have been around for longer than you have and I have never given up but I have also never given in to the fantasy that anything positive would happen without Democrats actually delivering on the rhetoric they campaign on. Handing another blank check to the usual Democrats amounts to giving in to the 40+ years long race to the bottom (did you notice how they voted on the FTAs last week?). If you were to argue for challenging Obama in primaries and holding him accountable before calling to vote for him, we may be able to agree on something.
147
Eric Cantor of all people changed his tone in two days--this is what that mass of non-voting people did. I'm sure folks will argue this has no consequence.
http://thehill.com/video/house/187799-ca…
http://thehill.com/video/house/187799-ca…
148
@146: Well, I've been around long enough to remember Carter (but not to vote for him.) And you know, liberals called him a disappointment and a hopeless sell-out too. Probably the last president with any plan to shift our energy economy away from fossil fuels before irreversible damage on a massive scale was a fait accompli. Certainly the last president before the advent of the modern deficit state.
Yep, Carter was a sell-out and a huge disappointment and might just as well have been a Republican. Ask any good liberal circa 1979. After all, he gave aid to El Salvador. Or some other reason. And you know what? There are some good points to be made. But when I realize that we had a chance to elect a president who was actually attempting to stand up to the oil cartels thirty years ago and good card-carrying liberals couldn't be bothered, it boggles my mind. Meanwhile, conservatives patiently showed up to vote, ran candidates for school boards, developed a national movement from the ground up, and steadily won ground in battle after battle, with the determination of people who believe that even a lost cause is worth fighting for because their reward awaits them in the hereafter.
And every choice we've been offered since then has inched to the right. Politicians learned the lessons we taught them -- don't be a Jimmy Carter. Be a Ronald Reagan. America loves a winner. And liberals, apparently, love to lose.
Yep, Carter was a sell-out and a huge disappointment and might just as well have been a Republican. Ask any good liberal circa 1979. After all, he gave aid to El Salvador. Or some other reason. And you know what? There are some good points to be made. But when I realize that we had a chance to elect a president who was actually attempting to stand up to the oil cartels thirty years ago and good card-carrying liberals couldn't be bothered, it boggles my mind. Meanwhile, conservatives patiently showed up to vote, ran candidates for school boards, developed a national movement from the ground up, and steadily won ground in battle after battle, with the determination of people who believe that even a lost cause is worth fighting for because their reward awaits them in the hereafter.
And every choice we've been offered since then has inched to the right. Politicians learned the lessons we taught them -- don't be a Jimmy Carter. Be a Ronald Reagan. America loves a winner. And liberals, apparently, love to lose.
149
@148 Carter's stance on energy policy was his redeeming quality and he should be acknowledged for it. Besides his pursuing the politics of empire in Central America (he appears to have mellowed with age on this front), he also cut social programs, started the deregulation of the financial sector, and oversaw the deregulation of trucking and airlines. It proved to be the beginning of the end of pensions and fair compensation for labor. In fact, some neoliberals claim that Carter fundamentally accomplished more toward unregulated capitalism than Reagan ever did. Carter's anti-labor policies enabled right wing populism (for example teamsters made a deal with Reagan to delay Carter's deregulation policies in exchange for electoral support) so don't blame the left for pointing out the obvious.
150
This one is for Fnarf:
"A new survey shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the self-styled Occupy Wall Street protests that not only have disrupted life in Lower Manhattan but also in Washington and cities and towns across the U.S. and in other nations. Some 59 percent of adults either completely agree or mostly agree with the protesters, while 31 percent mostly disagree or completely disagree; 10 percent of those surveyed didn’t know or refused to answer."
http://nationaljournal.com/daily/occupy-…
"A new survey shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the self-styled Occupy Wall Street protests that not only have disrupted life in Lower Manhattan but also in Washington and cities and towns across the U.S. and in other nations. Some 59 percent of adults either completely agree or mostly agree with the protesters, while 31 percent mostly disagree or completely disagree; 10 percent of those surveyed didn’t know or refused to answer."
http://nationaljournal.com/daily/occupy-…
151
@140- If all you Gore assholes had voted Nader, we wouldn't be in this mess.
That knife cuts both ways. Plus I voted Nader in a district that went to Gore, so it didn't fucking matter. What does matter is that rather than realizing they were losing their base and making an apathetic voting population more apathetic, the Democrats decided they needed to run even further towards the center and when given power have chosen to govern towards the Right.
That knife cuts both ways. Plus I voted Nader in a district that went to Gore, so it didn't fucking matter. What does matter is that rather than realizing they were losing their base and making an apathetic voting population more apathetic, the Democrats decided they needed to run even further towards the center and when given power have chosen to govern towards the Right.
152
So, 151 comments later, how many of you actually gave some thought to another perspective? Furthermore, how many of you RESPOND rather than react? I count a handful at most. And no Fnarf, that definitely does not include you.
153
@133
Ah. Yes. The James Bond Super-villain method of social change!
The only way to get universal healthcare IS TO BLOW UP THE MOON!
No you don't really want that. When has that worked. Ever? Please name three examples of complete economic ruin where things got better for people afterwards? Argentina? Nope. Russia? WAY no. Go ahead. France after the Terror? Suuuure. After two decades of Napoleon plundering and slaughtering his way across europe. Germany after WWI? That turned out well.
I've lived in failed states and places where the economy has completely crashed. You know what happens? Unless a society can leverage some ultra-valuable resource extraction economy or a war as a quick fix, they don't really rebuild after major crashes. Not in the way you think. Not better. Certainly not in a timeline measurable in anything short of decades.
Here is what happens. Poverty becomes even more entrenched. Wealth disparities increase. Oligarchy tightens it's grip. Shit get's worse. People starve. Wars break out. Millions die. YAY!
You better think things through a little better.
"So, if Obama's what we're going to get, fine, I'd honestly rather see the system crash faster then."
Ah. Yes. The James Bond Super-villain method of social change!
The only way to get universal healthcare IS TO BLOW UP THE MOON!
No you don't really want that. When has that worked. Ever? Please name three examples of complete economic ruin where things got better for people afterwards? Argentina? Nope. Russia? WAY no. Go ahead. France after the Terror? Suuuure. After two decades of Napoleon plundering and slaughtering his way across europe. Germany after WWI? That turned out well.
I've lived in failed states and places where the economy has completely crashed. You know what happens? Unless a society can leverage some ultra-valuable resource extraction economy or a war as a quick fix, they don't really rebuild after major crashes. Not in the way you think. Not better. Certainly not in a timeline measurable in anything short of decades.
Here is what happens. Poverty becomes even more entrenched. Wealth disparities increase. Oligarchy tightens it's grip. Shit get's worse. People starve. Wars break out. Millions die. YAY!
You better think things through a little better.
154
@153 Crashing the system didn't necessarily mean catastrophic failure. Like I said, I am more interested in holding Obama accountable so that a second party emerges. I don't think President Romney means the end of US. I do think we're headed that way, so incrementalism is not going to work. Even that argument is flawed because on many fronts it hasn't. By endorsing the neoliberal econ policies (he even admonished OWSers not to antagonize the fraudsters on Wall St.! this man will never have a moral center) and neocon military policies the administration has kept us straight on the Bush course.
But Ok. let's assume that political and economic collapse does not happen. That somewhere we stabilize as a second world industrial nation (that doesn't make things--we already are an extraction economy, btw). What is your solution? Do we continue climate change, empire, or police statism? There is a precedent for this--the United Kingdom. They eventually chose (after centuries of resistance) to at least stop the colonialism thing. But it requires Americans to be honest, and I don't see that happening now, especially with this type of thread as evidence.
So all the things you said: Oligarchy tightens it's grip. Shit get's worse. People starve. Wars break out. Millions die.
Is that going to be prevented with the course we're on?
But Ok. let's assume that political and economic collapse does not happen. That somewhere we stabilize as a second world industrial nation (that doesn't make things--we already are an extraction economy, btw). What is your solution? Do we continue climate change, empire, or police statism? There is a precedent for this--the United Kingdom. They eventually chose (after centuries of resistance) to at least stop the colonialism thing. But it requires Americans to be honest, and I don't see that happening now, especially with this type of thread as evidence.
So all the things you said: Oligarchy tightens it's grip. Shit get's worse. People starve. Wars break out. Millions die.
Is that going to be prevented with the course we're on?
155
"Even that argument is flawed because on many fronts it hasn't."
I meant "hasn't been incremental improvement."
I meant "hasn't been incremental improvement."
156
@154 Just out of curiosity what the model for this perfect society America could become if only lying politicians would stop selling us out to greedy corporations?
157
@154
Of course it stands a better chance of getting better by trying and working for change rather than throwing your hands up and praying for collapse. Think about it.
Look. We're going to have start off agreeing to some sort of institutional consensus of what our reality actually IS before continuing this discussion.
You will have to first agree that the existence of industrial corporate capitalism and neoliberalism, as flawed as they may be and as corrupt as they have become, have led to more technological inovation and thus more general prosperity than ever before in recorded human history. The way things are now is now how things have always been. Human being made rational (and irrational) choices to change how they did things. And things are better.
Ideas like human rights, women's rights, humanism. These are very recent ideas that have gained traction as a the result of all that human prosperity. The're gaining traction in new places right now. These ideas are growing. People are CHOOSING them. Because they work.
It's no accident that human populations held either very low or fairly steady for tens of thousands years until the last four centuries.
Now suddenly we have too many people. A problem nobody dreamed of four hundred years ago when life expectancy was thirty. Sure. Lots of those people suffer. But it used to be those people just died slow horrible deaths. It used to be all humanity could look forward to was suffering. Now at least there is demonstrable hope for many people, maybe not most people, but better than before. I dunno about you but I find that encouraging.
For god's sake. India and China now have middle classes.
Look we can fix the system. It's young, comparatively. It has bugs. But it's fixable. It may end up looking nothing like what we have now. But praying for the asteroid isn't helping anybody.
Even the our most dire problems are fixable.
More...
Of course it stands a better chance of getting better by trying and working for change rather than throwing your hands up and praying for collapse. Think about it.
Look. We're going to have start off agreeing to some sort of institutional consensus of what our reality actually IS before continuing this discussion.
You will have to first agree that the existence of industrial corporate capitalism and neoliberalism, as flawed as they may be and as corrupt as they have become, have led to more technological inovation and thus more general prosperity than ever before in recorded human history. The way things are now is now how things have always been. Human being made rational (and irrational) choices to change how they did things. And things are better.
Ideas like human rights, women's rights, humanism. These are very recent ideas that have gained traction as a the result of all that human prosperity. The're gaining traction in new places right now. These ideas are growing. People are CHOOSING them. Because they work.
It's no accident that human populations held either very low or fairly steady for tens of thousands years until the last four centuries.
Now suddenly we have too many people. A problem nobody dreamed of four hundred years ago when life expectancy was thirty. Sure. Lots of those people suffer. But it used to be those people just died slow horrible deaths. It used to be all humanity could look forward to was suffering. Now at least there is demonstrable hope for many people, maybe not most people, but better than before. I dunno about you but I find that encouraging.
For god's sake. India and China now have middle classes.
Look we can fix the system. It's young, comparatively. It has bugs. But it's fixable. It may end up looking nothing like what we have now. But praying for the asteroid isn't helping anybody.
Even the our most dire problems are fixable.
158
Correction: "the way things are now is now how things have always been."
Not how things...
Correction: Even the our most dire problems are fixable.
Not how things...
Correction: Even the our most dire problems are fixable.
161
@157 Compared to some abstract ideal of how a society should work the USA looks pretty bad. Compared to how to how most actual human societies do work the USA looks pretty good. America's ruling class demonstrates plenty of short sightedness and venality, but compared to Russian oligarchs or Iranian clerics their not that bad.
162
@161 I know. Just ask the 16 year old American citizen killed by his own government for being the son of his non-criminal dad how great America is even compared to Russia, who've had their share imperial incursions for sure.
@157
"Of course it stands a better chance of getting better by trying and working for change rather than throwing your hands up and praying for collapse. "
Did I say that without later qualifying it? Please don't overreact to my already hyperbolic statements. And again, where are the attempts for progress over the past few years? I see reinforcement of the status quo and more police statism, not incrementally less.
"human rights, women's rights, humanism." I don't know if you've noticed, but these things are going away and the current government is making what amount to cosmetic changes. Things like recognition of rights, even amongst so-called left folks is abysmal.
There's plenty to pat ourselves on the back about. Some of which is happening now and much of which happened in the past with more robust institutions (especially academic institutions that used to laugh at the University of Phoenix model but now embrace it).
I told everybody here that I had 'real' hope. I just meant not the kind you buy for $25 and a refrigerator magnet. Believe me, I'm an engineer. In my short life, some innovations have really surprised me and that technology is one of our hopes. BTW, it's also been quite devastating itself. And we have this thing called the natural world that is dying. People may be dying less but this thing we call progress is killing the place we live. Will we be able to innovate fast enough to make up for the fact America has done absolutely nothing effective for climate change and is planning to ramp up coal and oil? I'm hedging my bets on that one.
More...
@157
"Of course it stands a better chance of getting better by trying and working for change rather than throwing your hands up and praying for collapse. "
Did I say that without later qualifying it? Please don't overreact to my already hyperbolic statements. And again, where are the attempts for progress over the past few years? I see reinforcement of the status quo and more police statism, not incrementally less.
"human rights, women's rights, humanism." I don't know if you've noticed, but these things are going away and the current government is making what amount to cosmetic changes. Things like recognition of rights, even amongst so-called left folks is abysmal.
There's plenty to pat ourselves on the back about. Some of which is happening now and much of which happened in the past with more robust institutions (especially academic institutions that used to laugh at the University of Phoenix model but now embrace it).
I told everybody here that I had 'real' hope. I just meant not the kind you buy for $25 and a refrigerator magnet. Believe me, I'm an engineer. In my short life, some innovations have really surprised me and that technology is one of our hopes. BTW, it's also been quite devastating itself. And we have this thing called the natural world that is dying. People may be dying less but this thing we call progress is killing the place we live. Will we be able to innovate fast enough to make up for the fact America has done absolutely nothing effective for climate change and is planning to ramp up coal and oil? I'm hedging my bets on that one.
163
Here? You're serious? Women have fewer rights today than they did sixty years ago? You cannot support this statement with any sort of fact.
We are currently in a cycle of conservatism. If you look at history humans trend micro-economically to conservatism, socially speaking. Especially when change is on the horizon. But over the long haul we tend to grow rights and to tend grow social capacity. We adapt. We have adapted before. We will adapt again.
Man you ARE full of hyperbole. And all over the place.
The natural world is not dying. Individual species are dying. Probably lots of them. However, the principles of natural selection and evolution are still in effect. The carbon cycle still functions. The natural world is going to be just fine. The earth has gone through a half dozen (or more) near total extinction evens where 99% of all species get wiped out. And yet here the 'natural word' is. Alive and well.
Human civilization I would say is threatened with contraction due to global warming, but very doubtful extinction. Global warming is not even close to the type of traumatic extinction the earth has seen in times past. And we still have time to fix it. We even know HOW to fix it. Running out of oil will help significantly. There's your James Bond Super Villan scenario, if that makes you any happier. Peak oil.
I don't think there is any room here for further discussion if your going to kling to these fringe cases and extremes. Buck up, man. It's really not that bad.
"human rights, women's rights, humanism." I don't know if you've noticed, but these things are going away.
Here? You're serious? Women have fewer rights today than they did sixty years ago? You cannot support this statement with any sort of fact.
We are currently in a cycle of conservatism. If you look at history humans trend micro-economically to conservatism, socially speaking. Especially when change is on the horizon. But over the long haul we tend to grow rights and to tend grow social capacity. We adapt. We have adapted before. We will adapt again.
the natural world that is dying
Man you ARE full of hyperbole. And all over the place.
The natural world is not dying. Individual species are dying. Probably lots of them. However, the principles of natural selection and evolution are still in effect. The carbon cycle still functions. The natural world is going to be just fine. The earth has gone through a half dozen (or more) near total extinction evens where 99% of all species get wiped out. And yet here the 'natural word' is. Alive and well.
Human civilization I would say is threatened with contraction due to global warming, but very doubtful extinction. Global warming is not even close to the type of traumatic extinction the earth has seen in times past. And we still have time to fix it. We even know HOW to fix it. Running out of oil will help significantly. There's your James Bond Super Villan scenario, if that makes you any happier. Peak oil.
I don't think there is any room here for further discussion if your going to kling to these fringe cases and extremes. Buck up, man. It's really not that bad.
164
I know a lot of people that voted for Nader. I know they definitely weren't going to vote for Gore. They weren't fans of the DLC, or Joe Lieberman, and maybe they didn't see how terrifying Dubya and Cheney could be. Or maybe they didn't think a savvy guy like Gore could actually lose a campaign against a homicidal maniac born with fetal alcohol syndrome, or a guy who never polled more than three percent. Gore lost the race because of Gore. And turns out, Nader was right about everything. Ouch. The Democratic party is diseased beyond healing. Weak, ineffectual, and paralyzed with fear. Yet, oddly, the party leaders have no fear of blatantly throwing their base under the bus every single chance they get. Their lack of efficacy stems not only from their battered wife syndrome, but also from their enablers who keep voting for them. A wounded party that is plainly going to stick by its abusers until it is beaten to death. That's fine, but I see no reason to invite myself into that suicide pact with my valuable vote. American people are under no obligation to participate in either party's insanity. We shouldn't throw our votes away by handing mandates to a party that ignores them. As much as it pains me to risk giving power to the Republicans, I think change will come sooner whether Dems are in power or not. The right is far more obsolete than the left. That, plus the right-wing's blind hatred will not only help them eat themselves alive, it will facilitate a far more motivated opposition of young voters than Dems ever will.
The likelier scenario is the occupiers succeed. With or without help from the Democratic party, change will come. For some, the motivation to halt this destructive greed and fraud stems from nothing less than the need to save their own lives. "Beware the ones who have nothing to lose."
More...
The likelier scenario is the occupiers succeed. With or without help from the Democratic party, change will come. For some, the motivation to halt this destructive greed and fraud stems from nothing less than the need to save their own lives. "Beware the ones who have nothing to lose."
165
@162 I agree that climate change is a problem, but I don't think science has discovered any realistic alternative to fossil fuels. We devise new and better ways to extract oil and natural gas from the earth because we have no other reasonable choice. As usual you talk about real problems but not about real solutions.
167
""We're fucked?" "Evidence already points toward things getting worse?" This passes for insight? Who isn't saying that? Ron Paul is saying that, LaRouche too. Hell, Glenn Beck says that." <- True, but when respectable people with the ability to see all sides of an issue say it, as they have begun to lately, is when it actually becomes noteworthy.
168
Ok. I imagine this type of hubris is not new. Gee gosh golly, then I'll buck up. Thanks Slog for the dumping. It's been fun!
Yes, I'm serious. Rights are eroding. If you don't know this, you're not paying attention.
Here's a sample:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-securi…
http://themacadvocate.com/2011/10/11/yes…
http://reproductiverights.org/en/press-r…
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/se…
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financial…
"the principles of natural selection and evolution are still in effect." Umm..OK. If I'm responsible for "fringe cases and extremes," then you're responsible for making equally unqualified statements like this. But I'll take your word for it. Oh the natural world will be fine, per se, with or without us.
Yes, I'm serious. Rights are eroding. If you don't know this, you're not paying attention.
Here's a sample:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-securi…
http://themacadvocate.com/2011/10/11/yes…
http://reproductiverights.org/en/press-r…
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/se…
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financial…
"the principles of natural selection and evolution are still in effect." Umm..OK. If I'm responsible for "fringe cases and extremes," then you're responsible for making equally unqualified statements like this. But I'll take your word for it. Oh the natural world will be fine, per se, with or without us.
169
@165 "As usual," Why do I need to come up with a solution when the government doesn't even take it seriously? First, I'd like it to actually be a recognized problem with more than a mere pittance of attention and rhetoric that it gets. Then we can talk about solutions.
170
@166- Success would be the implementation of serious regulation in financial markets, restriction on spending in political campaigns and a tax code that is as progressive as it was in the late 60s.
171
@170 But, that's dreaming!
Bye people. It was fun but I really do need to take a break from this. Thanks for your benevolent and enlightened teachings!
Bye people. It was fun but I really do need to take a break from this. Thanks for your benevolent and enlightened teachings!
172
@170 Some of those things might be good ideas, but I don't think any of them will bring the jobs back. I suspect that lack of economic opportunity is what is actually motivating many of the protesters.
173
All of this could be fixed if there was a mandatory authorization vote for each tax giveaway (exemption) with a required 2/3rds majority vote of the Citizens at every Presidential General Election.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (173) RSS