Two very interesting articles. The first points out the dilemma of  
Democrats
who need and depend upon Wall Street money, who therefore need to
at least in a de facto sense  oppose the OWS movement, but  who simply
cannot throw away the votes of everyone who supports the cause.
 
The second is a spoof, along the lines of George Wills' supposedly serious  
article
of yesterday in which the looney fringe of the movement was  characterized
as the essence of the movement.
 
BTW, the #Occupy movement has now hit Eugene. Not quite every day
but several protest demonstrations already.
 
Billy
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
 
 

 
 
Occupy Wall Street protests reveal liberal tensions
By Peter Wallsten, Published:  October 13, 2011
The _Occupy  Wall Street protests_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/search.html?st=occupy+wall+street&submit=Submit+Query)
  spreading across 
the country are mobilizing liberal  activists who have been largely sidelined 
in the national debate since helping  to elect President Obama three years 
ago. 
This should be a relief to the White House, which is eager to excite a  
Democratic base that has grown disappointed in the president and less excited  
about reelecting him.  
But it is unclear whether this sudden burst of energy on the American left  
will help Obama and other Democrats. The protests are gaining steam around 
a set  of economic grievances and a wariness of both parties’ reliance on 
corporate  campaign money — and Democratic officials are wondering how, or 
whether, they  can tap into a movement that seems fed up with all brands of 
partisan  politics. 
That tension has been evident in recent days in debates raging online and 
in  person at demonstration sites across the country.  
An Obama strategist from Florida, Steve Schale, posted on his Facebook page 
 that “clamoring for change is hollow unless you vote.” He linked to _an 
image_ (http://yfrog.com/18dwrzgj)  from the liberal Think Progress  blog 
calling on activists to “Occupy the Polls.”  
A former Obama volunteer from central Florida, Madison Paige, retorted on  
Schale’s page that voting alone couldn’t fix the system, saying, “We have 
to be  willing to do the hardest work — and that means taking a look in the 
mirror when  necessary.” 
At Occupy D.C., the McPherson Square encampment inspired by Occupy Wall  
Street, a shouting match erupted this week when a woman describing herself as 
a  longtime Democratic campaign worker encouraged the young protesters to 
express  their concerns by voting, only to be told that voting wasn’t enough. 
Those contentious moments help illustrate the difficulty facing Democratic  
officials as they try to capitalize on the sudden emergence of liberal 
energy  that is growing fast — but expanding largely separate and apart from 
traditional  party institutions. 
Some party allies are trying to help. Unions are providing legal advice, 
food  and Internet service in some locations, with labor leaders intervening 
late  Thursday on behalf of protesters in a dispute with New York City Mayor 
Michael  R. Bloomberg (I) over the use of a Wall Street park. 
Party and White House officials are watching mostly from the sidelines.  
“We don’t know: Is this a sustaining movement or is it a flash of anger?”  
said one House Democratic leadership aide, who spoke on condition of 
anonymity  to discuss internal thinking.  
John Podesta, who as president of the liberal Center for American Progress 
is  a close White House ally, said the party establishment is waiting to see 
what  happens next. “They’ve opened up an important space for a national 
conversation,  but where it goes from here depends on the staying power of 
the organizing  effort,” he said. 
The dilemma mirrors the choice that confronted Republican Party officials 
in  2009 as the tea party movement found its footing and began challenging  
establishment figures in the GOP hierarchy. Over time, a series of 
establishment  groups such as FreedomWorks began coordinating with the 
activists, and 
the  tea-party insurgency began to more closely resemble the energized GOP 
base.  
Liberal activists, though, see the Occupy groups as a potentially more  
unwieldy phenomenon resistant to traditional politics and skeptical of a party  
hierarchy criticized from the left as too cozy with Wall Street. 
That distrust prompted an awkward moment at an Atlanta demonstration last  
week, when Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a legendary protester in his own right, 
was  denied the chance to speak. A _video_ 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI&feature=player_embedded&noredirect=1)
   of the incident, in which 
Lewis looked on uncomfortably as activists rose to  debate whether allowing 
a congressman to speak violated the spirit of the  protest, became an 
Internet sensation.  
“It’s not a danger — if [Obama] handles it properly,” said Steve 
Hildebrand,  an architect of Obama’s 2008 grass-roots organization who is not 
affiliated with  the reelection effort. “I would encourage him to carefully 
listen 
to the people  who are passionately protesting Wall Street, big 
corporations and CEO pay.” 
Van Jones, a longtime liberal organizer and former Obama aide, offered a  
caution as well. Although the protesters may have helped Democrats by “
breaking  the monopoly” owned by conservatives who prevailed in the 2010 
elections 
and  then pushed Washington toward a focus on deficit reduction, he said, 
Obama has  to prove himself to the activists through a more populist 
approach.  
“The fact that Obama has been so close to Wall Street makes this tough 
going  for him,” Jones said. 
Jones said the Occupy demonstrations are happening alongside a renewed push 
 by more established groups on the left to operate more independently from 
the  White House.  
An early galvanizing moment for the left came over the summer, as hundreds 
of  activists were arrested outside the White House gates to protest the 
proposed  Keystone XL pipeline that would connect Canada’s oil sands to the 
Gulf Coast.  Pipeline opponents are now organizing a Nov. 6 demonstration at 
the White House  and have asked Occupy Wall Street activists to converge on 
Washington for the  event.  
Obama and top Democratic officials have so far taken a cautious approach to 
 the demonstrations. 
The president said last week that the protesters were “giving voice to a 
more  broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.” But he 
also  defended his past support for bailing out distressed banks after the 
2008  financial crisis, saying he “used up a lot of political capital, and I’
ve got  the dings and bruises to prove it, in order to make sure that we 
prevented a  financial meltdown and that banks stayed afloat.” 
Even if Occupy activists do not directly back the president, he can benefit 
 from a national focus on the issues they are trumpeting. Recent polls show 
that  deep anger at Wall Street spans the ideological and partisan 
spectrum, with a _new  Washington Post/ABC News survey_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/public-ire-hits-wall-street-and-government/2
011/10/11/gIQAB5iGdL_blog.html)  finding that seven in10 Americans distrust 
 Wall Street financial instutions. That includes 68 percent of independents 
and  60 percent of Republicans. And Obama aides say they see a fertile 
target in GOP  frontrunner Mitt Romney , a former investment banker who the 
president’s  campaign is likely to try and brand as a product of Wall Street. 
Romney, no doubt anticipating the attack, sought to show solidarity with 
the  demonstrators during this week’s GOP candidates debate, saying that “the 
reason  you’re seeing protests . . . is middle-income Americans are having 
a hard time  making ends meet.”  
Obama and his campaign, meantime, have promoted the president’s support for 
 new Wall Street regulations and the creation of a consumer protection 
agency —  legislation that most GOP candidates have pledged to repeal. A 
campaign e-mail  urged supporters to pressure the Senate to confirm former Ohio 
attorney general  Richard Cordray to head the new bureau.  
The note did not directly mention Occupy Wall Street, but it was 
distributed  last week as the demonstrations gained momentum and seemed 
designed at 
least in  part to reassure movement sympathizers.  
“The goal of this campaign — and this President — is to make sure people 
who  work hard and play by the rules get a fair shake, whether that means 
being able  to get a loan to buy a house and send your kid to college, or not 
having to go  bankrupt when you get sick,” the e-mail said. 
Jeremy Varon, a historian at the New School for Social Research in New York 
 City and a liberal activist, described his participation in last week’s 
Occupy  Wall Street march as the most exciting moment in politics for him 
since Election  Night 2008 — and now, he said, liberals are breaking free from 
Obama. 
“I do feel a generation of young progressives has come out of the 
mystifying  shadow of the Obama administration and said to itself, ‘We have 
values 
that this  presidency isn’t going to advance,’ ” said Varon, 44, a vocal 
critic of Obama’s  anti-terrorism policies. 
Several activists camped out in McPherson Square this week expressed a 
range  of feelings about Obama, from indifference to disgust. 
Christina McKenna, 26, quit her waitressing job in Richmond and drove to  
Washington with her 4-year-old twins to remain at the demonstration.  
Seated on a blanket in the grass as her son and daughter frolicked nearby,  
McKenna recalled canvassing and phone-banking for Obama four years ago. 
“But I was younger and more naive then,” she said. She said she would not  
vote for the president this time and doubted he could ever win back her  
support. 
“How good can Obama be when he needs so much Wall Street money?” she 
asked.  “We’re not stupid.” 
=================================================== 
Richmond Times Dispatch 
October 14, 2011  
#Occupy Wall Street: A Manifesto for [Insert Date]
By _Barton  Hinkle_ 
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/?author=Barton+Hinkle&id=19885) 

"We meet every day to decide what our demands are." 
— Hero Vincent, a Wall Street Occupier, quoted in The New York  Times.
We are the union members, students, teachers, veterans and activists who 
make  up the 99 percent of America, if you don't count everybody who is at 
work right  now. We are the unemployed and the art majors and the interns for 
Rainforest  Action Now! 
Also we are the firefighters and the police officers and the paramedics,  
except none of them could be here on account of their fascist shift 
supervisors,  but we know they are with us in spirit. (First responders, you 
guys 
rock!) We  are the lost, the slightly disoriented, and the people who are 
pretty sure they  know where they are if you'd just be quiet for one second and 
let us think,  okay? Jeez. 
Where were we? Oh yeah. We are the makers of homeopathic medicines. We are  
also the Druids. There's a couple of Zoroastrians around here somewhere, 
too (or  at least that is what some of us think the tattoo on the one dude's 
neck  means). 
Also, we are that long-haired welder guy who makes bird sculptures out of  
rebar and old gardening equipment. We are Slightly Creepy Hippie Lady in a 
Van  Who Sells Healing Crystals. We are the young woman with the piercings 
and the  pink hair who just came from the D.C. Slutwalk. We are the guys in 
goatees and  motorcycle boots who can't ride a motorcycle, who are hoping to 
score with  Pink-Hair Girl. 
We are the 99 percent. And we are Here to Stay. 
The Corporate-Owned Media has been misleading people by telling everyone 
our  objectives are unclear. That is a lie. We have been very clear. 
Superduper  clear, in fact. Can't you, like, read our signs? Some of them are 
really 
witty,  too; you should check them out. 
Anyhow. Just to make sure there is NO MORE misunderstanding, here are our  
demands as of about 9 A. to the M. today. 
(1) End corporate greed. Corporate greed is responsible for most of the  
poverty and suffering on this planet. (The bubonic plague and the Cambodian  
killing fields? Don't use your patriarchal "logic" on us, fascist.) 
(2) No one is allowed to make more than the median income. 
(3) Free health care for everybody. Starting . . . riiiiiight . . . NOW! 
(4) Also: Free Mumia! 
(5) Cancellation of all debts, but especially student debts. Corporations  
have no right to expect anything just because we agreed to pay the money  
back. 
(6) Immediate regulation of Wall Street. Real regulation this time, like 
what  Roseanne Barr said: Hand over the money or we cut off your head, pig. 
(7) Universal peace, love, tolerance and understanding. 
(8) Echinacea and bee pollen for everyone. 
(9) No more offshoring. 
(10) Also, no more racism. 
(11) Or pollution. 
(12) Or war. 
(13) (Except for against the Zionist Entity.) 
(14) In order to increase domestic manufacturing employment, repeal NAFTA 
and  all other free-trade agreements. 
(15) Also, outlaw interstate trucking. 
(16) In fact, everybody should probably make everything they need at home.  
(Not counting iPads and stuff like that, because c'mon.) 
(17) Democracy now! 
(18) In union organizing campaigns, unions should be able to sign people up 
 unless they specifically object in writing. (Certified letters only, in  
solidarity with the USPS. No email.) 
(19) Take down the bull sculpture and replace it with a big pot of  
sunflowers, a sculpture of a koala bear (koalas = peace) or a sculpture of a 
guy  
in a business suit stepping on the face of a small child, because that is 
what  corporations do. (We sort of split over which of these should be put in 
place of  the bull. You guys decide.) 
(20) Repeal Citizens United, which is, like, the weirdest decision  ever.** 
(21) A social wage. (Social wage = you get money just for being alive.) 
(22) Fair taxation of rich people so they pay their fair share. ("Fair" =  
2(n), where n = top marginal rate, whatever that happens to be at the  
moment.) 
(23) Five dozen pizzas: four pepperoni, seven pepperoni and sausage, one  
double cheese, 11 chicken and pineapple, 37 veggie lovers, and we have a 
Groupon  for this. 
(24) The Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates must at 
once  take every practicable and feasible step for the realization of the 
Socialist  program. 
(25) Housing is a human right. 
(26) Justice for Troy Davis. (Pretty sure we're too late on this, but Dana  
from Eau Clair insisted.) 
(27) Eight hundred trillion dollars in public infrastructure investment, to 
 be paid for by a windfall profits tax on the banking industry. 
(28) Education is a human right. 
(29) Stop offering to sell us stuff and then agreeing to take our money if 
we  agree to buy it. Everything should be free. 
(30) Something about Glass and Steven Seagal and Graham-Leach-Blakely. We  
think. Willow was taking notes at this point and she has the worst 
handwriting  ever. (Sorry, Willow! ) 
(31) Wi-Fi is a human right. 
(32) This list is not all-inclusive, but it's munchie time. 
(33) (P.S. — Doughnuts are a human right, too.)  

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

<<inline: Untitled.jpg>>

Reply via email to