A lot is being made of the memo (pdf) that Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford sent to the American Bankers Association. As a business pitch it’s not too bad. But what’s really telling is how it is assumed that the American Bankers Association automatically would like to see Republicans maintain and increase their control over Washington. It’s something to keep in mind when you’re reading Glenn Greenwald’s interpretation of events. Greenwald is very concerned that the SEIU, the Democratic Party, and other leftist groups are trying to co-opt the #Occupy movement. Yet, I don’t see where he is concerned that right-leaning groups and lobbying firms are trying to figure out ways to destroy it.
I don’t know what he really expects the Democrats to do. Should they distance themselves from the #Occupy movement? Should they make no effort to see their point of view or to incorporate some of their message? Isn’t it bad enough that Democratic mayors are clashing with leftists in the streets? It doesn’t seem like the relationship is too cozy to me.
But this all gets back to the main bone of contention. Whether it’s Wikileaks or the #Occupy protests, they may embarrass the Establishment, but they will do little more unless people get involved in the political process. It has to eventually get translated. Maybe the time is still premature; it probably is. Yet, somewhere on the horizon the change people are seeking will have to take shape as a push for political outcomes, whether that be elections or legislation.
The right is clear that the #Occupy movement is a mortal enemy. The Democrats want to tap into the movement’s energy. What does the #Occupy movement want? That is the only thing that’s not clear. I hope the Democrats do co-opt the message of the 99%. That would be such a big improvement over the crap we’ve been getting for the last twenty years.
was broken on Chris Hayes’ weekend morning show on MSNBC which is far and away the best political talk show on television. He brings on fascinating people who are not drawn from the “usual suspects” pool of political punditry.
.
See my diary – CLGC Proposal to Undermine OWS and Democracy for $850K
(MSNBC) – A well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry (and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio) has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program “Up w/ Chris Hayes.” [VIDEO]
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I think Glenn wants its focus to be purely independent so it can push either party, whomever is in power.
Kinda like what Zinn says here:
Sometimes the difference between two candidates is an important one in the immediate sense, and then I believe trying to get somebody into office, who is a little better, who is less dangerous, is understandable. But never forgetting that no matter who gets into office, the crucial question is not who is in office, but what kind of social movement do you have. Because we have seen historically that if you have a powerful social movement, it doesn’t matter who is in office. Whoever is in office, they could be Republican or Democrat, if you have a powerful social movement, the person in office will have to yield, will have to in some ways respect the power of social movements.
We saw this in the 1960s. Richard Nixon was not the lesser evil, he was the greater evil, but in his administration the war was finally brought to an end, because he had to deal with the power of the anti-war movement as well as the power of the Vietnamese movement. I will vote, but always with a caution that voting is not crucial, and organizing is the important thing.
But while I agree that independent movements are important, I simply do not believe Republicans can be pressured into doing these things when they’re just as afraid of their own stupid, “what’s the matter with Kansas” base. This wasn’t always the case, but it is now. The full impact of the SS is rearing its ugly head for the beginning of the final battles.
Keeping things more independent work well in my generation, I think. We’re much less partisan, and we haven’t had a major culture issue that divides us (at least not yet). There was no Roe v. Wade, no Civil War, no Civil Rights…nothing like that which will make people solid partisans. I also think the explosion of the internet facilitated this to happen.
So for now, our only hope is pressuring Democrats:
I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren’t them.
Quote: “I think Glenn wants its focus to be purely independent so it can push either party, whomever is in power.”
Okay, I know I’m being a crank, but I think this is about the third time I’ve seen this construction today, so let’s start here:
It’s “whoever is in power,” not “whomever is in power.”
Thank you. As you were.
No, I like grammar corrections so I don’t make the same mistakes in the future. In this case, I had another sentence in my head where “Glenn” was still the subject, so it would have worked. I seem to make a lot of these mistakes on this forum in particular — the forum where you can’t edit your fraking comments 🙂
Ahem.
I believe it should be “frakking”, not “fraking”.
😉
Ha! Been there too. I shoulda knowed. 🙂
Anyway, what I should’ve said instead of my silly grammar point is:
Quote: “So for now, our only hope is pressuring Democrats:
I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren’t them.”
I agree. Well put.
To co-opt a movement is to destroy it as well. My guess is that the relatively more “progressive” wings of the party would love to have the energy of OWS channeled into supporting the same slate of candidates who will shove the same brand of neoliberal capitalism down our throats. Given that the Occupy movement has been very anticapitalist – at least given the rhetoric and actions that I have observed – to get sidetracked into supporting the slightly kinder, gentler version of more of the same would effectively suck all the energy out of the movement. No energy, no threat, at least in the minds of the corporate elite. That’s not to minimize the other stuff you’re talking about, of course. But really this seems more like comparing passive aggression to active aggression – either way the intended target gets hurt.
Comrade: you are definitely one of the people I nearly always agree with. On this we part ways. One can co-opt a movement to destroy it, and often those in power try this. What actually takes place though is that it is through the co-option that movements actually get things done, outside of actually becoming a full-fledged systemic revolution. Whether a movement becomes that depends on how much actually changes at the moment in the system.
Greenwald annoys me, because he is ostensibly on the left but is all ideas. He is not revolutionary, so he doesn’t want an actual revolutionary systemic change. At the same time, he doesn’t want the actual mechanism by which movement affect change within a system–co-option–to happen, because he is lost in pure ideas.
I to be honest am very impressed with OWS and am starting to feel like this may be when in my lifetime, the pendulum swings the other way. Maybe even more.
I’ve never been a huge Greenwald fan. I think your reasoning as to why Greenwald is quite annoying is sound enough. Needless to say, it’s probably a safe bet that I’m reading some other writers instead. 🙂
That said, one thing I do believe is that the OWS movement is planting the seeds for something bigger and better. What that will look like, I honestly don’t know. All I know is I share your optimism.
I was re-reading an old essay by Rudi Dutschke (On Anti-authoritarianism) where, although written in a different historical context, I see some parallels to today’s Occupy movement and our current situation. Not the easiest of reads, but it does give food for thought – and I doubt anyone would ever accuse Dutschke of being strictly an ideas person.
FWIW, here http://libertystreet.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/where-now/
and here http://libertystreet.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/occupy-duration/
are my thoughts.
Since we’re linking away, something from the one and only Al Giordano:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/4664/trait-du-savoir-vivre-occupy-wall-street-generations
A million dollar PR campaign to smear the youth of this country…just might back fire. This may could be the thing that gets them to register and vote.
I sure hope it backfires. We need to keep a big ol’ light shining on what they’re up to.
Booman, did you happen to read any of the comments at the Glenn Greenwald thread? That was sure depressing. Some of those guys are as crazy as the folks at FDL. And whatever happened to Greenwald anyway? Was he always that way and it just wasn’t noticeable when Bush was in office? He’s like a child with his “Mine! Mine! Mine!” protectiveness of OWS.
Greenwald, like Krugman and Somersby and damn few others (certainly no one on the right), is clearly on one side but holds both sides equally accountable by the same criteria.
A lot of people have trouble with that approach.
I see. So, from your perspective anyway, if I have a problem with Glenn Greenwald, it’s just that: my problem.
Well, let’s focus a bit and address the point booman made: Why is Glenn upset that labor has embraced OWS? Does their support for Obama make them impure in some way? Does he think their lack of purity makes them dangerous to what OWS is trying to accomplish?
You know, maybe you’re right: Maybe Glenn is simply holding left and right to the same standard. But, back when Bush was in office, I missed the fact that Glenn had a purity test. My complaints against Bush were not that he was “impure”, but that his wrongs were so egregious. I simply missed that Glenn’s objections to Bush were apparently ones of fastidiousness.
Now I see that. And I find it utterly exasperating.
Greenwald, like Krugman and Somersby and damn few others (certainly no one on the right), is clearly on one side but holds both sides equally accountable by the same criteria.
Both sides are just the same!
I don’t like this agonizing strain for false equivalency from Tom Friedman and the Washington Post, and I don’t like it when employed by alleged leftists. It’s an abdication of responsibility to tell the truth, and you end up downplaying the crimes of the worst and exaggerating the problems of the best in order to maintain your pox-on-both-houses stance.
I think you misread that.
“hold[ing] both sides equally accountable by the same criteria” is not at all similar to saying “both sides are just the same!”
The first is to view the world objectively, to the extent possible. So, for example, if you believe that torture is wrong when committed by Saddam Hussein, you conclude that it is also wrong when committed by George W. Bush.
That’s not the same as saying that George Bush is the same as Saddam Hussein.
That’s all Glenn Greenwald is doing. To take one of many examples, it was revealing when many people who strongly agreed with him when he criticized the Bush Administration for asserting the State Secrets Doctrine to dismiss lawsuits changed their position when he criticized the Obama Administration for doing the same thing.
That’s far different from saying that Barack Obama is the same as George W. Bush.
If you interpret this type of criticism of the Obama Administration as creating false equivalencies, you are either not understanding the argument or the term “false equivalencies.”
There are lots of valid reasons to criticize or disagree with Glenn Greenwald, but this isn’t one of them.
“hold[ing] both sides equally accountable by the same criteria” is not at all similar to saying “both sides are just the same!”
The former is how you describe it when done by somebody you like, while the latter is how you describe when done by someone you don’t like.
That’s all Glenn Greenwald is doing.
Glenn Greenwald makes shit up and tortuously spins the evidence to get the false equivalency he wants. That he claims to be doing so for reasons of High Leftist Principle doesn’t make his Friedman act any more admirable.
Well, this isn’t that productive.
You failed to respond to what I wrote entirely, and then made a generalized unsupported attack on Glenn Greenwald.
I have to assume you aren’t responding in good faith. Have a nice day!
Was he always that way and it just wasn’t noticeable when Bush was in office?
A lot of Bush’s critics got inflated reputations during his presidency because he just made it so easy.
Quote: “A lot of Bush’s critics got inflated reputations during his presidency because he just made it so easy.”
Hard not to start suspecting there’s a lot of truth to this…
But they are involved in the political process, just not in the way that you would prefer, I guess. There are many ways to get involved politically, and not all of them involve writing your Congressman or making sure to vote for the correct political party. I’d argue that occupying public space is a much more political action than merely voting for a political candidate, or even knocking on doors for one.
Imagine if past social movements — take the civil rights movement or the labor movement during its heyday as examples — had limited themselves to electoral politics.
Of course elections also matter, but I’m tired this view that electoral politics is the most important way to affect change. That hasn’t been the case throughout our history, and based on the systemic roadblocks that exist today, its even less likely to be the case now.
That’s not to say that I don’t hope that the Occupy movements are working on next steps. Holding onto public space in order to have a true deliberative process is critical, but to address the enormous problems they’ve identified will require more than that.
Coming up with an effective response to police is an important next step. The occupiers will have to remain disciplined — its hard to remain nonviolent in the fact of brutality. But they’ll also have to find a way to reach the point where the police are refusing to fire on the people, as we had in Egypt, or even laying down their arms and joining them, as we had in East Germany.
I’m not saying I have an idea whether that’s possible in this country, or how that might happen. But a movement about the 99% should include the police, and finding ways to get them to realize this and stop defending those who want to steal their pensions and foreclose on their homes in order to fund their lavish lifestyles is key.
Imagine if past social movements — take the civil rights movement or the labor movement during its heyday as examples — had limited themselves to electoral politics.
BooMan isn’t saying they should limit themselves to electoral politics, just that they shouldn’t ignore electoral politics. He wants them to walk and chew gum at the same time, like the Civil Rights movement, which sure as hell supported LBJ over Goldwater.
Who said anything about ignoring electoral politics?
If what you mean is that the Occupy movements should all vote the Democratic Party ticket in 2012, or announce that they are going to do that now, I think that both fundamentally misunderstands social movements generally and this movement in particular.
First off, this is a horizontal movement. Who exactly is going to tell “them” not to ignore electoral politics? I’m sure many occupiers will vote, and many will not. But that’s kind of beside the point. The success of this movement, like all social movements, will have little to do with voting.
You pointed to one election decades into the civil rights movement, where supporters of the movement broadly supported one candidate over another. But that was only after years of sit-ins, boycotts, freedom rides, marches, and other forms of direct action had forced elected officials like LBJ to take legislative action. That’s hardly similar to the situation today, where a movement is just being born and neither political party has yet taken any action to address the systemic problems they’ve identified, or even acknowledged that they understand what the movement is about.
Even if there were leaders who could direct occupiers how to vote, I think that would be a fundamental mistake. First off, a movement aimed at working on behalf the 99% cannot tie itself to one political party. Its absolutely true that the Republican Party in its current incarnation will not be responsive, while there is at least a chance that the Democratic Party will, if pushed hard enough. But it would be a huge mistake to alienate the more than half of the 99% who aren’t members of and don’t particularly like the Democratic Party.
This isn’t the Democratic Party’s version of the Tea Party, and that’s a good thing.
Second, voting for “more and better Democrats” doesn’t really address the problems identified by the Occupy movements. As I said, I think we are generally better off when Democrats are in power. But that doesn’t mean that they should be seen as natural allies — they need to pushed into doing the right thing by the people. That’s how every social movement in the past has operated — its only in the past few decades that left of center interest groups have started announcing that they’ll support Democrats no matter what, and the result has been catastrophic. The day the Occupy movement decides to become a wing of the Democratic Party is the day it dies.
I am confident OWS will ultimately fail. But if you look at the history of the labor movement in the US it is mostly a long list of failures but ultimately resulting in success – success that lasted until 1981.
The problem is the powers that be, using their control of media and the police/military, can squash the protests but like a dose of morphine that just temporarily addresses the symptoms, not the underlying causes.
And the underlying economic causes will continue to get worse and worse under the leadership of the Washington consensus – and yes, that includes the Democratic leadership. The focus is still on deficits, austerity, and making the middle class pay while the military and finance industries make out like bandits – and this is true of both parties, only to differing degrees.
I see OWS as act 1 scene 1 of what is going to be a very long power play. And I am certain that climate change will become a central theme of this power play before it is over.
Quote: “I see OWS as act 1 scene 1 of what is going to be a very long power play.” So how does that make OWS a failure? Do all scenes, all acts, fail simply by coming to a conclusion?
Lynn Dee, you’ve made more than one smart comment on this thread. Well-played.
“What does the #Occupy movement want? That is the only thing that’s not clear. “
This is a meme that is being repeated and repeated as if it weren’t a reflection of journalistic laziness. Just once, why not go into the very simple and obvious answer:
Ummm.. They want democracy.
You want policies? Firstly, that’s not their job. They are demanding a result.
Secondly, they HAVE suggested ways to get there from here, including a constitutional amendment that denies person-hood to corporations, another that mandates public funded elections, to a demand for nationalized medicine. But again, all they really want is to have the government begin to work for them again. And no one is saying that they all won’t vote or work for candidates except those in ‘journalism.’
Thanks for your comment. I’m tired of hearing “it’s not clear what they want” since they explicitly want several things, as you list – among them, democracy to work on behalf of a reversal of the wealth gap. I have not attended #OWS but I occasionally read postings and related articles – the following link re: banking, for example
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carne-ross/wall-street-banks_b_983684.html
btw, I’ve heard and seen advertising by small banks, community banks “transfer your accounts to our bank, …[community based, etc]” this weekend, very interesting.
Yeah, I don’t understand how anyone can remain uncertain. Its hard to think of a movement in American history that has been more straightforward and clear about what they want. Perhaps that’s the problem: its hard for some people to think about the implications of the Occupy movements, as that would require acknowledging that “more and better Democrats” isn’t likely to solve the problems they’ve identified.
Personally, I’m happy that the Democratic Party is attempting to co-opt the message. Its about time that they started speaking like the center-left party that they claim to be. I’m sick of hearing Democrats bitch about deficits and demanding “austerity measures.” Changing the conversation is a good thing, and while it would be disappointing if that was all that was accomplished by the Occupy movements, that would still be an important success.
But I don’t have any illusions that the Occupy movements are going to suddenly pack up their things because of some pretty words from Democrats, nor should they.
If the Democratic Party ends up changing our system for the better through legislative action, they will have to be led to that kicking and screaming by outside movements not beholden to a particular political party. That’s how its always happened in the past. To expect politicians to go against their career interests without being pushed to do so by people from the outside is naive. The hope is that they’ll eventually follow the people’s lead. If you expect it to go the other way, you’ll be disappointed.
You know, I had a long conversation tonight about the #Occupy movement with a couple of progressive friends and CG. And one of the things that occurred to me is that the #Occupy movement really reminds me of nothing more than the Punk movement.
It shares several qualities with Punk. There’s the DIY element. There’s the middle finger element. There’s the “we’re not going to have this stupid conversation” element. Punk managed to be a politics statement without itself ever being political.
It did flirt with politics on the edges. It veered towards racism in places and towards anti-racism/anti-imperialism in others. It got caught up in the anti-nuclear movement a bit. It was anti-commerical and anti-corporate. It was against bourgeois values. But it was also rejection of the new left’s approach to things.
But it was also absurd.
Here’s David Byrne’s punk classic “Don’t Worry About the Government (1977)”
They key line? “They own the buildings to help them along.”
Without that one line, you wouldn’t understand the song at all. You might take it literally.
We’re in the streets because of our government. But don’t worry about the government. Is that Dadaism?
“No, we’re just here to occupy space.”
Byrne’s mocks the complacency of people who only seek every convenience and a little space to be with their loved ones and toil at their work. But what would he have them do instead?
Perhaps give up the comfort of that apartment and go occupy some cold, uncomfortable public space?
Yes, I think the #Occupy movement is a slightly less nihilistic and much less irreverent version of Punk.
Forget about Greenwald’s take on OWS. Let’s go right to Greenwald’s take on Wall Street itself, and the two parties’ stance towards them.
Greenwald keeps telling us that the two parties are just the same, that any differences are just for public consumption, but he’s so much smarter than the masses (who are always other people), and sees right through this charade.
Well, Wall Street and the Republicans don’t seem to agree. But why should we listen to them? What would they know about their own relationship and political interest, amirite?