The Wall Street protests represent the most potentially transforming political movement in generations: finally a revolt against the root problem that corrupts and paralyzes U.S. government. And the nascent movement might actually succeed if we stop turning ordinary Americans against each other along the tired and destructive battle lines of left vs. right.
For the past forty years, the expansion of unchecked corporate power has taken over Washington and state capitals. Armies of industry funded lobbyists, PR firms, think tanks, fake "Astroturf" groups and billions in campaign contributions have quietly corrupted a vulnerable system of government and seized control.
This juggernaut has decimated basic consumer protections and created the biggest gap between rich and poor since the Great Depression. It created the financial meltdown and the Great Recession. It is why nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance. It has created a political system that is more like a heroin addict: dependent on billions of dollars that determine who gets elected, which laws get passed, and which don't. Both major political parties are addicted and beholden.
While the protests are proudly decentralized and leaderless, the unifying theme is "revoking corporate personhood" and "campaign finance reform" that would reverse the January 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision that lifted the flood gates to unlimited corporate money in elections.
Some call the protests a progressive response to the Tea Party movement, and play right into the hands of the corporate juggernaut, whose proxies -- along with a compliant media -- have mastered the art of turning ordinary Americans against each other instead of the real problem.
This is a right-left issue if there ever was one, and the potential to build an unstoppable movement is unprecedented. Just last weekend, liberal and Tea Party activists joined together for an unusual conference about the feasibility of a constitutional amendment to check undue corporate power in elections and government.
The right-leaning Daily Caller wrote, "Tea party activists made common cause with anti-corporate liberals this weekend at a venue quite unlike the firebrand populist movement: Harvard Law School. The improbable allies met to discuss the possibility of a new constitutional convention to address what they see as fundamental failures in the American system of government."
Grassroots liberals and conservatives agree on this issue. But many argue that there are too many differences between them to allow a unified movement. To them I say, find common ground or fail. Fixing this problem will require getting the fox to put a lock on the henhouse. That requires the kind of heat Congress felt after Watergate, when they last implemented sweeping reforms. A unified movement is not the same as seeking compromise between sold out Democratic and Republican politicians; it's about finding common ground between real people across the nation who are all suffering.
76% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats opposed the Citizens United decision. A long-running Gallup poll shows that Americans politically self-identify 40% conservative, 35% moderate and just 21% progressive.
Just look at the numbers. The way we win is by rallying around a democracy reform agenda, being thoughtful about how we talk about it, and building the kind of broad-based political movement that cannot be stopped.
What does a democracy reform agenda look like? Concrete answers are notably absent at the Wall Street rallies, so let me suggest this starting point: we must support an omnibus democracy agenda that both reduces the role of money in elections and politics, and enfranchises and protects voters so that our democracy enjoys full participation.
The actual policies that will save our democracy are wonky, and the list is long -- I will save that for a subsequent post. In the meantime, remember: before any lasting structural reform will advance, we must build a diverse movement of millions that cannot be ignored. Americans from the right and left must abandon the polarizing rhetoric from our leaders and our TV screens, and join hands in support of a 21st century democracy reform agenda that reclaims our government from moneyed special interests.
The future of our nation depends on it. The time has come. The beginning of a much larger uprising is at hand. The journey begins at the Occupy Wall Street website or Rootstrikers.org.
Follow Josh Silver on Twitter: www.twitter.com/unitedrep
Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup
Occupy Wall Street protest: NYPD accused of heavy-handed tactics
Occupy Wall Street protesters driven by varying goals
Occupy Wall Street: SlutWalk NYC
Albuquerque protesters 'Occupy Wall Street'
Occupy Wall Street: Video Update - Censorship in America
Occupy Wall Street Day 13, October 2, 2011
Photos: The Faces Of Occupy Wall Street
Occupy Wall Street: Days Of Rage, Hours Of Opportunism - OpEd
'Occupy Asheville' protesters plan to settle into Pack Square Park
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
That’s obviously not true, Josh. Actually, the unifying theme is economic justice. The misguided obsession you and others have with the Citizens United decision has barely been mentioned. Which is a good thing, because y’all don’t deserve to be taken seriously. You can’t even identify any restrictions that would fairly and effectively level the playing field, nor can you explain who is/isn’t entitled to freedom of the press rights. Instead, you hide behind meaningless rhetoric like “corporations aren’t people” and “money isn’t speech.” Will any of you guys EVER get around to addressing the Court’s reasoning, or to specifying exactly who should be deprived of which rights and why? Among those of you who want to amend the Constitution, will there EVER be any consensus on a proposed amendment?
Not only would it conflict with the First Amendment to give some speakers more rights than others, it just isn’t doable to level the playing field.
Until that cancer is purged from the body politic, nothing else can get done.
They talk about it being "mostly young" people, as if those "young people"( many deep in student loan debt w/no prospects for a decent job to pay back those loans)..have no right to be actively engaged in discussions of this country's direction or how this "bought" government affects their futures.
But..then.. picture persons...gasp.. in their 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's....oops. Displaced workers....and workers who have seen their wages not only stagnate...but decline.
They talk about how so many are "dressed funny"...So if you're not in 1776 garb...or draped in a flag....the US...or Gadsden Flag..are best...or wearing a Lady Liberty foam visor ...or have a six-shooter strapped on your hip...your semi-automatic slung over your shoulder....you.. my friend.. just MUST NOT be bright, serious, or cognizant enough of the issues, policies...and SCOTUS decisions to participate in this Nation's Future. Well guess what....These young people are our future.
Being an "older" American, myself.....It warms my heart and my soul to see these "young people" in the streets....I hope to join you soon.
http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/kyjo2/an_open_letter_and_warning_from_a_former_tea/
But the bizarre and malicious media ploy to re-brand the TP ra.c.ist and rad,ical is so so far out of their character that its unimaginable any one could believe the false accusation as anything other than vicious campaign slander.
I mean the media was speaking with tea party members and coming away from interviews seeing nothing but integrity and respect, when suddenly one day after the tea party candidates were announced the DNC blurts out they're "ra.c.I.st" and "ha.t.e.ful."
But the point of the article is that as far fetched as media blackballing seemed to TP, expect the same attempt to target your group.
The links on Rosa Parks were good too, didn't kmow Rosa was their third try.
1) HOW COME this administration has NOT PROSECUTED ANYONE for wrong doing leading to the financial meltdown? NOT ONE!!!
2) DON’T GIVE POLITICIANS A FREE PASS. They created the conditions for the meltdown by pushing banks into lending money to people the banks knew were unqualified. They did this because, in their elite opinions, “more people should own their own homes”. When the government strays from its constitutional mandate, we all suffer.
3) IF the problem is government corruption (because politicians can and do write special laws for their corporate donors), then the ONLY solution is to REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT. A flat tax with no loopholes or subsidies eliminates the main corrupting influence on our system. Why lobby if the politician can't give your company what you want?
4) ‘Attack the Rich’ may appeal to the envious (and yes, I’ve been there too!), BUT it’s just a DISTRACTION. “Bad economy? Don’t blame me, your congressman (senator, president). It’s those greedy RICH people”. YOU WANT A LIST OF THE GREEDIEST MOST CORRUPT RICH PEOPLE? The one who hardly work and when they do always ask ‘what’s in it for them’? Look up a list of congressmen, senators, the president and his cabinet postings. Rich, greedy, self-serving. Nearly all attorneys. THAT’s who you should be protesting.
What absolute bombast and cr*p that statement is.
How many protest posters over the "Citizen's United" ruling were there?? The entire "Citizen's United" rants are bogus and fake arguments made by liberals intentionally blind to the unseemingly amounts of money procured by unionists before Citizens United.
There's no broad alliance to be made here between a couple of idle whining college kids and hardworking Americans. And there is no larger story other than these are self-indulgent brats. They dont have a coherent message, in the least, and they dont represent any fraction of a segment of America that is meaningful.