The Occupy Wall Street movement really frightens the Right Wing. It is not frightening to the Right because of Congressman Eric Cantor's feigned fear of "the mob" that is "occupying our cities." It is not frightening because anyone is really worried that Glenn Beck is correct when he predicts that the protesters will "come for you, drag you into the street, and kill you."
That's not why they are really frightened -- that's the Right trying to frighten everyday Americans.
There are five reasons why the Right is in fact frightened by the Occupy Wall Street movement. None of them have to do with physical violence -- they have to do with politics. They're not really worried about ending up like Marie Antoinette. But they are very worried that their electoral heads may roll.
1). The narrative. People in America are very unhappy with their economic circumstances. As a result the outcome of the 2012 election will hinge heavily on who gets the blame for the horrible economy -- and who the public believes, or hopes -- can lead them into better economic times.
Political narratives are the stories people use to understand the political world. Like all stories, they define a protagonist and antagonist. And political narratives generally ascribe to those central characters moral qualities -- right and wrong.
For several years, the Tea Party-driven narrative has been in the ascendance to explain America's economic woes. Its vision of the elites in government versus hard-working freedom-loving people has heavily defined the national political debate.
Of course at first glance it's an easy case for them to make. The President, who is the head of the over-powerful, "dysfunctional" government, is in charge. Things aren't going well -- so he, and the government he runs, must be at fault.
The Occupy Wall Street movement has helped force the alternative narrative into the media and public consciousness. The recklessness and greed of the big Wall Street banks, CEO's and top one percent -- those are the culprits who sunk the economy and who have siphoned off all of the economic growth from the middle class. They and their enablers in Congress -- largely Republicans -- are the problem. To address the underlying economic crisis facing everyday Americans we must rein in their power.
This narrative is very compelling and, of course, it is true. It's not that many voices haven't framed the debate in these terms for years. But by creating a must- cover story, the Occupy Wall Street movement has forced it onto the daily media agenda. That is great news for Progressives. The longer it continues, the better.
Right Wing pundits have disparaged the Occupy Wall Street movement for not having specific "policy proposals" -- but the Right knows better. The Occupy Wall Street movement is advocating something much more fundamental. It is demanding a change in the relations of power -- reining in the power of Wall Street, millionaires and billionaires - the CEO class as a whole. It is demanding that everyday Americans -- the 99% -- share in the increases in their productivity and have more real control of their futures -- both individually and as a society. Now that's something for the Right to worry about.
2). Inside-Outside. Especially in periods when people are unhappy, the political high ground is defined by who voters perceive to be elite insiders and who they perceive to be populist outsiders. Who among the political leaders and political forces are actually agents of change?
In 2008, Barak Obama won that battle hands down. The Tea Party Movement muddied the water. It portrayed themselves as "don't tread on me" populist outsiders doing battle with President Obama the elite, liberal insider.
Of course this ignores that the Tea Party was in many ways bought and paid for by huge corporate interests -- but in the public mind it was a very compelling image.
The Right Wing has always had its own version of "class conflict." Its "ruling class" is defined as the elite, intellectuals, bureaucrats, entertainers and academics that are out to destroy traditional values and undermine the well-being of ordinary Americans.
The Occupy Wall Street movement, coupled with the movements in Wisconsin and Ohio earlier this year, present an entirely different -- and accurate -- picture of who is on the inside and who is not.
3). Momentum. Politics is very much about momentum. Human beings are herding creatures -- they travel in packs. People like to go with the flow. Whether in election campaigns, or legislative proposals, or social movements, or football games -- the team with the momentum is much more likely to win.
The Occupy Wall Street movement has put the progressive forces in society on the offense -- it has begun to build progressive momentum.
4). Movement. The Occupy Wall Street movement has managed to turn itself into a real "movement." Movements don't involve your normal run-of-the-mill organizing. Normally organizers have to worry about turning out people -- or voters -- one person or one group at a time. Not so with movements.
Movements go viral. They involve spontaneous chain reactions. One person engages another person, who engages another and so on. Like nuclear chain reactions, movements reach critical mass and explode.
That's what makes them so potentially powerful -- and so dangerous to their opposition.
Often movements are sparked by unexpected precipitating events -- like the death of the fruit stand vendor in Tunisia that set off the Arab Spring. Sometimes they build around the determined effort of a few until that critical mass is reached.
In all cases movements explode because the tinder is dry and one unexpected spark can set off a wild fire.
Movements mobilize enormous resources -- individual effort, money, person power - by motivating people to take spontaneous action.
The Occupy Wall Street movement in New York has spread to scores of cities -- and the fire shows no sign of flaming out. It will fuel the engagement and remobilization of thousands of progressive activists and volunteers who had been demobilized and demoralized, but the sausage-making of the DC legislative process. That is a huge problem for the right that was counting on despondency and lethargy among progressives to allow them to consolidate their hold on political power in 2012.
5). Inspiration. More than anything else, in order to mount a counter-offensive against the Right wing next year, Progressives need to re-inspire our base. We need to re-inspire young people and all of the massive corps of volunteers who powered the victory in 2008.
Inspiration is critical to mobilization. It is also critical to persuasion. Swing voters want leaders who inspire them.
Inspiration is not about what people think -- it's about what they feel about themselves. When you're inspired you feel empowered. You feel that you are part of something bigger than yourself, and that you -- yourself -- can play a significant role in achieving that larger goal.
The Occupy Wall Street movement has begun to inspire people all over America. That's because people are inspired by example. They themselves are inspired if they see others standing up for themselves -- speaking truth to power -- standing up in the face of strong, entrenched opposition. People are inspired by heroic acts -- by commitment -- by people who say they are so committed that they will stay in a park next to Wall Street until they make change. That's what happened in Egypt and Tunisia. That's what happened in Wisconsin this spring.
The legacy of the Occupy Wall Street movement could very well be the re-inspiration of tens of thousands of Progressives -- and the engagement of young people that are so important to the future of the progressive movement in America.
Right-wingers will plant provocateurs in an attempt to stigmatize the Occupy Wall Street movement with violence -- to make it look frightening. But if the Movement continues with the kind of single-minded purpose and commitment that we have seen so far, the Occupy Wall Street movement may very well make history. It has already become an enormous progressive asset as America approaches the critical crossroad election that could determine whether the next American generation experiences the American Dream or simply reads about it in their history books.
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. He is a partner in Democracy Partners and a Senior Strategist for Americans United for Change. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.http://
Follow Robert Creamer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rbcreamer
Iran: Occupy Wall St. will bring down US
Bill Clinton: Wall Street protests can stir 'positive debate'
'Occupy Wall Street' movement sparks clashes, arrests in D.C. and Boston
When occupy Wall Street occupied my Main Street in Fort Collins
Occupy Wall Street Draws Star Supporters
Human Blunder Loses Occupy Wall Street $144000
Occupy Wall Street Gains Measured Support From Some Republican Candidates
 |
 |
|
| 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 |
they banks didnt give a fuck because they were selling all of their clients' debt -consolidated debt obligations, CDO's- disguised as AAA investments. they were making their money either way. so, yes, they did want to make those loans, because they were making bank (excuse the pun) by selling these things off to greedy financial firms
You mean Somalia?
Here we go again, another rightie with the wrong view of history. I remember hearing of a number of protests against the bombings of Bosnia. A simple Google search led to a listing of many demonstrations throughout the country & the world. You can find them at:
http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/yugdemos.htm#NY
Here's a sample: "New York City-->The July 31, 1999 Commission of Inquiry hearing will take place at the Fashion Institute of Technology campus in New York City. We are urging anti-war activists to come to New York that weekend to participate in the Commission of Inquiry hearing and to join us in a national organizers’ planning conference that will prepare the work of the Commission of Inquiry in cities throughout the United States"
Like most right wing provocateurs, passthedorch relies on lies to make his points.
The American Social Contract has been broken.
OWS is just one aspect of a burgeoning Movement of Americans who feel betrayed. It also includes the TEA Party, Unions, Ron Paul, students, homeowners, the homeless, 401k participants...
It is not surprising that this inchoate rage is still unfocused.
These next few years will probably be turbulent.
That IS the single biggest danger. The right WILL do this - Republicans WILL send in outsiders bent on creating problems.
!.the trippie hippies are irrelivent to us 53%ers who actually have lives.
2.Who really cares about clowns, anyway. They are there to be laughed at, not cared about.
3.The trippie hippies are but one of many special interests groups whining about their special interests, while ignoring the other special interests in their midst.
4. We are to busy working or looking for work to bother sitting on a sidewalk, whining about our sitiuation.
5. We have no respect for those who do not know how to clean up after themselves.
98% of statistics are made up - including this one
It is FOR bailing out the PEOPLE with dignity, rather than the alleged "Too Big To Fail" banks (who refuse to help people with problem mortgages); and it is against privatizing the banks’ profits while simultaneously socializing their losses.
While it is NOT anti-capitalism or anti-corporate, it IS is anti off-shoring jobs, it is against so many tax deductions for corporations that barely pay taxes, it is for a fair tax on capital gains, it is for billionaires paying their fair share of the taxes (not everything, just a more fair share), so that the tax burden is not so great on the remaining 99% of us.
It is FOR "Made in America," building manufacturing in the United States, a living minimum wage, an adjusted federal poverty-level definition that takes into account differences in geography and local costs of living, and it is for universal health care.”
Semper fi
CEO's would be paid no more than 2x's the amount of the average worker. And they aren't even doing any actual work!
There would be modifiers that would pay a premium if someone worked in a 'socially responsible' organization. Again the panel would make the determination.
To encourage socially correct employment, the salary would be negatively modified if someone was working for Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Liquor, Big Pharma, Big Finance, Big Software, Big Media, Big Objectifying Women, Big Potato Chip, etc.
Everyone would be assured of being paid a "living wage" and if for whatever reason you weren't working you would still be guaranteed to be paid that wage! Oh...and all debts and mortgages would be wiped out so working people wouldn't be slaving away just to repay debts.
Why couldn't this work? This is what democracy looks like! Right...?
In blue, at the top, you see Obama's top contribution, $1,648,685 from the University of California. McCain's top contribution, in red, was $375,895 from Merrill Lynch. The sum of McCain's top five donations ($1,569,799) does not even add up to Obama's single highest contribution.
McCain's top donation was $375,895. Of Obama's entire top twenty contributions, not a single one is under half a million dollars.
Lehman Brothers and Bank of America, in green, are on McCain's top twenty list. They did not make Obama's. However, Obama received more money from both banks. Neither of those contributions were used in the total sum at the bottom.
. However, those five banks alone contributed $3,603,495, while McCain's eleven banks contributed $2,604,890. And keep in mind that more than just those five banks donated to Obama; they were just the only ones who donated over half a million dollars to him.
In total, Obama's top twenty contributors gave him $13,382,825, while McCain's gave him $4,034,622--meaning Obama had a $9,348,203 advantage.
Some review questions for you: Who did Wall Street buy in 2008? Who would have been more hurt by restrictions on corporate donors? Which party has corporate interests at heart?
The numbers say it all. Class dismissed.
In absolute terms, Obama received more dollars, but in percentage terms , they funded 60% of McCain's campaign, and only 31% of Obama's campaign. So statistically the GOP are twice as beholden to their banking masters.
2, Who would have been more hurt by restrictions on corporate donors?
Both. If only corporations, and not schools and government were restricted, the worst hit would be McCain, because 88% of his contributions would disappear, while only 62% of Obama's would.
3. Which party has corporate interests at heart?
Both. Forever and ever and ever, Amen. When you own both horses, you always win the race.
The people have had enough. Game ON.
Occupy Protesters must be thrilled with this endorsement. It says alot
But don't worry...when these pillars of anarchy...I mean 'democracy' get bored and cold the rest of us will pay to have someone clean it up. Like always.
Semper fi
All the same people are in all the same positions of financial power as they were during the Bush years, and I highly doubt an Obama victory in 2012 is necessarily going to "satisfy" the demands of many of the protesters.
I am almost inclined to just vote republican in order to hasten the downfall of this country's military-industrial-financial-prison complex. I think Obama is far too good a technocrat. Watching Obama is like watching a guy spinning 6 or 7 different plates at once - you think all the plates are going to come crashing down, but they don't because the guy is spinning them all perfectly. Obama is managing an extraordinarily fragile, broken system that for all intents and purposes is ready to collapse, but he's too good to let it all come down. Some republican cowboy j@ck@ss, on the other hand, would easily let the plates come tumbling down and force the people to do deal realistically with problems they have instead of pumping more and more fake money into the rigged system.
That probably won't work too well...
However, look at it this way. If our country/economy were a crippled, sinking ship, putting command of it in the hands of a captain who would immediately sink it, killing all aboard, wouldn't save the ship. Or the people on it. It would get the agony over with faster, I admit.
On the other hand, with a competent captain, there may be a chance to make it to port, thus saving both ship and passengers.
The suicide bit doesn't look like a winner to me.
But yeah, BO has been stressin'. He looks it, too. I would have gone postal already, if I had that job.
No we do not give in. You are right that the end would be quick, but why end it at all.? We can get somewhere if we fight for it. The Tea Party is getting its way by fighting. Let's right some big wrongs and throw these BUMS OUT.
I say we are down but not out.
Is there a Democrat that can lead? Pretty words just will not "get it" with me.
Who??
Leading is being able to negotiate so both parties get a little of what they want without throwing the lives of ALL Americans under the bus.
Obama has not failed in this, because the traditional conservative party that we had during the Eisenhower or even Nixon administrations are long gone. With the beginning of the trickle down disaster, this is 30 years in the making, and I don't believe what is happening with the OWS is even the tip of the iceberg yet