One of the most interesting questions for the Occupy movement relates to how it might engage with the existing political system, especially with an election year looming.

Many respected voices from outside the movement have urged that it work from within the Democratic Party, much as the Tea Party has done with the GOP.  See, for example, this recent piece by George Lakoff, where he draws a comparison to the Tea Party:

What's next? That's the question being asked as cities close down Occupy encampments and winter approaches.

The answer is simple. Just as the Tea Party gained power, the Occupy movement can. The Occupy movement has raised awareness of a great many of America's real issues and has organized supporters across the country. Next comes electoral power. Wall Street exerts its force through the money that buys elections and elected officials. But ultimately, the outcome of elections depends on people willing to take to the streets - registering voters, knocking on doors, distributing information, speaking in local venues. The way to change the nation is to occupy elections.

Whatever Occupiers may think of the Democrats, they can gain power within the Democratic Party and hence in election contests all over America. All they have to do is join Democratic clubs, stick to their values, speak out very loudly and work in campaigns for candidates at every level who agree with their values. If Occupiers can run tent camps, organize food kitchens and cleanup brigades, run general assemblies and use social media, they can take over and run a significant part of the Democratic Party.

And from, Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker:

For O.W.S., though, there is danger ahead. Winter is coming. The strategy of static outdoor encampments is straining the patience even of sympathetic mayors in cities like Oakland, where last week riot police stormed the site and a Marine veteran was left in critical condition. If the weather and the cops pare the numbers in the camps, it’s far from unimaginable that ideologues in the mold of the Old New Left—people for whom the problem is “capitalism” per se, as opposed to a political economy rigged to benefit the rich at the expense of the rest—could end up dominant. As it is, the Occupiers’ brand of romantic participatory democracy can too easily render their decision-making vulnerable to a truculent few. In the most notorious example, Representative John Lewis, the revered civil-rights hero, was prevented from speaking at Occupy Atlanta—not because the crowd didn’t want to hear from him (the great majority did, as they signalled, in the movement’s semaphore language, with raised hands and wiggling fingers) but because one man clenched his fists and crossed his forearms, thereby exercising a consensus-breaking “block.” A vegan filibuster, you might say. The pollsters tell us that Americans like O.W.S.’s essential message. They like the Occupiers, too—not as much as they like the message, but more than they like the Tea Party. But if the pressures of hypothermia, frustration, and correcter-than-thou one-upmanship converge to push them toward more provocative, less mellow forms of civil disobedience—“occupying” a nice warm state capitol building, for example—the messengers will mess up the message. And the public will cross its fists.

Unlike the Tea Party, which was born when the alien/socialist enemy held all three of Washington’s elected redoubts, Occupy Wall Street inhabits a different political world, one whose most prominent figure, the President, has fallen short of not only many Occupiers’ hopes but also his own—in large part because of the Republicans’ conscienceless exploitation of the perverse veto points of the congressional machine. Yes, O.W.S. has “changed the conversation.” But talk, however necessary, is cheap. Ultimately, inevitably, the route to real change has to run through politics—the politics of America’s broken, god-awful, immutably two-party electoral system, the only one we have. The Tea Partiers know that. Do the Occupiers?

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/11/07/111107taco_talk_he...

The choice to get in bed with the GOP was not without controversy for many Tea Partiers, who felt that their grass-roots efforts (yes--there really is, or at least was, a grass roots Tea Party!) were utterly coopted by the GOP machine and big money from the Koch brothers, Dick Armey,etc.  It seems that the lesson being learned from their experience by many on-the-ground Occupiers is to avoid that fate by adopting a strict "non-partisan" stance (officially, at least) and to cast the Dems, and affiliated groups like MoveOn, as part of a system that cannot be reformed from within.

Here at Occupy Cafe, Mark E. Smith has argued passionately for an election boycott as the only rational response to a system that fails to count our votes accurately and is utterly corrupted by big money.  While I am sympathetic to this argument, for me (and many others, I imagine) this stand evokes painful memories of Nader 2000.  The world would be a very different place today if he had stepped out of Florida, voter suppression and recount-rigging notwithstanding.  No way Gore takes us into Iraq after 9/11.  Instead, I could well imagine him using the attacks as a launching pad for a global shift from oil to renewable energy.  

And then there's the Supreme Court. Gore wins, no Roberts or Alito and Citizens United goes the other way, not to mention a host of other crucial decisions.  And the winner in 2012 is likely to get one or more appointments as well.

On the other hand, we have Obama behaving time and again as if he is captive to the same monied interests and/or deeply misguided institutional biases and assumptions that have characterized presidential politics for decades across both party lines.  And then there's the fact that he and the and others at the highest levels of the Democratic establishment have at best turned a blind eye to the abusive tactics of police towards the encampments, while many Democratic mayors have been active parties to it.  So it is understandable that many in the movement are deeply unhappy with Obama and the Dems, are protesting the DCCC despite its expressed support for the movement, etc.

There's another important aspect to his situation as well: the Occupy movement may be nominally non-partisan, but its "members" and supporters also clearly lean Left on average, to the extent that such a spectrum has meaning.  If we want to be "non," or even "trans" partisan in any meaningful sense, we need to start by acknowledging who is currently in the room, and whether or not that room is truly welcoming to people who consider themselves Centrists, Right of Center, Libertarian, etc.

I had one Occupy Cafe member remark that he had never seen so many angry liberals gathered in a single phone call before.  He almost didn't come back.  Fortunately, when he did he was pleasantly surprised when his random small group breakout landed him with someone whose views were far closer to his own.  I think that for now, we need to treat representatives from portions of the politcal spectrum outside the progressive wing as precious and honored guestsin this house.  Otherwise our "99%" slogan is merely empty rhetoric.

At the same time, we should be honest about the fact that many, although certainly not all, of the policy ideas being advocated throughout the movement have a history of being associated with the Liberal/Progressive end of the political spectrum.  If we deny that and try to limit peoples' energy only to those ideas that have a chance of appealing across the board in the current US political environment (getting money out of politics comes to mind as the signature initiative with this potential), I believe we will stifle much of the creative juice that is currently flowing and create a huge schism in the movement.

So... I am interested in hearing what YOU think about these questions, and in seeing if either some consensus or a clear outline of the various positions that define this terrain can emerge.  I suggest that you limit your posts to a single idea at a time, and also try to keep them fairly brief, in order to help keep this thread coherent, easily followed and in the nature of a dialogue rather than a series of diatribes.  

I realize I haven't helped matters by mixing a few different points together under this general theme.  Nor have I practiced the brevity I am now preaching.  Nevertheless, I hope that this discussion can model a higher order of "asynchronous" dialogue.  Are you up for the challenge?

We might start with these questions: 

  • How might the Occupy movement effect major change in the near term without working within the current political system?
  • How might the Occupy movement engage in electoral politics without being co-opted by major players within the political system?
  • What does it mean to be a movement of "the 99%?"  For example, the latest Pew Research Center survey shows that only 38% of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activity and is a very serious problem.  Does that mean global warming is off the table for the Occupy movement?

Please note that this is a hosted discussion.  We will periodically be asking people to step back or step up, to make sure it is balanced and there is space for all voices to be heard.  We will also ask that side conversations that emerge be taken onto new discussion threads so that this core conversation remains focused and readable.  Thank you in advance for your help with this, and if you are interested in hosting a discussion yourself, please email connect@occupycafe.org.

 

Views: 940

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Susan, I was an election integrity activist and an advocate for hand-counted paper ballots for many years before I stopped voting. Mention my name to early advocates of HCPB like Sheila Parks, Vickie Karp, and Paul Lehto, if you don't believe me.

I only stopped voting when I realized that the problem isn't who votes, how they vote, or how the votes are counted, but that the Constitution gave the final say to Congress for Congressional elections (Article 1, Section 5), and to the Supreme Court for Presidential elections. 

A situation in which the government has the final say, instead of the will of the people being the final say, is not a democratic system of government. It may be more tyrannical or less tyrannical, but it is not democratic at all.

Unless you want to argue that the dictionary definition of democracy, supreme power over government vested in the hands of the people, is incorrect?

In a system where supreme power over government is vested in the hands of the people, the people have the final say, not Congress or the Supreme Court. In such a government, voting is a precious right, as it is the means by which people exercise their power. In such systems who votes, how they vote, and how the votes are counted are of utmost importance. But in a plutocracy where votes don't even have to be counted at all, and are not the final say in who takes office, it is a sham. If my vote doesn't have to be counted and is not the final say, the way in which votes are miscounted or go uncounted are secondary to the fact that it is not a democratic system to begin with.

Suppose you and I were sister and brother (in the larger scheme of things we are, of course), but I mean in a traditional family where we were both children, as a hypothetical example of what democracy is about. You and I might be allowed by our parents to vote on what to watch on TV that evening. But if there was something important on TV that they wanted to see, and only one TV in the house, our parents could override our vote. That might be wise, as we might make poor choices. But until we grow up, move out, and get TVs of our own, the final decision on what to watch is not ours, it belongs to our parents. As a child I was annoyed that my parents strictly limited what we could see on TV, as I'd have preferred to watch cartoons than Presidential debates. Now I'm 71 and I know I was right--I haven't owned a TV in decades, and if I did, I know I could learn more from cartoons than from Presidential "debates."

 

Mark, you have come to your comfortable place that justifies for you your position and stand. I do not agree with you and for me even your base for your stand is a false assumption.

If I had to go with your stand, I would have to say the the act of living here is what gives the implied consent, not the act of voting. The acts of voting or not voting are actually pretty much the same in your argument, just different paths of choice with different outcomes. Not voting would just be a passive consent. What about paying taxes? Isn't that giving consent as you define it? Do you continue to use government services? Would not the use of government services also imply consent?

If I needed to go to the hospital for emergency care, giving consent to have a broken finger fixed does not mean I give consent to have a lung transplant or agree to avoidable wrong and mistreatment. I think the same goes for those elected and how they do or do not represent the citizens. For me, expressing a choice in an election does not give implied consent but I can see where that act of my living here might. I'll think about that.

I do understand the compelling call to not vote but I think the reality is that is is the dream and desire of the far-right-wing conservatives that the population not vote. I can clearly imagine a Karl Rove strategy meeting where they discuss how to get the progressive liberals to not vote and come up with the "We Do Not Consent" campaign.

I just voted a month ago and the voter turnout was around 10%. I voted for a man that I respect and like even though he ran unopposed because I needed to make a statement of support. I made the decision to not vote in the other three of four races and truth is, in this case it made no difference. Even with all of that, I found it hard to vote because I know without any doubt that the machines are easily hacked and manipulated with malware. I first became aware that politics are dirty and rotten when Pres. Kennedy was shot. In 1980 I became aware that there was something very wrong with elections and in 2000 and 2004, I could not understand why we were not in the streets in the millions.

Voter turn our now is in the upper 30% range for non-presidential years and the mid 50% range for presidential years and it has been like this since the seventies so you have had years of 40-60%+ participating in your form of "I do not consent" and all it has done is enable the the 1% to gain more power and control, especially with the propaganda machine.

I also would like to say that until 8-9 months ago, I was not familiar with any of the names you mentioned and now I only know one of them.I wonder what it is that has kept those that care about elections and voting from discovering each other and being able to work together. I say that because I have spent years of my life working on this issue.

There are many things about the government that I would like to see changed but I am going to stand firm on my position that Hand-Counted Paper Ballots are the most important first step.

Peace

A good reminder, Susan:

 

"I do understand the compelling call to not vote but I think the reality is that is is the dream and desire of the far-right-wing conservatives that the population not vote. I can clearly imagine a Karl Rove strategy meeting where they discuss how to get the progressive liberals to not vote and come up with the "We Do Not Consent" 

I think in every stand we take; every stand we advocate we should avoid being reactive, avoid being simply angry and defiant we should examine the likely outcome, the consequences of..everything we stand for, everything we advocate, consider whether those consequences are positive for te whole, whether those conequence serve life, serve the disnfranchised productively constructively, engage peoples eneges productively , constructively. 

 

I would like to suggest that the election boycott conversation has been sufficiently played out within this discussion thread, and to the extent people desire to do so, they continue it on Mark's "When the Governed Don't Consent" thread instead.

Mark has staked out one clear position: not only should Occupy as a movement stay out of electoral politics-- as individuals we ALL should do so as well.  For those who hold to the idea of Occupy staying out of the elections (for whatever reason), I think the next question to explore for this dialogue is around what the movement might do (other than a boycott of elections) to effect systemic change.

Meanwhile, there is the question of how to address the strong progressive tilt that currently exists in a movement.that purports to be "of the 99%," especially to the extent that you might want to take a different approach from Mark and advocate for involvement in the upcoming electoral cycle.

Ben Roberts

Since Ben does not wish me to respond to his latest comment, which specifically names me, here in this forum where he has specifically named, me, I have responded to him in the forum to which he suggests I restrict my comments:

http://www.occupycafe.org/forum/topics/when-the-governed-don-t-cons...

It is a form of censorship to name somebody in a forum but not allow them to respond in that same forum. 

well said and across the board I am in complete agreement with everything you have said in this post.  tx.

Ben

On the agenda for non-partisan above partisan raegets for occupy is abolotion of the Federal Reesrve System and U.S. withdrawal from the IMF and Wolrd Bank all of hich harneese our national debt to private unterests; which puts the creation of national debt in the hands of bankser instead of we the people; which determines the use of the debt for private interests not we the people.  

I just posted a link to this video which I encourage everyone to see..it' sin plain English, it won't make anyone's eyes glaze over and I think it outlines a brilliant master plan. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nNumEm2NzQA#!)

As some of you may know the President under the advice of Tresury Secretary Tim Geithner, a creature of the Federal Reserve, was preparing to give the Federal Reserve even more reqgulatoru power with no transpara ecy or accountabiliyu before Congress interevened  and votde overwhelemeingly for a GAO audit of the Fed, the resukt sof which are now coming ti light and recealing the relaity that the FED takes care of its own only..exists to serve and finance its member banks only and to protect them against oversight an scrutiny.

It is time to ABOLISH THE FED.  Occupy should get in touch wit Barney Frank..he may be very ready to assust and guide in how to implement this excellent master plan to abolish the FED.

 

 

Ben,

 

I have a question.

 

How exactly, if at all, does our input here get fed back "to Occuoy and is it going to ad busters?  where is it going?  what is being done with it.?

 

Also how does Jesses Lagrecca feed into all this.  He is the visible voice of Occupy to the world..he is tapped for every news interview, every "distinguished panel" discussing this.  I don't catch much of what he has said but what I have seen doesn't always seems connected to what Tom is writing or what we are saying here or even what is at Adbusters.  Who is Jesse?  Is he the "official spokesperson" for Occupy?

 

I ask because if Occupy is to have an effective voice in 2012 elections..is what what occupy is or will be doing acurately represnted by jesse or does leadership expect the actions to "speak for themselves"  ?

 

No one is feeding back anything here to anyone.  Occupy Cafe is an independent entity.  Our content is publicly available of course.  And I have no idea who Jesse is, although I suppose we could find out easily enough.  Occupy most definitely does NOT have a "spokesperson." Individual GAs have issued various statements from time to time that reflect the consensus of those present at them.  There is no movement-wide mechanism right now by which an overall statement could be ratified.

Ben

Hmm.  That's interesting, Ben..  Jesse LaGrecca, an independent journalist, is the face and spokesman for Occupy as far as media is concerned..He is every where on the speaker circuit in New York and when people were paying more attention to Occupy he was on many different national news shows every night  getting more air time than the actual Occupy events they sought him out to comment on.

I think Jesse is not carrying any messgaes out of the GA's..and whatever is issued from GA's is not really getting out to small local groups.  ( although I have directed  local groups to the Cafe and also to adbusters and encouraged them to ask questions or report in here) .

Perhaps GA should contact Jesse and speak to him about it.

Ben, thanks for answering my questions.

Ben,

 Trying to pull this back to the core questions you asked ( and still awaiting an anwser to my several questions to you on page 5 or 6)  I wanted to share a still in formation approach a little tiny group here in Maine is discussing..Occupy Blue Hill.

 Asking themslves exactly the question you pose to us here, leadership there are considering/discussing:

 

(1) hosting town hall forums with candidates from all parties asking specific questions inviting local press..filming for distrubution maybe

(2)working together to collect and collate data on people in office now and people coming up for election..of all paries.I have been tracking our two sentators and our local rep every day on their activities at the federal level..writng to them about it, sharing it at facebook and with others active in the rfeom movement..paying special attention to those up for re reflection.  Teaming up so one person tracks one person would make what is a big job much easier and allow more in depth coverage

(3) working to identify viable non partisan candidates for all vacancies coming up in 2012

(4) considering a campaign to get as many candidates for office in Maine as poosible to run as indepedents..iei abandom all party affiliations and pledge to run clean non party supported campaigns

(5) idenitfying other extisting organizations to partner with who are thinking the same way..we have OneMaine her headeded by independent eliot Cutler ( haven't approached him yet)

(6)Teaching/encouraging  others in our local community how to track floor votes, legislation under considerarion, how to send email to elected reps, ways to share concern etc.

(7)Setting Up a way to post and share background & news on our elected reps.

I just started doing all these things myself ( I tend to be a policy wonk and to stay out of "politics") and it has been eye opening.  I asked all our legislative officials to approve Cordray and generally support immediate implementation of the consumer protection agency he is to head, and full implementation of Dodd-Frank...and then comment to each on their votes..Olympia Snowe voted Present on the Cordary nimination  so I wrote to her again expressing my dismay and disappointment at not reflecting what we here in Maine want.  I then started monitoring Snowes press realeases and articles about her and discovered her "present" vote was to avoid a conflict of interest as her husband is in  abusiness that does not want to be regulated.  Well!!! who knew.?  That has now been plastered  all over the place together with data on amajor investigation of wrongdoing involvingboth her and her husband.

As a public official in my past life who on many ocasions has received thousands of letters organized by groups like ACORN or Move On I can tell you they have no weight at all ( the petitions do but not the pre scrupted letters) . What matters is opening dilaog  and maintaining dialog  in the uathentic un orchestrated voices of individual citizens...an ocasional well worded letter to the editor in a local paper or a guest column, converstaion at a public meeting to which press are invited and which is perhaps filmed and can be shared.

 I think too many people rely  on move on or credo or move to ammend or the aclu to organize peitions or draft letter and just to it perfunctorily.  The thing is to get every one thinking on their own two feet, examaining what is happening, acating from their own sense of that.  That is powerful, that is persuasive.  Every elected official who eceives a well worded letter that is poitning to atruth knows that powerful voice is at work in lots of ways beyond that letter spreading that word raising that issue.

So I think a focus on teaching people to activate themselves and engage themselves is a natural for occupy with all these facilitators like you around Ben, encouraging that by collating organizing and publishing information without pre digesting it or commenting on it. or dscribing it with hyperbole .simple factual accounting could help to do that.The point should be to give people room and opportunity to digest and think about that, form their own opinions, move to action and expression from their own authenticity.

I know it got me cooking and directly engaged in the electoral end of things in ways I never would have considered before and I know it is having effect.

Occupy's demonstrations and flash mobs can help do this by having very very specific targets.imporant events or situations that are being highlighted..things that can be trabslated into action.trying to convey very specific information but in the authentic imdivual expression of that that are so powerful in the occupy procress..

It is very hard for most of the 99% to translate Occupy Brookfield, for example, into action or to even understand the meaning of that action.  An Occupy of all of Olympia snowe's Office all at once with  signs in our authentic voices about how people feel about her recent votes would be very powerful.

Thank you for this update, Lindsay!  I answered your questions in the post above.

Am I right then in saying that you seek a trans/non-partisan path for Occupy--one that DOES engage in the political system and would be active in the 2012 elections supporting candidates that took certain kinds of positions? (Forgive me if you have made this clear in your posts elsewhere).  I wonder if the movement's left-wing dominated roots are an issue then?  I know you have been suggesting that adbusters and anarchist not be supported.  How do you reconcile that with the participatory democratic process that is enshrined in the movement?  How might we create a tent that is big enough for all?

Ben Roberts

RSS

Weekly Cafe Calls

Regular Calls are no longer being held.  Below is the schedule that was maintained from the Fall of 2011 through Jan 10, 2013.

Mondays
"Vital Conversations" 

8-10a PDT | 11a-1p EDT | 3-5p GMT 

Tuesdays (except 10/16)
"Connect 2012"

1-3p PDT | 4-6p EDT | 8-10p GMT


Thursdays
"Occupy Heart" 

3-5p PDT | 6-8p EDT | 10p-12a GMT

Latest Activity

Clay Forsberg posted a blog post

"Happy Birthday Occupy Wall Street ... thoughts on Year One"

Fifteen years ago, I ran across a book, "100 Most Influential People in History," during one of my dalliances to my local Marin County bookstore. "Influential People" was one man's assessment on exactly that. But how he determined his rankings was the interesting part. They weren't always the reasons you would think. But after thinking about it, they made complete sense. For example:George Washington was ranked in the top 40 of all time. Understandable. But the reason why ... not so much. You…See More
Sep 20, 2012
Clay Forsberg is now a member of Occupy Cafe
Sep 20, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a group
Thumbnail

Leadership Ecology

When a Leadership Ecology occurs, a web of relationships emerges revealing each person’s authentic leadership qualities through the transfer of their power to others. When done in a conscious way – a shared collaborative awakening happens.See More
Feb 6, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a blog post
Feb 3, 2012

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service