Taking it to the Streets and Thursday Open Thread

 

I'm sitting here in the airport in Charleston, West Virginia (where Fox News is blasting -- it is literally a non-stop attack on Obama), and finally have a moment to weigh in a bit on the protests that are gathering momentum throughout the United States.  (I also thought you might enjoy this stirring little bit of video that nancy pointed out to me the other day in comments).

Several of you have asked my thoughts on the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon.  I am definitely sympathetic and supportive of the effort.  I think that at this point anything that helps to give voice and presence to the widespread disgust with our economic and financial elites is a good thing.   I am also quite pleased to see unions joining in the effort and doing so as supporting and supportive players -- not trying to dictate the direction of the movement, but lending heft and organizational power to the nascent efforts. 

I think public protests serve a few different purposes.  The first, and most obvious one, is to push a cause or an issue, especially where conventional political routes are unresponsive.  Protests also serve as a way of engaging the broader society, raising awareness and garnering allies -- with the hope, again, of both changing the terms of debate within the culture and generating political responsiveness. Finally, protests serve the role of giving visibility to a group of like-minded citizens -- which serves the dual purpose of making those in a cause feel their own strength -- there is an intoxicating quality to being in a throng of the like-minded, especially for people who might be in a minority in their own cities and states -- and to display that strength to others, especially office holders.  I have been in a few of the larger protests held in the United States in the last couple of decades -- two huge marches for reproductive rights and the last "Solidarity Day" organized by the AFL-CIO -- and being in a crowd of several hundred thousand people on the national mall is really energizing.  (Having said that, I am skeptical that any of these marches had much impact -- at least none to which I can obviously point.)

So what can the Occupy Wall Street and related protests accomplish?  Truthfully, I am not certain.  But I think there is value in giving public expression to the justifiable anger so many Americans feel.  I would like to think that it could also be a vehicle by which people can learn more about the reason that misery is so widespread and why the economic system seems to be working for so few people.  I also think it may help expose the lie that the "tea party" phenomenon is in any way a populist expression of dissatisfaction with Wall Street  and business as usual -- when pressed, tea party types will almost surely reflexively side with the business elite, because they are just traditional Republicans in new packaging.   

Ultimately, I think any succesful protest effort has to result in electoral and legislative victories.  And that's where I feel a little bit of trepidation with respect to OWS.  The movement seems a bit divorced from concrete policy steps.  What would constitute victory for the protestors here?  I think that it would be useful if there was some sort of policy hook attached to the demonstrations -- my own personal choice would be mortgage relief, a revisiting of the idea of reforming mortgages via bankruptcy.  It's a simple idea, it is one for which there is still a desperate need, and it is a concrete area in which the bailed-out banks have stood steadfastly against the broader public interest.  It won't be enacted in the present environment, but it is an issue with which the public can be educated and sides can be drawn.

What do you all think?      

Comments

[Frank Wilhoit]

There is only one message that OWS (or any protest movement in this time and place) can have, should have, must have.

That message is: "Enforce the law".

Suppose that I were to paint my house red -- fire-engine red, every surface, inside and out. What would I learn?

I would learn which of my friends don't like red: because they wouldn't come round any more.

Unaccountability is a color.

American business has been made totally unaccountable and no one with any ethics will consent to remain in an unaccountable environment.

We must start afresh, in a climate in which the only certain thing is that the law will be enforced. It will never be waived on a basis of friendship or tribal solidarity or corruption or political maneuvering. Nothing, in other words, can be gotten away with.

We got where we are by letting people off the hook. No more. No amount, no kind, ever.

Enforce the law. That is it and that is all.
That is necessary and that is sufficient. Enforce the law.

[Sir Charles]

Frank,

Unfortunately I don't think that's enough -- or specific enough. What laws need to be enforced and what will the impact be? Sure I'd like to see some criminal fraud prosecutions, but in the end that rarely changes anything.

Laws and law enforcement are dictated by politics -- always have been. So there needs to be a political strategy to deal with the current moment.

Something like mortgage reform or Glass-Steagall repeal repeal would be necessary to alter the present dynamics. Not to mention reversal of Citizens United.

[Joe S]

I'd say the list of demands in the youtube video are a good start, and then I'd add in: (1) comprehensive labor law reform which would end up in most of the working age population being unionized (no temporary replacements during strikes, no anti unionization campaigns during elections, card check recognition, and mandatory interest arbitration for all employees deemed to vital to strike and in industries where striking would be ineffective, labor laws designed to allow professionals to easily unionize (reversing the Yeshiva case)); (2)comprehensive college tuition reform with replacing individual subsidized loans with block grants to colleges and universities who agree to keep their tuition and fees below a certain reasonable level; (3) tax reform with taxes on capital gains and slanted towards taxation of the wealthy and including a carbon tax; (4) comprehensive reform of the derivative markets and fed regulators in line with Professor Ross Levine's recent report to the Fed; (5) mortgage and debt writedowns to consumers either directly or through reasonable monetary policy and inflation targets; and (6) a nationwide federal pension plan that people could buy into in addition to social security which would provide fixed benefits paid by the federal government.

Why go for small beer ? We should be setting up a generation long project of social reform.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

That's a lot for one protest movement to deliver!

I actually think that is a fine platform for the Democratic Party though. Especially the increase in capital gains taxes -- it is ridiculous to have them set at 15%.

[Davis X. Machina]

I'm much more excited by the prospect of an eventual, American July, 1945 than an American May, 1968.

I'm not sure most OWS folk would agree.

[Joe S]

Sir C, it's clear that the Democratic Party as currently configured isn't going to have a platform like this at any point in time in the near future without some pressure from somewhere-- and if the Party did enact such a platform, it would be considered bullshit to be buried if the Democrats ever retook power (much like the EFCA, cap and trade, and immigration reform were killed in the Senate, and why environmental regs and financial reform regs are being stalled and killed by the Administration). We have a an administration where half the cabinet and a senate where 1/3 of the Democratic senators would rather be toasting champagne mocking the protesters than doing something beneficial for most Americans. What Occupy Wallstreet (or its successor) needs to be is a real social democratic faction within the Democratic Party unafraid to attack Democrats to keep Democrats honest and keep the pressure on.

[Joe S]

Davis, I thought November, 2008, was supposed to be our July, 1945. It doesn't seem to have worked out that way. I think the protesters seem more like the 1871 Paris Commune or the 1921 Kronstadt Sailors rebellion than 1968-- it's a reaction to years of economic privation that came about spontaneously but is leading to concrete demands. I just hope the institutional left can prevent the fate of the Kronstadt Sailors or the Parisians who manned the barricades in 1871.

[Davis X. Machina]

Davis, I thought November, 2008, was supposed to be our July, 1945.

The Labour Party in 1945, or for most of its pre-Blair history, is very difficult to confuse with the US Democratic party at any time.

For one thing, about 1/3 of the Democrats in Congress by any measure aren't actually Democrats, in any meaningful labor or social-democratic sense.

2008, in addition to electing Obama, was also the high-water mark of Blue-Dogism, especially in the House. His coat-tails pulled in 10-20 Reps who wouldn't have pissed on him if he were on fire, on top of the DINO storm of 2006. (A lot of both went right back out again in 2010.)

[Joe S]

Davis, Tru dat.

[Mandos]

As I said in the other thread: it's a question whether, at this point, it should have a coherent message, in a world in which a great deal of effort has been placed into getting the electoral/legislative system to shift direction to no avail.

Perhaps the perceived incoherence is the message.

[Joe S]

Mandos, the protesters (most of them at least), to my mind, have a list of grievances which can only be met by shifting the political economy. In this country (and in all countries), that means shifting the political system. Other than the pure anarchists and miniarchists, there are a set of concrete grievances which can only be addressed through either revolution or political change through the electoral system.

[nancy]

Yesterday, in New York, police arrested 23 people, mostly for disorderly conduct. In Seattle, at a smaller gathering, police arrested 25 which seems excessive. SPD does have something of a reputation of late. They lost a number of officers in the last few years in premeditated targeted 'cop killings' -- their tolerences are no doubt diminished. But when protesters being interviewed say things like "the whole world is watching", I shudder. The last time we heard that, events didn't end well.

I suppose the jackassery that took place at the WTO in 1999 billed as "The Battle in Seattle" isn't helping either. At any rate, the protesters are effectively being shut down.

[big bad wolf]

that's a really good video.

i know i'm shallow SC but i wish you hadn't put that doobie brothers song in my head.

i have the failing of my age; that is, i'm frustrated that things people like me said 5, 10, 20, 30 years ago now sound like new ideas. but that's me being bratty. if the time has come that people more persuasive and talented can put those ideas across successfully, i am glad. this is good stuff occupy is doing and i hope they light a large fire, that gets people to vote democratic (because really we don't want the other) and then holds the democrats feet to the fire.

also in the line of more persuasive people: what joe said.

that said, i also think mandos is correct that right now the mere fact of occupy is enough of a message.

nancy, i suspect 1999 still plays in, as well as the anarchist strain and fear of it in the PNW.

why is the obama adminsitration cracking down on california pot dispensaries? to help the cartels? dumb, dumb, dumb in every way

[Sir Charles]

bbw,

Sorry about that -- hey, at least I didn't play it.

No idea about the marijuana thing -- it just doesn't make sense to me.

DXM,

For a minute I thought you were advocating dropping the atomic bomb on someone -- but that was August wasn't it?

Re: 1945 -- The advantages of a parliamentary system. Labour with a little less than 50% of the vote won a landslide victory and could implement their entire agenda without obstruction. Would that such a possibility existed in the American system.

Joe,

You're right -- there's a lot of corporate dross in the party.

[Paula B]

[SPAM on SHIRTWAIST!]

Like SC, I'd feel better if OWS had some specific goals representing larger issues, such as ending one specific heinous financial practice (and there are so many to choose from!).

In the 1960s, the civil rights movement set global goals (it was for justice and equality, against bias and segregation) but approached those goals one small step at a time. First, enact public accommodation laws, then secure voting rights, open up housing, expand educational and health care opportunities.

Then, in the 1970s, the goal of the anti-war movement was pretty clear. Again, if you were against the Vietnam War, you probably had loftier aims for world peace, no military-industrial complex or compulsory conscription and so on. If the war ended, not only would those lofty goals be pushed forward, but there was the real possibility individuals would benefit, once the dinner-time body count on the evening news came to a halt.

Joe S---we don't have a sizable leftist base to build a reenactment of either Paris Commune, but I do smell a whiff of the chaotic bloodlust that prompted the storming of the Bastille. I, for one, am not wishing for an American Spring, just a nationwide call to progressives to carry the banner for a shift in priorities away from Tea Party ideals, and toward a more inclusive and just society.

If OWS could agree on one specific and achievable goal that could be realized through legislation and/or regulation -- such as the restructuring of mortgage, pension or student loan practices, as Sir C and Joe S suggest -- they'd be offering hope for that just society they want, as well as tangible benefits to individuals. Kind of like a minimalist approach to what progressives rallied around in the 2008 election. Being against "greed" just doesn't cut it (anymore than Yes We Can did), and I predict such an amorphous "goal" will simply limit their numbers once the bottom falls out of the night-time temperatures in NYC and Boston.

[Paula B]

That's not to say that either the civil rights movement or the anti-war movement reached all of their goals, but they did force change in the direction they intended. Now, the GOP wants to send us back to the halcyon days of the 1950s, if possible. That's why we must stay focused on realizable goals. THEY certainly are!

[Lex]

If the cops keep beating and macing protesters and it keeps ending up on TV, then what, exactly, the protesters want might end up not mattering: This thing might well go, fast, in a direction none of us can predict.

Hell, yesterday they maced a crew for the Fox affiliate. And I'll say the same thing I'd say had the victims been anyone else: Those cops need to lose their badges and go to prison.

Also, I'm with Frank Wilhoit above: Sure, we need fundamental financial and labor and election reform, but mainly we need people who are committing crimes to start going to prison. Seeing Jamie Dimon perp-walked would raise a ton of people's spirits, and the case against him for lying to Congress alone is airtight before you even get into the fraud.

[Lex]

Also, this, from William K.Black, who knows a bit about these things:

During the S&L debacle, the OTS made well over 10,000 criminal referrals and made the removal of control frauds from the industry and their prosecution its top two priorities. The agency’s support and the provision of 1000 FBI agents to investigate the cases led to the felony conviction of over 1,000 S&L frauds. The bulk of those convictions came from the “Top 100″ list that OTS and the FBI created to prioritize the investigation of the worst failed S&Ls. In the ongoing crisis — which caused losses 40 times larger than the S&L debacle, the OTS made zero criminal referrals, the FBI (as recently as FY 2007) assigned only 120 agents nationally to respond to the well over one million cases of mortgage fraud that occurred annually, and the OTS’ non-effort produced no convictions of any S&L control frauds. OTS’ sister agencies, the Fed and the OCC, have the same record of not even attempting to identify and prosecute the frauds.

Lock. Them. Up.

Liquidate the insolvent big banks.

Brutally re-regulate the industry.

That'd do for an agenda.

[corvus9]

Hi again all.

I don't see the need for any specific policy prescription with this protest. For one, something like like mortgage relief is not going to rise organically from the masses, so I don't see why one should fight for it right now. Nothing like that will be agreed to, and I think it is still obscure and wonky enough that it would be a hard sell, one that would be inevitably be watered down in when some form passes several years from now, if it ever does at all.

But, second, this protest isn't about any particular issue, it's about raising awareness and changing the wider culture. It's about engendering class consciousness. It's about attacking the rich and powerful for their deleterious role in society. And it's doing it from of position of extensive marginalization, because let's be honest, class consciousness in very far from the forefront of American thought right now. The Stonewall riots weren't about any particular policy prescription, like "Let gays serve openly in the military." It was about "there is nothing wrong with being gay, and this oppression must stop." General. Broad and far reaching.

Well, we are the 99%, and there is nothing wrong with being among the 99%. Americans need to start thinking like that about themselves, and trying to stick something like, I don't know, Card Check in it's place will just clog up the works. Americans need to start thinking in a way that makes Card Check make sense before we can have any chance of actually passing it. A sea change must occur in the way Americans think about class, just as it has occurred and it still occurring in gender, race, and sexual orientation, and this seems as good a starting point for that as anything.

Also, I very much doubt this will turn into an actual riot. Rioting in places like Watts, Detroit, or Hackney is one thing, but can you imagine a riot taking place on Wall Street? The mind reels. I don't think the powers that be will allow things to get provoked that far. The Lion doesn't fight in it's den.

[paula b]

krugman weighs in on our discussion in today's NYT.

[Joe S]

Corvus, you make an important point about the moment. But, as consciousness gets raised, I think this would be a golden opportunity for wonkish types and labor types to inject solutions into the discussion-- solutions that will actually attempt to change the political economy of this country. At some point, molten steel has to start hardening.

[nancy]

Eric tries a spin. Goes for the brazen.

[Sir Charles]

Hey Corvus!

No time to write but wanted to say hi.

[nancy]

Here are the "mobs" in Portland that have Cantor so "increasingly concerned." LOL

[Paula B]

Nancy---Thanks for this on Eric. If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. How does he justify the antics of the Tea Party? And your Portland mobs are a stitch! No wonder Eric's concerned. Clearly violent, probably seditious, definitely an army of rag-tag spoiled brats and drug-loving commies bent on destroying America as we know it! (Yikes, I think I spotted my grandmother in the crowd!)

[Sir Charles]

God Eric Cantor is such a dick. Is he possibly the most hateful of all of the Republicans on Capitol Hill?

[nancy]

Most hateful and happiest cheerleader. Sir C -- Yeah. He's it. Remember? "I want what I want when I want it." This guy? Creep, class of what? '81?

[corvus9]

God, Eric Cantor has always looked like a gigantic asshole.

[Joe S]

I was on Facebook this morning and one of my old acquaintances from high school was making fun of the pictures of people on the 99% blog in the nastiest way possible- talking about how women should either become drug dealers or prostitutes to pay their debts. I've got to wonder what makes someone that big of an asshole. Cantor strikes me like one of those guys. One of the weird things about connecting up on Facebook is seeing how some people went left and some right. Very few people stayed in the middle like they were in high school and college.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

His essence shines through.

Joe,

I suspect this comes down to people choosing rough cultural sides -- and some people choose to be inexplicable assholes.

[beckya57]

The competition for the biggest Republican a##hole is a pretty intense one. Cantor's certainly up there though.

Joe, if someone talked to me like that on FB they'd be unfriended with the very next keystroke.

[nancy]

The OWS people shared the streets of Portland with people there to run the Portland Marathon. Once again I can certainly see why Cantor is concerned about the mob mentality unleashed. Also, it was reported that in Seattle, the SPD issued tickets to people honking their horns in solidarity after 10 pm! . Reflections of cultural norms on display. Gotta love it -- quiet hours. At 10. :-)

[corvus9]

The thing I most hate about Cantor is that I have never heard him speak where he doesn't sound like an over-entitled whiner. Likewise, McConnell always sounds like a pompous windbag. Boehner comes off comparatively well, since he just sounds like a frightened drunk.

[beckya57]

Corvus: =))

[Joe S]

beckya- he didn't say it to me, it was just a post that showed up on this new stupid facebook ticker. The comments are really what turned my stomach-- and a lot of these guys were firefighters and cops.

[oddjob]

Misogyny and men with power issues make an ancient, ugly pairing.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Okay TP ate my comment when I finally decide to try and make one again -- grrrrr. Anyway, what I had posted -- saving my comments on the current Republican Follies fpr a next shot -- was mostly quotes from my favorite blogger -- present company and the invaluable Steve Benen aside, < href="http://desertbeacon.wordpress.com/">Desert Beacon

I had put a lot of extraneuous chatter, but the heart were two quotes from her, and they are sufficiently powerful to stand on their own.(As usual, it really is worth reading the whole piece and not just the excerpts.)

on the motivations of the protestors:

It isn’t that the rich man can afford a second, or third, vacation home that offends the 99%’ers, it’s that corporate America can afford to buy legislative agendas and the representatives to enact them.[snip]

No, the 99% are not involved in any discussion of the statement “He Who Dies With The Most Toys Wins;” the debate really isn’t about the toys — it’s about the increasing inequity in the trend of income distribution (not the income in se) and it’s about the increasing leverage of the top 1/2 of the top 1% in our political institutions. It’s not about who owns the best bats and gloves — it’s about who gets to play in the game at all.

The post before deals with small business and 'job creation.' ('Job creation' is such a specialty of hers you want to put together a pamphlet of her columns on it and hand it to the next person who shows he's fallen for that part of Republiconomics. And I love the quote from Dana Milbank, himself a 'small business'):

The Small Business Administration applies a very expansive definition to what might be defined as a small business — politicians like to use their numbers to pump up the total — but the Treasury Department’s definition is more stringent, applying to those entities which conduct business, have business like expenses and don’t make too much money to be considered small, or are too small to be categorized as a real business. [Forbes] And, are these “job creators?”

“About small business as job creators: Treasury found that only about 5.4 million small businesses paid any wages at all. Of the more than 10 million with income of less than $100,000, only about 10 percent paid any wages, and about half that compensation went to owners and other officers.” [Forbes](emphasis added)

One C-Corporation owner (Dana Milbank) explains:

“Like the overwhelming majority of small businesses, I am a one-man operation. And, like most small businesses, I would not hire anybody even if the government dropped my tax rate to zero.

According to Small Business Administration statistics, based on 2009 Census data, 21.1 million of the 27 million small businesses in the United States are “non-employer firms,” which have no workers other than the owner. Of those, 18.7 million are “sole proprietors,” 950,000 are partnerships and 1.4 million are corporations, like me.”

Who are the “job creators?”

“Politicians routinely extol the virtues of “small business,” but that’s not really where the job creators are, either. Conventional small businesses–dry cleaners, nail salons, delicatessens, independent professionals like lawyers and doctors–tend to be important pillars of their communities, but they also come and go without generating a lot of new jobs, on balance. During the third quarter of 2010 (the most recent quarter for which there’s data), firms with fewer than 20 employees eliminated 34,000 jobs, according to the Labor Department. The biggest gains were among firms with 500 to 999 employees, which created 37,000 jobs.” [USNews]

I still think she is to economic writing what Isaac Asimov was to science writing.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I actually have another pst started on the next thread, but Em called me away to read this.

Talk about "Misogyny and men with power issues make an ancient, ugly pairing." Yes, whether the scope is a country or a neighborhood. Sadly, the comments of the residents show that the signs aren't really needed.

"The signs don't bother anybody," said Abraham Klein, 18. "Men and ladies don't go together. It's just our religion."

Faye Grwnfeld, 70, said the signs were "a private thing" - even though they were posted on public property.

"It's taking away freedom of speech," she said."

or, as Deborah Feldman put it:

"This is standard practice in Hasidic communities all over: Step aside when a man is approaching you from the opposite direction," she said.

She said the signs likely were posted as part of a crackdown on rebellious behavior by women.

"It's a way of the community reminding people to stay in line, so to speak," she said.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Link screwed up, should be this -- from todays NY DAILY NEWS

[Sara Anderson]

I went to a local Occupy meeting the other day, and it may have been an unusually stupid one, but my god, liberals. It was so hell-bent on inclusivity and prioritizing everyone that no one was banded together in any way.

However, the protesters have legitimate grievances, far-flung as they may be. I have a hard time just giving up on that.

[Sir Charles]

Sara,

My protest days -- back in the early 80s over El Salvador, the Philipines, etc. -- were like that as well. I really couldn't stand the meetings either.