The Future of the Occupy Movement
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-11-16/future-occupy-movement
Occupy Wall Street activists vow protests will persist. Yesterday New York City police in riot gear evicted hundreds and razed the city of tents where some in the group had been living for close to two months. The Occupy Wall Street movement seeks to highlight income inequality and has inspired hundreds of similar protests around the country and the world. Most have been small and some have been marred by violence, but participants claim, despite evictions in New York and elsewhere, it’s an idea that will continue to gather momentum: Join us for a conversation on what the Occupy movement has accomplished and its future.
Guests
Jim Tankersley
reporter, National Journal
Michael Premo
participant, Occupy Wall Street
Legba Carrefour
participant, Occupy DC
Lawrence Lessig
professor of law at Harvard Law School and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University
author of “Republic,Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress — and a Plan to Stop It”
Tyler Cowen
general director, Mercatus Center
professor of economics, George Mason University.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Bloomberg has a middle school grasp of the problems which speaks volumes about what it takes to make money.
echberht, I'm not the one who first used the line about usefulness, I was merely commenting on how it sounded. And it sounded cruel and thoughtless.
We all know how politicians in the past have dealt with "the social cripples, almost rans and damaged goods"....these are all euphanisms for "enemies" and I know who conservatives deem to be the enemies.
I find it ironic that most of the Tea Party folk fail to grasp that the initial tea party which sparked the revolution in this country was the result of the largest monopoly of the era (East India Trading Company) gaining favors from the crown of England to pay no taxes while all of its smaller American competitors were being squeezed out of the system and put at a competitive disadvantage.
Thomas Jefferson tried something like 12 times to get Freedom from Monopoly as one of the initial amendments which eventually became known as the Bill of Rights.
People need to bone up on their history.
Is there a strategy being attempted to pit young people against elders?
Seems the two groups have many interests in common to me. I know of no senoir citizens who do not support education, reasonable student loan policies, and environmental policies suppoting clean air and water for those who come after us on this planet.
To Clickk: I agree with the vote issue. Doesn't Australia have a mechanism that demands that all citizens vote? Most people know tons about TV, movies, music, and sports - yet few have as much knowledge of politics, government, or law.
Who exactly are those in the OWS movement advocating for zero government? Anarchy is the complete lack of government is it not?
I would say quite the opposite. They want even more government intervention in the system by and large.
The question I have is: If lack of regulation caused the "economic downturn" how will less regulation get us out of our present economic problems? I don't think that the debate should be about big or small government but about government that answers to the people without the interference of money.
Much of the root problems in our economy stem directly from Capitalism itself. I'd advocate a serious examination of the problems inherent in how Capitalism works. One commentator mentioned that what we have now is Socialist-Capitalism, which is exactly correct. Socializing the risk is supporting the work of those who don't make any meaningful contribution to society other than the amassing of fortune on the back of others and making them pay for it.
Moby Toad wrote:To Clickk: I agree with the vote issue. Doesn't Australia have a mechanism that demands that all citizens vote? Most people know tons about TV, movies, music, and sports - yet few have as much knowledge of politics, government, or law."
Knowing this you want forced voter involvement?
Washington's a cesspool. We need more sanitation workers.
I take great exception to the comment made by your guest Tyler Cowen that "old people get their way". Older and disabled people are marginalized in this country and it is only because of the comming "baby boomer tsunami" that "older" people are beginning to have a voice in our society. Social Security benefits keep millions of older people out of abject poverty and these are benefits that these"old" people have paid for during their working lives. The same with Medicare - approx. 41 million people are covered by Medicare health insurance for which they have paid taxes and for which they pay a monthly premium. Over the past few years it has been made clear that to be a patriotic "older" person in America you should die just before your 65th birthday so you don't use any Medicare benefits and minimize or never use your benefits under Social Security. M. Birke, Elder Law Attorney
I see the American Politics are at gridlock due to two party system and with two exactly opposite ideologies.
I may suggest to reserve 10% of the both the Senate and Congress seats to intellectuals, technocrats and people of high esteem something similar to the House of Lords in UK, or may be elected by the both republican and democratic voters.
This 10% of the members would become crucial block of member to vote for the legislation s important to common people.
Both the parties could agree to on this type of ruling environment.
How about this suggestion.
Yes, more voters. When voting becomes sexier, more people will involve themselves and vote.
I am concerned while listening to the representatives of the occupy movement on your show today. I read an early manifesto where they made points that would've had a huge impact on subjects such as the regulation of financial markets, corporate personhood reform, election reform, making college more accessible to all etc. Listening to those very concrete examples be replaced by empty rhetoric is disheartening. The movement has managed to take the stage and begin the process of transforming the national dialog. Please harness this and direct it to real positive concrete change. Politics of race, gender and class are nice and nebulous and feel good, but you should focus on the issues and in bringing about transformation in those areas that will leave the longest legacy. You have 15 minutes; use them wisely.
At the LA Occupy Wall Street Teach In. Professor William Black focused on why there has not been one person who brought the US economy to the brink has been prosecuted? He said that during the Savings and Loan debacle they made 10,000 criminal referrals and over 1000 individuals were prosecuted.
Will the Occupy Wall Street take up the lack of prosecutions in a serious way? Where is the Department of Justice?
Mayor Bloomberg sent the NYC police to arrest and prosecute the wrong people
Voting has very limited utility given the poor choices brought forward. Look at the GOP candidates, they're a nightmare. We need radical change not available by voting.
Teece Bowman wrote:
"We all know how politicians in the past have dealt with "the social cripples, almost rans and damaged goods"....these are all euphanisms for "enemies" and I know who conservatives deem to be the enemies."
Huh?
That doesn't even make any sense. If there's a point in there, you're going to have to make it a little less cryptic.
On your latter point with respect to "socialist-capitalism", on that, surprizingly, we agree. Mitigating risk by placing it on the public treasury is a sin. TBTF should never be - and that INCLUDES GM. That's why we have FDIC to protect depositors from failing banks and why we have bankruptcy laws to unwind failing companies (like GM).
The bailouts are the product of a Federal government run amok.
I will admit that I did not hear the entire conversation, but I was frustrated by representatives of the movement who are defending their right to be in the park. As Alinsky taught, occupying one park is a means to a bigger end. So when your guest remarks that the next step in the movement is to defend the right to be in public places, he is wasting time and resources; two things their movement desperately needs. Don't worry about that particular means. Get more creative and focus on the end.
" Look at the GOP candidates, they're a nightmare. We need radical change not available by voting".
Exactly Angry, we have the best government that money can buy. Both Demomcrats and Republicans. I distrust them both, but I will make no secret about the fact that I distrust the Republicans more....they at least make no secret of what their intentions are. The complete and total destruction of the Working Class.
So, which form of free speech corrupts the public space more, corporate money or peoples tents?
I am a political conservative, but I am very excited about the Occupy movement. It is frustrating to watch Washington make decisions that are good ONLY for big companies, and not the average tax payer. It made me mad yesterday when Washington caved to food lobbists and left french fries on the school lunch menu. Really? Isn't there a diabetes epidemic going on? We are subsidizing it with our hard cash every time the kids eat french fries, donuts, and refined flour pizza at school. The decision to not raise the nutritional standards of school lunches (which the Fed goverment pays for) shows that our children are not their priority in the school lunch room.
1. The apparent lack of leadership is not a problem. Umbrella "movements" provide an opportunity for affinity groups to develop and carry out more organized, target specific actions that raise public awareness.
2. Violating legal statutes is often necessary to raise public awareness. One must often sacrifice personal liberty in order to help a movement move forward.
3. Liberating repossessed homes on behalf of families below poverty level is just such an action, and I believe a very powerful action, regardless of "outcome."
4. People who say they cannot join any movement because "they have to work every day" need to consider the necessity of sacrifice when change or radical response is necessary to promote change.
5. It is generally young people who have not yet fully articulated a complete "answer" to social problems that are most apt to take healthy political risks to promote change. The criticism that there seems to be no "rhyme or reason" to the occupy movement is not really a detriment to they way that particular actions might be viewed. Observers will connect with specific actions according to their ability to identify with animosity toward the target of the action, and not necessarily demand a coherent political statement that informs the action. Institutionalized action always comes later, but such public demand for the institutional reforms can only be initiated by an initially radical response.
--
eghberht:
I thought that I had made myself perfectly clear. Monte wrote of "social cripples, almost rans and damaged goods" when referencing PEOPLE. That is exactly the kind of language used by totalitarian regimes when dealing with the elimination of "undesirables". I could very easily imagine a future where the so-called "producers" would take over politically and begin a process of "cleansings" of the undesirable within our society. And don't think for a moment that there are not those elements within the conservative movement. You may find this inflamatory, and that is your priviledge.
As for the socialist-capitalism comment, I would agree with you. Those corporations and financial institutions that found themselves knee-deep....no let me correct that...neck deep in trouble in 2008, should have been allowed to fail. It would have set about a cataclysm from which Capitalism could not have recovered, at least not like we see it now.
eghberht:
I thought that I had made myself perfectly clear. Monte wrote of "social cripples, almost rans and damaged goods" when referencing PEOPLE. That is exactly the kind of language used by totalitarian regimes when dealing with the elimination of "undesirables". I could very easily imagine a future where the so-called "producers" would take over politically and begin a process of "cleansings" of the undesirable within our society. And don't think for a moment that there are not those elements within the conservative movement. You may find this inflamatory, and that is your priviledge.
As for the socialist-capitalism comment, I would agree with you. Those corporations and financial institutions that found themselves knee-deep....no let me correct that...neck deep in trouble in 2008, should have been allowed to fail. It would have set about a cataclysm from which Capitalism could not have recovered, at least not like we see it now.
A microscopic view of the Occupy movement can get bogged down in the details; a place where good and thoughtful people can find argument, disagreement and worse.
A satellite view offers thoughtful people a place to make sensible observations. It seems to me the impetus behind this movement is a common sense one that most people would in fact agree with - large, vast amounts of money, held in the hands of a few, has created a dangerous imbalance of have and have nots - whether that power is held by large corporations or Congress, the end result runs afoul of a truly democratic society. Further, that imbalance is getting ever more out of balance.
I hear the fellow from Occupy NY making connections between the way we conduct civil discourse; that this fundamental and core value of a democracy, has been left at the gate. Somehow, it is a true thing that Americans are at risk, the future of the globe is at risk, that what we do here at home affects people across the world who we will never see. How to be a more thoughtful people, making a living mindful of a more ethical ethos while taking steps to care for the gift of creation is at the root of this movement.
Far from being idle spoiled children with nothing better to do than to have fun protesting something, I hear a cry from the ground up - "Is anybody seeing the truth here?" Lower taxes for large corporations has been proven to NOT create more jobs; water-boarding has been proven to NOT result in more information; fossil fuels will run out...the list is endless.
More and more, America feels like a place where selfish adults are in charge - they lie and get away with it, they steal and keep the booty, they bully and get elected. Occupiers are acting like original Americans, who were not of one mind and did not know the ultimate goal at the beginning of their discontent.
There may be hope for us yet.
I support the efforts of OWS but was this the best spokespeople they could find to get their message out to a national audience?
Very disappointed. The whole thing sounded disjointed and sophomoric.
Opportunity lost...
ecgberht . TB is the occupy movement incarnate, a mass of contradictions and absolutely devoid of any realistic solutions. As pretty much outlined by this show the only thing offered by "occupy" is fairytale solutions in an effort to create a socialist utopia.
I came to the US from Russia, where I witnessed socialism at the end of its natural course.
One phrase said during this debate made me reminiscent of how I felt living in Soviet Union: "a right to their home."
Everyone in Soviet Union had a "right to home." This right was fulfilled by the government and the result was quite unsatisfactory to a majority of population.
I think it's actually quite simple: You either want capitalism with market economy - and then will have to accept that you will have the opportunity, but not the rights for anything that costs money; or you want socialism with command economy - and then will have to accept that you will have the rights to basics (e.g. a tiny apartment in an industrial zone), but not the opportunity to improve upon what is doled out to you by the government.
I already know what I want. I know that you can't have it both ways, either. Question is: Do OWS protesters know what they want?
I would argue that the bailouts were a result of bad oversight and collusion by the government which helped the private sector gamble on a 30-1 to 100-1 margin with other peoples actual money.
This lead to the collapse.
Sure the government didn't do their job, but the people who bet with everyone else's money were the true culprits.
The entire system is rotten and has not been fixed yet. In 10-15 years after everyone has forgotten this round of disatrophe, it will happen again. Only next time the American economy will have less reserves to take the hit.
The OWS movement can be understood as a challenge to the dominant mode of social power, which is the social power of capital and the ritual of financial capitalization practiced by all capitalists. Every civilization is governed by a mode of social power and periodically circumstances arise in which it is possible to challenge the dominant mode of social power and replace it with something else. The corruption of our current political economy is making it possible for OWS participants to challenge the dominant mode of social power. The solution is the creation of a new political economy free from the money corruption of politics and based on recognized ecological limits, geological resource scarcity and the end of economic growth due to the irreversible decline in global net energy. If the result of the OWS movement is the continuation of business as usual, then WW III will be inevitable. A new political economy will not be forthcoming unless millions of Americans are willing to spend months occupying Washington, D.C.