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.
houblon, nice, we need more from people who know what their talking about.
Houblon:
It never is a question of choosing one thing or another.
Neither Socialism nor capitalism taken to their extremes is good.
That is why there needs to be a tempered approach. There will always be a tug between the 2 extremes.
Right now we have a sort of laissez faire capitalist thing going on and that is not healthy for the citizens and as Thomas Jefferson and many of the founding fathers understood, corporate influence is a threat to our republic. That is why the original Tea Party happened. Undue influence of the East India Trading company getting favors and peddling influence with the Crown of England to the detriment of its competitors.
What the OWS protesters want by and large is less global corporate influence in the political process.
If I understand you correctly, the OWS movement protests the lack of opportunity afforded to the "disenfranchised."
I disagree with this notion. The question that needs to be asked, in my opinion, is not "do they lack the opportunity?," but "do they want an opportunity?"
I believe that the majority of the protesters simply do not want an opportunity. It is a movement of people who want their basics covered for free by someone else, so that they could pursue what they want to do (art, activism, music, etc) without regard to whether it will have any commercial success.
If they wanted an opportunity - they would be "occupying" labs and lecture halls in colleges, pursuing degrees in engineering and technology.
"want by and large is less global corporate influence in the political process."
Could you, please, elaborate?
To me, the political process IS a process of exerting influence. One side wins, another loses. But the rules are the same for everyone, are they not?
Even this photo is bias. Why show the police force instead of the people?
The media will never truly take on the issues of corporate run government, a democracy that works for those who can pay the most for getting their agendas passed by legislative means.
The media will never investigate the terrorism that is domestic from the vantage point of corporate malfeasance, only from what media defines as domestic terrorism by people who know and speak out or actively resist being part of the herd.
Example, chemical and biochemical companies are allowed, with FDA approval, to poison children by adding dyes, contaminants, carcinogens to food and products. Children are being born with horrific cancers, tumors, deformities, ONLY because their fed poisons and toxins through the placenta. NOT genetics as we've been told. If the FDA and USDA use our $$$ to "protect" the public, they are stealing the money and NOT doing their lobs, but employ thousands of staff.
Our food system has been hijacked by biotechnology and children are being fed genetically modified products, outlawed in some nations, as they are known to cause organ shrinkage, tumors, early death in the poor animals they have been tested on.
We have all bitten the hook of living" the American Dream," that has now turned into a nightmare. We teat animals sinfully, the environment horribly, and have lost all moral compass for the buck!
Even this photo is bias. Why show the police force instead of the people?
The media will never truly take on the issues of corporate run government, a democracy that works for those who can pay the most for getting their agendas passed by legislative means.
The media will never investigate the terrorism that is domestic from the vantage point of corporate malfeasance, only from what media defines as domestic terrorism by people who know and speak out or actively resist being part of the herd.
Example, chemical and biochemical companies are allowed, with FDA approval, to poison children by adding dyes, contaminants, carcinogens to food and products. Children are being born with horrific cancers, tumors, deformities, ONLY because their fed poisons and toxins through the placenta. NOT genetics as we've been told. If the FDA and USDA use our $$$ to "protect" the public, they are stealing the money and NOT doing their lobs, but employ thousands of staff.
Our food system has been hijacked by biotechnology and children are being fed genetically modified products, outlawed in some nations, as they are known to cause organ shrinkage, tumors, early death in the poor animals they have been tested on.
We have all bitten the hook of living" the American Dream," that has now turned into a nightmare. We teat animals sinfully, the environment horribly, and have lost all moral compass for the buck!
I would like to know from any of the panel or commenters if OWS supports "Move to Amend.org" which is designed to take away 'personhood' rights from corporations such that the Koch brothers use it to propagandize their own desires for power - coroporations are not people.
houblon:
"To me, the political process IS a process of exerting influence. One side wins, another loses. But the rules are the same for everyone, are they not?"
No the rules are NOT the same for everyone. Money speaks louder. The more money you have, the greater the ability that your message will drown out the messages of everyone else.
Money is an extremely corrupting influence in our political process. And everyone knows it.
"We have all bitten the hook of living" the American Dream," that has now turned into a nightmare. We teat animals sinfully, the environment horribly, and have lost all moral compass for the buck!"
You must be talking about China, Russia, Mexico - not America.
"Money speaks louder. The more money you have, the greater the ability that your message will drown out the messages of everyone else...And everyone knows it."
Sure. So - you just confirmed it: The rules ARE the same.
Money is neutral - whoever pays it gets to have a podium. I don't see how this is a problem.
It is a lot worse when it's NOT the money that determines who gets the podium. Please, think about this.
And, yes - podiums are a limited resource. So - no, not everyone can have it. It is not a right, either.
There are several different ways that the humanity came up with to decide who gets the podium. In my opinion, money is the most democratic and the least dangerous of these ways so far.
Would you care to propose your way that would have nothing to do with money? How would you decide who gets the podium?
"You must be talking about China, Russia, Mexico - not America."
No houblon, I'm afraid that crony-capitalism is alive and doing very well in America!
houblon....I think that it is fairly clear where you come from on the proposition of how money ought to influence politics and I think that you are simply wrong. I'm not going to try to debate with you the merits and demerits of how corrupting money is to the political process...that would be pointless. You are not likely to change your mind....nor I mine.
Understood.
However, I am not likely to change my mind only because I truly do not see an alternative. If you show it to me, I will change my mind. I am not an ideologue, but just someone who is realistic. I do not see a merit in decrying something that a). Works; b). Does not seem to have a better alternative. You see, I am an engineer and to me things that make sense are the ultimate measure of "right vs wrong."
So, on this question, I am familiar how a political process can be influenced by: money, military power, ethnic/religious/clan interests, police state. Money is just the least of these evils, don't you agree?
Since Reagan government has been a bad word, a symbol of corruption and waste. It is only bad government which is those things. We have proven lately that lack of government creates corruption also.
Government need oversight by voters. So far it is being overseen only by big corporations who manipulate it for their own profit. Government is supposed to represent everyone and everyone needs to be informed and vote.
It is deregulation, a kind of corruption, that got us into present problems. Only government by honest, unbiased representatives can provide the oversight necessary to keep things in balance.
It is also an unbalanced approach to defense and security which is costing way more that it is worth. That is a huge area of corruption.
"honest, unbiased representatives "
...who would also work for free and not take any donations from whomever?
Sounds to me like we will need to be rescued by aliens after all.
In his defense of evicting the Occupy NY protesters Mike Bloomberg claimed yesterday that "the first amendment protects speech, it does not protect people camping out in tents.." So how does the first amendment protect corporate money donations to campaigns as speech? What's the difference other than most of those in the tents don't have any money. Shantis have been recognized as a method of speech over and over again, what else is left for those without monetary influence?
Houblon, you mentioned being from the former Soviet Union. I can understand your pragmatism or cynicism when discussing what factors are legitimately allowed to influence government. Money is maybe LESS corrupt than say, religious or tribal bias. However, if you take the time to read the Preamble of the US Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
You'll see that their intention is NOT to create a system that can be influenced by anything other than a government, by the people, for the people -- and NOT just those people that can best afford it. It was meant to be system kept in check by the 4th Estate, namely the media and an informed public voting in its best interest. This system that is influenced by money and corporations and corporate controlled media are eroding justice, ending domestic tranquility and their interests are not in line with the general welfare's. The answer is to reform election finance and have a serious debate about corporate personhood and seriously revisiting our history, civics, economics and government syllabi in our educational system.
The Occupy Wall Street has gained mass following because everyone knows it is not right for the average guy to bail out the rich. Professor Lessing has done some good work on corruption in our system, which is baiscally people in positions of power using their power for their own selfish interests.
Corruption is the broader issue that not only affects our financial markets, politics, our drug companies, Penn State and the Catholic Church, etc...
The Modern Perspective Theory gives the topic of corruption the importance it deserves, along with other perspectives individuals take when dealing with situations or problems. Link 61st district court corruption.com - Modern perspective Theory.
I think the MPT is the next major social theory to fit our times, as we have to progress form "survival of the fitests" (Darwin) and "Hierarchy of needs" (Maslow) to a more inclusive/effective perspective.
nm31879,
I am familiar with the principles upon which the United States was formed as an entity (I passed the US citizenship exam, after all!). I do believe that the question of money in the politics is not entirely relevant to the cited paragraph, however.
You see, politics - as a process of gaining influence - is not the same as the government. I contend that our government does remain as intended in Constitution - by the people, for the people. This is provided for by the system of elections, which hasn't changed since. Everyone is free to vote for whomever and whatever they want to. The corporations are not paying anyone to vote for them.
And, as far I know (please, correct me if I am wrong), there is nothing in the Constitution about who must get the podium to convey their political message. Don't like the political ad paid for by shady corporations? Just turn off the TV. If you choose to keep it on and watch - it's not the corporations' fault.
What a terrible error in judgement you made today - instead of talking about OWS, you actually allowed a couple of people from the movement to go on the show and talk. Wow, what a breath of fresh air, their idealism, their ideas... the trouble is when you actually let people speak, you can't lie and say they have nothing to say - it was quite wonderful. They made the usual talkabouters you featured sound downright foolish - the one guy who sniffed that they'll never get anywhere if they aren't willing to vote for a Republican once in a while sounded like a clueless loser. This is why you better not let this context keep happening, the complacent NPR listeners will be upset that you aren't doing the job of comforting the comfortable, and the talkabouters won't want to go on if they're just going to be made to look like the fools that they are.
Speaking of the children of cripples, yadda yadda yadda, we live in a world run by the children of Ronald "Facts are stupid things" Reagan. (The full) monte is as naked as the emperors he admires, but I don't expect he'll be persuaded by facts, stupid things that they are. The rest of us thank you for this, though.
clickk wrote: "...we as a country have a democratic system that is the envy of the world. Have these people voted at all? Are they registered? Voting apathy in this country is ridiculous." Is that right? I thought international observers ranked one recent election as being about on par with what you'd see in Uraguay. Given the drek that rises to the top of the two parties, and the impossibility of electing any of the fine 3rd party candidates that have offered to serve, I'd say voter apathy is appropriate. I vote, and I bet the Occupy people vote, too. I also launch complaints about NPRs lousy programming (and the weather) but I don't expect it to change the world. It takes direct action, and the Occupy movement are groping towards solutions.
mattlove1 wrote:
"I thought international observers ranked one recent election..."
Well, if you trust the "international observers", then why don't you trust, e.g. Transparency International, which ranks countries according to the corruption level? The US's corruption index in 2010 was 7.1 (on a 10-scale, with 0 being the worst and 10 the best) - quite on a par with most of Western Europe and much better than in the rest of the world (Uruguay included).
Sure, Denmark, Sweden and 20 other countries are beating us, but - really, it's not as bad as some are making it out to be, and certainly a helluva lot better than almost anywhere else in the world. (There were a total of 178 countries ranked - and, no, nobody got a perfect 10).
It is interesting to see someone contend that "money is the least of ...evils." My religious tradition contends that "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil...."
There is a hidden assumption in Houblon's statement: it is the assertion that there must be some evil in the equation, whether that be money, military power, ethnic...etc. This begs the question by contending that, because we are in it, the situation we are in now is somehow inevitable. But I contend that we are where we are now because we have, for the past 30 years followed an economic policy that has brought us to this pass -- it was not inevitable. From the time of World War II until we began following the diktat that "government is the problem", we did not have the sort of income and wealth disparity that is present now, a disparity which has been growing for the past 30 years. I do not contend that it is possible to achieve perfect fairness, but I believe there are better and worse choices; and policies may be judged by looking at the results. "By their fruits you shall know them."If "trickle down" has proved a good model, we would not be contending; however, as the economy grew the additional wealth was "sucked up."
Houblon's statement claims that the current political system in which anonymous money is speech "works." It may "work," but is it just? The contention of OWS, as I observe it, is that such a system "works" only for the very few, the 1% at the very top. Such an economic system is not just, nor is it sustainable. I also think that for the 99%, money is a means, while, in my observation, for the 1% money is an end. If there is any group for whom this appears to be the case, it is among those who inhabit "the Wonderful World of Wall Street." For insight into the outlook these people, whom I characterize as "economic sociopaths," I recommend "Liar's Poker" by Michael Lewis, or "Other People's Money" by Jerry Sterner (the play please, not the movie).
OWS reminds me of a dot com business plan from the late 90s: incoherent, implausible, unworkable, naive. That doesn't mean it won't attract a lot of followers—there were millions of gullible investors in Pets.com and the like—and, like the dot com bubble, which financed a national investment in broadband infrastructure that has proved durable and important—OWS may ultimately build an infrastructure for reforming American capitalism, a system that is unquestionably tilted unfairly and unproductively toward the financial sector at the expense of those who labor, whose who make, those who grow, those who teach. But these OWS squatters are just kids who've spent too much time on Facebook and too little time with their noses in real books. The are not very smart or articulate and they will accomplish litte.
Thank you cmcrgl. I didn't have time to respond to houblon but I couldn't agree with you more. And while I recognize that from his background he probably has a penchant for the "capitalist" system. But what we have here in this country is so far from true capitalism, as his experience was of communism/socialism from their true forms.
Living in either the former Soviet Union or any of the Soviet bloc country was drab indeed....and I don't think anyone would advocate for that. But that was not Socialism, that was State Controlled Totaltarianism with all the inherent corruption that Capitalism gives us now.
This would be every bit as undesirable as living in the poverty class was in the Guilded Age. Which I think we're headed back to if something isn't done.
houblon,
How can you contend that the system of elections has not changed since the ink dried on the constitution?
In January 2010, the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United that Corporations are allowed the same free speech afforded citizens whose impact has been the creation of super PACS in order to further influence politicians through political donations. Many of these super PACS are also funding many Tea Party movements in the hopes of passing their libertarian agenda.
Prior to that, the development of a lobbying system beginning in the late 1800's which has since developed into the professional lobbying mechanism that hopes to gain favor with politicians in order to carry out legislation that benefit their industries. I am not against the creation of wealth or making money, but I am against the use of that money to ensure a lack of transparency, competition, enshrine cronyism and secure ever more resources for themselves to that end. So you see, although the corporations are not running for office, they are setting it up so that they can get what they want from the people that they support in attaining elected office.
That is not what was meant by 'Justice' in our constitution. I agree that the podium is not a commodity that is exclusive to any one group. That is why we have free speech amendments in this country. All groups are allowed to mobilize and communicate their concerns to a broader audience and then the majority is allowed to judge whether it has merit or not and sign that petition, or not, or vote that way, or not. Corporations can run their ads and we are free to watch or turn them off. However, it is the job of government to "promote the general welfare". That means sometimes passing legislation that goes against lobbyists' and business interests because it is better for the country as a whole and not just for the minority that can pay you the most money. That is why money is not a good arbiter for assigning the podium and that is why we need to put campaign finance reform, restricting lobbyists' access to politicians and re-evaluating corporate personhood at the top of our list of things to reform in this country.
nm31879,
Again, couldn't agree more. If you're interested in finding out how we got here, read about Justice Lewis Powell from this article by Bill Moyers...
http://www.thenation.com/article/164349/how-wall-street-occupied-america...
Thanks Teece!