2012=1968?
December 1, 2011 3:57 AM Subscribe
Johnson was becoming extremely unpopular because of the war in Vietnam...
Yes, no possible comparison there. And in multiple other ways with multiple "wars" on things, such as drugs, civil rights, the non-corporate public, etc.
posted by DU at 4:27 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Yes, no possible comparison there. And in multiple other ways with multiple "wars" on things, such as drugs, civil rights, the non-corporate public, etc.
posted by DU at 4:27 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
I don't think there is a comparison... The "wars" you're talking about are not perceived in the same way that the Vietnam War was. 1968 saw assassinations and race rioting in dozens of major cities. OWS is big, but is it as big as 1968?
posted by KokuRyu at 4:32 AM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by KokuRyu at 4:32 AM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
Yes, no possible comparison there.
Furthering the divide, Johnson actually worked in the public interest, at least on the domestic front.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:34 AM on December 1, 2011 [13 favorites]
Furthering the divide, Johnson actually worked in the public interest, at least on the domestic front.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:34 AM on December 1, 2011 [13 favorites]
In 1968 political protest was just one aspect of a whole cultural ferment. The tone was vastly more optimistic too.
What seems to be happening recently is the unexpected emergence of persistence as a new weapon in the armoury of protest. You just don't go away. Of course occupation is hardly new and was common enough back in 1968, but the current manifestations around the world have found that the authorities currently have no good response to people who simply stick around.
They're working on it, though.
posted by Segundus at 4:37 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
What seems to be happening recently is the unexpected emergence of persistence as a new weapon in the armoury of protest. You just don't go away. Of course occupation is hardly new and was common enough back in 1968, but the current manifestations around the world have found that the authorities currently have no good response to people who simply stick around.
They're working on it, though.
posted by Segundus at 4:37 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I don't think there is a comparison... The "wars" you're talking about are not perceived in the same way that the Vietnam War was.
The "wars" mentioned in my second sentence are only the additional, metaphorical ones. You can't think of any literal wars currently going on that might be similar to Vietnam in terms of unneeded expense, death, propaganda and distraction?
posted by DU at 4:40 AM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
The "wars" mentioned in my second sentence are only the additional, metaphorical ones. You can't think of any literal wars currently going on that might be similar to Vietnam in terms of unneeded expense, death, propaganda and distraction?
posted by DU at 4:40 AM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
Meh, another navel gazing and OWS worshiping piece, in love was the supposed power of the movement. People seem to want or need to believe that Obama will be "taken down" in 2012, but I fail to see how that would be good thing for the country.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:44 AM on December 1, 2011 [19 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:44 AM on December 1, 2011 [19 favorites]
Occupy wall street might end up in the history books as more than an incoherent fad - that scares the hell out of me.
posted by Veritron at 4:50 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Veritron at 4:50 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
From the article: "But this really isn’t about having a few demands for reform of the Fed or the transaction tax,” he goes on. “We’re talking about changing our society..."
Oh, great, good luck with that! As much as I love OWS I no longer think they have a chance. I'll betchya occupy wall street WILL up in the history books as no more than an incoherent fad. What did Clinton say... something like "You have to be FOR something not just AGAINST something"
posted by Blake at 4:54 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Oh, great, good luck with that! As much as I love OWS I no longer think they have a chance. I'll betchya occupy wall street WILL up in the history books as no more than an incoherent fad. What did Clinton say... something like "You have to be FOR something not just AGAINST something"
posted by Blake at 4:54 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Bill Clinton also once said "Pass the barbeque sauce." I don't get the sneering at people wanting to "change society", whatever it may mean. If no one ever wanted to change society we'd still be living in caves.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:57 AM on December 1, 2011 [18 favorites]
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:57 AM on December 1, 2011 [18 favorites]
Focusing on the banks and bailouts is a good idea. OWS should join forces with the Tea Party on that one. It always helps to have a near universal enemy.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:57 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:57 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
“We’re talking about changing our society, so we no longer measure each other in terms of money, but based on fundamental things. What makes us special is not what we are against but what we are for: equality, unity, mutual respect. Those are very important elements of this new human system we want to build.”
posted by box at 5:00 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 5:00 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm not seeing any similarity, either. Frankly, I think the piece comes off as an attempt to attach some kind of real, revolutionary cred to OWS by building a flimsy, diaphanous thread of a connection to the Vietnam-era protestors.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:00 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 5:00 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
So OWS will cause Richard Nixon to get elected next year?
posted by octothorpe at 5:02 AM on December 1, 2011 [26 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 5:02 AM on December 1, 2011 [26 favorites]
As much as I love OWS I no longer think they have a chance.
This may be true, and yet can anyone point to anything with more of a chance than OWS?
To this foreigner, all legitimate machinery of change looks to be entirely captured. Absolute corruption has been written into law and is above challenge by same.
I don't know that there is anything left that has a more realistic chance than OWS. And if so, then if OWS dies, America will follow, her society will crumble no different from any other nation where robber barons hollowed out a society unchecked until it fell apart.
OWS (and brethren) looks like it could be America's last best hope.
And it's a shitty fucking long-shot of a hope.
But you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:15 AM on December 1, 2011 [54 favorites]
This may be true, and yet can anyone point to anything with more of a chance than OWS?
To this foreigner, all legitimate machinery of change looks to be entirely captured. Absolute corruption has been written into law and is above challenge by same.
I don't know that there is anything left that has a more realistic chance than OWS. And if so, then if OWS dies, America will follow, her society will crumble no different from any other nation where robber barons hollowed out a society unchecked until it fell apart.
OWS (and brethren) looks like it could be America's last best hope.
And it's a shitty fucking long-shot of a hope.
But you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:15 AM on December 1, 2011 [54 favorites]
As much as I love OWS I no longer think they have a chance.
ditto. the recent coordinated, nationwide police assault proved that the PTB have contemplated their options and made their choice.
1- ignore them, hope they go away, get PR points for tolerance in some circles, but risk their message actually taking root
2- club them until they stop showing up, risk loss of PR points for savagery (possible but unlikely, thanks to 1%-owned media)
considering the stakes, none of us should be surprised they chose door #2.
posted by fetamelter at 5:18 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
ditto. the recent coordinated, nationwide police assault proved that the PTB have contemplated their options and made their choice.
1- ignore them, hope they go away, get PR points for tolerance in some circles, but risk their message actually taking root
2- club them until they stop showing up, risk loss of PR points for savagery (possible but unlikely, thanks to 1%-owned media)
considering the stakes, none of us should be surprised they chose door #2.
posted by fetamelter at 5:18 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
I don't know that there is anything left that has a more realistic chance than OWS. And if so, then if OWS dies, America will follow...
That's a bit melodramatic.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:21 AM on December 1, 2011 [14 favorites]
Occupy wall street might end up in the history books as more than an incoherent fad - that scares the hell out of me.
"Scares" you why?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:27 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
"Scares" you why?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:27 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Say hi to President Gingrich.
posted by texorama at 5:33 AM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by texorama at 5:33 AM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
The only creditable challenger to Obama on the Democratic side is Hillary, and she's not interested - she's going to spend the next 4 years gearing up for her Presidential bid, and she's going to make sure she gets it right this time.
Meanwhile, in the GOP camp, there are no charismatic "tabula rasa" candidates like Dubbya. Dubbya was an incredible liar - he could sincerely say things to mollify the centrists while going off and doing radical conservative things. None of this field of candidates can do that, with the exception of Huntsman, and he's fucked, anyhow. A republican governor of Utah - too liberal to win the nomination. Utterly shocking.
Which is the problem the GOP has, now. This primary is very ugly, open to scandal and shock and public spectacle, with candidates running to the right as hard as they can. They're all clowns and lunatics, and no-one will be able to escape the things they said in the primary debates.
The "McCain" style candidate, the reasonable centrist business tool, Romney, is getting hammered in turn by every candidate. Every one! Michelle Bachman, and then Rick Perry, and then Herman Cain, and now Newt Gingrich. Everyone knows Romney is the only one sane enough to nab the nomination, but the energized radical base, the Tea-Partiers and the Dittoheads an the Fox Newshounds, hates him. They're going to stay away from the polls.
There is some dissatisfaction on the left with Obama (lord knows I'm one), but he's not going through the same meat-grinder the republican candidates are.
He's also working to destabilize the primaries even further, by damaging or even knocking out his only credible competitor with a devastating attack ad - the Romney flip-flop ad - and by staking this ground early, he gets to apply some of the same stick the GOP wailed on Kerry with on '04.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:33 AM on December 1, 2011 [9 favorites]
Meanwhile, in the GOP camp, there are no charismatic "tabula rasa" candidates like Dubbya. Dubbya was an incredible liar - he could sincerely say things to mollify the centrists while going off and doing radical conservative things. None of this field of candidates can do that, with the exception of Huntsman, and he's fucked, anyhow. A republican governor of Utah - too liberal to win the nomination. Utterly shocking.
Which is the problem the GOP has, now. This primary is very ugly, open to scandal and shock and public spectacle, with candidates running to the right as hard as they can. They're all clowns and lunatics, and no-one will be able to escape the things they said in the primary debates.
The "McCain" style candidate, the reasonable centrist business tool, Romney, is getting hammered in turn by every candidate. Every one! Michelle Bachman, and then Rick Perry, and then Herman Cain, and now Newt Gingrich. Everyone knows Romney is the only one sane enough to nab the nomination, but the energized radical base, the Tea-Partiers and the Dittoheads an the Fox Newshounds, hates him. They're going to stay away from the polls.
There is some dissatisfaction on the left with Obama (lord knows I'm one), but he's not going through the same meat-grinder the republican candidates are.
He's also working to destabilize the primaries even further, by damaging or even knocking out his only credible competitor with a devastating attack ad - the Romney flip-flop ad - and by staking this ground early, he gets to apply some of the same stick the GOP wailed on Kerry with on '04.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:33 AM on December 1, 2011 [9 favorites]
Yes, it really is too bad that the GOP has such a terrible field. Because it's going to allow Obama to run to the right of Reagan and still capture most of the obedient, docile Left.
posted by DU at 5:39 AM on December 1, 2011 [10 favorites]
posted by DU at 5:39 AM on December 1, 2011 [10 favorites]
@fetamelter... While we both think they're going to fail, we have very different reasons. OWS is going to fail because of OWS. You can't change the world by committee and drum circle. You can't just sit there in a tent and complain about things and hope to change the world. You can't change the world if you don't have a clear solid message or someone in charge. The disorganization or the organization just won't work. (yes yes, fine, you'll list some concrete ideas and point to those posters from yesterday or other things, but is that the message that's getting to everyone who is only paying just a little attention? Nope. And all those people, you know, the 99%, are busy and don't see any message. All they see is a bunch of kids sitting in a park complaining about rich people. They aren't getting the message, and without them OWS can't change a damn thing.)
posted by Blake at 5:40 AM on December 1, 2011 [9 favorites]
posted by Blake at 5:40 AM on December 1, 2011 [9 favorites]
The only creditable challenger to Obama on the Democratic side is Hillary, and she's not interested - she's going to spend the next 4 years gearing up for her Presidential bid, and she's going to make sure she gets it right this time.
I'm skeptical that Clinton will run for President. I could very easily see her focussing on other areas.
Warren, on the other hand...
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:42 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
I'm skeptical that Clinton will run for President. I could very easily see her focussing on other areas.
Warren, on the other hand...
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:42 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
I really don't think OWS is intending to directly change the world nor will the world fail to be changed if OWS (apparently) disappears. OWS is a focal point that everyone who had these feelings can feel validated by. It's an outward, concrete expression that gives others the courage to also express those same feelings.
If you look at the early labor history, there were unfocused riots and protests and stuff too, before people got organized. These things have to start somewhere. OWS will probably disappear in name, but unless there is real change the anger will remain and come out again later and larger.
posted by DU at 5:44 AM on December 1, 2011 [14 favorites]
If you look at the early labor history, there were unfocused riots and protests and stuff too, before people got organized. These things have to start somewhere. OWS will probably disappear in name, but unless there is real change the anger will remain and come out again later and larger.
posted by DU at 5:44 AM on December 1, 2011 [14 favorites]
That's a bit melodramatic.
I really don't think it is. Look at the status quo - do you see a mechanism or feedback loop by which economic inequality is slowing down and scheduled to stop soon? If not, then it is simply failure of imagination to see that that path has consequences.
It always has. Contrary to popular propaganda, I don't believe that America is exceptional.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:44 AM on December 1, 2011 [14 favorites]
I really don't think it is. Look at the status quo - do you see a mechanism or feedback loop by which economic inequality is slowing down and scheduled to stop soon? If not, then it is simply failure of imagination to see that that path has consequences.
It always has. Contrary to popular propaganda, I don't believe that America is exceptional.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:44 AM on December 1, 2011 [14 favorites]
Because it's going to allow Obama to run to the right of Reagan and still capture most of the obedient, docile Left.
Yes, well, the last time a bunch of us voted our conscience, instead of hewing to the Democratic ticket, we woke up with GWB as President, and we know how well that worked out for the country. Given the apparent alternatives to Obama in 2012, I think being docile is a prudent move.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:47 AM on December 1, 2011 [13 favorites]
Yes, well, the last time a bunch of us voted our conscience, instead of hewing to the Democratic ticket, we woke up with GWB as President, and we know how well that worked out for the country. Given the apparent alternatives to Obama in 2012, I think being docile is a prudent move.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:47 AM on December 1, 2011 [13 favorites]
Contrary to popular propaganda, I don't believe that America is exceptional.
It would be more exceptional for America to die any time soon than for it to simple trudge along, worse for the wear, sometimes improving, and sometimes not.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:49 AM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
It would be more exceptional for America to die any time soon than for it to simple trudge along, worse for the wear, sometimes improving, and sometimes not.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:49 AM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
do you see a mechanism or feedback loop by which economic inequality is slowing down and scheduled to stop soon? If not, then it is simply failure of imagination to see that that path has consequences.
"that ath has consequences" is vastly different from "if OWS dies, then America follows", the latter is what I was objecting to. You're placing a lot weight on a singular movement.
My gut feeling is that America will continue for quite a while, even as economic inequality worsens. People will gladly put up with a quarter loaf of bread than no bread.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:54 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
"that ath has consequences" is vastly different from "if OWS dies, then America follows", the latter is what I was objecting to. You're placing a lot weight on a singular movement.
My gut feeling is that America will continue for quite a while, even as economic inequality worsens. People will gladly put up with a quarter loaf of bread than no bread.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:54 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
simple trudge along, worse for the wear, sometimes improving, and sometimes not.
Yes, it hinges on getting us enough of that "sometimes improving" goodness.
North Korea continues to trudge along, despite being far far worse for wear, so I'm not talking about national collapse the day after OWS gets gassed into giving up, these things take time. But that's part of the problem - things that are slow, and big, and take a very long time getting up steam, can also take a long time to stop.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:57 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Yes, it hinges on getting us enough of that "sometimes improving" goodness.
North Korea continues to trudge along, despite being far far worse for wear, so I'm not talking about national collapse the day after OWS gets gassed into giving up, these things take time. But that's part of the problem - things that are slow, and big, and take a very long time getting up steam, can also take a long time to stop.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:57 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
So OWS will cause Richard Nixon to get elected next year?
Nixon Now More Than Ever
posted by D.C. at 5:58 AM on December 1, 2011
Nixon Now More Than Ever
posted by D.C. at 5:58 AM on December 1, 2011
Yes, well, the last time a bunch of us voted our conscience, instead of hewing to the Democratic ticket, we woke up with GWB as President...
...and a candidate who at least talked a good, Leftist game to get us back.
Keep it up and we might get a candidate who actually came through on those promises.
posted by DU at 6:04 AM on December 1, 2011
...and a candidate who at least talked a good, Leftist game to get us back.
Keep it up and we might get a candidate who actually came through on those promises.
posted by DU at 6:04 AM on December 1, 2011
You're placing a lot weight on a singular movement.
No, I'm placing no weight on OWS, I'm placing the weight on the corruption and seizing of all visible mechanisms and pressure valves. Maybe I missed something, and maybe the money missed it too, but... maybe we didn't? Maybe OWS - effective or ineffective - is the biggest thing that isn't seized yet?
posted by -harlequin- at 6:04 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
No, I'm placing no weight on OWS, I'm placing the weight on the corruption and seizing of all visible mechanisms and pressure valves. Maybe I missed something, and maybe the money missed it too, but... maybe we didn't? Maybe OWS - effective or ineffective - is the biggest thing that isn't seized yet?
posted by -harlequin- at 6:04 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Yes, no possible comparison there.
Furthering the divide, Johnson actually worked in the public interest, at least on the domestic front.
Actually, I think the comparison is rather apt, if kind of backwards. Johnson was incredibly unpopular based on his foreign policy decisions, and Vietnam was a pretty unmitigated disaster, but he did pretty well domestically. Obama has done pretty well on foreign policy, all things considered--both Iraq and Afghanistan are rapidly winding down, bin Laden is dead, etc.--but his domestic activities have been far from awesome. Sure, he got ACA passed, but it was incredibly politically costly, still working its way through the courts, and is increasingly looking like it's going to be incredibly financially costly to boot. Changing DADT doesn't really counterbalance the fact that we've still got 9%+ unemployment, more among the young, and he's done almost nothing about that. We're sitting in the midst of the worst economic recession in two generations, and the best he's been able to do is make noise about passing some bill right now that he doesn't seem to have any intention of actually trying to get passed.
Not all of this is entirely his fault, but no one ever said politics was fair. He's the President, and has to play the hand he's been dealt. "He did the best he could" isn't really going to get out the vote.
posted by valkyryn at 6:16 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Furthering the divide, Johnson actually worked in the public interest, at least on the domestic front.
Actually, I think the comparison is rather apt, if kind of backwards. Johnson was incredibly unpopular based on his foreign policy decisions, and Vietnam was a pretty unmitigated disaster, but he did pretty well domestically. Obama has done pretty well on foreign policy, all things considered--both Iraq and Afghanistan are rapidly winding down, bin Laden is dead, etc.--but his domestic activities have been far from awesome. Sure, he got ACA passed, but it was incredibly politically costly, still working its way through the courts, and is increasingly looking like it's going to be incredibly financially costly to boot. Changing DADT doesn't really counterbalance the fact that we've still got 9%+ unemployment, more among the young, and he's done almost nothing about that. We're sitting in the midst of the worst economic recession in two generations, and the best he's been able to do is make noise about passing some bill right now that he doesn't seem to have any intention of actually trying to get passed.
Not all of this is entirely his fault, but no one ever said politics was fair. He's the President, and has to play the hand he's been dealt. "He did the best he could" isn't really going to get out the vote.
posted by valkyryn at 6:16 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
...and a candidate who at least talked a good, Leftist game to get us back.
Keep it up and we might get a candidate who actually came through on those promises.
Bullshit. The chances of that kind of scenario happening are astronomically low. After all, the GOP has already made huge inroads in redefining political geography to make 2012 hard to win. Give them the executive branch (especially DOJ) and 2016 and 2020 will be essentially impossible for moderate, let alone progressive, candidates to win most races for either state or federal elections.
And the stakes are much higher. The potential for a disaster is much higher in the next 4-8 years with the crazies running the place. And there is almost no room between any of the GOP candidates. I mean, I hope you realize that no matter how "reasonable" a candidate (Romney, for example) may have seemed in the past, if elected president they will govern as the loudest and meanest Republicans tell them to, right? A Romney administration will not all of the sudden remember that at some points he supported raising taxes, state-provided health care, at least minimally decent abortion rights, acceptance of gays, or man-made climate change. He'll reduce marginal tax rates on high earners, push to repeal the ACA and further deregulate insurance, demand Roe v. Wade repeal, and reinstate DADT and strengthen DOMA, and weaken or remove DOI (especially EPA) authority, because that's who he'll be told represents his electorate.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:42 AM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
Keep it up and we might get a candidate who actually came through on those promises.
Bullshit. The chances of that kind of scenario happening are astronomically low. After all, the GOP has already made huge inroads in redefining political geography to make 2012 hard to win. Give them the executive branch (especially DOJ) and 2016 and 2020 will be essentially impossible for moderate, let alone progressive, candidates to win most races for either state or federal elections.
And the stakes are much higher. The potential for a disaster is much higher in the next 4-8 years with the crazies running the place. And there is almost no room between any of the GOP candidates. I mean, I hope you realize that no matter how "reasonable" a candidate (Romney, for example) may have seemed in the past, if elected president they will govern as the loudest and meanest Republicans tell them to, right? A Romney administration will not all of the sudden remember that at some points he supported raising taxes, state-provided health care, at least minimally decent abortion rights, acceptance of gays, or man-made climate change. He'll reduce marginal tax rates on high earners, push to repeal the ACA and further deregulate insurance, demand Roe v. Wade repeal, and reinstate DADT and strengthen DOMA, and weaken or remove DOI (especially EPA) authority, because that's who he'll be told represents his electorate.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:42 AM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
If "foreign policy" means expanding secret overseas prisons, extraordinary rendition, murdering foreign citizens on their own soil, and increasing our military's use of armed drones (seriously! is there anything less comic book villain evil than killer robots called "predator" and "reaper"), I'm not sure I can say Obama's foreign policy record is stellar.
posted by Jon_Evil at 6:44 AM on December 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
posted by Jon_Evil at 6:44 AM on December 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
After all, the GOP has already made huge inroads in redefining political geography to make 2012 hard to win.
And however did they do that ?
Well, the Tea Party actually ran candidates. Candidates that either got elected or forced the incumbents to pay heed.
Can you name a single OWS candidate ?
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:12 AM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
And however did they do that ?
Well, the Tea Party actually ran candidates. Candidates that either got elected or forced the incumbents to pay heed.
Can you name a single OWS candidate ?
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:12 AM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
Can you name a single OWS candidate ?
I'd be really interested to see if OWS backs Warren, even unofficially. Would it would help or hinder?
In any case, I think were OWS to get into electoral politics (which they might well not) they should do it in an issue way, rather than a candidate way. And concentrating on congress.
Raise money, buy ads in key areas about the issues they care about, don't refer to candidates directly, raise a ruckus in front of events for candidates who are particularly bad on the key issues.
posted by feckless at 7:28 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'd be really interested to see if OWS backs Warren, even unofficially. Would it would help or hinder?
In any case, I think were OWS to get into electoral politics (which they might well not) they should do it in an issue way, rather than a candidate way. And concentrating on congress.
Raise money, buy ads in key areas about the issues they care about, don't refer to candidates directly, raise a ruckus in front of events for candidates who are particularly bad on the key issues.
posted by feckless at 7:28 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
On candidates, etc: We're a multi-pronged movement, and it's OK for one of those prongs to be involved in electoral politics, but it should be understood that our entire focus is not to occupy the government.
posted by Jon_Evil at 7:41 AM on December 1, 2011
posted by Jon_Evil at 7:41 AM on December 1, 2011
OWS makes people mad. Mad people go to the polls. Faced by two different candidates, is there any chance they won't overwhelming vote for the guy who's trying to clean up the mess rather than the party that made it? Answer = no. Meanwhile the republican base will be staying home being disillusioned. As the Tea Party was to 2010, so is OWS to 2012, whatever its participants might intend.
SPECIAL BETTING NOTICE:
I'll give anyone even odds on the Field vs Obama for president for any amount up to 1,000. Mail me for more details. Put up or shut up haters.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:46 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
SPECIAL BETTING NOTICE:
I'll give anyone even odds on the Field vs Obama for president for any amount up to 1,000. Mail me for more details. Put up or shut up haters.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:46 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile the republican base will be staying home being disillusioned.
Huh? Did you mean the Democratic base?
posted by John Cohen at 7:49 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Huh? Did you mean the Democratic base?
posted by John Cohen at 7:49 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
And however did they do that ?
Well, the Tea Party actually ran candidates. Candidates that either got elected or forced the incumbents to pay heed.
Can you name a single OWS candidate ?
No, but 1) there hasn't been an election where an OWS-style candidate could have declared, and 2) there seems to be a growing undercurrent of distrust of organizations and elected individuals that support them. The good news is that those can be fixed or reversed where necessary. But your statement seems to be a fundamental misreading of the process of encouraging progressive elected officials. By essentially saying "Obama hasn't done much and I don't care if Congress opposes him so let's toss him out," you're thinking about the process completely in reverse, and in IMO falling right into a GOP trap.
And, really, whose fault is it that progressives don't seem to be running candidates? It seems as if a lot of progressives just expect candidates to appear out of thin air rather than encourage them from their own ranks. I want to see more activists become candidates instead of complainers, to be quite honest. If you become candidates and relentlessly hound state Democratic organizations to support you, you create a viable force. And if (like me) for whatever reason you can't run yourself, then do whatever you can to support those who do. I'd honestly be shocked if a majority or even a large minority of people dissatisfied with Obama campaigned and/or donated significantly to local and state campaigns in the midterm elections, and I'd bet that their excuse was that they didn't like how Obama governed. That makes no sense from an electoral perspective, but that's what happens. It's illogical to say that you don't like the guy based on what he's done and that we should passively enable a result that we know will be much worse. Saying that the extremely slim-to-non-existent chance that we'll get another opportunity sooner rather than later is sound reasoning is even worse.
So instead of cutting off your nose to spite your face just to make a point in 2012, express your displeasure by getting active at the local and more importantly the state levels, where elected officials actually have the power to control redistricting. Sadly, the 2010 wins mean that this is mainly in GOP control for now, but that doesn't mean we can't start the process. When we elect more progressive state and local candidates, they can reshape the discussion and generate elected officials with experience to move to be candidates for top state executive positions or US Congress. That gives a Democratic president more support from the left wing of his party, and failing that, gives a good roster in positions which almost all Presidential candidates come from.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:51 AM on December 1, 2011 [15 favorites]
Well, the Tea Party actually ran candidates. Candidates that either got elected or forced the incumbents to pay heed.
Can you name a single OWS candidate ?
No, but 1) there hasn't been an election where an OWS-style candidate could have declared, and 2) there seems to be a growing undercurrent of distrust of organizations and elected individuals that support them. The good news is that those can be fixed or reversed where necessary. But your statement seems to be a fundamental misreading of the process of encouraging progressive elected officials. By essentially saying "Obama hasn't done much and I don't care if Congress opposes him so let's toss him out," you're thinking about the process completely in reverse, and in IMO falling right into a GOP trap.
And, really, whose fault is it that progressives don't seem to be running candidates? It seems as if a lot of progressives just expect candidates to appear out of thin air rather than encourage them from their own ranks. I want to see more activists become candidates instead of complainers, to be quite honest. If you become candidates and relentlessly hound state Democratic organizations to support you, you create a viable force. And if (like me) for whatever reason you can't run yourself, then do whatever you can to support those who do. I'd honestly be shocked if a majority or even a large minority of people dissatisfied with Obama campaigned and/or donated significantly to local and state campaigns in the midterm elections, and I'd bet that their excuse was that they didn't like how Obama governed. That makes no sense from an electoral perspective, but that's what happens. It's illogical to say that you don't like the guy based on what he's done and that we should passively enable a result that we know will be much worse. Saying that the extremely slim-to-non-existent chance that we'll get another opportunity sooner rather than later is sound reasoning is even worse.
So instead of cutting off your nose to spite your face just to make a point in 2012, express your displeasure by getting active at the local and more importantly the state levels, where elected officials actually have the power to control redistricting. Sadly, the 2010 wins mean that this is mainly in GOP control for now, but that doesn't mean we can't start the process. When we elect more progressive state and local candidates, they can reshape the discussion and generate elected officials with experience to move to be candidates for top state executive positions or US Congress. That gives a Democratic president more support from the left wing of his party, and failing that, gives a good roster in positions which almost all Presidential candidates come from.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:51 AM on December 1, 2011 [15 favorites]
his domestic activities have been far from awesome. Sure, he got ACA passed, but it was incredibly politically costly, still working its way through the courts, and is increasingly looking like it's going to be incredibly financially costly to boot.
Not to mention that it's unlikely to achieve its goal of covering everyone.
posted by John Cohen at 7:52 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Not to mention that it's unlikely to achieve its goal of covering everyone.
posted by John Cohen at 7:52 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Not to mention that it's unlikely to achieve its goal of covering everyone.
IIRC, that wasn't the goal in the first place, but rather that it was a large step in that direction.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:53 AM on December 1, 2011
IIRC, that wasn't the goal in the first place, but rather that it was a large step in that direction.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:53 AM on December 1, 2011
Yes, it really is too bad that the GOP has such a terrible field. Because it's going to allow Obama to run to the right of Reagan and still capture most of the obedient, docile Left.
But the whole "field" isn't going to be running against Obama. Only one Republican candidate is going to be running against Obama. That person will probably be either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. Whatever your opinion of them, they're not extreme right-wingers. They're actually both very squishy moderates who readily change their positions based on circumstances. Have they been making a lot of right-wing statements in the debates and on their websites? Of course. But that always happens in the primaries: the candidates pander to their base. Then they move to the middle in the general election. It may be fun to paint extreme scenarios where everyone veers far right, but the reality is that once the nominee is chosen, we'll be looking at a race between a quite moderate conservative and a quite moderate liberal.
posted by John Cohen at 7:58 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
But the whole "field" isn't going to be running against Obama. Only one Republican candidate is going to be running against Obama. That person will probably be either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. Whatever your opinion of them, they're not extreme right-wingers. They're actually both very squishy moderates who readily change their positions based on circumstances. Have they been making a lot of right-wing statements in the debates and on their websites? Of course. But that always happens in the primaries: the candidates pander to their base. Then they move to the middle in the general election. It may be fun to paint extreme scenarios where everyone veers far right, but the reality is that once the nominee is chosen, we'll be looking at a race between a quite moderate conservative and a quite moderate liberal.
posted by John Cohen at 7:58 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
IIRC, that wasn't the goal in the first place, but rather that it was a large step in that direction.
What? Source?
posted by John Cohen at 7:58 AM on December 1, 2011
What? Source?
posted by John Cohen at 7:58 AM on December 1, 2011
Pogo nails it. As a liberal it is frustrating to see the OWS movement eschew participation in the democratic processes (primary campains and local elections) that the Tea Party used so successfully to direct the national discourse and policy as recently as TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO. While I think their criticisms of the system have merit, it is clearly responsive to change from within. The Tea Party proved that and if more of the left in America were comfortable getting their hands dirty politically like the right is, we'd have more influence and control over how the country is governed.
TL;DR: Everyone at OWS should be giving money to Elizabeth Warren or working for free for the closest analogue to her in their local, state, or federal election campaign.
On candidates, etc: We're a multi-pronged movement, and it's OK for one of those prongs to be involved in electoral politics, but it should be understood that our entire focus is not to occupy the government.
That is, to be brief, stupid. If you and your group could occupy the goverment, or even a significant slice of it, you could get a ton of the progressive agenda accomplished, or at least talked about. Again, look at the fucking Tea Party. This is not ancient history; it's the last fucking federal election cycle. Or just look at their impact in the crazy-ass town halls during the Summer of Obamacare in 2010.
posted by Aizkolari at 7:59 AM on December 1, 2011 [12 favorites]
TL;DR: Everyone at OWS should be giving money to Elizabeth Warren or working for free for the closest analogue to her in their local, state, or federal election campaign.
On candidates, etc: We're a multi-pronged movement, and it's OK for one of those prongs to be involved in electoral politics, but it should be understood that our entire focus is not to occupy the government.
That is, to be brief, stupid. If you and your group could occupy the goverment, or even a significant slice of it, you could get a ton of the progressive agenda accomplished, or at least talked about. Again, look at the fucking Tea Party. This is not ancient history; it's the last fucking federal election cycle. Or just look at their impact in the crazy-ass town halls during the Summer of Obamacare in 2010.
posted by Aizkolari at 7:59 AM on December 1, 2011 [12 favorites]
First, and regarding the comments above re LBJ comparisons, FWIW, the linked NYMag article does, at the end, describe a mildly inspiring conversation between Jesse Jackson and OWS in which he reminds them of LBJ's progressive legacy in spite of his Vietnam war policy.
More generally, as a 2008 Obama supporter and Iowa caucus goer who is less than sure about voting for him again in 2012, I found this article to be quite hopeful about what might become of OWS now that the police have unintentionally forced OWS to be less concerned about defending physical Occupy space and perhaps be able to put more energy into formulating the strategy and next steps for 2012.
posted by webhund at 8:00 AM on December 1, 2011
More generally, as a 2008 Obama supporter and Iowa caucus goer who is less than sure about voting for him again in 2012, I found this article to be quite hopeful about what might become of OWS now that the police have unintentionally forced OWS to be less concerned about defending physical Occupy space and perhaps be able to put more energy into formulating the strategy and next steps for 2012.
posted by webhund at 8:00 AM on December 1, 2011
Sorry, the town halls I was referring to were in 2009, my bad.
posted by Aizkolari at 8:00 AM on December 1, 2011
posted by Aizkolari at 8:00 AM on December 1, 2011
I'm not sure I can say Obama's foreign policy record is stellar.
Saying that Obama did worse than LBJ in that he's whiffed on both foreign and domestic policy doesn't exactly hurt the 1968 comparison.
posted by valkyryn at 8:04 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Saying that Obama did worse than LBJ in that he's whiffed on both foreign and domestic policy doesn't exactly hurt the 1968 comparison.
posted by valkyryn at 8:04 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
As a liberal it is frustrating to see the OWS movement eschew participation in the democratic processes
Which democratic process would that be? Would it be the one that allows hundreds of millions of dollars of funding to candidates from mufti-national corporations? Or the one that only allows media airtime to candidates who raise more than 500,000 dollars the past quarter? (Seriously, that was an actual requirement for the last Republican debate). Or would that be the democratic process that allows highly flawed and hackable electronic voting machines to be distributed by , oh so coincidentally, huge corporate donors that happen to decide election results (I'm looking at you Ohio).
I'm confused as to which democratic process you mean.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 8:13 AM on December 1, 2011 [10 favorites]
Which democratic process would that be? Would it be the one that allows hundreds of millions of dollars of funding to candidates from mufti-national corporations? Or the one that only allows media airtime to candidates who raise more than 500,000 dollars the past quarter? (Seriously, that was an actual requirement for the last Republican debate). Or would that be the democratic process that allows highly flawed and hackable electronic voting machines to be distributed by , oh so coincidentally, huge corporate donors that happen to decide election results (I'm looking at you Ohio).
I'm confused as to which democratic process you mean.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 8:13 AM on December 1, 2011 [10 favorites]
They're actually both very squishy moderates who readily change their positions based on circumstances.
This might be true of Mitt, but Newt is no moderate.
posted by drezdn at 8:15 AM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
This might be true of Mitt, but Newt is no moderate.
posted by drezdn at 8:15 AM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
OWS makes people mad. Mad people go to the polls. Faced by two different candidates, is there any chance they won't overwhelming vote for the guy who's trying to clean up the mess rather than the party that made it? Answer = no. Meanwhile the republican base will be staying home being disillusioned. As the Tea Party was to 2010, so is OWS to 2012, whatever its participants might intend.
Potomac Avenue, two things:
(1) Your faith in the IQ of the American electorate exceeds mine. By 2012 the GOP will have successfully sold this economic slump as being wholly owned by Obama, which leaves the GOP as the ones "trying to clean up the mess" (by reducing taxes!).
(2) If you think the Republican base isn't mad, you're wrong. A black man in the WH! Dems in control! Miscellaneous paranoid lies about attacks on their religion/guns/right to be straight! They won't be disillusioned; that describes the Dems. And maybe the independents.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:16 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Potomac Avenue, two things:
(1) Your faith in the IQ of the American electorate exceeds mine. By 2012 the GOP will have successfully sold this economic slump as being wholly owned by Obama, which leaves the GOP as the ones "trying to clean up the mess" (by reducing taxes!).
(2) If you think the Republican base isn't mad, you're wrong. A black man in the WH! Dems in control! Miscellaneous paranoid lies about attacks on their religion/guns/right to be straight! They won't be disillusioned; that describes the Dems. And maybe the independents.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:16 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
I'm confused as to which democratic process you mean.
There are other elections, ones where money isn't as big as an issue. There are school boards, county boards, alder-people, etc. For years, the right has been focusing on these races as much if not more than the national level.
posted by drezdn at 8:17 AM on December 1, 2011 [8 favorites]
There are other elections, ones where money isn't as big as an issue. There are school boards, county boards, alder-people, etc. For years, the right has been focusing on these races as much if not more than the national level.
posted by drezdn at 8:17 AM on December 1, 2011 [8 favorites]
It is a sign of our perception of moderation being insanely skewed that Newt Gingrich could ever ever ever be described as a "moderate".
posted by davidjmcgee at 8:17 AM on December 1, 2011 [12 favorites]
posted by davidjmcgee at 8:17 AM on December 1, 2011 [12 favorites]
Poet, the democratic process you're describing did not give that much of a fuck about the Tea Party's platform until they got organized and started agitating. For every Koch brothers out there there's also a George Soros who could pony up money to support the mobilization of a left-wing equivalent. I know I would give money to such a party.
posted by Aizkolari at 8:22 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Aizkolari at 8:22 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Calling Obama "to the right of Reagan" is delusional.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:24 AM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:24 AM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
Metafilter is a good reminder that, as much as I'd like to think that the American Right has a monopoly on delusion, there's some of it floating around on the left as well.
posted by Aizkolari at 8:26 AM on December 1, 2011 [12 favorites]
posted by Aizkolari at 8:26 AM on December 1, 2011 [12 favorites]
I don't think that Obama's going to get taken down next November - not by any of the clowns that are presently throwing themselves forward, and probably not by Romney, either. I do think that we see a good chance of a powerful Republican contender in 2016 who is the product of a tactical compromise between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment - a 2012 defeat will convince both that neither of them can win through to their goal alone.
Obama hasn't lost either the backing of the mainline liberal establishment or his big corporate backers. And the Republicans seem willing to sacrifice any chance of pulling independents and moderates their way as the price of keeping the rabid base united. OWS may not like Obama, and Left opposition might have been able to throw the election to the Republicans had they pulled together behind a relatively moderate candidate, but now? The Republicans scare people, now. They scare a quorum of even my die-hard conservative relatives.
John Cohen above makes a good point that when the actual election starts whoever is nominated will definitely begin moving toward the center, but that will only be after the past months of savage infighting and right-wing red-meat hurling, and the remarkable amount of press the candidates have been getting means that its going to be very difficult to bury that. And Obama is going to use every fucking line spoken by whoever he ends up opposing to both rope in independent moderates (who frankly don't give a damn about OWS's view of him) and Left-wingers who will probably find it difficult to swallow the idea that handing the country over to one of Obama's opponents for four to eight years is an acceptable price for some nebulous political dividend down the line.
I do like the idea that OWS is shifting towards a more organized and long-term thinking political movement - although doubtless there will be a lot of people saying that this means it has lost its 'purity' or something if people like Berger end up in charge. But this:
“My fear is that we become the worst of the New Left,” Berger says. “I don’t want to live in a fucking commune. I don’t want to blow shit up. I want to get stuff done.”
has the potential for considerable play, because it expresses what even a great many "radicals" want - actual victories and achievements, which neither Obama's moderate administration nor the past twenty years of rather disorganized and quarrelsome radical tubthumpery have been able to deliver.
The key weakness of OWS as it stands now was alway the idea that a single, dramatic rebuff could kill the movement - which is precisely, I think, what the recent spate of shut-downs by police across the country was intended to accomplish. Send all the hippie idealists home dispirited and broken, and make the rest of the country dismiss them as having no staying power. But the great thing about OWS is that it is strong across the country, rather than just in New York City and Washington, DC - it has tremendous potential for action in local and state elections, which can deliver enough victories to keep the movement going even if it is broken in the camps and on the streets themselves, or rebuffed by the national party and in national elections, which in the short term it undoubtably will be.
There are other elections, ones where money isn't as big as an issue. There are school boards, county boards, alder-people, etc. For years, the right has been focusing on these races as much if not more than the national level.
Fucking bingo. And each local victory says something to the people who participate, and who then go on to participate in national elections - it encourages and engages them, gives them the psychological sense that they matter, that they can achieve something, that the system is not unchallengeable. It makes them resilient.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:27 AM on December 1, 2011 [11 favorites]
Obama hasn't lost either the backing of the mainline liberal establishment or his big corporate backers. And the Republicans seem willing to sacrifice any chance of pulling independents and moderates their way as the price of keeping the rabid base united. OWS may not like Obama, and Left opposition might have been able to throw the election to the Republicans had they pulled together behind a relatively moderate candidate, but now? The Republicans scare people, now. They scare a quorum of even my die-hard conservative relatives.
John Cohen above makes a good point that when the actual election starts whoever is nominated will definitely begin moving toward the center, but that will only be after the past months of savage infighting and right-wing red-meat hurling, and the remarkable amount of press the candidates have been getting means that its going to be very difficult to bury that. And Obama is going to use every fucking line spoken by whoever he ends up opposing to both rope in independent moderates (who frankly don't give a damn about OWS's view of him) and Left-wingers who will probably find it difficult to swallow the idea that handing the country over to one of Obama's opponents for four to eight years is an acceptable price for some nebulous political dividend down the line.
I do like the idea that OWS is shifting towards a more organized and long-term thinking political movement - although doubtless there will be a lot of people saying that this means it has lost its 'purity' or something if people like Berger end up in charge. But this:
“My fear is that we become the worst of the New Left,” Berger says. “I don’t want to live in a fucking commune. I don’t want to blow shit up. I want to get stuff done.”
has the potential for considerable play, because it expresses what even a great many "radicals" want - actual victories and achievements, which neither Obama's moderate administration nor the past twenty years of rather disorganized and quarrelsome radical tubthumpery have been able to deliver.
The key weakness of OWS as it stands now was alway the idea that a single, dramatic rebuff could kill the movement - which is precisely, I think, what the recent spate of shut-downs by police across the country was intended to accomplish. Send all the hippie idealists home dispirited and broken, and make the rest of the country dismiss them as having no staying power. But the great thing about OWS is that it is strong across the country, rather than just in New York City and Washington, DC - it has tremendous potential for action in local and state elections, which can deliver enough victories to keep the movement going even if it is broken in the camps and on the streets themselves, or rebuffed by the national party and in national elections, which in the short term it undoubtably will be.
There are other elections, ones where money isn't as big as an issue. There are school boards, county boards, alder-people, etc. For years, the right has been focusing on these races as much if not more than the national level.
Fucking bingo. And each local victory says something to the people who participate, and who then go on to participate in national elections - it encourages and engages them, gives them the psychological sense that they matter, that they can achieve something, that the system is not unchallengeable. It makes them resilient.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:27 AM on December 1, 2011 [11 favorites]
Fucking bingo. And each local victory says something to the people who participate, and who then go on to participate in national elections - it encourages and engages them, gives them the psychological sense that they matter, that they can achieve something, that the system is not unchallengeable. It makes them resilient.
And in the same way OWS has been radicalizing and motivating a fair number of people who never thought they'd find themselves cast in the role of "activist" to become participants in democratic decision-making and political actions. So, the above paragraph can apply to the protesters as well. This is just the groundswell.
In addition, I find the idea that most of the people who are protesting on Wall street are not, or have not been engaged in local politics laughable and I'm not sure why it's so widespread. They probably haven't been part of the Democratic campaign machine but that's not the same thing as being uninvolved in their community government.
posted by stagewhisper at 8:41 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
And in the same way OWS has been radicalizing and motivating a fair number of people who never thought they'd find themselves cast in the role of "activist" to become participants in democratic decision-making and political actions. So, the above paragraph can apply to the protesters as well. This is just the groundswell.
In addition, I find the idea that most of the people who are protesting on Wall street are not, or have not been engaged in local politics laughable and I'm not sure why it's so widespread. They probably haven't been part of the Democratic campaign machine but that's not the same thing as being uninvolved in their community government.
posted by stagewhisper at 8:41 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
So, let's play it out, this hypothetical Democratic fantasy: You manage to spin the OWS movement into a bunch of voters, a counterpoint to the Tea Party. George Soros pitches in a big chunk of cash to help get 'em organized. They turn out to vote for their favorite (D) in droves, on every level of primaries and elections. And you get a bunch of "true Progressives" elected (they are also true Scotsmen, that's how you know they won't desert you post-election day). And they do amazing, progressive things! They reinstate Glass-Steagall! They reform healthcare! They address all of your pet peeves, they accomplish all your favorite (to pull from the other thread) "technocratic tweaks".
And what then? How long does this populist surge of enthusiasm keep up? Does everybody stay vigilant at every primary and every election day for the rest of their lives? How long does Glass-Steagall stay reinstated before getting repealed or having some loopholes legislated into it? Or do you think that your populist fervor will actually be enough to get the money out of politics? How many elections can you fund to elect candidates who will then vote for publicly-funded elections? Do you think George Soros will help out with that?
The problem is a system where money matters more than votes. It doesn't matter how many votes you turn OWS into, if you don't fix that flaw in the system you're still gonna lose the war no matter how many battles you win.
posted by mstokes650 at 8:45 AM on December 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
And what then? How long does this populist surge of enthusiasm keep up? Does everybody stay vigilant at every primary and every election day for the rest of their lives? How long does Glass-Steagall stay reinstated before getting repealed or having some loopholes legislated into it? Or do you think that your populist fervor will actually be enough to get the money out of politics? How many elections can you fund to elect candidates who will then vote for publicly-funded elections? Do you think George Soros will help out with that?
The problem is a system where money matters more than votes. It doesn't matter how many votes you turn OWS into, if you don't fix that flaw in the system you're still gonna lose the war no matter how many battles you win.
posted by mstokes650 at 8:45 AM on December 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
But the whole "field" isn't going to be running against Obama. Only one Republican candidate is going to be running against Obama. That person will probably be either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. Whatever your opinion of them, they're not extreme right-wingers. They're actually both very squishy moderates who readily change their positions based on circumstances. Have they been making a lot of right-wing statements in the debates and on their websites? Of course. But that always happens in the primaries: the candidates pander to their base. Then they move to the middle in the general election. It may be fun to paint extreme scenarios where everyone veers far right, but the reality is that once the nominee is chosen, we'll be looking at a race between a quite moderate conservative and a quite moderate liberal.
You're welcome to believe that, but I have very little faith that we'll actually see that, and there seems to be a decent amount of evidence to back that up.
In addition, I find the idea that most of the people who are protesting on Wall street are not, or have not been engaged in local politics laughable and I'm not sure why it's so widespread. They probably haven't been part of the Democratic campaign machine but that's not the same thing as being uninvolved in their community government.
I don't think anyone's said that of OWS. It seems to be the larger group of self-identified liberals and progressives who claim dissatisfaction with Obama and use that as anexcuse explanation to be unenthusiastic about midterms and other local and state elections.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:46 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
You're welcome to believe that, but I have very little faith that we'll actually see that, and there seems to be a decent amount of evidence to back that up.
In addition, I find the idea that most of the people who are protesting on Wall street are not, or have not been engaged in local politics laughable and I'm not sure why it's so widespread. They probably haven't been part of the Democratic campaign machine but that's not the same thing as being uninvolved in their community government.
I don't think anyone's said that of OWS. It seems to be the larger group of self-identified liberals and progressives who claim dissatisfaction with Obama and use that as an
posted by zombieflanders at 8:46 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
And in the same way OWS has been radicalizing and motivating a fair number of people who never thought they'd find themselves cast in the role of "activist" to become participants in democratic decision-making and political actions. So, the above paragraph can apply to the protesters as well. This is just the groundswell.
Can it be applied yet, though? The point I was making was that victories encourage a resilient and dedicated state of mind among activists, and OWS has not yet won secure victories in terms of people elected and policies enacted. If they can accomplish that, great, but if not, they are still open to being knocked into history by a single large reverse.
In addition, I find the idea that most of the people who are protesting on Wall street are not, or have not been engaged in local politics laughable and I'm not sure why it's so widespread.
The linked article seems to focus for the most part on the many individuals who come from outside the ranks of dedicated politically aware liberals and Leftists. I'm not sure if that's actually a good picture of the movement or a function of who he chose to interview and talk about, but the article reinforces the notion that a large chunk of these are people who were not particularly involved politically before OWS or, at least, before the 2008 elections.
Also, being engaged as one individual among thousands in local and state elections, and being engaged in the same as part of a nation-wide movement are two very different things. Its a lot easier to feel overwhelmed and manipulated in the first case, the second offers a sense of belonging, mutual obligation, and common strength.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:50 AM on December 1, 2011
Can it be applied yet, though? The point I was making was that victories encourage a resilient and dedicated state of mind among activists, and OWS has not yet won secure victories in terms of people elected and policies enacted. If they can accomplish that, great, but if not, they are still open to being knocked into history by a single large reverse.
In addition, I find the idea that most of the people who are protesting on Wall street are not, or have not been engaged in local politics laughable and I'm not sure why it's so widespread.
The linked article seems to focus for the most part on the many individuals who come from outside the ranks of dedicated politically aware liberals and Leftists. I'm not sure if that's actually a good picture of the movement or a function of who he chose to interview and talk about, but the article reinforces the notion that a large chunk of these are people who were not particularly involved politically before OWS or, at least, before the 2008 elections.
Also, being engaged as one individual among thousands in local and state elections, and being engaged in the same as part of a nation-wide movement are two very different things. Its a lot easier to feel overwhelmed and manipulated in the first case, the second offers a sense of belonging, mutual obligation, and common strength.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:50 AM on December 1, 2011
Does everybody stay vigilant at every primary and every election day for the rest of their lives?
Yes. That is how the political process in our representative democracy works. If you think you're not going to have to fight hard to get what you want here then you're dreaming. America is a center-right country, so for the left to get what we want we're going to be have to be tough, organized, and persistent.
posted by Aizkolari at 8:53 AM on December 1, 2011 [10 favorites]
Yes. That is how the political process in our representative democracy works. If you think you're not going to have to fight hard to get what you want here then you're dreaming. America is a center-right country, so for the left to get what we want we're going to be have to be tough, organized, and persistent.
posted by Aizkolari at 8:53 AM on December 1, 2011 [10 favorites]
Wow, this thread is moving too fast.
1. The comparision to '68 doesn't have to do with LBJ, it's referring to the protests at the Dem convention that wound up hurting Humphrey, and the backlash helped Nixon win.
2. OWS and the Tea Party wont work, because the Tea Party that actually cared about financial reform is dead. What's left of the Tea Party is a bunch of anti-abortion Christian Conservatives that want Jesus back in government. There's a better chance of aligning with some of the same people that were drawn into supporting the TP in 2010, but I think a lot of that support was more or less aligned with the Austerity Class types.
3. OWS hasn't opted out of the democratic process. They've been planning to elect national officers from each congressional district to pressure congress and form a 3rd party if their demands aren't met to run in 2014. My concern is that this is just too far out to make a difference in the short term 2012 presidential election timeframe.
posted by daHIFI at 8:57 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
1. The comparision to '68 doesn't have to do with LBJ, it's referring to the protests at the Dem convention that wound up hurting Humphrey, and the backlash helped Nixon win.
2. OWS and the Tea Party wont work, because the Tea Party that actually cared about financial reform is dead. What's left of the Tea Party is a bunch of anti-abortion Christian Conservatives that want Jesus back in government. There's a better chance of aligning with some of the same people that were drawn into supporting the TP in 2010, but I think a lot of that support was more or less aligned with the Austerity Class types.
3. OWS hasn't opted out of the democratic process. They've been planning to elect national officers from each congressional district to pressure congress and form a 3rd party if their demands aren't met to run in 2014. My concern is that this is just too far out to make a difference in the short term 2012 presidential election timeframe.
posted by daHIFI at 8:57 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
If you think you're not going to have to fight hard to get what you want here then you're dreaming.
And my point is that if you think the surge of energy and passion brought about by the OWS protests is going to last forever, and you're counting on that to make your plan work, you're dreaming.
posted by mstokes650 at 8:57 AM on December 1, 2011
And my point is that if you think the surge of energy and passion brought about by the OWS protests is going to last forever, and you're counting on that to make your plan work, you're dreaming.
posted by mstokes650 at 8:57 AM on December 1, 2011
Then we agree: the OWS surge is not sustainable. We need to think of ways that we can work to make it more sustainable so that we can get more of what we want in the short and long term.
posted by Aizkolari at 8:59 AM on December 1, 2011
posted by Aizkolari at 8:59 AM on December 1, 2011
We agree that the surge is not sustainable; you're looking for way to make it more sustainable, while I'm looking at human nature, which is to get comfortable and complacent and less interested in politics when everything seems to be going well, and rather than try to combat human nature, I'm looking for ways to make it so that surge is not necessary.
posted by mstokes650 at 9:04 AM on December 1, 2011
posted by mstokes650 at 9:04 AM on December 1, 2011
As a liberal it is frustrating to see the OWS movement eschew participation in the democratic processes (primary campains and local elections) that the Tea Party used so successfully to direct the national discourse and policy as recently as TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO.
It takes a while to move the Overton Window back your direction. The whole OWS movement is beyond partisan politics because it tries to reframe the whole issue of government outside partisan politics. I often say the OWS movement is ideological, not political. My local Occupation's statement of principles explicitly endorses working within the political system. Already the Caucuses and campaign events are Occupied, and there is a lot of action at the level of local politics.
I'm going to have to read this article and analyze it in detail, but on a quick preview, I can already tell that this is the sort of OWS commentary that drives me nuts. I constantly see people coming at OWS with comparisons to past actions like the 1968 era antiwar protests. These people are looking in the wrong direction, comparing to the past. Sorry, that is all part of the political system that doesn't work, that got us to this point. I don't see any point in constantly looking to the past, whether it be the Nixon era, the Reagan era or the Clinton era or whatever. We need a new direction: forward. I prefer a direction like this, Robert Reich looks at the post-2012 economic projections. We need to start dealing with what's happening now, and in the immediate future, rather than fighting the same battles as we have for decades.
posted by charlie don't surf at 9:04 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
It takes a while to move the Overton Window back your direction. The whole OWS movement is beyond partisan politics because it tries to reframe the whole issue of government outside partisan politics. I often say the OWS movement is ideological, not political. My local Occupation's statement of principles explicitly endorses working within the political system. Already the Caucuses and campaign events are Occupied, and there is a lot of action at the level of local politics.
I'm going to have to read this article and analyze it in detail, but on a quick preview, I can already tell that this is the sort of OWS commentary that drives me nuts. I constantly see people coming at OWS with comparisons to past actions like the 1968 era antiwar protests. These people are looking in the wrong direction, comparing to the past. Sorry, that is all part of the political system that doesn't work, that got us to this point. I don't see any point in constantly looking to the past, whether it be the Nixon era, the Reagan era or the Clinton era or whatever. We need a new direction: forward. I prefer a direction like this, Robert Reich looks at the post-2012 economic projections. We need to start dealing with what's happening now, and in the immediate future, rather than fighting the same battles as we have for decades.
posted by charlie don't surf at 9:04 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Does everybody stay vigilant at every primary and every election day for the rest of their lives?
This is a pretty good description of the issue with the American body politic generally, actually. "What, you mean I have to actually pay attention? A couple of days every two to four years? Fuck that, way too much work."
And my point is that if you think the surge of energy and passion brought about by the OWS protests is going to last forever, and you're counting on that to make your plan work, you're dreaming.
Which is precisely why Jim Crow was re-established after the whole Civil Rights era enthusiasm blew over, and why women lost the right to vote back in the Fifties, after the last of the old suffragettes died off.
Once laws have been made, passed by all three branches, and gotten used to by the body politic, they're awfully hard to switch up again - it takes considerable effort, and if laws are passed limiting or breaking financial power in politics, the very ability of corporations and the 1% to extend that effort will be removed from them. Ten years after the relevant legislation is passed, everyone - even the rich - will simply be used to the notion that you can't just fucking buy senators.
And yeah, getting there will be hard. We've fought harder battles (among them the elimination of slavery, the extension of the franchise, the establishment of Social Security, hell independence) as a country and won them, and done so in the face of folk passionately declaring that it was stupid and naive to even try. You don't think it can be done? Fine. Move out of the way and let those who can, do.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:06 AM on December 1, 2011 [10 favorites]
This is a pretty good description of the issue with the American body politic generally, actually. "What, you mean I have to actually pay attention? A couple of days every two to four years? Fuck that, way too much work."
And my point is that if you think the surge of energy and passion brought about by the OWS protests is going to last forever, and you're counting on that to make your plan work, you're dreaming.
Which is precisely why Jim Crow was re-established after the whole Civil Rights era enthusiasm blew over, and why women lost the right to vote back in the Fifties, after the last of the old suffragettes died off.
Once laws have been made, passed by all three branches, and gotten used to by the body politic, they're awfully hard to switch up again - it takes considerable effort, and if laws are passed limiting or breaking financial power in politics, the very ability of corporations and the 1% to extend that effort will be removed from them. Ten years after the relevant legislation is passed, everyone - even the rich - will simply be used to the notion that you can't just fucking buy senators.
And yeah, getting there will be hard. We've fought harder battles (among them the elimination of slavery, the extension of the franchise, the establishment of Social Security, hell independence) as a country and won them, and done so in the face of folk passionately declaring that it was stupid and naive to even try. You don't think it can be done? Fine. Move out of the way and let those who can, do.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:06 AM on December 1, 2011 [10 favorites]
Hmph. Okay, got a little heated there. I think we fundamentally agree, mstokes650 - I'm just saying that OWS can evolve into something that is more than just a transient surge of reformist sentiment. It can become that thing that you are looking for.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:07 AM on December 1, 2011
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:07 AM on December 1, 2011
I often say the OWS movement is ideological, not political.
While OWS figures out if it wants to be a political movement, or just a movement, republicans are working on co-opting the message.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:18 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
While OWS figures out if it wants to be a political movement, or just a movement, republicans are working on co-opting the message.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:18 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Furthering the divide, Johnson actually worked in the public interest, at least on the domestic front.
Really? Because I thought he's been busy pushing through universal healthcare, repealing DADT, fighting Republicans to increase tax revenues and generally (but, admittedly, not exclusively) pursuing a pretty liberal social and fiscal strategy.
Whining that you only got two scoops of ice cream instead of three is pretty weak.
posted by bpm140 at 9:27 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Really? Because I thought he's been busy pushing through universal healthcare, repealing DADT, fighting Republicans to increase tax revenues and generally (but, admittedly, not exclusively) pursuing a pretty liberal social and fiscal strategy.
Whining that you only got two scoops of ice cream instead of three is pretty weak.
posted by bpm140 at 9:27 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Mandatory health insurance is not universal health care.
posted by winna at 9:38 AM on December 1, 2011 [14 favorites]
posted by winna at 9:38 AM on December 1, 2011 [14 favorites]
Is it good to be thankful for our two scoops of ice cream while the fucking kitchen is on fire? Sure, a third scoop would be nice, but you know what would be better?
posted by davidjmcgee at 9:39 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by davidjmcgee at 9:39 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
To further mangle this ridiculous metaphor, if the ice cream guy had a fire extinguisher that was maybe half-full, and another guy came in with a can of gasoline, why would you either kick the guy with the extinguisher out or ask the guy with the gasoline to go ahead and toss it in the kitchen in the hopes you could one day maybe build a better kitchen?
posted by zombieflanders at 9:46 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 9:46 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Yay flogging the dead metaphor!
Obama may have a half-full fire extinguisher, but as far as I'm concerned he also has a full can of gasoline. As he continues to not only continue but in many cases codify into law Bush's assault on civil liberties (assassinating an American citizen without due process, threatening to veto the new bill destroying habeas corpus because it's too restrictive, the furthering of the CIA drone programs, the imprisonment without trial of Bradley Manning, keeping Guantanamo Bay open despite his promises &c. &c.).
It's not like he's just kinda-sorta-trying but the big bad GOP makes everything so hard. He's half-assedly scooping ice cream with one hand and using a flamethrower with the other.
posted by davidjmcgee at 10:03 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Obama may have a half-full fire extinguisher, but as far as I'm concerned he also has a full can of gasoline. As he continues to not only continue but in many cases codify into law Bush's assault on civil liberties (assassinating an American citizen without due process, threatening to veto the new bill destroying habeas corpus because it's too restrictive, the furthering of the CIA drone programs, the imprisonment without trial of Bradley Manning, keeping Guantanamo Bay open despite his promises &c. &c.).
It's not like he's just kinda-sorta-trying but the big bad GOP makes everything so hard. He's half-assedly scooping ice cream with one hand and using a flamethrower with the other.
posted by davidjmcgee at 10:03 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: half-assedly scooping ice cream with one hand and using a flamethrower with the other
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:06 AM on December 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:06 AM on December 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
Yes because nothing will move this country forward into a progressive utopia like putting Newt Gingrich in charge.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:07 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Ironmouth at 10:07 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
I'm confused as to which democratic process you mean.
How 'bout the one in 2010 when the Left stayed home waiting for Obama to fix everything, while the Tea Party went to the polls and took over Congress. One of the reasons Obama can't/couldn't meet his goals is because his supporters stopped helping as soon as he won the election. The Left has to stop letting the perfect get in the way of the good.
posted by tommyD at 10:08 AM on December 1, 2011 [12 favorites]
How 'bout the one in 2010 when the Left stayed home waiting for Obama to fix everything, while the Tea Party went to the polls and took over Congress. One of the reasons Obama can't/couldn't meet his goals is because his supporters stopped helping as soon as he won the election. The Left has to stop letting the perfect get in the way of the good.
posted by tommyD at 10:08 AM on December 1, 2011 [12 favorites]
Upon reflection, my initial metaphor was not entirely congruent with the feelings I was trying to convey. But since we've all taken the ice cream thing and run, let me try again, in similar terms:
Furthering the divide, Johnson actually worked in the public interest, at least on the domestic front.
Really? That you didn't get all the ice cream you asked for doesn't mean that you got *no* ice cream.
There, I think that's better. Even if it lacks any scoops.
posted by bpm140 at 10:13 AM on December 1, 2011
Furthering the divide, Johnson actually worked in the public interest, at least on the domestic front.
Really? That you didn't get all the ice cream you asked for doesn't mean that you got *no* ice cream.
There, I think that's better. Even if it lacks any scoops.
posted by bpm140 at 10:13 AM on December 1, 2011
You know what else won't move this country towards a progressive utopia? That's right, voting a center-right Democrat into office instead of a real progressive.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:14 AM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 10:14 AM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
Once laws have been made, passed by all three branches, and gotten used to by the body politic, they're awfully hard to switch up again - it takes considerable effort, and if laws are passed limiting or breaking financial power in politics, the very ability of corporations and the 1% to extend that effort will be removed from them. Ten years after the relevant legislation is passed, everyone - even the rich - will simply be used to the notion that you can't just fucking buy senators.
But senators didn't start out as purchasable. Glass-Steagall did get repealed after being a law for sixty-six years. Half the stuff we're dealing with now is stuff that had been dealt with post-1929. So why does Glass-Steagall get repealed and Jim Crow doesn't get reinstated? Why didn't it seem perfectly natural - even to the rich - for investment banks and commercial banks to stay separate? If you can't answer that, how do you keep this from happening again someday?
I have my own opinions (of course! As if MeFites ever lacked for those), but I also need to get some work done today. I'm just gonna link to this again, because I think it's important to understanding why OWS is not like past American protest movements.
posted by mstokes650 at 10:26 AM on December 1, 2011
But senators didn't start out as purchasable. Glass-Steagall did get repealed after being a law for sixty-six years. Half the stuff we're dealing with now is stuff that had been dealt with post-1929. So why does Glass-Steagall get repealed and Jim Crow doesn't get reinstated? Why didn't it seem perfectly natural - even to the rich - for investment banks and commercial banks to stay separate? If you can't answer that, how do you keep this from happening again someday?
I have my own opinions (of course! As if MeFites ever lacked for those), but I also need to get some work done today. I'm just gonna link to this again, because I think it's important to understanding why OWS is not like past American protest movements.
posted by mstokes650 at 10:26 AM on December 1, 2011
One of the reasons Obama can't/couldn't meet his goals is because his supporters stopped helping as soon as he won the election.
Maybe it was his
posted by clarknova at 10:34 AM on December 1, 2011 [10 favorites]
Maybe it was his
- Appointment of a CEO of Goldman Sachs to Secretary of the Treasury
- Appointment of another Sachs CEO as Secretary of the Treasury when the first didn't work out
- Forgetting to close Guantanamo Bay
- Explicitly extending the Bush-era policy of denying detainees habeus corpus
- Increasing the rate of extrajudicial killings of foreign nationals
posted by clarknova at 10:34 AM on December 1, 2011 [10 favorites]
TL;DR: Everyone at OWS should be giving money to Elizabeth Warren or working for free for the closest analogue to her in their local, state, or federal election campaign.
Do the latter. You need a liberal, progressive infrastructure to support a liberal President. Until you've got a large part of the House AND Senate, your liberal President can't do much. That is the lesson to take from the Obama administration. OWS should have started up in the summer of 2008 and kept pushing then.
Forgetting to close Guantanamo Bay
Tried that. Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, said no and said it repeatedly. This goes back to the infrastructure point I was making. 2012 is more or less a done deal. Start with 2014 and build.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:42 AM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
Do the latter. You need a liberal, progressive infrastructure to support a liberal President. Until you've got a large part of the House AND Senate, your liberal President can't do much. That is the lesson to take from the Obama administration. OWS should have started up in the summer of 2008 and kept pushing then.
Forgetting to close Guantanamo Bay
Tried that. Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, said no and said it repeatedly. This goes back to the infrastructure point I was making. 2012 is more or less a done deal. Start with 2014 and build.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:42 AM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
I just realized something --- y'all know i'm one of the "Obama, meh" types and try to voice my displeasure... And one of the hippie-punching tactics ends up being that "Obama's just the president, he has no power, etc..."
But notice that when it comes time to vote and shift gears it's all "OMG! If a Republican has ALL THAT POWER! You HAVE to vote for Obama"
So is it just an absurd amount of power? Or is it hardly any power and poor poor Obama can't do anything because that's not his job.
Make up your minds.
That said, ya know what? I posted it in another thread, but seeing the mug of Dubya during a thing on PBS and hearing that cocky smarmy fake-cowboy bullshit made me think real long and hard. If I'm going to get fucked over, please at least have the common decency to do it with a smile.
So as much as I'm not happy about it, I have a 95% chance of voting for Obama just to keep the Repubs outta power.
The other issue is that if we keep the Repubs outta power, we can focus on the larger system - whereas if the Repubs get into power, it becomes "if only we can get (Dubya) out" and we focus on partisan politics instead of working to find solutions to the larger systemic issues at hand. It's a tactical thing.
posted by symbioid at 10:50 AM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
But notice that when it comes time to vote and shift gears it's all "OMG! If a Republican has ALL THAT POWER! You HAVE to vote for Obama"
So is it just an absurd amount of power? Or is it hardly any power and poor poor Obama can't do anything because that's not his job.
Make up your minds.
That said, ya know what? I posted it in another thread, but seeing the mug of Dubya during a thing on PBS and hearing that cocky smarmy fake-cowboy bullshit made me think real long and hard. If I'm going to get fucked over, please at least have the common decency to do it with a smile.
So as much as I'm not happy about it, I have a 95% chance of voting for Obama just to keep the Repubs outta power.
The other issue is that if we keep the Repubs outta power, we can focus on the larger system - whereas if the Repubs get into power, it becomes "if only we can get (Dubya) out" and we focus on partisan politics instead of working to find solutions to the larger systemic issues at hand. It's a tactical thing.
posted by symbioid at 10:50 AM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
All this hand-wringing over Obama's administration is somewhat laughable. The moment he appointed Geithner, Summers, et al. to the Treasury it was abundantly clear who was running the show and how Obama would manage as President.
From that moment forward I've never thought Obama was anything other than a Wall Street stooge.
He has been an utter disappointment on just about every front. Stop making excuses for what will be known as "the greatest lost opportunity to do the right thing" in ages. Obama has demonstrated that it doesn't matter if you have George W. Bush or a well intended Democrat in office - they're all doing the bidding of someone other than the general electorate.
posted by tgrundke at 10:51 AM on December 1, 2011 [11 favorites]
From that moment forward I've never thought Obama was anything other than a Wall Street stooge.
He has been an utter disappointment on just about every front. Stop making excuses for what will be known as "the greatest lost opportunity to do the right thing" in ages. Obama has demonstrated that it doesn't matter if you have George W. Bush or a well intended Democrat in office - they're all doing the bidding of someone other than the general electorate.
posted by tgrundke at 10:51 AM on December 1, 2011 [11 favorites]
You know what else won't move this country towards a progressive utopia? That's right, voting a center-right Democrat into office instead of a real progressive.
You don't have the votes to elect anyone else. That's my point.
Let's turn to the polling.
Conservative 41%
Moderate 36%
Liberal 21%
Only 6% of Americans consider themselves "Very Liberal."
Where are your votes? And, if you don't have the votes, please don't mess it up like last time, ok? 1.5 million Iraqis will thank you.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:56 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
You don't have the votes to elect anyone else. That's my point.
Let's turn to the polling.
Conservative 41%
Moderate 36%
Liberal 21%
Only 6% of Americans consider themselves "Very Liberal."
Where are your votes? And, if you don't have the votes, please don't mess it up like last time, ok? 1.5 million Iraqis will thank you.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:56 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
The Left has to stop letting the perfect get in the way of the good.
It's not even like we have to stop going after the perfect; we just need to do it in the right time and place: the primaries. You go after your perfect liberal candidate in the primaries, but then hold your nose and vote for the most electable liberal in the general. Republicans have been doing this forever and it works for them. The Ron Paul folks root like hell for their crazy old asshole in the primaries but still show up for whichever Republican gets the nod for the general in November.
If you do this long enough you get the current Republican problem of your extreme wing hijacking the primaries but I don't think the Democrats are close to having that problem so let's not worry about it for now.
posted by Aizkolari at 11:01 AM on December 1, 2011
It's not even like we have to stop going after the perfect; we just need to do it in the right time and place: the primaries. You go after your perfect liberal candidate in the primaries, but then hold your nose and vote for the most electable liberal in the general. Republicans have been doing this forever and it works for them. The Ron Paul folks root like hell for their crazy old asshole in the primaries but still show up for whichever Republican gets the nod for the general in November.
If you do this long enough you get the current Republican problem of your extreme wing hijacking the primaries but I don't think the Democrats are close to having that problem so let's not worry about it for now.
posted by Aizkolari at 11:01 AM on December 1, 2011
But notice that when it comes time to vote and shift gears it's all "OMG! If a Republican has ALL THAT POWER! You HAVE to vote for Obama"
So is it just an absurd amount of power? Or is it hardly any power and poor poor Obama can't do anything because that's not his job.
Make up your minds.
Or, you know, it could be because the other two branches of the government have it in their power to push their agenda and block the president's. And let's face it, if you're unenthusiastic about voting for Obama then it's extremely likely you're not going to vote down-ticket, let alone go out and physically support the kind of candidates you keep on going on about. Aaaaand look at that: we're back at working from the bottom up to get the government you want, if you could be arsed enough to do it.
You know what else won't move this country towards a progressive utopia? That's right, voting a center-right Democrat into office instead of a real progressive.
Right, because nothing else matters. Fuck bothering with local candidates that could move the conversation to the left. Fuck working for and giving money to people that could both influence the president's decisions and give him the votes to pass more progressive legislation. It's all his fault so why even bother? Because as we all know, the president writes all the bills before handing them off, because that's how the branches of government work, right?
posted by zombieflanders at 11:02 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
So is it just an absurd amount of power? Or is it hardly any power and poor poor Obama can't do anything because that's not his job.
Make up your minds.
Or, you know, it could be because the other two branches of the government have it in their power to push their agenda and block the president's. And let's face it, if you're unenthusiastic about voting for Obama then it's extremely likely you're not going to vote down-ticket, let alone go out and physically support the kind of candidates you keep on going on about. Aaaaand look at that: we're back at working from the bottom up to get the government you want, if you could be arsed enough to do it.
You know what else won't move this country towards a progressive utopia? That's right, voting a center-right Democrat into office instead of a real progressive.
Right, because nothing else matters. Fuck bothering with local candidates that could move the conversation to the left. Fuck working for and giving money to people that could both influence the president's decisions and give him the votes to pass more progressive legislation. It's all his fault so why even bother? Because as we all know, the president writes all the bills before handing them off, because that's how the branches of government work, right?
posted by zombieflanders at 11:02 AM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
The 60s social movements really ran out of steam in the 1970s, and by the 1980s many of the former enthusiastic participants were embracing the corporate culture-- see the Big Chill for more on that. Once Nixon ended the draft, that meant a lot of people who were primarily involved in leftist politics out of fear of fighting in Vietnam, no longer had any real interest at stake.
The difference between then and now is that middle class white hippie/freak activists could cut their hair and get a nice middle class job, since the economy was still good for most people. And when wages started to flatten out in the 1980s, the ready availability of credit (housing, credit card etc) made up the difference.
That's over now. We're in a depression. Our leadership in both parties is committed to an economic course of action that will deepen the economic crisis.
2012 isn't 1968. We should be so lucky.
posted by wuwei at 11:51 AM on December 1, 2011
The difference between then and now is that middle class white hippie/freak activists could cut their hair and get a nice middle class job, since the economy was still good for most people. And when wages started to flatten out in the 1980s, the ready availability of credit (housing, credit card etc) made up the difference.
That's over now. We're in a depression. Our leadership in both parties is committed to an economic course of action that will deepen the economic crisis.
2012 isn't 1968. We should be so lucky.
posted by wuwei at 11:51 AM on December 1, 2011
Maybe it was his
Appointment of a CEO of Goldman Sachs to Secretary of the Treasury
Appointment of another Sachs CEO as Secretary of the Treasury when the first didn't work out
What are you talking about? Obama has had only one Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, who has never been employed by Goldman Sachs. I agree with your sentiments, but let's at least get the basic facts correct.
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 11:58 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Appointment of a CEO of Goldman Sachs to Secretary of the Treasury
Appointment of another Sachs CEO as Secretary of the Treasury when the first didn't work out
What are you talking about? Obama has had only one Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, who has never been employed by Goldman Sachs. I agree with your sentiments, but let's at least get the basic facts correct.
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 11:58 AM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Quick rewind to something that was said earlier:
OWS (and brethren) looks like it could be America's last best hope.
And it's a shitty fucking long-shot of a hope.
But you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like.
I'm thinking that its America's last best hope for a slightly different reason. We may be going into this class war with a disjointed, leaderless army but there's still a reserve of desperate, out of options, wildly rabid and armed dogs that can get loose if the wrong image ends up on TV.
OWS needs to succeed because we aren't exactly going to get Whiskey Rebellion levels of 'civilized' revolution if it fails.
posted by Slackermagee at 12:00 PM on December 1, 2011
OWS (and brethren) looks like it could be America's last best hope.
And it's a shitty fucking long-shot of a hope.
But you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like.
I'm thinking that its America's last best hope for a slightly different reason. We may be going into this class war with a disjointed, leaderless army but there's still a reserve of desperate, out of options, wildly rabid and armed dogs that can get loose if the wrong image ends up on TV.
OWS needs to succeed because we aren't exactly going to get Whiskey Rebellion levels of 'civilized' revolution if it fails.
posted by Slackermagee at 12:00 PM on December 1, 2011
What did Clinton say... something like "You have to be FOR something not just AGAINST something"Yeah, Occupy Wallstreet should be out there banging fat interns and passing more free trade deals, and ending welfare as we know it, and making the democratic party more business friendly. Oh and deregulating derivatives trading and ending glass-steagall.
Clinton was a popular president because the economy was doing really well due to the tech boom and low energy prices. He balanced the budget during a growth phase, which is what Keynesian economics says you should do. But in terms of changes he was hardly some progressive hero.
Plus wasn't the civil rights movement about being against racial discrimination? Wasn't Ghandi against British rule?
The "McCain" style candidate, the reasonable centrist business tool, Romney, is getting hammered in turn by every candidate. Every one! Michelle Bachman, and then Rick Perry, and then Herman Cain, and now Newt Gingrich. Everyone knows Romney is the only one sane enough to nab the nomination, but the energized radical base, the Tea-Partiers and the Dittoheads an the Fox Newshounds, hates him. They're going to stay away from the polls.Does anyone really believe it's about anything other then Mormonism? If he were a "real Christian" he wouldn't have any problems.
That person will probably be either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. Whatever your opinion of them, they're not extreme right-wingers.Gingrich is not an extreme right winger? This is a guy who, off the top of my head said Obama supports infanticide, and he is a Kenyan anti-colonist Luo tribesmen. He said recently, during the campaign that we should fire unionized janitors and replace them with school children (in schools), that we should take kids away from poor children and put them in orphanages, and that we should adopt Singapore's model for the war on drugs (i.e. execute pot smokers)
Appointment of a CEO of Goldman Sachs to Secretary of the TreasuryPretty sure Geithner is still secretary of treasury, and never worked for Goldman Sachs. A bunch of Goldman people work in the Obama Administration, that's for sure.
Appointment of another Sachs CEO as Secretary of the Treasury when the first didn't work out
Tried that. Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, said no and said it repeatedly. This goes back to the infrastructure point I was making. 2012 is more or less a done deal. Start with 2014 and build.This is such a pile of bullshit it's not even funny. First of all, Congress not only didn't 'disallow' the closure of Gitmo in one year, they actually specifically funded the closure of Gitmo that year (don't remember which one, maybe FY2010?). Secondly congress can't just de-fund the constitution. If Obama had gone to court to challenge those provisions he probably could have won. He certainly didn't try. He asked nicely, congress said 'no' (but later changed it to yes for one year) and he gave up. He didn't actually fight to close the prison. And not only that, he's opening up other prisons that do the same thing!
Only 6% of Americans consider themselves "Very Liberal."Yawn. I'm sure more Americans consider themselves "Liberal" then "Supporters of Wallstreet Banks". Or "Think we need more corporate money in politics" or "Think lobbyists are wonderful"
Where are your votes? And, if you don't have the votes, please don't mess it up like last time, ok? 1.5 million Iraqis will thank you.
posted by delmoi at 12:03 PM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Anyway, since Ironmouth keeps repeating the same arguments, it's worthwhile to go over why they are wrong.
1) "There aren't enough votes!"
Let's try to break that down logically, and see if we can do it.
A) In order to win elections, you need votes
B) People always vote based on how close a candidate is them on a strict left-right axis
C) The words people use to describe themselves (liberal, conservative, moderate) are accurate reflections of where they are on a strict left/right access.
D) Therefore, give label distribution, we can predict what candidates can get elected, and with the current distribution it's either a crazed conservative, or a moderate.
Of these, even D has problems. Newt Gingrich is a hard-core rightest, and if what Ironmouth is saying he actually has no chance of winning the presidency because 'conservatives' might abandon him and vote for Obama. In fact, all of his arguments could be flipped and used to argue that conservatives should vote for Romney (which I think they should)
But the real problems are with B and C. First of all, why assume that 'political ideology' is a one-dimensional space? It's likely that voters have a range of issues they care about, a range of weights they put on those issues. There are also personality aspects (is the candidate trustworthy, to they appeal to me, and so on)
Second of all why assume that people label themselves accurately? It seems like they probably don't. African Americans, for example, are one of the most reliable democratic voters, but many of them consider themselves "conservative", because they go to church and are more supportive of family values and so on. But they don't vote for republicans, and on economic policy they're probably much more on the liberal side.
When you break down the issues, people tend to support the 'liberal' position. So a politician supporting "liberal" policies isn't going have trouble getting votes from "moderates" because they actually support those things.
---
The other argument he likes to make is that if you voted for Nader you're morally responsible for the deaths of millions of Iraqis. That's just moronic. He obviously doesn't know anything about the philosophy of ethics.
In another thread he admitted he didn't know anything about formal logic. It's not very surprising, since his arguments are always so bad.
posted by delmoi at 12:19 PM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
1) "There aren't enough votes!"
Let's try to break that down logically, and see if we can do it.
A) In order to win elections, you need votes
B) People always vote based on how close a candidate is them on a strict left-right axis
C) The words people use to describe themselves (liberal, conservative, moderate) are accurate reflections of where they are on a strict left/right access.
D) Therefore, give label distribution, we can predict what candidates can get elected, and with the current distribution it's either a crazed conservative, or a moderate.
Of these, even D has problems. Newt Gingrich is a hard-core rightest, and if what Ironmouth is saying he actually has no chance of winning the presidency because 'conservatives' might abandon him and vote for Obama. In fact, all of his arguments could be flipped and used to argue that conservatives should vote for Romney (which I think they should)
But the real problems are with B and C. First of all, why assume that 'political ideology' is a one-dimensional space? It's likely that voters have a range of issues they care about, a range of weights they put on those issues. There are also personality aspects (is the candidate trustworthy, to they appeal to me, and so on)
Second of all why assume that people label themselves accurately? It seems like they probably don't. African Americans, for example, are one of the most reliable democratic voters, but many of them consider themselves "conservative", because they go to church and are more supportive of family values and so on. But they don't vote for republicans, and on economic policy they're probably much more on the liberal side.
When you break down the issues, people tend to support the 'liberal' position. So a politician supporting "liberal" policies isn't going have trouble getting votes from "moderates" because they actually support those things.
---
The other argument he likes to make is that if you voted for Nader you're morally responsible for the deaths of millions of Iraqis. That's just moronic. He obviously doesn't know anything about the philosophy of ethics.
In another thread he admitted he didn't know anything about formal logic. It's not very surprising, since his arguments are always so bad.
posted by delmoi at 12:19 PM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
To this foreigner, all legitimate machinery of change looks to be entirely captured. Absolute corruption has been written into law and is above challenge by sameTo this foreigner OWS doesn't seem to be about changing things directly but about simply showing that change is needed. It is about more and more people who know this, who say this and who are seen by others to be saying this.
"We are not allowed to think about alternatives"
posted by fullerine at 12:19 PM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
As a liberal it is frustrating to see the OWS movement eschew participation in the democratic processes (primary campains and local elections) that the Tea Party used so successfully to direct the national discourse and policy as recently as TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO.
As you say: this is, to be brief, stupid. Do you really honestly think that the reason for the tea party's continuing success was their savvy electoral politics? They were successful because their astroturfed, business-friendly, anti-union, deregulatory agenda is extremely favorable to the 1%. Their policies line up almost perfectly with the interests of the elites. That's why they get tons of media coverage for even the tiniest of rallies, why they are very well-funded to this day, and why hard-right politicians have been more than happy to placate them. When OWS has the same advantages, then we can talk about electoral comparisons with the tea party - but as it is, there is little basis for comparison.
1.5 million Iraqis will thank you.
This is way, way over the line.
posted by dialetheia at 12:19 PM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
As you say: this is, to be brief, stupid. Do you really honestly think that the reason for the tea party's continuing success was their savvy electoral politics? They were successful because their astroturfed, business-friendly, anti-union, deregulatory agenda is extremely favorable to the 1%. Their policies line up almost perfectly with the interests of the elites. That's why they get tons of media coverage for even the tiniest of rallies, why they are very well-funded to this day, and why hard-right politicians have been more than happy to placate them. When OWS has the same advantages, then we can talk about electoral comparisons with the tea party - but as it is, there is little basis for comparison.
1.5 million Iraqis will thank you.
This is way, way over the line.
posted by dialetheia at 12:19 PM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
But notice that when it comes time to vote and shift gears it's all "OMG! If a Republican has ALL THAT POWER! You HAVE to vote for Obama"
So is it just an absurd amount of power? Or is it hardly any power and poor poor Obama can't do anything because that's not his job.
It's a fundamental difference between the parties. 98% of the time, when a Republican president says jump, the entire party and a few (or more!) of the Democrats ask, "How high?" I can only think of 2 occasions where W. didn't get precisely what he wanted from Congress.
100% of the time, when a Democratic president says jump, all Republicans will automatically lay down, and a few of the Democrats will stand still if they disagree with him.
This is why, despite having some conservative leanings, I can't vote for a Republican. Unless there is a major catastrophe like the financial meltdown that they can't ignore, they will always, always choose party over country.
posted by coolguymichael at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
So is it just an absurd amount of power? Or is it hardly any power and poor poor Obama can't do anything because that's not his job.
It's a fundamental difference between the parties. 98% of the time, when a Republican president says jump, the entire party and a few (or more!) of the Democrats ask, "How high?" I can only think of 2 occasions where W. didn't get precisely what he wanted from Congress.
100% of the time, when a Democratic president says jump, all Republicans will automatically lay down, and a few of the Democrats will stand still if they disagree with him.
This is why, despite having some conservative leanings, I can't vote for a Republican. Unless there is a major catastrophe like the financial meltdown that they can't ignore, they will always, always choose party over country.
posted by coolguymichael at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
Appointment of a CEO of Goldman Sachs to Secretary of the Treasury
Appointment of another Sachs CEO as Secretary of the Treasury when the first didn't work out
Oh that's small potatoes. Control of the US economy is just a short term goal for Goldman Sachs. Control the key world banks, and you control the world's government. MeFi was just talking about this a couple of weeks ago.
posted by charlie don't surf at 1:16 PM on December 1, 2011
Appointment of another Sachs CEO as Secretary of the Treasury when the first didn't work out
Oh that's small potatoes. Control of the US economy is just a short term goal for Goldman Sachs. Control the key world banks, and you control the world's government. MeFi was just talking about this a couple of weeks ago.
posted by charlie don't surf at 1:16 PM on December 1, 2011
He obviously doesn't know anything about the philosophy of ethics.
Since we are in condescending academic mode, you may want to note that it's usually just called ethics or ethical theory. Your other statements stand up just as poorly.
posted by goethean at 1:42 PM on December 1, 2011
Since we are in condescending academic mode, you may want to note that it's usually just called ethics or ethical theory. Your other statements stand up just as poorly.
posted by goethean at 1:42 PM on December 1, 2011
Frank Luntz 'frightened to death' by OWS movement.
posted by birdherder at 1:50 PM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by birdherder at 1:50 PM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
In Pennsylvania in 2010, a solid progressive and ex-Navy admiral name of Joe Sestak ran for US Senate. He lost by less than 2 percentage points to a thoroughly corrupt, wall street lobbyist and far-right wacko name of Pat Toomey. I think Sestak lost because urban Dems stayed home - this happened for two reasons: progressives didn't care to vote and because Ed Rendell and other D party leaders (including Obama) didn't crank up the city machine. Had either thing happened, Sestak would have won. And we sure could use him now.
But we're stuck with Toomey for at least four more years.
posted by tommyD at 1:53 PM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
But we're stuck with Toomey for at least four more years.
posted by tommyD at 1:53 PM on December 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Secondly congress can't just de-fund the constitution. If Obama had gone to court to challenge those provisions he probably could have won.
Really? Congress can defund whatever the fuck they want. See the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 and a whole host of other Acts which wiped out a bunch of wars.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:00 PM on December 1, 2011
Really? Congress can defund whatever the fuck they want. See the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 and a whole host of other Acts which wiped out a bunch of wars.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:00 PM on December 1, 2011
I'm glad we have you here to inject that moderate, rational dialogue into this.
This from the guy who brought us Eff Tee Four Yoo mumble brilliant burp. Just sayin.'
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:22 PM on December 1, 2011
This from the guy who brought us Eff Tee Four Yoo mumble brilliant burp. Just sayin.'
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:22 PM on December 1, 2011
It is a sign of our perception of moderation being insanely skewed that Newt Gingrich could ever ever ever be described as a "moderate".
The Republicans during the Clinton era, despite the insane witch hunts, were still willing to work with Clinton when he was willing to give them a good amount of what they wanted in legislation.
What we have now from Republicans is the same nasty tone as under Clinton but with utter refusal to actually work with the President to get things done. If Newt remains willing to do some compromise, and honestly I think he would be once elected, you could certainly call him moderate in practice if not in rhetoric.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:27 PM on December 1, 2011
The Republicans during the Clinton era, despite the insane witch hunts, were still willing to work with Clinton when he was willing to give them a good amount of what they wanted in legislation.
What we have now from Republicans is the same nasty tone as under Clinton but with utter refusal to actually work with the President to get things done. If Newt remains willing to do some compromise, and honestly I think he would be once elected, you could certainly call him moderate in practice if not in rhetoric.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:27 PM on December 1, 2011
The Republicans during the Clinton era, despite the insane witch hunts, were still willing to work with Clinton when he was willing to give them a good amount of what they wanted in legislation.
I must've been asleep that weekend, because what I remember from the Republicans during Clinton's term was:
1. Contract with America.
2. Stonewalling on the federal budget in the hopes of embarrassing Clinton, which backfired.
3. Something about an intern and a specially-designed judicial robe.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:37 PM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
I must've been asleep that weekend, because what I remember from the Republicans during Clinton's term was:
1. Contract with America.
2. Stonewalling on the federal budget in the hopes of embarrassing Clinton, which backfired.
3. Something about an intern and a specially-designed judicial robe.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:37 PM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
Not to mention the government shutdown and the health care debacle. The Republican Congress during Clinton's terms was famously uncooperative.
That said, the Republicans under Obama's term do appear to be even less cooperative, which, you know, sucks.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:57 PM on December 1, 2011
That said, the Republicans under Obama's term do appear to be even less cooperative, which, you know, sucks.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:57 PM on December 1, 2011
Most Popular Stories in New York Mag Online, last 24 hrs:
1. Gossip Girl Recap: What Is It That You’re Searching For?
2. The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills Recap: Shoe-Offs
3.White Coke Cans Befuddle the American Consumer
4.What Twilight Has That Star Wars Doesn’t
5.Fixing College Sports: Why Paying Student Athletes Won't Work
6. Glee Recap: Lady Music
7.The Absolute Moron’s Guide to the Euro Debt Crisis
8.Sloshed: How Drunk Can You Get at Your Office Christmas Party?
9.An Exclusive Look Inside the Ron Paul Cookbook
10.See Video of the Marni for H&M Collaboration
Kinda says it all.
posted by waraw at 3:13 PM on December 1, 2011
1. Gossip Girl Recap: What Is It That You’re Searching For?
2. The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills Recap: Shoe-Offs
3.White Coke Cans Befuddle the American Consumer
4.What Twilight Has That Star Wars Doesn’t
5.Fixing College Sports: Why Paying Student Athletes Won't Work
6. Glee Recap: Lady Music
7.The Absolute Moron’s Guide to the Euro Debt Crisis
8.Sloshed: How Drunk Can You Get at Your Office Christmas Party?
9.An Exclusive Look Inside the Ron Paul Cookbook
10.See Video of the Marni for H&M Collaboration
Kinda says it all.
posted by waraw at 3:13 PM on December 1, 2011
In the Senate, 28 Democrats voted Yes (56% of the delegation, including Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Bayh, and Daschle)
Unless you think Gore would have still put forth the Iraq War to Congress, which is highly unlikely given how hard Bush had to outright deceive Congress to even get it passed, then it's not really relevant what other Democrats were for it.
Admittedly impossible to prove either way, but the idea that Gore would have proposed / fought for a war in Iraq seems highly improbable.
posted by wildcrdj at 3:37 PM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Unless you think Gore would have still put forth the Iraq War to Congress, which is highly unlikely given how hard Bush had to outright deceive Congress to even get it passed, then it's not really relevant what other Democrats were for it.
Admittedly impossible to prove either way, but the idea that Gore would have proposed / fought for a war in Iraq seems highly improbable.
posted by wildcrdj at 3:37 PM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Contract with on America
Ah, Chief Justice Renquist's Gilbert and Sullivan-inspired robe.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:45 PM on December 1, 2011
a specially-designed judicial robe
Ah, Chief Justice Renquist's Gilbert and Sullivan-inspired robe.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:45 PM on December 1, 2011
Kinda says it all.
Wait, wait, there's a Ron Paul cookbook?
posted by box at 3:48 PM on December 1, 2011
Wait, wait, there's a Ron Paul cookbook?
posted by box at 3:48 PM on December 1, 2011
Wait, wait, there's a Ron Paul cookbook?
Don't get too excited; it's just a regular cookbook, only none of the ingredients are FDA inspected.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:51 PM on December 1, 2011 [9 favorites]
Don't get too excited; it's just a regular cookbook, only none of the ingredients are FDA inspected.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:51 PM on December 1, 2011 [9 favorites]
Whatever your opinion of them, [Romney and Gingritch]'re not extreme right-wingers.
Newt Gingritch is in favour of repealing child labour laws so children as young as nine can do the janitorial work needed for schools.
If wanting to repeal labour laws to get kids to do some of the worst jobs in America isn't right wing it's only because he's fallen off the right wing and landed in Batshitinsaneland.
posted by Francis at 5:17 PM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Newt Gingritch is in favour of repealing child labour laws so children as young as nine can do the janitorial work needed for schools.
"You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine," Mr. Gingrich said. "You're totally poor. You're in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I've tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising."He wants young teenagers paid to clear up shit, vomit, and drains. And do electrical repairs, building repairs, plumbing, and waste from the school science lab.
If wanting to repeal labour laws to get kids to do some of the worst jobs in America isn't right wing it's only because he's fallen off the right wing and landed in Batshitinsaneland.
posted by Francis at 5:17 PM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
birdherder: "Frank Luntz 'frightened to death' by OWS movement."
Too bad Luntz wasn't speaking literally. I say that quite figuratively, of course.
That said - anytime a GOP propagandist starts telling me how they're "scared" of something, I don't put much stock in it.
Maybe it's because I think they're so full of shit, and this is yet one more way for them to herd their "sheeple" into the fear tent -- "OMG! OWS is a T-H-R-E-A-T!!! Hackles up, boys! Load up the guns and stand guard for our precious freedom to be bigots!"
Also - has wonkette gotten better since OWS? I used to hate them as being tabloid politics full of political celebrity gossip (and I guess this is one more kind of thing like that), but it seems like they've taken a stronger position on things (well at least the OWS stuff I've seen), and is a bit more serious than the attempt at being some humorous mocking hipster political site. Or maybe they still are that too?
posted by symbioid at 5:21 PM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Too bad Luntz wasn't speaking literally. I say that quite figuratively, of course.
That said - anytime a GOP propagandist starts telling me how they're "scared" of something, I don't put much stock in it.
Maybe it's because I think they're so full of shit, and this is yet one more way for them to herd their "sheeple" into the fear tent -- "OMG! OWS is a T-H-R-E-A-T!!! Hackles up, boys! Load up the guns and stand guard for our precious freedom to be bigots!"
Also - has wonkette gotten better since OWS? I used to hate them as being tabloid politics full of political celebrity gossip (and I guess this is one more kind of thing like that), but it seems like they've taken a stronger position on things (well at least the OWS stuff I've seen), and is a bit more serious than the attempt at being some humorous mocking hipster political site. Or maybe they still are that too?
posted by symbioid at 5:21 PM on December 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
In the Senate, 28 Democrats voted Yes (56% of the delegation, including Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Bayh, and Daschle)
Unless you think Gore would have still put forth the Iraq War to Congress, which is highly unlikely given how hard Bush had to outright deceive Congress to even get it passed, then it's not really relevant what other Democrats were for it.
Admittedly impossible to prove either way, but the idea that Gore would have proposed / fought for a war in Iraq seems highly improbable.
Since my comment of "F you" for an accusation of killing 1.5 million people was a bit over the line apparently, I will restate the context here was assigning blame to people who don't vote for Democratic presidential candidates.
So you can see how it would be retarded in that context to say that SENATORS aren't responsible for their votes as a retort. Lots of senators weren't duped, lots of congresspeople were not duped, lots of citizens were not duped. (Including non-Gore voters!) The dupes like Biden and Clinton were morons who signed on to murder people in Iraq and now are directly behind our current President in foreign policy power.
I must've been asleep that weekend, because what I remember from the Republicans during Clinton's term was:
Yes, you slept through things like SCHIP, a balanced budget, and welfare reform.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:44 PM on December 1, 2011
Uh, I think the balanced budget happened as a result of the GOP trying to embarrass Clinton on the budget, and being forced to eat crow after he wouldn't budge.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:50 PM on December 1, 2011
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:50 PM on December 1, 2011
Oh, in that case Obama is a terrible President for not using his power to make congress do what he wants.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:02 PM on December 1, 2011
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:02 PM on December 1, 2011
Whoah what? Am I in the wrong conversation? I thought we were talking about the Republicans in Congress during the Clinton presidency.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 7:07 PM on December 1, 2011
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 7:07 PM on December 1, 2011
We are, balancing the budget is one of their top priorities and you don't pass budgets without congress. As I said, they worked with the President to get it done.
I bring up Obama because the idea that the President can do anything in the face of mighty congress is usually an alien concept here.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:24 PM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I bring up Obama because the idea that the President can do anything in the face of mighty congress is usually an alien concept here.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:24 PM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I just realized something --- y'all know i'm one of the "Obama, meh" types and try to voice my displeasure... And one of the hippie-punching tactics ends up being that "Obama's just the president, he has no power, etc..."
But notice that when it comes time to vote and shift gears it's all "OMG! If a Republican has ALL THAT POWER! You HAVE to vote for Obama"
So is it just an absurd amount of power? Or is it hardly any power and poor poor Obama can't do anything because that's not his job.
Make up your minds.
You know, comments like this drive me absolutely bugshit because they assume power dynamics with a Republican in charge is the same as when Obama is in charge, and they aren't. Republicans are willing to filibuster everything and anything proposed by a Democrat, for reasons no better than "because I feel like being a dick today." Democrats aren't willing to do that, either because they're Republicans embarrassed to call themselves such (like Ben Nelson) or because they actually believe in procedure and that the governing party should get to govern (like Harry Reid). The Democrats will only filibuster against those aims that are so patently against the core principles of their party that they feel forced to do so.
So spare me the "make up your minds" comments, because there is no inconsistency in saying that a Republican president is far more potentially effective than a Democratic one. That's what happens when only one party recognizes the right of the other to govern.
posted by mightygodking at 9:02 PM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
But notice that when it comes time to vote and shift gears it's all "OMG! If a Republican has ALL THAT POWER! You HAVE to vote for Obama"
So is it just an absurd amount of power? Or is it hardly any power and poor poor Obama can't do anything because that's not his job.
Make up your minds.
You know, comments like this drive me absolutely bugshit because they assume power dynamics with a Republican in charge is the same as when Obama is in charge, and they aren't. Republicans are willing to filibuster everything and anything proposed by a Democrat, for reasons no better than "because I feel like being a dick today." Democrats aren't willing to do that, either because they're Republicans embarrassed to call themselves such (like Ben Nelson) or because they actually believe in procedure and that the governing party should get to govern (like Harry Reid). The Democrats will only filibuster against those aims that are so patently against the core principles of their party that they feel forced to do so.
So spare me the "make up your minds" comments, because there is no inconsistency in saying that a Republican president is far more potentially effective than a Democratic one. That's what happens when only one party recognizes the right of the other to govern.
posted by mightygodking at 9:02 PM on December 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
We don't need Democrats to filibuster everything, just the worst stuff. The thing is, they don't. Like Iraq, they vote for them. (And then become VP and SoS)
Basically it comes down to we have to vote for Democrats because they will refuse to stop the Republicans in congress if we don't.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:13 PM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Basically it comes down to we have to vote for Democrats because they will refuse to stop the Republicans in congress if we don't.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:13 PM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
zombieflanders: "But notice that when it comes time to vote and shift gears it's all "OMG! If a Republican has ALL THAT POWER! You HAVE to vote for Obama"
So is it just an absurd amount of power? Or is it hardly any power and poor poor Obama can't do anything because that's not his job.
Make up your minds.
Or, you know, it could be because the other two branches of the government have it in their power to push their agenda and block the president's. And let's face it, if you're unenthusiastic about voting for Obama then it's extremely likely you're not going to vote down-ticket, let alone go out and physically support the kind of candidates you keep on going on about. Aaaaand look at that: we're back at working from the bottom up to get the government you want, if you could be arsed enough to do it.
Who the F are you to assume I don't vote in my locals for progressives. I went for every election - I made DAMN sure I voted for Russ Feingold this past election to make sure that that fucktwit Johnson didn't get in, and he lost, which is very sad to me. I also voted for my Congressmember (Tammy Baldwin) and in my State and Locals.
Nice assumption you got there, hate to see anything happen to it.
posted by symbioid at 6:47 AM on December 2, 2011
So is it just an absurd amount of power? Or is it hardly any power and poor poor Obama can't do anything because that's not his job.
Make up your minds.
Or, you know, it could be because the other two branches of the government have it in their power to push their agenda and block the president's. And let's face it, if you're unenthusiastic about voting for Obama then it's extremely likely you're not going to vote down-ticket, let alone go out and physically support the kind of candidates you keep on going on about. Aaaaand look at that: we're back at working from the bottom up to get the government you want, if you could be arsed enough to do it.
Who the F are you to assume I don't vote in my locals for progressives. I went for every election - I made DAMN sure I voted for Russ Feingold this past election to make sure that that fucktwit Johnson didn't get in, and he lost, which is very sad to me. I also voted for my Congressmember (Tammy Baldwin) and in my State and Locals.
Nice assumption you got there, hate to see anything happen to it.
posted by symbioid at 6:47 AM on December 2, 2011
Since we are in condescending academic mode, you may want to note that it's usually just called ethics or ethical theory. Your other statements stand up just as poorly.Yet, you can't explain why, beyond an irrelevant terminology pedantry. What difference does it make if it's usually called 'ethics', I wanted to make it clear to people who weren't academic philosophers that I was talking about ethics in the philosophical sense, so I called it the 'philosophy of ethics', I suppose 'philosophical ethics' might have been smoother, but it would have had a slightly different connotation.
Beyond that, if you really can't form an argument about why I'm wrong maybe you're just not very bright? If I was really obviously wrong, it would be easy for you to explain why.
Really? Congress can defund whatever the fuck they want. See the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 and a whole host of other Acts which wiped out a bunch of wars.Wars are not a constitutional right. The fact that congress can de-fund a war does not mean they can de-fund basic constitutional rights. Another example of logical failure on your part.
You know, comments like this drive me absolutely bugshit because they assume power dynamics with a Republican in charge is the same as when Obama is in charge, and they aren't. Republicans are willing to filibuster everything and anything proposed by a Democrat, for reasons no better than "because I feel like being a dick today." Democrats aren't willing to do that, either because they're Republicans embarrassed to call themselves such (like Ben Nelson) or because they actually believe in procedure and that the governing party should get to govern (like Harry Reid). The Democrats will only filibuster against those aims that are so patently against the core principles of their party that they feel forced to do so.I love how the argument starts out by saying "You have to vote for the democrats because the republicans are evil" and the argument ends up "You have to vote for the democrats because the democrats suck and will just do whatever the republicans want!"
I mean, what the hell? What kind of choice is that? I mean it's hardly an inspiring message. It's hard to wrap my head around how anyone could take it seriously as a reasonable proposition.
If the democratic party is structurally weaker then the republicans, shouldn't we be trying to find some replacement? Or trying to over throw the leadership?
Anyway, that's not the real reason the democratic party seems 'weaker' then the republicans. It doesn't really have much to do with any kind of coherent political philosophy. It's about money specifically, what rich campaign donors care about.
Take the healthcare thing, for example. This was a bill in large part designed to help the insurance companies and huge pharma companies, and while it will be better for the average person its certainly still sub-optimal. That has nothing to do with 'right/left' in terms of what the average voter thinks of, it's all about funneling government money into private hands.
Now, obviously the republicans are much more likely to embrace corporations and the corporate agenda as a mater of proclaimed principle. But the reason that democrats are much more willing to 'cave' and 'not fight back' on those principles is because they share those principles, at least at the leadership level or the so-called moderate wing which has the power.
So, this gets back to OWS. The idea of getting money out of politics. It's obviously a pretty pie-in-the-sky ideal but until the structural corruption issue gets fixed the democrats are always going to be 'structurally' weaker because their supposed ideals run counter to their corruption. On the other hand, republicans seem 'structurally' stronger because their ideals line up with their corruption. But I think both parties are just as corrupt. The best you can say is that some democrats maybe feel vaguely guilty about it.
posted by delmoi at 10:36 AM on December 2, 2011 [2 favorites]
Romney is hated and all the monthly flavors are loved for the solitary reason that actually matters to teabaggers: how much they think he or she pisses off liberals.Nah, it's Mormonism. That's why Romney needs to run as a moderate this time, rather then trying to seem like a more hard-core rightwinger. But the religious bigotry is definitely real. Something like 40% of the population says they won't vote for a Mormon for president.
posted by delmoi at 10:13 AM on December 3, 2011
« Older Two, not one, singularities | Meet Buck. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Could something like the 1968 Democratic National Convention happen in 2012?
posted by KokuRyu at 4:10 AM on December 1, 2011 [1 favorite]