OWS protester to me today: "We don't like liberals!"

[RiverStone]

I took the MAX light-rail into downtown Portland today, on my way to Portland State University for a meeting. The train was stopped due to a large crowd of OWS protesters, so I walked the last 10 blocks to campus.

I had a chance to ask a number of OWS folks what the next step is. While I never got a uniform answer, I did express that I really appreciated the passion and shared many of the same goals. When I said to one young woman that I hoped my DEM reps would pay attention, she says to me" "We don't like liberals!" --- why I asked? Answer: "Because they have not changed the system either." I asked her if she was registered to vote. Answer: "I don't trust the government with my vote". I suggested that the best way to make change happen, would be if some of the hundreds of people blocking traffic ended up in positions to legislate real change - i.e. a constitutional amendment to take money out of our of politics. And, I added "If you exercised your vote --- you can change the system!" She grabbed her Occupy the Banks sign and ran across the street....

I was left with a growing feeling of frustration that the 99% will not continue to be as supportive of OWS unless they can create a direct connection between their actions and legislation.

QUESTION: Do you think OWS is void of political affiliation - or should be?

[Modern_Matthew]

1. Liberals aren't far left enough for me. nt

[Warpy]

17. Me either, BUT

for a good 40 years they tamed capitalism so that it worked for most people.

That is one hell of an achievement. I would strongly support the return of liberal governance although I think they left too much of the job undone.

[Modern_Matthew]

22. No arguments on that. Time for something different this time, though. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Ayup

:thumbsup:

[Enthusiast]

95. Many of what they call liberals today, aren't.

They might be social liberals -if it is convenient. It's that whole "third way" bullshit that the Democrats must purge from their party.

[LWolf]

102. Nailed it. nt

[No Elephants]

104. Bingo. The term "liberal" has been applied to all Democrats. It ain't so.

[WCGreen]

Exactly!

[MedleyMisty]

2. Umm...

Your post is pretty much the reason she said she didn't like liberals.

Tell me, where has voting and petitioning and being quiet and good gotten us in the last 30 years? I was born in 1980. I haven't seen any actual change come from voting in my lifetime. Especially not in my time as an adult. The first presidential election I voted in was 2000. Ever since then, I have watched the fascism grow.

Tell me, what good does working within a system as sick and evil as ours do?

[FarLeftFist]

7. Me and You walked very similar paths...

I was also born in 1980, first time I voted was in 2000, have also watched Fascism grow, and really haven't seen much change from voting. Although I would tell you to continue to vote while working for change.

[tosh]

Exactly.

Edited to say that this reply was meant for reply #2. MedleyMisty's generation has known nothing but this corrupt system which only means to serve the corporate masters.

[RiverStone]

12. Your VOTE is still worth something...

I appreciate why you are very frustrated Medley, but with 20 years on ya --- I can tell you that back when I first voted (1977), people believed their vote DID make a difference.

Now with Diebold voting machines and all the corporate influence over elections and re-redistricting it's easy to be cynical. Yet I hope and believe that someplace in the OWS crowd, was a young man or woman --- ignited with passion, who will be a future leader. Maybe not of either party, but who earned the right to lead through a truly democratic voting process.

I still have hope. I gotta for my kids (already in their 20's).

[TBF]

23. Maybe in your neighborhood it meant something -

not in mine. My family was a mix of farmers and factory workers. Everyone dutifully went off to vote, and also commented that it never changed anything for us. "Us" meaning blue collar folks.

The only hope I have is watching OWS - MedleyMisty's generation is doing something about it and I am so proud of them.

[RiverStone]

30. Do you still vote? Even in local elections? n/t

[TBF]

90. Yes sir -

I worked on the Obama campaign (precinct captain during the primaries). I will be voting for Mr. Obama in 2012.

I spend most of my time advocating against capitalism though, I think we can do better.

Hopefully that makes my position more clear.

[Ohio Joe]

20. And who has ruled the vast majority of those 30 years?

But no, don't bother to vote, that will make things better.

[TBF]

25. 8 years of it was Bill Clinton, who signed NAFTA, and also ruled quite

conservatively. I have seen some difference in the parties on social issues, but not on economic issues.

[Ohio Joe]

34. So that makes not voting a good option?

I prefer to do my best to get behind better candidates.

[ZombieHorde]

83. I agree with you. I think we should vote, but I do understand the frustration with our politicians.

I get really discouraged with Dems sometimes, but I still vote.

[TBF]

89. Joe I always vote - and I did work on Obama's campaign

more actively during the primary - we came very close to beating Hillary down here. I served as a Precinct Captain and oversaw the caucuses.

You bet I will vote for him again in 2012.

But voting is just a few minutes of my day, I have the other 4 years to educate and raise awareness against capitalism. I've never liked this economic system and I think it's time to evolve to a system that is more people-friendly. I hope that makes my position clearer.

[tsuki]

29. All the young people have heard for the Political-Corporate-Media Cabal

for the past 30 years is that government IS the problem. I find nothing inconsistent with their views. They want something different.

[Ohio Joe]

36. "government IS the problem" - teabagger mantra

I do not find their solution to be a good one... What is yours for the same dilemma? Not vote? Move? Overthrow the government?

[tsuki]

62. Government IS the problem has been the GOP mantra for 30 years,

long before the Teabaggers. And solutions, I haven't heard any solution other than throw people out of their homes, jobs and bankrupt them while destroying the social safety net. ALL HAIL THE DEFICIT REDUCTION.

The don't have a solution, but they have change the discussion that sooner or later 537 people on the eastern seaboard in the disrepresentative plutocracy will have to start listening to.

I'm following them. They gotten more attention than I ever got in 65 years trying to work in the system.

[JoePhilly]

24. Republicans controlled the white house for about 20 of your 31 or so years.

From 1980 to 2008. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2.

And Obama for almost 3 now.

The only positive economic period in those 31 years occurred under Clinton.

The GOP has one goal, to destroy our government. And when they get control, they do everything they can to weaken it.

They do this so that people like YOU will disengage. They want you to give up. Stay home. Not vote. They know that they can rally lots of right wing crazies, God, gays, guns ... those folks will vote.

They need you to stay home.

They want the government to fail so that the super rich have free reign. When they get in power they weaken the government. And then when things get worse, they blame the government that they weakened.

You give up and stay home ... they win elections ... and suddenly ... corporations = people, and money = speech.

The dems are by no means perfect, far from it ... but their ability to make government work is tied to a GOP anchor. And as long as the GOP holds the power to obstruct, ot god forbid rule, government will not improve.

[csziggy]

33. I can understand how you feel - my first time voting was in 1972

When we KNEW how corrupt and insane Richard Nixon was but he won anyway. Then we found out that he and his cronies messed around with the system. As far as I am concerned that was the beginning of the stolen elections and it's only gotten worse since.

I didn't vote again for several years, but my hubby convinced me to vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980 - another stolen election. Time after time I felt as though the effort to go to the polls was wasted. Even when the corrupt politicians and their flunkies were caught in their illegal acts, they got away with it over and over.

Why do I still make an effort to vote? Until the system is changed, it's the only influence I can have, voting and volunteering for candidates. Movements like Occupy encourage me that maybe in my lifetime there will be meaningful changes.

[southernyankeebelle]

43. Unless a person votes you have no right to bitch about anything. That is the

way it works in a democratic country. It may not be the best but it is all we have. I finally learned that when I voted for the first time when Clinton was elected. I was in my late 20s. Now I consider myself a social democrat like my husband and my mother.

[Terry in Austin]

124. That's the way it would work in a democratic country

The point is, this is no longer a democracy. It's a plutocracy. That's the point OWS is making.

The electoral system is broken. The elected government is broken. The Republicans won't govern and the Democrats can't.

Meanwhile, the plutocrats do the governing. OWS showed up and let it be known that they do not give their consent to it. They don't need to be given the right to bitch. None of us do.

But one still votes. Personally, I consider it good form and good civics, but I know why I'm doing it and know what to expect from it.

[pnwmom]

56. Things are as bad as they are because many progressives didn't bother to vote last time.

And the Congress got taken over by the Rethugs.

The non-voters are partially responsible for how bad things are now. They let "the perfect be the enemy of the good." (As Ted Kennedy used to warn us about.)

[Bandit]

94. Do you feel you have ANY civic responsibilities at all and if so what would those be?

:shrug:

[gort]

101. Look what not voting in the 2010 elections did to this country

The Tea Party took over and a pledge to Grover Norquist bears more weight than a pledge to protect and serve the constitution.

It is BS to say voting doesn't matter. It is the counting that matters.

[hack89]

112. So how do you propose to change America without people voting?

that's my enormous frustration with OWS - lots of valid anger, few viable solutions.

I will not support any solution that does not include the democratic process and the Constitution.

[treestar]

147. Because your fellow voters do not want as much change

as you want, I guess. Our system lets everyone who is qualified vote, not just whoever agrees with you. Therefore no one person gets all they want.

[FarLeftFist]

3. One thing is for sure, they're not voting republican. At OWS the Ron Paul crowd left long ago.

These people are the new future American Left.

[quinnox]

4. I hardly think one protester and what they shouted to you is at all representative

of the OWS, nice try though.


Edit: oh and unrec for trying to pretend the entire OWS must hate liberals then based on your one experience.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

15. + (insert number)

[RiverStone]

21. I never suggested either...

That I was "pretending" And that the entire OWS must "HATE" liberals.

It was a singular conversation that "I" had and as a result, my thoughts which I shared here.

On edit: BTW, I never post on DU to get recs.

[Wind Dancer]

5. Don't base your opinion from speaking to ...

.. one person.

I've heard many people interviewed on Amy Goodman and read articles that do NOT agree with this woman. This should be obvious. :eyes:

[RiverStone]

35. It's not. But I do feel OWS needs a different tact...

I'm all for Freedom of Speech, but I'd rather see all this energy now shift to voting reform and keeping $$$ out of politics. Driving change by electing leaders that actually get it on the 99%! I have to say this quietly, but it may be the only solution is that of a 3rd party. And advocating such is against DU rules.

[mmonk]

6. Plenty of people here belong to an Occupy.

If you want to know about who makes up a local occupy, GO TO A GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[gkhouston]

8. I don't think there's a one-to-one mapping between OWS and any extant party.

Progressive Dems would be the closest match, IMO, but we may be seeing the birth of a new party. If a politician or party could convince OWS that they would truly address OWS concerns, they might garner a shitload of votes. The problem is that OWS as a whole seems to be inherently distrustful of our current political system, so it's going to take a lot of convincing.

[alp227]

9. sounds like a libertarian to me

[Skittles]

10. 99% would include a lot of idiots

[AnOhioan]

11. OWS is not affiliated with any party...nor should they be.

The two parties are as culpable as any other entity.

[firehorse]

16. ^ my thoughts exactly - I've always voted but the voting system is rigged

this movement is not about doing all the things that don't work and repeating it as if the next repetition will create a new magic result.

[Bryn]

42. Good answer!

When I first moved to Arkansas from native Florida I read up on Governor Rockefeller (he was a Republican) and was amazed at how liberal he was! Don't forget Ike. I think today democrats have been moving the party to the right (DLC/Third Way Rail crap). So you're right, OWS shouldn't be about a party, but about Corporations/1% ...

[Lint Head]

13. How can one person speak for "we"? Is she the ultimate spokes person for OWS?

[RiverStone]

26. No, but she was very passionate and I was interested in her thoughts

I really don't know if she felt she represented a majority of OWS or not. My older generation concern to her was NOT voting (regardless of party) was dis-empowering. Obviously, she disagreed.

[JoePhilly]

14. I think large parts of it must engage the political realm.

On the one hand, OWS is forcing a discussion on income inequality and how its destroying the middle class ... which is great. And then, it is spurring a wider ranging discussion about approaches to fix that.

But while discussion and debate is great ... at some point, it needs to move into some actionable form.

If you think about the American revolution, there are some similarities. OWS is not monolythic ... the media likes to point of the divergence. Our founding fathers were not of one mind either ... they too shared many high level goals, but argued and disagreed on priorities, time lines, and even if they should split from England.

OWS is doing some very similar soul searching. They agree on some of the top line aspects, but disagree on details and on whether to engage the political process or "do something else".

In our founders case, they selected "do something else", which literally meant ... war with England.

I don't see "war" as a viable path for OWS. I think our founders had to pick "war" because they were never going to be able to generate enough political influence under a KING.

I suspect that some in OWS feel the same ... but the reality is that the majority of Americans don't vote. But if they DID, and they agree with much of what OWS is calling for (which I think they do), then OWS can drive the US political world towards those top line aspects.

[TheKentuckian]

28. The global corporate elite are at least as bad as a king and I say worse

With a King you have a mortal person, in a fixed location, whose powers are greatly diminished to non-existent out side his realm.

The corporate cabal is much more insidious than a mere king.

[JoePhilly]

41. So you think we need a war?

If your position is that OWS, and those who agree with its broad intent (even as they struggle on priorities and tactics) can not mobilize enough of the American population to VOTE ...

I have to ask how you think OWS would be able to mobilize those same people to go to war against ... against ... against WHO?

And so ... you claim the "global elite" is worse than "the King" ... fine ... so what is your plan to move forward?

War?

If so, can you describe it?

[TheKentuckian]

180. One need not call for a war to disagree with your reasoning in a point.

I stated that the present rulers are no less dangerous than a monarch, if you want to argue about that then rock on.

[Enthusiast]

96. It's true.

Every so many generations in a hereditary monarchy you might get lucky and get a good and benevolent ruler. With the global corporate cabal -never.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. two things I have learned about OWS... close and personal

NO it is not party specific and indeed some (unclear, and I quite don't feel like doing the actual study) OWSers don't trust anybody with a vote since they are not trusting the system enough and it is that broken.

Secondly.. he does not talk for OWS... nobody really speaks for OWS. Which is a hard one to wrap your head around. Trust me... 98% of the people at the Clairmont Bridge occupation tonight DO VOTE... and quite a few of them ARE DEMOCRATS.. I'd hazzard to say most of them are... more on that later.

[bigtree]

27. Baynard Rustin

. . . a key organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, argued in his book, 'Strategies for Freedom', that for any movement to have a permanent and transforming imprint, it should have a legislative goal attached which will transcend the whims of the emotions of the moment. Describing a different struggle that America faced with the advancement of civil rights, he wrote that:

"Moral fervor can't maintain your movement, nor can the act of participation itself. There must be a genuine commitment to the advancement of the people. To have such a commitment is also to have a militant sense of responsibility, a recognition that actions have consequences which have a very real effect on the individual lives of those one seeks to advance."

"Far too many movements lack both a (legislative) perspective and a sense of responsibility, and they fail because of it," Ruskin wrote.

"My quarrel with the "no-win" tendency in the civil rights movement (and the reason I have so designated it) parallels my quarrel with the moderates outside the movement," Rustin wrote in his book, 'Down the Line.'

"As the latter lack the vision or will for fundamental change, the former lack a realistic strategy for achieving it." he said. "For such a strategy they substitute militancy. But militancy is a matter of posture and volume and not of effect."

[TreasonousBastard]

74. Bayard Rustin! I never met him, although I knew some who did, and this...

is how they remember him.

[No Elephants]

105. 1963 was very different from 2011.

[bigtree]

108. yes

There were even fewer allies in the political system willing to adopt progressive positions or advance progressive legislation. Rustin, for example, believed that by forming alliances with Labor he could advance his ideals and initiatives of economic justice, fairness, and opportunity. He found the Labor movement, however, still harboring and practicing racist attitudes in their own operations. He was frequently rebuffed by the political system, but his notion of making the federal government accountable and responsible for those initiatives was sound.

I don't think anyone could credibly argue that the issues surrounding civil rights were any less precient or challenging than the issues faced in this era. While there are certainly still obstacles to advancing those ideals and initiatives in our political system, I'd argue that the political climate today is exceedingly more receptive to progressive appeals than it was in 1963.

[No Elephants]

120. That is a selective comparison of 1963 and 2011.

For one thing, our federal legislators were not all bought and paid for in 1963 as they are today.

For another thing, federal legislators in 1963 included a lot more populists and/or liberals than today, and one was in the WH.

If by "progressive" you mean populist or liberal, or anything but center right, I respectfully suggest you are among the many who assume that similarity, but the assumption is incorrect. Please see Reply 10

And, if by "progressive," you do mean populist or liberal, I strongly disagree that the climate today is more hospitable to liberal legislation today than it was in 1963.

(FYI, it's Bayard Rustin, not Baynard, with the first syllable pronounced like "buy." )

ETA. In the first sentence, scratch "all" and make it the vast majority of our federal legislators are bought and paid for today.

[bigtree]

126. right, I mispelled his name here

I'm a black man who that political class didn't see fit to afford federal protections of my voting or citizenship rights in 1963.

I, again, take strong exception to the notion that the political system was more hospitable to issues that Labor and the civil rights movement were advocating. It's amazing that you believe so.

[Scruffy1]

175. I don't think so.

Politicians in America have always been bought and sold by the big money interests. The media has always been an accomplice of the Big Money. Let's see, 1963 my Congressional rep was none other than John Kyl's very corrupt father.
I think Bob Kerr was still in the Senate even though he was blatant about only being there to further his own business
interests. Eastland from Mississippi must have a special place in hell. And on it goes. The only politicians that can stand on principal are from safe districts.

I think the critique of OWS is correct, but you don't necessarily need a legislative agenda, but you do definitely need a goal to work for that is achievable in order to sustain a movement. I too have little time for classic "liberals"
but fully realize that nothing ever gets done without massive support. Bayard was a genius and a practical man, also.

[scarletwoman]

31. It seems to me that liberalism and electoral politics have unequivocally proven to be ineffective

in challenging the rise of the National Security State, the MIC, the financial corruption of our government, and economic inequality.

Changing the System from within is a cop-out - it does not work, will never work. Only massive pressure from outside the System represents any hope of dismantling the power structure that holds the System in place.

I stand with your interlocutor.

sw

[RiverStone]

38. minus an overthrow of the governent, what is your definition of change?

Massive pressure could happen if we virtually shut down commerce, but I'm confused if you are assuming that voting anymore is a useless exercise?

[scarletwoman]

46. I still vote, though merely as an act of mitigation. At the age of 62, I'm long past believing that

electoral politics achieves anything beyond the occasional small bit of relief from the general oppression of a thoroughly institutionalized corruption.

As for "overthrowing the government" - I find myself wondering, Well, why not?

Isn't that how we started in the first place?

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I'm of a mind to entertain such thoughts as these...

sw

[harun]

87. You are correct. The political system in the United States has moved further right

consistently every year since I have been able to observe it, circa 1980.

[Enthusiast]

97. Unequivocally

[No Elephants]

106. The US has not had a liberal administration since Johnson.

His incredibly massive failing was, of course, allowing the Pentagon and others to lead him by the nose re: Vietnam.

His domestic agenda and accomplishments were pretty good, though, I think.

[Texasgal]

32. OWS should be free of party lines.

The beauty of the movement is that the people are for the people!

Once OWS starts aligning politics, the movement will die. Just my opinion.

[flamingdem]

37. But it's not. Let's get real. OWS occupied bridges = compatible with Obama jobs bill nt

[Texasgal]

39. Or perhaps

apolitical people that are simply fed up?

[scarletwoman]

51. I would say that they ARE political, they are simply not PARTISAN political.

"A pox on both their houses" IS a political statement, methinks. :)

[flamingdem]

54. A pox on both their houses is too risky considering the Republican mentality nt

[No Elephants]

123. Riskier than 1776?

[flamingdem]

179. An OWS spokesperson on msnbc just spoke in support of unions and dems

get used to it :)

[No Elephants]

121. Not really. Perhaps a lot more compatible with New Deal jobs programs.

And even Obama's bill will not pass in toto.

I think there is agreement on three bits, two of which have to do with private sector jobs for veterans, with the inevitable tax incentive to the employer feature. The other has to do with a tax on government contractors that they'll probably pass right on back to the government in the form of increased prices, with a little extra added for their trouble.

[pnwmom]

57. The only way to change the political system is to be part of it.

The Rethugs are hoping that the OWS people will continue to try to stay above and apart from the political process. Otherwise, they're in serious trouble.

[RiverStone]

61. I agree --- at least for 2012, OWS will be influencial

I hope the passion that I see in so many young protesters transforms to more citizen action and VOTING for positive change. For many in OWS, it's their first involvement in a true "movement" --- yet they are generally not happy with government (here) in any form, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

[scarletwoman]

73. Utter nonsense. You change a political system by refusing to cooperate with it.

You change a political system by defying it, by fighting it, by exposing its corruption and de-legitimizing it in the collective consciousness of society.

How do you think the Soviet bloc fell apart? The people finally got fed up enough to refuse to accede to its dictat.

[pnwmom]

79. Utter nonsense. Our democracy has its problems, but it's not equivalent

to any of the countries that were in the Soviet block.

[scarletwoman]

81. The entrenchment of the powerful few, to the detriment of the many is very much equivalent.

It's a dynamic as old as civilization. It's absurd to think that the U.S. is any exception.

sw

[pnwmom]

86. It's absurd to think that stepping away from the political process will do any good.

The people in the Soviet Union wouldn't advocate throwing your vote away.

[No Elephants]

127. Do you think Afghans can't wait to vote again?

[No Elephants]

125. She did not say our democracy was better or worse than the Soviet bloc.

She asked you how you think it fell apart.

[MFrohike]

88. Nonsense

The election of 1932 started a radical, yes RADICAL, change in the relationship between the federal government and the citizens. For the first time, the 14th amendment had actually come to life. It was as significant a change as the result of the civil war. It was also done through the existing political system.

Delegitimizing the American political system will simply hand the country to the far right fringe. They have been preaching that government is the bane of our lives and if you use similar arguments, you simply make them look more rational. The smarter approach, which works time and time again, is to say that the system is like a machine. It needs repair and maintenance. We are here to fix it and make it work again. Then, with a whole lot of luck, we can find candidates who worth the damn effort to do the job. It will require not just one election, but the sustained work of a generation. I don't know if it's possible, but it's worth a try.

[No Elephants]

129. Not sure what the 1932 election had to do with the 2012 election.

For one thing, that was over a half century before the DLC starting taking over the Democratic Party, well before political talk radio, before lobbyists, before TV shows and ads influenced elections, before voting machines, etc.

I think people should vote but I think comparing 1932 with 2012 is not valid. The situations, the Democratic Party--almost everything that bears on the issue whether voting can change the "system" is differnt now. It's apples and oranges.

[MFrohike]

169. Right

My point was that effective change can occur within the existing system. I was refuting the idea that a denial of the system is the only way to create change.

As for your historical arguments, I find them to be sorely lacking. Political talk radio was in its infancy, but there was widespread partisan journalism. Churches conducted whispering campaigns (ask Al Smith about that one). Lobbyists definitely existed. How else to describe scandals like Teapot Dome? The Democratic Party had a split between the agrarian, conservative south and the industrial, somewhat liberal north. Elections were regularly stolen and votes were often created from thin air. TV may not have existed, but there were channels of information that spread across the country at a slightly slower pace, but with the same effect as now.

Harry Truman was right. The only thing that ever changes is the history you don't know.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. Phil Ochs: Love Me, I'm a Liberal

Love Me, I'm a Liberal

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal



performed on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

the ringing of revolution

In a building of gold, with riches untold,
lived the families on which the country was founded.
And the merchants of style, with their red velvet smiles,
were there, for they also were hounded.
And the soft middle class crowded in to the last,
for the building was fully surrounded.
And the noise outside was the ringing of revolution.

Sadly they stared and sank in their chairs
and searched for a comforting notion.
And the rich silver walls looked ready to fall
As they shook in doubtful devotion.
The ice cubes would clink as they freshened their drinks,
wet their minds in bitter emotion.
And they talked about the ringing of revolution.

We were hardly aware of the hardships they beared,
for our time was taken with treasure.
Oh, life was a game, and work was a shame,
And pain was prevented by pleasure.
The world, cold and grey, was so far away
In the distance only money could measure.
But their thoughts were broken by the ringing of revolution.

The clouds filled the room in darkening doom
as the crooked smoke rings were rising.
How long will it take, how can we escape
Someone asks, but no one's advising.
And the quivering floor responds to the roar,
In a shake no longer surprising.
As closer and closer comes the ringing of revolution.

Softly they moan, please leave us alone
As back and forth they are pacing.
And they cover their ears and try not to hear
With pillows of silk they're embracing.
And the crackling crowd is laughing out loud,
peeking in at the target they're chasing.
Now trembling inside the ringing of revolution.
With compromise sway we give in half way

When we saw that rebellion was growing.
Now everything's lost as they kneel by the cross
Where the blood of christ is still flowing.
To late for their sorrow they've reached their tomorrow
and reaped the seed they were sowing.
Now harvested by the ringing of revolution.

In tattered tuxedos they faced the new heroes
and crawled about in confusion.
And they sheepishly grinned for their memoroes were dim
of the decades of dark execution.
Hollow hands were raised; they stood there amazed
in the shattering of their illusions.
As the windows were smashed by the ringing of revolution.

Down on our knees we're begging you please,
We're sorry for the way you were driven.
There's no need to taunt just take what you want,
and we'll make amends, if we're living.
But away from the grounds the flames told the town
that only the dead are forgiven.
As they crumbled inside the ringing of revolution.

performed on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rni9Cwoe6g&feature=related

[Ken Burch]

63. Thanks for posting those, Douglas

I've felt the conflicted spirit of Phil Ochs moving through a lot of people these last few weeks.

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. don't we all?

my favorite and perhaps Phil's most conflicted song:

When I'm gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB-BBVQLnxI


.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

162. The OP immediately brought to mind Phil Ochs's song

as I'm sure it did for many of that generation.

[Douglas Carpenter]

174. well yes some of it is pure nostalgia like hearing the opening theme song to Lassie

Another part of is the simple memory of the what it was like to not only believe in something and to know that your are right - but to know for a moral certainty that you were on the righteous side of history and that the righteous cause would triumph - not just eventually - but in our time.

[Bryn]

44. K&R

unfortunately it's still zero. Who is un rec'ng? This is a good thread, good discussion!

[RiverStone]

47. Thanks Bryn

Rec's are a funny thing - I don't ever post seeking them, but they show up in abundance when I least expect it.

My OP does suggest criticism of the left, maybe some people here don;t like that.

Appreciate the good vibes anyway. :hi:

[Bryn]

75. Still at Zero! My goodness

This thread is very important and very good. That's so strange! This is to kick this back up!

[unkachuck]

45. "Because they have not changed the system either."

"Do you think OWS is void of political affiliation - or should be?"

....yes, they should be....the Dems have proven they're incapable of real systemic change and only systemic change will begin to correct our problems....OWS has the opportunity to begin developing a new and different structure and shouldn't be bound by the current corrupt structure or the past....

....Must we continue to suffer and starve so the 1% may grow even richer? Apparently yes, because both pukes and Dems are only driven and motivated by money and power not by the idea of egalitarian fairness....Obama has dispelled any notions to the contrary....

....until we develop a competing ideology independent of the current corrupt mess, we won't generate the change or support we need and deserve....

[RiverStone]

48. Do you think that can happen within the 2 party system?

Or are we talking about a 3rd party?

Thanks unkachuck!

[unkachuck]

64. not in the two party system....

....as it's currently constituted....the current two party system has produced the corruption and mess we now have today....a new process or avenue must be found....as far as I know, no capitalist structure has ever voluntarily committed suicide....

....when things get to a tipping point, change will come and will come fast....we must be ready and have the ideas and methods to do a better job of protecting and providing a good life for the American people....

[No Elephants]

132. You do realize you've made several posts that could be considered "flypaper," right?

You should, because you posted upthread that you had to "speak" quietly about third parties.

[me b zola]

49. Frankly, I'm quite frustrated with people who say they support the movement

...but who are so short-sighted they think this is about going to the polls and voting for more of the same old shit.

Same for the idiots who go to the marches with signs endorsing one politician or another. Could you all miss the point any more than you have? Not likely.

Rather than getting all huffy, why don't you pls read the declaration made by OWS. Then re-read it. Would love to have you stand with us, but if you don't get it then lets just kiss and say good-bye.

[hack89]

114. Our frustration is trying to turn that energy into something tangible

like new legislation or new leaders. I read the OWS declaration - I'm ready to make it happen.

[No Elephants]

133. I don't want to say goodbye, but I'd like to kiss you. Smooch!

[me b zola]

50. to answer your question...

The movement has nothing to do with party affiliation and should continue to stay that way. Kind of sad that so many people who say they are supportive of the movement don't get it.

[RiverStone]

59. It will effect the 2012 election, maybe in a profound way regardless

Bernie rocks BTW! One of my favorites...

[me b zola]

100. Bernie is one of the few that I can count on one hand

that I believe deserves to keep their job in DC---but I would not take his image with me on a march or to an occupy event. The movement isn't about him, or any piece of legislation.

Please allow me to apologize for the tone of my previous posts in this thread. There was no reason for me to be less than polite.

[a la izquierda]

52. Liberals haven't changed the system?

I'm amazed there are enough liberals in Washington to do anything, let alone change the system.
I'd prefer a Washington full of Bernie Sanders, though, so what do I know.

[xchrom]

53. Are you a 'Liberal' or are you a 'Progressive'?

You might start educating your self as to the difference.

[RiverStone]

58. Ummm, guess I have been and am both --- and a registered DEM

In your words, what's the difference xchrom? Thanks.

[No Elephants]

107. Why I never say I am a "progressive."

The DLC originally had only 2 full time employees, Al From and Will Marshall.

Marshall signed the 2003 PNAC memo.

Marshall founded and heads the Progressive Policy Institute.

Many of the articles written by PPI have appeared on the DLC website.

I don't think you can be a liberal and progressive at the same time.

[Skidmore]

93. I don't think you can be one without the other.

At some point we need to quit going into tailspins over labels and all work together.

[No Elephants]

109. I don't think you can be both. Please see Reply 107.

BTW, there is also an organization called No Labels.

It seems to be to the right of the DLC. On the Democratic side, it has center right folk, no liberals. However, it seems fine with everyone on the right except Teabaggers.

And no, liberals are NOT to Democrats as Teabaggers are to Republicans.

I'm all for labels, provided their meanings are clearly understood. I want to know exactly which fuckers I'm dealing with.

[Skidmore]

141. So labels are meaningless after all/

[No Elephants]

153. Quite the opposite, IMO, but you apparently don't want to change your original view on that.

[ellisonz]

55. That's Portland for you.

I'm frankly surprised I haven't seen reports of a black bloc:-)

[No Elephants]

136. That's one young woman. It's not even Portland OWS, let alone Portland.

[ellisonz]

144. True.

KEEP PORTLAND WEIRD!

[Ken Burch]

60. on Tuesday, the "liberal" mayor of Portland gave in to the C of C and the police chief

(who is now planning to run for mayor himself)and closed the Occupy camp. Why SHOULD Occupy like "liberals"?

[RiverStone]

65. Not saying they should --- but the anger at "liberals" from this young women...

surprised me --- just one person, but it got me to wondering how uniform her view is?

That's why I asked the question in the OP.

[Ken Burch]

68. Well, the liberal political leadership hasn't exactly been enthusiastic about OWS

most of the most powerful liberals have done everything they could to steer clear of it and even to try to discredit it and get people to settle for the comparatively meaningless act of campaigning for Democrats(not that no Democrats should be campaigned for, of course, but saying "elect more Democrats" isn't really a useful response to OWS).

Also, you've hardly seen any liberals denouncing police violence against OWS or defending the right of the Occupy activists to do what they are doing on free speech grounds.

That has a lot to do with it.

Most liberals have sounded as clueless on this as Hillary did when she deigned to meet with Cindy Sheehan and expected Cindy to endorse her, even though Hillary is a militarist wackjob who unquestioningly supported the war that killed Cindy's son and who today would like nothing better than to turn Tehran into a giant bomb crater, simply because Hillary was running as a Democrat.

[No Elephants]

164. I don't follow.

A young woman said she did not like liberals.

you wanted to know how uniform that view is (Do you mean you wanted to how widespread that view is within OWS?)

Therefore, you asked DUer the following question:

"QUESTION: Do you think OWS is void of political affiliation - or should be?"

How would the answers of DUers to that question help you with your desire to know how uniform a view disliking liberals is?

[No Elephants]

110. Excellent point.

[KurtNYC]

67. She took a poll?

or she speaks for everyone

[EFerrari]

69. Legislation in a democracy is a result of a functioning agreement between

a populace and a representative body.

We don't have that right now so how do you propose we work on legislation without the underpinning that makes it possible?

[Douglas Carpenter]

70. frankly even in many classic leftist circles the word liberal can have a pejorative connotation

it can conjure up an image of a a kind of political uncle tom..

.

[No Elephants]

111. Leftists see liberals as political uncle toms ? LOL

And who are the center right DLC types, then?

[Douglas Carpenter]

140. in almost the entire world - the political struggle has been for most the last hundred years

between Conservatives on the right and Socialist or Communist on the left and liberals were somewhere in the middle - sometimes leaning more to the right, sometimes leaning more to the left. This same dynamic has existed in America too - but since leftist political groupings have always been much smaller in America - liberals have ended up being defined quite incorrectly as the left. Although defining liberals as leftist is linguistically incorrect - relative to America with its intrinsic right-wing leaning - it sort of makes sense. I cannot think of a single mainstream conservative party in the rest of the modern industrialized world that is not at least on economic issues way, way to the left of the Democratic Party. Even the staunchest Thatcherite Conservative in the U.K. would still still support socialized medicine and maintaining a fairly comprehensive welfare state.

[No Elephants]

173. You didn't answer my question.

Moreover, you used both the term " liberals" and the term "Democratic Party" in your post, as though the terms were interchangeable. They are not.


Liberals ARE substantially to the left of the DLC type and Blue Dog Democrats who currently populate Washington DC and various other Democratic power centers(e.g., think tanks and the cadre of pundits and strategists).

Liberals are more in line with Bernie Sanders, the self-styled Independent (formerly self-styled Democratic Socialist). I am surprised you have not noticed that.

And, I am surprised that you have not noticed that MANY on this board, liberals and even many of center rightists, strongly support Medicare for all, Social Security and social safety net programs, like Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance and so on.

I would guess, though it is only a guess, that many liberals here would be quite happy to go beyond Medicare for all to outright socialized medicine. In fact, after Affordable Care fully kicks in, they may be speaking of it as they now speak of Medicare for all.

[Douglas Carpenter]

176. Obviously most of the Democratic Party leadership and certainly the dominating "third way" types are

not even liberals and most do not even claim to be. Even most conservatives in most of the industrialized word would support programs considerably more extensive than "Medicare for all, Social Security and social safety net programs, like Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance and so on".

In Europe and elsewhere being liberal implied being pro-capitalisms, but reformed capitalism. To be left-wing as opposed to liberal classically referred to whether or not one has a class analysis of how the world works and a belief that the rule of moneyed interest over public policy must be broken and replaced with a democratic society.

Obviously I have noticed that "MANY on this board strongly support Medicare for all, Social Security and social safety net programs, and so on." Clearly there are many people in America and particularly on this forum who describe themselves as liberals are closer to the classic definition of a leftist as opposed to liberal. But the semantics of the whole thing are really not that important and words frequently change their meaning over time.

[Tsiyu]

71. If we're going to bring up "the vote"

which I do support doing, you must remember that "the vote" isn't guaranteed for everyone. Millions of young people have been shut out of the polls due to our modern-day drug sentencing laws. Millions more people are being shut out by Republican efforts in at least a dozen states to suppress young and elderly people's ability to qualify to vote.

When you're selling the vote, remember that not everyone in America has that right. She may have walked away because she's lost her right to vote. I learned this the hard way, nagging someone about voting who could no longer do so...


Voting makes no difference to you if YOU can't vote....

[Ken Burch]

72. Related thread I just started:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2334899

[RainDog]

76. that person was telling you what A LOT of people who feel disenfranchised think

you still have a belief that change can be created via the ballot box.

a lot of people don't think that way anymore - and one of the big reasons is because of the last decade plus. The Bush-Cheney administration was such an abuse of power. People thought the election of Obama was going to mean a move away from the "Bush Doctrine" that made govt not beholden to the constitution that people in the U.S. think is their final protection from abuse of power.

Now they see the Supreme Court creating a truly repulsive ruling that makes corporations more powerful than citizens EVEN IN THE COURT.

Obama has not overturned many of the intrusive govt. actions that many thought he would.

The astroturf teaparty and its constant promotion on tv, to the exclusion of grassroots actions renders the American media as nothing more than a servant of the wealthy. Who thinks the American mainstream media matters anymore as a source of valid information when it comes to politics?

The Wall Street bailout. The health-insurance-lovin' health care bill - a republican bill from long ago. The raids on states that are trying to stop part of the war on drugs. The failure to recognize that the middle class is shrinking while corporations suck the blood of democracy to pay for their criminality. Climate change. Infrastructure. And we can go back to Clinton's policies regarding a host of issues. NAFTA. the end of regulations on financial entities.

A lot of people don't have faith that our govt. has the capacity to deal with issues and find association with groups outside of the political parties leads to change. And, come to think of it... that's how change has occurred in this nation.. isn't it?

When has govt not been forced to make positive changes for the majority of people without people getting out into the street and making a pol have to answer for wrongs that they refuse to address?

The way they answer gains them support at the ballot box. It's not enough for some people to tell them to work with or within a political party as they exist to change things because the things that they want to change don't seem to get addressed even after voting.

I understand this view. I don't entirely agree with it b/c I think it's better to insure the lesser of two evils wins especially where issues like judgeships and social politics are concerned.

But the economic issues do not get addressed by either party in a satisfactory way.

[Better Believe It]

77. If given the opportunity most Democratic Party leaders would strangle the OWS movement

They would like to get people out of the streets and into their electoral campaigns with more promises of "change we can believe in".

Millions are rejecting the idea the meaningful change can occur without building mass movements independent of political parties and candidates that are controlled by big business and Wall Street.

The only way significant progressive economic/political changes have ever been realized in America is when such independent mass movements were built.

[scarletwoman]

78. Well and succinctly said.

:thumbsup:

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. I agree.

If they thought they could channel the energy into support for the Obama Jobs bill and keeping Dodd/Frank from being repealed and perhaps some watered down student loan relief that any respectable banker would love that would be just fine and dandy. But a movement that seeks to remove from political power the very source of their own political power at whose pleasure they serve - that is simply something they would want to go away.

[RiverStone]

85. MSNBC has been paying attention

Not that Rachel Maddow (for example) is mainstream, but they have been most active in covering it. And I enjoy Rachel and Lawrence in particular.

[No Elephants]

116. Rachael is very much mainstream and so is O'Donnell (thought LOD talks

about being a Socialist, lmao.)

If they weren't mainstream, MSNBC would fire them, much as it failed to renew Olberman and then fired Cenk because the WH complained that he was being too critical of Obama. (That's the short version. There were a few steps between the WH complaint and the firing.) As MSNBC explained to Cenk, "You know we're establishment."

Yep, if you want to pull down a big salary at MSNBC to solidify your 1% status, you go mainstream or go home, perhaps to Gore's channel, which has several MSNBC alums.

[No Elephants]

113. If given the opportunity, Democrats would have Republicans strangle the OWS movement.

And btw, most of the cities where the brutality has occurred have Democratic mayors.

And then, there's Homeland Security.

And then, there's Obama saying Mayors's using whatever force is "necessary" is peachy with him.

[freshwest]

82. The problem with that approach, and it's not unique to OWS, is that the current system was created..

By those who did show up to vote and will continue to vote to set the parameters of our lives, influenced by RW corporate media. They consistently voted for corporate rule under the guise of 'less government regulation and stopping immigration to get jobs, privatization of services and protections to keep more of their money, which has been a sham.

Those voters also accepted the 'hands off the military budget' crowd's argument couched in patriotism and fear of foreign powers. Because there are few families in this country who do NOT have family members in the military or in private contracting of what were formerly military jobs to get education, etc.

That is why the funding of the military, which many of OWS realize as an imbalance on the national ledger, is a sacred cow that must not be cut to the people who consistently vote. These voters vote as they do because they need the income and whatever benefits they can get under those beliefs.

We have a lot of people who don't believe in democratic, liberal ideas of government. Much less representative government. They didn't live in a time when a person with a grievance was likely to get remedy from government, through the alphabet agencies that liberalism once used to keep income inequality in check, and to redress the wrongs done to the disadvantaged. This has been a gradual process, with kick starts from each GOP majority and presidency, but it's created a much hyped 'non-political' mindset.

In a way, this is evolution, in another way, devolution. Some hope that as government becomes powerless, they will have more control over their lives through decentralization. They hope that smaller, more local forms of governance, will be more responsive to human needs and environmental concerns.

There are two problems with this way of thinking: the corporations have already usurped the path by installing their cronies to control things on local levels, and are generally unaccountable to the less advantaged on that level. Privatization has taken over ownership of most resources and made the commons die.

But it was the concept of the commons was what allowed social mobility. Those places taken over by tea baggers and conservatives are stagnant socially and economically,. Everything, schools, roads health care and jobs, are in the hands of the 1% and their lackeys.

I think we've probably had a thread here on the failure of liberalism as it's been de-funded and thus de-fanged in the realms of worker and environmental rights. OWS is looking to build something new, stronger and less corruptible than the former institutions for protection has been.

Another reason why the protestor would say they don't like liberals is that we have lost the dialog in this country, overwhelmed by the salesmanship of the Kochs and their type of capitalists.

It's unfortunate that despite what appears to be above average perception the parts of the OWS person you spoke to, and the similarity of goals, they don't believe in goverment anymore. But they need to realize that government can be the tool of the 99% to protect it from oppression. They're throwing the baby out with the bath water, but probably don't see any other way.

[Lionessa]

84. I think the young lady simply made a mistake many seem to make, assuming a Democrat is a liberal

which of course used to be somewhat accurate, but we liberals know it was long ago. If they were, Obama's first two years in office would've been more productive, because back then it was BlueDogs and DLCers that were blind siding any progressive or liberal steps forward.

[No Elephants]

117. I don't think all Democrats were ever liberal.

I think they ranged from Communist to center right--iimmigrants, farmers, blue collar workers, etc.

I have no doubt that many wer highly socially conservative and a significant number, North and South, were racist and very socially conservative, and probably fiscally conservative as well.

However, since that was the constituency, Republicans then being the Party of well off white folk, politicians catered to their populist needs.

Then, TV ads and such started to have more to do with electing people than did legislation. So, getting votes became about pleasing big donors. And, thanks to the American Dream coming true for so many, the children of those farmers and blue collar workers became doctors and lawyers, etc. And many of them became what my friend calls tax bracket Republicans.

Now, all the elected officials are center right or soon become center right. The DNC has worked on making that so for years. And, you can see the impact of that on the electorate right here at DU. It's a vicious cycle.

[2pooped2pop]

91. It seems to me...

that the occupiers follow no set affiliation and are disgusted with the whole lot of them. I saw Obama supporters and Rand Paul supporters. I saw anarchist and socialist there. But mostly, they seem to not support any one group, but welcomes all opinion.
It is such a diverse group of people, old, young, Liberal, independent, homeless, doctors, lawyers.....It is itself a representation of all of us except maybe the tea partiers. But I think even they have some of our beliefs, but are still foxified. They just have to quit drinking the tea and they too will perhaps come around.

I don't know yet what they will do politically, but I am sure that they won't be silent. I don't know exactly what is going to happen, but I do know that I will throw my lot in with them. I know they are about peace and love for all people, all nations. And I believe more in them, whatever they do, than I do in our current political situation of hate, where money rules us all.

My personal hope is that Anonymous screws up the entire election by changing all votes to Mickey Mouse to once and for all, without the ability of the press to ignore, that those damned machines are hackable and rigged.

[chrisa]

92. Yeah, true. I think OWS should beware of Paulites

They're usually more trouble than they're worth.

[leftynyc]

98. Eh - it's one person

Anyone who doesn't see a difference between the parties is frankly too stupid to vote.

[No Elephants]

143. Good thing voters who don't agree with you about that stay home, then, right?

[deucemagnet]

99. Changing peoples' minds takes time.

OWS has accomplished extraordinary things in two months, but republican propaganda has been around for almost thirty years. Give it time.

[No Elephants]

145. I agree

Republican propaganda has been around as long as there's been a Republican Party, though.

What changed most 30 years ago was the Democratic Party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. Liberals

"The Fascists will shoot you.
The conservatives will applaud the Fascists.
The moderates will watch the executions on TV.
The Liberals will cry over your grave and feel guilty for turning you in to the Fascists."

SDS saying.

[No Elephants]

154. That SDS saying is bullshit. Perhaps they are confusing neoliberals

with liberals.

IMO, neoliberals are neocons who would rather not admit they are not Democrats.


And, I am unanimous in that!

[Blue_In_AK]

115. I think it is void of political affiliation, and I think it should be.

Just last night I heard someone comment at our Occupy camp that it was so cool that libertarians, socialists, anarchists, liberals, and, yes, even some conservatives were actually TALKING to each other. I think that's the movement's strength, personally.

[bvar22]

118. "Liberals" as personified by today's Democratic Party ARE part of the problem.

That explains the complete absence of "Obama 2012" signs at all the protests.

The survey I would like to see is,
"Did you vote for 'CHANGE' in 2008?"
The answer to THAT question would have meaning.






You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[No Elephants]

156. Actually, the problem is that the Democratic Party has not personified liberals

since LBJ.

[bvar22]

165. Totally agree.

I hated that old bastard,
but give the devil his due.
I NEVER thought I would see the day when I would say
that LBJ was the most Liberal president of the last 50 years....by FAR.

Can you imagine what would have happened to Joe Lieberman if he had told LBJ he wasn't going to support Medicare????
They would STILL be looking for pieces of Joe's ass!

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

The Johnson Treatment




I wish President Obama would spend more time studying LBJ instead of Reagan.
LBJ.... Now THAT was a "DEMOCRAT".


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Terry in Austin]

119. Political affiliation implies electoral politics

OWS has fundamentally changed the discussion and has brought some important innovations.

One is acknowledging that this is no longer a democracy, with Washington as its capital. It's a plutocracy, with Wall Street as its capital. We can talk about it now. Two months ago, it was rude to notice.

Politics goes way beyond elections and offices and the dials and levers of Washington business. Electoral politics is broken -- the Republicans won't govern and the Democrats can't.

Washington is irrelevant, and OWS has proceeded with that as a given. There will be an inevitable lag as people who aren't yet ready to admit it try to catch up. That's fine -- this is for the long haul.

[tinkerbell41]

122. I gotta say

I am a FAR left leaning voter. I marched at the Occupy Chicago protest. I was not there representing my "party" I was there because I am fed up that there have been no arrests, no prosecutions no slap on the wrist of ANY of the following: The looting of our pensions, the poisoning of our food, air, water. The continued lies and destruction of a country and people who have done nothing to us, the continued money handover on the backs of the middle class and working poor. That is why I went and will continue to go. At this point I honestly don't care where anyone stands politically when they march down there.

[Terry in Austin]

128. You go, tink!

> I am a FAR left leaning voter. I marched at the Occupy Chicago protest. I was not there representing my "party" I was there because I am fed up.

Political action goes way beyond elections and parties!

:fistbump:

[uppityperson]

130. "I don't trust the government with my vote". Why not vote for someone she trusts?

Even write in her own name. She trusts no one in the government, so isn't going to vote for anyone? :crazy:

And this helps...how?

[dameocrat67]

135. because non rich people have no control over the candidates

and only sellouts get the funding to run.

[uppityperson]

138. Then run locally. City council. School board. Or even state legislature. Even people like us

can run for local offices. Write in your own name for president. Vote on local issues. Yes, even a few votes can swing some local issues.

[dameocrat67]

139. i doubt any object to that anyway, but I wont vote for a dlc scum or a republican

in the national election and if they are all that is available I dont vote at all. Anyway, none of the national leadership of the dems comes from the runnin for school board route, so I dont think that justifies our shit system.

[No Elephants]

148. The local parties are no different than the national parties.

Liberals need not apply--and if they try to, we'll crush them.

[uppityperson]

155. Maybe not where you live, but yes, there are plenty of place they are.

[No Elephants]

160. Respectfully, I don't think you've actually tested that proposition in plenty of places lately.

[treestar]

149. Exactly - she just sounds idiotic

And doesn't even get the concept of government by the people.

Her problem is that others don't vote as she thinks they should.

[No Elephants]

157. Oops. Sorry. Misread the placement in the thread.

[Taverner]

131. PDX has always had a nice little Anarchist streak in it...

OWS should be void of political affiliation. Because these issues affect EVERYONE.

[dameocrat67]

134. The trouble is you socalled liberals dont represent us when we vote for you

you turn into Obama and sell us out, bail out banks, force us to pay for private health insurance, throw a few crumbs on student aid but offer no assistence in controlling tuition rates. These people voted for you and you wasted it.

[No Elephants]

159. Obama is not a liberal. I don't recall his saying he is a liberal, so he is not a so-called

liberal. Except as to Republicans who call all Democrats liberals.

There's nothing wrong with liberals. It's the frickin' neoliberals I cannot abide. However, they never admit what they are, so, sometimes, we get fooled.

[Youth Uprising]

161. Bullshit.

What does the liberal populous has to do with our elected Democratic politicians? Most of those people aren't liberals in any sense of the word.

[fascisthunter]

171. um.... that's because you really don't know what a liberal is

if ya did, you wouldn't be as easily fooled.

[theophilus]

137. Many of these young folks have some very different ideas for many of us here. I know a young lady

who has participated in OWS protests who says that Herman Cain is a really neat guy. She says she will vote for him if she can. I don't know if that is what would happen but I just scratch my head. I also hear the "my vote doesn't count" thingy, too. Or, "why bother to vote". So something is going on here amongst some of these young folks. We'll see how it shakes out.

[mulsh]

142. ...and now...Lenny Bruce

The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them.
Lenny Bruce

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/lenny_bruce.html#ixzz1e67xKGLc

[No Elephants]

166. 1610 posts in over 8 years and you wasted a post on a cheap shot at liberals in Bruce's name?

:rofl:

[HappyMe]

146. Well, so what?

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm sure they won't lose any sleep over people not liking them either.

[Motown_Johnny]

150. But we did change the system... we just did it back in the 1930s

FDR changed the system into something that worked until Reagan came along and put in place the system we now have. We went from having the New Deal to getting a Bum Deal.


We need to change it back and to set it in place so that it can't be changed again, that much I think that young lady and I can agree on.

[No Elephants]

168. Yes, but it will be much harder now. Please see Reply 129.

In the 1930s, FDR had to fight only Republicans. Now, he's have to fight everyone in Congress AND the DLC/DNC.

[DevonRex]

151. We had a bunch of Ron Paul supporters at our protest. So I'm not surprised.

One guy got in front of a microphone and camera every chance he got.

[onethatcares]

152. I think it should be void of political affiliation. But, it should

be very strong on the human condition that in itself would create a better world without having to be dem or puke.

The political system and the parties that we now have is broken badly and bought entirely by the moneyed interests

It's time to change that

[Youth Uprising]

158. Over the last couple of weeks I've really grown to dislike the Communist left.

I've done nothing to deserve the ire of these self-proclaimed defenders of the working class, (which I happen to be a part of by the way, and they do NOT speak for me) yet these people hate me because of my political affiliation and think that since I'm not a full fledged Communist I must be a Capitalistic oppressor. :eyes:
Right-wing Libertarians think similarly to this except they think that anyone slightly left of center is some sort of raging Maoist. I think the reason why some authoritarians on the far left despise liberals so much is because liberals tend to be reformists by nature, prefer peaceful solutions over violent conflict, and happen to be very individualistic. Their intolerance towards anyone who doesn't fit into their idealized vision of a socioeconomic class and towards people who pretty much agree with a lot of what they have to say and have been out there in the front lines putting themselves at risk, trying to make the world a better place is preposterous. I'm not tied to any economic system and despise our current form of Capitalism. All I want is a system that benefits ALL and puts and end to exploitation and profits over people, whether that be Socialism, Communism, or some more restrained version of Capitalism.

[No Elephants]

177. Is there a Communist right?

So, let's see: You don't like Communists, Libertarians or authoritarians (which applies, in my opinion, to everyone on the right, including the center right).

Do you like liberals?

[Youth Uprising]

181. I used the term 'Communist left'

as an umbrella term to encompass those on the left whose main goal is to abolish Capitalism, for lack of a better term. I don't dislike all Communists, just the authoritarian ones. I dislike authoritarians of any stripe. Yes, I don't like capital "l" Libertarians, and I am a liberal.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

163. There's a reason why a young person would feel that way

In her lifetime, the Dems have either actively promoted policies that were harmful to the majority (most notably trade agreements with Third World countries that made it easy to oursource jobs, setting up health care "reform" with only light constraints on the private sector) or gone all wimpy and conceded to the Republicans (the Iraq War, extending the Bush tax cuts).

At the same time, all they hear from the Republicans and the Republican Lites (the so-called moderate Democrats) is that the Democratic Party as a whole is "too liberal."

So in a lot of activists' minds, "liberal" means "hypocrite."

That's why a lot of us no longer refer to ourselves that way.

[Youth Uprising]

167. As a liberal I feel that way about the Democratic Party.

If these people who have a vendetta against liberals don't know the history of the takeover of the Democratic Party by corporate forces and are so stupid as to follow the narrative of the political establishment that they're supposedly rebelling against, how is that my fault?

[bvar22]

170. I wonder if she would agree with these?

"A new basis of security and prosperity for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

At one time, there was a Political Party in the USA that STOOD for the above.
Unfortunately, THAT Political Party is now dead,
but it may be possible to resurrect it.
We might have to start from scratch, and I would work for that,
but thats just me.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ClassWarrior]

172. ANSWER: I think OWS should use every tool available to it, political and otherwise, and...

...I think one random comment by one random, likely uninformed, individual means little.

NGU.

[No Elephants]

178. "QUESTION: Do you think OWS is void of political affiliation - or should be?"

I think DUers, most of whom really know diddly about OWS, should stop shoulding on OWS.

It has done an astounding job in record time (2 months this week!), most of them on next to no money, and with no friendly media, and no political party, think tanks or other institutions supporting them.

We have over 530 legislators and a POTUS and humongous Executive Branch plus all their staffs, lawyers and other consultants, many with well over 20 years of experience. We pay a freakin' fortune to have them working full time for us.

And NO ONE here expected squat from them in only two months, .

To many at DU: Thank you for concern and predictions of doom unless the OWS doesn't evolve or change in some unspecified way-and FAST!!!111.

To OWS

THANK YOU.