Do you believe OWS will eventually morph into a true 3rd party?

[RiverStone]

So much of OWS is based on fighting corruption in the ruling class --- yet to effect real change at a legislative level, it's gonna take votes.

Do you think OWS is the birth of a 3rd party (not named yet)?


ON EDIT: Not advocating a 3rd party (per DU rules), just asking if you think it could happen.

[arcane1]

1. A 3rd Party? 'Tis easier to form a 2nd party

We already have a rhetorical opposition party, so why not keep the good ones and vote the bad ones out?

[RiverStone]

6. My sense is OWS believes the system is too broken to fix...

Both parties being too beholden to the corporations. This may be true...

But I have always voted (never republican), and wonder if this movement will cause enough of a magnitude quake to shift things.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. The one question never answered is that if OWS ignores the voting booth how will change ever occur

Lots of discussion at the encampment I participate at over that. Some seem to think it will magically occur without revolution or voting. That somehow the laws will change because they should.

[PETRUS]

22. Voting is a tool.

Civil disobedience, noncooperation, etc. on a large enough scale can drive change - if business as usual becomes impossible, officials do make adjustments. Street level protests have accomplished things in countries without elections (or legitimate elections).

But here in the US, it helps if politicians fear for their jobs. It's not unreasonable for people to be jaded about voting at this point, though. I vote, but I generally think of it as damage control and I know at best only a fraction of my views are represented by any of the available candidates.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. What major changes have ever been accomplished in the US

without changes brought by elections at some point.

[PETRUS]

28. The labor movement, for one.

FDR was elected in 1932. He (famously) did some things in his first hundred days but people took to the streets in 1933-34. He responded to this public pressure in 1935 with reform that included Social Security, financial regulation, and higher taxes on the rich.

(Edit to add: At first I assumed the implications of my subject line would be apparent, but I should clarify that various strikes, sit-ins, and other actions of labor resulting in union recognition and collecting bargaining happened outside of the electoral process. I threw in New Deal stuff just for fun and because I see it as related.)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Labor reforms werel brought about through the Congress and the ballot box

FDR did what he did because he had both houses and some semblance of party unity. The later reforms were passed by congress.

My take is that there are those who think voting and legislators are irrelevant due to OWS.

[PETRUS]

36. Mostly agree with you, actually.

I do think it is possible to change things only via protest, but why not use every tool? The big reforms in the US wouldn't have happened without protest, but the fact that we also hold elections speeds up the process.

Just to clarify one thing, there were labor reforms via law. However, a number of significant victories were simply a matter of employees directly pressuring owners and management. These victories didn't result in legislation, nor did they have any impact (apart from inspiration) upon society as a whole, but they were real.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. Eventually some of the things won by labor were codified into laws and regulations

And it was a long term and evolving process.

Protest have not had much impact in the US in recent history. Not sure what long term effect OWS will have. Think the next few months will be critical for that.

[PETRUS]

42. I don't know.

Too many variables for me to want to venture even a guess. My wife and I have gotten ourselves involved (as have you, I gather) and we've seen and heard a number of things that are promising, and a number of things that seem self-defeating and make us cringe. I've read several articles by social scientists who believe "conditions are right" or are heading that way, but I don't feel qualified to judge.

[TBF]

43. Your "take" is misguided

Your quote: "my take is that there are those who think voting and legislators are irrelevant due to OWS"

The problem is that voting and legislators are irrelevant when the government is controlled by the wealthiest 1% (which has nothing to do with political parties). OWS is the response to that, not the cause.

[PETRUS]

45. That's true.

There are almost no persons in government who really represent the people. Large scale civil disobedience might scare them into better behavior, and over time somewhat better candidates might emerge. But as I stated a few posts back, for me voting is as best damage control.

[TBF]

58. I always vote - for all the good it does me down here in the land of Ron Paul

(yes it can be scary) ... but that is very little of my time. In order to have choices worth voting for we must put pressure on. I know that OWS may not save the world, but I'm quite impressed that it has gotten so much attention in just 2 short months.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. You are confusing impetus with means

If voting and legislation is not going to be the basic mechanisms to change things, what would you propose? If you bypass the current structures you are left with revolution and vigilantism. What else is there, pixie dust?

While I have left out the courts, the scale of change being proposed is well beyond what any American jurist could support under the current legal system

[hulka38]

54. Let's just see where this thing goes

before chewing our fingernails off. OWS has had a positive effect and it's only two months old. It's vagueness is a strength imo.

[TBF]

57. Obviously - but in order to get choices worth voting for sometimes you need to put some pressure on.

Otherwise we will continue to see candidates that don't care about us and issues that have nothing to do with us stealing the limelight. That is why we need to make our views known.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

61. Yet there are those on this thread totally rejecting voting and legislation

OWS gives us a platform from which to apply pressure and provide the impetus for change. The question is how.

[TBF]

63. Agree. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Lemme see

Labor Reform
Civil Rights
Women voting
18 year old being able to vote.

Yes, in the end that was legislated, but they FOLLOWED the will of the people and it is disingenuous in the extreme to think that SOCIAL MOVEMENTS have no effect.

Moreover, some people (here I go with a FOX meme) will NOT vote as a sign of protest, a few will vote third party... most who are already voters will show up on election day. In fact, locally... that was one warning to my city council.

[Terry in Austin]

38. Don't assume that the voting booth is any means to change

I think OWS has pretty much figured that one out -- the electoral system is broken, this isn't a democracy any more, it's a plutocracy.

The thing to figure out now is how to bring changes when plutocrats are governing and not elected representatives.

Stay cool -- this is for the long haul.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. It can and should be, same with legislation

OWS can provide the impetus for change, but those who ignore the mechanisms of change are fools. The other option is some sort of revolution and somehow I doubt that will go well if someone tries it.

[Terry in Austin]

50. THE mechanisms for change

> those who ignore the mechanisms of change are fools.

Do tell! Well, what in the world could those possibly be, I ask you. To get fixated on means is to ignore the ends.

> The other option is some sort of revolution

Assume nothing, imagine everything.

The existing categories of change are exhausted, and I believe that the basic innovation of OWS is to acknowledge this and proceed accordingly. "Revolution" is a term of very wide applicability, and usually applied only after the fact.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

52. Translation: You don't have a clue of how change can and should be implemented

Your beliefs are common at many encampments, namely that the current systems is FUBAR. What is lacking is ideas about productive means to implement change. At our encampment some people took umbrage to the word "how" and clearly so do you.

[Terry in Austin]

66. Oooh, snap! Well, be patient -- you may get it yet

Look pal, all we've got is beliefs. All of us. You included.

Apparently, you believe that some top-down "implementation" is the only thing that will bring change. A lot of people do, because they're used to the technocratic mode of getting things done.

OWS took the step of saying that belief in the electoral system is unwarranted. Been there, done that, now try bottom-up.

It's an untried proposition, no doubt about it. All we can do is see how it plays out, and if we're especially compulsive about it, make a lot of predictions about how it plays out.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. Technocratic? Seems a serious misuse of the word

The reality is that OWS needs to move forward. How is a reasonable question. Many participants have a broad base of ideas, but it a serious bump. To consider what the options for the next step are is timely.

[TBF]

59. We will end up with revolution if we do nothing - that is guaranteed. Austerity is

coming at us with both barrels. That means more folks out on the street through no fault of their own, more anger, less to lose. Conditions dictate this sort of thing, not bourgeoisie sensibilities. What you and I WANT is beside the point. If things get too bad for too many people, then they revolt.

[AntiFascist]

39. Please consider that there is much more to this than the legislative process...

there is also the judicial process and the demand for economic justice. Fundamental change needs to occur in the way financial entities are treated and interact with our government. This is where the true revolution needs to occur, but is rarely addressed through legislation alone.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Indeed, but without legislative action, the goals of OWS are unobtainable short of revolution

OWS can provide the impetus for change, but those who ignore the means are setting themselves up for failure and massive disappointment.

[dipsydoodle]

55. For the purpose of general comparison

it took over 6 years from the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks 26th July 1953 to the end of 1959 for the Cuban Revolution to succeed. Aside from that times have changed.

And best not forget - they were committed to victory or death.

Hasta la victoria siempre.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. That is the revolution option, and its valid, though not particularly non-violent

[dipsydoodle]

60. I have a recollection

of Stokely Carmichael saying words to the effect that passive resistance preassumes your "enemy" to have a conscience. In this instance I'd say your enemy has no conscience.

[AntiFascist]

65. Keep your eye on the Supercongress...

If they fail in their efforts, then it could mean more substantial cuts to defense spending and I'll count this as a major victory. One of the big criticisms of Obama, even while he was running for president, was that he would be no different from the other neoliberals and neocons when it came to this.

[Selatius]

2. Not likely. It's a mathematical observation.

The US voting system is called single-member district plurality.

What that means is that each voting district is represented by one person, and the person who wins only needs a simple plurality to win. Maurice Duverger noted that with such systems that typically only two parties ever become viable. It has been dubbed Duverger's Law. Third party candidates typically act as spoilers. The only way a third party could become one of the actual two viable parties is if it gains so many votes that it can essentially kick out one of the established parties from power and take over the position.

[PETRUS]

17. Correct.

Professor Domhoff, who believes the US is class dominated and that money calls the shots in both parties, also believes that much the Democratic party's base is reasonably progressive and that activists best hope is to work within that party by forming grass-roots "egalitarian clubs" and starting at the local level.

[No Elephants]

49. I agree with the Prof. about money calling the shotsi in both Parties.

But, it's worse than that.

The SAME money calls the shots in both Parties, whose big donors used to be separate from each othr (Union donations form less and less of the Democratic Party's total. In related news, more union members vote Republican than used to be the case.)

As far as the Democratic Party's base being Progresive, I don't know what he means by the term. Does he mean "Progressive," as in the center right (not even sure about the "center part") or does he use that word as a synonym for liberal?

In either case, I would put it this way: Polls reflect that a majority of Americans of both major parties favor liberal ideas, provided no one labels the ideas as "liberal or "Democratic" or anything at all. However, I'm not sure a majority of Democrats self-identify with the label "liberal."

Oh, and once those polls come out, Republican talk radio gets busy convincing ITS base that something like taxing the rich is an idea straight from the liberal spawn of Satan.

And few on our side even attempt to counter that. (Rank and file Republicans are not watching Rachael Maddow, and probably not true indies, either.)

[RiverStone]

26. Reminds me of this...

http://www.cofoe.org/

Born out of the frustration with our election (and electoral) system.

Of course, changes in a BIG way (to our 2 party rule) have been few and far between.

[lbrtbell]

3. Anonymous called for a 3rd party in one of their videos

Since OWS was largely the result of Anonymous' call for protests, maybe they would be open to the idea of a third party.

Their greatest strength at the moment might be to work within the two-party system, or else just run Independent candidates.

[quinnox]

4. who knows, it could become much bigger than that

this could be the start of an actual revolution as some have noted. Imagine that, in the good old USA, that would be something to see.

[FirstLight]

25. have to agree

it may be nice to see that first GA Declaration of INTERDEPENDENCE become the backbone for a new way of doing things, imagine an entire country functioning at a grass roots level!

[AverageJoe90]

5. Yes, but not a good idea to run on the Federal level at the moment.

[knowbody0]

7. first cities will go bankrupt

paying overtime salaries to their police, courts, jails etc. everyone gets a court appointed attorney, dontcha know. eventually, the wall street guys will have to hire private protection and all hell will break lose.

[firehorse]

8. parties = leaders, I don't think thats what they are after

The organic way they are operating right now is successfully working out just the way it is. Just like in the other thread you started, I don't think they need to revert to old status quos of operating. They don't need to be democrats, they don't need to imitate the tea baggers and make themselves a party. They don't need to be told to vote in broken systems.

[RKP5637]

9. Probably better to work to get the dem party back to what it used to be ... n/t

[fascisthunter]

10. no.. it will take over the democratic party

and the GOP knows it. That is why they accuse the two of being one and in the same. The republican party does nothing for average americans... the dems still do and always have. Eventually we will see the Democratic Party adjust.

[RiverStone]

11. I could see some in the DEM party move to views of OWS

...though never the opposite.

It will be an interesting election year!

[peacetalksforall]

12. Part of the answer to your question is in our hands. A Bill was filed today rengressthewq

personhoold.

If OWS takes up a cause - this is it - it's all related.

But consider this.

The third party - already exists - it is corporate americans.

The question should be whether we can reverse the Supreme Court and today there was progress.

If not, any talk about an OWS Party would make it a fourth party.

[Fire Walk With Me]

13. A nation-wide General Assembly would utterly replace current politics.

And it would be such a relief...

[FirstLight]

24. +100

i agree...it would be refreshing... albeit maybe a little hard core ;)

[hack89]

34. So when the Tea Baggers show up at the GA - what then?

there are wide swaths of America where OWS has no support whatsoever.

[Gregorian]

14. My hope is it replaces the two existing parties. Whatever that means.

My dream is that we shed what made this mess in the first place. Like a reptile sheds its skin.

edit- I can see it with the Dem party. But eliminating the R is something that I can't even imagine, as much as America needs it.

[On the Road]

15. The OWS Agenda Really Extends Beyond a Protest

no matter how many weeks it goes on. It is more like a broad platform for a presidential candidate or an entire political party.

OWS has the means and talent to pursue this, but I don't think there is the interest. I think the movement has very self-consciously avoided the kinds of choices that are needed to do that.

It seems to me that the protesters are counting on their energy, purity, and creativity to see them through, and that these are just as important to their own narrative as any smaller, harder political objectives that might be achieved along the way. Unfortunately, those thing are not sufficient to deal with major issues with large entrenched interests that have frustrated the presidents and major parties.

The reliance on personal rightness reminds me of Hunter Thompson famous lines:

San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of.... There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning .... And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave .... So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark —that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. Great Thompson quote, and fairly relevant today

Those of us who were there in the Haight and elsewhere with our long hair etc feel that the encampments are almost like coming home, including the drummers.

One of the outcomes of that time was that many of us got involved in the system and created a quiet revolution in many ways and a lot of good came from that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. highly unlikely

from my point of view the whole point of OWS - like any other mass movement is to change the conversation and push into the center of mainstream discussion that which was once beyond the pale of acceptable discourse in polite society, even polite liberal society.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. So how would you expect OWS to effect change?

[No Elephants]

51. If you are talking about changing the conversation, that's already happened.

If you are talking about changing society, shaking up the status quo and changing the conversaton are the first steps--and very important ones, too.

Will it be sustained? How many at DU are doing more about it than posting, and not always positively? I bet at least 80% of posters here haven't even made a $5 donation or sent a pizza.

But, if the movement fails, they will say it was because OWS didn't follow all their admonitions about evolving--and FAST!!!1111!!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. I agree the conversation has changed, what I am looking at now is the next steps

Those who condemn the current system as FUBAR are willing to write off voting and legislation. That is fine if they have alternatives. Those seem as elusive as pixie dust.

If OWS is to have a lasting legacy it needs to move from demonstration to effect social action and change. No one seems willing to address those mechanisms

[Magoo48]

62. Perhaps that will become clear as OWS matures.

The movement is young, still developing; it's real talents have probably yet to emerge. When these strengths are realized, they then will effect change. Patience is key. Closure is a myth. In my view, positive collateral is already seeping out of this evolving movement.

[doc03]

18. No, I think the OWS movement is on life support. n/t

[Dover]

20. I sure hope not. The system is broken, so why join it? Let's build a new one.

[mmonk]

21. A movement seldom starts out to be a party.

It protests to bring about change due to some injustice currently in a society. It takes awhile for politicians to catch a clue. It's been that way in times preceding this one.

[quiller4]

23. No. I think that it may morph into a permanent organization

but I see something more like a cross between Move On and ACORN than a political party structure.

[MilesColtrane]

29. No

[Zorra]

30. We think, therefore we are. nt

[2pooped2pop]

31. Personally, I'm hoping Anonymous makes it so that we all vote for

Mickey Mouse in 2012 to finally show EVERYONE how easily the voting machines are hacked. Without a true and valid voting system, it won't matter if OWS forms it's own party.

I think they will stand behind the very few people we have that are liberal minded, and introduce some of their own choosing as independents, until they can enact further change to the system.


Yeah go ahead and flame me for wanting to fuck up a whole corporate bought election just to provide a gateway to get rid of the hackable machines.

[HappyMe]

32. Personally I think that it would

be a good idea. But I don't think that it will. Which is too bad. I think if ows did evolve into a 3rd party, it would shake the current 2 down to their cores. Then we would see some big change.

[randome]

35. I concur.

I think we are addicted as a society to 2-party rule. It would be nice to be proved wrong, though.

[theophilus]

40. I hope not. Pressure needs to be put on the two major parties we have....from the

outside. IMO.

[moondust]

68. Fine with me.

At some point it comes down to changing the rules. That means government that serves the 99%. I don't know how they hope to get to that point.

I think more than two parties would be healthy as long as they break down along ideological lines and not just on demographics.