Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Showing posts with label OWS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OWS. Show all posts
Stop Telling the Occupy Movement What to Do
Stop Telling the Occupy Movement What to Do | 1v99
by B. D. Schiers
The Occupy Movement is truly phenomenal, not just in what it has accomplished, but in the unique way it operates. It is determined, creative, resourceful, ever-evolving and best of all, undefined.
Opponents, especially in the right wing media, are constantly calling for them to “define their demands,” “list their grievances,” and “write out the specifics.” The claim is that the movement doesn’t know what they want and have no coherent message to offer.
Their “message” is loud and clear, but many people don’t see it because they are too busy looking for their own preconceptions of what a movement should be. While there are many similarities to the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and other movements throughout history, OWS is a one-of-a-kind phenomenon. They aren’t trying to change specific rules, they are changing the game itself. Different groups in different cities have drawn up their specific concerns and proposals, but the movement as a whole has yet to make a definitive charter of demands, and they might never make one in the future. It doesn’t matter if they do or don’t, they are succeeding just fine with or without.
They are their own message, but even many of their biggest supporters don’t always get it. They are often confused that an itemized list of objectives hasn’t been published. Nearly three months since the first tent was erected in Zuccotti Park, no hierarchy, no singular leadership, no centralized governance, and no manifesto.
In the meantime numerous well-wishers on the left have offered a flood of suggestions with hopes that the movement will adopt them as their own. One celebrated progressive went so far as to publish his list of “10 Things We Want: A Proposal for Occupy Wall Street” on his highly-publicized blog. While I believe everyone’s intent to be sincere, critics have suggested that some people are trying to co-opt the movement.
Input and suggestions are always appreciated, a list of what their goals and objectives should be, are far from necessary. The revolution will not be categorized.
The Occupy Movement is what it is. It doesn’t need to be anything else. It is doing fine, growing rapidly, expanding internationally, and making a historical impact of unrivaled proportion.
###
© B. D. Schiers, 1v99 & 1v99.blogspot.com
You are welcome to reblog, reprint, republish this article in any way you like. We would appreciate credit, but it is not necessary.
by B. D. Schiers
The Occupy Movement is truly phenomenal, not just in what it has accomplished, but in the unique way it operates. It is determined, creative, resourceful, ever-evolving and best of all, undefined.
Opponents, especially in the right wing media, are constantly calling for them to “define their demands,” “list their grievances,” and “write out the specifics.” The claim is that the movement doesn’t know what they want and have no coherent message to offer.
Their “message” is loud and clear, but many people don’t see it because they are too busy looking for their own preconceptions of what a movement should be. While there are many similarities to the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and other movements throughout history, OWS is a one-of-a-kind phenomenon. They aren’t trying to change specific rules, they are changing the game itself. Different groups in different cities have drawn up their specific concerns and proposals, but the movement as a whole has yet to make a definitive charter of demands, and they might never make one in the future. It doesn’t matter if they do or don’t, they are succeeding just fine with or without.
They are their own message, but even many of their biggest supporters don’t always get it. They are often confused that an itemized list of objectives hasn’t been published. Nearly three months since the first tent was erected in Zuccotti Park, no hierarchy, no singular leadership, no centralized governance, and no manifesto.
In the meantime numerous well-wishers on the left have offered a flood of suggestions with hopes that the movement will adopt them as their own. One celebrated progressive went so far as to publish his list of “10 Things We Want: A Proposal for Occupy Wall Street” on his highly-publicized blog. While I believe everyone’s intent to be sincere, critics have suggested that some people are trying to co-opt the movement.
Input and suggestions are always appreciated, a list of what their goals and objectives should be, are far from necessary. The revolution will not be categorized.
The Occupy Movement is what it is. It doesn’t need to be anything else. It is doing fine, growing rapidly, expanding internationally, and making a historical impact of unrivaled proportion.
© B. D. Schiers, 1v99 & 1v99.blogspot.com
You are welcome to reblog, reprint, republish this article in any way you like. We would appreciate credit, but it is not necessary.
Occupy Demands You Stop Asking For A List of Demands
Occupy Demands: Let's Radicalize Our Analysis of Empire, Economics, Ecology | Truthout:
by: Robert Jensen, Truthout | Op-Ed
There's one question that pundits and politicians keep posing to the Occupy gatherings around the country: What are your demands?
The demand for demands is an attempt to shoehorn the Occupy gatherings into conventional politics, to force the energy of these gatherings into a form that people in power recognize, so that they can roll out strategies to divert, co-opt, buy off, or - if those tactics fail - squash any challenge to business as usual.
Rather than listing demands, we critics of concentrated wealth and power in the United States can dig in and deepen our analysis of the systems that produce that unjust distribution of wealth and power. This is a time for action, but there also is a need for analysis. Rallying around a common concern about economic injustice is a beginning; understanding the structures and institutions of illegitimate authority is the next step. We need to recognize that the crises we face are not the result simply of greedy corporate executives or corrupt politicians, but rather of failed systems. The problem is not the specific people who control most of the wealth of the country, or those in government who serve them, but the systems that create those roles. If we could get rid of the current gang of thieves and thugs, but leave the systems in place, we will find that the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.
Read more: http://bit.ly/uTKux0
by: Robert Jensen, Truthout | Op-Ed
There's one question that pundits and politicians keep posing to the Occupy gatherings around the country: What are your demands?
I have a suggestion for a response: We demand that you stop demanding a list of demands.
The demand for demands is an attempt to shoehorn the Occupy gatherings into conventional politics, to force the energy of these gatherings into a form that people in power recognize, so that they can roll out strategies to divert, co-opt, buy off, or - if those tactics fail - squash any challenge to business as usual.
Rather than listing demands, we critics of concentrated wealth and power in the United States can dig in and deepen our analysis of the systems that produce that unjust distribution of wealth and power. This is a time for action, but there also is a need for analysis. Rallying around a common concern about economic injustice is a beginning; understanding the structures and institutions of illegitimate authority is the next step. We need to recognize that the crises we face are not the result simply of greedy corporate executives or corrupt politicians, but rather of failed systems. The problem is not the specific people who control most of the wealth of the country, or those in government who serve them, but the systems that create those roles. If we could get rid of the current gang of thieves and thugs, but leave the systems in place, we will find that the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.
Read more: http://bit.ly/uTKux0
How to Stop Frank Luntz & The 1% From Occupying the Narrative Part 1
How to Stop Frank Luntz & The 1% From Occupying the Narrative | 1v99
by B. D. Schiers
Right wing propagandist, Frank Luntz, was awarded the 2010 PolitiFact Lie of the Year award for his promotion of the phrase 'government takeover.'* The distinction hasn’t stopped him from creating even bigger whoppers since then.
In a recent meeting with the Republican Governor’s Association, Luntz announced that he thought telling the 99 Percenters to “occupy a job and take a bath” was cute, but not effective. He is admittedly “scared of this anti-Wall Street effort,” and its “impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”**
To bolster the GOP’s defense of the 1% and it’s war on the middle class, Luntz has proposed a series of linguistic manipulations. His hope is that Republican politicians, right wing talk shows, and the corporate elite, will echo his Orwellian speak in goose-step repetition.
In order to prevent this attempt to occupy the narrative, it is essential to know the catch phrases as they slither into the national dialog. My hope is that the pundits of plutocracy will be called out on every attempt they make to control the discussion.
Here are nine linguistic manipulations you should be familiar with:
1. “Job Killers” and “Job-Creators”
When John Boehner became Speaker of the House, the first item on the agenda was to repeal “Obama’s ‘Job-Killing’ Healthcare Bill.” From that point on you heard righties labeling everything they don’t like as a “job-killer.”
Likewise, in order to avoid being seen as the defenders of the rich & the super-rich, Luntz suggests the GOP call their benefactors “job-creators.” The implication being that if the 1% have to pay their fair share, it will hurt the economy and there will be less jobs. Of course nothing is further from the truth.
Even though the CBO and other independent analysts have proved otherwise, this “job creator” myth has been very effective in swaying people away from the truth. But, that is quickly changing as the Occupy Movement has raised public awareness. People now see that corporate America is sitting on record-breaking stockpiles of cash with little or no jobs being created.
2. Turn “Paying Your Fair Share” Into “Taking From the Rich”
The whole Robin Hood idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor frightens the corporate elite to no end. It always has. Right wing propagandists have long enjoyed accusing liberals of wanting to “redistribute the wealth.” They even had Joe the Plumber and other low-information voters saying it. Now the tide has turned and the public is realizing there have already been 30 solid years of wealth redistribution going upward and not down to them.
So Luntz has come up with the new term, “taking from the rich.” Which I assume he’s hoping people will associate with stealing instead of fairness. We prefer calling it “paying their fair share” and that is not stealing no matter how much Luntz tries to twist its meaning.
3. Dissociate From the Word “Capitalism”
Luntz recognizes that one of the major successes brought about by the Occupy Movement is the increased awareness of the injustices of corporate controlled capitalism. His own research shows that the public is beginning to “think capitalism is immoral.”
At a recent gathering of the Republican Governors Association, Luntz warned, “if we’re seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we’ve got a problem.” In order to pretend they aren’t the defenders of something “immoral,” which they are, Luntz urges his Republican friends to dissociate themselves from the word “capitalism.”
He has two suggestions for replacement: “economic freedom” and “free market”, both of which are actually complete opposites of what corporate controlled economics is all about. In fact, “economic freedom” is exactly what the economically oppressed would love to have.
4. Abandon the Term “Middle Class” And Use the Term “Hard Working Taxpayers”
If you have seen any of the GOP Presidential debates, you’ll notice the term, “middle class” is rarely, if ever, used. It is not by accident.
As the GOP finds the middle class support on the decline, Luntz suggests “hard working taxpayers” has a more appealing ring. The idea is to give the impression that the 99 Percenters are a threat to people who work hard and pay their taxes. Of course, nothing is further from the truth.
Contrary to the right wing claim of the Occupy Movement being a “lazy” bunch of “dirty hippies,” most of the support actually comes from “hard working taxpayers” and people looking for jobs so they can become “hard working taxpayers” again. So we think the change in terminology could very well backfire.
5. “Government Spending” Didn’t Work So Let’s Try “Government Waste”
The GOP has been clamoring about government spending ever since the Reagan-era. And for the most part, they have been able to convince people that government spending is (1) a bad thing (2) something only Democrats do. But people are waking up to fact that they like having roads and bridges. They like having schools and police officers to protect their children. They like most of the things the government spends money on.
They also realize that the Republicans are by far the largest contributors to the national debt. And worse, that the Republicans don’t really care about the national debt as much as they do protecting the 1%.
So to shift the focus, Luntz suggests using the term “government waste” to spark the ire of the low-information voters the GOP depends on. After all, every one hates “waste,” and every politician promises to “cut waste.”
6. “Compromise” Is Bad, Bad, Bad – “Cooperate” Is Oh, So Nice
One of the major hurdles the GOP has to face is the fact that they are unwilling to compromise on almost anything. So rather than compromise, Luntz has decided to make compromise a dirty word. Unlike Reagan who was famous for compromising with Tip O’Neill and the Democrats, today’s Republicans see it as a “sign of weakness” and a “sell-out of principles.”
As far as Luntz is concerned, not only should the GOP refuse to compromise, they should also vilify the very word. In it’s place, “cooperate” has a more enticing ring.
7. “I Get It, I Get It, I Get”
This is one of the most condescending phrases Luntz has ever come up with, and he’s come up with some disgraceful ones throughout his life. His suggestion for any discussion with an Occupy sympathizer is to respond with “I get it...”
Not only is it dismissive, it is very reminiscent of “I’m not a racist, but...” Or, “I feel your pain, but...”
What is evident is they have no real argument to go against the Occupiers. Rather than confront them directly, they dismiss with a simple sleight-of-mouth technique.
8. “Sacrifice” Is Sacrilegious
It is almost funny how the word “sacrifice” is such a frightening idea to the 1%. They don’t like the word “sacrifice” because it can easily be used by those who are truly doing the sacrificing. The irony being that the 99% have had to sacrifice immense burdens throughout the recession while the 1% have continued to prosper at an alarming rate.
Every time a cut back is made in social programs, people sacrifice. The whole debt reduction debate was about cutting social programs, but you never heard Republicans express a bit of concern over the individuals who would suffer from the consequences.
9. Don’t Blame Me, Blame Washington
I just love it when politicians, consultants & lobbyists who live in Washington, who work in Washington, who make their careers in Washington, never take accountability for their actions. But who can blame them when Frank Luntz told them not to?
Luntz’s other contention is that “corporations are not to blame, government is.” That may go over well with the misinformed, but as the Occupy Movement so accurately points out, corporations own and control the government.
10. Bonus
I know I said there were going to be nine linguistic manipulations, but this one is a bonus. “Don’t use the word ‘bonus’.” Frank Luntz doesn’t like that word. It implies that CEOs are getting something for nothing. Instead he prefers you use “pay for performance.”
Notice he didn’t say “pay for good performance.” Even when CEOs bring their corporations to near collapse, or even to bankruptcy, they get enormous bonuses. The biggest irony of all concerns the Tea Party. Remember how the Tea Party was outraged that taxpayer money was being used to bail out Wall Street. But when corporate contributions started coming in, they quickly elected politicians who did Wall Street’s bidding. Not only do they support the practice of record breaking compensations, but they also want to reduce corporate taxes even more, leaving the 99% (including the Tea Party) holding the short end of the stick.
###
*Wikipedia.org
**From a report by Chris Moody, Yahoo News
© B. D. Schiers, 1v99 & 1v99.blogspot.com
You are welcome to reblog, reprint, republish this article in any way you like. We would appreciate credit, but it is not necessary.
by B. D. Schiers
Right wing propagandist, Frank Luntz, was awarded the 2010 PolitiFact Lie of the Year award for his promotion of the phrase 'government takeover.'* The distinction hasn’t stopped him from creating even bigger whoppers since then.
In a recent meeting with the Republican Governor’s Association, Luntz announced that he thought telling the 99 Percenters to “occupy a job and take a bath” was cute, but not effective. He is admittedly “scared of this anti-Wall Street effort,” and its “impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”**
To bolster the GOP’s defense of the 1% and it’s war on the middle class, Luntz has proposed a series of linguistic manipulations. His hope is that Republican politicians, right wing talk shows, and the corporate elite, will echo his Orwellian speak in goose-step repetition.
In order to prevent this attempt to occupy the narrative, it is essential to know the catch phrases as they slither into the national dialog. My hope is that the pundits of plutocracy will be called out on every attempt they make to control the discussion.
Here are nine linguistic manipulations you should be familiar with:
1. “Job Killers” and “Job-Creators”
When John Boehner became Speaker of the House, the first item on the agenda was to repeal “Obama’s ‘Job-Killing’ Healthcare Bill.” From that point on you heard righties labeling everything they don’t like as a “job-killer.”
Likewise, in order to avoid being seen as the defenders of the rich & the super-rich, Luntz suggests the GOP call their benefactors “job-creators.” The implication being that if the 1% have to pay their fair share, it will hurt the economy and there will be less jobs. Of course nothing is further from the truth.
Even though the CBO and other independent analysts have proved otherwise, this “job creator” myth has been very effective in swaying people away from the truth. But, that is quickly changing as the Occupy Movement has raised public awareness. People now see that corporate America is sitting on record-breaking stockpiles of cash with little or no jobs being created.
2. Turn “Paying Your Fair Share” Into “Taking From the Rich”
The whole Robin Hood idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor frightens the corporate elite to no end. It always has. Right wing propagandists have long enjoyed accusing liberals of wanting to “redistribute the wealth.” They even had Joe the Plumber and other low-information voters saying it. Now the tide has turned and the public is realizing there have already been 30 solid years of wealth redistribution going upward and not down to them.
So Luntz has come up with the new term, “taking from the rich.” Which I assume he’s hoping people will associate with stealing instead of fairness. We prefer calling it “paying their fair share” and that is not stealing no matter how much Luntz tries to twist its meaning.
3. Dissociate From the Word “Capitalism”
Luntz recognizes that one of the major successes brought about by the Occupy Movement is the increased awareness of the injustices of corporate controlled capitalism. His own research shows that the public is beginning to “think capitalism is immoral.”
At a recent gathering of the Republican Governors Association, Luntz warned, “if we’re seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we’ve got a problem.” In order to pretend they aren’t the defenders of something “immoral,” which they are, Luntz urges his Republican friends to dissociate themselves from the word “capitalism.”
He has two suggestions for replacement: “economic freedom” and “free market”, both of which are actually complete opposites of what corporate controlled economics is all about. In fact, “economic freedom” is exactly what the economically oppressed would love to have.
4. Abandon the Term “Middle Class” And Use the Term “Hard Working Taxpayers”
If you have seen any of the GOP Presidential debates, you’ll notice the term, “middle class” is rarely, if ever, used. It is not by accident.
As the GOP finds the middle class support on the decline, Luntz suggests “hard working taxpayers” has a more appealing ring. The idea is to give the impression that the 99 Percenters are a threat to people who work hard and pay their taxes. Of course, nothing is further from the truth.
Contrary to the right wing claim of the Occupy Movement being a “lazy” bunch of “dirty hippies,” most of the support actually comes from “hard working taxpayers” and people looking for jobs so they can become “hard working taxpayers” again. So we think the change in terminology could very well backfire.
5. “Government Spending” Didn’t Work So Let’s Try “Government Waste”
The GOP has been clamoring about government spending ever since the Reagan-era. And for the most part, they have been able to convince people that government spending is (1) a bad thing (2) something only Democrats do. But people are waking up to fact that they like having roads and bridges. They like having schools and police officers to protect their children. They like most of the things the government spends money on.
They also realize that the Republicans are by far the largest contributors to the national debt. And worse, that the Republicans don’t really care about the national debt as much as they do protecting the 1%.
So to shift the focus, Luntz suggests using the term “government waste” to spark the ire of the low-information voters the GOP depends on. After all, every one hates “waste,” and every politician promises to “cut waste.”
6. “Compromise” Is Bad, Bad, Bad – “Cooperate” Is Oh, So Nice
One of the major hurdles the GOP has to face is the fact that they are unwilling to compromise on almost anything. So rather than compromise, Luntz has decided to make compromise a dirty word. Unlike Reagan who was famous for compromising with Tip O’Neill and the Democrats, today’s Republicans see it as a “sign of weakness” and a “sell-out of principles.”
As far as Luntz is concerned, not only should the GOP refuse to compromise, they should also vilify the very word. In it’s place, “cooperate” has a more enticing ring.
7. “I Get It, I Get It, I Get”
This is one of the most condescending phrases Luntz has ever come up with, and he’s come up with some disgraceful ones throughout his life. His suggestion for any discussion with an Occupy sympathizer is to respond with “I get it...”
Not only is it dismissive, it is very reminiscent of “I’m not a racist, but...” Or, “I feel your pain, but...”
What is evident is they have no real argument to go against the Occupiers. Rather than confront them directly, they dismiss with a simple sleight-of-mouth technique.
8. “Sacrifice” Is Sacrilegious
It is almost funny how the word “sacrifice” is such a frightening idea to the 1%. They don’t like the word “sacrifice” because it can easily be used by those who are truly doing the sacrificing. The irony being that the 99% have had to sacrifice immense burdens throughout the recession while the 1% have continued to prosper at an alarming rate.
Every time a cut back is made in social programs, people sacrifice. The whole debt reduction debate was about cutting social programs, but you never heard Republicans express a bit of concern over the individuals who would suffer from the consequences.
9. Don’t Blame Me, Blame Washington
I just love it when politicians, consultants & lobbyists who live in Washington, who work in Washington, who make their careers in Washington, never take accountability for their actions. But who can blame them when Frank Luntz told them not to?
Luntz’s other contention is that “corporations are not to blame, government is.” That may go over well with the misinformed, but as the Occupy Movement so accurately points out, corporations own and control the government.
10. Bonus
I know I said there were going to be nine linguistic manipulations, but this one is a bonus. “Don’t use the word ‘bonus’.” Frank Luntz doesn’t like that word. It implies that CEOs are getting something for nothing. Instead he prefers you use “pay for performance.”
Notice he didn’t say “pay for good performance.” Even when CEOs bring their corporations to near collapse, or even to bankruptcy, they get enormous bonuses. The biggest irony of all concerns the Tea Party. Remember how the Tea Party was outraged that taxpayer money was being used to bail out Wall Street. But when corporate contributions started coming in, they quickly elected politicians who did Wall Street’s bidding. Not only do they support the practice of record breaking compensations, but they also want to reduce corporate taxes even more, leaving the 99% (including the Tea Party) holding the short end of the stick.
*Wikipedia.org
**From a report by Chris Moody, Yahoo News
© B. D. Schiers, 1v99 & 1v99.blogspot.com
You are welcome to reblog, reprint, republish this article in any way you like. We would appreciate credit, but it is not necessary.
“You Are Suppose To Protect Us!” ~
Police Pepper Spray Students at UC Davis
... and the students shame the police into backing down.
Chris Hayes: Washington Lobbyists Target Occupy Wall Street
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rachel Maddow: The Mario Savio Steps ~ OWS is Here To Stay!
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Bill Moyers Speaks About American Plutocracy & the Occupy Wall Street Movement
PBS host Moyers says government failing Americans - Houston Chronicle: PBS host Moyers says government failing Americans
By MIKE TOLSON, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Bill Moyers says that without fair government, "we are going to become a plutocracy ... where wealth is concentrated at the top and everybody else is left with scraps.
Bill Moyers is not just a name but a brand in the world of broadcast journalism. The former press secretary for President Lyndon Johnson - who grew up in the East Texas town of Marshall - has become a staple on PBS, where, at 77, he still hosts a show on current topics.
The recipient of more than 30 Emmy awards, Moyers is an unabashed liberal who believes that the political establishment is undoing much of the progress made in the last half of the 20th century.
He will be in Houston Thursday night as part of an ongoing lecture series sponsored by the Progressive Forum. He recently spoke with Chronicle reporter Mike Tolson.
Q: There seems to be a growing sense of urgency, a feeling that Washington quickly needs to find solutions for our national problems and stop dwelling on partisan differences. Do you see the upcoming election as pivotal in some way?
A: I do. The government is paralyzed. Our government is just not working. If the election continues the status quo, we are in trouble. Our political system has gotten us into such a mess that we can't solve our problems. This happened once before when the political system broke down and could not work to bridge differences, and the result was a disastrous civil war. The system is failing now. It isn't solving the debt problem or the foreclosure problem or anything. We have been able to use military to kill our enemies, but that's about it. This election is one more chance to make good choices. If the Republicans send people to do what they have been doing - just keep saying "no" - we will reap the harvest of history. If the Democrats continue to wring their hands and settle for photo ops and rhetoric, we will get nowhere. They (political parties) are going to be finished unless we can settle the deep and divisive issues that are taking us down. This election should be opportunity for the people to take the bridge of the ship and say to the captain, "That's an iceberg out there, turn the ship."
Q: The people behind the Occupy Wall Street protests and the tea party seem to present a similar message, even though they are quite different on a social and personal level. The tea party folks have had some political impact, while the Wall Street protesters have not yet. Do you see their movement ever gaining more traction?
A: I know a lot of tea partiers. I was out listening to them and talking to them. They had a half-truth. Why do I want to put more of my taxes into a government that was serving special interests? They understood that. The other side says we have to have a safety net. The two sides can't get together. The populist movement (of the tea party) was taken over and co-opted by corporate interests. It's hard to retain fiery indignation and independence when that happens. I don't think Occupy Wall Street will have the influence they want unless they do what the tea party did and take over the nominating process. Unless they do, they will never have the satisfaction that they want and that the civil rights movement, say, had back in the 1950s and '60s. These people are not going to have long-ranging effect unless they have a party to act on their interests. They need to become a political movement instead of a grievance committee.
Q: Like many of those on the liberal or progressive side of the spectrum, you have spoken often about the decline of the middle class and the stagnation of its income. Why do you think this is so important?
A: Since 1979, 40 percent of the increase of wealth has gone to 1 percent of the population. I don't know if the destruction of the middle class was by design, but that's been the effect of it. Our economy favors the relative few at the top, and everything else is left barely hanging on, if that. That's the story of the last 30 years. This is similar to what happened between the Civil War and 1912. The industrial revolution created incredible wealth at the top and great misery everywhere else. There was a feeling by political leaders that the wealthy deserved their riches because they are virtuous. And then the people rose up and in bloody soil planted the seeds that the 20th century used as markers to lay down a civilized society: the right of women to vote, the end of child labor, the creation of Social Security and rights for unions to organize and so on. Unless we can resurrect a vigorous fair government that works on behalf of everyday people, we are going to become a plutocracy like Mexico where wealth is concentrated at the top and everybody else is left with scraps.
Q: In spite of your grim assessment of current political and economic realities, you say that you are ever optimistic. Why?
A: I don't know how to live in this world without expecting a more confident future and doing something every morning to try to bring it about. I think that is motivating folks down on Wall Street and across the nation. These protesters have put their faith in the last seemingly credible force in the world, and that's each other.
mike.tolson@chron.com
By MIKE TOLSON, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Bill Moyers says that without fair government, "we are going to become a plutocracy ... where wealth is concentrated at the top and everybody else is left with scraps.
Bill Moyers is not just a name but a brand in the world of broadcast journalism. The former press secretary for President Lyndon Johnson - who grew up in the East Texas town of Marshall - has become a staple on PBS, where, at 77, he still hosts a show on current topics.
The recipient of more than 30 Emmy awards, Moyers is an unabashed liberal who believes that the political establishment is undoing much of the progress made in the last half of the 20th century.
He will be in Houston Thursday night as part of an ongoing lecture series sponsored by the Progressive Forum. He recently spoke with Chronicle reporter Mike Tolson.
Q: There seems to be a growing sense of urgency, a feeling that Washington quickly needs to find solutions for our national problems and stop dwelling on partisan differences. Do you see the upcoming election as pivotal in some way?
A: I do. The government is paralyzed. Our government is just not working. If the election continues the status quo, we are in trouble. Our political system has gotten us into such a mess that we can't solve our problems. This happened once before when the political system broke down and could not work to bridge differences, and the result was a disastrous civil war. The system is failing now. It isn't solving the debt problem or the foreclosure problem or anything. We have been able to use military to kill our enemies, but that's about it. This election is one more chance to make good choices. If the Republicans send people to do what they have been doing - just keep saying "no" - we will reap the harvest of history. If the Democrats continue to wring their hands and settle for photo ops and rhetoric, we will get nowhere. They (political parties) are going to be finished unless we can settle the deep and divisive issues that are taking us down. This election should be opportunity for the people to take the bridge of the ship and say to the captain, "That's an iceberg out there, turn the ship."
Q: The people behind the Occupy Wall Street protests and the tea party seem to present a similar message, even though they are quite different on a social and personal level. The tea party folks have had some political impact, while the Wall Street protesters have not yet. Do you see their movement ever gaining more traction?
A: I know a lot of tea partiers. I was out listening to them and talking to them. They had a half-truth. Why do I want to put more of my taxes into a government that was serving special interests? They understood that. The other side says we have to have a safety net. The two sides can't get together. The populist movement (of the tea party) was taken over and co-opted by corporate interests. It's hard to retain fiery indignation and independence when that happens. I don't think Occupy Wall Street will have the influence they want unless they do what the tea party did and take over the nominating process. Unless they do, they will never have the satisfaction that they want and that the civil rights movement, say, had back in the 1950s and '60s. These people are not going to have long-ranging effect unless they have a party to act on their interests. They need to become a political movement instead of a grievance committee.
Q: Like many of those on the liberal or progressive side of the spectrum, you have spoken often about the decline of the middle class and the stagnation of its income. Why do you think this is so important?
A: Since 1979, 40 percent of the increase of wealth has gone to 1 percent of the population. I don't know if the destruction of the middle class was by design, but that's been the effect of it. Our economy favors the relative few at the top, and everything else is left barely hanging on, if that. That's the story of the last 30 years. This is similar to what happened between the Civil War and 1912. The industrial revolution created incredible wealth at the top and great misery everywhere else. There was a feeling by political leaders that the wealthy deserved their riches because they are virtuous. And then the people rose up and in bloody soil planted the seeds that the 20th century used as markers to lay down a civilized society: the right of women to vote, the end of child labor, the creation of Social Security and rights for unions to organize and so on. Unless we can resurrect a vigorous fair government that works on behalf of everyday people, we are going to become a plutocracy like Mexico where wealth is concentrated at the top and everybody else is left with scraps.
Q: In spite of your grim assessment of current political and economic realities, you say that you are ever optimistic. Why?
A: I don't know how to live in this world without expecting a more confident future and doing something every morning to try to bring it about. I think that is motivating folks down on Wall Street and across the nation. These protesters have put their faith in the last seemingly credible force in the world, and that's each other.
mike.tolson@chron.com
10 Ways the Occupy Movement Changes Everything
10 Ways the Occupy Movement Changes Everything: Ten Ways the Occupy Movement Changes Everything
Many question whether this movement can really make a difference. The truth is that it is already changing everything. Here’s how.
by Sarah van Gelder, David Korten, Steve Piersanti
This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement
Edited by Sarah van Gelder and the staff of YES! Magazine.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2011, 96 pages.
$6.95 (30% off the cover price when you buy from YES!. All royalties from this book are donated to the Occupy Wall Street movement)
Before the Occupy Wall Street movement, there was little discussion of the outsized power of Wall Street and the diminishing fortunes of the middle class.
The media blackout was especially remarkable given that issues like jobs and corporate influence on elections topped the list of concerns for most Americans.
Occupy Wall Street changed that. In fact, it may represent the best hope in years that “we the people” will step up to take on the critical challenges of our time. Here’s how the Occupy movement is already changing everything:
1. It names the source of the crisis.
Political insiders have avoided this simple reality: The problems of the 99% are caused in large part by Wall Street greed, perverse financial incentives, and a corporate takeover of the political system. Now that this is understood, the genie is out of the bottle and it can’t be put back in.
2. It provides a clear vision of the world we want.
We can create a world that works for everyone, not just the wealthiest 1%. And we, the 99%, are using the spaces opened up by the Occupy movement to conduct a dialogue about the world we want.
3. It sets a new standard for public debate.
Those advocating policies and proposals must now demonstrate that their ideas will benefit the 99%. Serving only the 1% will not suffice, nor will claims that the subsidies and policies that benefit the 1% will eventually “trickle down.”
4. It presents a new narrative.
The solution is not to starve government or impose harsh austerity measures that further harm middle-class and poor people already reeling from a bad economy. Instead, the solution is to free society and government from corporate dominance. A functioning democracy is our best shot at addressing critical social, environmental, and economic crises.
5. It creates a big tent.
We, the 99%, are people of all ages, races, occupations, and political beliefs. We will resist being divided or marginalized. We are learning to work together with respect.
6. It offers everyone a chance to create change.
No one is in charge; no organization or political party calls the shots. Anyone can get involved, offer proposals, support the occupations, and build the movement. Because leadership is everywhere and new supporters keep turning up, there is a flowering of creativity and a resilience that makes the movement nearly impossible to shut down.
7. It is a movement, not a list of demands.
The call for deep change—not temporary fixes and single-issue reforms—is the movement’s sustaining power. The movement is sometimes criticized for failing to issue a list of demands, but doing so could keep it tied to status quo power relationships and policy options. The occupiers and their supporters will not be boxed in.
8. It combines the local and the global.
People in cities and towns around the world are setting their own local agendas, tactics, and aims. What they share in common is a critique of corporate power and an identification with the 99%, creating an extraordinary wave of global solidarity.
9. It offers an ethic and practice of deep democracy and community.
Slow, patient decision-making in which every voice is heard translates into wisdom, common commitment, and power. Occupy sites are set up as communities in which anyone can discuss grievances, hopes, and dreams, and where all can experiment with living in a space built around mutual support.
10. We have reclaimed our power.
Instead of looking to politicians and leaders to bring about change, we can see now that the power rests with us. Instead of being victims to the forces upending our lives, we are claiming our sovereign right to remake the world.
Like all human endeavors, Occupy Wall Street and its thousands of variations and spin-offs will be imperfect. There have already been setbacks and divisions, hardships and injury. But as our world faces extraordinary challenges—from climate change to soaring inequality—our best hope is the ordinary people, gathered in imperfect democracies, who are finding ways to fix a broken world.
This article is adapted from the book, This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement edited by Sarah van Gelder and the staff of YES! Magazine and published November 2011 by Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Sarah van Gelder and David Korten are co-founders of YES! Magazine; Steve Piersanti is publisher of Berrett-Koehler Publishers. This article is available under a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs (CC BY-ND) license, which allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the original publication of this book (photos not included). More on the book and other resources can be found at www.yesmagazine.org/owsbook.
We recommend Yes! http://bit.ly/w4x8Eu
Many question whether this movement can really make a difference. The truth is that it is already changing everything. Here’s how.
by Sarah van Gelder, David Korten, Steve Piersanti
This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement
Edited by Sarah van Gelder and the staff of YES! Magazine.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2011, 96 pages.
$6.95 (30% off the cover price when you buy from YES!. All royalties from this book are donated to the Occupy Wall Street movement)
Before the Occupy Wall Street movement, there was little discussion of the outsized power of Wall Street and the diminishing fortunes of the middle class.
The media blackout was especially remarkable given that issues like jobs and corporate influence on elections topped the list of concerns for most Americans.
Occupy Wall Street changed that. In fact, it may represent the best hope in years that “we the people” will step up to take on the critical challenges of our time. Here’s how the Occupy movement is already changing everything:
1. It names the source of the crisis.
Political insiders have avoided this simple reality: The problems of the 99% are caused in large part by Wall Street greed, perverse financial incentives, and a corporate takeover of the political system. Now that this is understood, the genie is out of the bottle and it can’t be put back in.
2. It provides a clear vision of the world we want.
We can create a world that works for everyone, not just the wealthiest 1%. And we, the 99%, are using the spaces opened up by the Occupy movement to conduct a dialogue about the world we want.
3. It sets a new standard for public debate.
Those advocating policies and proposals must now demonstrate that their ideas will benefit the 99%. Serving only the 1% will not suffice, nor will claims that the subsidies and policies that benefit the 1% will eventually “trickle down.”
4. It presents a new narrative.
The solution is not to starve government or impose harsh austerity measures that further harm middle-class and poor people already reeling from a bad economy. Instead, the solution is to free society and government from corporate dominance. A functioning democracy is our best shot at addressing critical social, environmental, and economic crises.
5. It creates a big tent.
We, the 99%, are people of all ages, races, occupations, and political beliefs. We will resist being divided or marginalized. We are learning to work together with respect.
6. It offers everyone a chance to create change.
No one is in charge; no organization or political party calls the shots. Anyone can get involved, offer proposals, support the occupations, and build the movement. Because leadership is everywhere and new supporters keep turning up, there is a flowering of creativity and a resilience that makes the movement nearly impossible to shut down.
7. It is a movement, not a list of demands.
The call for deep change—not temporary fixes and single-issue reforms—is the movement’s sustaining power. The movement is sometimes criticized for failing to issue a list of demands, but doing so could keep it tied to status quo power relationships and policy options. The occupiers and their supporters will not be boxed in.
8. It combines the local and the global.
People in cities and towns around the world are setting their own local agendas, tactics, and aims. What they share in common is a critique of corporate power and an identification with the 99%, creating an extraordinary wave of global solidarity.
9. It offers an ethic and practice of deep democracy and community.
Slow, patient decision-making in which every voice is heard translates into wisdom, common commitment, and power. Occupy sites are set up as communities in which anyone can discuss grievances, hopes, and dreams, and where all can experiment with living in a space built around mutual support.
10. We have reclaimed our power.
Instead of looking to politicians and leaders to bring about change, we can see now that the power rests with us. Instead of being victims to the forces upending our lives, we are claiming our sovereign right to remake the world.
Like all human endeavors, Occupy Wall Street and its thousands of variations and spin-offs will be imperfect. There have already been setbacks and divisions, hardships and injury. But as our world faces extraordinary challenges—from climate change to soaring inequality—our best hope is the ordinary people, gathered in imperfect democracies, who are finding ways to fix a broken world.
This article is adapted from the book, This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement edited by Sarah van Gelder and the staff of YES! Magazine and published November 2011 by Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Sarah van Gelder and David Korten are co-founders of YES! Magazine; Steve Piersanti is publisher of Berrett-Koehler Publishers. This article is available under a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs (CC BY-ND) license, which allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the original publication of this book (photos not included). More on the book and other resources can be found at www.yesmagazine.org/owsbook.
We recommend Yes! http://bit.ly/w4x8Eu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)