Should OWS try to transition to advocacy without indefinite occupations

[karynnj]

Over the last month, I have wondered what the end game could be with the indefinite occupations. Like everyone here, I think that OWS managed to make the growing income inequality an issue. They have succeeded where leaders on talk shows, Senators on the floor of the Senate, and a very troubling official report failed. That is a remarkable accomplishment.

However, they do pose a dilemma for the cities. The increased cost for policing this is using money from cash strapped cities, that will then not be available for pressing community needs. The mayors have a responsibility to maintain the safety of the cities - and other than Oakland and to a lesser degree, NYC, they have been mostly benign. But, is this a situation that they can tolerate indefinitely?

My own opinion, which will not be popular, is that OWS laid the seeds for ending up seen as losing, rather than succeeding at waking up America, when they did not at the beginning set a date for leaving. There were many successful movements that massed for a limited time with a goal of waking up America. Consider the Vietnam moratorium, the Vets on the mall in 1971, and MLK's huge rally. The fact is that OWS has changed the conversation in a good way. They have gotten credit for that, but do they want the story to get muddied by bad events that do occur - and which have been relatively few considering the number of people in all the places and the length of time?

I think they could now do just as well in changing the attitude towards income inequality if they would have at the beginning spoke of being there for - say - a month. Then maybe transitioned to teach ins and maybe worked to give these ideas political clout. One basic piece is growing income inequality. Maybe working to sell the country on the idea that it is wrong for any legislation to have the expected result of increasing inequality. They could demand that legislators ask CBO for estimates of this on all bills - or get a new or existing think tank to do so. It is harder to make that transition now because it appears in response to the police crackdowns, but I think it would be better.

I went to "Take Back America" in 2007, and there was a great panel on the 1960s civil rights movement with a MLK biographer, Roger Wilkins and Jesse Jackson. I am writing this from memory so I may have some of this wrong, but one clear point made was that BOTH the energy of the protests and the marches AND the quieter legislative work, done by people like Roger Wilkins, who worked in the LBJ administration, were needed to actually change the laws and the country.

The fact is that under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and another Bush, the rich have increased their share of the country's wealth. If nothing changes, Obama can be added to that list just through the continuation of bad policies. I think the idea of labeling a bill as increasing income inequality, neutral, or decreasing income equality could be a simple enough concept that it would be easily understood. It is something where we have the popular end - who really wants to say they are for more inequality? (They will say - socialism - but it is easy to say that this is not speaking of equality, but just saying that 1% having 40% of the wealth is really more than enough.)

Any comments?

[shraby]

1. The dilemma of increased police costs is caused by the

outrageous show of force for a peaceful demonstration. The decision to put police in full riot gear at the protests most of the time resides with the head of the police/mayor combo than with the protestors who have remained peaceful in the face of the police.
If the OWS doesn't use "get in their face" tactics by full time occupy, they will be ignored by the media/govenment and any powers that be.
How many times have members of this forum contacted their reps in congress with a complaint and received nothing but a form letter in reply? A form letter that didn't begin to address their complaint.
A mosquito gets attention because it gets into a persons personal space and buzzes constantly. If it didn't get in the personal space it would probably be ignored. How many times have they been swatted at before it disappeared temporarily just to come back again? The only way it was gotten rid of was to kill it, but then another took its place doing the same thing.
These are the only tactics that will work against the media/governmet/powers. Nothing short of it will do.

[karynnj]

2. The policing costs were there - even before anyone was in full riot geer

The fact is that NYC had to have more police there than they would have had in a past year with no occupation - just as they would for any large gathering.

I do agree - and said so - that they did get the attention that quieter measures - even by powerful politicians or stars using their celebrity did not bring to it. I also think if they ended the current occupations, they could always use a limited time occupation focused on an issue or set of issues in the future.

I just do not see how this ends positively. Do you have a scenario where it does?

[shraby]

4. If they don't try to change things, things will never change.

What is recognized is that unless the protest is continuous things will not change. As soon as there is a lull, it will be ignored. With constant tumoil (caused by TPTB) trying to disrupt the protest, it keeps it in the news wich is desirable.
I watched the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war protests and they also found in order to be effective it has to be as constant protest as is possible.
If I recall correctly, both had positive outcomes.

[Inuca]

8. Probably true, but

continous does not need to be 24/7. Personally, beyond the initial psychological impact, I do not see the benefir or value of sleeping in the streets. Sorry, but I just don't.

[karynnj]

10. I watched both of those movements too -and neither were continuous

protests. The civil rights movement succeeded because they had well planned rallies with eloquent speakers, such as Martin Luther King. There was a seriousness and discipline to them that was absolutely amazing - maybe because a major force behind them was the Southern black churches.

The protests over the Vietnam War were not continuous either - and the most successful were those like the moratorium that set a time period aside to think and speak about ending the war and the Veterans encampment on the mall which lasted less than a week, but in that time made a huge difference. The scenes in Going Upriver of Senators, Congressmen and staffers wandering over and speaking with the veterans were awesome. In fact, the Nixon administration was captured on the Oval Office tape saying that unlike other protesters, they feared that these guys had the potential to chip away remaining support.

I agree that those movements - and the 1970s version of the women's movement and the gay rights movement also succeeded.

In addition, I was NOT saying that they end - I was saying they transition to a state where they were not camping out in the financial sections of many towns. Someone posted a poll that showed that where OWS initially had pretty good support, that has pretty drastically changed. It seems to me that the occupation itself is getting the news, while the message is getting lost. There has to be a way that they can do something different that would work better. The point is that they can't win people over who are not listening because they don't approve.

[shraby]

11. On just about every newscast, I watched people being

beaten, fire hosed etc. by the police. It was practically continuous. As continuous it could be in before the age of computers and the communication we have now.

[Laelth]

3. No. n/t

-Laelth

[Enrique]

5. I expect that they will transition at some point

I imagine strategic questions like this are being debated constantly at their meetings.

[Brother Buzz]

6. OWS should be able to multitask

OWS needs to grow and or die, and sitting in tents simply isn't for everyone. Guerrilla theater and Mic Checks are directions I'd like to see expanded.

[Inuca]

7. Thanks for starting this conversation

I am just kicking the thread now, and hope to get back to it later. I kept wondering along very similar lines for a while now, before the recent eviction events. I don't think that an "ocupation" can go on indefinitely without most of the initial impact being diluted and, even worse, without the mix of the people involved changing for the worse (even if a small minority, it's enough to change perceptions, and perceptions ARE already changing, there are some poll results on DKos home page, no time to go forthe exact link now, sorry). And this does ot even take wonter into account, and like it or nor, winter would have made a bog difference for the worse. So I guess I tend to agree to what Ezra Klein wrote yesterday, something along the lines of "Did Bloomberg do OWS a service"?, again, no link, apologies instead.

I guess it ended up as more than just a kick :-), but I wish I had time to write more.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lunatica]

12. Perhaps you should bring this up at a General Assembly

I've heard everyone gets a chance to say their piece. In that way you can have people respond to you.

But I suspect many people are actually discussing these very things.

Did you think discussing it here is going to make history in some way? Discuss it with OWS, because in the end what you're saying is really only your opinion.

[karynnj]

13. I don't think posting anything here will "make history" This is a discussion board and I started

a discussion. Of course what I am saying is just my opinion, just as nearly every comment on this board is the opinion of the person posting it.

I've posted here for years and I seriously do not get why it is wrong to open a discuss by giving an opinion on an ongoing situation. Not to mention, this thread you started certainly appears to be simply "your opinion" - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=800215 So, can only some opinions be posted?

[lunatica]

14. DU has been overrun with OPs like this today

It just seems awful 'coincidental'.

Though it may not be.

Sorry if you're not one of the concern trolls.

[karynnj]

15. I don't think it coincidential at all - I would bet you could figure out something that made us post

near the same time. As to overrun, when I posted I did not see another thread with similar content - though I have seen a one since then. I liked it far better than mine - as it was two lines long and essentially said income inequality was the cause, occupy just a tactic.

It is asinine to label anyone a "concern troll" because they express an opinion that you obviously disagree with. It seems more sensible to argue - as others did - that this is an in your face tactic that will keep the issue being discussed - rather than shuffled off to the side.

[lunatica]

16. I did argue until it got to be stupid to argue

I'm argued out at this point. Sorry if I misunderstood.