An observation about how people are reacting to Occupy as of today...

[OneGrassRoot]

I interact with people who fall all along the political spectrum, including being apolitical.

I've been surprised in the last few days to see people who have supported OWS and consider themselves liberals/progressives comment about the protestors "whining" and bemoaning the lack of "fielding political candidates" and things I'd only heard from right-wingers previously.

As someone who is a hippie at heart and proud of it, I can have patience with this movement, appreciating how the conversation has changed and that it takes time to change an entire system, for cryin' out loud.

This isn't a protest about one piece of legislation, it's a protest about changing the SYSTEM.

What I'm noticing is that people who have a more traditional view of the world (in other words, they can't imagine a new system; they can only envision change within the existing system) -- regardless of their political ideology -- have the least patience with this process. They started off in support but when they didn't see evolution similar to the Tea Party, they get frustrated and start dissing the movement.

And it's men more than women, and pretty much people over 40. The few women who have expressed this definitely have a more conservative approach to life (and are religious), even though they tend to be progressive as far as political issues.

Again, just my observations.

I found this short article which says so much, in response to such critics:

Critics of OWS seem to be obsessed with the notion that the movement needs to move on. “Okay,” they say, “You’ve made your point. It’s time to fold your tents and get organized politically.”

What these critics seem to want is traditional politics. Support candidates, run for office, vote. Something along these lines is certainly one way of being “political,” and the progressive movement is already ramping up to support candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

But one point that the Occupy movement has made is that the political system has become so dysfunctional that we need to broaden the definition of ‘political action.’ This has already happened. In two months OWS has shifted the nation’s debate away from the single issue of the deficit and, at least in part, refocused it on jobs and the reform and control of the financial system.

<snip>

Critics of the OWS movement assume (or want us to assume) that the complaints of the occupiers are all personal, because so much of the messaging has taken the form of individual tales of hardship. Underlying all that (and some really amusing signs and slogans) is a very clear message: This nation’s financial and political systems have become so dysfunctional that they no longer function to promote the general welfare.


FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://tucsoncitizen.com/dataport/2011/11/18/occupy-wall-street-and-political-action/

I'd love to take a poll of age, gender, general worldview (do you identify with or loathe "hippies"), etc. as it concerns support for OWS now, almost three months in.

What are you observing in this regard?



edit for typo

[earthside]

1. Occupy Washington, D.C.

I do think it is time for the next phase in this movement: occupy the nation's capital.

Let's face it, the corporate power structure owns the federal government and it maybe time to make sure that everyone understands that fact.

Can you imagine a couple thousand tents on the mall?

What would the President and Congress do?

With the theme of returning power and the economy to 'the people' this could have a unifying effect throughout the entire nation.

There is a level where 'hippies' and rather more conservative libertarians can make common cause in the OWS movement -- and in my opinion, this needs to be emphasized so that some real pressure can be applied to the executive and legislative branches of the federal government: break-up the banks; restore Glass-Steagal; indict some bank CEOs; end corporate personhood; get money out of campaigns; support community economics; etc.

[Vincardog]

5. The PTB want the only occupy to be in DC. I say OCCUPY everywhere. Shut it down.

When the Masters of the universe start to offer up "Solutions" be just as hard to deal with as the GOP. Only when they have returned control of OUR Political economic and social system to US should it be enough.

[CTyankee]

13. The PTB is smart enough to know that huge crowds in D.C. haven't done much and

it's been that way for a while now. The anti-Iraq war folks got plenty of people out for their marches on Washington and the media just shut it down thru lack of coverage. The PTB saw that and figured it was a dead end street politically and now they want OWS to follow suit.

I want this OWS movement to evolve -- as it no doubt will -- and look forward to what it will evolve into. I don't think this is going away, as a movement, any time soon...

[Vincardog]

18. I hope and believe that OWS will go away when the conditions that made it necessary "go away"

[CTyankee]

23. We have a long way to go before that happens, IMHO.

These movements happen in stages. I'm impressed by the scope and power of this first phase (altho you could argue that this really isn't the first phase at all, but a culmination of little phases all over the country...an awakening of what is truly going on in this country).

Truthfully, I don't know exactly how the change is going to happen if OWS operates outside of the entire political system, but I think change WILL happen. There will be a window of opportunity for people who ordinarily don't or can't demonstrate OWS style to join the movement in other ways. Look for it to happen. It's really a case of "you can't fool all of the people all of the time..."

[OneGrassRoot]

24. +1 n/t

[Vincardog]

51. I don't see how change will come if we restrict our efforts to inside the entire political system.

It has been demonstrated to be corrupt and ineffectual at making the real changes needed. Hence OWS

[femrap]

86. I agree.

The corruption has gone toooooo far. We need to elect None of the Above.

[Remember Me]

88. So true. That's a recipe for co-optation, for one thing

And lip service. And campaign promises. And all the other things that don't work and aren't, in fact, intended to work.

Here's a really good video interview with an Iraq vet Occupier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fpm0ZbKRlg&feature=player_embedded

And the article I just posted addresses this issue as well: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2408247

[OneGrassRoot]

10. I describe it thusly:

When people ask why Occupy isn't focused on DC (even though there ARE protests there), I tell them DC is just the puppet stage.

The politicians are puppets.

Wall Street is where the puppet masters reside.

Focusing on Wall Street initially, even though it's obviously spread around the country, is going right to the horse's mouth and bringing attention to the fact that our government is owned by monied interests and is NOT representing We the People any longer.

[Vincardog]

19. BINGO got it in one

[mmonk]

38. Great explanation. It's all about the source of current policies

and those that led us off the cliff. They reside behind the curtain. OWS is peeling it back so people can see.

[jtrockville]

55. We've got TWO occupations in DC

McPherson Square (K street): http://occupydc.org/
Freedom Plaza (Pennsylvania Avenue): http://occupywashingtondc.org

Both began in early October.

[Tesha]

2. Rec'ced to zero.

It always amazes me how many DUers (and Democrats
in general) seem to be offended/threatened by the
Occupiers and talk and thoughtful discussion about
the Occupiers.

It's almost as if they support the current system and the
elite who are benefitting from it.

Tesha

[newfie11]

9. scary isn't it n/t

[OneGrassRoot]

12. DU can be scary to me lately...lol.

I often don't know what to think or feel based on how people interact here.

:shrug:

[fascisthunter]

69. by default they do support the corrupt system

because all they are doing is bitching about people who are actually doing something.

[OneGrassRoot]

77. Perfect place to share a spot-on graphic:

I shared this graphic with this commentary:

Our financial and political systems have become so dysfunctional that they no longer function to promote the general welfare. If you agree that change is needed but you don't believe it can or will happen in your lifetime, please don't hinder or undermine those with the courage to at least try. Vision, and the courage to act on it, CAN create positive change.

[fascisthunter]

89. exactly!

[backtoblue]

3. k and r

Unfortunately, I'm finding the same answers and thoughts in conversations. nt

[Huey P. Long]

4. They are followers, highly susceptible to negative propaganda.

By and large, the US citizen has been well trained to respond to the deployed narrative.

[OneGrassRoot]

15. They don't seem to grasp how media is one of the core problems...

that we no longer have a free press.

On one hand they decry mainstream media, yet they still rely on what the media says to know whether or not they support something or think something is effective.

:shrug:

[Earth_First]

6. Collectively, we have become a society of 'instant gratification'

I really do begrudge those who feel that this was going to be solved overnight, or a few weeks even.

If they truly have the same grudges towards influence of government through the almight dollar, did they really think that this was going to be something completely solved in a generation, even?

It's something that is in it's infancy.

Civil rights, workers' rights, et. al were not solved in a single day, nor a single lifetime in some of our most adament movement leaders. In some respects, we're still struggling in those movements, but their accomplishments have created justice lightyears beyond their initial beginnings.

Give it a chance to develop, give it a chance to create genuine change. Have a seat, join us, it's going to take some time and we'd love to have you involved in creating the change you want to see in the world!

[OneGrassRoot]

16. Well said! I agree wholeheartedly!

:hi:

[lunatica]

7. Change is hard if you have no idea what you want to replace the status quo with

I don't worry about the OWS. And I don't worry about people who question them because they're talking about the issues for a change.

[OneGrassRoot]

17. Good point. I'm just always fascinated by worldviews (for lack of a better term)...

and trying to understand why people react to things the way they do.

Many people truly cannot think outside the box. I don't want a box at all.

So I often have a hard time relating to them, though I try to understand where they're coming from.

Huge change absolutely terrifies many people. I get that.

And I think they're terrified of change and, in their heart of hearts, prefer the devil they know.

[CTyankee]

25. I think there is a lot of fear out there. People who are vulnerable economically

(and who isn't these days?) are fearful, for good reason. OWS isn't something familiar to them so they react negatively. It seems too chaotic to them. Too "out there." They have no comfort level with it because it is a mystery to them...

[OneGrassRoot]

37. Yes, yes...I agree.

I've been thinking about this a lot this morning. There is a definite fear of change (of course, that's nothing new, we know this about humans), even when people KNOW change is needed and the current course of action isn't sustainable and that it's destructive.

I suppose it's that old approach of staying with "the devil you know." People are afraid that taking on those who are pulling the strings will result in things getting even harder. Similar to how many conservatives bemoan regulation, saying that it will only cause the conglomerates to raise prices and hold us hostage even more than they already do.

I think part of what we're seeing with OWS is that these are people who feel they don't have much to lose any more.

THAT is what makes this movement dangerous to those in power and those who benefit from the current system, and scares those who DO have something to lose still, however limited it may be.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Anyone who expects such a young movement to field candidates

in month three is not so smart to start with. Also, when it does happen the same people will complain about it as doing so involves launching a Primary against incumbents of either Party. I think they should be glad that such things take more than 8 action packed weeks to accomplish. OWS changed the entire language of the discussion, almost instantly. Any other group or movement manage such a thing? I say consider that and tremble at what might come next, ye doubters.

[OneGrassRoot]

21. I agree. I just wrote this in response to such comments:

"This is tough, especially in this instant gratification world. It's especially tough when people are, understandably, having a hard time envisioning a new way of doing things. The current system (corruption in government, with legislation going to the highest bidder) is so entrenched that it's hard for some people to wrap their brain around the fact that OWS is about completely revamping the system, not just specific legislation, and thus this is a long-haul movement.

The Tea Party definitely organized and had influence (even if it was also bought and paid for, which is exactly what OWS is fighting against), but it appealed to a relatively small minority of the country and thus support for it has waned. It may take Occupy longer, but there is more staying power if we keep the conversation going along with organizing regarding strategy and more definitive action."

[Bluenorthwest]

33. I've been amused at the posts that state Obama's change has to

be slow and incremental, then turn around to demand that OWS make it all better in under 3 months. They say 'he can't wave a magic wand, ya know' then they wonder why OWS has not already elected Senators....they play rhetorical games.

[OneGrassRoot]

34. GREAT point. I do feel there are a ton of people online...

who are truly trying to suck the life out of progressives with these rhetorical games.

I know I don't have the time or energy to engage them any longer.

And "they" are left, right and center, just not in favor of real progress and, for whatever reason, support the status quo in their heart of hearts.

[Huey P. Long]

47. Then don't spend your valuable time unless it is needed and has chance of conversion.

Recognise determine, and move on. Let those with eyes to see, and ears to hear, join us!

[OneGrassRoot]

49. That's what I'm doing, and making it very clearly from the start...

that I won't get on the hamster wheel in these conversations any longer. I try to have an open mind, and if thoughtful discussion seems possible, I'm there. Otherwise, no more.

:)

[lbrtbell]

43. I don't expect them to have candidates ready just yet

I do, however, hope that by 2012, OWS will have enough influence to back candidates who do support the 99%. :patriot:

[mmonk]

11. People tend to always look to politicians and parties as the only solutions

to their problems even though evidence shows that the change required in that regard appears impotent. We are at a critical point where it has become evident to many that a change in direction has hit a wall as far as political process bringing needed change is concerned. Naturally at reaching that point, those that recognize this fact take action such as we have seen from OWS. Others still like the delusion of party politics and saviors on white horses at critical points in history. But every move forward to a better future has had a movement before the change. The political system never recognizes the inevitable at first and resists before capitulation to the will of the governed.

[OneGrassRoot]

22. Excellent summary. "movement before change"

Yes, sir.

:thumbsup:

[Dover]

14. Great post. This is new territory and we can't quite find a label for it. It's organic.

I expect it will ebb and flow, grow and shrink and grow some more, responding in the moment, learning about itself (ourselves), finding new
ways to not only express our discontent with the status quo, but in the process discover new ways of being and governing that better reflect
who we are and where we want to go as a country and global family.

[doc03]

20. I was really surprised last week overhearing two elderly couples

(probably in their late 70s) sitting at the next table next to me at a restaurant. They were talking about it being a disgrace for the cops pepper spraying the OWS people. The one guy said they should fire every damn one of them.

[newspeak]

56. yeah, my son called from california last week and asked me

what I thought of OWS--I told him I was 100 per cent support. He said "right on!" My son is in his thirties, and I think his friends are also supportive of the movement. What's so scary about holding those responsible on WS, having tougher regulation on WS and getting corporate influence out of politics?

[OneGrassRoot]

57. That pepper-spray incident got the attention of a lot of people...

People who were still, amazingly, rather apathetic. It mainly got the attention of parents, seeing that it could have easily been their children in harm's way.

[boston bean]

26. I observe people who find no wrong with Obama, frightened of OWS.

That somehow it makes Obama look bad. So freakin what?!

[CTyankee]

29. Exactly. It is irrelevant. It is happening regardless of what anybody "thinks."

The issue is what those of us who sympathize but do not participate with OWS can or will do.

[OneGrassRoot]

35. word n/t

[Shenonymous]

27. Poll

Employed female over 50 here. Liberal but not far left or anarchist but definitely not conservative Right-Wing. Strong support for OWS and do wish The Occupy Movement would become more focused and specify precisely what changes wanted, which looks impossible with a kind of ragtag collection of people. I don't think The Occupy Movement will yield much progress unless it gets political since that is exactly how legislation gets made and the rules of the land are enacted. Insisting on enforcement of positive legislation is 50% of the imperative, the other 50% being passing such legislation.

[OneGrassRoot]

30. Welcome to DU!

Thanks for chiming in to give your opinion.

:hi:

[CTyankee]

31. I think the point of OWS is that making legislation is essentially not the way to go

given the broken system in our federal legislative bodies. Seeing Barney Frank get out just depresses me because I think he saw the handwriting on the wall. After the Citizens United decision was handed down, it seemed that we sealed the deal on corporate power in Congress.

Welcome to DU, Shenonymous!

[frazzled]

28. Changing the system ...

We clearly have different views about how change (legitimately) comes about, but let me try to explain my position.

My issue with OWS is not about wanting them to run their own candidates, like the Tea Party. I don't think that is either terribly possible nor lasting. (Not possible because we're not going to get deep blue change candidates elected in deep red states, only pale blue or purple ones, which won't change the system appreciably. Not lasting, because I don't think even many of the Tea Party people will remain there after 2012. All they managed to do was block things, not introduce new legislation, anyway.)

I do think changing the mindset should be the main goal of OWS. But changing minds isn't worth a hill of beans unless you can change real legislation. How do you do that except for working on the current system from within? Revolution is the only other way, and that, to me is not a desirable goal. It's either begin to work the system or have a bloody takeover in the streets. Camping is not the third option.

Even the original planners of OWS are asking for a new stage in this movement. Reform of the financial system has to be based on real and specific legislation. The movement needs to think of the main thing or things that need policy adjustment and work like hell to get all the people who have heard the basic message of income inequality and financial malfeasance to demand those changes in Congress. Laws. That would be the power of the 99%, and the only hope for real change. It's how change comes about in a democracy--not a revolutionary dictatorship or some pie-in-the-sky anarchic utopia.

[CTyankee]

32. It's been made demonstrably worse since the Citizens United decision came down.

That alone is enough to make people doubt that things will ever get better in Congress. We've just seen Barney Frank, a real fighter if we ever had one, announce is exit from the stage. He is essentially giving up. Leaving the fight.

The corporate world owns the U.S. Congress. Signed, sealed, delivered.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. See, I did not hear that out of Franks announcement at all

He's been in Congress for 30 years. Statehouse for 8 prior to that. He's 70. People retire. Some Reps actually get to know their constituents, and Frank feels the newly drawn constituents deserve a long range Rep. I think that is admirable. Sad to lose him, but not 'essentially giving up' at all. Others who leave the Congress do not 'exit the stage' nor 'leave the fight'. So many things Frank could do to serve outside Congress, hard to even pick which one I'd like to see him do the most.
Also, Frank is far from the only 'unowned' House member, and he's not even the most liberal. He was the gay face in Congress, but in no way was he the last good person present.

[CTyankee]

39. OK, I grant you that he is older and that he is not totally, 100% "clean."

I like your argument, tho. "Long range," if that is his true rationale, is nice. But I wonder if that can work, given our Congress and how so much of it is bought and sold.

The bottom line is his is another vote for progressive legislation that will be gone. And it is doubtful that we'll get another one nearly as progressive from his new district. Knowing this, he is in a way "leaving the fight." It won't be much of a fight if his replacement is not as liberal as he was.

I want to be dead wrong on this, believe me. I'll be the first to be delighted if his replacement is a wonderful, energetic progressive that surpasses Frank in championing good, progressive legislation and fights the good fight with the forces of regressive policies in the House.

Do you think his replacement will be better?

[frazzled]

40. That doesn't answer what you're going to do about it

"Anti" slogans aren't the answer. Calls to shut down Congress aren't the answer (unless you are truly naive enough to believe we don't need a government). Calls to end all corporations aren't the answer (unless you think we can all live in some kind of bliss on an off-the-grid commune).

And your Barney Frank issue is not quite valid. A big part of his reason for leaving was the remapping of his district in MA and the fact that he was going to retire in two years anyway (32 years is enough).

If Citizens United is the problem, you should be working (as I have minorly done) to sign onto and promote the Durbin/Whitehouse/several other senators bill in the Senate to end and reverse the Citizens United decision. That's a real bill that will be considered in Congress. If you truly think the 99% have power, then we should use it.

[OneGrassRoot]

41. That is something many are doing and promoting:

Signing onto the Durham/Whitehouse bill to reverse Citizens United.

Signing other petitions and applying pressure en masse to get Congress to introduce and sign onto resolutions to investigate Wall Street, and to take a tougher stance on banks (like Tammy Baldwin is doing in Wisconsin: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2403705)

[CTyankee]

45. I have been "signing on" to progressive legislation for many, many years.

Many of us have, including you. We have our voices, but we don't have the corporations power and money. that doesn't mean I think we should stop signing on to legislation that would remedy the situation. But let's not be naive about how dire the situation is right now. Right now, I think it would take a miracle for that bill to pass both houses of Congress.

And it follows logically that OWS is the reaction, doesn't it? Signing on, working on compaigns, voting conscientiously, all of these things that seemed to work in the past are being stymied. Enter OWS, a new pushback method and I for one am hopeful that this is really signals the change we've been working for. The idea that is is all anti-government in the general sense is silly. I want better government but the old ways I've been working for it are not working for us, the 99% any more.

I don't think you can see Frank's leaving in part because his district has been remapped is a GOOD thing! Perhaps you can tell me what I am missing.

And, as for his age, I grant him that rationale for retirement, since I am retired and would be hypocritical not to. I do believe that the redistricting has something to do with it. And I view that as a net loss...

[frazzled]

53. Yes, but if all the 99% of the country signed on ...

I really mean that--like, 200 million adults or something--it would outweigh the corporations, believe me.

Yes, you and I have been doing this for years, but we're part of the very few. Getting 200,000 people to sign on to a big bill like this is considered huge for these senators. 200,000,000 would clinch the deal.

No, I don't think Barney Frank getting remapped is a good deal. But that is Massachusetts business: It was done by a Democratic legislature and signed by a Democratic governor. I don't know if there was some sort of specific ploy or not. The fact is, he was planning to retire in two years anyway, and trying to win over 300,000 new constituents was not something he relished (he hates fundraising and campaigning).

[CTyankee]

61. Polling has shown that a healthy majority of people in this country

want the rich to pay more in taxes and do not want cuts in Medicare and SS. But it looks like we are losing on all of those fronts. If we can't get more leverage out of the population having such popular ideas, how are we going to get the remedy legislation to this bad SC decision passed? I'd sure like to believe that "the people won't stand for this anymore." But even if the people "have spoken" on an issue it doesn't seem to make a difference. How did we lose the House in 2010? Is that any indication to you that somehow we can get 200 million people to tell their representatives to get behind this bill or plan to lose their elections? I'm just not seeing it, altho I would like to see it!

I'm planning to do some research into the Mass. redistricting. Like you, I can't understand it.

[frazzled]

62. True, but I have to ask ...

(in response to your question "Is that any indication that somehow we can get 200 million people to tell their representatives ...") ... what is the alternative that OWS is offering?

I'm not seeing it. Sitting-in or camping-in doesn't seem like an answer. Disrupting meetings is fine, and brings attention, but it's still not an answer. What is it that you see the movement offering up as a way to change corporate influence or financial regulations or income inequality in this country? I honestly would like to believe there's a good answer, but I don't see anything very constructive yet.

[OneGrassRoot]

63. There's a fundamental disconnect here...

between well-meaning people such as yourself, and well-meaning people like me.

:)

I'm not sure what it is about, but this is a conversation I've had frequently about Occupy.

I see this first stage of OWS as just that, a first step. Raising awareness and changing the conversation is a MUST, and that has happened. It's been successful in that regard, but must continue. The Tea Party affected change but short-lived change, because it had a very narrow focus and limited support.

Occupy has the potential to make long-lasting systemic change because the majority of people -- whether they realize it or not -- agree with the basic premise of OWS: get money and corporate control out of DC so We the People can once again have a voice.

I can only speak for myself, but while I also want significant, institutional change NOW -- because many are suffering and the numbers are growing -- I also see this as a societal shift, a movement that goes beyond politics.

It's making people sit back and evaluate our priorities as a society.

Yes, there needs to be more definitive action, but I absolute believe it's coming in a very organic way, just as the movement has grown thus far very organically.

To me, recognizing the problem and giving voice to it is the very first step toward changing anything. We're doing that now and we're saying it's unacceptable and getting more people to see the obscene inequality and injustice that so many had come to accept as the norm, not thinking it could change.

To me, we don't have to have all the answers to start speaking up. It's in the speaking up and engaging and discussing that the answers will come. No, the sitting-in and camping-in aren't answers, but they're steps being taken to get to the answers.

[frazzled]

66. Well, I once said ...

to my spouse, "Maybe we have to make earning huge money off investments and conspicuous consumption as unsavory to the general public as smoking." If OWS accomplishes that, it will be great (though I'll be surprised).

I've been talking about all these issues of income inequality and corporate power since the late 1980s. I guess I'm just tired of waiting and cynical that anything much can happen. While I'm suspect that any laws can be substantially changed right now, I'm enough of a reader of history to also not want a repeat of the Jacobin Reign of Terror, where we're stringing up anyone who looks "rich" in the streets and manning the barricades. That didn't work out that well, frankly. (I'm not suggesting that is what OWS is doing, but it has the potential to become that, given a lot of the rhetoric I see. And that is why I and so many others are of the opinion that it needs to move into a next phase that is more focused and organized.)

[OneGrassRoot]

68. I really do hear you.

Honestly, I'm surprised I have the patience I'm having because, I too have been talking and pleading for people to wake up to the reality of income inequality and corporate power for decades.

I guess it's such a relief that so many are finally GETTING it, that I'm able to trust the needed change will come, and it could come in ways we have yet to imagine -- in surprisingly GOOD, fast ways.

:hi:

[CTyankee]

78. I think we have to take a bit of a longer view on this...

the antiwar protesters of the late 60s and early 70s were eventually vindicated because we got out of Vietnam, didn't we? No Jacobin terror, but they helped bring the rest of the country around to understanding what had to be done, and it was done.

I hope what OWS does is to bring about the end to the fantasy that so many Americans have (and that repubs like to exploit) that they are really "middle class" and stay that way, even in the face of evidence that they are losing ground...and many have already lost so much ground that they are essentially impoverished.

We liberals have been speaking out about this for some time but this movement has crystalized the message we've been trying (unsuccessfully) to break thru with. I agree with OneGrassRoot that this is only the beginning. Movements like this don't stay the same. They aren't meant to. Lots of leaders today grew out of those earlier movements.

What has to happen IMHO is that the people of this country have to disabuse themselves that America today is the Land of Opportunity. We are no such things for ordinary people.

[frazzled]

82. Well, the war ended because ...

60,000 American troops were killed and another 150,000 wounded. And most of all, because we were losing. Badly. It had to end. In retrospect (and I was there protesting), I'm not entirely sure the whole reason the war was ended was because of protests, which also left a long and bitter divide in the country.

Another difference is that there was a very specific, easy to understand (and accomplish) goal to the antiwar movement: end the war. (And also the draft, with its inequalities). It could be ended with a single order.

Ending income inequality is not something that gets done with the stroke of a pen or a single piece of legislation or a pronouncement. It (along with corporate influence and malfeasance of financial institutions) is very complex, deeply ingrained institutionally, and there is no single solution. It's like going around waving banners saying "end poverty" or "world peace" -- nice sentiments, but useless as mere sentiments. And probably unaccomplishable, if truth be told.

Yes, this is going to be a long term process. But at some point this movement will have to enlist the minds of brilliant economists, policy experts, and lawmakers if anything is ever going to happen. The antiwar analogy is not apt here--that's too grossly simple. This is a big big problem that has taken 30-40 years to build. It won't be solved unless a lot of serious heads get bumped together and specific policiy issues on a slew of different fronts are addressed.

[CTyankee]

84. This kind of upheaval can and does have consequences in America.

We shouldn't discount that. It takes a while and it takes vanguard (OWS) but eventually it gets there.

It may not lead to where WE want it to go but it will GO. So what we do with it (not disparaging it!) will make a difference. Let's do it!

Are the brilliant people there? Yes, but are they "paid off" or are they on our side? That is the question, isn't it?

[lbrtbell]

42. I'm sorry, but I loathe hippies

Hippies are the reason that peaceful protesters ever since have had a bad name. Being unwashed and hopped up on dope doesn't give the general public a good impression. As a child, I was terrified of hippies because of their violent behavior (drugs make people do that), and a lot of my older Gen X peers felt the same way. I was SO glad when that era passed, and people finally started bathing again...and so disappointed when the early 1990's brought a new wave of unwashed *younger* Gen X'ers (=grunge).

In fact, Democrats as a whole have suffered from the hippie image, because that movement was so closely associated with our party in the 1960's. I hate the fact that my being a Democrat makes people associate me with hippies. What most people forget is that it was the non-hippies in Congress who actually made the laws which improved life in the 1960's. The protesting young people could have made us all proud, had they not been a horde of unwashed dopers. That's why I like seeing OWS today--these protesters are, for the most part, ordinary people who are smart and tech-savvy.

The vast majority of people still hate hippies, which is one reason that's the first insult unfairly lobbied at OWS. People know the word "hippie" has a well-deserved, negative connotation.

I hate the Tea Party, but they grasped the concept of looking like normal, sane people, even though they were batshit crazy.

FWIW, I support OWS whole-heartedly, but know that political activism will be needed if any real change is to take place. We need to get candidates who support the 99%, because ordinary people protesting (whether in the streets or by petitions or calls/letters/e-mails) will be ignored, as they have been for the past decade. The protests are great--if they're followed up with action.

[OneGrassRoot]

44. Hell, the words "liberal" and "progressive" also have a negative connotation these days... (edit)

The right has managed to take normal words and make them "evil."

That said, it's also important to note that the word hippie -- like most words -- is very subjective. When I think hippie I don't see someone as you've described.

Maybe the impression of the word "hippie" is also generational?

I'm 48; too young to have been involved in or vividly remember the protests of the 60's. Sure, I am aware people attribute drugs, lack of bathing, etc., to hippies, but I don't broad brush in that way.

I envision people having courage to speak up against injustice and not do as is expected of them -- including how they dress, what they say.

I also appreciate OWS because there is a wide variety of people, from all walks of life, involved.

:)


EDIT TO ADD:

I consider myself a hippie at heart, but I've never done drugs and I bathe regularly. Our different perceptions -- and misconceptions -- always fascinate me. :)

hip·pie noun -- a person, especially of the late 1960s, who rejected established institutions and values and sought spontaneity, direct personal relations expressing love, and expanded consciousness, often expressed externally in the wearing of casual, folksy clothing and of beads, headbands, used garments, etc.

[starroute]

46. Perhaps you should start by working on your own "loathing"

Loathing people isn't a useful starting point for action.

Especially loathing people who never existed except in the tabloid propaganda of 40 years ago.

I'm sorry that you were "terrified" as a child, but it's clear from your description that you had no contact at all with the people you found so scary. "Drugs" in general do not make people violent -- except for the steroids that the cops are so fond of -- and marijuana and LSD in particular tend to make people more peaceful and laid back.

It's true that at its peak the 60's counterculture attracted a lot of hangers-on -- much as OWS does now -- ranging from teen runaways to long-time drug users. This was partly because the hippies were living in low-rent neighborhoods and partly because any movement that preaches tolerance and acceptance of all comers will wind up with a certain number of social and psychological outcasts.

It's also true that the word "hippie" tended to be used dismissively at the time, even by people who were card-carrying members of the counterculture. People I knew who lived in the East Village considered themselves artists or writers and used "hippie" to refer not to themselves but to the spaced out flower children they saw on the streets. It's only in retrospect that the "hippie" label has been embraced as a catch-all description. But the "hippies" were not the counterculture, and the counterculture was far broader and more perceptive than the "hippies."

So please, try to get over what you might have believed as a nine-year-old, or at the very least try not to use it as a basis for political judgments today.

[OneGrassRoot]

50. I truly appreciate your post, and your insight. Thanks. :) n/t

[bigmonkey]

71. Self-styled elites have long called their critics "the unwashed".

This has a long pedigree. At some points in history it was accurate, because the circumstances of the critics were much closer to manual labor than those of the elites. They had limited facilities for cleanliness, because of their poverty. For me, whenever I see anyone invoke this "get a bath" stuff, I see nothing but propaganda drawing a veil between the speaker and the critics of the system. I'm old enough to remember the hippies, and that way of talking was always a substitute for grappling with the issues, never useful or accurate except as a distraction for the right wing.

Nature is unruly, democracy is not streamlined. Does tidiness really trump the health of the environment and human rights? I think that view only works for the wealthy, who feel well-represented nowadays in the U.S. This focus seems to me to be just the latest attempt by right-wing folks to shunt the discussion to a yes-or-no on a triviality associated with the main issues. Because, of course, you don't have to respect the rights of the "icky". It's an example of dehumanization - they aren't people, they're "dirty hippies".

[JackRiddler]

48. I'm sorry, but going by what you write you loathe your own image of "hippies."

[WildNovember]

59. "start bathing"? what?

[fascisthunter]

70. your description and criticism of hippies is a condescending stereotype

to a lot of people here... your post should actually be deleted.That crap you posted is in your head.

[Blue_In_AK]

52. I'm 65, I'm female,

I was a flower child/antiwar protester (i.e., dirty hippie) in the late '60s, early '70s, and I support the Occupy movement 100%. I take a bit of offense at being "loathed" by a fellow DUer, but I'm not surprised.

[OneGrassRoot]

54. ...

I stand with you, proudly.

I've been surprised how many supposedly on the "left" have this knee-jerk negative attitude toward "hippies." But I shouldn't be surprised either.

:hippie:

:hug:

[bigmonkey]

72. Have you read Mark Morford's "The Hippies Were Right"?

Here's one link: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/02/915. It's a long list of the things "they" were right about.

[OneGrassRoot]

74. AWESOME!!!

Must share that far and wide.

Thank you!

:hi:

[malthaussen]

58. Well over 40 and male caucasian

... and I support OWS completely, and commend them. Oh, FWIW, I live in the Northeast US and have a graduate degree...

-- Mal

[OneGrassRoot]

60. When I wrote at the end of my OP that I'd like to take a poll....

"I'd love to take a poll of age, gender, general worldview (do you identify with or loathe "hippies"), etc. as it concerns support for OWS now, almost three months in."


I actually wasn't talking about within DU, but taking a poll of the other people "out there." I'm glad a few did chime in here, however, because the disenchantment or whateveryawannacallit with OWS is found on the left as well, unfortunately, though I'm sorry it has led to hurt feelings or conflict.

Then again, it's hard to post on DU without that happening, even with the best intentions.

:shrug:


hip·pie noun -- a person, especially of the late 1960s, who rejected established institutions and values and sought spontaneity, direct personal relations expressing love, and expanded consciousness, often expressed externally in the wearing of casual, folksy clothing and of beads, headbands, used garments, etc.

For what it's worth, I proudly stand with peace-loving, establishment-busting hippies!!!

:hippie:


https://www.facebook.com/occupiersforpeace

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. Politics-as-usual is not the goal of OWS. Buying into it would be a failure.

Politicians make a handsome living selling themselves to the highest bidders to preserve the corrupt system that pays them. Why in the hell would OWS want more of the same?

[coalition_unwilling]

65. Here's what my wife wrote to one of her 'friends' on FaceBook earlier

today. This friend had asked what OWS was protesting for:

I can't believe people still ask what the Occupiers are protesting for so I'm sharing what I just messaged someone. The same thing I have been decrying for months! That politicians not be paid for and bought by the 1%, that our system fairly punishes the bankers, capitalist p
igs who are poisoning the earth like BP, and that the working class be treated as freakin' valuable, (i.e. healthcare, more jobs, better wages) instead of like paper cups the ruling class/1% can use the hell up and throw away. We are tired of being manipulated by media and made to feel that we are not valuable unless we are running out to buy whatever new toy is being peddled on the market, we are tired of the same corporations that have gotten decadently fat, happy and rich off of this system not paying the lions share of keeping it going when they are definitely making the lions share of profit off of it! In short we want a system that works for us the 99% not the 1%! Can't believe you haven't gotten that, it's the same thing we have all said over and over. Now please, go forth and tell everyone that you know. Let them know we are here, we are not going away and we are fighting for all of them. We all deserve better. We are the manpower that keeps this system going, we are the working class, and we won't be treated as second class citizens any longer.

****

I think my wife might just qualify the new Emma Goldman of the Movement (when she's not being its Georgia O'Keefe :)

[beltanefauve]

67. Full-on bleeding-heart liberal here

I'm totally in support of the Movement,and marched in the Oakland general strike on Nov 2 which shut down the 5th busiest port in the United States. That the conversation in this country has completely changed from the discussion of deficits to class inequality and corporatism thrills me to no end. And the Movement has been very effective with its calls to "move your money" and the resulting reversal of the proposed ATM fees by BofA and Wells Fargo. That said, I think its time for the Movement to evolve. The media focus over the last few weeks seems to have shifted to camping issues rather than issues of class inequality. I'd like to see more port shut-downs, more general strikes, more occupation of banks, more actions in general.

[woofless]

73. I'm considering having Dirty Fucking Hippie tattooed on my forehead.

No, wait. I'll settle for a t-shirt.

Woof

[OneGrassRoot]

75. lolol....

:rofl:

:hi:

[Doctor_J]

76. But the movement DOES need to move on

It isn't accomplishing anything in its current modus operandi. I don't know whether "whining" is the correct description, but it needs to be reworked to actually DO something.

[OneGrassRoot]

79. The next level of Occupy -- an open letter from Occupy Rochester

speaking of hippies...;)

This young lady, Olivia Nole Malpezzi, has been one of the most visible Occupiers, being interviewed frequently. I think she's only in high school! She totally rocks. :)

I thought I'd share her open letter here, posted at worldwidehippies.com today:

I did not get arrested so that I could live in the park; I got arrested so that the people could use this park as a forum for our collective voice to grow and be strong. We have obtained the park; we have had a victory and now we need to use the forum to reach a higher goal. We need to take this to the next level.

Everyday we should be creating forward momentum. Everyday more people should know why we are here. Everyday we should be engaging in discussions that develop strategies on how to direct that momentum toward reforming the economic structures that have failed and abandoned us.

We must continue to take part as a community in frequent and relevant action that targets our oppressors and “representatives”, all the while establishing a flow of solid and plausible demands and proposals that create reformation on these local and national issues. We have to come together as informed and determined intellectuals so we can cohesively come to terms of resolution to the economic crisis that has devastated our cities and uprooted our country. We are using the occupation tactic as a means to make people’s demands recognized and heard, not to create a microcosm of the society we are opting out of. We are the counter-culture and this is the political movement that will enable us to live a different lifestyle – a better, happier, more fulfilling lifestyle.

We must be self-governing and self-sufficient but we must also consider service to our neighbors. This type of community exists in an “I give to you, you give to me” paradigm. We cannot repeat history, and reenact the behavior of those whose greed has brought us here in the first place. We cannot be the revolution we need if we are all here to make our own pile bigger. We must be passionate, and motivated, and empowered through and with each other. I am not here to sit around and complain like some say we do. I am here to BE change. I am here to see the system brought to its knees by the people, so that we may pick up the pieces and organize it around our needs. I am here because I want the future to be one that is hopeful and viable to all generations.


FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://www.worldwidehippies.com/2011/11/30/an-open-letter-from-occupy-rochester-ny/

[Grateful for Hope]

80. What an excellent letter! K&R

Thanks for posting this.

[OneGrassRoot]

81. My pleasure. She was quoted elsewhere as saying this:

"If we focus our time on informing each other, having difficult conversations and putting ourselves into situations outside of our comfort zone, creating ideas, hopes, discovering our needs and our talents and our passions, taking all of this and putting it into productive action, that makes us the wealthiest people in the world." ~ Olivia Nole Malpezzi


When I read that, I connected instantly, as I feel that is my life's mission as well. What a brilliant, inspirational young lady she is!

:)

[xiamiam]

83. some think nothing will change so they do nothing to create change

and have developed a cultivated fear of change

and then there are those who are not going to take it anymore because it is just too crappy and disgusting..

[CTyankee]

85. I jusr hope the former are not outnumbered by the latter....

We have some of the former right here and I recognize that they are scared of change but they simply have to understand that the government is NOT on their side! It's hard to do...

[Remember Me]

87. I just posted an article

that I think addresses this, though in a not terribly concrete way. I think people are looking for -- hoping for -- concrete positive change in their lives, all our lives. And they may not see "enough" for now to suit them. I can identify.

But what I'm seeing -- sensing, really -- is the world changing from the ground up. And the article I posted here really tends to validate that. Most people don't understand the incredible things going on withint Occupy that make it truly revolutionary, though in different ways than we're used to. So, it might be helpful for those of us who "get it" to point some of this out to them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2408247

[OneGrassRoot]

90. I love Yes! Magazine. Thank you for directing me to your post!

:hi: