Tag Archives: Occupy Wall Street

Joe. mentum.

Bernie’s out. I guess it’s no surprise. There really wasn’t a reasonable electoral path forward to the Democratic nomination after the crushing defeats on Super Tuesday and in subsequent contests in Michigan, etc. While there are still many voters yet to be heard from, the mainstream Democratic party has coalesced around their preferred standard-bearer, the somewhat limp-minded former vice president, whose halting commentaries from a foot or two in front of an IKEA backdrop are barely making a ripple, even in MSNBC land. 

I almost never hear from Biden until his watery opinions are being criticized by left commentators. What the hell kind of communication shop are they running there? Is this a presidential campaign or a race for dog catcher? Just this past Tuesday, as Wisconsin voters were queuing up to vote in the midst of a pandemic, thanks to their state Republican party, the most Biden could manage to say about this disaster was that the science should decide whether or not it went forward. Really? Best you can do, Joe? What the fuck. Are you sure you want to be president?

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

It just never ceases to amaze me how dedicated the Democratic party can be to its own self-immolation. We had more than twenty people to choose from on that debate stage, and we went with the guy whose turn it was … the guy who the party felt was due a spot on the top of the ticket, just as Hillary was in 2016, regardless of his skills as a candidate, his mental acuity, his political baggage, etc. This outcome sets us up for a serious fight in November, and it’s not clear to me how we can possibly prevail, given the degree to which Trump and the Republicans are dedicated to gaming this election nine ways from Tuesday. Trump is already setting the predicate for claims of voter fraud, spouting BS about voting by mail. This, combined with the COVID-19 scare, will make it all the easier for the GOP to claim either victory or fraud, and who knows what consequences will proceed from that.

In any case, I want to acknowledge Bernie Sanders’ remarkable contribution to American politics over the past ten years in particular. Since he made that long speech on the Senate floor in the wake of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Bernie has brought progressive politics to the fore in a way that simply has no parallel in the modern history of this country. Across a broad range of issues he has staked out a distinctly leftist position in such a way as to pull the Democratic party in our direction and away from the neoliberal consensus that has ruled it for several decades. For that we owe him a debt of gratitude.

Regardless of who the Democratic presidential nominee is likely to be, Bernie has done a lot of the hard work of structural change since 2011. It is up to us to finish what he started.

luv u,

jp

No dogma.

All right. I am as cynical as just about any political observer on the left. And when it comes to centrist Clintonism, I find I have less and less tolerance as I get older. (Hearing Hillary talk about NATO, for example, is enough to send me through the roof.)

That said, I want to make a principled argument against the notion of clinging to the “Bernie or Bust” sentiment beyond the primary contests. I know that most politically active people focus heavily on candidates, sometimes at the cost of policy positions, and that Democrats in particular are accused of “falling in love” with their choices, as opposed to “falling in line” like the Republicans usually do (and they will … mark my words). My advice is not to redeem that particular piece of pundit fodder. As much as I love Bernie Sanders, I know that he would be the first to tell you to focus on the movement, not the man.

Either way you look at it, you lose.The most important component in the argument against “Bernie or Bust” is simply that we cannot afford eight years of one-party rule under the Republicans. This would have a hugely negative impact on the most vulnerable in our society, on the environment, on our brothers and sisters in other countries around the world, and more. The fate of the Supreme Court alone is enough reason to vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. Scalia’s replacement is only just the first slice; three or four more justices could step down in the coming years. If Donald Trump or Ted Cruz ends up being the person replacing them, say goodbye to any hope of social justice for decades to come. A Cruz court would make Roberts seem like Earl Warren.

There are plenty of reasons why voting for a Democrat in the presidential race makes a difference. But I think it is well to remember that voting is just one act; the Sanders campaign is showing us just how much we can accomplish when we stand up and make our voices heard. Like Occupy Wall Street, this movement seemingly came out of nowhere. We need to continue being not only its arms and legs, but its mind and heart as well, regardless of whether Bernie Sanders is the nominee or not. We need to push our political leaders forward, even when they are constitutionally reluctant to move in that direction, like the Clintons.

So, support Bernie, vote in your primaries, but in the midst of your hell-raising, mark your calendar for election day and vote as if your life depended on it. Because it kind of does. Then get back to the movement.

luv u,

jp

It ain’t broke.

Not that this is all that unusual, but I heard from various representatives of the Republican party and the “tea party” movement on NPR this morning. I really wonder why these right-wing types are so critical of NPR – the network is almost wholly devoted to providing them with outsized coverage. Every time they sneeze, Steve Inskeep is holding the rag. Sure, I listen to them regularly, because they have some good reporters, some good programs, and because they’re better than everything else on my upstate New York radio dial. But that’s a bit like voting for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Yeah, Barry’s a pretty lousy president; he’s just better by an order of magnitude than the object he was running against. Pretty low bar, frankly.

Low-bar radioWhat irks me, though, is the legitimization of truly extremist right-wing notions of governance (or lack of same) through what I’m sure NPR and other networks consider “balance coverage”. A brief example: yesterday there was a report on some research having to do with economic inequality and the degree to which people believe the federal government has an active role to play in addressing its effects. It was presented in the usual “this side thinks this, while the other thinks this” manner; specifically, 90% of Democrats believe the government should be involved in fighting inequality, while Republicans are evenly split. This was played as reinforcing the notion of a nation divided along party lines, but they buried the lead – by these percentages, it looks like a significant majority … maybe 60 -70% – agree that the government has an active role to play. Why the hell isn’t that the story?

The only reason why extremist tea party-type ideas significantly influence national policy is that they have an outsized voice in the national conversation. That’s why we are essentially cutting the long-term unemployed off at the knees, canceling their unemployment when there’s still three job seekers for every available job, slashing food stamps while cutting taxes on corporations and throwing more money at the Pentagon. Large numbers of unemployed people are a necessary component of capitalism – that keeps labor inexpensive and profits high. So to the free market fundamentalist, that system is not broken … it’s working just fine. And that is the point of view that will continue to drive the national conversation until, along with the tea party, Occupy Wall Street gets their own response to the State of the Union.

Color me disgusted.

luv u,

jp

In the street.

While they’re all talking about the Sopranos … let’s talk about something that’s actually happening in the actual world. Like the uprisings in Turkey and in Brazil.

First, the way the U.S. press covers the government response to these protests is interesting, to say the least. I suppose they are so overcome by the loss of James Gandolfini that they have forgotten how harshly our own various municipal police forces cracked down on the Occupy Wall Street movement just eighteen months ago or so. The developing world doesn’t have a corner on repression, not by a long shot.

The only way things changeStill, it’s interesting that in both cases, the original impetus for the protest was a decision by the government affecting public services. Both Turkey and Brazil have been touted as relatively successful governments, and yet beneath many success stories there is often another story to tell, that of the poor, the working people, those left behind. You can see them in Brazil, in China, in India, in Turkey, just as you can see them here in the United States. True, the standard of living in Brazil has improved vastly over the last decade. But the people protesting increased transit fares are making us aware of the work that is yet to be done.

This did not come out of nowhere. The core of the movement in Brazil are organizers who have been working for years towards greater social and economic justice. These activists and the landless peasant movement was substantially responsible for the somewhat more progressive shift of national governments, starting with Lula’s election. (See this article in the New York Times.) I’m sure the same can be said of the people standing in the park in Turkey.

America is no different. Occupy Wall Street didn’t come out of thin air either. It was the next chapter of resistance to a society that rewards criminality on the part of the privileged and protects the powerful from accountability. From Ankara to Sao Paulo to New York, mass movements remain the best way to get our leaders to stop, listen, and act.

Feet on the street – that’s what does it, every time.

luv u,

jp

Occupatience.

This has been quite a year. Who would have thought it? One that started with massive uprisings in the middle east and is ending with a major economic justice movement in the United States – perhaps even more unlikely than the popular overthrow of Mubarak. Now we’ve seen renewed attempts to evict the protesters from Zucotti Park and other encampments across the country, but as many have said, you cannot kill an idea. The Occupy movement has gotten people accustomed to standing up again. And to paraphrase Dr. King, a man – even if he’s a millionaire – can’t ride on your back when you stand up straight.

And contrary to what is argued by Ayn Rand acolytes like Paul Ryan and (Ayn) Rand Paul, the wealthy truly do ride on the backs of working people. That has always been the case. Rand imagined the world being brought to a standstill by a wealthy, innovative class of overlords who withhold their beneficent participation in Rand’s dystopian top-down economy. The truth is, they are far more reliant on us than we are on them. Sure, the wealthy can choose to invest their capital in ways that create jobs. But where did that capital come from? How does an industrialist, a banker, an entrepreneur, an oil executive gather all that wealth? Mostly through the under-compensated labor of millions of workers.

The supply siders are always touting small businesses as the primary engine of our economy, so let’s use them as an example. Take a small to medium-sized privately held company. The owner hires people to create whatever product or service the firm sells, whether it be mint jelly or Web applications. Increased productivity means fewer workers doing more work, so the incentive is always there for small business owners to lay people off and shift their responsibilities to their fellow workers. This happens all the time, as anyone who’s ever held a job in a small company knows very well. This is the process by which fortunes can be made. If those workers refuse – if all workers withhold their labor, Galt-like, that’s what would bring the whole thing to a halt. We’ve seen owner-less factories work just fine everywhere from Argentina to right here at home. Name one worker-less factory.

The occupy movement shows that we have a long road ahead of us. But thanks to them, we can say – astoundingly – that we’ve actually begun that journey to a better nation.

luv u,

jp

Failure to add.

It’s almost November, and the occupations are continuing. With so much bad news on so many fronts, this is a little bit of good. Movements often emerge at the most unexpected times, in the most unexpected ways. And while the titanic unfairness of our economic system (as currently operated) should lead us to expect a massive uprising, I think we have experienced so many years of seeing so little reaction to outrageous assaults by the powerful that we have come to believe the response will never come. Well, the occupation movement is a response; how broadly it will resonate has yet to be seen.

I think it’s worth remembering that in Egypt, in Tunisia, and likely elsewhere, it was economics that really lit the fire under people. Torture in police custody, exclusion from meaningful political participation, persecution of minorities … abuses of every kind and character were endured by Egyptians – not without resistance, mind you, but without broad outrage. It wasn’t until Mubarak instituted substantial neoliberal economic “reforms”, opening up the Egyptian economy to greater international corporate penetration, that people had had enough. Now not only did you lack a voice in government and enjoy no constitutional rights when detained; you also could not make even the meager living you were making a year or two before. In a nation of extreme economic inequality, this was more broadly felt even then the hard end of the police baton. Everyone was affected.

Something similar has happened here. When Bush invaded Afghanistan, relatively few people stood in the street. When he invaded Iraq, the crowds were much bigger, but still not massive enough even to slow the administration down. But when our overleveraged, underregulated banking system imploded, exposing the corruption within these massive institutions, and our government’s only response was to throw literally trillions of dollars at them while millions of Americans were put out of work, that was a little hard to ignore. Now banks and businesses are sitting atop a pile of cash probably larger than any in history. Now firms are making their remaining employees do the work of two, three, perhaps four, knowing that they will not complain in this job market. Now people are seeing that without meaningful intervention on the side of working people, capitalism reverts to its core principles – one of which is maintaining a large surplus labor force to keep pressure on wages down.

Perhaps now people are waking up and realizing why the 1% is not adding any employees: because this economy works for them. It just doesn’t work for the rest of us.

luv u,

jp

Occupayback.

Can’t call me a cynic quite yet. The Occupy Wall Street movement seems a very positive development to my jaundiced eye. Hell, there were reportedly 400 people at the rally in Utica. When we brought out more than 200 for the big demo on the eve of the Iraq war, that seemed amazing for a place like this. 400 is practically unheard of. There is a strong undercurrent of resentment about the financial crisis and the fact that virtually none of the large institutions that caused the meltdown have been held to account, just as no executive in any of those firms has faced the threat of prosecution. Nay, they have continued to receive obscene bonuses, showboating their excess as if to flaunt their immunity from the restrictions of either the law or the marketplace. Like Dick Cheney bragging about his support for torture, they seem to be daring us to do something – anything – about their transgressions. You can’t touch me, they laugh.

Well…. maybe we can. There seems to be an overwhelming desire to do so. Not surprising. We’ve seen the result of not holding people accountable. Cheney’s a good example – still on the loose, influencing policy in some fashion. Karl Rove is another one, out raising millions for another crop of right-wing nut jobs. If course, no one has been held to account for the Iraq War, a needless conflict that tore a swath of destruction through an entire nation as well as the military families in America, draining our treasury and putting us at greater risk of attack. Ask any conservative – if you fail to adequately punish lawbreakers, you encourage others to break the law. We have certainly emboldened future presidents to march into any country they care to invade. In fact, Obama already has, without much fanfare or protest.

Some have complained that the Occupy Wall Street movement is too diffuse and disjointed. In a sense, though, that is its strength. There is a general thrust that society is divided between the stark minority with all of the money and the vast majority with financial problems. Within that lies many topics relating to economics, war and peace, freedom of speech, tax justice, etc. Flat, leaderless movements have a kind of strength that the traditional top-down model lacks: it’s easy to corrupt a handful of top dogs. But if the entire nation of Bolivia or Argentina or Greece is out in the street, banging on pots, clogging up the works, it won’t be easily co-opted.

Like the tea party, they’ve gotten their agenda in front of the people. Let’s see if they can keep it there.

luv u,

jp