OWS: Glorifying the Mantle of Ignorance

As Doug Marquardt has documented in his series, “OWS is Not Our Ally”, the Occupy movement believes:

“…the President has to give them a reason to vote, he’s no different than Romney, he’s a corporate puppet, etc. It’s as if, in their imaginary utopia, they think a President can actually please all Democrats.”

It started out as a swell of anger across a broad spectrum of Americans, that coincided with the frustrations of people across the world. OWS quickly became analogous to pawns in a chess match:

“They are the least powerful piece on the chess board, but have the potential to become equal to the most powerful.”

Unfortunately OWS,  in attempting to be every political fix at once, has diluted both its message and its relevance.

In their “Declaration and Manifesto of the Occupy Wall Street Movement” published in September of last year, they listed 21 justified condemnations of Wall Street, and concluded with a paragraph containing this statement (emphasis mine):

“Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

Here we are in August 2012, three months from the Presidential election; and what is OWS’s “process for generating solutions”? According to their latest movement poster: disengagement.

actual poster

That any presumably intelligent person would believe  a viable recourse to economic inequality is disengaging from the political process is beyond explanation.

It is lazy, it is ignorant, and it makes a mockery of those who have truly worked for social change, such as Martin Luther King and the selfless participants of the Civil Rights Movement.

What is clear about the Occupy Movement is that they have lost their original focus: the belief that millions of Americans must be pried from under the thumb of  behemoth financial institutions; whether it be their ridiculous interest rates, banking fees, or sub-prime mortgages, there must be reasonable recourse.

Instead, OWS has shifted, for the time being, to military spending. In the latest focus of the movement, called “Occupy the Military Industrial Complex”, they are attempting to reverse more than a century of defense spending with less than a year’s effort, and even less knowledge of the political process.

According to US News:

“…[protest organizer John] Penley says his demonstration, “Occupy the Military Industrial Complex,” will very much target President Barack Obama.”

“We’re targeting Obama’s out of control military spending… It’s the key to so many problems in the U.S. …”

I would argue that Mr. Penley should read something other than his movement propaganda every once in awhile. As the New York Times reported in February:

“President Obama’s final budget request of his term amounts to his agenda for a desired second term, with tax increases on the affluent and cuts in spending, especially from the military, both to reduce deficits and to pay for priorities like education, public works, research and clean energy.”

But, according to the Washington Post in May:

“While the Obama budget proposed reducing the core defense budget by $5.2 billion, or 1 percent below this year’s spending, the Republican majority on the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee put out a suggested bill that would add $1.1 billion to Pentagon spending.”

An immediate drastic reduction in defense spending would wreak havoc on an already struggling economy, by dumping hundreds of thousands of additional people into the ranks of the unemployed. At the same time, this Republican Congress refuses to allow the Pentagon to eliminate spending on lobbyists’ pet projects.

For the Occupy Movement to claim they might make their political stand by standing back is ignorant; then again, if they actually believe Obama and Romney are no different, they are too naive to effect change anyway.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Activists, Barack Obama, Economic Justice, Election, Income Inequality, Occupy WallStreet, Politics, Wall Street and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://twitter.com/Anne_TX Anne Walker-Leonard

    The OWS “Vote for Nobody” message is JUST what the BIG power players, the GOP, and the tea bodies want.  A political movement is only as powerful as its collective vote.  Politicians run scared when they know that you have the power to Vote them out-and, when your message is simply VOTE for NOBODY (when the problem is that there are not ENOUGH people actually voting) you are destroying the bedrock of Democracy.  

    • http://twitter.com/PunkPatriot The Punk Patriot

      I agree Anne– don’t vote for NOBODY, vote for NOT THE TWO PARTY DUOPOLY.  Vote for NOT WALL STREET.

      This could be the Peace and Justice Party, or it can be the Green Party.

      Green Party Candidate Jill Stein is on the ballot in enough states to win the presidency.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Penley/100000657789086 John Penley

    Actually you neglected to say that I was quoted as saying many people were going to vote for the Green party. Because Romney was getting a boost while he was in Israel Obama decided to send the Israelis another 70 million dollars. He did this at a time when there is a massive backlog in disability claims from Iraq and Afghanistan vets.Support the troops BULLCRAP !! Call me what you want but so far we have not Occupied anywhere in Charlotte and we are getting our message out to the world thanks to the fact that Occupy has the ability to reach mass media. Just wait I am only getting started. Stay Tuned Ha Ha !! PS I am a vet myself and many of those who will be with me in Charlotte are fellow vets who have this to say.. Vote for Obama or Romney… Hell No We won’t get fooled again. I won’t even go into Drone Strikes on American Citizens and their children and NDAA but I will in Charlotte. PEACE NOW !!!

    • Michael Gordon

       John, you IVAW?

  • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

    Its so sad, your level of ignorance. “Look at me, I’m an anarchist.” YOU and your people are going to be responsible for a Republican sweep across the nation. YOU and your people will usher in the next neo-con era of war and cronie capitalism. This is all on YOU. Enjoy your time in a Republican-owned, privatized prison. The radical right won’t tolerate your protest. They’ll have ultimate power to pass laws making your protests illegal. Take it to the SCOTUS and they’ll vote against you 5-4. YOU and YOUR PEOPLE will be responsible.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

      Have you actually looked at the polls?  There is not going to be some huge GOP sweep across the nation if Occupy and radicals and others who don’t want to participate in the two-party system don’t.  Hell, Obama has a solid lead in the polls in the 3 big swing states, despite shitty job numbers.  

      Establishment rhetoric like this is sickening.  Trying to guilt people into voting for the left establishment.  You see people who might vote democrat and instead of letting them make the decision on their own, you use hyperbole, guilt tripping, and threats to try to get them to vote.  

      No strong-arming tactics for me, sir.

      It’s so sad, your level of ignorance of radicals and people who aren’t “mainstream”.  And also so your ignorance of anarchism.  

      Oh, and supposedly it’s the Republicans making protests illegal?  What about H.R. 347 which Obama signed, or is it anytime the left restricts rights or uses drones, it’s some crazy conspiracy…

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

        1. Today’s polls are completely meaningless. The right wing has been very successful with their voter suppression efforts against those who traditionally vote Democrat and thousands of those questioned in polls will not be allowed to vote. Some stats estimate up to 1/3 of lefty voters will be affected. That’s why having an entire group of people deliberately voting against Dems to send a message is so devastating. There’s no hyperbole involved. OWS has made it very clear that this is their intention. Follow my series on this where I have quotes from OWS orgs around the country. Sadly, you will see what happens in November. I’m not going to kiss their asses any longer. They have made their intentions clear and we need to get it done without them, but it going to be mission impossible.

        2. Ya, ya, Obama, drones, etc. etc. Have fun with Republican rule. You’ll be kicking yourself from your foxhole in Iran.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

        Trust me, I’m from Ohio and follow state politics.  Any estimate that it will affect 1/3 of lefty voters here is ludicrous.  Hell, it’s not likely to make up the % point difference Obama has right now.  


        That’s why having an entire group of people deliberately voting against Dems to send a message is so devastating.”

        Deliberately voting against Dems would be voting for Romney and no one from Occupy is going to be doing that.  Unless you are seriously suggesting that not voting is voting against Dems which is completely ludicrous in its very nature.  If this was the case, the 30+% of registered voters who don’t vote every presidential election but will likely vote Democrat are to blame, but no one blames them.  
        No one blames the people who are apathetic that the Dems don’t focus their message to getting riled up to vote.  They focus on the people who vote for 3rd party candidates, they focus on the intellectual dissenters.  However, those are people that would wouldn’t vote for someone from either of the 2 main parties if you paid them.  That’s what you don’t get, no matter what you do there are going these people won’t vote and people who can’t tailor their message outside what they observe in establishment liberalism and ideologically can’t change to relate to the apathetic non-voters are more to blame than purposeful nonvoters who are a tiny minority that won’t swing an election either way in any of these states.  The only states where OWS has the numbers to actually affect the results by abstention are states that will go for Obama anyways.  Your rhetoric is more panicky than those of Occupy people I have talked to, but they don’t use threats like you do.  Your tactics to try to convince someone to vote for Obama and threatening foxholes in Iran are no better than what Boss Tweed was doing back in the day, except your warfare is psychological.  

        And yeah, Obama and drones.  That’s all you can do, just laugh it off.  The ACLU sure isn’t doing that

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

        Trust me, I’ve been following national politics for over 30 years. Politics is my daily job.

        The Brennan center estimates millions will be affected by voter suppression (http://www.alternet.org/story/156377/gop_voter_suppression_id_laws_may_affect_millions_of_legal_voters?page=entire)

        Don’t just make statements like “no one in Occupy is going to do that”, follow the story. See the OWS is not our Ally image link in the right sidebar? Follow that link to read the actual quotes from OWS orgs around the country. They clearly state that they are going to deliberately vote against Dems to send a message and they are urging their supporters to do the same. I’ve been following the story closely. I didn’t spin or make anything up; these are their words. Why don’t you ask OWS why they’re making those statements?

        And you’re correct, that is a vote for Romney.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

        yes, you have been following politics for years, that makes you right.  This line of fallacious logic doesn’t work if I suggest George Will though.  

        I followed the stories.  They clearly stated they are fed up with the 2 party system and won’t vote period.  However, your delusions of it’s vote Dem or the highway see any vote that isn’t for Obama as one that is against Obama.  Like I pointed out, it’s ludicrous because you don’t criticize those apathetic nonvoters.Also, all your quotes come from comments or blogs, things where it’s unverifiable.  In all your hard research on Occupy, you never talked to an occupier face to face.  Right wing hack bloggers at least have the decency to do this, even if it’s to take quotes out of context.  That’s incorrect that it’s a vote for Romney.  How is that, they didn’t fill out a bubble for Romney.  The inherent problem here is that your partisanship angle is worse than Newt Gingrich or any other alienating figure on the right.  It’s Dems vs. the world, either you’re with us or against us.  If the left truly took this attitude, they would never win.  I’ll ask OWS people, because I know some, but chances are they think you are full of shit and just see Obama as no better or worse than any other president.  

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

        Dude, it was in response to your fallacious logic,”trust me, I’m from Ohio and follow state politics.

        The OWS quotes are completely verifiable as they come directly from posts on official OWS sites. There’s no need get that quote “face to face”, unless they don’t stand behind their words. Is that what you’re saying? From Occupy Los Angeles, “Don’t waste any more time or energy on the presidential election than it takes to get to your polling station and pull a lever for a third-party candidate – just enough to register your obstruction and defiance – and then get back out onto the street.”

        There are apathetic, non-voters in every election. OWS is deliberately removing qualified voters in the name of anarchy.

        You can get your jollies out of debating this over and over but the result will be the same – Republican victory.

      • joe hill

        OWS has no POWER to deliberately remove qualified voters from the voting rolls, as you say.  OWS says take back the power from the ruling elites of the Corporate-controlled State.  Occupiers see no meaningful difference between the two parties — they are simply the right-wing and the left-wing of the Corporate Party.  If voting truly brought about the Hope and Change Obama promised, where is it?

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

        OWS can’t go on and on about the power OWS has, advise their members to remove themselves from the voting process, and then say they have no power to do that. Its one or the other.

      • joe hill

        In two comments I haven’t heard one word about what you are FOR, just nasty comments about “you and your people”.  You don’t want the Reps. in power.  There a million Occupiers who agree with you.  Now what?  And to dismiss the fact that the President of the US sits around in the Oval Office with a list of names deciding who we will kill with drones and who we will not without the least bit of moral outrage is deeply cynical.  Say what you will about the Occupy movement — it is guided by hope, and resolve.  Doug, have you taken any action at all — signed up to work the polls, made a phone call, knocked on your neighbors’ doors — to accomplish anything?  Or are you simply content to criticize those who actually got up and did something to accomplish meaningful change in the country?

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

        1. I’ve been in involved in politics since the Carter administration.
        2. Any nasty comments that come from Dems are in response to Occupy rejecting and insulting the Democratic party early and often. We Dems are reactionary when it comes to the verbal battles, but now that we are telling you what we think of your constant insults, you can’t suddenly claim you’re the victim.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

        you know reactionary is someone who tries to hold onto the status quo?  You may not have meant it, but the Democratic party is reactionary.  Both parties are reactionary, because of how entrenched they are in the system. They want to keep the system and the status quo.  There are minute partisan differences, but it’s extremely hard to argue policies of approving the PATRIOT Act and Drone strikes by Democratic politicians isn’t reactionary.  

    • Michael Gordon

       ”Enjoy your time in a Republican-owned, privatized prison. The radical
      right won’t tolerate your protest. They’ll have ultimate power to pass
      laws making your protests illegal”

      They won’t have to make the laws. I believe the NDAA allows the President to do it all by her/his lonesome. At this point do I have to remind you who signed the NDAA into law?

      • joe hill

        Facts are stubborn things.  The main thing being expressed on these pages is hostility to OWS, and fear and anxiety that the Reps. will win.  If you want to forge alliances with Occupiers and get them to think the way you want them to think and vote the way you want them to vote, you will not get there by attacking them.  And whether Obama signs laws restricting the rights to gather, speak, right and protests or the Tea Party does, where is the meaningful difference?  And either way, NO POLITICIAN is going to prohibit me from doing so — NO ONE.  These are RIGHTS not subject to anyone’s whims or prejudices.  See you in the streets!

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

         That ship has sailed and sunk. OWS made it clear they despise Democrats and intend to vote against them. There is no benefit to appeasing OWS or giving into their demands.

        Just make sure you’re not in a state that has a 3 strikes law, or get out after 2 strikes and never return.

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

         As I stated in this post (http://www.allthingsdemocrat.com/2012/06/occupy-is-not-our-ally-part-v/), the Tea Party and Occupy have given leaders on both sides of the aisle no choice but to pass such laws to protect our legally elected officials. The Tea Party brings assault rifles to protests and Occupy has members who threaten violence (you can deny it or debate it to death, but its your people doing the threatening …http://www.allthingsdemocrat.com/2012/06/occupy-is-not-our-ally-part-v/). In both cases its nothing short of domestic terrorism.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

        I followed the line of reasoning.  By your logic, because a person associated with Occupy said something online (and how many empty threats have been made there since its inception?) made a threat, that HR 347 was the government having no choice on the issue?

        I dunno if you’ve ever seen the shit the cops pulled, but violence was certainly not the first option of the protesters, but it was of the cops.  Violent vitriol like that is a last resort to those battered and beaten, if they come to that (which many don’t).I can’t believe you are literally saying that Occupiers being pissed off is domestic terrorism.  I have met republicans who are less war-mongering, less reactionary, and less trying to scare the shit out of people into thinking like they do than you.  Those are the reasons I could never be a republican, those are the reasons why I don’t get how you can call yourself liberal.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sean-Laney/1565626713 Sean Laney


      YOU and your people will usher in the next neo-con era of war and cronie capitalism.”

      Both parties support both of those things, and you know it. 

      • http://twitter.com/FluxRostrum FluxRostrum

         really, cause we never really ended the other ones yet… but maybe in another 4 years if we petition had an strong we can end the illegal unjust wars we been bitchin about for 12 years now.

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

        Seriously? Except that we’re out of Iraq, the only illegal war.

        I don’t know how old you guys are, but if you didn’t have the pleasure of experiencing the bush/cheney years you really should read-up on what the neo-cons did, and then realize that Romney has the same neo-cons that lied us into Iraq as his foreign policy advisers. They want to increase the number of wars and the arms manufacturers are in line to test their latest inventions (I live in AZ – constant fighter jets, helicopters overhead, rumbling that feels like minor earthquakes from bombing runs). I’m just glad I’m 52 and too old to be drafted. I was 16 when they stopped the Vietnam draft. How many draft-dodgers can Canada really handle now? Last I heard, you needed to prove you had one year’s worth of savings to make the move.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

        I know Iraq was the less popular war and Afghanistan made sense to a lot of people at the time, but Congress never declared war in Afghanistan either.  

        And Obama hasn’t surrounded himself with high-ranking people from the Bush years?  John Brennan, Paul O’Neill, and William Donaldson just off the top of my head and there are many others.  

        What’s more relevant is all the advisors Obama had with significant ties to the entities that got us into this financial mess, including his first 2 chiefs of staff.  

        What’s the point, that Romney will be bush 2.0?  Possibly, but are we 100% certain that outside weak healthcare reform (the kind that looks like a proposal back in the day from the Heritage Foundation), Obama 1.0 is significantly better than Bush 2.0 to the point where there is a noticeable difference?  I lived through both and I’m not totally sure.  

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

        Also, to be quite honest.  Threatening it will be apocalypse if Romney wins or making people vote for Obama just because you instill a fear of them being drafted if Romney is elected is dishonest and low, no less low than when the religious right describes Obama as the antichrist, just less incendiary in it’s wording.

        Oh, and there’s no proof Romney will bring back the draft.  You can point to his record and say he is a shitty candidate, but unsubstantiated threats don’t work, especially if you are trying to convince someone.  Unless they are already on your side, you are just blowing smoke.  Rhetoric 101…

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

        I’m not trying to convince you dude, you’re a lost cause. I’m only trying to convince the last Democratic party hold-outs to give up their silly hopes that OWS will vote with Dems.

        And your definition of “threat” is a pretty odd. You’re walking out in front of a moving bus and I’m saying, “You’re gonna get hurt.” That’s not a threat, that’s a warning based on the obvious. But go right ahead. At least you got to do it your way.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

        How am I a lost cause?  Did I ever say I wasn’t voting for Obama?  No, when push comes to shove I probably will, because I feel in my gut that whatever the polls may say, Ohio will be close and however much I am not a fan of Obama, Romney just sucks.

        You think I am a lost cause, because I am an independent mind.  I am a radical leftist that is registered independent and isn’t a knee jerk democrat who will vote along party lines like a good little sheep.

        I’d say I’m less of a lost cause than most voters because I think for myself and not what either party tells me to think.  Yes, the left media is just as conformist as the right and you’re a perfect example.

        What you mentioned isn’t a threat, but what it’s more like saying is “if you walk down the street, someone will put out a gun and shoot you”.  Sure, it’s in the realm of likelihood just like Romney being the apocalypse is.  However, neither has empirical proof to suggest they are likely.  

      • joe hill

        There is a draft in this country.  It’s called the poverty draft.  If the education you received is meaningless, and the economic opportunities are CLOSED to you — due to a system you never VOTED for — what choice do you have but to join the Army and “Be All You Can Be” — useless cannon fodder.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

        I agree, but where are the Democrats up in arms about it?  It’s the radicals who actually see some of the real stuff that’s going on.  

    • http://twitter.com/FluxRostrum FluxRostrum

       not voting 3rd party is throwing away your vote.

    • Bluebelle51

      As a matter of fact, our protests are ALREADY illegal because Obama signed into law NDAA and 
      H.R. 347

    • Bluebelle51

      It is apparent to me that the next age of cronie capitalism and neo-con war is already upon us, we didn’t usher it in, Obama did, with his Bush era hold over thugs.

      Why would I quietly sit back and say nothing when Obomba continues on with the policies that I railed with anger at under Bush?
      Why should I vote for him again? 
      Oh yeah, he is the lesser of 2 evils.
      In my mind the lesser of 2 evils is STILL EVIL, and I cannot with a clear conscious vote for him again.
      If the republicans sweep up the election, I really can’t see that it would make much difference.
      You can’t scare me into voting for Obama again, this election I will not be driven by fear. 
      What has he done for the victims of BP? What has he done to restore civil liberties? My phone calls can still be listened to, illegally, my computer monitored illegally. Oh wait I forgot IT ISN’T ILLEGAL ANYMORE
      and I can still be labeled a “terrorist” if I “hoard” seeds because I don’t want to eat food that was bio engineered by Monsanto.

  • Verminsupreme2012

    No Pony.
    No Vote.
    No Pony 
    No peace.
    Vermin Supreme 2012.

  • Michael Gordon

    Hey, I agree with you. The way to address the problem is to put more big time bankers – let me suggest Jamie Dimon or Jon Corzine – in charge of fixing the economy and getting that umpteen trillion offshore dollars back on the books. And when you are done with that why not start writing up NDAA, Chapter II.

    Let’s face it, the people in Occupy are overwhelmingly under age 30. They at least have an excuse for what you allude to is their foolishness. But if I remember correctly the President and the rest of the nitwits in DC have more age and experiece on their collective side. What is their excuse?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Vic-Fedorov/100000606896638 Vic Fedorov

    dont disparage the dispapoint and sense of betrayal via obama. Sure they are different, but dont disparage the profound similiarities and this insistent rejection of the false; if you can understand this perception of simliarity between the two is to put pressure on Obama to be loyal to  beliefs he is not loyal to, thenyou understand politics. If you disparage the political behavior of anyone, you are censoring.

    • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

      Don’t be silly. Politics is a contact sport. If you don’t like “disparaging the political behavior of anyone”, then you shouldn’t visit blogs. Blogs are where people express opinions, passionately. If you want patty-cake, go play with the kids.

  • http://www.facebook.com/justincmueller Justin Mueller

    Oh gee, a Democrat is sad that a popular uprising against structural problems isn’t in fervent support of Democratic party’s lack of interest in or ability to actually change anything structurally. Blames uprising for being an semi-autonomous, non-institutionalized force demanding goods, rather than pliant party whores jostling for crumbs that will either never come… or will only come to a meaningless degree after the Party’s corporate partners have their say. Is constitutionally incapable of thinking about political conflict and struggles outside of a party competition frame. What else is new…

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

      Occupiers are destroying america and some good stuff like that.  

      • Michael Gordon

         Which good stuff are you referring to?

  • William Fisk

    The problems we face are the result of choosing between the lesser of two evils! You still loose, just with a lesser evil. If the Dem want me to vote for them they will have to find a backbone and stand for the core Democrat values, not drone strikes, endless war, nukes and coal and jailing whistle blowers. They will need to stand strong for true healthcare reform and bank reform, not cozy relations with the people who got us into this mess! Vote Green Party!

  • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

    Great discussion! Love a passionate debate. And its much better than the typical comments we get from right wing intellectuals, like “you Democrats are assholes”.

  • http://twitter.com/FluxRostrum FluxRostrum

    Of course there are differences between Democratic candidates and Republican candidates… one’s red an one’s blue…

  • William Fisk

    The bedrock of democracy was broken in 2000. The Democratic party seems to expect allegiance from OWS, without doing anything to earn it. They refuse to discipline their members (blue dogs, old dixiecrats) and even when they had the majority the did nothing. We still are afflicted with warrentless spying on citizens, militarization of the police and on and on. The convention has even limited the space for protest and in some cases criminalized that dissent. Wake up up dems, there is no free lunch, you want OWS support, EARN it!     

    • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

      Practically speaking, I don’t think that will ever happen. We’re just waaaaaay too far apart. I mean, think about the makeup of the Democratic Party: There are conservative Dems, moderate Dems, progressive Dems, liberal Dems, all with our own agendas. Our diversity is simultaneously our greatest strength and greatest weakness. We don’t agree on that much so we have to compromise. And then there’s OWS, which never compromises, so why bother with them?

      It does seem to me that the demands of OWS are so far away from anything either party can deliver that it doesn’t pay for us to even consider them. Its like we’re in a labor negotiation and you’re asking for $1 million for each member. Dems have walked away from the table until something serious is offered. But some in OWS have to know that. That’s why I believe there are many in OWS who enjoy the anarchist label and have no intention of affecting change. Protesting won’t affect change, it just won’t. The protests, the arrests, the constant insults toward Dems; who cares except the protesters? OWS may actually have the affect of bringing the two parties together because Republicans hate them and Democrats are sick of being insulted by OWS and listening to their unreasonable demands. I could actually see a future where Republicans are locking up OWS protestors and Dems think, “Whatever. They didn’t want anything to do with us, I’m not going to feel sorry for them”.

      Cindy’s post and my series were meant to urge Dems to stop hoping that OWS would see the Republican tsunami coming and vote with Dems. Dems need to accept that fact and move on without them. If every Dem votes, we can get it done.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

        Any party can deliver the demands, it’s all about not being tied to their corporate master entities.  That’s the big issue Occupy has in general.  Their demands on Wall Street aren’t outrageous if politicians are able to separate themselves from money and politics.  Unfortunately, they are very flawed beings and aren’t.

        In a lot of ways, OWS is attempting to do more for the people than the average politician.  The Dems are sick of listening to demands that are righteous, but unreasonable?  If that is the case, OWS is right to split itself from the party.  Honestly, it’s that selfish “They don’t like us, I’m not going to feel sorry for them” attitude in neoliberal Democratic politics that is why Occupy is pissed off in the first place.  Both parties are for “me! me! me!” and never even claim to be for the working class.  

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

        You try to hard to complicate things. Its much, much simpler than that. If I say, “Brad Ross and his family are losers who can’t think for themselves,  they’re selfish, they’re no better than the rich bastards who nearly destroyed our economy, no better than the crazy tea party, and they better give in to our every demand or we’ll make things very difficult for them”, you’re not very likely to give in to my demands, are you? That’s OWS in a nutshell. Dems are evil, OWS is righteous. Republicans also say Dems are evil, conservatives are righteous.

        I reject you both.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

        I love how you use a stupid analogy to create a thinly veiled personal attack (which you can always deny as such…but voila, the magic of framing).

        That’s now OWS in a nutshell at all and even Fox News hasn’t oversimplified them that much.  A supposed liberal being worse at portraying Occupy than Fox?  

        You missed the point that the neoliberal streak that has crept into the Democratic party has created a liberal elite that is selfish, but still cares about social justice.  Occupy and the Dems should be working towards similar goals, but the Democratic establishment is worried about personal gain, and the social justice issues tend to fall by the wayside.  Sure, they have good intentions at heart, but they put the ability to put onesself in a higher position (theoretically to do more good) as a higher priority than doing what is right and that is why Occupy is upset.  

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

        I simply inserted everything you said so-far and asked, how would you like it if I insulted you and your family and then presented my list of demands? Get it? The end result is we couldn’t possibly come to an agreement because you make it a personal attack on my family, so-to-speak, and then say I need to earn your vote. I no longer care about your vote.

        I chose the Democratic party because I’m more moderate and they back most of the things I believe in, whereas the Republican party has very little if anything to offer me. I’m not a sheep, I’m not brainwashed, I’m not a neoliberal. I’m left of center but not as far left as you and OWS. If there was no Democratic party, I would still be left of center. People join either party because it has a platform they approve of, more or less, and writes legislation that backs it up. OWS calls us sheep. Whatever. We no longer care what OWS thinks.

        That whole money and politics argument was settled by the republican-leaning supreme court. It may be that way for years, even decades. There’s no way I’m going to say, “Let’s just hand the right-wing the election by refusing to accept the money we’ll need to beat their billionaire buddies. The country might go the way of Michigan and Arizona, with Republican rulers and crazy laws against minorities and women, and wiping-out local elected governments for their “financial emergencies”. But at least we took the high road.” That’s idealistic but not acceptable. Until that law is changed, we can’t bring a knife to a gun fight. We can work to change things later, but for now we have less than 100 days until the election. That’s our priority.

        Democrats aren’t in this for personal gain while social justice issues fall by the wayside. The simple fact is that Republicans can block virtually anything and everything Democrats do. Its total gridlock. You’re blaming Dems for something beyond their control. And we’re looking at a situation where Obama may just squeak by with a victory, but Dems may also lose the Senate. That will just extend the gridlock for 4 more years. You may see that as Dems not doing anything – I see it as “Thank God Obama can veto their crap!”

      • joe hill

        If you no longer care what OWS thinks, why did you bother to set up the website in the first place?

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

         ”the website”? You mean “All Things Democrat”? As the About page says, this site was created in 2006 “for and about Democrats”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

        Dems are fine to move on without Occupy.  That really isn’t the point of this article and if you think that’s the case, you are truly fooling yourself about your own work.  You dislike Occupy because it won’t buy into the establishment so you launch a series of personal attacks and portraying them as insulting the memory of people like mlk (who believed in direct action and never said “go out there and vote”).
        You can say in 2 sentences Occupy isn’t going to support the establishment.  Any expectation was foolish because it was formed as a counter to the establishment.  However, the attacks made are childish, especially when you consider in theory the left and Occupy have very similar goals on many issues (though the difference is that the theory and reality of what Occupy believes and practices are similar to each other while there is a gap among the rest of the left).  Occupy believes in social justice, about helping people who fell on hard times, on providing the sort of safety nets needed when the system fails the people.  Occupy also believes in Solidarity, but that’s what separates them.  Occupiers have a general solidarity with each other and humanity.  A Dem that cannot support Occupy because they have different tactics is not expressing solidarity with people trying to bring about similar change in a different way.  If you can’t express solidarity for people with a common goal, how can one expect you to lead people with a common goal?  

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

        Labor laws, civil right laws, the social safety net. All of these things were passed by Democrats. How many were passed by Occupy? Absolutely none. Everyone has beliefs. What matters is what gets done. Its about who can bring about significant change for the greater good, not who can preach about the greater good.

        I thought Occupy and Dems were natural allies when they started. I ran positive posts, placed Occupy banners in the blog sidebars and header, and posted on pro-occupy articles. Democrats embraced Occupy from the start. And then Occupy turned on us. Good riddance.

        Don’t kid yourself. Occupy has become another part of the establishment. They draw salaries, they have legal teams, they have committee meetings where they determine what the message must be and they reject the people and messages they don’t like. Just as the Tea Party went corporate, Occupy is already on the way there.

        Occupy doesn’t believe in solidarity, that’s a joke. They believe in division, anarchy, protest, and getting their face on the news. They’re contrarians for publicity’s sake. They’re media hogs … the Kim Kardashian of politics. And like Kim Kardashian, they’ll never be recognized for accomplishing anything substantial. They’ll grow a fan base, get lots of likes on Facebook, have lots of Twitter followers … wow, that’s impressive. “Get ready for that protest at the conventions! Does anyone have a magic marker? I need to finish my sign.”

      • Devon Graham

        Thank you for reinforcing Occupy’s belief that there is very little difference between partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats.

        It is obvious from this comment that you have never been to an Occupy protest. Did you pick up that “anarchist” smear from Fox News or did you come up with that all by yourself.

        If you had been to an Occupy protest, you would know that a lot of us are just normal people with families, many of us are parents and responsible adults. Not “anarchists” or “media hogs”.

        Again thank you so much for this blog and confirming what many of us already knew, that Bush apologists=Obama apologists + Lilly Ledbetter.

        Good luck in November, you are gonna need it.

      • joe hill

        Occupy is part of the establishment?  Occupy draws salaries?  Occupy is going Corporate?  You have wandered far, far away from the reality, my friend.  It DOES sound as if your opinions about Occupiers was drawn from Fox News.  I am an Occupier.  I draw no salary, nor ever been compensated in any way for any of the actions I’ve been on — accept for the feeling that I was fighting for my country.  As for going Corporate, which Corporation in the world is going to back a social, political and economic movement which calls for its demise?

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

        No one ever said “you” draw a salary.

        Read http://www.allthingsdemocrat.com/2012/06/ows-is-not-our-ally-part-iv/. Occupy orgs take in hundreds of thousands of dollars and pay salaries for committee members.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Ross/1428990382 Brad Ross

        You never showed evidence of salaries, the only thing you ever showed was that there was money directed towards the legal committees.  Did you ever think that this is maybe how they decide legal funds?  Such a novel idea.  You couldn’t find any other proof, because committees outside the legal team don’t have their need for funds in the same way and therefore it’s irrelevant to them

      • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

        This is why I said you’re a lost cause. You argue for the sake of argument. You’re a professional contrarian. You’re not interested in any other point of view because you change your view in order to be contrary. That’s why OWS will never have their “demands” met. They’re dynamic demands. And they don’t make sense. OWS preaches support for all of the things that Democrats have already accomplished, civil rights legislation, the social safety net, anti-discrimination laws. But you give them no credit because you have to be contrary. There’s no point in debating anything with you any further because the response is already known.

      • joe hill

        If, practically speaking, the Dems. will never deliver on the obviously just demands of the Occupiers — not even argue for them, let alone fight for them due to the political exigencies of the moment — then what good are they?  That’s like saying vote for God because he ain’t the devil.  Well, He may not be the Devil, but if He’s not fighting for a world the likes of which He sacrificed His only begotten son for, what’s the point?  If He won’t fight for it, I will — and do.

  • Theodaphys

    This article is completely asinine.

    A president who violates the constitution and personally defines unarmed children as “combatants” is not worth anyone’s vote. He may be “the lesser of two evils”, but he’s still evil.

    This is the same president who handed our government purse over to the banks, helped them kick people out of their homes, allowed global climate talks to fail, cut secret deals with health insurance companies, and then sat back and watched while non-violent protestors were bludgeoned off the streets.

    The Occupy movement WAS THE MOVEMENT that attempted to hold the entire system accountable by demanding our rights and giving NOTHING. Giving in to a system this horrible is not winning — IT IS GIVING IN.

    If you insist on voting for President, vote for Jill Stein. Show Obama you won’t deal with his shit anymore — and show the big two-parties you aren’t buying their good-cop bad-cop routine.

    P.S. The author of this article is a coward. Demand a real democracy before you chastise people for resistance.

  • Devon Graham

    Since you people couldn’t co-opt the Occupy movement you have resorted to trashing them. The litany of near criminal abuses by this President are too numerous to list here. But you know them as well as I do. This President couldn’t even see fit to restoring Habeas Corpus.

    Using the memory of MLK to defend this criminal of a President was low, but to be expected from desperate Democrats. You call us naive, and yet you still believe that “change” is just around the corner if we give this guy 4 more years. I would laugh if it wasn’t so pathetic.

  • Sheila K-O

    How about doing more than just voting? How about helping with the campaign of a person of integrity? Make phone calls, knock on doors, march in parades as a supporter, talk to your neighbors … How about giving money to a candidate you’d like to see win, even if not in your district? How about running for office yourself? Democracy is sooo much more than voting …

  • Devon Graham

    You even are blaming OWS for the failure in Wisconsin?? Really? You don’t think it might have had something to do with WI choosing a milquetoast Dem establishment candidate and hoping against hope that another fruitless investment in a broken system might actually work out this time?

    The failure of Wisconsin should teach everyone who is paying attention that investing in a broken system will never work. Instead of a general strike or more direct non violent civil disobedience, the Democratic Machine suckered them once again in paying fealty to “change” through electoral means.

    Yeah how has that worked out for ya?

    The same way it is going to work out for ya in November, when you work hard to GOTV for President Obama, so he can have another 4 years of war all the time and ignoring “progressives”.

    I would laugh at this blog if it wasn’t so sad.

  • Joe Hill

    To believe that engaging in the political system as it presently works in order to effect meaningful change — to effect the essential change so desperately needed in this country — is the height of folly.  Talk about naive!  Unless you have a wad of cash in your pocket the size of a VW, you are not WELCOME to engage in politics.  To think VOTING within the structures of this system will bring change is pissing in the wind — sure your bladder is empty and you feel better, but you’re still wading around in filth.  Actually quoting US News or the Times or the Post as authoritative is to think they serve some interests other than those of the Corporate conglomerates that own them — and dictate which stories to tell or not tell.  Super PAC spending is controlled by 47 millionaires who have said they are willing to spend hundreds of millions to defeat Obama.  Now there is a class of folks who know how this democracy really works in this country.  And I will bet you anything you want that not one of them will visit a voting booth.  Why should they?  They understand the true worth of one man, one vote as it works today.  Is the entire Occupy movement hostile to the Democrats and Republicans?  Damn straight!  And to point to MLK as having accomplished his goals through voter enrollment drives is pure ignorance.  He won by taking to the streets with as many people as he could and RESISTING the State.  When the day comes that Obama has a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden raising the minimum wage, raising taxes on the rich, slashing defense spending, imposing a financial transaction tax, imposing a tax on luxury goods, outlawing offshore tax breaks for the mega rich, announcing strict regulations on investment banking, reimposing Glass-Steagall, guaranteeing health care for all, establishing a meaningful social safety net, announcing a massive public spending bill for infrastructure, announcing that climate change must be a fundamental focus of foreign and domestic policy, reaffirming a total commitment to Medicare and Social Security by raising the income cap to pay for it, firmly, reaffirming the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively — jeez, is it any wonder that a Manifesto contained more items than just “Vote Against Romney” — the hundreds of thousands of Occupiers will stand behind him, just as MLK stood behind LBJ when he signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act effectively ending, for the first time in 400 years, African-American servitude and social control.  If all that will be accomplished by voting, then I’ll meet you at the polls.  If NONE of that will be accomplished by voting, you have a good time and please yourself with the illusion that you have “participated” in the system; I’ll be in the streets taking all measures I can think of to effect the change outlined in the OWS Manifesto.  Good God Almighty, brother, on that point alone you sound like some Tea Party hack who complains that a bill is too long to read!  Vote again for the Hope and Change Obama promised 4 years  ago if you want to.  I’m still looking for it.  Joe Hill. 

  • joe hill

    In the light of the political system as currently constituted, to say that “a political movement is only as powerful as its collective vote” is just naive.  A truly powerful political movement is only as powerful as its ability to bring about meaningful change, to force a corrupt political to deliver real change.

  • Ssland25

    What a mess of miss information. This article ” Glorifying the Mantle of Ignorance” Occupy is a real honest effort for real people to express their frustration with the current political structure. The face that police are now responding in military gear treating our citizens as terroist begs the question: Is it 1984? Is greed our National Motto?

  • clrose

    For the gentleman who said, “Since you people couldn’t
    co-opt the Occupy movement you have resorted to trashing them.”, if I may:

    First of all, Democrats weren’t interested in “co-opting”
    the Occupy movement; many of them were already In It.

    Second of all, you have highlighted, yet again, the
    difference between the parties: We invite disagreement, expect to be called on
    selling out, and engage in actual discourse, not scripted talking points like “Obama’s
    near criminal abuses” “crony capitalism”, etc. etc.

     (FYI, discourse is rationality …verbal interchange
    of ideas; especially : conversation;
    … usually extended expression of thought on a subject”) 

    Thirdly, no one has suggested “change is just around the corner”;
    it took 8 years of George W. Bush to get us here, and it will probably take
    twice that long just to recover from him.

    Finally, if the conservative folks commenting in this thread
    stood up to their own party’s extremist, fascist, plutocracy with half the
    stones they’ve exhibited here, we’d already be in a better situation.

    As for the gentleman who said, “like MLK (who believed in
    direct action and never said “go out there and vote”); you’re right, I stand corrected. What he actually said was:

    “So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the
    right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up
    for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped
    to enact — I can only submit to the edict of others.”

  • Petedutro

    Doug Marquardt you really do not know what you are talking about. 

    “It is lazy, it is ignorant, and it makes a mockery of those who have truly worked for social change, such as Martin Luther King and the selfless participants of the Civil Rights Movement.”

    This is an intellectually lazy argument, MLK  was in the streets doing what OWS has been doing, and he was in the streets for ten years before anything happened. 

     I was in Liberty Sq. on the Sept 19, 2012 and have witnessed what has happened in the the movement as some one participating in the discussion. You say that OWs is ” Glorifying The Mantle of  Ignorance,” yet that is exactly what you are doing with this charge. You obviously think that you know everything about OWS, but have demonstrated your ignorance by getting things really wrong about OWS. What you fail to realize is that OWS is really a discussion about the crisis we are not a real organization. The only people I know who get paid in OWS are paid by their jobs with some other group. There are no dues and no one is paid by OWS.

    First since you obviously were not there let me clarify some things. OWS did reach out to some Democrats. Those Democrats in turn gave us the “I wish we could do more but….” We gave them a list of issues we could rally around and the Democrats chose to focus on other issues. This list included issues such as tax code reform, ending the wars, mortgage relief, reinstating Glass-Steagall, student debt, credit card industry reform, unemployment, union rights, climate change/ environment abuse, etc…  If you look at the polling on theses issues they have very broad public support and probably would have helped win votes, as that is change we could have believed in.

    Now you or someone else mentioned Wisconsin. You attack the argument that voting for Obama is basically the same as Romney,but if this is so off why did Obama not not go to Wisconsin? My answer is he did not want to be seen with labor in an election year in which he needs the donations of so many on Wall Street. I take this to mean he values the interests of his donors over workers rights, that to me is not very progressive, liberal, or left of any kind. 

    http://observer.com/2012/06/245737/ 

    I would also like to point out that when he came into office who did he put in charge of our economic policy? Do you really believe that there was any shift in policy from Paulson, Summers, Geithner, Bernanke, Greenspan?

    http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/07/sheila-bair-blames-geithner-paulson-and-bernanke-for-the-credit-crisis.html 

    The problem with what you are saying is that we really are not ignorant, we make a great point that there are plenty of things that have stayed the same . This lack of will power to change the structure by both Democrats and Republicans lies with the fact that the 1% want to keep things the same for the very wealthy 1%, if we are going to have real change we should start by balancing the scales.

    I also am now going to call you naive for screaming fire about a Republican landslide this fall. This being said anything is possible as I do not predict the future and neither do you. Most of the really reliable polling data shows that people hate Republican policy and wedge issues are having less effect.  Just looking at census data tells us that Republicans are a dying breed of old white men. Since they have a limited time and they know it, it comes as no surprise that they are trying to get as much done as they get pushed out. But what is also happening is that the money is also shifting sides to maintain control.

    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/12786-focus-the-coming-obama-landslide 

    • http://allthingsdemocrat.com/ Doug Marquardt

      Thanks for the credit, Petedutro, but I didn’t write this post. ;-p

      I find it interesting that OWS is free to attack anyone with any language they see fit because they feel they have been wronged and that makes them righteous. But when we reply to the hateful speech we’ve heard since day one, we are “naive”, “childish”, etc. You talk a good game regarding freedom of speech, but are awfully quick to shut it down.

      Btw: I see by our site stats that most of you came to this post via a post in Cindy Sheehan’s facebook page, specifically from the post on Roseanne Barr’s nomination for president for the Peace and Freedom Party? Seriously? Please tell me OWS is not promoting this. Nader – I can understand, but Roseanne Bar is remembered for her rendition of the National Anthem at a ball park that she followed by grabbing her crotch and spitting.

      The “really reliable polling” sounds like Republican-speak when they, and you, don’t want to believe the polls so they cherry pick the ones that fit their agenda.

      Here’s the election breakdown as I see it. There are roughly 40% of the electorate in the Democratic base and 40% in the Republican base. That leaves 20% of independent voters. This has been the breakdown for decades and OWS has only affected a few percent of the indy vote. Typically, independents are centrist, moderates who are turned off by the extremism in both parties. I estimate about a third of that 20% are OWS members and the other two-thirds are as turned off by OWS extremism as the extremists in the two parties. The non-OWS indies are being swayed toward Dems by the ongoing Republican War on Women. However, the Brennen Institute estimates over 10 million minority voters could be affected by GOP voter suppression laws, and we all know that minorities vote overwhelmingly for Dems. So that indy vote is pretty much a wash. OWS won’t vote for Dems or Repubs, so that vote is also a wash – in this election (you can’t get anyone on the ballot in any state, and not many states allow write-ins). So its going to come down to a battle of the bases. The presidential race will be very close and likely won’t be decided until days later. However, the Tea Party/Republicans will make gains in Congress, which will ultimately end up more extremist because of the Republican incumbents that were “teabagged” in the primaries.

      End result will be a Democratic President who can veto extremist legislation from Congress, or a Republican President who will pass everything that crosses his desk, as Dubya did with a Republican majority from 2000 to 2006. You can poo-poo it by calling it “fortune telling”, but its simple planning and strategy based on past and current events. And yes, you can be sure I’ll come back to my “prediction” after the election to see how close I came to the final results.

      Now, I’d love to banter with you forever but I need to move on to other things. But please enjoy discussing this further without me. And thanks to all for the passionate debate!