Would OWS endorse (or help elect) a candidate in 2012 that reflects their values?

[RiverStone]

From what I can gather, OWS is generally staying away from associating with a political party. Yet in 2012, I wonder if local OWS movements would put their muscle behind a candidate that really speaks for the 99% and gets it.

The only major political figure I have seen actively embrace OWS themes was former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, who attended this OWS gathering/protest (see video link below). Not to debate the merits of what he said here, but please let me know if I have left out a bigger name who has gone as far as Jesse did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qy6I1xQ7l4

If OWS were to bring out candidates that strongly support legislation aimed at breaking the banks or taking $$$ out of elections, I would think shifting some of the OWS energy to electing them would make sense.

What do you think?

[NightWatcher]

1. The OWS is saying that the system is corrupted and broken

They dont want to participate in a broken system.

I dont understand why people cant get that through their heads. They dont want to play the DC reindeer games, they want to point out that the SYSTEM IS BROKEN

[jaxx]

2. The system can't be fixed by avoiding it.

Voting is the only way to get any kind of change.

[Edweird]

34. There are other ways to get change. We are at a point now where it's clear that things WILL change.

The lesser of two evils bullshit is done.

[RiverStone]

3. Ok - the system is broken --- but can we change it without voting?

How do you suggest we legislate change (that actually happens) without new legislation? The system was badly broken before the Civil Rights Act, and thankfully we voted to fix it.

[NightWatcher]

6. when your car is broken/FUBAR, you stop changing the oil in it.

It's time to get a new car, not keep changing the oil in it.

You cant effectively "legislate change" in a broken system that is corrupted by money. DO you think that those in power with money would vote to give up their power or their money?

[RiverStone]

10. So you are opposed to electing people that are NOT corrupted by corps?

There are people out there that are not beholden to corporate greed, but we need to elect them!

Think Bernie Sanders.

When you say ---"get a new car" --- what are you talking about? How will this new car be driven into place?

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. You *can* do it.

It's been done.

You just have to be willing to kill people, and get people killed.

They're called 'revolutions'. And a lot of people think they're in favor of one.

[jaxx]

9. That's not the way OWS should go.

It would be the worst thing to happen.

[RiverStone]

14. WTF? Are you talking about armed militias offing the opposition?

Kill people?!

The heart of OWS is about non-violent resistance.

It was this attitude that took-over the Occupy Portland Camp. Mostly angry young men that had no fucking clue what OWS stood for (when asked), they just wanted to smash heads. Like a video game...

[Davis_X_Machina]

17. Dude, check out the avatar....

...I'm a Democratic Socialist. I love the ballot. We split from the revolutionary Socialists over a hundred years ago, over whether Alexandre Millerand should enter the Waldeck-Rousseau cabinet.

But there are people here, and in the streets, who have pre-rejected that path. Romantic adherents, if we're lucky to a notional Revolution that history hasn't yet provided, and isn't going to provide. Or adherents to worse, and darker, things.

And that worries me.

[RiverStone]

20. So your trashing the ballot, and have no plans on using yours?

Minus a violent overthrow of the government, I still have not heard how you expect things to change Davis? There are plenty of LOCAL folks who do get it, and can be the change --- IF we elect them! Eventually, it will transform nationally - but it has to start someplace.

[Davis_X_Machina]

22. Read much?

"I'm a Democratic Socialist. I love the ballot."

[RiverStone]

25. Then please clarify...

Upthread you said:

It's been done.

You just have to be willing to kill people, and get people killed.

They're called 'revolutions'. And a lot of people think they're in favor of one.

This does not sound like voting to me....:shrug:

[mythology]

35. I read it as opposed to revolution

When the poster said "a lot of people think they're in favor of one" it sounds like the poster is saying that people who don't have any real idea of the actual violence involved sometimes regard revolutions with a romantic tint. But once they understand the violence inherent in a revolution they would probably change their mind.

[RiverStone]

36. Your read could be correct as well...

I have found that without the benefit of voice inflection (live conversation), that the only way to get clarity on questions is to play ping pong on a thread until we reach understanding.

In almost all cases, I have found this to be successful.

Thanks for sharing mythology. :hi: We'll see if the poster adds to your perspective.

[jaxx]

8. I think we can make the wants known, and do some things

like moving money from the big banks. But to get real change we need to vote out the people in congress who are anti-progress and replace them with Democrats. That takes votes.

OWS has brought awareness, it has done a great job of that. But awareness needs to be turned into good legislation or it will not bring the change wanted.

[RiverStone]

15. rec this!

:hi: Yes!!!

[pnwmom]

4. Then they don't care if it changes. You can't fix a broken system by yelling that it's broken.

[sufrommich]

12. Then what is the point? Anybody who actually believes

that the vast majority of Americans are the least bit interested in political change by any means other than elections is dreaming, there is no groundswell out there for "revolution".I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who support Ows feel the same way.A desire to get money out of politics and a fairer tax system are what started OWS,I doubt that has changed among the majority of protesters.

[Arctic Dave]

37. Exactly. Not only is is broken but is almost completely irrelevant to the average

person. Unless you have money, the political system doesn't care about you.

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. Why would they endorse? The choice is between the bullet and the ballot...

...and they rejected the ballot ex ante.

That leaves them in their present corner.

[jaxx]

11. Bullets aren't an answer to anything.

Votes speak.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. We've already been assured...

...on this very thread that voting solves nothing. So what's the tertium quid?

[jaxx]

16. Whoever said that is wrong.

Voting is the way to get things done. Staying home is the way to allow the broken system to flourish, like we saw in 2010.

There is no third option.

[Davis_X_Machina]

19. I don't think that position carries...

...more than a plurality here. Perhaps not even that. Certainly not a majority.

[jaxx]

21. Probably not.

But it's the truth. If anyone who thinks sitting out an election and not realizing what that House majority by the pubs has done.......they just aren't paying attention.

[PETRUS]

23. There are other options.

Voting (without other forms of civic participation) does not work. Nor does staying home, nor does complaining.

Large scale civil disobedience that makes business as usual impossible can force change; authorities try to adapt rather than letting things grind to a halt. Public pressure in the form of protesting combined with that level of noncompliance (or the threat of it), coupled with active participation in the candidate selection process and general election politics is likely to yield better results than using any one tactic to the exclusion of all others.

[RiverStone]

27. Good point. And from I witnessed in person at Occupy Portland...

And this was after 3 visits to the camps and numerous protests.

Was maybe 1/3 share your view of combining civil disobedience, coupled with active participation in the candidate selection process.

The majority of people I spoke with are ANTI voting in any way, because they think all the voting machines are rigged and their vote is worthless. In fact, many of the young people I spoke with were not even registered to vote!

Not saying my observation is generally correct across the country --- just my personal experience in downtown Portland Oregon.

[PETRUS]

29. It's not too different at Zuccotti

Trouble is, it's a long road no matter what. Lots of people want significant change now, and some seem convinced that's possible.

(Edit for a PS: I don't think it's crazy to be worried about whether our votes are being counted accurately.)

[Edweird]

32. 2006 and 2008 got us no hope and change for the worse. 2010 was the reaction to that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. voting will not make ANY significant difference in itself unless you change the political discussion

The New Deal only become possible after agitation in the streets created a political climate in which politicians paid attention to the demands of labor and it became possible to vote into office politicians who would carry through those demands - something respectable politicians would not do at an earlier time before the political culture had changed. The civil rights movement did not begin with voter registration drives. Voter registrations drives only became relevant after mass action created a political culture where it became possible to elect politicians who would carry forward the demands of the civil rights movement - something respectable politicians would not do at an earlier time before the political culture had changed. And most certainly the gay rights movement did not begin with voter registration drives - Voting only became relevant after agitation and resistance created a political climate in which politicians paid attention to the demands of the gay rights movement and it became possible to vote into office politicians who would would carry through those demands - something respectable politicians would not do at an earlier time before the political culture had changed.

Both political parties are now utterly dependent on the financial support of Wall Street interest. If one is actually serious about wanting to break this stranglehold the financial industrial holds over both political parties - it is most certainly not going to happen and respectable politicians are not going to willingly cut-off their own supply of dependable financial support that they really do need in order to get elected - until the political culture changes and public demand forces a situation where respectable politicians have no choice but to break from the stranglehold the financial industry holds over both political parties.

Already only a few weeks into this great new movement something is happening - The issues of Wall Street's stranglehold over government as well as the issue of vast income disparity has moved from the fringes only voiced by the ravings of leftist and malcontents into the mainstream of political discussion. This is truly incredible. But to break the stranglehold that Wall Street holds - and to make it EVEN POSSIBLE to vote for politicians who will address income disparity, economic injustice and corporate control - will require more than voting for politicians with their latest slick sound bites, platitudes and talking points. What is happening now may very well be the beginning of something that can change the political culture and MAKE IT ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to vote for politicians who will actually address the issues of income disparity, corporate control and the stranglehold of the financial industry.

[RiverStone]

24. Glad you see the path to progress ends with voting, and I agree...

Making the vote reflect the OWS values does necessitate a change in the political culture. Getting corporations out of politics will be huge, but it starts with the 99% doing all we can not to BUY into it. That includes where we shop, what we watch on TV (if anything), and who we elect.

[firehorse]

26. anyone who wants to bring up ideas of hierarchy in this movement doesn't get the movement

Or they are someone who is aligned with the 1%.

The 1% wants the movement to have a leader and to endorse a leader because if they have a leader the leader that leader can be controlled or bought or beaten down by those with power.

The dumb tea baggers made the mistake of endorsing leaders and it contributed to the demise of their lame movement as it divided them and fractured their movement to powerless. One leader thought it was smartest to align with the republicans when the other leader wanted to remain a 3rd party. The OWS is not about repeating past mistakes that don't work, why would they imitate the failure of the tea baggers by engaging in the slippery slope of looking for leaders.

OWS has also learned that voting for Obama didn't save Americans. No leader can be any party's savior. The system is rigged, the votes are bought, a huge chunk of congress is either the puppets for the 1% or they are a part of the 1% themselves.

The success of the movement is that it has no leader. It was brilliant when one of the occupied movements nominated a dog to be their representative.

Thinking in terms of old fashioned regressive ways is not progressive.

[RiverStone]

31. Leaders (for now) are still elected

I don't see how, despite all the good that's happened to shift attitudes and awareness via OWS --- that real change can happen by NOT voting? We need to get the wingnuts off the SCOTUS! You could surround the White House with a million protestors, and the SCOTUS will still be beholden to the corporate class until our elected leaders replace them.

[madrchsod]

28. i hope not......

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[RiverStone]

33. WTF are you talking about!?

What bullshit.

Been on DU for over 5 years! Looking at my stats - about 6,700 posts.

The mods do a great job of weeding out plants.

Whatta want, DU to walk in lockstep like the pukes! Please tell me, what type of paid "plant" and for whom do you think I am?