Don't 'Occupy the Democratic Party' -- Four Lessons From the Populist Movement

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/153354/don%27t_%27occupy_the_democratic_party%27_--_four_lessons_from_the_populist_movement/

The public understands correctly that Wall Street’s financial elites dominate politics. How else can we account for the fact that the financial sector was rewarded for gambling our economy into debt and killing 8 million jobs in a matter of months?

At the same time, wages are stagnant, benefits are being cut right and left, public sector workers are under attack, and unemployment remains above 8 percent. No wonder Americans believe that both parties are beholden to the 1 percent.

To be sure, the 99 percent framework, so magnificently popularized by Occupy Wall Street, will be deployed by just about everyone to energize the base. Yet, we’re hearing arguments that Occupy Wall Street should occupy the Democratic Party. George Lakoff, for example, writes:

Whatever Occupiers may think of the Democrats, they can gain power within the Democratic Party and hence in election contests all over America. All they have to do is join Democratic Clubs, stick to their values, speak out very loudly, and work in campaigns for candidates at every level who agree with their values. If Occupiers can run tent camps, organize food kitchens and cleanup brigades, run general assemblies, and use social media, they can take over and run a significant part of the Democratic Party.

George, get real! It’s not going to happen. Nor should it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Joning the establishment is not the way to get rid of the establishment. K&R

[Kahuna]

6. Get rid of the establishment and replace it with________? Please fill in the blank.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Maybe we could try democracy rather than the current oligarchy.

I think it might work. You?

[Kahuna]

26. Has it worked thus far?

[frazzled]

19. Apparently, with 99% clubs

It wasn't very clear. It sounds kind of like the Boy Scouts. Nice idea, but I don't see how Wall Street is going to cower in front of that.

We need laws to curb the transgressions of banks and financial institutions. If the goal, as the writer states, is to get Wall Street to cede its wealth and power ... well, excuse me, that's not going to happen unless it is wrested from their cold, grasping hands. Clubs aren't going to make them cede their wealth (and to whom?).

Oh well, maybe this will coalesce into something more substantive some day. In the meantime, I agree that taking over from inside the Democratic Party is not the answer: the minute the Tea Party took that tactic in 2010 they became the enemies themselves. You hardly hear about them any more, and I expect many of them will lose their seats in 2012. They have managed to obstruct just about everything in the government this past year, but obviously that is not the answer. They were unable to actually PASS anything.

I don't know what the answer is. But I'm pretty sure it has to do with making sure that laws are enacted.

[Kahuna]

25. You are correct. The establishment did not and will not cower because of protests.

It would take something like the French Revolution to make them change their ways, and they aren't afraid of that happening either.

[jwirr]

22. Unfortunately that is the lesson we should have learned from the 60s. We wanted to get rid of the

establishment also. We never did decide what we were going to replace it with and for that reason we did not get rid of it - only slowed it down for a bit and then ignored it while it became what it is now.

[Kahuna]

24. Ah the 60s. I remember it well. As Vietnam died down and the student protestors graduated,,

they realized they needed to find jobs. One by one they acquiesced to the "establishment," cut their hair, bought Brooks brothers suits, Arrow shirts and wing tips, entered the working class and became the establishment. I have no reason to believe the same thing won't happen now.

[jwirr]

30. That is what I am afraid of. And by the way all of us did not desert the cause. some of us stayed

true to our values. Just not enough of us.

[EC]

12. No not JOIN them

infiltrate them.

[Kahuna]

27. I hate to break it to you but the protestors of the 60s became the establishment. I have no

reason to believe the same thing won't happed again.

[Zorra]

2. Highly recommend.

Very thoughtful piece.

[boston bean]

3. I say occupy them

in this way...

Make them fear the loss of their office more than they fear losing the $$ of Wall Street.

Social Change, Populism, Protest, Sit ins, Shut downs, and if all else fails.... those who refuse to make a change for the people will be responsible for what might come next. Look back in history to determine what that may be. And I'm not talking about revolution, look back at the fight labor had in this country with fat cat wall streeters.

[brooklynite]

17. In order to "make them fear the loss of their office" you have to engage in the political process...

Last time I checked, that's the only way to decide who "wins" and who "loses" and office.

[Bragi]

4. I agree with Lakoff

You cannot be serious about using politics to achieve power if you decide to ignore the fact that the country you want to change is a constitutional democracy.

To pretend that the America of today is like Tsarist Russia is ridiculous.

[Viva_Daddy]

5. Yes, look at history.

A third party has never won a national election. They have only served as a "spoiler". There have been successes at the local and State level and that's the way to build a movement and will also serve to influence the national political parties. I'm all for that.

Sorry, it takes time to build a movement. There is no "quick fix". I'm afraid we are stuck with having to vote for the "lesser of two evils" for some time to come.

Organize and be active locally. Build it up from the bottom. We CAN influence the Democratic party as the Tea Party has influenced the Republican Party, but NOT by trying to run national candidates on ANY third party ticket.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. The "third party" Republicans came into being in 1854 and won in 1860.

The two establishment parties were the Whigs and the Democrats.

[Jim Lane]

16. That was before the current primary system, and that makes ALL the difference.

Both the Whigs and the Democrats had entrenched party leaders who were afraid to rock the boat by opposing slavery. The growing abolitionist movement had nowhere to go, electorally, except to start a new party.

If the same situation arose today, there would be abolitionist candidates challenging the incumbents in Whig Party primaries. As antislavery sentiment grew, the proslavery Whigs would either be defeated or would switch sides to save their own political careers.

There've also been other relevant changes that tend to preserve the two-party system, such as the federal financing available to the two major-party nominees.

The big difference, though, is primaries. The author of the linked article gives no reason to reject the obvious course of mobilizing support within the Democratic Party. If there are enough votes to win the general election as a third-party candidate, then there are enough votes to win the Democratic primary and then to win the general election on that ballot line.

[saras]

10. That's a problem. Fix it, don't make people live with it. Because we won't.

The two-party system has failed, and no one is proposing anything with any hope of fixing it.

Proportional representation, multiple parties, runoff or second choice elections. Then, if the Democratic party can come closest to representing the peoples' values, more power to them.

[me b zola]

21. The rise of a third party forced FDR to govern from the left

There would not have been a New Deal if it were not for the rise of the communist party and other progressives putting pressure on the status quo.

[randome]

8. If not by politics, then by armed insurrection.

Do you really believe Society can be changed by insisting it does? Do you think corporations will change their ways because we make the people who run them embarrassed?

It won't happen. The only 2 ways I see for fundamental change is by one of the two processes in my subject line.

If you disagree, then I would like to hear what other alternatives you think exist.

[xchrom]

11. the civil rights movement changed america by insistence.

the people demanded change -- it took a number of years -- but it happened.

it's happening again.

[EC]

13. And many of them became

Democrats to change things and many Democrats joined the Civil Rights movement.

[randome]

14. That energy was directed at the politicians.

The people who actually make the laws that change Society.

If OWS doesn't want to be political, its adherents are essentially giving up.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. It also involved changes to existing laws

and leadership from various politicians and other leaders in order to achieve. It wasn't like one day, racists in the south just decided to start playing "nice" with African-Americans.

[brooklynite]

18. Let me dust off my College Thesis on the role of Third Parties in American Politics...

In the 1880's the Populist Party movement developed in the Plains and Southern States, out of a belief that both the Democratic and Republican Parties were too beholden to the the Industrialists. Rather than "give up" on the political process, it organized at the local level to elect State and Congressional officials. At its height (1897-1899), over 20 House members and five Senators were Populist-elected. In the 1896 Presidential Election, the Democrats shifted left to appeal to Populist voters and ran William Jennings Bryan on a pro-populism platform.

[frazzled]

20. You forgot one thing

William Jennings Bryan lost (to Republican McKinley).

The Democratic Party's repudiation of the Bourbon Democrats (their pro-business wing, represented by incumbent President Grover Cleveland), set the stage for 36 years of Republican control of the White House, interrupted only by the two terms of Democrat Woodrow Wilson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1896

Yes, this populist movement did succeed in moving Democrats to the left (even if it put them out of power, so being left wasn't very meaningful), and influenced later Democratic Party initiatives. But I wonder just how much you can apply lessons from the 1880s to times more than 130 years later.

[applegrove]

23. If the Occupy movement joins the democratic party, it will alienate the democrats from moderates by

Last edited Fri Dec 16, 2011, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)

radicalizing democrats. And alienate the OWS movement from moderates. OWS will no longer be about the 99%. But the GOP will be thrilled.

[Kahuna]

28. Sad but true. nt

[T S Justly]

29. This war on Fascism needs multiple fronts and many allies. K&R (nt)