Prediction: The May 1st "general strike" is going to be an enormous flop.

[TheWraith]

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure I'll get called a capitalist imperialist running dog lackey for this. But I'm right. There's a good reason that you can count the number of general strikes in the US in the last century on one hand and still have fingers left over--it's a practically nonexistant phenomenon, and pretending that you can summon one out of thin air would be funny if it weren't so egomaniacal.

And this is, pretty much, why I have so little tolerance for the fringe people, the third-partiers, the revolutionaries, the Naderites, etcetera, etcetera. If they had bothered to study history, they would know that what they want to try has been tried, and failed, and tried again, and failed again, ad nauseum. But every generation, somebody comes around with the idea that they really know better than every other person who's ever tried to make a difference in the history of the world.

There's a good reason that King said that the moral arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice. It's because he knew that real, lasting change is accomplished the same way it always has been: with determination and a chisel, not outrage and a machete.

[Fumesucker]

1. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revoluton inevitable” -JFK

[tledford]

11. As true now as it was then, and the latter of the two is overdue. eom

[MineralMan]

72. Those who seek violent revolution

rarely actually fight in that revolution. After it's over, they become the next batch of dictators. "Let's you and him fight!" is not a valid slogan.

[LadyHawkAZ]

65. Those who are able to convince a majority that peaceful revolution

is either possible, effective or the only moral alternative, can delay that revolution indefinitely. Rulers will only cave to a peaceful revolution if they fear what the mob will do when it stops being peaceful. Our leaders aren't afraid of us; they have no reason to be. If we were going to revolt, it would have happened during the Dubya years.

I agree with the OP. This will likely make one news cycle and then be written off as a failure.

[Fumesucker]

70. Violent revolution is so messy..

And ends up so badly so often.

The Cheney regency could be written off as an aberration, seeing the same patterns continue on into a second Obama term is going to bring more and more anger..

Of course the M$M is going to downplay anything to do with OWS, they have their marching orders from the .001%..

[former9thward]

2. Good points but I don't know that MLK was correct.

He may have been too optimistic.

[bluestate10]

213. The statement that Martin Luther King made was distilled from ages of history.

Down through the ages, gross injustice has given way to justice and fairness. The universe is such that injustice can't prevail against time and the forces of change.

[former9thward]

219. As a student of history I certainly don't agree with your analysis.

There is no evidence to back it up. Or at least just as much evidence on the other side.

[Ken Burch]

226. That doesn't mean, though, that Dr. King was ok with gradualism

You do recall, I assume, that one of his most famous essays was entitled "Why We CAN'T Wait".

If the Civil Rights movement had acted the way the OP wants progressives to act now, we'd never have won the 1964 Civil Rights Act OR the Voting Rights Act-and NOTHING short of either of those could possibly have been worth a damn.

Gradualism is immoral when it comes to ending oppression. It's meaningless to lose your chains if they have to be cut off your skeleton by your great-great-great grandchildren.

[badtoworse]

3. I agree. If it gets 5 minutes on the evening news, I'll be amazed.

[pinboy3niner]

8. I'll bet you $10K it will make the news :)

Marches and other actions are scheduled in more than 135 cities. In L.A. alone there will be a major rally downtown, an immigrants' rights march, an Occupy Our Homes rally, an evening rally, and more.

The annual immigrants' rights marches and protests alone always get media coverage.

(Just kidding about the bet. That was just my RMoney impression. )

[Marr]

121. So what?

When did organizing turn into a game of 'attract the cameras'?

[badtoworse]

157. It has to do with getting your message out

[Marr]

175. Getting your message out is important.

But it's not everything. A lot of organizing is about building community, establishing ties and solidarity, etc. That's the bulk of it, in fact.

[Ken Burch]

141. So you agree with The Wraith and want us all to give up.

That's what politely lobbying legislators and settling for increments means...it means surrender.

Gradualism isn't change at all.

[hack89]

142. Turning OWS into an ideological purity test isn't going to change anything either.

looks like OWS supporters are just as happy attacking erstwhile supporters like 99% Spring as they are the real enemy.

[badtoworse]

156. How about defing some specific objectives?

How about orgainizing politically and running candidates for office? How about not protesting violently? How about defining an identity that goes beyond "We're against income inequality and political corruption"? OWS hasn't done any of those things and as a result, they've fallen off the radar screen and I doubt very many are paying attention. Worse, it appears that the movement is spliiting into factions as different agendas try to coopt the movement.

I'm against political corruption and unfair distribution of income as much as anyone. If you can't specifically identify the objectives that will fix those problems, the demonstrations are a waste of time. Assuming the objective were identified, without representation in Congress committed to the cause, they will not become a reality. Give the Teabaggers credit - they were effective. It will be interesting to see how their caucus does this time around.

From what I've seen so far, OWS has been an ineffective anomoly. When they were novel, people watched out of interest, but today seems like more of the same and IMO, the public is bored with them. Sorry, but I think OWS had an opportunity and blew it.

[Ken Burch]

228. Has "99% Spring" done any of those things?

BTW...Elizabeth Warren's Senate candidacy IS based on the ideas of Occupy.

[backscatter712]

154. Not surprising since the corporate media's biased against us.

Half a million anti-war protesters hold a monster rally on the Washington Mall, and the media snoozes. We hold an event in 135 cities simultaneously, and the bobbleheads call it a failure.

Six teabaggers show up to say "Keep the government out of our Medicare" and the media's fawning over them and giving them a full news cycle.

We have to have our own media.

[randome]

155. Then you'd just be preaching to the choir.

The press does not control us. OWS needs authentic, fearless leaders if it wants better screen time.

[Ken Burch]

229. Once you get a "leader", you lose the radicalism.

It just becomes about the cult of the leader...personal charisma and all that useless bullshit. And then one bullet ends it.

[banned from Kos]

4. Even if someone noticed the "strike" they won't know what they are striking for

OWS had no coherent message.

Income inequality was about all I got out of it but that is probably because that is what I wanted to hear.

[randome]

9. Have you seen what it's like on the Occupy Underground forum?

It's internecine warfare! They shout down anyone who even HINTS at doing something that is not 100% associated with Occupy and that dares to have a coherent message.

Truly not intending to besmirch anyone. I will always welcome debate and information on DU, no matter what has gone before.

[Luminous Animal]

10. Let's see...

Tomorrow in San Francisco:
1) Occupiers will meet at 7:00 AM and walk the picket line with the Inlandboatmen’s Union who have been working more than a year without a contract.

2) At 11:00 AM, Occupiers will join in solidarity and picket with janitors and retail workers at the Westfield mall.

3) Then they will join SEIU 1021 non-profit workers, librarians, nurses, social workers, and janitors rally at City Hall.

4) And there is a march to the new commune.

5) Immigrant Community Rally and March to 16th Street BART at 10:00 AM

6) Occupy the Auction at City Hall at 2:00 PM



In New York (as well as numerous marches and other events:

99 Picket Lines Midtown Manhattan; Community groups, unions, affinity groups and OWS

8am - Chase Building (NYCC) - 270 Park Ave (@48th St)
8am - New York Times Building (UAW) - 620 8th Ave (@41st St)
8am - Sotheby's (Teamsters) - 1334 York Ave (@72nd St)
8am-10am - US Post Office (Community-Labor Alliance) - 421 8th Ave (@W31st St)
8:30am-9am - NYU Bobst Library (NYU for OWS) - 70 Washington Square South (@University Pl)
9am - Paulson & Co (Strong Economy for All) - 1251 6th Ave (@50th St)
10am - Chase Branch (NYCC) - 401 Madison Ave (@48th St)
11am - ABC Studios (NABET-CWA) - 66th Street (@Columbus)
12pm-1:30pm - Investment Banker Stephen Berger (CSEA AFSCME) - 46th St @ Park Ave
12pm-2pm - Immigration Court (NMASS) - 26 Federal Plaza (Worth & Lafeyette)
1:30pm - Capital Grille (ROC-NY) - 155 E 42nd St (@3rd Ave)
2pm - Chase and Citibank (Occupy Sunset Park) - 5th Ave & 54th St (BROOKLYN)
3pm - Strand Bookstore (Strand workers) - 828 Broadway (@12th St)
3pm - Beth Israel Hospital (Workers United) - 10 Union Square East (14th St & Park Ave)
8pm - Washington Square Park Arch (Musicians 802) - Washington Square North @ 5th Ave

Looks like their actions convey a coherent message.

[bvar22]

144. Doomed I tell ya!

[CTyankee]

5. I don't think that the organizers believe it is going to be a huge deal media wise.

From what they say, it is going to be a time to re-think things in our society today. If nothing else, they will be saying "Look at what you have and couldn't it be better?" And what is wrong with that?

[Luminous Animal]

14. That is pretty much correct. It is an opportunity to support other actions beign called by allies..

unions, labor, immigrant communities, the homeless, etc. San Francisco and Oakland's Occupy activities seem focused on those issues... New York seems to keep targeting the banks (which is good, because not much has changed).

And it is an opportunity to re-connect with other Occupiers and engage with new ones. There are a lot of teach-ins scheduled.

[CTyankee]

20. We shouldn't forget the impact of the teach ins by college professors about Vietnam that

helped end the Vietnam War. They were the only ones left to speak about the realities of Vietnam and what that divided country (done by French colonialists) had done to it(as David Halberstam pointed out, the State Dept. had been "cleansed" of its leftist experts). It was pretty radical at the time and not a lot of people were listening.

But then people woke up! They listened and acted and eventually the war was over.

Today, Vietnam is one country again and they are open for tourism!. We've gone full circle.

Things change. They always do...

[randome]

23. Yes, things change.

That's why this is no longer the 60s and 70s.

[CTyankee]

146. "There is nothing new under the sun" as the saying goes.

The 60s and 70s weren't the 30s. And the people rising up is the story of mankind.

I say, expect it. And make the most of it. "If not me, who? If not now, when?"

[Ken Burch]

287. And once the Civil Rights movement was absorbed in to the Democratic Party in the early Seventies

it ceased to exist. There was no more independent antiracist organizing from the Democratic-allied groups-there was just apathy and a few press conferences with a few old preachers.

Also, I'm old enough to remember the Eighties, when Paul Kirk ordered all the progressive groups(caucuses)in the Democratic Party to be disbanded...the result was that the Democratic Party stopped supporting anything progressive and we ended up with Bill Clinton, who governed as Eisenhower with hair.

[randome]

6. Whoa. I was thinking of posting something along those lines, too.

What do you think will become of Occupiers if M1GS fizzles? Will they evolve into embittered future Republicans? I wonder, sometimes.

[tritsofme]

7. Bold prediction, lol

[socialist_n_TN]

12. That depends entirely on what you're expecting........

Last edited Tue May 1, 2012, 12:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Will it be like Europe? Not a chance. Will ther be participation? Probably a fair amount in various events.

In this country it's a way to highlight the differences in class. IOW, it's a chance to START building class consciousness for the working class.

[Morning Dew]

13. The same Dr. King who called for a general strike in support of the Memphis Sanitation workers?

[Luminous Animal]

15. I think it is both hilarious and depressing that a general strike

is being characterized as "a machete".

[randome]

19. I'd say the 'machete' part is more about the 'in-your-face' attitudes of many Occupiers.

That kind of attitude does not change laws for the better. Like it or not, our legislators are the ones who change the laws and that is where the focus always needed to be.

[TBF]

30. Yes because kissing the asses of the owners is working SO

well for the 99%. How much do the top 400 families own now - is it 40+% of the country? Keeping puckering up.

[randome]

38. I didn't say kiss their asses.

You think I'm not aware of how economically unjust this country has become? It's not going to change unless the laws change. Who makes the laws? Legislators. Either campaign against the idiots and campaign for those who will stand up to entrenched interests or camp out in public parks and call it 'protesting'.

Work to make things happen.

[TBF]

43. There are several methods - and they can happen simultaneously

the civil rights legislation came about after many years of protesting, walks, strikes - and it did follow. We work locally to get the most progressive folks we can on the ballot, and we march in the streets so the owners remember who exactly we are when they are looking at that legislation. Both are needed in my view.

[randome]

47. According to many Occupy reps, they can't happen simultaneously.

Have you seen the warfare that is Occupy versus 99% Spring organizations? An organization that says it is not affiliated with Occupy and Occupy reps go out of their way to denigrate it because it is not Occupy.

People are in denial and it's going to get worse before it gets better when more Occupiers realize they aren't getting the traction they claimed.

[TBF]

55. Well my perspective is that we can do both -

But I do understand that Occupy does not want the movement itself to be co-opted by any of the parties (and that includes the idiot Paulites). I think it's smart for them to do that. Should they also be voting - yes of course. Should they combine the two and have buttons at their marches? I would say no, but this year we'll probably see a lot of that sort of thing.

I do agree with you that folks are in denial - I only have to page through my friends/family on Facebook to see that. Low income, low information voters working against themselves because they have decided it is "cool" to be republican or their churches tell them so ... that is a real problem and it may take more than Occupy, a bourgeoisie movement at present, to get through to them. I agree with you 100% on that.

[randome]

62. If we get the government we deserve...

...then what did we do to deserve our current circle of hell?

I do not understand, either, why it is so incredibly difficult to get people to vote Democratic. It seems like a no-brainer to me. None of the elections in the past decade or so should have ever been close.

[RobertEarl]

75. why?

Why don't people vote for the Democrats more?

Because for some reason Democrats like to piss on fellow Democrats.

Just like in this thread where some are pissing on the justice and fairness seeking people who are going to strike tomorrow.

Can you believe that someone here would piss down on anyone who is doing anything to stand up for what is right? Huh, can you believe that shit?

[randome]

81. Like the way Occupy pisses on 99% Spring?

It's the arrogance of many in the Occupy movement that makes many of us wonder if the group really knows what it's doing.

[RobertEarl]

88. And what about you

Are you not arrogant? Yup. You're pissing on folks who are doing something.

And that is the answer to your question,. Because we have too many arrogant assholes in the Democratic party. Not all arrogants are assholes but some on this thread are assholes.

Do they not know what they are doing? I think they do know waht they are doing. They are being assholes.

[Luminous Animal]

108. I think this is a good article that details a few of the tensions.

http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/did-move-rip-occupy

[Tace]

199. Bravo RobertEarl!

Well said.

[Ken Burch]

207. Everybody in 99% Spring should just have joined Occupy

There was no good reason to split the movement and form a rival group.

And there's no good reason for anything claiming to represent the 99% to even look like it's allied with a political party.

Why did 99% Spring even come into existence....it has nothing to offer that Occupy WASN'T doing and it can't be more effective by working in opposition to Occupy.

It if ends up being more moderate than Occupy, 99% Spring will automatically be worthless.

Why the hell did MoveOn do this?

[Ken Burch]

227. 99% Spring pisses on OWS and the people by even existing

There was no good reason to form it as a separate group at all. Clearly 99% Spring's existence has been purely destructive as of now and that if it isn't constructive and radical at the start it can't be worthwhile later.

99% Spring was formed solely so that MoveOn could kill the movement. It was never about working for change at all.

[Ken Burch]

269. Does the 99% Spring have ANY workers or poor people in its ranks? Does it HAVE ranks?

Has the group done anything anybody has even NOTICED yet? Has it ever taken any risk or left the middle-class comfort zone?

I doubt that anybody in Van Jones group has ever slept rough or been laid off. People who have never choose moderation.

All I've seen of them is the slick ads with the tv stars. No walk has been walked yet.

Simply endorsing the Democratic Party is NOT fighting for the 99%. It takes independent action involving the dispossessed as well. And it takes the willingness to spend time in a jail cell.

[randome]

271. Be a leader.

Start a dialog with 99% Spring and see if you can answer the questions you pose.

Find common ground.

Agree to disagree.

[Ken Burch]

275. I'm willing to do that.

The big problem I have with all of this is the idea that OWS was somehow persecuting anybody who endorsed Democratic candidates. It wasn't and it couldn't. Those who say that it was seem to have OWS confused with the Korean Workers' Party or the Khmer Rouge. Groups run on anarchist principles can't oppress ANYBODY.

I hope the 99% Spring can be effective without being a tool for the Democratic Party to wipe out OWS. Whatever happens, the ONLY way we can advance an economic and social justice agenda is to preserve independent organizations who aren't beholden to any particular party. My nightmare is that 99% Spring absorbs the OWS people and then disbands on command from the party like the "Obama movement" essentially did. Is there a reason why I SHOULDN'T see that as a real possibility?

One thing that 99% Spring could do that would help a lot would be to publicly state"we don't WANT to replace Occupy". As far as I know, they haven't said that. Nor have they said, from what I've seen, that they won't let the Democratic leadership tell them what to do.

Publicly saying those two things would stop a lot of the rancor.

[randome]

277. If OWS is so powerful, then I would think they'd absorb 99% Spring.

OWS doesn't persecute people. But its spokespeople here on DU sure know how to piss people off by deriding their suggestions on messaging and tactics.

So go on and do what you're doing. You shouldn't have any reason to complain.

[Ken Burch]

278. I was trying to take a less-confrontational tone in that last post.

Do you disagree with anything I actually said within it?

It's important for the 99% Spring to make it clear that they will never be the agents of co-optation...that they won't try to bring the Occupy crowd "in line". What's wrong with expecting them to say that?

[randome]

279. It doesn't make sense, that's what is wrong with it.

Why would any organization make promises that can't even be defined? How would you define 'co-opting'? Do you think people in OWS should not be allowed to associate with any organization they choose?

What if someone in OWS decided to join 99% Spring? Their choice would mean what, exactly?

Any organization that advocates for change is going to want more people behind it. Again, if OWS is as powerful as you say, it should not be a problem for them to associate with other like-minded groups.

[Ken Burch]

283. I doubt it would mean anything.

OWS isn't a vanguardist group run on "democratic centralist" lines. All any of their members have done is to express their views...and it's reasonable for many of them to fear that the 99% Spring, in setting up as what appears to be a rival group, is a threat to the growth of the movement.

The honus is on 99% Spring to make it clear that they don't want to take over...that they JUST want to use different tactics-and, especially, that they aren't working on behalf of the Democratic Party leadership to neutralize OWS.
If they can do that, then I wish them well. If they won't do that, why should anybody in OWS trust them?

The question is...will we have the long-term survival and growth of a culture of resistance? Such a culture can ONLY grow if it isn't tied to any particular political party. The past shows us that, once any group allies to a particular party, at some point that party ends up ordering them to shut down. Once they have shut down, nothing of the resistance culture survives and the political/ideological spectrum always ends up sliding to the Right.

[Ken Burch]

288. I'll start that dialogue...but need a link.

Does 99% Spring actually have discussion forums? Or is it just what Van Jones says it is(nothing personal about Van, but we all know that single-leader groups have limited programs).

[randome]

291. No idea what 99% Spring has going for it, if anything.

I'm sure not saying they are even preferable to OWS because I don't know much about them.

But ANY group that wants change badly enough will find common ground with like-minded groups. If OWS wants to be exclusionary and distrustful of the people around it, then how can it ever capture the popular imagination? 99% Spring is part of the 99%.

The only suggestion I would have for OWS is to consider alternatives to no leaders at all. Maybe a triad of leaders. Maybe a triad of leaders chosen monthly. Anything but the current leaderless environment would be preferable.

In my opinion.

[Ken Burch]

293. Perhaps the German Green party notion of rotating spokespersons might work.

I do understand the reluctance to have particular leaders, though: It's about making sure that the movement isn't disbanded with a single bullet.

No movement ever recovers from losing its leader through assassination.

[randome]

295. I honestly don't think anyone hates OWS enough to assassinate someone.

The 1% are not afraid of OWS. You think they care if cops get into a fight with 'commoners' over public parks or protests?

Even 'Bank Day' was just a blip on the radar for them. If they lost a few millions, they have billions more.

Without leaders of some sort, I don't see OWS being as effective as its members want it to be.

On edit: MLK was assassinated and civil rights went forward.

[Ken Burch]

302. The problem is, anytime a "leader" emerges, even if OWS didn't have one now

That has ANY courage, that leader DOES end up getting killed...leaving only the weaklings, the sellouts, and the bland in their place. The result is, you get reduced to what the SCLC was in the Seventies...that is, press conferences and total irrelevance. Or you get somebody giving up and disbanding his own group, like Jesse Jackson did with the Rainbow in the early Nineties, leaving us with no activism at all. That's what "leader-based" organization does. The Nineties showed us what happens when we have a Democratic president and no grass-roots at all-we end up with a political dead zone where no gains are realized for the people at all.

I'd prefer a model in which the movement survives the loss of one person-where the leadership is from below and can't be wiped out.

[randome]

311. Since you like to look at history as an example...

...can you point me to a leaderless movement in the past that was successful?

[Ken Burch]

205. It's partly due to the fact that the Democrats had become as pro-corporate as the GOP

The only issue we can ever break working-class white folks away from the Right on is the issue of corporate power. And our party has been so focused on getting big donors that it has mostly given up on even trying to use that issue.

We need to get all Dem candidates to admit that the corporate sector is always right-wing and is always going to try to crush any REAL alternatives to what we have now. The tiny increments this administration has been permitted to achieve are all the corporate sector will tolerate without a full capital strike.

Therefore, the only way our party can build a permanent electoral majority is to stand up for those left on the outside since 1981. That means that the idea of being a "pro-business Democrat" must become as extinct as the brontesaurus.

[patrice]

131. Is it not possible in smaller occupies especially that they have been co-opted by anti-Obama

types, hence all of the divisiveness and lack of focus, TTE, "Wouldn't want to feed the Beast, you know".

You're right about it being bourgeoisie mostly. Lower economic classes just simply don't usually have the interpersonal and communication skills needed to acquire position in such a group.

Let me be clear, there are serious issues to criticize the President on; I just have to ask questions of those engaged in the criticism that I am hearing about HOW they think their solutions are to be achieved with anyone, even 3rd Party, but perhaps even most especially with 3rd partiers, other than the President. This makes me wonder if anger, destruction and defeat don't rank higher than solutions now do amongst some occupying factions and my concerns have been confirmed by hearing that saving __________________ (Earth, the Constitution, America's military, states' rights ...) will be worth the pain of destroying America's political system.

[Ken Burch]

136. Nobody on the inside is ever on OUR side.

The legislators only make change when their forced to from below.

We'd still HAVE Jim Crow if the process had been left to the insiders. And we'd still be in Vietnam, or something like it.

[got root]

79. wrong

legislatures only respond to the people when the people demand it by being in the streets en-mass.

otherwise the elite are armed to the hilt in order to maintain the status-quo, the machete line is just that, a BS line.

[suffragette]

127. "In-your-face" like the 504 protests

Those protests were exactly about changing laws for the better, in that case about "They were demanding enforcement of the first major law to bar discrimination against the disabled."

Very much in-your-face and they won.

http://www.npr.org/programs/wesun/features/2002/504/
But in San Francisco at the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, protesters didn't give up. One day turned into a second day and then a third. More than 100 disabled demonstrators stayed in the building for weeks, refusing to leave until the regulations were signed.

On April 28, nearly four weeks into the sit-in, HEW Secretary Joseph Califano endorsed the regulations. The protesters had won.


Much, much more at link.



Photographer HolLynn D'Lil wrote a poem about the image:

Through the Glass

Those who wouldn't go outside
Those who couldn't go inside
Shattered the walls.


Edited to add:
Good piece here with retrospective on the above protest and the power of people joining together to effect change:

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/departments/reflections/000499.html#bio

The San Francisco 504 sit-in did not succeed because of a brilliant strategy by a few disability leaders. It succeeded because the Deaf people set up a communication system from the 4th floor windows inside the building to the plaza down below; because the Black Panther Party brought a hot dinner to all 150 participants every single night; because people from community organizing backgrounds taught us how to make collaborative decisions; because friends came and washed our hair in the janitor's closet sink.

The people doing disability rights work in the 1970s rarely agreed on policies, or even on approaches. The successes came because people viewed each other as invaluable resources working towards a common goal.

[mythology]

16. But they had a coherent focused message and leader

Occupy doesn't and so it tends to flounder and not produce legislative change.

[CTyankee]

25. It's way too early for legislative change. The Tea Party has recently changed its focus from

local organizing to running for office. It's the way these movements morph. Occupy will do the same. Just you wait and see. They have lots of smart, savvy people just waiting in the wings. It ill happen. then we'll see...

[Luminous Animal]

26. Jeeeeeeesus. Do you know how many decades it took to produce lasting legislative change?

The 1st Civil Rights Act was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1883!

[randome]

28. So legislative change was tried early on, then.

What's Occupy's excuse for not starting the process now?

[Luminous Animal]

46. That doesn't even make sense. Congresscritters in 1875 or 76 introduced the 1st Civil Rights Act...

Last edited Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)

it passed. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. 100 years of activism, lawsuits, public awareness, etc., by citizen activists set the stage for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Hell, even though the NAACP, AFTER a 30 YEAR campaign, managed to get an anti-lynching bill in passed in the House in 1919 but the Senate defeated it.

[HiPointDem]

93. Not to mention 100 years of VIOLENCE, state violence and organized private violence, to

hold the "legislative changes" that created the US apartheid/segregation system in place. *That* was a successful "movement" for you.

Jesus christ, these posters can't be for real.

"Oooh, they're doing it all wrong! They need *leaders*! They need a clear message! They need to use a chisel and sponsor legislation like Dr King!"

[HiPointDem]

89. what a joke.

[Ken Burch]

320. What's the point in introducing legislation

That can't ever get through a corporate-owned Congress?

No good comes from introducing bills that get bottled up in committee or killed with the mere threat of a filibuster.

You have to build the pressure from below first.

[TBF]

27. Just because you don't understand flat leadership

doesn't mean it isn't working.

[randome]

31. No, 'flat leadership' means no one is in charge.

I think that's pretty well understood by everyone.

[TBF]

35. It means that there is a democratic method to making decisions -

I thought you free-market types LOOOVVVVEEEE democracy. Well, as long as you can buy the votes ...

[randome]

41. Here we go.

You assume because I'm not in lock-step with Occupy that I'm 'one of those'.

I'm not. Keep denigrating people who believe in the same things you do. It's worked so well up to now.

[TBF]

44. I can only discern from your comments -

I would love for you to prove me wrong.

[randome]

49. Not sure how I can prove that.

And I probably wouldn't, even if I could -just out of principle.

[HiPointDem]

126. does the existence of occupy prevent you from your work toward legislative change? i don't think

so.

but the only legislative change i've seen for the past 40 years is tax cuts, privatization of the public sphere, free trade agreements and the slow dismantlement of the new deal legacy.

the legacy of the sell-out of the 60s 'left'.

[randome]

152. Of course Occupy is not preventing anyone from taking other approaches.

But those other approaches, instead of being met with optimism and support, are often derided by hard-core Occupiers. How often do we hear that we MUST support Occupy because...just BECAUSE!

I support changing the system. I do not support what Occupy chose to do at the start, which was to camp out in public parks and get into fights with local police. That was a waste of everybody's time.

I could even support a general strike but I don't see anyone stepping up to inspire people to do so. Without leadership, few will pay attention.

[HiPointDem]

191. "...are often derided..." = *sob*

[randome]

193. Go to the Occupy Underground forum in Activism and you'll see what I mean.

The hard-core Occupiers absolutely HATE 99% Spring, even though 99% Spring has said it is not affiliated with Occupy.

[Ken Burch]

266. They did those tactics because the kind YOU would favor

I.E., bland, polite, suit-wearing, law-abiding demonstrations and mundane voter registration...don't work anymore. Everyone everywhere just ignores them.

Reducing the whole thing to electoral politics means giving up. That's why people joined Occupy, because they realized that electoral politics, by itself, achieves nothing-that the construction of a culture of resistance, and then a culture of victory, is what really matters.

If electoral politics by itself was of any value, Bill Clinton would have created Utopia by January 1994. See what I'm saying?

Conventional politics will always favor the wealthy and will always be pointless for the majority. Elections alone NEVER change anything.

[LanternWaste]

170. You appear to be guilty of the very thing you indict others for...

"Keep denigrating people who believe in the same things you do.."

You appear to be guilty of the very thing you indict others for...

[Ken Burch]

262. Once any Left group has a specific leader

That group always ends up diluting its agenda and making the leader's personal charisma the only thing that matters.
And it always ends up meaning that the organization dies when the leader gets killed.

Why stay with a model that doesn't work?

[randome]

264. The current model OWS has is also not working.

Having no leaders in a group of, say, thirty people means you have, in effect, thirty leaders. Talk about dilution.

[Ken Burch]

276. Depends on the group dynamic.

In most groups, the "leader" is the person who mostly keeps saying "we can't do THAT"-and if they don't do that, the police end up killing them

The SCLC had a single-person leadership under MLK. When the regime killed him, SCLC basically died.

The Rainbow Coalition had a single-person leadership under Jesse Jackson. When he said disband, the Rainbow died.

...that's why I don't trust single-person leadership structures.

[ellisonz]

21. Wins the thread.

[pinboy3niner]

36. +99%

[HiPointDem]

83. +1. now that king is dead he's the saint of the bourgies, most of whom reviled him when he was

alive.

[Marr]

122. Yep-- they promote people like MLK and Ghandi as icons of passivity and

endless patience. It's utter horseshit.

[intheflow]

118. The same Dr. King who helped organize the Montgomery bus boycott?

After all, a boycott is a consumer strike, rather than worker strike. Geesh. There's a reason why King was a community organizer, and not directly involved with party politics. OP picked the wrong leader to quote if he's rallying against grassroots uprisings.

[TBF]

17. Define "enormous flop".

Numbers? The fact that people show at all? Press?

I dunno. Unions have been decimated in this country, and I do think the effort to build them (perhaps in service professions) would be necessary in order to accomplish the types of crowds we see in Greece or Europe for example. Still, the gap between rich and poor is growing quite wide as the last remnants of the New Deal are being destroyed. Has it deteriorated enough for folks to strike en masse? We'll see.

[brooklynite]

181. Union weakness isn't an excuse...

...yes, Unions have joined Occupy in supporting the protests, and yes, there are protests around the Country, but the the call was for a "General Strike", both from work and from the economy. That in my opinion was the overreach. Coming in to work today, the trains were packed, and the lines at corporatist Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts were as long as ever. If I walk down the street to Best Buy, I have no illusions that it won't be as crowded as usual. The media reporting will be that there were protests ( and probably some police conflicts), but if the goal was to send the "1%" a message that the "99%" could withdraw its economic involvement, and was therefore a force to be reckoned with, I would have to agree that "flop" is an appropriate phrase. A key rule in politics is: don't promise what you can't deliver.

[TBF]

184. The fact that we have anyone protesting in this police state

is music to my ears. Folks can call if a "flop" but if so why did the FBI and NYPD officers attempt to coerce organizers? http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/fbi-nypd-made-visited-occupy-activists-in-advance

They wouldn't have bothered if they (and by "they" I mean our ruling class) didn't feel threatened.

As far as I'm concerned that's a big WIN.

[uppityperson]

18. I've been offline. What general strike? thanks.

[pinboy3niner]

22. LINK: May Day Directory: Occupy General Strike In Over 135 Cities

http://occupywallst.org/article/may-day/

[uppityperson]

33. Thank you, off to read it

[ellisonz]

24. Here you go:

http://occupywallst.org/article/may-day/

[uppityperson]

32. Thanks, off to read

[knitter4democracy]

29. I can't do it. I need the money.

I know that's not what the organizers want to hear, but for those of us who are hourly workers (I'm a long-term substitute teacher), it's really hard to take a day off.

My students need me there, and I need the money.

[2pooped2pop]

57. we understand that

we will stand for you when you can't and hopefully you will represent for us when you can.

[Luminous Animal]

60. Really, your situation is understood and Occupiers certainly are sympathetic...

Many people cannot afford the loss of a day's pay. And also, many people work in caretaking jobs that would pose a danger or hardship the people they are taking care of.

[knitter4democracy]

100. Thank you.

My seniors need me there for their research projects, we're steaming ahead in Shakespeare with the juniors and freshmen, and honestly, I can't take the day off.

I'm hoping to get involved with the stuff in Lansing this summer, though.

[backscatter712]

158. Do what you can.

Wear a red shirt to work for solidarity.

Or show up to a rally after work or during your lunch break.

We understand. So just do what you can. We're not saying "YOU MUST GET FIRED FOR THE CAUSE!"

[TBF]

185. Occupiers understand that better than most -

wear a red shirt, refrain from spending $$$ (which isn't hard considering the 1% is hoarding most of it). Take care and solidarity.

[Cali_Democrat]

34. So now striking is like wielding a machete?

Ummmm.....

[Zalatix]

204. So you think a strike is like wielding a machete? Well then civil disobedience must be like

wielding a nuke.

Wait, I think I hear a drone flying over{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER"

[Triloon]

37. What would it take..

What would you need to see in order to say it has not been an "enormous flop" after all? Every strike that has ever been called for, large or small, has had a peanut gallery of naysayers declaring that it cant be done and cant possibly work, ad nauseum. Please do keep tapping with that chisel, but there are more roles to be played than the one you've decided is comfortable.

[TBF]

39. +1

welcome to DU and solidarity

[pinboy3niner]

52. +2 and welcome to DU, Triloon!

[SammyWinstonJack]

96. ...

[2pooped2pop]

40. i think they know it is not going to a an actual general

strike. the unions are not ready for that and it wont happen without them. i think they are just meaning this "strike" to be more of a large protest with the supporters withholding as much of their patronage to the large corporations as possible. More of a "see us" than a total shutdown of the country. They are probably hoping to shut a few tunings down on a temp basis but I don't think they are actually expecting a general strike.

Hoping for a strong turnout I think. I don't think it has been well enough promoted for the turn out I hope for but I'm good no matter how it goes.

Maybe a google would tell.

you can try to say occupy is dead but occupy has already accomplished more than anyone or any group in decades. I suspect they will do much more.

[NoMoreWarNow]

45. I agree

and any protest has a chance of getting attention, which is the point.

[NoMoreWarNow]

42. so no point in even bothering to protest, eh?

no wonder it'll flop, when people like you have this attitude.

[MoonRiver]

48. I'm retired so I have an excuse!

[randome]

50. Um, excuse, me, retired?

That makes you one of the new and improved 1%!!!

[Luminous Animal]

51. Why did you try to insult MoonRiver?

[randome]

54. It was a joke.

Since more people these days have little to no hope of ever retiring.

[Luminous Animal]

56. Sorry about misinterpreting.

[randome]

58. Never a problem.

I would like to be retired right now so I'm just jealous!

[KoKo]

53. It's Amazing to Me....that you are Predicting! Why is this "Flop" so imortant to you?

Why would you post a FAILURE of an ACTION...before the ACTION has even begun?



Why would you do that? Why would ANYONE do that? Unless...they are looking for "failure" and want to get the "Kudo's" for the pre-announcement.

Is it about EGO? Being Correct? Some Vision you have that is WISER than the rest?

What's with that?

[randome]

61. My guess is that since Occupy claims to represent damned near everyone...

...then everyone has the right to voice an opinion about tactics and objectives.

To me, Occupy has been an educational experience. I'm not pulling your leg, I think it's been fascinating! I think many people are in denial about the prospect of affecting real change by public sit-ins. I think many people try to equate the protests of the 60s and 70s with today and I think, well I know, that today is nothing like then.

I still don't understand why more pressure is not brought to bear on the legislators who make our laws. Instead, too much effort has been expended trying to shame corporations into behaving better.

That tactic will never work. Corporations are not people and they have no shame.

[ellisonz]

67. Bunch of Gobbledygook

I still don't understand why more pressure is not brought to bear on the legislators who make our laws. Instead, too much effort has been expended trying to shame corporations into behaving better.

Voters elect the legislators and operate the corporations. Everything happens for a reason, someone wanted it to be that way! Targeting the legislators is important, but targeting the voters is even more important, and moreover, the the former is not effective without the latter.

To me, Occupy has been an educational experience. I'm not pulling your leg, I think it's been fascinating! I think many people are in denial about the prospect of affecting real change by public sit-ins. I think many people try to equate the protests of the 60s and 70s with today and I think, well I know, that today is nothing like then.

Yes, we should all shut up because it's pointless anyways. Back to the couch for more Hansens soda and Pirate Booty!

[randome]

69. Ewww. Soda?

That stuff's poison.

I'm not saying to shut up at all. I would like to see more mass protests. But I have to recognize reality, too. There should be millions of people in the streets demanding single-payer health coverage. There should be millions more demanding an end to Citizens United.

But they aren't. I'm not sure why they aren't but until something like that is good to go, I don't see any substantial changes coming our way.

Maybe, just maybe, if we can turn the House and keep the Senate, we'll have our foot in the door.

[ellisonz]

73. Umm...?

There should be millions of people in the streets demanding single-payer health coverage. There should be millions more demanding an end to Citizens United.

There are...

Maybe, just maybe, if we can turn the House and keep the Senate, we'll have our foot in the door.

And Occupy in no way formally objects to that goal...it's not a partisan movement, it's a popular movement.

I'm not saying to shut up at all.

In short, you have no point in this thread other than to crap on Occupy. What have you done for democracy lately? I'll tell you one thing having knocked on thousands of doors canvassing. What matters is not what you have to bring to say at the door, what matters is the impression the voter has already. I don't see how Occupy hurts that goal and I have not seen a good argument against Occupy other than "shut up you're ruining it for us" so nice try, but you're transparent in your bias.

[got root]

90. fail

"turn the House and keep the Senate, we'll have our foot in the door"

we had that in 08, and what did they do?

see subject line.

[got root]

84. aim at the problem, not the symptom

and the 60s/70s have nothing to do with sit-ins or public protest, it just another example of how having people in the streets en-mass works, no matter the time.

[Ken Burch]

323. But we have no hope of getting a progressive government

BEFORE corporate power is broken. As long as we have the current situation in which the 1% effectively get to set the limits on what we can choose democratically, it's futile to expect anything from Congress.

No one in politics ever defies the commands of their corporate donors. Once you get big checks from the corporate Super PAC's, you check your soul at the door. Why expect anything else?

It's the corporate sector that has to be brought down first.

[myrna minx]

71. It's a typical hit and run post.

Check the archives.

[Flying Squirrel]

59. T

ool n/t

[Taylor Smite]

63. There is a general strike planned?

I read a lot and follow the news here, but I hadnt heard there was a strike planned. If I (someone who follow the news) didnt know about this, then it is very likely that others (who dont follow the news) will not know about it.

end result = strike will fail.

[pinboy3niner]

86. LINK: May Day Directory: Occupy General Strike In Over 135 Cities

http://occupywallst.org/article/may-day/

[Taylor Smite]

92. Thanks

very much!

cheers!

[jimlup]

64. I believe a time will come when such actions will be successful...

but I agree with you but for different reasons - at the moment the American people still don't understand who their oppressors are much less what to do about it. It may be soon that they begin to awaken. The empire is dying and it isn't going to be pretty.

[cecilfirefox]

66. Couldn't agree more- Register to vote, occupy the polls. Simple solution. nt

[Odin2005]

68. If the MSM ignores it then how would most people know?

[HiPointDem]

74. not surprised you'd say so. but painting king in some kind of opposition to occupy = the

silliest thing i've seen all day.

[quinnox]

82. it is just another absurdity in the OP

As if M.L. King would be against the idea of protests and strikes to push for economic justice.

[woo me with science]

104. Oh my LORD.

[Luminous Animal]

110. Well, you know, "some say" that King was really a Republican.

An anti-war, pro-union, pro-guaranteed income kind of Republican that are so numerous these days that you can't help tripping over one on the way to the Mercedes dealership.

[pinboy3niner]

115. Obviously, MLK would have counseled caution, do not go into the streets to protest...

...because that would be dangerous, and we should never put our safety and our lives on the line for our principles.

Pardon me if my reaction to the OP is...

[got root]

76. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

you are making a very big stretch to say that they are summoning something out of thin air considering all the people in the streets the past few years, and not just here, but globally.

MLK lead people into the streets to get justice, and change. And those people were more than ready, in fact they had been in the streets first.

change is in the air, and it is not due to some slick marketing campaign exploiting that grassroots desire, it is because the people are more than ready, again, to FORCE the elite to change. and so far the elite hasn't been able to co-opt this movement.

to not recognize that the pump has been primed for over 6 decades says more about you than the facts on the ground.

BTW: One day does not make or break a movement, time is on the peoples side.

[quinnox]

77. a strike is not a violent action and is protected by our constitution

Your OP is a gigantic logic fail because of this distortion. Sounds like you would rather want to be in countries where they crack down on protests like China or something.

Also, the real power always lies with the people, there have been many many revolutions in history where "real" change is very sudden and abrupt, check your history.

[got root]

85. to the new world order it is

but they always say that.

time to wake them the fuck up again.

[oldhippie]

103. Where are strikes mentioned in the Constitution, and how .....

... are they protected by same? The PATCO union members would also probably like to know.

[white_wolf]

129. They aren't protected in the Constitution...

but they are a recognized right by law in the U.S.

[Earth_First]

78. ...and you'll be here uncontrollably cheering on it's demise the entire day!

With such contempt at what they are attempting to do, it's failure seems inevitable to you!

Congrats!

[marmar]

80. How is a general strike "outrage and a machete" ?

WTFF?

More hit-and-run stridency.

[got root]

87. yeah, it's slander by folks parroting the memes of the elite

some are so easily misled.

[HiPointDem]

95. general strike = rwandan massacre. isn't it clear? don't you agree?

[woo me with science]

123. That's the sort of rhetoric you get

from wolves pretending to be elk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014110123

[raouldukelives]

91. I'm with ya. If you want change history shows the best thing

is to sit back and wait for it to happen. I mean, really. What has ever been accomplished by a small, grass roots phenomenon? Probably just things that angered the practical people of that time frame.

[stupidicus]

94. I predict if they are arrested for nothing and die in jail cells

you'll argue fascism had nothing to do with it.

I'll also predict that all of these events planned will likely occur http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2012/04/30/occupy-wall-street-may-day-general-strike-called-in-us-other-workers-actions-worldwide/ because of the non-existent determination behind them, and that unless that "liberal" http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/media-coverage-favored-romney-over-ob http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/04/23/469075/obama-has-received-least-favorable-news-coverage-so-far-during-2012-election-cycle/?mobile=nc http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/09-5 media gives them the attention capitalist/imperialist lackeys and swine (gives them adequate enough coverage, like that's some kinda real barometer) need to shut their yappers, that it will remain an example of their non-existent determination and lack of chisels.

I'll aslo predict that if they are still around doing such 2-5 years from now, they will become synonmous with a lack of determination by those that need a dictionary.

3a : the act of deciding definitely and firmly; also : the result of such an act of decision b : firm or fixed intention to achieve a desired end <a woman of great courage and determination>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determination

[ProgressiveProfessor]

97. We are expecting minimal impact on our campus

There may be some rallies and such, but classes are going forward.

[got root]

98. which campus?

[MrSlayer]

99. Agreed.

Very few will be participating. A third of the people side with those being struck, a third is completely oblivious and of the third that do care, a minimal amount will participate. Many people simply cannot afford to take a day off and those like me have no job to take off from and no money to spend anyway.

[Nye Bevan]

101. This thread is the first I've heard of it (nt)

[Vanje]

102. You Damn Hippies, Get off my Lawn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nt

[coalition_unwilling]

105. Since you fail to define your terms ("flop" vs. "success"), this

OP is one big GIANT FAIL.

How dare you call me and my Occupy brothers and sisters 'fringe people'? We are the salt of the earth, you dumbass.

I wish we had 'Unrec' functionality back.

[limpyhobbler]

106. So what. I'm getting together and meeting up with some cool like-minded people.

That's a success in my book. We'll be bigger next year, and bigger still the year after that.

[treestar]

107. This is the first I've heard of it

And I haven't been in a cave. It does not sound well planned.

[WillyT]

109. And It Is Obvious,That That, Is EXACTLY What You Want...

Prove me wrong.

[MadHound]

111. So, in your opinion, rather than getting out in the streets, what should we do?

Work within the system? Like that's really been successful.

You know, it is people with attitudes like yours that have held up social and political progress at every turn. That you paraphrase King is outrageous, considering that King led general strikes. What have you done? Oh, yeah, opposed any movement for real change and scolding people on an anonymous internet chat board.

You just continue to amaze me more and more as the years go by.

[girl gone mad]

112. And I predict you would call it an enormous flop no matter what.

[Zorra]

113. Bwaahaahaa! Thanks for that, totally made my night as I plan for tomorrow.

I'm really ready now.

The whole country, the whole planet, has been totally fucked up by a bunch of greedy conservative assholes and they're making it worse every single day, and I can't believe I'm reading this Third Way bullshit here.

"If they had bothered to study history, they would know that what they want to try has been tried, and failed, and tried again, and failed again, ad nauseum."

"It's because he knew that real, lasting change is accomplished the same way it always has been: with determination and, etc a chisel, not outrage and a machete."

Really?

Um, I wouldn't be calling anyone ignorant of history if I were you. You'd still be singing God save the King if it weren't for radical revolutionaries (gasp, egad!) like Franklin. Jefferson, Paine, and all rest of the dedicated people that stood up against tyranny. Anyway, you ever hear of them? They're in many history books. Smart, determined BRAVE group of folks, they was, guvnuh. Occupied the whole country back in the day. Totally trashed the status quo, and improved the world quite a bit with that new fangled idea they called democracy.

Who knew?

How dare we challenge authority? Fringe people! Blah, blah, blah."

Maybe the Strike won't change the world overnight, but there's no possible way it can be more of a flop than the US Government has been over the past 32 years.

Have a great day Mayday.

I surely will.

[pinboy3niner]

114. +99%. Many of us here will also be with you in the streets for MayDay, Zorra

Other DUers and I will join together in Occupy L.A. actions downtown for M1GS.

The pathetic attempts to undermine us only strengthens our resolve.

[lonestarnot]

116. And for that reason alone, I will kick this thread!

[Luminous Animal]

117. That is a great post, Zorra...

The "guvnah" was a nice touch!

[Zorra]

237. Glad you think so, LA. Some things are just so very....

wrong...

[patrice]

119. I'm running across a pretty high incidence of "Don't feed the beast. Let it ALL crash & burn." BUT

it's not coming from General Strikers.

The fringe, the third-partiers, the "revolutionaries", the Naderites, "Anarchists", Libertarians, Anonymousites, etc. etc. etc. are sitting on the sidelines egging any and all factionalism on and on and on . . . .

You are right, Wraith, whatever pretty ideology they're selling, they're really nothing much more than "Meet the 'new' boss; same as the old boss" and I have that from the horse's mouth itself on several occasions, TTE: " _____________________ is so bad, so hopeless, so dire that it justifies destruction of the whole system. Hopefully, if we don't support or if we go (ANY) 3rd party, the system will fail so utterly soon enough that we can start over before __________________ destroys us."

I. kid. you. not.

Have you heard anything so naive in your entire life?

[Ken Burch]

135. What's the alternative

No meaningful change has ever come from telling the left to fuck off. Incrementalism ISN'T meaningful change and it only worked in the past. We're past the day when bad bills can be slowly improved. That simply doesn't happen anymore.

And none of the insiders care about the people.

[Marr]

120. Please, don't try to claim King as some kind of moderate milquetoast.

He supported-- and was actually present for-- tons of labor strikes.

[patrice]

124. I don't think OP is saying that. That long arc that King told us about requires MUCH more

than being moderate does. Heck, it can even require more than being an extremist hero does.

Pretty sure that TheWraith would agree with both of these statements and with you.

[Marr]

128. Considering he/she flatly stated that strikes don't work,

suggested that anyone who believes otherwise is some kind of fringe communist/lunatic, and went on to suggest that King wouldn't have been involved in a strike, I'm afraid I can't agree with you.

It seems more like an urging to shut-up, eat those brussel sprouts, and channel our energies into the same old political channels that are specifically designed to redirect them. And the urging is coming from someone who apparently knows jack shit about the people and ideas they're talking about.

[donheld]

125. Occupy Denver

http://huff.to/Jzpife

Occupy Wall Street activists are preparing for a nationwide series of demonstrations and are calling for a "general strike" on Tuesday, May 1st--also known as "May Day" or "International Workers' Day"--and Occupy Denver has just released its own schedule of events for the day of protest in Denver. The demonstrations could wind up being the largest seen from the OWS activists in 2012.

Beginning at 12:00 p.m. and continuing on through 9:30 p.m., the Denver occupiers have rolling teach-ins, rallies, marches, live music, performance art, spoken word poetry and much more throughout the day at Civic Center Park.

More at link.

[pinboy3niner]

130. Thanks for the opportunity to post this link to MayDay events around the country :)

May Day Directory: Occupy General Strike In Over 135 Cities:

http://occupywallst.org/article/may-day/

[pinboy3niner]

132. Oh, and my prediction: Come MayDay, this OP will be proved to be an enormous flop

[Joe the Revelator]

162. This OP was right on the money....

it would appear.....Occupy died a long time ago.

[Cali_Democrat]

203. You wish

Occupy will endure much to the chagrin of the haters.

[Joe the Revelator]

239. It has not endured in the slightest....during the winter when it died....

....everyone said 'just wait for the spring!".

Spring has come and almost gone, and Occupy did not come with it.

[Rex]

273. You must live in a cave somewhere

or just cannot admit to being wrong!

Either way it is funny as hell!

[randome]

274. What's 'funny' is you laughing at people who want to be on your side.

[Rex]

307. Oh are you sure...those OWS people could turn

into bitter Republicans.

Go sell it somewhere else.

[sabrina 1]

313. And you were proven to be correct, Pinboy. You are a far better predictor than the OP. I'll put

my money on your predictions any day!

Great photo from Canada yesterday, h/t to Girl Gone Mad:



And your photos were fantastic. Are you going to put up an OP? If so, PM me so I do not miss it!

[Ken Burch]

133. Look, you've always had your cards on the table.

Your entire agenda here is to silence the left and to get everyone to settle for victory in name...to accept the defeatist strategy that tiny changes matter.

And you KNOW perfectly well that Dr. King would be supporting Occupy if he still walked the earth. King never told the progressive majority to settle for incrementalism.

And the alternatives to what people like Occupy call for haven't been worth anything. Slight change is just the status quo with different wording.

[Ken Burch]

134. Why don't you just admit your're essentially a conservative and be done with it?

There's no real difference between conservatism and incrementalism. Both are about stopping change in its tracks.

Slight change isn't change at all. Half-a-loaf victories aren't really victories at all. They just get washed away in the backlash tide and never lead to anything else.

[hack89]

143. So not supporting OWS = RW? Really? nt

[bahrbearian]

153. Trashing OWS is what the RW does.

[hack89]

159. "Trashing" is in the eye of the beholder

sometimes it appears that any criticism of OWS, no matter how constructive, is considered "trashing". Not everyone is comfortable being forced into lockstep conformity with no room for dissent, no matter how minor.

[Joe the Revelator]

161. Following ineffectual stupidity is what the RW does....thinking for ourselves is what the left is

known for. OWS is a complete joke.

[bahrbearian]

164. So how left are you? Obama left, Pelosi,left. Not really left are they.

Wars , Banks , Extending tax cuts, For profit Health Ins. , those are right wing Ideas, thats not really thinking.

[socialist_n_TN]

232. This is a question our "relativistic" leftists NEVER answer.......

Where they stand on POSITIONS. Some folks THINK they're "left" when they vote for Obama. Or Pelosi. Because the MSM TELLS them that they're "left" for voting for those guys. And that's all they have. And that's giving them the benefit of the doubt of no other nefarious motives.

I'm a fucking fundamentalist Bolshevik. I'm left. Compare yourself with me before you consider yourself "left".

[bahrbearian]

233. Does Marxist count?

[white_wolf]

236. Half the people on this forum who call themselves leftists...

are really right-wingers, they just don't realize it.

[Ken Burch]

169. Dissing OWS is...telling people that OWS isn't worth shit is.

Because those that do that aren't doing anything to work for change on their own. None of the people who diss OWS are interested in real change, because change ISN'T incrementalism or gradualism. Slight change isn't change at all.

OWS people recognize that the work may take years-it's just that the also recognize that half-loaves aren't victories and that half-loaves now can't be made into full loaves later.

[randome]

172. I believe Hack89 has done a lot in Wisconsin during the current 'difficulties'.

So I wouldn't use such a broad brush if I were you. Criticism is part of a discussion forum.

[Ken Burch]

201. criticism, yes...dismissal, not so much.

The criticism needs to be about making the movement better...not saying that the whole thing is pointless.

[bluestate10]

216. The ones that want war are neocons that ran for deferments when the time to fight

was at hand. DU has neo-progs that are ready to burn anyone that don't agree with them at a stake, regardless of how much those people contribute to real progressive causes, no matter how many concrete results those people accomplish.

[hack89]

186. Is 99% Spring right wing? nt

[Ken Burch]

202. Those who built the 99% Spring should just have joined Occupy

It isn't pursuing a radically different strategy from Occupy, as far as I know.

Why did they have to choose a name that confused the issue and at least made it look like they were trying to coopt Occupy's agenda? Clearly, an Occupy-like group that is tied to the Democratic Party(and I say this AS a Democrat)can't possibly be credible.

The ads they did look great...but those should have been Occupy ads. That's why there's the blowback from OWS...not because the 99% Spring ideas are bad(they're Occupy's ideas, after all)but because it looks like MoveOn created it to KILL Occupy.

Would you at least agree that there was no good reason to split the movement this way?

[hack89]

245. There does not appear to be a place in OWS for those of us that

support partisan politics. I won't leave the Democratic Party to support OWS.

[Ken Burch]

247. There are a lot of people who support specific parties within Occupy

But Occupy doesn't impose a line on that on everyone in the group...and, since Occupy is basically run on nonviolent anarchist principles, they can't give impose such a line.

Occupy can't actually force anyone within its ranks to do anything. They can't MAKE you quit the Democratic Party.

Those that want to work for the party can still do so. Just not in the name OF Occupy. Isn't that enough?

I suspect that your real grievance here is that Occupy won't make working FOR the Democratic Party their exclusive focus. IF they did that, they would have no reason to exist as a distinct group, they'd never make any worthwhile proposals, and they'd never work for anything OTHER than the Obama platform. Occupy HAS to be independent as a group to matter. As a formally pro-Democratic group, they'd have to stop talking about inequality at all. They'd have to stop talking about corporate power at all. They'd be forced to toe the Bernanke-Geithner-Summers line.

Only groups not specifically tied to the Dems or any OTHER party can truly work for the economically dispossessed. If you don't believe me, look at what happened to the "Obama movement"...you know, the one that no longer exists because the admin basically ordered it to disband. That's what will happen to the 99% Spring if it puts re-electing Obama first and expects everyone in the group to focus ON re-electing Obama.

And the problem with the 99% Spring, well intentioned as many of those who work within it may be, is that it looks like MoveOn and the Dems formed it to REPLACE Occupy. If Occupy is replaced by a group that's obedient to the party(and alliance with the party equals obedience), the movement dies.

Look at the 1960's Civil Rights movement-if the Kennedy/Johnson Administration had had its way, the Freedom Rides, the mass protests, and Mississippi Summer would NEVER have happened. Bobby Kennedy was demanding that the Civil Rights activists stop all activities and "wait until after the election"-which would have meant giving up, forever. Waiting until after the election ALWAYS means giving up. And if they had done what the Dem insiders wanted, we'd still HAVE Jim Crow...because all our party leaders cared about was not pissing off the South. Thank god the movement was independent. If it weren't, it would have been forced to settle for nothing.

[hack89]

249. Well, you just put your finger on why OWS has some competition.

pissing all over those of us that support the Democratic Party and work hard to elect Democrats is a great way to grow OWS.

[Ken Burch]

251. I support the Democratic Party and I wasn't pissing on you.

That doesn't mean I think Occupy should. We both know that Occupy would become irrelevant if it did, that it couldn't speak about inequality and social justice if it was formally aligned with the party.

There's a difference between saying "it's fine for individuals to work for progressive Dem candidates" and saying "Occupy should endorse the Obama-Biden ticket". Obviously, Occupy couldn't have any principles of its own if it formally endorsed the Democratic Party. You know that as well as I do.

Clearly no group can formally endorse a party and still work for its OWN principles. That's what endorsement means-toeing the line and doing what you're told.

Can you understand the distinction I'm making here?

[WinniSkipper]

195. Is this contradictory?

Hi Ken

I'm sure you see my low post count - but I am asking for clarification of your points rather than trying to be an ass.

When you say slight change is not change, are you saying that OWS wants an "all or nothing" solution? That there are no incremental goals or targets? I do not follow OWS as closely as some here, so I am not familiar if this thinking is shared by most of OWS

When you talk about the work possibly taking years, but at the same time say slight change is not change, it sounds like OWS is expecting that one day, everything will all of a sudden be different, rather than trying to move opinions gradually.

[Ken Burch]

210. What else would you call supporting a totally unjustified splinter group

(99% Spring)whose only reason for existence was to co-opt OWS?

A OWS-like movement that isn't totally independent of MoveOn and the Dems can't be of any value-and it can't work for any real change.

99% Spring will never host a single civil disobedience workshop. And it won't do any form of organizing other than those commercials with the tv stars.

[hack89]

246. So you reject members of the Democratic Pary

and then whine because they have the nerve to actively support many of the same progressive ideals that OWS holds? OK.

[sabrina 1]

248. What an utterly nonsensical claim. Where did you get the idea that OWS doesn't want democrats? Do

you know anything at all about OWS? Many ELECTED Democrats are members of OWS.

Why do people expound on subjects before learning anything at all about them?

[hack89]

250. Why don't you read the post that I am replying to.

read Ken's other posts.

He specifically say that anyone associated with the Democratic Party cannot effectively work for the economic dispossessed.

[Ken Burch]

254. I AM a member of the Democratic Party and a supporter of Occupy

They haven't done a purge of registered Democrats or anything. Occupy isn't a Stalinist organization with rigid pseudo-party discipline.

I've never heard of anyone being attacked by Occupy simply because they were personally campaigning for Democrats.

All that Occupy is saying, as I understand it, is that they won't formally ENDORSE the Democratic Party. What's so terrible about that? They couldn't formally endorse and still work for their OWN agenda. They'd be expected to just toe the line.

Occupy, as a group, has to be independent of ANY party to matter.

It's like the early 60's Civil Rights movement. Had that movement simply backed JFK from the start, it would have folded its tents and not even tried to end Jim Crow. There would have been no Freedom Rides, no civil disobedience, no public calls to end segregation at all. It would have been just "wait 'til after the '64 election", which would have meant giving up on EVER ending Jim Crow.

The same was the case with the labor movement prior to 1935...with suffragists at the turn of the century...and with the LGBT movement. Formally endorsing and allying with a party means accepting that party's discipline and stopping when that party tells you to stop. It means settling for nothing.

That's what Occupy is trying to avoid. And that's where I fear the 99% Spring, like the now-extinct "Organizing For America" group that was the post-election version of the "Obama movement", will end up...that it will absorb Occupy's followers, then disband them. Why should a true activist want such a thing?

Doing what a political party's leaders tell you to do always means slowing down and, eventually, giving up. That's what "moderation" is code for:surrender.

I will be supporting Occupy AND working for the Obama-Biden ticket(as well as other Democrats). But I will always do that with the understanding that the two things must be kept separate.

[hack89]

256. So then 99% Spring is for those of us that do endorse Democrats

we can work side by side with OWS and make the world a better place.

[Ken Burch]

260. You weren't forbidden to individually work for Dems as a member of OWS.

Why is it so important to you to get the ORGANIZATION to endorse Dems? You do realize that that means 99% Spring can't have its own agenda.

You know I'm right, for example, about what formal endorsement of the Democrats would have meant to the early 60's Civil Rights movement. Even with the connections there were to the two things, you ended up with unacceptable practices like Kennedy Administration officials EDITING the speeches given at the March on Washington in '63-edits that made the speeches they were applied to meaningless(they did know better than to do that to MLK, but they did it to others).

Our party doesn't tolerate groups with their own agendas. It should, but it doesn't.

I still remember the humiliation Dennis Kucinich was subjected to at the 2004 Dem convention, when he was required to clear his convention speech with the Kerry campaign...an requirement that meant he wasn't allowed to say anything that mattered.

This is what I DON'T want to happen to the groups fighting for the 99%-any tempering of what those groups are working for ends up being dilution of the agenda into nothing.

[hack89]

265. You have all these established organizations with many of the same goals of OWS

it is foolish and insulting to expect them to bow before OWS and put aside their long held beliefs to meet some ideological purity test. OWS has no right to tell socially involved citizens what to believe or who to support. It makes them look like spoiled brats stomping their feet because "they were first".

[Ken Burch]

267. Then the 99% Spring shouldn't have come in with the attitude that "we can do it and OWS can't"

If they'd treated OWS people(especially the young who joined it because the Democratic Party had no place for them and their dreams, and because that party's Beltway leaders don't care about anything the kids are fighting for)with respect, it might be different. Instead, all the 99% Spring types seem to have the "shut up and leave it to the grown-ups, because you young whippersnappers don't know your place" attitude(I.e., do what Rahm Emmanuel would have told them). I doubt that you see anybody under 45 at a 99% Spring meeting. Or anyone who's personally known poverty or unemployment. People who have NEVER take the centrist path.

You have ascribed an almost dictatorial character to OWS. WHY? What did they actually ever say to you that was so terrible?

And what did you, personally, say to OWS people?

Did you say "I work for Democratic candidates from the progressive wing of the party, and I'm not going to stop doing that"? Or did you say "You guys should just obey the Democratic Party leadership, do what it tells you, stop when it says you should stop, and campaign for Blue Dogs when the president says you should"?. There is a large difference between those to statements.

It sounds to me like you came in with the attitude that OWS should just defer to YOUR superior wisdom and totally give up its independence as an organization. Am I wrong about that?

And can you point to any situations in which it would actually HELP anything Occupy is fighting for to formally endorse the Obama-Biden ticket and follow its line? To a lot of OWS types, that strategy is the same as surrender and you need to make the case for why it isn't.

[hack89]

296. OWS should not defer to anyone. I certainly don't defer to them.

I just laugh at your belief that groups that align themselves with the Democratic Party are unable of "true" change.

[Ken Burch]

298. There has to be SOME independence

The problem is, once you align with a party, you let that party, to at least some degree, tell you what to do. Can't you see that?

If the Civil Rights movement had formally allied itself with the Dems in 1961, it would have ended up disbanding, because the Democratic Party, at that time, didn't want the Civil Rights movement to exist.

It didn't want the antiwar movement to exist in the late Sixties.

It didn't want the LGBT movement to exist in the Seventies.

It didn't want the Rainbow Coalition to exist in the Eighties. And Jesse Jackson ended up disbanding the Rainbow on party command.

See the pattern?

It's the question of group alliance.

[hack89]

322. And yet there was no progress on those issues

until politicians belonging to political parties passed legislation. Laws are what cement changes in place - not attitudes, not anger, not outrage. Those are fickle and temporary emotions. At the end of the day it all comes down to laws and the legislative process.

[Ken Burch]

324. It comes down to giving the "leaders" no alternative but to do what's right.

And deferring to a party leadership can never make THAT happen. All "leaders" ever do is to tell us what CAN'T be done, and make sure it can't be done-unless it's ugly, like a free trade pact, an austerity budget, or a war-then they make sure it IS done.

The result of what our "leaders" did to the Democratic party in the post-McGovern period was to, by excluding activists and caucus groups, make our party stand for less and less. You'd have to concede that it was a tragedy for Paul Kirk to dissolve all the cause groups at the DNC, and that the result was a party that stood for nothing in the Nineties. Yes, that party "elected a president"...but so fucking what? Bill Clinton was NOT on our side. He treated the base as if it was nothing and the only things he did that were progressive were too tiny to matter to anyone at all.

That's what leaders are about...breaking our hearts and crushing our dreams. No good comes of following them.

Can you understand from that why I don't trust leaders like you do?

[hack89]

326. The only leverage you have over these leaders is the ballot.

you still eventually come back to the political process. The American people want change but they fully expect the present political system to bring about that change. The public is not crying to tear down and rebuild our political and economic systems - they want jobs and security. That's what is behind the angst that is driving OWS - and there is a danger to them if they forget that simple fact and decide that somehow they have a mandate to tear everything down and start all over.

[Ken Burch]

268. Which organizations are those?

"Organizing for America" had none of the goals of OWS. Neither do the leaders of OUR party. It's only a few good souls at the lower ranks of the Dems, like you and I, who do.

Obama's refusal to back the Wisconsin revolt proved that.

[hack89]

294. MoveOn.org, Rebuild The Dream, AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers, CODEPINK: Women for Peace,

Those groups.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/01/11485085-battle-for-the-soul-of-occupy-activists-fear-being-pulled-to-the-right-becoming-democratic-pet?lite

[Ken Burch]

300. And Occupy wasn't dissing those groups-nor was I,actually.

Many union people and Code Pink people and members of the other groups JOINED Occupy, or supported it from without. It was what brought everybody together at that point. There was never a question of Occupy OR the old groups.

The problem was that, in the fall of 2010 and winter of 2011, when OWS emerged(and when the Wisconsin uprising happened), there had been near-collapse in activism. Had OWS and the Wisconsin rebels not emerged(partly as a result, nothing it was talking about would be in the public discourse today.

Remember, at the time, our "Democratic" president was abandoning everything and doing all he could to get activism brought to a halt. He pretty much ordered his OWN "movement", Organizing for America, to go out of existence(that movement no longer has much of any supporters or any goals...it's dead).

Virtually everybody who joined OWS had backed what was happening in Wisconsin, btw...and had done so while the national leadership of our party was hoping the Wisconsin revolt would die(as Obama proved by refusing to support it).

The need was for an independent force...because the leadership of the Democratic party, a party I've supported most of my adult life, was not defending its core supporters, and was gaining nothing fore REFUSING to defend them. It was pursuing a "center" that everyone knew didn't exist.

I'd see this all much more differently if our party, at its top levels, was a fighting populist party. But it stopped being that when it focused on being "pro-business" and "fiscally responsible"-when our leaders, in short, joined the other side.

It's only the outsider groups, only the rebels, that can really effectively work for change...allying with any part of the establishment forces you to obey the establishment. I wish it weren't so, but that's the reality we work within, my friend.
The way the party congressional leadership treats the Congressional Black, Populist, and Progressive caucuses(I.E., fighting against them at every turn) and heroes like Dennis Kucinich bears me out on this.

[bluestate10]

215. Wraith seems to be a moderate, with some progressive tendencies.,

Why don't you admit that you have no idea of what a conservative is?

[Ken Burch]

224. You can't have progressive tendencies and devote ALL your posts here to bashing the Left

Wraith wants us all to settle for just re-electing Obama and otherwise giving up. He isn't on the side of the 99%...never has been...if he was, he'd back Occupy or at least come up with a constructive alternative...something Wraith has NEVER EVER done on DU.

Conservatism is opposition to change. Pissing on OWS automatically means you oppose change, because there's nothing else out there. As far as I know, Wraith doesn't even support the centrist puppet "99% Spring" group...the group that stole the 99% label and is using it to work against the building of a movement.

[Ken Burch]

137. You've never offered a good alternative-in fact, you've never offered a POSITIVE message at all

Unquestioningly accepting whatever Obama gives us, as you do, wouldn't be progressive. It's just defeatist. You want everyone to give up like you've given up.

Please stop being such a total drag. It doesn't help anything.

It would be a waste of time to ever lobby Congress again or to ever be polite to legislators. None of them respond to anything but mass pressure. Flattery never did work with any of them.

And accepting massive compromise has never given us real change.

[Ken Burch]

138. You use YOUR chisel on the people, not the oppressors

Why don't you ever call out the wealthy, the militarists, and the arrogant?
WHY is ALL your rage directed at the powerless and the principled? Why don't you EVER speak out against the people on the OTHER side?

We'd be facing a certain Republican landslide in 2012 if it weren't for Occupy. Your response to the rise of the Tea Party was to tell people that we should be happy with post-1994 Clinton until 2016.

Why are you still telling people to settle for increments when we will never see the first increment added to in the future anymore?

You had no right to cite Dr. King to back your defeatist politics.

[lamp_shade]

139. Bookmarked.

[Ken Burch]

140. slow change ISN'T change

and neither is slight change...NEITHER can ever be worth settling for.

In the Sixties, your attitude would have meant telling black people to just settle for the 1957 Civil Rights Act and give up trying for anything better. That's what gradualism means...it means surrender and defeat. Change isn't change unless it's obvious and quick. If you don't notice it, it isn't of any value and didn't do any good.

[Arkana]

149. Gradualism doesn't mean surrender and defeat.

It just means gradualism. Why have we become a nation of Veruca Salts?

Change is slow, it is painful, and often, parts of this country have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it. We did it with the South in the 1860s with slavery and again in the 1950s and 60s with civil rights--and I have a feeling we're gonna have to do it again with gay rights too.

But if you think every powerful bigot in the world is suddenly going to wake up one morning and abruptly change their minds, I honestly don't know what to tell you. Gradualism wouldn't have meant telling blacks in the 50s and 60s to settle--it would have meant telling them that it wasn't going to happen in 24 hours.

[Ken Burch]

168. There's a huge difference between gradualism and expecting a long struggle

Occupy people understand a long struggle will be necessary. That doesn't mean settling for half-loaves, quarter-loaves or half-slices,which is what gradualism REALLY means.

[Ken Burch]

208. The only victories that mattered in the Civil Rights movement were the 1964 and 1965 bills

Tiny interim gains short of emancipation are always meaningless. No one is ever inspired to keep fighting by small victories. It's only the prize at the end that keeps people going.

It was the same with the labor movement and the LGBT movement.

And I didn't say that the struggle wouldn't be long. It's just that there are some things that matter on the long path and some that don't. Quarter-loaves or less(like the 1957 Civil Rights Act) don't contribute in any meaningful way. It's the big wins at the end that matter.

It sounds like you'd have told black folks that they should be happy if they got to use the Whites Only drinking fountain on Tuesdays between 2 and 4 am.

[bluestate10]

217. No other claim you made in this thread shows how blind you are.

The civil rights struggle was being waged long before 64. Have you ever heard of Brown versus Topeka Board of Education? Have you ever heard of the ERA that came after 65? Have you ever heard of the struggle for right for gays to live like everyone else? I have written before until I turn blue in the face, my political and social DNA is infinitely closer to that of Progressives than any philosophy outside of my plain vanilla moderate base, but blind claims like you made make me want to fucking rip my hair out strand, by strand. The sheer insult that you launched against rights fighters before, during and after the mere two years you listed is stunning in it's fucking ineptitude.

[Ken Burch]

223. I salute all those who struggled for justice

And you know perfectly well that I wasn't saying the Civil Rights movement didn't EXIST before then. Of course it did. But it had standards.

But NONE of them ever thought that small gains mattered. No one in the entire Civil Rights movement celebrated the passage of the useless 1957 act(the one that didn't even stop lynching).

It's only radical pressure from below that EVER works. Nothing would ever have been done to fight AIDS if it hadn't been for ACT UP. Every LGBT activist who worked within the system in the Eighties was a failure.

No gay person ever celebrated a partial victory. Nor any worker. What would there have been to celebrate.

It wasn't victory to end segregation in just ONE town. Or to end discrimination against gays in just ONE town. Or to legalize unions in just ONE town. Do you understand?

The only interim victories that are of value are the creation of liberated zones-places where ALL the oppression is wiped out within the boundaries. No moderate approach ever created that.

And Brown V. Board wasn't a partial victory. It was just a victory that was disregarded by those who fought against it at the time. For years, in terms of actually causing school desgregation, Brown was meaningless. It would only have been of real value if it actually led to quick desegregation. I do salute Thurgood Marshall and Roy Wilkins for sort of trying...but they were wrong to denounce the Civil Rights movement when it did the only thing that could have worked and moved to massive civil disobedience. If the struggle had stayed purely legal, like YOU would have liked, we'd still be at least half Jim Crow today. In the Sixties, virtually every black person in the U.S. thought the NAACP and it's "keep it legal" prissiness was a total joke.

[woo me with science]

321. We don't even have gradualism.

We are going in the WRONG direction. Corporate Democrats have been complicit in enacting the economic agenda of the one percent, impoverishing the rest of us, and increasingly building a police/surveillance state. And it will continue until we get the money out of politics and rein in Wall Street.

[mmonk]

145. The failure is not to try.

At least morally.

[Romulox]

147. The Status Quo: You're one of the "fringe people" if you don't go with the flow! nt

[EFerrari]

148. Lmao.

[lunatica]

150. Whatever

And who wields the chisel?

[backscatter712]

151. My, aren't we concerned today? n/t

[HappyMe]

163. No, actually I'm not.

3 cars left in the apartment complex where I live. 1 car belongs to an elderly couple. The other 2 people work 2nd shift. Garbage and recycling both picked up.

Grocery store was opened for business as usual.

Don't bother with your usual 'concern is duly noted' crap, nor your 'you're part of the probem' crap either.

I read somewhere that 70% of the occupy people have jobs. So the corps are paying them, then go stand around protesting their what..? paychecks? Talking out of both sides of their mouths.

[Robb]

160. You're not characterizing "general strike" properly.

If you redefine "general strike" to mean "neighborhood barbecue" then this thing is a winner already.

Besides, IWD is way cooler than US Labor Day. Ours doesn't even have a "u" in it, for cryin' out loud.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

165. Social Security was originally a third party idea

and the Republicans started out as a third party.