Move On Tries to Co-Opt the OWS Protests
BR: I believe it would be better if OWS stayed a non-partisan group, and not become a Democrat version of the Tea Party . . .
~~~
Move On Tries to Take Over Occupy Wall Street Protests
David DeGraw – one of the primary Wall Street protest organizers – just sent me the following email:
Top MoveOn leaders / executives are all over national television speaking for the movement. fully appreciate the help and support of MoveOn, but the MSM is clearly using them as the spokespeople for OWS. This is an blatant attempt to fracture the 99% into a Democratic Party organization. The leadership of MoveON are Democratic Party operatives. they are divide and conquer pawns. For years they ignored Wall Street protests to keep complete focus on the Republicans, in favor of Goldman’s Obama and Wall Street’s Democratic leadership.
If anyone at Move On or Daily Kos would like to have a public debate about these comments, we invite it.
Please help us stop this divide and conquer attempt.
DeGraw – who is wholly non-partisan [like the writers at Washington's Blog] – tells me that about half of the protesters are liberals, but the other half are libertarians (and see this.)
This mirrors what one of the original organizers of the “Occupy Trenton” protest told me: MoveOn attempted to set the agenda and pretend it was their event.
As I noted last week:
Everyone’s trying to cash in on the courage and conviction of the Wall Street protesters.
People are trying to associate Occupy Wall Street with their pet projects, in the same way that advertisers try to associate the goodwill of the Super Bowl, NBA playoffs, World Series or Olympics with their product.
But I hear from OWS organizers that the protesters come from totally diverse political affiliations. Many protesters support Ron Paul, many like Obama, others are for other parties or candidates or don’t vote at all.
The protesters themselves are having none of it, tweeting today:
We don’t want to be the democratic tea party or liberal tea party. We want to be our own movement separate of any political affiliation.
Update: Another tweet from the protesters:
We don’t represent liberal interests nor are we the liberal tea party. We represent the interest of the 99%
And as I pointed out Tuesday:
The two main challenges [facing the protesters are]: (1) An attempt by both the Democratic and Republican parties to co-opt it (see this, this and this); and (2) agents provocateur (see this, this and this) [and here].
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
October 15th, 2011 at 8:24 am
When something becomes popular and looks similar to what your own organization fights for, it is very tempting to try to “take it over”. But that is also where you risk losing supporters. How many initial tea-party supporters have gone away after GOP right wingers took them over? I hope the progressive democrats can be smarter than that. They should hold back and simply say: “yes we agree with OWS about this, this and this – here are the concrete steps that we have taken or intend to take…..” Then the OWS followers can decide if they agree or not individually whereas the organization remains a large tent.
October 15th, 2011 at 9:00 am
Funny thing about the bottom 99% — although they might not be as successful (nor as criminal), as the top 1%, they aren’t stupid (at least, not all of them are stupid — compare and contrast OWS with the Tea Party). Add the facts that these folks are committed to reallocation of a fair share of the wealth this nation generates (and I hope no one tries to counter with the Randian falsehood of the self-made man), that they will persist in their occupation, and that both the numbers of participants and supporters is growing, the status quo (including the spineless, feckless, kowtowing, turncoat Democratic Party and it’s bait-and-switch Corporatist leader), are faced with a real problem that has only one solution: Admit that greed isn’t good, and do what must be done, willingly, to correct the imbalances they created by gaming the political and financial systems of the US.
What if they don’t?
Well, they can try to buy resistance (and that tactic will work, until a very frightening and transformative backlash takes place), they can try to insulate themselves and attempt to form a new aristocracy, or they can try to take “their” wealth somewhere else. God luck wit any o’ dat.
If ever Lincoln’s chestnut about fooling the People was true, this is it.
As I’ve said all along, social transformation is the only way this gets fixed.
October 15th, 2011 at 9:02 am
Move-On WISHES they could be the OWS movement. They’ve been ignoring Obama’s blatant Republican policies, cave-ins, actions and advisors and still want Obama to serve a 2nd term (he IS the most likely of the all-Republican participants to win in 2012 – but don’t call him a Democrat when he’s anything but).
They’re out to co-opt the OWSers and sway them toward democratic candidates. The OWSers aren’t into politics the way it is now – with all the big money and lobbyists corrupting the politicians and the process. FAIL.
October 15th, 2011 at 9:06 am
We won’t know what it is until it decides what it is. That is, until it forms an organization(s) with leader(s) and spokesperson(s), it is a project in development. It will take resources from whomever wants to contribute and the media will not understand it for some time. It will ally itself with allies of convenience.
It cannot develop in a vacuum with ideological purity.
October 15th, 2011 at 9:07 am
I think Occupy Wall Street will soon become the right protest in the right place at the right time. The economy and earnings won’t support a market rally. As a result the S&P is heading downwards, and no HFT counter protest will stop it. Europe is eventually going to have to stop talking and start defaulting. This will happen sooner than later unless Europe gifts another few months of loan payments to Greece. Then it will happen a little later.
The myriad of reasons supporting OWC aren’t being fixed any time soon. When Europe fails and the wealth effect that comes from remaining market values evaporates, the OWC numbers will rise and the elections will approach. QE3 might put off some of this, but not permanently.
2012 elections will be interesting. How many lying politicians will pretend to ‘get it’ How many OWC protestors and others will fall for their claims of sudden education? 2014 will continue with the repairs in Washington DC.
October 15th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Move ON … what a freaking joke!
Move On is Goldman Sachs’ bitch.
October 15th, 2011 at 9:30 am
Ron Paul is a republican…last time I looked…
October 15th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Kos sux…they spent the entire Bush years telling liberal bloggers that the age of protests in their physical and traditional form was over and that they could take over the world by blogging and sending emails and tweeting etc….
they are jealous because that tennet of Kossakism is deteriorating during the Obama years…first by the Tea Party and now by Occupy Wall St. Nothing beats a good old fashioned sit in…and nothing plays better on TV…Kossaks thought that their blog posts appearing on some stupid CNN show would be the answer to the woes of their plight.
That of course was wrong and their core idea of how to go about affecting political change has been shot down…
October 15th, 2011 at 9:37 am
I was concerned when I saw Move On trying to align with OWS last week. It’s reassuring to see David DeGraw and others attempting to keep the movement from being co-opted. And it’s great sign that David DeGraw is keeping BR in the loop: http://goo.gl/AZpMP
October 15th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Anonymous’s original video calling for the occupation of Wall Street.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-eFxCDx7Yw&feature=related
a related video stating some beliefs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX-QJ4fY254&feature=related
And this video is the best anti bank entertaining rant I’ve heard so far. What a voice!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1vpEcebYBg&feature=related
October 15th, 2011 at 10:08 am
As Ogden Nash put it,
“But when you roar at the income tax,
And the slippery bureaucratic hacks,
And the ancient political fishlike smell,
And assert that the world is going to hell,
Why, you are not old at all, at all;
By gad, sir,
You are on the ball!”
October 15th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Re: Ron Paul is a Republican
If he was serious about appearing on a general election ballot as a presidential candidate he would not be wasting his time in the Republican primary. It’s pretty clear he is a tool of the party whose purpose is to keep libertarian-minded voters in the party and suck the oxygen out of the room for any other potential libertarians who may run as third-party candidates.
October 15th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
The one theme consistent that I am perceiving from OWS is that the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the top 1% is not a good thing for our society. I agree with that. What I don’t understand is how a libertarian would have any interest in a movement built on that premise. Aren’t the 1 percenters just who the libertarians, at least of the Ayn Rand ilk, glorify? Possible solutions to concentration of wealth include progressive taxation, regulation, expansion of union rights and organizing, controls on movement of jobs overseas, etc. I don’t see libertarians really supporting any of those options. My belief is that the Ron Paulites are just in it to try to syphon off a segment of the protesters who might still be susceptible to the supposed appeal of “Atlas Shrugged.”
October 15th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Let’s get this clear.
Move On was in this space first.
OWS has moved into their territory.
Speaking Truth to Power.
Bringing out the facts, to counter the Right Wing Propaganda.
And let’s face it, the Right has been lying to us on 100% of the issues.
October 15th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
JR: This isn’t a child’s game “I was here first…I get to sit next to mom.” This is real and Move On has taken many ineffective shots. This isn’t just about the Right Wing Propaganda, which is while people like me find Move On to be so uninteresting.
October 15th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Oops…why people like me.
October 15th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Generally agree — except that the TEA party — of which I strongly sympathize — is NOT a republican party apparatchik. We are for fiscal stability and an adherence to the constitution as it was written, not as it is wished to be by a minority of the minority party (the socialist wing of the democrat party).
And no, Ron Paul is no republican. He is, charitably described as an anarcho-libertarian, which puts him significantly to the RIGHT of all mainstream conservatives. (Left-wing hacks want total state control, anarchists what complete non-control, most responsible republicans occupy the center of the political spectrum, like it or not.)
October 15th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Unless they are willing to spend a few nights camping out under the stars with policemen hanging around, I am not interested in hearing from them as spokespeople.
The media should be identifying which people they are interviewing have camped out.
October 15th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
DrS: Given the leading spokespersons for the Tea Party it appears that there is little concern for actual knowledge of history. I strongly suspect that few of your members even know the history of the constitution…the debates…the controversy over freedom of religion. In fact, I know no one who doesn’t think the Tea Party is EXACTLY as you describe others who want “as it is wished to be by a minority.” Basically, you have no credibility among those who understand history, economics, or, not to make to fine of point, economic history.
October 15th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
BR: I agree with your wish at the front end of the comments. I suspect the Tea Party has aligned itself with the R’s based on perceived (if not real) commonality of conservative principles. I further suspect that the OCW will yield a goodly amount of votes for the D’s based upon common liberal wishes. I hear talking heads on cable news warning against hurried co-opting by the D’s due to potentially toxic “optics”of this sometimes unruly lot. Time will tell. Bush-43 said about the Tea Party: “these things come and go”. So far the TP has come but it hasn’t gone anywhere yet, except in the Congress via the 2010 elections. Time will tell, I personally wish the OWS crowds best of luck. As a minimum they may, just may bring the WS issues into the national conversation just on time for the 2012 Prez. elections.
October 16th, 2011 at 1:11 am
Barry: Agree 100 percent!
OWS may need to develop some focus and concise talking points, it really doesn’t need the political baggage and co-opting of MoveOn, the DNC, or other Johnny-Come-Lately’s.
The 99 Percent are tired of the same bromides and false promises, only to be sold-out to the highest bidder come decision time. The oligopolies (and/or corporate-ocracies) are pillaging our human and natural resources with no regard to anything but their quarterly P&L statements. Roll the divestiture of our public education and other civic institutions into the mix and we’re leaving the country in a shambles for future generations.
They’re going to have every right to be angry… and they’re going to be angry at the adults who sat idly by and did nothing while the great assets of this country were dismantled without as much as a peep.
Well, at least before OWS appeared on the scene…
October 16th, 2011 at 9:34 am
[...] Move On Tries to Co-Opt the OWS Protests | The Big Picture [...]
October 16th, 2011 at 9:56 am
It’s very easy to agree to condemn the distribution of all power and wealth gains to the top 1%. You can get most people to support you in that condemnation. But when you get to the actual specifics of what to do about it you will see all the agreement dissolving. Then you get 50 different solutions each wanting to “talk for the movement”. Just look at the teapartiers and their “constitutionalism” BS. Most of the time they cite things that nobody can find to have ever been written in it. Then when some of them get elected to actually function and influence a real political process all they can do is to block legislation because in real life democracies the 50 different opinions have to find a compromise. What OWS can do is to force an issue out in the public for debate. They should not repeat the mistake of the tea partiers. Demand of every politician who runs for office that they give concrete answers to the question of how they intend to fix the problem and then let everybody see those answers before they go to vote.
October 16th, 2011 at 11:05 am
“people to support you in that condemnation. But when you get to the actual specifics of what to do”
yep – brings to mind the – slow boiling frog story* .. and why I’m so fearful of these times .. IT works to just dump the pot over and start over* :-|
October 16th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Howdy, DeDude,
This occupation is very interesting in that it is, in a sense, an exercise in passive resistance. The “fix,” as much as there can be one, is being left up to TPTB. If they don’t respond what will happen next? Hard to tell, but not knowing works against them more than against the occupiers.