In the Dred Scott Decision the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS for
short) played to the follow-the-money game of the time, as the Chief Justice,
Roger Taney, was a slaveholder and had shown his hand earlier in Prigg
v. Pennsylvania
In Prigg , Pennsylvania had passed laws to protect African-Americans
and other persons of color in their borders. Slave catcher Prigg and his crew
swept in, and kidnapped a woman who had escaped to Pennsylvania years earlier, and her three
children, and took them all to the deep south and sold them. He was prosecuted
by Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania and its laws protecting its own
citizens were overturned by the 1% of their time, Taney and other southern
slaveholders sitting on SCOTUS. In Dred Scott, SCOTUS held that no black man
could ever be a citizen, no matter what.
The Congress of the time further bowed to moneyed interests – a coalition of
lawmakers – and passed the Fugitive Slave Act This act held that if any
citizen in any state or territory assisted a slave to flee, this was a federal
felony. People went to prison for helping slaves escape.
The actual result was to delegitimize legislators who supported these acts,
destroy the Whig party and give birth to the Republican party and extreme
political ferment that gave new life and growth to Abolishionists.(Would
Lincoln or Fremont recognize today’s Republicans? Well, I digress. )
Similarly, the Citizens United Decision by a divided 5/4 SCOTUS with caustic dissents ramped up the degradation of today’s Congress
and Senate. There is now enormously increasing political activity and involvement
transcending and in addition to the homogenized two party system. Public
perception is increasingly that Democrats and Republicans dial for dollars
incessantly, and are Corporate owned Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum parties. Would
FDR, who famously stated that a government owned by a person or an organization
is by definition “fascist” recognize today’s Democratic Party any
more than Lincoln would recognize today’s Republicans as his descendants?
The sudden and dramatic growth of the Occupy movement should be examined in this
context. In addition, for every Occupier, there are as many as 1000 offsite
supporters, and remote participants. I have some first hand knowledge as to
this. The actual occupiers are essential, but are not necessarily those doing
most of the work such as data management. There is no “strong man”
leaders or “strong woman” leaders for a reason – the billionaires like
the Koch Brothers, or the CEOs pulling down 20 million or more while laying off
thousands have created a disgust towards hierarchy in this generation’s
activists, and while a core group who gain credibility may well develop, that
has not yet happened. Direct Democracy is a messy business, to be sure, but it is seen as enormously preferable.
Citizens United may well be the actual catalyst for our times that Dred Scott was in 1850.
Amber,
That’s an interesting, thought-provoking post, but I’m not sure I agree with your framing. What was so outrageous about the Dred Scott decision was that it short-circuited (on narrow property rights grounds) a decades-long, highly geographically polarized debate over the central issue of the era. In so doing, the Taney Court gave the back of its hand to the moral and political positions about slavery that had fallen like an axe straight down the middle of the country. By fiat, the Taney Court effectively forced the North to accept the South’s economic position — a position that the North had been galloping away from for the preceding 15 to 20 years.
I don’t think we have had anything like the debate over corporate power/corporate rights in the last 25 years in America that the country had over slavery between 1835 and 1860. We certainly need to have that debate on that scale, but I don’t think we’ve had it yet. To me, that makes Dred Scott the fundamentally wrong analogy for Citizens United. To me, the more apt comparison is to cases like Lochner or Hammer v. Dagenhart, where the Court found that only moneyed interests have “natural” or “inherent” rights that cannot be abridged by legislation or social progress. Citizens United fits quite snugly in the Lochner family.
If I might be so bold as to speak for Amberpaw (in the certainty that she’ll correct me if I’m wrong…) I think what she is getting at is less the particular congruency of the two cases and more the blatant flouting of the law in a transparently naked service of money and interests and one that was not left to legislators to fix but was only fixed upon the adoption of the 14th amendment to the Constitution: Dred Scott is thought of, now, as a shameful chapter in our judicial history which required a constitutional amendment to fix. I think the same, in the broadest strokes, can be said of Citizens United
Yeah, I get the comparison that Amber was making, but the “particular congruency” matters a great deal. Slavery remains the darkest, most divisive issue in the nation’s history and 40,000 foot comparisons that touch on any aspect of slavery, including Dred Scott, are, by their nature, quite freighted with peril.
And when SCOTUS does get the law wrong, and the policy wrong, and damage the very fabric of this representative democracy, at the same time that congress is in thrall to corporate money and the presidency is not held by a strong leader like Lincoln, the Republic itself, and government of, by, and for the people is in danger – and I feel this reality has been recognized all across the country leading to the Occupy motion, and a need for additional language in the 14th Amendment such that the legal fiction, and a fiction based on a line of progressively more distorted case law is corrected. As Ben Franklin reportedly said, slightly paraphrased, “You have a Republic – if you keep it.” We are in danger of having a sham republic as a “cover” for a plutocratic oligarchy.
To put another famous quote out there “Americans will have the worst government they tolerate” and I won’t tolerate a fascist corporate takeover of our democratic republic. Will you? Corporations are not people – throwaway dicta in a reporter’s notes has been blown so far out of proportion, and the largest wealth transfer in our nation’s history places my children’s future, and that of their entire generation at risk. Under FDR “
See the book No Ordinary Time by Doris Kearns Goodwin, page 625 and bibliographic references.
Today, instead, we have seen the top 1% grow by 261% and are tolerating one in four children – that is ONE in FOUR living in poverty and a direct attack on democracy itself even by SCOTUS – to be silent now is to lose our republic, and the very concept of the American experiment of government of, by, and for the people for which so many gave the last full measure.
the analogies may be subject to disagreement. I’m not sure, for instance, that Citizens United, by itself, is the catalyst for the OWS movement that Dred Scott might have been for the Abolitionists.
A lot of other factors are behind Occupy Wall Street that may be more important in the short term than Citizens United, including the bad state of the economy, the subprime mortgage meltdown, the dismantling of our financial regulatory system, and the continuing failure of our elected leaders to do anything about the whole mess.
I think the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 mobilized the abolitionists much more than Dred Scot (which came later). It was in response to clerical support of the Fugitive Slave Act (after hearing sermons in defense of the Slave Act) that Harriet Beecher Stowe resolve to learn more about the plight of slaves and write “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. In 1857, when Dred Scott was decide abolitionists were in full swing.
But, as Amberpaw pointed out, it was Dred Scott that delegitimized legislators and the court leading directly to the death of the Whig party, the inception of the Republican Party, further growth of the abolitionists and the 14th amendment. Amberpaws argument, as I understand it, is to ask if Citizens United is shameful enough to be a similar catalyst for widespread, far-reaching change, not simply a goose for OWS…
The link I put up for Citizens United gives the dissents, the issues around Justice Clarence Thomas’ apparent conflict of interest (as well as certain other justices) and the very weak basis for the origination, alleged origination I would say, of the “corporate personhood” doctrine. There was abject failure of the 2008 OR 2010 congress to act with regard to the swift and egregious wealth consolidation OR to take any action regarding jobs. Instead, both the 2008 “Democratic” congress and the 2010 Tea Party infused congress both protected the 1% (the 400 who own as much as 156,000,000 other Americans). This contrasts so strongly with the guts and glory of the FDR administration & the congress elected with him and the “first 1000 days” of the FDR Administration that it makes my head want to both explode, and ask where was the courage, the commitment of the 2008 congress to social justice, a republic, or the people who elected them to address the financial meltdown? Part of the analogy is that if even SCOTUS does not protect the Republic (see, again, the SCOTUS BLOG link in my original post) and Congress does not protect the Republic, and the current president cannot or will not (my personal jury is still out on which it is – but 2008 gives me real pause) protect the republic, or address the looting of America by some of that 1% – what is left but civil disobedience and mass movements as a way of standing up for Democracy itself – ergo the chant of the current movement, governed messily by direct democracy, “THIS is what DEMOCRACY looks like” – and my own experience is for every occupier in a tent, there are 1000+ supporters involved on a part time basis.
I ask this because other than some discontent here and some other blogs, this decision has not mounted any serious opposition. On top of that, I don’t see the SCOTUS changing their views much over the next few decades nor do I see any significant political movement changing the makeup of the court.
Personally I think we should have some reforms concerning the case, but my change would prohibit anyone or anything from contributing to candidates except for individuals (no corporations, no unions, no PACs…).
In summary, I don’t see the Citizen’s United case changing at all, certainly any time soon and maybe forever.
To paraphrase – “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.” Doing nothing, and accepting the loss of representative democracy and government of, by, and for the people is not an option I am about to accept. Citizens United – and “the best government big money can buy” will be overturned – or “changed”. The only question is “when” and “how”. I know I would prefer the “when” to be soon, and the “how” to be legislative and political. Just what are YOU prepared to do, support, and actively initiate? Passive acceptance is not my style and I did not think it was your style either.
What may be a partial problem is the difficulty of agreeing how to overturn Citizens United.
For example, I read a positive critique of the decision that noted that legit advocacy groups could be upended by too sweeping a reversal. How do separate the Sierra Club and Human Rights Campaign from Americans for Prosperity or Crossroads GPS etc, whose sole purpose is political disinformation so as to shut down one without shutting down the legitimate advocacy of the others?
Plus a sweeping corporations are not people and non-people don’t have rights would be problematic. We can’t eliminate Fifth Amendment Eminent Domain protections for non-persons. Neither can we squelch their right to free speech (I don’t think corporations electioneering qualifies as the type of speech corporations are worthy of).
One solution may be not to wholly gut corporate personhood, but rather limit it solely for the purpose of election related activities. For example Verizon cannot pay money into front groups that try to influence an election. Or Congress could have absolute power to regulate the money in elections, that is how much is spent, but nothing on content.
A supreme court cannot be summarily overturned in a constitutional amendment. That is not what amendments are for and waiting around for the Court to change its mind is too dangerous. So that means that if we want to change it we have to agree how we want to manifest that change.
The “law unintended consequences” may well apply.
For example, a corporation does not have to be a “person” to have rights. Rights also flow from the law of contract, from regulations that define what is and is not allowable, from the rule of law, itself. Using the addition of a clause to the 14th Amendment, such as adding “living, corporeal” to the first line, see: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/
Corporations don’t need “personhood” to have full and appropriate protections. There are ample and appropriate protections in the law of contracts, in the law of tort, in the 24 amendments to the Bill of Rights, including the prohibition of retroactive changes in laws that impact contracts (ex pose facto provisions). The well-developed body of business law, in fact, is far more relevant to protecting the necessary and usual functions of a corporation then the personhood legal fiction construct, which arguably began with incorrect information in a headnote, which is less than dicta from a clerk, see http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05004.html – the concept of “corporate personhood” is built, in fact, on a hundred year old quid pro quo and has no substance.
The body of caselaw that spells out the rights and responsibilities created by contract is, in fact, critical every day in millions of business transactions – corporate personhood is not about business itself, but about oligarchy and control.
I will still refer you back to my initial criticism below, but my greatest disagreement with the “living constitution” and its proponents is that it removes the citizen from making a common sense reading of the Constitution and instead gives judges nearly unlimited power to govern as philosopher kings (as Anthony Kennedy considers himself), arbiters of what they they the majority wants (Sandra Day O’Connor), people whose default assumption is that government agencies, regulators, and legislators know best (Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg) or people that can look into crystal balls and determine what the founders actually thought (Scalia and Thomas).
For far too long liberals have relied on their particular kings on the court and favored high priests to defend rights that ought to be articulated and defended and secured through grassroots action and constantly improving our antiquated constitution to update it for the 21st century. I agree with Heller that the current 2nd amendment does grant personal firearm ownership and severely limits the ability of local government to regulate it. I also agree with the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition that they should have that ability and wish we could update the 2nd amendment for the 21st century. Madison would be deeply saddened we have only passed 27 amendments. The right understands this, look at the big push for the Federal Marriage Amendment. The left needs to codify the right of labor to organize in the Constitution, needs to empower a Federal Elections Commission to severely limit the private financing of elections, it needs to ensure that health care is a right, reform the electoral college, full DC voting rights, ensure abortion rights, and civil unions for all to name just a few. We may all not agree with these proposals, but if you read the Scalia dissent in Casey he openly welcomes (and challenges) us to use the democratic rather than the judicial realm to achieve our victories. The civil rights movement and anti-war movement got three amendments passed, it would be shocking if the modern progressive movement couldn’t do the same thing.
I also favor donation by individuals only.
I know many people who regard the Sierra Club as a font of misinformation. You cannot write legislation to allow donation by ‘individuals and groups that Progressives approve of’ – because that can easily be changed to groups that only CONSERVATIVES approve of.
Congress does NOT have the power to regulate content of how money is spent in elections – for Verizon OR Trader Joe’s. That was the basis of the case decided – that Congress could not pass laws limiting free speech.
We need to have individual donation only. If unions and corporations are merely groups of individuals, let those individuals make donation decisions, not corporate execs or labor organizers.
Further, equating MONEY with “free speech” is actually a stretch, just as “corporate personhood” as it is used in Citizens United is what is called a “legal fiction” in that the concept does not, in fact, exist in the real world.
In many discussions of the Citizens case, there comes the point at which the merits of different groups are assessed: Sierra Club, well that is a “legitimate” organization, but Citizens for Clean Coal or People for Frakking are obviously illegitimate “astro turf” that need to be vigorously censored.
JohnD made a suggestion that would prevent the government from deciding what organizations may engage in political speech.
that is what I meant, removing ALL organizations from donating money will make this a true “even” playing field. I don’t want Exxon trumping up “their” guy nor do I want the Teamsters supporting “their” guy/ Let me and you and Aunt Edna… donate our money, up to the campaign law limits, and let the best man/woman win. Anything less is unfair IMO.
I would be active in getting this change but my observations of the opposition to Citizen’s United are not in favor of limiting Unions and other traditional Democratic funding arms from funding campaigns. Without that restriction, I would prefer to leave things as is but of we can throw ALL the funding beyond individuals, I’ll help out.
So thanks, and KUDOS to the Occupy Movement – when it comes to training tomorrows leaders, and building a whole different “network” – it is real, and happening out there…far more of a chance than there was. I don’t know how many Congressman have filed anything, but Bill Keating posted about his efforts here on BMG in that regard.
I think you missed amberpaws point. The court and the legislatures did not change after the 1857 Dred Scott case. The entire legal landscape was changed out from underneath them. They were, in the parlance of our time, “the last to know.” It’s a virtual certainty that the present day SCOTUS won’t change but that doesn’t mean people don’t know what’s what and can feel the abyss that exists between the reality they experience and the stories they are told.
I referenced it before, but it bears repeating: Harriet Beecher Stowe sat down in church on a Sunday morning, circa 1850, and listened attentively to a preacher give a passionate invocation of scripture in defense of both slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act. She was an earnest, attentive Christian who, upon hearing this apologia, sat up and said to herself “that’s not right.” She began researching all this, came to an entirely different conclusion and ultimately bequeathed to the world a remarkable book, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Several years after this runaway hit of a book was digested and pored over and argued the Dred Scot decision was made. The book, and the later decision, caused many people to similarly say “that’s not right,” and further put pressure on northern politicians to cease compromising with the south over slavery. The southern politicians, reading the handwriting on the wall, decided that secession was the only alternative when the Whigs were routed and Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party swept into power in 1860. The rest is, as they say, history. It all started when people started noticing that the reality that they see doesn’t match what they are being told.
Many people, on hearing the particulars of Citizens United have a similar feeling of “that’s not right.” And when they investigate further they find further troubling particulars. Nobody I know has ever defended the decision, either in the media, online or in person. Some of my conservative friends even (privately) admit to me that it was a blatant power grab, usually adding the weak-tea defense of ‘if the libs could get away with it, they would…’ (forgetting the years in which they could have, but didn’t…)
So, you are right, the SCOTUS is not likely to change its stripes but they do know which way their stripes run: They know how and why <Citizens United went down as it went down. And the people who are protesting, and those who are preparing to join the protests if something doesn’t change soon, can feel the difference between what they are told and what they see and hear.
Reality has a way of making people itch when they get too much of the opposite…
Amber I completely agree with you that corporations have to be better regulated and we should have a constitutional amendment defining and narrowing (if not outright eliminating) corporate personhood. But we are comparing apples to oranges here. In Dred Scott the court had to decide if a slaveholders right to own slaved ended when he entered a free state and determined that it did not. The question hinges on interstate commerce regulating property crossing state lines that is illegal in one state but legal in another and more broadly on whether the ‘property’ in this instance was entitled to personhood. Citizens United is entirely about free speech and whether or not money=speech and if the government can regulate it.
It is important to note that ‘progressive’ allies like the ACLU and labor unions were on the same side as the corporations were on this case. I disagree with the consequences of the decision, but the decision itself is actually a victory for an absolutist approach to free speech and for ensuring government cannot regulate speech. The court arguably does not have the authority to define whether or not money=speech or a form of bribery. I want to STRONGLY emphasize that I do believe it is a form of bribery and not constitutionally protected speech. But there is no way to make my personal opinion permanent constitutional law other than an amendment. We may disagree on the merits of the case or the comparisons but we definitely agree on the solution. The 9th and 10th amendments leave it up to us as citizens of our respective states to ensure we do define this particular form of speech as something that could amount to influence peddling if not properly regulated and we must regulate it.
I further contend that Dred Scott exceeded the question asked in holding that under no circumstances whatever could a slave EVER achieve freedom or a person of the “negro race” (as was the language of the time) achieve citizenship. The reason the court went “beyond the question asked” is that the judges had an agenda other than interpreting the laws and the constitution. In my opinion, the Citizens United also exceeded the ‘questions asked’ or the minimum needed to be in the holding to decide the controversy because the current SCOTUS also had an agenda and acted on that agenda – but the reason I supplied the links I did was to show the non-statutory, non-constitutional, non-adjucicatory psuedo-birth of the corporate personhood doctrine in a mere headnote that was not even part of caselaw.
That’s not how Dred Scott was decided. Dred Scott, the man, sued for his OWN freedom. The court REFUSED to recognize anybody of African descent as citizens and then went on to say that no act of congress could make them citizens. The court basically said “we’re not even going to give you the decency of a hearing and we’re going to decide in a way that nobody will ever make us give you a hearing”. That’s the outrage. And it had nothing whatsoever to do with the legal questions put before the court.
In Citizens United a similar ledgerdemain was used:
Both Dred Scott and Citizens United blatantly rely on a priori attatchments (slaveholders in the first instance, corporate loyalty in the second) and naked handwaving to engineer outrageous outcomes. People notice these things. People weren’t as stupid as Roger Taney thought nor as obvlivious as John Roberts hopes…
Dred Scott was criticized then for being largely dicta or words that had no effect on the holding. Of course it did affect the holding as dicta often does. The fact is the court never should have reached some of its conclusions. It held at the beginning that the court did not have jurisdiction. That should have ended its inquiry, but they went on with the black not citizens and more, etc. Citizens United is like that in that neither party (Citizens United & the FEC) asked for the law to be facially struck down. Citizens United just wanted to overturn FEC’s disapproval of the Hillary movie. They did not want to kill the legislation in question or at least they never made that argument before the Court. So in that crucial way the Supreme Court in both Dred Scott and Citizens United went well beyond what they should have decided either by their own admission (no jurisdiction in Dred Scott) or because the parties were not litigating the point (Citizens United).
I am not intending to compare the “gravamen” as lawyers use the term of the two decisions, but their social and political impact, and the way both decisions went beyond the modicum needed to decide the initiating case and controversy. I appreciate your thoughtful answer and hope this discussion continues because I am learning from it, as well as finding out what my gentle readers know, and don’t know. That then enables me to have an idea what else to furnish, as to information and policy-oriented content .
Educated persons like us could quibble endlessly over legal minutiae and historical criticisms of textual problems, but in the end its what the wider public thinks that matters most. While Taney was not a racist and freed his slaves long before the case, he did use horribly racist language, even for that time, to define that blacks could never be citizens. Lincoln and many Republicans were able to gain conservative Whig and traditional Democratic support by using this case to rail against an activist judiciary, one that actively supported slavery over even the Constitution itself. So I can definitely concede that. The wider public seems smart enough to know that Citizens United went beyond mere speech, but it also doesn’t seem to be empowered by this understanding to action or perhaps the understanding had demoralized support for public financing which is at its nadir. And the Obama campaign is relying far more on Wall Street than Main Street this election so I do not suspect this to change anytime soon. Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin are the only two candidates thus far who will get my time and vote.
“Overturn Citizens United” is a sign carried in every Occupy march, in every site in the US I monitor – I cannot monitor all of them any more – too many and I have to maintain my legal practice and zealously represent and defend real clients, all of the in the 99%, most of them in the bottom quartile. As to who will get my time and vote in the US Senate primary in Massachusetts, at this point I am firmly undecided. I am a multiple issue person and none of the candidates left in the race have “made the sell” with me. Among the public, believe me, Citizens United is hated all across the spectrum and I do here it in the street. I don’t work in Wall Street and I barely work in “Main Street” but I do work on “the street”. On the street, I can tell you, the whole idea of corporations having rights like people or being people has taken on a life of its own and is HATED.
But, anyway, some of my favorite group chants from Occupy are “Banks got bailed out, we got sold out” and “THIS is what DEMOCRACY looks like.” Noam Chomsky gets it – you can find video of his appearance at the Howard Zinn Lecture series that Occupy Boston is running from yesterday on their web site. Or you might want to read the Occupy Boston Globe – why wait for a job with a Newspaper – start your own online and fund it with Kickstart: http://occupybostonglobe.com/
(posted here because IE still won’t let me reply to comments and my computer seems resistent to downloading another browser)
The Citizens United case gave all corporate entities the right to unlimited INDEPENDENT expenditures on behalf of a candidate, but did NOT abolish limits on PAC contributions to campaigns. This applies to unions as well as businesses, both of which it should be noted are incorporated and are therefore technically corporations. Our side has concerns about a level playing field because business has vastly more resources than labor. However, if the ruling were overturned either by another ruling or by constitutional amendment that too would affect BOTH businesses as unions. Personally I think only individuals should contribute to campaigns, but the amendment seeks to address interpretations of rights generally. As I understand it a proposed amendment to the constitution that I have seen and heard about does not specifically address campaign finance, but states that rights in the constitution shall only be construed to apply to individuals. That takes away the money=speech argument and leaves state legislatures and the Congress free to regulate campaign finance as they see fit.
I happen to be in NYC last week and I stopped by OWS and was very under-impressed! I mean the entire area looks smaller than a football field and half the people there were observers like myself. I would estimate there were no more than 200-250 actual protestors. I would also estimate that half the signs were about Wall St while the rest were assorted libral causes (“Stop the Stop & Frisk police policy”, “Stop fracking”, “Legalize Marajuana nationally”, “Stop the wars”, “Forgive all student loans”…).
There was no energy to speak of and I believe the movement is going nowhere. I understand that this movement is something you care deeply about Amber but I have to honestly say I think it has no legs. The vast majority of people I speak to, in many differing walks of life seem to a.) Agree that people should be able to protest peacefully and have free speech but b.) believe these people should go back to school, go find a job and/or enjoy their memories of their earlier days protesting Vietnam. When asked about specific things like student loans, most people think the loans should be paid back “Like I did”. Getting a job… “I worked three jobs when I finished college…” I know we travel in different circles but I have yet to find a sympathetic ear for any of the Occupy initiatives.
PS An interesting article in CNNMoney today says of the OWS popular 1%-ers, not many are Wall St people…
Being a struggling lawyer yourself, it would be unwarranted to count you as a 1%-er, but apparently people have no problem lumping all the people from Wall St. into a big hot pot!
Your words from above…
1. A resolution in support – and representatives were sent from Occupy Boston to follow up
2. A sweeping statement that shocked me, that came out from the Vatican, of all places, again today apparently supporting the Occupy movement.
What is going on is not about – or only – recycled Vietnam War protesters (though some are), unemployed college students (though some are) – it is recently returned veterans, union members many of whom are unemployed or underemployed, teachers, clergy, layers, artists, writers, photographers, historians, every kind of person you can imagine and whole towns passing resolutions and sending donations.
Further, occupy members move back and forth between different sites; Philadelphia sent a committee to pitch its national assembly who spoke last night.
It is not that I have a “soft spot”, but rather as with SCOTUS exceeding the actual case and controversy – JohnD – I am simply paying attention, close attention, to what is occurring because what is occurring is very, very different from anything that has occurred before during my lifetime – and while is is what I call “messy”, there is remarkable, growing energy.
I cannot prophesy where the deep disgust, the sense of betrayal, and energy about having a BETTER future rather than a greed-destroyed future of serfdom to oligarchs. Like the majority of occupy, I want a democratic future for the USA – not a fascist future with democratic window-dressing.
1. http://www.sudburydemocrats.org/pdf_files/Occupy_Boston.pdf
2. http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/10/24/351277/the-vatican-calls-for-economic-equality-reform-of-world-financial-system/
Anyway, back to work for me – but do check your condescension and patronizing view of things at the door and take a real look at what is going on.
I was simply calling it as I saw it. I was also simply reporting back what people have been telling me, no lies, no exaggerations and no omissions.
Time will tell and if the movement gains power and energy as the Tea Party did in 2010 then I will have to admit I was wrong.
I sincerely wasn’t being disrespectful as I can see you care, but consider me no more than a messenger. I too want a democratic future for America, which as far as I can see we have now.
1. This is how the GA (the Town Meetings of Occupy) work all across the country – and now in other countries too, collaboratively created: http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/General_Assembly of course, like all things occupy it is a work in progress, but changes to this one have to be via GA.
2. The ongoing work of the talented Occupy Boston (calls itself OB for short) now looks like this, and via kickstarter has funded Occupy Boston Globe successfully, and other efforts: http://www.occupyboston.org/general-assembly/reaching-consensus/ You might browse the calendar, which includes a lecture series and an growing “free university”.
3. I was surprised to check livestream and tune in on a delegation sent by consensus of the Occupy Philadelphia GA pitching a national convention in July in Philadelphia, with a proposal that is being taken to occupies, apparently, in person nationwide (I know there is bus travel back and forth between Occupy Boston and Occupy Wallstreet on a regular basis, but hadn’t known about Philadelphia, but… http://occupyphilly.org/ apparently the 99% Percent Declaration was adopted by OP (Occupy Philly) and they are pitching it around the country; it is up on the occupyphilly website under that name.
I can’t monitor it all; but I am paying close attention and admit to being far more interested in the Occupy movement that the US Senate primary or anything on television. I hope you find this of interest.
It seems the only way OWS will have ANY impact will be if they develop political clout (like the Tea Party people did in the 2010 elections). But who will the OWS elect into office since many of the large city Democratic Mayors seem to be putting the hammer down on protestors? If the movement had energy I would think these mayors would be giving them more leeway, unless they don’t think the movement has legs.
MSNBC…
.. That ‘democratic mayors seem to be putting the hammer down’ in the dark of the night… The Oakland cops came in at 4:30 am much like the cops elsewhere.
One would think that said mayors would be emboldened enough to lay their hammer down in daylight, if your theory, that the OWS has no juice, holds.
But the point of civil disobedience and mass protests is to deliberately step outside the sphere of ‘political clout’ in order to highlight the inadequacies, failings, shortcomings and injuries that the sphere of ‘political clout’ is unable to properly address. The idea of the ‘Tea Party’ having any sort of ‘political clout’ gives the lie to the notion that they are truly protesting anything. You cannot, simultaneously, be inside the system getting help and outside the system protesting it.
The Tea Party began as a protest movement– against, among other things, Republicans who supported TARP. In the primaries, it seized quite of bit of clout within the party, and the success of its candidates in the general means that it now controls the GOP agenda.
If civil disobedience and protests must eschew political power, then it, ipso facto cannot accomplish anything and is a complete waste of time.
Eschewing clout, that is to say, specific influence in a given system (in this case political), is different from eschewing political power. You can call it ‘influence from the outside” if that makes you more comfortable. But the point is that if for a significant portion of the served population (the electorate) the political system isn’t responsive then they go outside the system to hilight these failings of the system.
The protesters are saying, in effect, “I’d rather sleep in the park, in October, then to be part of this unfair system.” Gandhi said, and did, much the same when he said, “I’d rather not eat until you stop being cruel to each other…”
Not that it is possible for me to keep up with it all – Albany treated its Occupy totally different than New York did, for example – here is a link to mine: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Occupy-Protests I have lost count of the number of sites – and every site taken down in a major city goes back up, in one fashion or another and keeps trying. This is not about any one person or even country taking credit, but rather the reality that the greedsters have GONE TOO FAR.