Left In Lowell

Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs

 
2013 Candidate Questionnaire Responses!
 

October 16, 2011

Occupation: To Be or Not To Be…Coopted

by at 1:58 pm.

I spent most of Friday during the day in Boston, at Dewey Square, taking in OccupyBoston. I brought all the donations I could scrounge up (for instance, my entire adult history in mothballed bed comforters and towels) and hoped to hang around and get some video interviews and stories I could tell. Instead I wound up volunteering for a web project they needed - I thought my time would be better spent utilizing my skills as a developer rather than working on Occupy content and publicity for a small, local blog.

I haven’t written much here on the Occupy movement in the last few weeks, though I’ve been more than keenly following it online. There are so many thoughts swirling around in my head that I’ve been paralyzed from writing an essay-length post about it, although if you follow my Twitter account, the Facebook page which features many of the tweets, or keep up with @leftinlowell on the left sidebar here, you’ll know that I’ve been a very active author about OccupyBoston and OWS in the 140-character arena.

I could write a lot (and may yet) about what I found at Dewey Square on Friday - the strong sense of community, amazing solidarity, the organic means of organizing they employ - but many others have written about that already and you can find reams of pixels devoted to covering the news and day to day life of Occupiers.

But this afternoon, I found the 140 character limit failing me, and as I said in a direct response to an inquiry, needed a full blog post to explain my feelings and thoughts, specifically regarding the pressures that the Occupy movement is and will face in the coming weeks and months. Via @BostonPhoenix, I found this short description (and full video) of a Harvard political panel hastily formed to facilitate a discussion of the Occupy movement, including visiting fellow Ed Rendell, former Governor of Pennsylvania.

A far greater percentage of the audience than of the panel had actually spent signiicant time at an Occupation — Williamson has spent time at #OccupyBoston — but that didn’t stop anyone from speculating or projecting.

Rendell is not alone — especially and not surprisingly among Democratic politicians — in wishing that some of the enthusiasm of Occupy would carry over to the ballot box. What Democratic politicians have been very slow to acknowledge is that many Occupiers are as sick of Democrats as they are with banks — and are not enthusiastic about the possibilities of a two-party system they see as being hopelessly corrupted by corporate campaign contributions.

As a thoroughly committed progressive electoral political activist, I have, and will continue to, volunteer my time to electing good candidates at all levels of government, turning out the vote, encouraging voter participation, and going to the polls myself. It’s the least I can do for my democracy. But as an electoral activist, one who also has some experience in movement politics (the anti-war Bush era) I want to caution the Occupation against giving in too much to the powerful forces that would love to squeeze out this amazing energy for their own use.

There are so many pieces of evidence I could use to back that up. The most obvious is to look at what happened to the Tea Party movement. Although I am in total opposition to just about everything the TP stands for, the movement at its inception was grassroots at its core, expressing anger at the status quo. (I don’t argue about the need for such anger, but the TP is, at least in its current incarnation, gravely wrong on who was to blame.) Even one of its founders, a conservative blogger, now repudiates what it’s become - a front group for the financial backers of the Republican party and its politicians.

Or look at the Obama 2008 campaign. The enthusiasm of young volunteers and voters was part of the reason he was propelled to such heights of popularity. They were fired up, ready to go. And when they got there…they got some of what they wanted, sure. At least a modicum of health care reform. A half-measures stimulus package for jobs that turned out to be only partly effective - because the downturn was steeper than anyone knew, and because a third or more of the stimulus was ineffective tax cuts instead of direct stimulus spending. He has had a weak stomach for the fight…the opposite of a firm, demanding executive branch leader that we so need…instead, “capitulating” and “pre-compromising” are the catchphrases that come to mind about Obama’s first term.

Obama also put Wall Street execs into his economic brain trust. Wall St certainly doesn’t love this president, but if you were looking for them to enact policies against greed and corruption, you were sorely disappointed…besides the Elizabeth Warren-driven Consumer Protection Agency, we extracted no price from the financiers - not jail time pursued where possible, nor reigning their excess in, or asking them to pay their fair share of their own ridiculous bailouts.

The last of which, along with prolonged unemployment woes, prompted the Occupation movement to begin with.

If I have any advice for the burgeoning Occupy movement - if I could make any appeal at all to them that would matter (and by them, I do mean us, since I will continue to do what I can to support it), it would be this: if you allow yourselves to be coopted and pressured to work on elections, driven by the necessarily short-term thinking of electoral activism, you will be distracted from your larger goal, and you will be disappointed, time and again.

There are a few reasons for this, some inevitable in any circumstance, like the fact that we cannot all agree, even with those we agree, 100% of the time. I eased out of the anti-war movement because of the 2006 campaign for Governor Deval Patrick, swept up in the enthusiasm of what he was trying to accomplish, and believing that I could be more effective as an electoral activist than trying to change the stubborn mind of the Bush administration on its war policies. Choose between bashing my head on a wall repeatedly, or use a hammer to break through? Give me that hammer!

And in some ways, in some campaigns, you can be more effective as an electoral activist; ask for, and receive, real and lasting change. I am largely proud of my Governor, and the work I did to elect him. He has been an effective economic leader to say the least, nevermind his progressive support for gay rights, and for most social programs (your mileage may vary). But even I have had my enthusiasm for his tenure brutally dampened at times, especially now, that he, who should be smart enough to know better, has been on the forefront of the impending legalization of casinos. I have been disappointed, even in the best of our leaders, enough to distract me from more far-reaching goals.

If I can be disappointed in someone like Deval Patrick, just imagine the disappointment around a second term of Obama.

You can’t take on everything. Neither individuals, nor movements, can afford to be divided in their efforts or their aims. And in the end, electing more and better leaders will not change the system. That system is so broken, electing a Patrick or a Warren or this or that individual is like a plank trying to hold back a tide. The system needs fundamental uprooting and replanting, and no amount of progressive electoral politics (save the entire corps of incumbents being ousted and replaced wholesale at once by a massive grassroots effort of small donors and volunteers) will truly address the core problem at hand.

Electoral politics is about fraying the cloth of the “system” at the edges; Occupation should be about reweaving the entire bolt.

I have some ideas to propose (well one overarching, giant idea, really) of how Occupy can do this, for once, and for all. It’s an uphill battle so massive, so stacked against us, so big of an effort that just to think it makes me shiver in fear and excitement. But it is the only inevitable conclusion I can come to when thinking about the future of our country and how to right all the wrongs. I am talking about a constitutional amendment to rescind corporate personhood and the ruling of the Supreme Court that money equals speech.

All of what is broken with our system is about money and influence in our politics. Global climate change cannot be addressed because of the massive amount of money being pumped into stopping the regulation, and reversal of, carbon dependence. Economic justice is being thwarted by financial contributions from banks and Wall Street, so that the concept of going back to Clinton-era taxes on the wealthy and capital gains (money making money, as opposed to work making money) is nigh impossible to argue. And so on, and so on, and so on. If in a democracy being elected depends on monetary support, and people with more money can support more heavily than the rest of the 99%, then who will ever listen to the 99%?

A constitutional amendment is a big hill to climb. It’s a long-term hill, it could take a decade. It could take more. The money arrayed against such an act would be astounding - if you think Wall Street spends money on politics now, wait until you try this out.

However, no amount of cash is going to convince the American people that the system is working as it is, or that Citizens United was a good idea, or that corporations should have rights as though they were people. If lasting change is what Occupy seeks, than the moment is now.

But whatever form, and eventual goal, this movement takes on (if indeed it does not peter out after we see the economy rebound after some new temporary economic bandaid that puts off the inevitable real crash that I feel is coming) it needs to think beyond 2012. Beyond 2014, or 2016. Beyond the cyclical electoral process.

If that means fighting the pressure from Democratic politicians to elect them, as well as ignoring the temptation to help enact near-term policy bandaids, then as a staunch Democrat, I say, so be it. What you lose in short term gain is far exceeded by the long term possibilities.

I can’t help thinking that much of our future is dependent on what this nascent movement called Occupation does next (but no pressure!). And, I would love to be able to say at the end of all of this, “Our Democracy is dead…long live our Democracy.”

17 Responses to “Occupation: To Be or Not To Be…Coopted”

  1. Shawn Says:

    Recind the concept a legal entity, and you recind the ability to sue that entity to hold it accountable for its actions.

    Otherwise, the ability to sue a company that pollutes or mistreats workers becomes much harder because you have to sue each of the individuals on the board, and each of the officers and managers and workers… and then figure out how each was responsible.

    The corporation provides liability protection, but also provides a target for accountability.

  2. Lynne Says:

    Wow putting concepts in my post that aren’t even there. I didn’t say rescind corporations as an ENTITY, I said rescind corporate personhood. Yeesh.

  3. Shawn Says:

    I guess you just want to play semantics, I was just trying to point out that there are reasons for the legal situation that have to be considered… thats why we have the courts.

    Sheesh..

  4. Mr. Lynne Says:

    I’m failing to understand the distinction Shawn. What is it that you’re saying about ‘reasons for the legal situation’ and ‘corporate’ personhood? That rescinding personhood rescinds the ability to sue? How do you figure that?

  5. Shawn Says:

    Personhood implies rights.. such as due process, free speech, protection from illegal search and seizure.. all those basic rights that a legal entity has.

    If you can sue a corporation, then you are saying that it exists as a legal entity, and thus has the right to defend itself. Part of that defense is the freedom of speech.

    Take away the rights of the corporation, you lose the ability to go after it as an individual entity and have to go after the individuals involved .. who may have died, moved on, or you may not be able to determine individual culpability.

    I’m just saying.. taking away “personhood” is a lot more than just a nice talking point, theres a lot of legaleze that is involved.

  6. Jack Says:

    A person can opt to suffer harm for the sake of the greater good. We can choose to run into the twin towers, as others run out.

    A corporation can NEVER do that. The board and the executive officers have a fiduciary to put the well being of the Corp. above all.

    This notion that a Corp. is an entity with “personhood” is folly. It is a programed entity with limited choices. It is NOT a person.

  7. Lynne Says:

    A nonprofit is a legal entity, you can sue it, but it is not given personhood rights.

    The fact is, that you can build the entity in legalese any way you want. That’s the POINT of a constitutional amendment - to redefine what has been defined badly.

    The fact remains, money = speech and corporations = people are two of the most damaging rulings not yet remedied ever made by the SCOTUS. Other most damaging rulings include keeping segregation, Jim Crow laws, and other anti-civil rights moves on the part of SCOTUS…and we used the constitutional amendment process to fix THOSE.

  8. Lynne Says:

    BTW I have not, and never have, advocated throwing corporations out as a legal entity.

    There are plenty of things a corporation entity can do and be responsible for without the corporate personhood rulings.

  9. Mr. Lynne Says:

    I see now… you suffer from a false assumption - that “non-person legal entities” can’t have defined rights. Corporations can be “non-person legal entities” with rights and responsibilities legally defined. There isn’t a legal obstacle to creating this framework.

    Are there details to be worked out? Sure, of course. But the fear that rescinding personhood would somehow “recind the ability to sue that entity to hold it accountable” isn’t one of them.

  10. evelyn Says:

    I found the historical background to be the most enlightening on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

    An easier solution than a constitutional amendment would seem to be a change in campaign finance laws at the federal and state levels to prohibit the use of any corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, from soliciting, raising, collecting, or expending any money in connection with any election. This would eliminate the abuses taking place in elections and would require candidates to raise their own money from people rather than corporations, groups, associations or political parties (which are incorporated, and also hold copyrights as well as conduct financial business), making them more responsive to people than to corporations or other legal entities.

    But, since every politician sells out, no one really wants to see this pass… because they would all lose their campaign contributions.

    -e-

  11. Shawn Says:

    “corporations, groups, associations or political parties”

    seems to include family (a group), dinner parties(a group), bundlers, union donations, etc

    The law of unintentional consequences means new systems would arise, that would be just as corruptable. (Do I have the right to buy television time to convince other individuals to donate? to run a telethon where the actual money goes directly to the candidate’s account?)

    And what about the gift tax exemption? If 100 people give me a gift $10,000 each to do with what I want, why can’t I donate that to a candidate?

    Its better to let it flow, but require more transparency.

    The fact that Liz Warren is getting 90% of her money from outside Massachusetts is as important to me as much of it is coming from unions.

  12. Mr. Lynne Says:

    “Liz Warren is getting 90% of her money from outside Massachusetts”

    Cite?

  13. Shawn Says:

    Yesterdays news

  14. Shawn Says:

    http://news.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20111020stars_shine_on_liz_warren/srvc=home&position=2

    quoted 70%, and someone else on the program noted it would soon reach 90%

  15. Mr. Lynne Says:

    “…someone else on the program noted it would soon reach 90%”

    Program? You linked to a news article.

  16. Jack Says:

    Where does Scott Brown’s donations come from?:Scott Brown Begs David Koch For Money

    I’m not surprised that Warren is leveraging her national name recognition to gather support from progressive who prefer to make her 1 of 100 senators, as opposed to Brown.

    Note: Reposted, as I put it up before on the wrong thread. Derp.

  17. Shawn Says:

    Hey, it was 5 in the morning… lol I don’t remember what channel I was watching (though I only have about 10 since I reduced comcast to almost nothing).

    And Jack got the point here (I love them trying to brand the Koch guys as the right’s George Soros.. its so obvious).

    During his whole election the left was complaining about Brown’s funding coming from out of state.. but when Warren does it, crickets.

    Hypocrisy once again.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

[powered by WordPress.]


If you are not on Twitter and want to follow our feed on Facebook, click "Like" for our FB page.
BadgermillCity logo

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

October 2011
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Other:

Email us!

(replace spaces, ['s, symbols)
Lynne | Mimi

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Politics Online

The Arts in Lowell

Trad Local Media

40 queries. 0.932 seconds