Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
Sun Jul 1, 2012, 11:08 PM Jul 2012

Why HAVE Democratic mayors been so hardline towards Occupy?

Republican mayors, I could understand...you expect them to put "order" above humanity.

But aren't Democratic mayors supposed to be better than that?

It's not like any Democratic constituencies ever benefit from Occupy being repressed.

And it's not as if any voters who were even going to consider voting Democratic are viciously anti-Occupy, either.

103 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why HAVE Democratic mayors been so hardline towards Occupy? (Original Post) Ken Burch Jul 2012 OP
I think it is FirstLight Jul 2012 #1
Corruption, greed and money money money Marrah_G Jul 2012 #2
Orders from the AG and POTUS? HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #3
That's my opinion. These tactics certainly seem to have been coordinated. byeya Jul 2012 #30
Someone(s) somewhere must not want anything to truly change. Fire Walk With Me Jul 2012 #4
They say if voting actually changed anything, it would be made illegal. Fire Walk With Me Jul 2012 #42
A mayor's job is to keep the boat from rocking. Speck Tater Jul 2012 #5
In this case, a mayor's job is not to piss off the Federal government EFerrari Jul 2012 #6
Democratic leaders don't want that kind of thing going on during an election year. nt Raine Jul 2012 #7
But they were doing it last fall, when it WASN'T an election year. Ken Burch Jul 2012 #8
Speaks for itself, really. There's no excuse any rational person can make for them. nt Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #9
Don't know about anywhere else, but Anarchists screwed it up here. DirkGently Jul 2012 #10
They don't sound like "anarchists" to me Art_from_Ark Jul 2012 #35
Anarchists are infant Libertarians. DirkGently Jul 2012 #40
Interesting explanation Art_from_Ark Jul 2012 #41
Those I met both substituted "rage" for coherence. DirkGently Jul 2012 #59
No they're not. Anarchist were a vital part of the early labor movement and were deeply responsible Puregonzo1188 Jul 2012 #55
Not the ones I met at Occupy. DirkGently Jul 2012 #57
Most of these "anarchists" are plants from various LE agencies. They've been exposed numerous times Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #49
Yup, I've seen them in action Lydia Leftcoast Jul 2012 #58
I think that's entirely possible. DirkGently Jul 2012 #61
sounds like what happened here Adenoid_Hynkel Jul 2012 #103
Los Angeles' City Council agreed to pass a resolution opposing Citizens' United. JDPriestly Jul 2012 #11
This message was self-deleted by its author loyalsister Jul 2012 #12
Ken, sorry to break it to you but Dem mayors represent the interests of the 1%, not coalition_unwilling Jul 2012 #13
Most every Democrat I know is viciously anti-Occupy Sen. Walter Sobchak Jul 2012 #14
I've certainly never met one single Democrat who was anti-Occupy - some centrist types I know are a Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #15
It isn't the issue, it is the tactics. Sen. Walter Sobchak Jul 2012 #22
I certainly have not talked to any Democrats who feel that way and that includes Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #26
Absolutely everything I have seen and read, here and elsewhere, runs counter to everything you claim Occulus Jul 2012 #62
I'm shocked. UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #16
"Viciously anti-Occupy"???? Really??? That must be because the Democratic coalition_unwilling Jul 2012 #17
And the 1% who wander or drive past homeless people with total indifference Sen. Walter Sobchak Jul 2012 #24
News flash: who (other than you) ever said it was about turning around the 1%? See coalition_unwilling Jul 2012 #31
And here I thought Reagan Democrats were a myth. n/t EFerrari Jul 2012 #19
It isn't the "Reagan Democrats" you have to worry about, Sen. Walter Sobchak Jul 2012 #25
The Occupiers were the only ones speaking truth to power...other than Dennis. Ken Burch Jul 2012 #28
That may be... Sen. Walter Sobchak Jul 2012 #33
The only real impression YOU leave with anyone is you peeing on anybody Ken Burch Jul 2012 #45
So now we're posting Republican narrative here? EFerrari Jul 2012 #32
People who STILL hate hippies and any remaining vestiges of the Sixties Ken Burch Jul 2012 #100
The only vicious anti-occupy people I've encountered are right here on DU, not in the real world. myrna minx Jul 2012 #38
Yes, one story that the media have absolutely ignored is the way Lydia Leftcoast Jul 2012 #60
Get out of the office more often, you've apparently become insulated. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #50
I think Mayors regardless of their politcal sympathies are in a peculiar political postion Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #18
A progressive ethical mayor doesn't loose the police armed with deadly weapons EFerrari Jul 2012 #20
I totally agree Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #21
The fact is, there has been very little violence in the vast majority of protests EFerrari Jul 2012 #23
I know that. But in politics perception is everything and has a lot to do with whether or not a Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #27
I think the simple answer is: It scared them. KurtNYC Jul 2012 #29
rhetorical question, right? HiPointDem Jul 2012 #34
Because it is a movement against corporate rule that is inconvenient mmonk Jul 2012 #36
Because they still have a city to run 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #37
"had their fun"? Ken Burch Jul 2012 #44
At this point yes, 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #46
It's not like you're doing anything that has any better chance of success Ken Burch Jul 2012 #47
"ONLY the Occupy folks are doing anything that matters." 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #51
OK...I'll amend it to "anything POSITIVE that matters" Ken Burch Jul 2012 #63
Some people are severely injured running with the bulls 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #67
Truthy to POWER!!! snooper2 Jul 2012 #70
Also, whether I personally am doing something better 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #53
OWS is moving on to other things as well. Ken Burch Jul 2012 #64
You see this is one of the many many conflicting notions 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #68
I'll assume that by "political action" you mean "supporting the Democratic Party". Ken Burch Jul 2012 #79
You may assume that if you wish 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #83
The Wall Street lobbyists have massive amounts of money. Ken Burch Jul 2012 #86
"It's impossible for the non-rich to successfully lobby." 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #93
Whether you are personally doing anything better DOES matter Ken Burch Jul 2012 #72
Er, no. 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #74
Not a valid analogy at all. Ken Burch Jul 2012 #75
Interesting 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #78
It's not like the only choices are "law and order" or violence. Ken Burch Jul 2012 #92
Funny how you keep editing the rules 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #97
We can assume that none of the mayors that crushed the Occupy camps Ken Burch Jul 2012 #66
They were illegally squatting 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #69
OK...I get it now...you're one of those "the law's the law and that's all that matters" types. Ken Burch Jul 2012 #71
Er, yes. The Law is the Law 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #73
You assume that the only alternative to surrendering to the law is violence. Ken Burch Jul 2012 #77
"that it never protects women" 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #80
We have never had blind justice in this country. Ken Burch Jul 2012 #82
The number of women doing time 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #84
Domestic violence rates are NOT equal Ken Burch Jul 2012 #87
This is getting off on a tangent 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #90
Er... because the Democratic Mayors are part of the bourgeoisie............. socialist_n_TN Jul 2012 #39
This isn't France and it isn't the French Revolution. randome Jul 2012 #85
how important is "order", really? Ken Burch Jul 2012 #89
If you start from the premise that this is the most perfect world possible, then order is EVERYTHING Romulox Jul 2012 #95
Some Democratic mayors aren't much different than Teapublican mayors. 99Forever Jul 2012 #43
Mayors benefit when there is order and things stay the same or improve. NCTraveler Jul 2012 #48
What exactly is "better than that?" loyalsister Jul 2012 #52
Because someone has to pay for all these protests? City budgets are bare bones these days. Tarheel_Dem Jul 2012 #54
Because people will blame the mayor if it appears that a city has descended into disorder stevenleser Jul 2012 #56
+1000. Historic case in point: Daley and the '68 Democratic convention. closeupready Jul 2012 #94
because if there are traffic snarls or slow downs or it's hard to get into parks... WI_DEM Jul 2012 #65
I think it Meiko Jul 2012 #76
It's corporate $$$. Same as for the Republicans. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #81
because they work for the 1% too fascisthunter Jul 2012 #88
IMO Mr Dixon Jul 2012 #91
Because at the top of the party there are alot of dems who take corporate money. craigmatic Jul 2012 #96
Maybe it's because the horrible truth is that the one thing republicans have in Baitball Blogger Jul 2012 #98
Occupy, what's that? That was stupid idea from the start doc03 Jul 2012 #99
Right idea, but hindered by the "play nice" ideology n/t Scootaloo Jul 2012 #102
I guess there's just not much difference between Dem mayors and Repub mayors. nt valerief Jul 2012 #101

FirstLight

(13,352 posts)
1. I think it is
Sun Jul 1, 2012, 11:12 PM
Jul 2012

more about keeping "order" and the status quo than anything else... It really comes down to the fact that most people in positions of power are well aware that we are disenfranchised, and they also know we outnumber them...

so those in power, regardless of stance, feel they need to protect their place of power above all else... that's why we need more of US to keep making noise, imo.

 

byeya

(2,842 posts)
30. That's my opinion. These tactics certainly seem to have been coordinated.
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:23 AM
Jul 2012

The militarization of the police function is against the concept of a civil society and needs to be stopped.

 

Fire Walk With Me

(38,893 posts)
42. They say if voting actually changed anything, it would be made illegal.
Thu Jul 5, 2012, 12:41 AM
Jul 2012

Considering the attacks ongoing against Occupy over the last nine months including tonight's arrest(s?) of sign-carrying protesters in Philly on July 4th, I'm more and more inclined to truly believe the above statement.

 

Speck Tater

(10,618 posts)
5. A mayor's job is to keep the boat from rocking.
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 02:31 AM
Jul 2012

If you rock the boat you are the mayor's enemy.

Being an elected official is all about keeping your job, not about making changes of any kind.

EFerrari

(163,986 posts)
6. In this case, a mayor's job is not to piss off the Federal government
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 02:40 AM
Jul 2012

which is providing his police department with funds, technology and equipment in as bad an economy as anyone has seen for decades.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
10. Don't know about anywhere else, but Anarchists screwed it up here.
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 03:12 AM
Jul 2012

Or, people saying they were Anarchists. Orlando is a fair-sized city, but not it's not a huge metropolis like any of the larger OWS centers. We have a tiny downtown with a tiny park, in which Occupy Orlando was free to set up equipment, organize marches, hold teach-ins, etc. But it closes at 11:00 p.m. Always has.

So, we had people decide to protest the closing, on grounds that free speech overrides municipal ordinances, and so forth. Okay ... not a completely unreasonable point of view. But then it got weird.

Instead of, say, peacefully protesting the closing, a small core of really determined, vocal people, went AT the local cops, who had actually been pretty reasonable, even handling traffic for marches and so forth. No pepper spray, no hog tying. No verbal abuse. But the "Anarchists" were immediately spitting, screaming, "F the pigs" and on and on. Not in reaction to brutal treatment, but just to do it. There were plenty of opportunities before and after to expand things and reach out to the community is less abrasive ways, but they wouldn't have it. No one was radical enough. Had we heard about how the Fed was a conspiracy and "fiat currency" was ruining the economy?!

The same group ramped up its weird antics to harassing anyone who seemed to be merely liberal or progressive or Democrats, "tagging" the public areas where Occupy met with that lovely A-in-circle doohickey they love, disrupting court hearings we were WINNING with crazy sovereign citizen bullshit, taking sides with knife-wielding crack dealers in the park over occupiers whenever they thought about calling the cops. And we needed to be more respectful of what the local Tea Party might have to say -- the ones accusing our (Catholic) attorney of being a plant from the "Muslim Brotherhood."

The local mayor is a Democrat. Not the worst in the world, but certainly an adherent to the small-town, good 'ole boy, business-before-people default position of most of our local leaders here. Not a great guy, but not against us, at least at first. They made him a primary enemy when at worst, he was cautious and ambivalent about Occupy.

The Totally Rad Anarchist Dudes kept it up, pissing on buildings, shouting down anyone working on community friendly projects, and eventually maneuvering to where they were able to kick hundreds of activists off the Facebook page so they could start over with just their group of ignorant, acrimonious jackasses, guaranteeing nothing constructive could happen, because in addition to the rest, they were utterly incompetent. Eventually they gave voice to their utter contempt for anyone they deemed mere progressives or Democrats. Just stooges of the system, you see.

The whole thing disintegrated. Might have anyway. And maybe other Democratic mayors just did what ours did to a higher degree -- put Chamber of Commerce type interests ahead of Occupiers.

But the thing that guaranteed hostility toward Occupy Orlando was when interest dipped slightly, and a small group of obnoxious idiots, informed by everything from Ron Paul to thinly disguised anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, took over. Progressives and Democrats left, angry Revolutionary morons stayed. The goodwill of the community evaporated.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
35. They don't sound like "anarchists" to me
Wed Jul 4, 2012, 04:37 AM
Jul 2012

The ones who talk about fiat currency ruining the economy and railing on about the Fed tend to be on the Libertarian side. I seriously doubt whether anarchists even know what the Fed or fiat currency is. It sounds to me like these guys you're talking about were purposely trying to make you look bad.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
40. Anarchists are infant Libertarians.
Wed Jul 4, 2012, 12:06 PM
Jul 2012

Same rap about how the system can't be saved and progressives are stooges and enablers of the Man. Plenty of trust-fund Ron Paul acolytes and sovereign citizen conspiracy nuts mixed in, but they all got along, united in their attitude that Dems and progressives and basically anyone actually accomplishing anything were cowards who would be hiding behind them "when the shit goes down." Anyone not sufficiently antagonistic was, to paraphrase, fellating the cops.

That kind if thing. To be fair, a few reasonable people also self-identified as Anarchists, but they were less vocal and less abusive.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
41. Interesting explanation
Thu Jul 5, 2012, 12:27 AM
Jul 2012

I had thought that anarchists and libertarians would make strange bedfellows, but after reading your explanation the connection becomes clearer.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
59. Those I met both substituted "rage" for coherence.
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:44 AM
Jul 2012

All the Libertarians had to say was that pot should be legal and the Fed is a conspiracy.

All the Anarchists had to say was that pot should be legal and Fuck the Pigs.

I don't disagree about the pot, but the rest was just silly. Childish. You just can't come to a political gunfight with a general conviction that everybody but you and your friends is wrong.

Puregonzo1188

(1,948 posts)
55. No they're not. Anarchist were a vital part of the early labor movement and were deeply responsible
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 06:59 PM
Jul 2012

for a lot of the worker's rights that today's libertarians are trying to destroy.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
57. Not the ones I met at Occupy.
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:38 AM
Jul 2012

We had two varieties: trust-fund babies in their first or second year of college, preaching insufferably about how we don't need government or any kind of social structure because people "will just naturally form affinity groups," and angry, aging jackasses in carefully calculated "rebel" outfits, implying that anyone not currently, at this moment, spitting on a cop is a "spineless cocksucker" who will be "cowering behind us" when the Revolution occurs.

I'm not a student of Anarchy. But whatever it started out as, the bulk of people I've observed currently claiming this pseudo-philosophy are clueless contrarians, much in the mold of Ron Paul acolytes, who shortcut any kind of actual thought with vague notions of a completely "free" environment, in which they clearly believe that they will still enjoy the safety and cooperation of civilization (as well as their daddy's money) without all those pesky compromises civilization requires.

The only skills they showed me were disruption, contempt, and an overweening sense of their own hip superiority, that extended fully to their fellow activists. Their only achievements were in alienating otherwise sympathetic members of the community, getting drunk, and pissing on buildings. They showed zero empathy for anyone, and a queer ideological rigidity, without any practical understanding of how to motivate people or effect useful change.

Fuck them.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
49. Most of these "anarchists" are plants from various LE agencies. They've been exposed numerous times
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 04:53 PM
Jul 2012

since the battle of Seattle. They screw it up on purpose.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
58. Yup, I've seen them in action
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:43 AM
Jul 2012

infiltrating organizational meetings and saying, "We should let people smash windows if that's the only way they can express themselves" or going into an existing demonstration and urging people to tip over cars.

I wouldn't put it past some of these trust fund types to be playing anarchist/provocateur for the law enforcement agencies because they see the Occupy movement as a threat to their finances.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
61. I think that's entirely possible.
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:54 AM
Jul 2012

Two of our most effective miscreants showed up from out of state in the middle of things. Quickly started sowing dissent as to how the local progressives had too much influence, and were projecting a "statist" too-friendly vibe. They worked very hard at targeting some of the salt-of-earth progressive types as being sell-outs or soft, or what have you. Their vision of the future was stunningly self-contradictory. "We could all live in peace if ... fuck EVERYBODY!"

And they were good at it. Within a few weeks, they'd sliced and diced loyalties and sown confusion and distrust everywhere. They'd hop on the various forums and flame away at people they'd been friendly to hours before at the GA, as though we were all strangers, rather than neighbors. They were especially determined to discredit and drive away our fairly effective volunteer attorney, who was willing to argue the various trespassing and other cases within the law. They wanted to limit tactics to a demand that the court system (and government in general) go AWAY.

I don't know that suspecting any of them of being LE plants doesn't give a little too much credit. The dum-dum college freshman halfway through their first sociology courses seemed sincere. Some of the older ones -- one in particular -- seemed very controlled and calculating in attacking the more mainstream people who were actually getting things done.

 

Adenoid_Hynkel

(14,093 posts)
103. sounds like what happened here
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:06 PM
Jul 2012

the lack of any organization and leadership allowed to crazies and the loud fringe to drive most off and highjack the movement.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
11. Los Angeles' City Council agreed to pass a resolution opposing Citizens' United.
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 03:37 AM
Jul 2012

We have an exceptionally liberal city council. Shortly after the Occupiers arrived, one of the city council members walked out and greeted them and invited them into City Hall.

But, after quite some time, the Council wanted the Occupiers away from City Hall.

I think the Occupiers did a great job changing the focus of the political conversation.

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
13. Ken, sorry to break it to you but Dem mayors represent the interests of the 1%, not
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 03:49 AM
Jul 2012

the interests of the 99%. Villaraigosa and his lackey, City Attorney Carmen Trutanich made no secret of their contempt for the 99% and Occupy Los Angeles. Karma is a motherfucker though, as Trutanich lost big-time in his bid to move up to L.A. County District Attorney. Couldn't happen to a nicer prick. That asshole couldn't even get enough votes to get into the run-off. I'd like to think he picked up some really bad mojo from busting Occupy Los Angeles in November.

Trutanich was in the back pocket of one set of developers who backed one proposal for the NFL stadium and Villaraigosa was in the back pocket of a different set that backed the winning proposal. Now that Trutanich is dead in the water, I have decided to dedicate my further efforts to ensuring that Villlaraigosa's political career ends with his Mayoralty of LA. That will be his karma for busting OLA.

 

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)
14. Most every Democrat I know is viciously anti-Occupy
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 04:07 AM
Jul 2012

The Republicans on the other hand love the occupiers who in one inarticulate swoop rehabilitated all the rights favorite dirty hippie memes. Democrats on the other hand are going to be linked with the occupiers bullshit no matter how indifferent or opposed they are to the campers antics.

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
15. I've certainly never met one single Democrat who was anti-Occupy - some centrist types I know are a
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 04:18 AM
Jul 2012

a little bit skeptical. But I have certainly never met any that were anti-occupy. Most I know - even middle of the road Democrats seemed to think it was great and about time. Absolutely everyone agrees that they were very successful at least for a time at changing the conversation and drawing attention to the vast disparities between economic classes. Many of their themes like, "the 1% " are now mainstream language adopted across the political spectrum. If you seriously think that all Democrats you know are "viciously anti-occupy" I cannot for the life of me imagine who you are talking to....really.

 

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)
22. It isn't the issue, it is the tactics.
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:09 AM
Jul 2012

And no, I don't know a soul who self-identifies as a democrat who does anything other than cringe at the occupiers. Because they don't want to be associated by way of ignorance or a republican smear with the campers.

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
26. I certainly have not talked to any Democrats who feel that way and that includes
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:19 AM
Jul 2012

pretty middle class ones who are not particularly left-wing. Although I do agree that following an initial avalanche of public support their relationship with the wider community was compromised. I do agree that some of the more disruptive elements that attached itself to Occupy did make some bad publicity for the cause. I do think that defining itself by camping in public parks was not a long-term permanent form of protest. I'm not suggesting that they should have joined mainstream partisan politics at this point. But I do think that they need to be more effective at distancing themselves from certain disruptive elements and look for new forms of protest.

Occulus

(20,599 posts)
62. Absolutely everything I have seen and read, here and elsewhere, runs counter to everything you claim
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:02 PM
Jul 2012

I call bullshit.

 

UnrepentantLiberal

(11,700 posts)
16. I'm shocked.
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 04:23 AM
Jul 2012
I am a militantly moderate native of Orange County with a background in finance, trade and bankruptcy
 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
17. "Viciously anti-Occupy"???? Really??? That must be because the Democratic
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 04:39 AM
Jul 2012

Party has done such a wonderful job of reversing the concentration of wealth in this country, of reviving the economy, of stopping war crimes in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Democrats you know . . . if they exist . . . suck almost as badly as the Democratic Party sucks.

When no less a figure than Adlai Stevenson III says that Obama is but a continuation of Bush, you know you've got a winner of a party.

I hope this post doesn't get me banned from DU but, really, your unsupported smears and slanders -- the equal of the worst that Joe McCarthy dished out in his heyday -- demanded a response.

 

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)
24. And the 1% who wander or drive past homeless people with total indifference
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:13 AM
Jul 2012

Are going to be turned around by other people camping on the street?

Sounds like a winning strategy to me...

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
31. News flash: who (other than you) ever said it was about turning around the 1%? See
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:07 PM
Jul 2012

what Frederick Douglass had to say:

 

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)
25. It isn't the "Reagan Democrats" you have to worry about,
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:16 AM
Jul 2012

It is the "Silent Majority" who elected Nixon. Thankfully the occupiers seem to have run their course long before the final push to the election.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
28. The Occupiers were the only ones speaking truth to power...other than Dennis.
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:01 AM
Jul 2012

Nobody YOU'd approve of was fighting for the people.

 

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)
33. That may be...
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:00 PM
Jul 2012

but the only real impression they left with the public at large was them peeing on the sidewalk.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
45. The only real impression YOU leave with anyone is you peeing on anybody
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 04:11 PM
Jul 2012

who actually has the guts to stand up and take risks for justice.

You probably think it's revolutionary to write your congressman.

EFerrari

(163,986 posts)
32. So now we're posting Republican narrative here?
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 04:12 PM
Jul 2012

The silent majority was the least of that election, where our side suffered an assassination as well as a party rift. Frankly, I don't worry about Reagan Democrats. I know they will continue to be as wrong as possible. That is their way, why worry about a certainty?

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
100. People who STILL hate hippies and any remaining vestiges of the Sixties
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 09:56 PM
Jul 2012

aren't ever going to support anything progressive anyway. And the people who still hate those things are a minority now.

And it's not like there was a clean-cut, well-dressed, polite, deferential alternative to Occupy that was actually effective at getting anything progressive done.

myrna minx

(22,772 posts)
38. The only vicious anti-occupy people I've encountered are right here on DU, not in the real world.
Wed Jul 4, 2012, 09:15 AM
Jul 2012
In fact, in the real world, the people I know and encounter are highly supportive.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
60. Yes, one story that the media have absolutely ignored is the way
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:48 AM
Jul 2012

that ordinary people were bringing money and food and other supplies to the Occupiers in Peavey Plaza in Minneapolis. When I brought some first aid and personal cleanliness supplies, I had to get in line with people who were donating bags of fruit, loaves of bread, cases of soy milk, money, canned vegetables, and so on. When I went to one of their gatherings in November, I found out that there was a crew of older women who were bringing in hot meals every evening.

Not all of us can camp outside with the occupiers. But they had a lot more support from the public than the media ever let on.

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
18. I think Mayors regardless of their politcal sympathies are in a peculiar political postion
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 04:42 AM
Jul 2012

City Mayors have a more direct and personal symbiotic relationship with the business community than almost any other elected official. They also are more directly and more personally held responsible for maintaining order than almost any other elected official. I’m not trying to excuse the viciousness of some of the crackdown tactics. But for example as you know Mayor Quan of Oakland has a history as a very progressive and community oriented – one might even say left –wing figure. A progressive and ethical mayor in that situation finds themselves in a position perhaps a bit similar to a progressive and ethical soldier who is required to maintain order during a military occupation.

It is fair is a fair criticism to say that there were some unsavory and disruptive elements attaching itself to the Occupy Movement. But that was true of every great social movement for change since the beginning of time. Those movements that were successful like civil rights movement were able in spite of tremendous odds working against them to insure that it was their core message that got the attention – not a handful of disruptors. It certainly is in the interest of those who want to advance Occupy’s core message that they do their best to make sure their core message is not compromised by a handful of trouble makers. It is difficult to be both spontaneous and organized - but it can be done.

EFerrari

(163,986 posts)
20. A progressive ethical mayor doesn't loose the police armed with deadly weapons
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 04:50 AM
Jul 2012

against peaceful protesters.

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
21. I totally agree
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:02 AM
Jul 2012

I'm just trying to imagine myself in the position of a mayor who is dealing with a movement that in some places are being defined by the "Black Box Anarchist" types.

It is a good idea and in the interest of those who support Occupy not to grant anyone any excuses or to put a Mayor into a difficult bind where they are under pressure to act against their better judgment.

EFerrari

(163,986 posts)
23. The fact is, there has been very little violence in the vast majority of protests
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:10 AM
Jul 2012

on the part of the protesters, who have themselves been kettled, clubbed, shot at, left to soil themselves handcuffed in buses for hours, harassed, arrested and accused of terrorism. I guess we're lucky no one has been killed yet.

It's a good idea and in the interest of mayors who want to preserve the public good and peace in their communities not to engage in repressive measures that people of conscience will be ethically forced to resist.



Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
27. I know that. But in politics perception is everything and has a lot to do with whether or not a
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:23 AM
Jul 2012

movement succeeds or fails. I support Occupy. I do think some mistakes were made. That could be said about every great movement in history. A successful movement learns from its mistakes and moves forward.

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
29. I think the simple answer is: It scared them.
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:17 AM
Jul 2012

As others in this thread have pointed out, Mayors are part of the business community and they get their position and keep it by playing nice with business. They also benefit from a system where "democracy" happens every 4 years and consists of 2 minutes inside a voting booth. They know how to do photo ops and how to package themselves for sale to the voters. Occupy throws all that out the window.

Occupy is simply not a process that they can control or benefit from. And really think they feared where it could go -- a more participatory democracy.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
44. "had their fun"?
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 04:10 PM
Jul 2012

So, you have NO respect for the fact that, unlike non-Occupy types, those folks have actually risked, and in some cases lost their lives fighting for the rights of all of us?

When have YOU ever walked the walk like Occupy has? When the hell have you ever stepped out of your middle-class comfort zone at all?

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
46. At this point yes,
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 04:20 PM
Jul 2012

they are just having fun.

I support the general concept but what these folks are doing has zero, count it, zero chance of changing anything.

They are having fun. I don't begrudge them that. But don't pretend they're going to change the world with these stunts.

Just because you say you are fighting for our rights doesn't make it so.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
47. It's not like you're doing anything that has any better chance of success
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 04:37 PM
Jul 2012

I'm working for Obama's re-election too, but we both know THAT isn't actually about fighting for social change. It's simply about holding ground, and hope is no longer involved.

ONLY the Occupy folks are doing anything that matters. Putting on a suit and politely talking to politicians is just giving up. Nothing respectable makes change.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
51. "ONLY the Occupy folks are doing anything that matters."
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 05:01 PM
Jul 2012

Consider these groups:

The NRA.

AARP.

NAACP.

Citizens United.

UAW.

OWS.

Which one doesn't belong? OWS right? Why?

Well you'll probably say because they're sticking it to the man or whatever. But in reality it's because they are the only one of that group that is politically irrelevant. They don't command votes like the AARP/NAACP/NRA. They don't command money like citizens united and UAW (actually there's a lot of overlap on both these things for various groups).

So they don't matter.

If the AARP decided to get together and effect some change they could. Why? Money and voters.

Same with the rest.

The OWS has sought to organize neither for any one cause.

So they are irrelevant.

You can argue that money shouldn't matter. It does, but fine. Let's say it shouldn't. They claim to represent the 99%. Ok, so get about half of those organized and standing behind candidates that support your goals and you win every election. Bam! Immediate and lasting change.

They haven't done that. They are "staying out of politics".

Ergo they are just playing games. Not because their goals aren't noble. But rather because they have no reasonable means to achieve those goals.

So in other words: they're having fun.

The protests were supposed to be a starting point. To get on the news, to pique interest. That could then be used to build a funding/voter base to form some sort of real party or organization.

About a year in and it's still just at the protest phase. I don't think it's progressing beyond that.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
63. OK...I'll amend it to "anything POSITIVE that matters"
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 09:16 AM
Jul 2012

You really can't say that about the UAW, the NAACP(these days) or AARP.

None of these groups are challenging corporate domination.

And again, you have no right to dismiss what OWS is doing as "having fun" when some of their members have been severely injured or even killed standing up for the people(something that hasn't ever happened to anybody in the NAACP or the UAW in decades now, and something that never happened to AARP).

All those three groups have achieved through "money and votes", for a long time, is tiny increments. And tiny increments are useless.

We can't settle for increments anymore...doing that is the same thing as losing, since incrementalism is only of value if you can count on being in power for a LONG period of time.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
67. Some people are severely injured running with the bulls
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 09:25 AM
Jul 2012

they do it for fun. They aren't changing the world or anything.

Citing that people have been injured no more makes them a serious political group than citing the scores injured every year in Pamplona.

We can't settle for increments anymore...doing that is the same thing as losing, since incrementalism is only of value if you can count on being in power for a LONG period of time.


You scoff at the tiny increments approach (although it clearly works, talk about banning guns or getting rid of social security and see what happens to your campaign) and say that we need some huge change.

Ok. What huge change has the OWS initiated?

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
53. Also, whether I personally am doing something better
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 05:05 PM
Jul 2012

has no bearing on the success of the OWS.

Let's say I have done nothing to improve the situation.

Ok. What does that prove? That *I* have done nothing to improve the situation. It doesn't prove by default that the OWS has.

The only kinds of mass protests that have worked have been A) coupled with massive numbers of arrests and B) engaged in political activities as well as protesting.

MLK and Ghandi didn't achieve success by camping in a park and waving signs. If you think they did I suggest you read up on their histories.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
64. OWS is moving on to other things as well.
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 09:17 AM
Jul 2012

It's just that wearing suits and lobbying Congress isn't a worthwhile use of their, or anyone else's time. The system can't be worked within these days by decent people. It only works for the total bastards.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
68. You see this is one of the many many conflicting notions
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 09:26 AM
Jul 2012

about the OWS.

Some supporters are fervently denying that the OWS has any political element (it's a social movement!) others are saying they're moving towards politics.

At the very least this is the sign of a poorly organized group that doesn't really know what it wants or how it intends to get it.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
79. I'll assume that by "political action" you mean "supporting the Democratic Party".
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:44 AM
Jul 2012

The problem is, if the DID ally with us, that would make it impossible for them to fight for anything the party itself didn't support. They couldn't challenge corporate power anymore. They couldn't speak for any notion of human equality.

What the hell would they even be worth if they formally allied with us?

They'd no longer have their values.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
83. You may assume that if you wish
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:50 AM
Jul 2012

there is no law against making false assumptions.

And it doesn't take being absorbed in to one party or the other to be relevant.

Consider wallstreet lobbyists. They are effective, not so? They get what they want accomplished. Which party do they belong to?

Neither, obviously. They bribe or threaten members of both. And so regardless of who wins they are tossed a treat.

Clearly being absorbed in to one party or the other is not the only way to influence politics.

The OWS claims to represent the 99%. Let's say it's just half that. Ok, organize those voters. Any politician that doesn't pass the OWS' test on various issues (like say opposing campaign finance reform or Glass-Stegal) doesn't get those votes. If nothing else they'll throw their support behind the opposition in that race (the reason they feel they can get away with this stuff is that they can: we have a 95% reelection rate nationally).

Do that consistently and actually carry through and the OWS will have clout. It will affect change.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
86. The Wall Street lobbyists have massive amounts of money.
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:55 AM
Jul 2012

It's impossible for the non-rich to successfully lobby.

That's why lobbying will never lead to Citizens United being overturned.

And it's entirely possible that OWS will organize those people. Don't assume that they won't.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
93. "It's impossible for the non-rich to successfully lobby."
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:04 AM
Jul 2012

How did you manage to acquire all these false notions?

The AARP is not rich. The UAW is not rich. The NAACP is not rich.

What do they have? Organized voters.

And it's entirely possible that OWS will organize those people. Don't assume that they won't.


If they did they would be on the path to relevance. But we're not talking about hypothetical future scenarios. We're talking about right now, what has actually happened.

In reality they have not organized voters as of July 2012. That is a fact.
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
72. Whether you are personally doing anything better DOES matter
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:27 AM
Jul 2012

You only have the right to look down on OWS if you, by contrast, are personally being MORE effective.

I think I get it with you now...you're mad because OWS isn't reducing itself to being part of the Obama re-election campaign...a step that would require it to stop fighting corporate power and give up virtually all of its principles-as wpuld putting on suits and lobbying Congress(hint, politicians never listen to anybody who can't write them a massive check, so lobbying on OWS part would automatically be pointless).

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
74. Er, no.
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:31 AM
Jul 2012

Not when the question is: has the OWS been successful.

If the question were: who has done more, this one guy on the internet or the OWS that would be different.

But it's not.


You only have the right to look down on OWS if you, by contrast, are personally being MORE effective.


No, and that's a stupid argument.

Here: a doctor was supposed to perform a heart transplant. Instead he got wasted on drugs and amputated the patients foot. The patient then died.

Can you A) say that as a doctor he has failed. Or B) withhold all comments until you have successfully performed at least one heart transplant?

You are arguing for B (don't dare criticize unless you have done better). I am arguing A (was the final outcome what was intended going in?).

Most every sane person would agree with me.

Doctors who got high and killed their patients would agree with you.
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
75. Not a valid analogy at all.
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:38 AM
Jul 2012

Anybody can engage in political action. Only a handful of people have the skills to perform open-heart surgery.

In the case of political action, if you haven't walked the walk yourself(and clearly, you haven't) then you really have no credibility to say "these guys are just having fun".

Before OWS came along, the left was freaking dead in this country. Nobody else was talking about corporate power. Nobody else was seriously challenging the idea that what the rich want should be more important than what most people need.

It took the encampments to change the discussion. Without them, we'd still be in the dead zone we were in in the late fall of 2010...when everything had come to a complete stop. It was over.

The story isn't over yet with OWS. And at this point in the civil rights and Indian independence movements(only a couple of years in, to be accurate in comparison)neither was taken seriously yet by the nation or the world and neither seemed to have had any real effect on anything.

The point is, politeness doesn't work anymore for anyone who believes in a progressive future. Wearing a suit and talking in measured tones doesn't work for people who want social justice or human equality. And neither of those things ever worked worth a damn for the working class or the poor.

It's ONLY rebellion that makes change. Rebellion is what's required to make anyone on the top do what they should do. Power STILL only responds to a demand.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
78. Interesting
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:43 AM
Jul 2012

I take it then that unless you are a professional politician you will refrain from criticizing the actions of any politician?

After all, they're at least doing something. What have you done?

Before OWS came along, the left was freaking dead in this country.


A historically inaccurate statement. Before OWS the right was losing elections (whitehouse and congress both went to the democrats).

After OWS democrats lost the house.

So . . . yeah. . .


Wearing a suit and talking in measured tones doesn't work for people who want social justice or human equality. And neither of those things ever worked worth a damn for the working class or the poor.


Clearly. That's why all those lobbyists have given up and gone home. Because wearing a suit, working within the system, and having a clearly defined agenda just absolutely will not work anymore.

It's ONLY rebellion that makes change. Rebellion is what's required to make anyone on the top do what they should do. Power STILL only responds to a demand.



FARK YEAH! Let's get our guns and run up in to the mountains and fight off them black hely-copters. WOLVERINES!
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
92. It's not like the only choices are "law and order" or violence.
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:04 AM
Jul 2012

And your revised analogy still doesn't work, only this time in reverse, because you don't need any special qualifications to be a politician, unlike a heart surgeon. Of course you can criticize politicians. And you can even criticize OWS(I've done it myself). Just don't disrespect them by making comments about them having their fun.

Mostly, what they were doing wasn't fun. It was physically grueling and placed them at personal risk. They were making a personal stand for what they believe in...and it's just not appropriate to trivialize and mock that or speak of it as if it were just a child's game. When you get teargassed, shot with rubber bullets, clubbed and in some cases even killed for your beliefs, that automatically merits respect. If you want to suggest different tactics, that's fine...but don't disrespect people who have demonstrated true courage for God's sake.

Is that asking too much?

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
97. Funny how you keep editing the rules
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:10 AM
Jul 2012

so that you are always right.

Heart surgeon doesn't work because it requires special skills we don't have.

Politician doesn't work because it requires no special skills and we could all do it.

Huh?

Mostly, what they were doing wasn't fun. It was physically grueling and placed them at personal risk.


Yes, like running from bulls. Both equally likely to reform the system.

They were making a personal stand for what they believe in...and it's just not appropriate to trivialize and mock that or speak of it as if it were just a child's game.


The same could be said of the teaparty. I assume you refuse to mock them?

When you get teargassed, shot with rubber bullets, clubbed and in some cases even killed for your beliefs, that automatically merits respect.


Not really. Suffering isn't the goal here. Actual reform is. If someone sets himself on fire to end a war. Ok, respectable. If he does it to protest the cost of cheetos . . . no I'm going to make fun of him.

If you want to suggest different tactics, that's fine...but don't disrespect people who have demonstrated true courage for God's sake.


That's exactly what I did and it outraged you and others.

Suggesting different tactics implies that camping out in public parks isn't the end all of political manipulation which means I'm a right winger who hates freedom or some such nonsense.

Is that asking too much?


That I display gushing adoration for people I do not respect and who are making finding solutions harder for the rest of us? Yes. You've got a crush on the OWS. Fine, I believe you.

That doesn't make them relevant and it doesn't take away from the fact that by their actions they are making actual reform more difficult by linking in the public's mind their antics with anyone discussing actual reform.
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
66. We can assume that none of the mayors that crushed the Occupy camps
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 09:19 AM
Jul 2012

will ever do anything progressive AFTER doing that.

You can't be "law and order" AND care about the poor and the workers. You can't be Bobby Kennedy and Frank Rizzo at the same freaking time.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
69. They were illegally squatting
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 09:29 AM
Jul 2012

that is something most any mayor would have done.

Just because you feel they have justice on their side doesn't mean they can do whatever they want on public property.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
71. OK...I get it now...you're one of those "the law's the law and that's all that matters" types.
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:22 AM
Jul 2012

Yes, what they were doing was illegal. So was almost everything that ever led to real change in this country.

If everybody in the civil rights movement had obeyed the law, we'd still have Jim Crow. If the anti-Vietnam War movement had obeyed the law, we never would have stopped bombing Vietnam.

Stay within the letter of the law and you doom yourself to failure. It's astonishing that, after all this time, you still think the law gives the people a chance.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
73. Er, yes. The Law is the Law
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:28 AM
Jul 2012

you can't apply it selectively based on your opinion of that persons politics.

You agree with me: alright, we won't prosecute.

You don't agree with me: clasp 'em in irons!

That's how fascist states run. In free states the law is the law for everyone and no one is given a free pass simply for being of the "right" politics.


If everybody in the civil rights movement had obeyed the law, we'd still have Jim Crow. If the anti-Vietnam War movement had obeyed the law, we never would have stopped bombing Vietnam.


And those people were arrested.

Also saying black people aren't human is a bit different than saying you can't camp out in this public park and defecate in the street. Not so?


Stay within the letter of the law and you doom yourself to failure. It's astonishing that, after all this time, you still think the law gives the people a chance.


Sounds like it's time to take up arms. Yeehaw! Let's get dem fed bastards!

You can't expect to get anywhere following the law. So why not? Violence is the ultimate authority since we no longer feel the need to live in a law abiding society.
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
77. You assume that the only alternative to surrendering to the law is violence.
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:42 AM
Jul 2012

It doesn't have to be.

And since the law only protects those who already hold all the power, that it never protects women, POC, the poor and the workers, why bother with it when it's in the wrong?

If you put law and order first, you guarantee the triumph of reaction and repression. You automatically end any real possibility of human equality. You guarantee, in short, the preservation of the status quo for all eternity.

That's what history has shown us. The law is never on OUR side. The law has never liberated anybody.

You have ended up in Anatole French country, my friend.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
80. "that it never protects women"
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:46 AM
Jul 2012

It's true. No man has ever gone to jail for harming a woman.

EVER.

Likewise there are no non-minorities in jail.

If you put law and order first, you guarantee the triumph of reaction and repression. You automatically end any real possibility of human equality. You guarantee, in short, the preservation of the status quo for all eternity.


Indeed. A lot of serious scholars have argued that the thing holding us back is the notion of blind justice. That everyone is equal before the law.

Anarchy is as always the only path forward. That or making justice a little less blind to stick it to those guys (you know the ones, the guys we don't like).



 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
82. We have never had blind justice in this country.
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:49 AM
Jul 2012

And the number of men doing time for harming women is pathetically small. Also, there are only a tiny handful of white people who are ever punished for harming POC.

Being for law and order automatically puts you on the right-wing side of the agenda...because it obligates you to end up backing shit like the death penalty and more prison construction. You can't be for law and order and be against those things.

And again, you have no reason to assume that I'm calling for violence. Or "anarchy".'

Those who try to work for progressive social change within this system have almost always failed since about 1965. Lobbying and polite talk never lead to progressive results anymore. Neither do treating politicians with deference. It just doesn't work.

NON-violent resistance is the only thing that does. Without that, change always dies in committee.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
84. The number of women doing time
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:53 AM
Jul 2012

for harming men is pathetically small (even though domestic abuse rates are roughly equal).

What's your point?


Also, there are only a tiny handful of white people who are ever punished for harming POC.



You genuinely believe that don't you? Weird.


Being for law and order automatically puts you on the right-wing side of the agenda...because it obligates you to end up backing shit like the death penalty and more prison construction. You can't be for law and order and be against those things.


And I think we're about done here.

You are an anarchist. Anarchists are necessarily politically naive at best and at worst get people killed.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
87. Domestic violence rates are NOT equal
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:57 AM
Jul 2012

That crime is overwhelmingly male. The claim that it's equal is a sexist canard that was invented by right-wing men to justify cutting off funding for domestic violence shelters.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
90. This is getting off on a tangent
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:01 AM
Jul 2012

but no, you're wrong.

You're talking conviction rates. For some reason the evil law is far more likely to convict men who hit their wives than wives who hit their husbands.

But the rates of it occurring are about equal:

http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/

Between 600,000 and 6 million women are victims of domestic violence each year, and between 100,000 and 6 million men, depending on the type of survey used to obtain the data.
(Rennison, C. (2003, Feb). Intimate partner violence. Us. Dpt. of Justice/Office of Justice Programs. NXJ 197838.
Straus, M. & Gelles, R. (1990). Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence. National Institute of Justice, NCJ 181867.)
















socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
39. Er... because the Democratic Mayors are part of the bourgeoisie.............
Wed Jul 4, 2012, 11:11 AM
Jul 2012

establishment and Occupy was a challenge to that Establishment?

A couple of posters understood it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that more don't get it. ALL bourgeoisie politicians are MUCH more comfortable with people who (as another poster said upthread) are involved in politics for 2 minutes every four years in a voting booth. They aren't particularly comfortable with people who get involved and STAY involved. Too much scrutiny. It exposes the hypocrisy of what they SAY they want and what they actually DO.

It's all about keeping the system in place so that a few chosen ones can benefit. It's a small club and we ain't in it.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
85. This isn't France and it isn't the French Revolution.
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:53 AM
Jul 2012

It's more complicated than 'bourgeoisie' versus 'commoners'.

Mayors have the responsibility to keep order for EVERYONE, not just protesters. That doesn't excuse the police over-reactions that have occurred but I don't see any general conspiracy to support our so-called 'rulers', either.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
89. how important is "order", really?
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:58 AM
Jul 2012

It's not like anybody other than the wealthy benefit when "order" is privileged over justice and equality.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
95. If you start from the premise that this is the most perfect world possible, then order is EVERYTHING
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:07 AM
Jul 2012

In other words, if one has a strong bias toward the status quo, defense of the same will be indistinguishable from "morality".

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
43. Some Democratic mayors aren't much different than Teapublican mayors.
Thu Jul 5, 2012, 01:03 AM
Jul 2012

Both are inhuman, self-serving assholes.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
48. Mayors benefit when there is order and things stay the same or improve.
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 04:43 PM
Jul 2012

If there is a protest of any kind that lasts for days or weeks a mayor will not be kind to it. Doesn't matter the protest or party.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
52. What exactly is "better than that?"
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 05:02 PM
Jul 2012

This is not about political campaigns.
If a mayor is an executive director of a city the responsibilities amy be to instruct various departments in the matter of maintaining order. They answer to the people of the community who want to have a basically normal functioning city\town. They want the police to be available for general community concerns. This has nothing to do with right to assembly or free speech. It's about how much the city will allow the protestors to impose in other citizens.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
54. Because someone has to pay for all these protests? City budgets are bare bones these days.
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 05:34 PM
Jul 2012

I guess "vicious" is in the eye of the beholder. There seems to be a push to equate the two parties, and we saw this movie already. Remember 2000? Let's face it, Occupy has a reputation of being anti-business, and that's not beneficial to any local public official who's trying to lure business dollars to his city to ease unemployment.

Admit it, Occupy is a "movement" in its last throes. It was a good idea at the time, but America moved past it pretty quickly. And seeing how the "movement" had equal disdain for both parties, I'm not sure why you'd think they'd be more shielded by one over the other. Some of us remember the asshole-ish reaction to Rep. John Lewis, and gave OWS a great big middle finger.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
56. Because people will blame the mayor if it appears that a city has descended into disorder
Fri Jul 6, 2012, 07:28 PM
Jul 2012

Sad to say, but true. Sort of made a collision between occupy and any mayor inevitable since part of the idea of Occupy was to disrupt in a way.

WI_DEM

(33,497 posts)
65. because if there are traffic snarls or slow downs or it's hard to get into parks...
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 09:18 AM
Jul 2012

people will blame the mayor.

 

Meiko

(1,076 posts)
76. I think it
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:40 AM
Jul 2012

was already mentioned by another posters but I can imagine many of these mayors do not want be associated with the occupy movement. They are also finding it hard to justify the extra cost of support services to cover the marchers, the budgets just won't support it.The people in general are becoming weary of the constant onslaught, blocked access to buildings, traffic issues and the Mayors offices are catching crap for it. I don't think it is just one issue.

Mr Dixon

(1,185 posts)
91. IMO
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:03 AM
Jul 2012
Mayors are gatekeepers of the 1%, just like the police, they function to keep the public inline. Mayors pacify the public with open forms for public outcry, yet they do nothing to change it, they only report to their handlers the pulse of the people. 1% dictate the proper control measures, the mayors instruct the police to implement the counter measures. The Media reports the effectiveness of the 1% orders and we all get to see the public pepper sprayed and beaten. Rinse and repeat.
 

craigmatic

(4,510 posts)
96. Because at the top of the party there are alot of dems who take corporate money.
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:08 AM
Jul 2012

St the bottom is a bunch of people like us who are for working people so when occupy happens some of our leaders' are split over who to consider their true base.

Baitball Blogger

(46,576 posts)
98. Maybe it's because the horrible truth is that the one thing republicans have in
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:14 AM
Jul 2012

Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

common with neo-liberals is that the power of government should be absolute when it comes to certain things. Like property rights, for instance. Neo-liberals started out with a good idea with urban revitalization. Republicans took it a step further. As long as their guys are in control of the construction companies, filtering the money to their candidates, they don't mind corrupting government to steal land from innocent homeowners.

We had a Democratic mayor who abused his power to stoke up the community in a scheme that involved fraud and conspiracy. Of course, he would never have gotten away with it if the plan wasn't supported by the city's economic development program and lawyers who had too many conflicts of interest to count.

That's why they don't like Occupy. Occupy will challenge all the short cuts they routinely take. One of them being building consensus through plutocracies.

doc03

(35,148 posts)
99. Occupy, what's that? That was stupid idea from the start
Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:55 AM
Jul 2012

camp out in a public place with no leader, no stated policies or goals. Our side can't even
compete with the idiots in the Tea Party.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why HAVE Democratic mayor...