Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How To Frame Yourself: A Framing Memo For Occupy Wall Street
I was asked weeks ago by some in the Occupy Wall Street movement to make suggestions for how to frame the movement. I have hesitated so far, because I think the movement should be framing itself. It’s a general principle: Unless you frame yourself, others will frame you — the media, your enemies, your competitors, your well-meaning friends. I have so far hesitated to offer suggestions. But the movement appears to maturing and entering a critical time when small framing errors could have large negative consequences. So I thought it might be helpful to accept the invitation and start a discussion of how the movement might think about framing itself.
About framing: It’s normal. Everybody engages in it all the time. Frames are just structures of thought that we use every day. All words in all languages are defined in terms of frame-circuits in the brain. But, ultimately, framing is about ideas, about how we see the world, which determines how we act.
In politics, frames are part of competing moral systems that are used in political discourse and in charting political action. In short, framing is a moral enterprise: it says what the character of a movement is. All politics is moral. Political figures and movements always make policy recommendations claiming they are the right things to do. No political figure ever says, do what I say because it’s wrong! Or because it doesn’t matter! Some moral principles or other lie behind every political policy agenda.
photo: Tom Giebel
Two Moral Framing Systems in Politics
Conservatives have figured out their moral basis and you see it on Wall Street: It includes: The primacy of self-interest. Individual responsibility, but not social responsibility. Hierarchical authority based on wealth or other forms of power. A moral hierarchy of who is “deserving,” defined by success. And the highest principle is the primacy of this moral system itself, which goes beyond Wall Street and the economy to other arenas: family life, social life, religion, foreign policy, and especially government. Conservative “democracy” is seen as a system of governance and elections that fits this model.
Though OWS concerns go well beyond financial issues, your target is right: the application of these principles in Wall Street is central, since that is where the money comes from for elections, for media, and for right-wing policy-making institutions of all sorts on all issues.
The alternative view of democracy is progressive: Democracy starts with citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly on that sense of care, taking responsibility both for oneself and for one’s family, community, country, people in general, and the planet. The role of government is to protect and empower all citizens equally via The Public: public infrastructure, laws and enforcement, health, education, scientific research, protection, public lands, transportation, resources, art and culture, trade policies, safety nets, and on and on. Nobody makes it on their own. If you got wealthy, you depended on The Public, and you have a responsibility to contribute significantly to The Public so that others can benefit in the future. Moreover, the wealthy depend on those who work, and who deserve a fair return for their contribution to our national life. Corporations exist to make life better for most people. Their reason for existing is as public as it is private.
A disproportionate distribution of wealth robs most citizens of access to the resources controlled by the wealthy. Immense wealth is a thief. It takes resources from the rest of the population — the best places to live, the best food, the best educations, the best health facilities, access to the best in nature and culture, the best professionals, and on and on. Resources are limited, and great wealth greatly limits access to resources for most people.
It appears to me that OWS has a progressive moral vision and view of democracy, and that what it is protesting is the disastrous effects that have come from operating with a conservative moral, economic, and political worldview. I see OWS as primarily a moral movement, seeking economic and political changes to carry out that moral movement — whatever those particular changes might be.
A Moral Focus for Occupy Wall Street
I think it is a good thing that the occupation movement is not making specific policy demands. If it did, the movement would become about those demands. If the demands were not met, the movement would be seen as having failed.
It seems to me that the OWS movement is moral in nature, that occupiers want the country to change its moral focus. It is easy to find useful policies; hundreds have been suggested. It is harder to find a moral focus and stick to it. If the movement is to frame itself, it should be on the basis of its moral focus, not a particular agenda or list of policy demands. If the moral focus of America changes, new people will be elected and the policies will follow. Without a change of moral focus, the conservative worldview that has brought us to the present disastrous and dangerous moment will continue to prevail.
We Love America. We’re Here to Fix It
I see OWS as a patriotic movement, based on a deep and abiding love of country — a patriotism that it is not just about the self-interests of individuals, but about what the country is and is to be. Do Americans care about other citizens, or mainly just about themselves? That’s what love of America is about. I therefore think it is important to be positive, to be clear about loving America, seeing it in need of fixing, and not just being willing to fix it, but being willing to take to the streets to fix it. A populist movement starts with the people seeing that they are all in the same boat and being ready to come together to fix the leaks.
Publicize the Public
Tell the truth about The Public, that nobody makes it purely on their own without The Public, that is, without public infrastructure, the justice system, health, education, scientific research, protections of all sorts, public lands, transportation, resources, art and culture, trade policies, safety nets, … That is a truth to be told day after day. It is an idea that must take hold in public discourse. It must go beyond what I and others have written about it and beyond what Elizabeth Warren has said in her famous video. The Public is not opposed to The Private. The Public is what makes The Private possible. And it is what makes freedom possible. Wall Street exists only through public support. It has a moral obligation to direct itself to public needs.
All OWS approaches to policy follow from such a moral focus. Here are a handful examples.
Democracy should be about the 99%
Money directs our politics. In a democracy, that must end. We need publicly supported elections, however that is to be arranged.
Strong Wages Make a Strong America
Middle-class wages have not gone up significantly in 30 years, and there is conservative pressure to lower them. But when most people get more money, they spend it and spur the economy, making the economy and the country stronger, as well as making their individual lives better. This truth needs to be central to public economic discourse.
Global Citizenship
America has been a moral beacon to the world. It can function as such only if it sets an example of what a nation should be.
Do we have to spend more on the military that all other nations combined? Do we really need hundreds of military bases abroad?
Nature
We are part of nature. Nature makes us, and all that we love, possible. Yet we are destroying Nature through global warming and other forms of ecological destruction, like fracking and deep-water drilling.
At a global scale, nature is systemic: its effects are neither local nor linear. Global warming is causing the ferocity of the monster storms, tornados, floods, blizzards, heat waves, and fires that have devastated huge areas of our country. The hotter the atmosphere, the more evaporated water and the more energy going into storms, tornados, and blizzards. Global warming cannot be shown to cause any particular storm, but when a storm system forms, global warming will ramp up the power of the storm and the amount of water it carries. In winter, evaporated water from the overly heated Pacific will go into the atmosphere, blow northeast over the arctic, and fall as record snows.
We depend on nature – on clean air, water, food, and a livable climate. And we find beauty and grandeur in nature, and a sense of awe that makes life worth living. A love of country requires a love of nature. And a fair and thriving economy requires the preservation of nature as we have known it.
Summary
OWS is a moral and patriotic movement. It sees Democracy as flowing from citizens caring about one another as well as themselves, and acting with both personal and social responsibility. Democratic governance is about The Public, and the liberty that The Public provides for a thriving Private Sphere. From such a democracy flows fairness, which is incompatible with a hugely disproportionate distribution of wealth. And from the sense of care implicit in such a democracy flows a commitment to the preservation of nature.
From what I have seen of most members of OWS, your individual concerns all flow from one moral focus.
Elections
The Tea Party solidified the power of the conservative worldview via elections. OWS will have no long-term effect unless it too brings its moral focus to the 2012 elections. Insist on supporting candidates that have your overall moral views, no matter what the local issues are.
A Warning
This movement could be destroyed by negativity, by calls for revenge, by chaos, or by having nothing positive to say. Be positive about all things and state the moral basis of all suggestions. Positive and moral in calling for debt relief. Positive and moral in upholding laws, as they apply to finances. Positive and moral in calling for fairness in acquiring needed revenue. Positive and moral in calling for clean elections. To be effective, your movement must be seen by all of the 99% as positive and moral. To get positive press, you must stress the positive and the moral.
Remember: The Tea Party sees itself as stressing only individual responsibility. The Occupation Movement is stressing both individual and social responsibility.
I believe, and I think you believe, that most Americans care about their fellow citizens as well as themselves. Let’s find out! Shout your moral and patriotic views out loud, regularly. Put them on your signs. Repeat them to the media. Tweet them. And tell everyone you know to do the same. You have to use your own language with your own framing and you have to repeat it over and over for the ideas to sink in.
Occupy elections: voter registration drives, town hall meetings, talk radio airtime, party organizations, nomination campaigns, election campaigns, and voting booths.
Above all: Frame yourselves before others frame you.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


286 Comments so far
Show AllI think this may take years but we will win, as economic conditions get more dire on the negative said and people see how appealing consensus based real democracy and cooperation is on the positive side.
"Who to give them to?" Excellent point. Maybe it should be a general declaration of WHERE we, the 99-ers, stand, morally, which will guide the resulting policies. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" kind of a thing, and WE (the 99-ers) will see that it will be done, by ourselves in our own communities, if need be. It also implies that we will brook no interference with its' implementation. Those who seek to undermine us, will themselves be laid low, and removed from opposition, neutralized, in whatever way is fitting (within our moral framework).
I love this essay. There is no "me" without a "we". There is no "private" without the "Public". There is no "Public" without "Nature". What is the daily moral business of the "Public"? "Promoting the General Welfare" of the "WE", so that the "me" can have a life worth living. What's another way of saying "Promote the General Welfare"? Love your fellow Man, and do unto him as you would have it done unto you; as you have treated the least of these, your fellow humans, so have you treated the "me"s everywhere (including yourself: what goes around, comes around, as we do indeed harvest what we have planted, and not other). The true patriot pledges to live this obligation, and any betrayals of this obligation should be treated accordingly (no matter how high & mighty the betrayer; no more "it's just a goddamned piece of paper". no more.).
Except Lakoff suffers from a total and utter lack of credibility. Check John Yoo, then tell me anything Lakoff says is worth listening to.
He gets paid by the same people who pay--and protect with tenure-- AN ADMITTED WAR CRIMINAL.
WTF is wrong with people--and CD for that matter?
Does the messenger corrupt the message? Forget your diislike of Lakoff. Is what he says true or not? Are his suggestion's worth considering?
That's what I always catch flak for pointing out. The words mean what they say. Same with the Preamble, and IT MATTERS NOT if all the founding fathers were, indeed, disingenuous and deceptive. The words mean what they say (even if we only mean them and live by them, for the FIRST TIME in our long history as U.S. citizens).
If the words contradict the actions, and if the words are used to deceive people about the reality - and that is certainly true with all of the chatter about the noble ideals of "America" and the deification of the "founding fathers" - then it very much matters that "the founding fathers were disingenuous and deceptive."
"Don't look at what we do, look at what we say" is the most common form of deception in politics. It drives people to continue to vote Democratic, for example - or more to the point, to continue to advocate voting Democratic as a significant and powerful act. So long as politicians say some things we like once in a while and so long as we continue to believe that this reflects who they "really are" or what is "in their hearts" we will continue to be betrayed.
The Preamble reflects - nothing more - the democratic and egalitarian sentiments that were being expressed at the time around the world, but it is a weak and incomplete reflection.
Hi TA. Long time no see. What's funny is getting arrested for living up to the espoused ideals/sentiments (like; "We didn't mean for you to actually DO it. Gol, are you crazy or something??"). Is there any, real, way that "promote the general welfare" can be interpreted as "Me first. F*** you."? I mean, even if this is what they were all thinking when they mouthed these words, the sentiment or ideal is, in itself, genuine, and if truely acted upon, would BACKFIRE on those deceivers who mouthed it. Is this what's called "hoisted by their own petard"? BTW, the OWS movement made me better able to grasp what you were always saying about working OUTSIDE the system, and not starting out, willy-nilly, with the ideas & definitions of what will be. Took a long time for me to grasp that. Glad to see you weighing in on these momentous events.
Hi Inb. Good to see you too.
You are right about "we didn't mean for you to actually DO it. Gol, are you crazy or something??" However, that was true just as soon as the last British ship sailed for home, and our "revered founding fathers" were the ones who vigorously discouraged the Declaration of Independence from even being read in public, let alone acted upon. Sam Adams was one who led that charge to suppress the working class people once the British were gone.
The "founding fathers" founded the very system that OWS is now fighting against, and that is all they founded. The Declaration of Independence was hastily thrown together from re-hashed ideas from Europe and was cynically done for the purpose of providing cover for a land and power grab. True revolutionaries, such as Paine, were reviled and marginalized after the Revolution and largely erased from the rolls of "founding fathers." The wealthy merchants and traders in New England, such as Hancock, acted out of greed and not any egalitarian ideals. Slave owners in the South, such as Jefferson and Washington, acted to protect their interests. Others, such as Franklin, were striving self-promoters. Franklin was still angling for a land grant from the crown until the last moment and had not yet decided which side he would join. He took his slave with him when he visited England, and used his position in the Post Office to advance his business and harm his competitors. Sound familiar? Cronyism, insider trading, land and power grabs, oppression of people of color - and all of it papered over with noble sounding words about "freedom" an "democracy."
The men and women who actually fought the Revolution were quickly silenced and run out of politics as soon as the British left. Political meetings were no longer open to all. The Declaration of Independence was suppressed. Most of the soldiers were disenfranchised one way or another. The soldiers never got the pay and land they were promised. A new class of royalty arose, based on unchecked commercialism and land speculation and finance, and white supremacy. That is the system that was "founded" by the "fathers" and we can see the way that played out in the devastation and suffering all around us, and all around the globe.
My answer is contained in my other post. Lakoff states that OWS needs to push for victory in the 2012 elections.
By stating this, Lakoff demonstrates his utter lack of understanding about OWS, which eschews both Democrats and Republicans as co-opted corporate puppets in an utterly broken system.
Again, the election of Obama showed us that elections don't matter.
Lakoff cannot or will not acknowledge this, thus, he serves the two-party duopoly. So no, his suggestions to frame the issue to win in 2012 is worse than useless.
But no matter what he says, until I hear him condemning his employer for hiring torture-boy Yoo, I don't hear anything.
Silence, when it comes to torture, is complicity.
You may view it differently, but I cannot.
Peace.
"his suggestions to frame the issue to win in 2012 is worse than useless."
Indeed. His suggestion that this is the second most important thing demonstrates that he truly doesn't get it. How many times should we participate in the rigged charade of elections between fully vetted and funded corporate candidates?
His suggestion that the MOST important thing is to frame yourself before someone else does, begs the question, "Then why did you even write this article? Why don't you get out of the way?"
When he says corporations serve people not exploit them and that there are viable candidates who will address the tyranny of financial exploitation and empire this running in l elections yes he is utterly unfixably mistaken and the worst sort of co-opter of a movement working for system change.
Inb, "...no more "it's just a goddamned piece of paper."
Yes it is. It was written to be a legal document, by the elite, to protect their personal property, which included owning other people and stolen land. To seal the legality, they signed it, not me, not you, but supposedly everyone within the phony borders are bound by it. Why?
I'm sick and tired of hearing the word patriotism.
Patriots kill people they don't know
on orders from people they don't know
for reasons they don't know.
Here, Emma Goldman will explain better:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/goldmanpatriotism.html
So you do believe its' words can be interpreted as saying " it is all about & for us, the under-signed, and f*** ya'll"? Promote the general welfare? (whose? "general" washington's welfare?). Establish justice? Is there no concept of right & wrong, with moral consequences for going against them, that these words imply? I mean, if they "had their fingers crossed behind their back" when saying these words, then THEY are the violaters of these concepts, to be dealt with, accordingly. Is it that you refuse to be held to moral standards of behavior ( REGARDLESS of who said these standards)? I just don't get the indightment of the ideals themselves (they are actually ancient, and not some new idea that the founders thought up).
"All men are created equal"
Nice words, except here is a teeny tiny little glitch.
Red men weren't included, certainly not black men, yellow uh uh, and even the po' white landless trash couldn't vote either.
At least they didn't lie about women, they left them completely out of the picture.
It would have been more honest if it read:
Us rich white men declare our right to rule over all others because we believe ourselves superior and it is written on parchment. It's the law, all legal like, see, and signed by us and everything. Can't you read?
I am guided by my conscience. I don't need laws to tell me it is wrong to steal and murder. When someone trips and falls, I instinctively bend to help them.
______________________________________
It's fine to criticize the founders. Your analysis is understandably indignant. Just be sure that when you make your critique you put yourself in their shoes in the context of the time, place, and circumstances. Immerse yourself in the history of that period of America. Perhaps your judgments may be a bit more tentative? Maybe, maybe not. Just a thought.
I have done that many times over. This isn't my first time. Greed, theft, murder, etc, remain the same, irrespective of time.
Jefferson, who gets so much praise, continued to purchase people after he wrote those fabled words. Washington, for what it is worth, freed his chattel in his will. Jefferson did not.
Persons like Paine hold more of my respect. He believed he was helping all men get closer to liberty. He even had the foresight to believe coming generations should not be bound by the declarations of his time. He was swept under the rug because he challenged the predominant religion in "Age of Reason".
You are right, societal norms of the times, should be considered, but I still end up holding nothing but disdain toward Andrew Jackson and his blood lust for the red skinned people.
And I'm revolted by the expression; founding fathers.
Thanks, Dad.
Which "history of the times" would that be? The history of the working class people. of the native peoples, of the slaves, or the history of the wealthy, the merchants, the political hustlers, the bosses? There are, you know, competing and contradictory narratives.
"Usurpers" and "co-opters" would be more accurate than "founders" - opportunists who saw their chance to gain power and took it.
For the majority of people in the colonies the Revolution as most definitely a case of "say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss."
I recommend that you "immerse yourself in the history of that period" from a viewpoint other than that of the ruling class.
______________________________________
Buck & TA:
_____________________________________
Look, I'm not in love with the "founding fathers". And I'm not thoroughly familiar with your backgrounds, or your understanding of history. The post was highly indignant, so I thought I'd test test the waters as to what type of substance you could bring to bear on the issue -- how deeply and informed you were about the history of that time, and your inclination to put yourself in their shoes. Certainly, in a world always dominated by the rich you'd both would agree that we could have done worse than the founders at that time, right? For example, could you imagine any of our leading politicians over the past 30 years being in power during late 18th century America? Now that is scary.
______________________________________
TA, I've immersed myself in the "whole" history. I've read books like Zinn's ".. Peoples History ." And Buck, I was merely trying to be probative about your view, not paternalistic.
______________________________________
It seems you guys took my post a bit too defensively. Other than that, I appreciated your intelligent responses.
Not me. I acknowledged that you are right, the times should be considered for perspective, but slave owners can't be respected regardless. I studied american Literature and american history. The two run parallel. History is later writers' interpretations, Literature is from the dogs' mouths. Frankly speaking, the early americans were an assortment of the arrogant greedy, religious kooks, and hard working common stock, including slaves that found voice by learning to read and write.
an aside: over a million white people, yes white people, were captured and sold into slavery, mostly by the Barbary Pirates. The indigenous were too indignant, refused the position, hence the shift in the market towards darker skin. Wall Street was where people were taken to be sold. Ain't history great?
No worries. Thanks for your thoughts.
Lakoff is a tenured UCal prof.
He continues to work alongside--and has for years now--torture memo author John Yoo.
Not a peep from Lakoff w/r/t his colleague.
Lakoff should have resigned the nanosecond the Board hired the s.o.b.
So get this: Professor George Lakoff is complicit with U.S. torturing people, and, one would assume, illegal wars and assassination and wiretapping and the revocation of habeas corpus.
He is swine, due to sins of omission.
How's that for framing the issue, Ivory Tower Boy?
You can't always control who works at the same place as you any more than I can control what my government is doing. You can try, though.
Chomsky works for MIT, a school which gets funds from the United States empire. So what? Are you kidding? Chomsky and Lakoff have contributed a lot to politics and the Left. What have you done?
It is true that Lakoff and Chomsky have written extensively in what is generally a progressive vein. But Chomsky went out in the street and was bloodied alongside Howard Zinn. Chomsky had the fortitude to stand up and defend free speech when it was a holocaust denier speaking, because, as he eloquently noted: "If we don't believe in free speech for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
Chomsky acknowledges the futility of elections and the usurpation of the political process by corporations.
Lakoff just sucks off Democrats, and tells us the 2012 elections are important. Obama proved that Corporations rule. Chomsky assails this. Lakoff--he conceals it by ignoring it.
As for what I've done, I don't think you want to get into a pissing match over who is "more authentic," which seems counter-productive, but, I have spent twenty hours since Saturday as a legal observer for the local occupy movement, and I'm about to head back down there.
In any event, I don't think you can argue that Lakoff has written a syllable criticizing torture or his employers' overt support of it. Show me where, and I'll concede the point.
My point is that Lakoff--and a whole host of nominally progressive writers, journalists, and teachers today--are stuck in the "Democrats are better than Republicans" paradigm.
I also humbly submit there are times when silence equals complicity, and when your coworker takes the position that, should the president deem it necessary, he could have the testicles of a child crushed is, I think pretty goddamned obviously, one of those times.
Noam Chomsky never remained silent, knowing full well the damage he was doing to himself professionally. Watch "Manufacturing Consent"--it's free on the innertubes--and it'll clarify the distinction I make between Lakoff, who hasn't the courage of his alleged convictions, and Chomsky, who got his head busted and sucked Mace, and never went easy on MIT or the MIC...
I hope you are helping your local Occupy movement, cause electoral politics is the show they want us to watch.
We disempower them by making them irrelevant.
We all work for the bosses, one way or another. We all serve the ruling class, or else we are starved or imprisoned. We are all in the same fix.
Now, were you to say that the relative degree of comfort and security that certain people enjoy is influencing their political views - and in my opinion that is the case with Lakoff - then I agree with you.
Yes, that's a pretty good encapsulation. Lakoff declines to rock the Berkeley Boat, 'cause he's in it, too.
As to your first point, it is true that virtually all of us who are not the elite serve them, but there are places today--currently in the margins, but growing--where people endeavor to serve each other.
It appears to be the basic structure of the occupy movement.
Peace.
There are always ways in which we serve each other, and there always have been. It is our inclination, our preference. But we are forced to serve the bosses, ultimately, or are made to suffer.
"there are places today--currently in the margins, but growing--where people endeavor to serve each other.
It appears to be the basic structure of the occupy movement."
Exactly! The occupation itself models what direct consensus based democracy and self organizing cooperation look like in their very existence. So too would I add food co-ops, open source software, community gardens, people engaging in ecological restoration, people who work for private land to be converted into communally held green belts surround cities, people who volunteer to advocate for and feed homeless people, people who volunteer for battered women's shelters, etc. So we actually have a lot of examples of what a non violent, non hierarchical, corporative, inclusive, direct democratic cooperative society would look like.
Over the centuries, rebellions have arisen over various causes, but the one, overriding theme has always been, "We, the People, should be making the decisions that affect our lives."
Real Democracy, Direct Democracy, whatever we call it, we don't have it, even though that was the original reason for the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the 60's, OWS, and struggles yet to come.
Regular people, including virtually all who identify as conservative or liberal, support this concept. Yes, they do. That's why it needs to be the over-arching theme of serious movements.
Call for citizen Referendums on all questions of importance. Some states now have that ability, more don't, but demand the right for citizens to discuss, debate on all media, and vote on matters of importance that affect their lives.
If people focus on that one moral imperative - that we should decide locally/regionally as a people those things that affect our lives - then local/regional/country-wide actions will flow from that theme.
With Direct Democracy there would be no need for lots of separate demands; local people would decide through discussions, debates, and votes just how their societies are to be ordered, and how food and other wealth will be distributed to the populace.
Different regions will have different priorities, and different ways of organizing themselves. These differences should not be points of conflict, so long as the local people are truly aware of what's being discussed, and are then making the decisions.
This would, of course, mean that corporate rule would have been overcome so people of the world can decide what's best for their own region.
Now the question is, as always, how do we get there?
The reason why "we, the people" cannot "make the decisions that affect our lives" is because wealth is the source of power and without power people can make no decisions.
If you do not address power and wealth distribution, all of the talk of "direct democracy" is just pissing in the wind.
The problem with saying that people "should decide locally/regionally as a people those things that affect our lives" is that historically people in the US locally have made some pretty odious decisions - to burn women at the stake for being "witches," for example, or to enslave people of color.
Two Americas - Perhaps you missed the part where I said that citizens should decide how food and other wealth is to be distributed. Clearly, I did address the wealth issue.
As to your anti-democracy theme, saying that some people have made some odious decisions - of course they have. But burning women at the stake was the work of male religies, and slavery was the product of (probably all) male money-hungry individuals, neither of which acts were discussed and decided upon by the local populace other than the individuals who ordered these things done.
Many liberals and self-professed "radicals" are opposed to Real Democracy because they do not trust regular people to make good decisions. As a political activist from the 60's and onward to today, I have many examples of people making good decisions.
The key is to get public meetings and hearings so that all are heard, the issues become clear and people have time to think before they vote. Yes, I'm a supporter of voting since not everyone will stand up and speak their mind, or has time for endless debate after the issues are clear. People can speak through the secret ballot; all voting should be by secret paper ballot.
Even in consensus scenarios now being played out, there has to, at some point when people are blocking, be voting if decisions are to be made. People fought and died for the right to vote. It's important.
It's our job as activists to get good information out there so that people can make good decisions based on facts and truth and logic.
Knowledge brings responsibility. Once we know things of importance, we must pass them along so others can act accordingly.
If all people have access to is Limbaugh or Faux News or other Randians (funny that the two Rands have the same surname as Ayn), then that's what they'll believe and act accordingly.
Instead of saying that people won't make good decisions - which you do not know because they don't have the information they should have - let's work to get good information out there so people can - and I'm convinced will because I've seen it often - make good decisions that are good for them and the larger community.
In no way do liberal activists hold all the moral cards. In fact, the more I read their condescending remarks about regular people who are not activists, the less respect I have for them. It's ignorant and elitist to not trust the judgment of regular people who don't happen to have the formal education of liberal intelligentsia, but who may well know more about real life than those in the streets.
I'm really tired of the anti-democracy crowd who make up reasons for not allowing working people into debates or decision-making. It's plain wrong and a sure recipe for losing the movement.
You make some good points.
I am not arguing against democracy, I am arguing against "local." I support global brotherhood over provincial sectarianism.
Deposit Change in Your Local Bank: A Step Forward
Sometimes it seems overwhelming.
What can I do to make a difference?
The government is so huge and I am just one person. The economy is out of control and there's nothing I can do about it. I need a job to provide food and shelter for my family. I can't march on Wall Street, I have responsibilities.
Gandhi said, "Be the change you wish to see in the world."
Here's a simple thing you can do, without shirking your responsibilities, without marching on Wall Street, without jeopardizing your future or your family's well-being.
You can take your money out of a large, international "too big to fail" bank, and you can put it safely in accounts in a local, community bank or credit union.
It's a great American tradition, to keep your money in local banks, where Jimmy Stewart can lend it to Giuseppe Martini to buy a house for his wife and family, to Mrs. Wainwright for her new kitchen, to Joe to open a new luggage store.
Local banks invest in your own community, not in international profit ventures in far-away countries. Your money stays to work for you, providing jobs right here at home. Your money circulates throughout your town several times, building friends, multiplying like the two dollar bills George Bailey and Uncle Billy put back in the safe to make more dollars for everyone.
Just think of the change you will start when you walk into your imposing BIG BANK, take out all your money, walk down the street to a modest and sufficient Local Bank or Credit Union, and proudly deposit your funds in your local institution.
It's an act for you, as well as for your family, your community, your friends and neighbors.
Michael A. Lewis
http://hayduke2000.blogspot.com/
I guess it all depends upon the neighborhood you live in. Perhaps in your life it seems like a powerful and meaningful act to "take out all your money" from one institution and deposit it - "proudly" - into another.
My family, community, friends and neighbors don't have any such thing as "all that money" to do anything with, and that is the case for ha;lf of the population.
Let's take all of our labor out of the service and control of the ruling class and into the service and control of ourselves, our family, our community, our friends and our neighbors - into the control of the working class.
Your Gandhi quote is a fake, by the way. It is used to justify a particular bourgeoisie approach to politics that is the exact opposite of the approach that Gandhi took. Here is an excerpt from a NYT article about this:
Gandhi’s words have been tweaked a little too in recent years. Perhaps you’ve noticed a bumper sticker that purports to quote him: “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” When you first come across it, this does sound like something Gandhi would have said. But when you think about it a little, it starts to sound more like ... a bumper sticker. Displayed brightly on the back of a Prius, it suggests that your responsibilities begin and end with your own behavior. It’s apolitical, and a little smug.
Sure enough, it turns out there is no reliable documentary evidence for the quotation. The closest verifiable remark we have from Gandhi is this: “If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.”
Here, Gandhi is telling us that personal and social transformation go hand in hand, but there is no suggestion in his words that personal transformation is enough. In fact, for Gandhi, the struggle to bring about a better world involved not only stringent self-denial and rigorous adherence to the philosophy of nonviolence; it also involved a steady awareness that one person, alone, can’t change anything, an awareness that unjust authority can be overturned only by great numbers of people working together with discipline and persistence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/opinion/falser-words-were-never-spoken.html?_r=1
Liberals in the US love to imagine that their personal choices are what matters, and that it is personal decisions and choices in aggregate that create the social and political conditions, and that beliefs and attitudes drive choices and decisions. This is a variation on rugged individualism and individualism is the problem and can never be part of the solution. It also reinforces consumerism and a faith-based "belief system" approach to politics.
Approaching politics with individualism, consumerism. and belief systems supports the ruling class, no matter what the personal choices and personal beliefs are that are used to camouflage that.
Thanks for keeping the picture real, TA. An idealist like me often mistakes the "paint-by-the-numbers" picture for the reality.
Yes, thank you for that. It's rare that people online understand that both are crucial. Most posters who say anything about it take one side or the other and denounce the other. We need all levels for integrity: personal, community, national and international activism.
Unfortunately, in my conversations ay our local occupation encampment the young people very much view things from this modern-era "everything is personal and subjective" viewpoint, mixed with varying amounts of of the peculiar USAn-style "libertarianism". It is very heavily indoctrinated into them. Very few of them have any kind of political-economic system-based criticism.
And, scratch beneath the purported radicalish lifestyle of the young people in the Occupy movement, and one finds that it is strictly a reformist movement - and not all that radically reformist at that.
Aside from the handful of the usual Trots and their literature table, politely ignored by the participants, a systemic criticism of capitalism is especially frowned upon.
There is alos this document circulating around calling for elections of delegates and a "National General Assembly on July 4th in Philadelphia" - laden with all that misinformed romanticism regarding the so-called "American Revolution"
I hear you.
The National General Assembly thing IF it becomes the focus will kill the movement for LOCAL takeover of collective land and not leaving until the system falls, into another week long rally with people chanting reformist slogans, fuck that! Occupy and stay in your local community.
You Broke It, You Fix It or WE WILL
IMO an appropriate frame, simple enough even the power elite and their wannabes could comprehend.
I like it. How about : "You Broke It, You Fix It or WE WILL...nah, WE don't like the work you do anyway. Stand aside . WE'LL FIX IT."
They won't fix it but say they did.
Yeah. Or they might say; "fix what? It's working fine. Get your glasses checked. Your lenses must be cracked" (insert charlie brown sigh here).
Exactly. And they will be right. The system is working perfectly and is doing what it is designed to do. It never was designed to work for us, it never can work for us.
The system isn't broken. It is working perfectly to accomplish that which it is designed to accomplish. It is producing the only results it can produce.
Great article. I agree that the OWS movement is mainly providing, and should be providing, a moral vision. We really need it right now. And this moral vision is full of insightful slogans that will spark the interest of youth everywhere.
Here at Commondreams we are interested in "framing" and such issues because we are political idealogues. We are interested in the system, the structure, the frame, the arguments and claims that come out of ideology as a consequence. Most people are not. Most people including the protestors on Wall Street are motivated by grievances, mostly personal grievances. There is an inherent selfishness about this. We don't protest until the forces which hurt others hurt ourselves. To be effective the occupy people have to frame their grievances in larger terms than their own personal issues. They must answer how what they have experienced as wrongs will also affect others who haven't yet suffered. We are the 99%- sure, but what do we need to do to turn this around. I was on a OWS march in Pittsburgh. My sign said, "Nationalize the Banks".
Those interested in "framing" are those interested in sales and marketing. Sales and marketing are the tools of the enemy and using them can only help the enemy.
I don't know about you, but I am not interested in "the system, the structure, the frame, the arguments and claims that come out of ideology as a consequence" except and as it impacts working class people. I do not see the very real suffering that working class people are talking about to be a matter of "inherent selfishness," and I can see nothing inappropriate in people protesting when they are the ones directly suffering. Clearly, people have shared grievances, or there would be no mass protests.
The OWS movement is not in any way about the protesters "own personal issues." This is a way to trivialize their actions and marginalize them.
Access to medicine, food, housing, work, and resources are not "personal issues." Accusing the have-nots of "inherent selfishness" when they fight for equality is highly reactionary.
Only those enjoying a relative degree of comfort and security call for ignoring material needs and suffering - calling those "selfish" - and instead call for focusing on high and lofty ideals that may or may not have any connection to reality.
You're dead wrong about framing buddy. It's not a "tool of the enemy" it's something we all have and do, whether you realize it or not. When you call Sales and Marketing "the enemy" you've just imposed a frame and given away your own. Think of it as a worldview if that helps you, but don't avoid it. Conservatives are experts at framing, and not afraid to use it. Progressives see it as "dirty" like you do. Just ain't so.