Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Naomi Wolf's Occupy Conspiracy Theory Can't Explain Occupy LA
Compared with the brutal police crackdowns against the Occupy movement in New York City, Oakland and even the pacific Davis campus of the University of California, the attempted eviction of Occupy Los Angeles has been almost entirely peaceful. The question is why, and whether it can last.
Occupy LA was grappling with internal conflicts before the Mayor’s deadline brought the occupiers and their supporters to stand together Sunday night. The police chose wisely not to attempt mass arrests or brutal force. The police are now being accused by some in the business community of going soft. Meanwhile the occupiers have no end game at this point. An Occupy media spokesperson, Clark Davis, indicated the group’s problems in a Sunday morning KPFK interview when he accused one faction of being “freeloaders” and warned that the movement could lose its way.
One reason for the uneasy status quo was the leadership of the liberal Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who ordered the eviction but also no beatings, tear gas or police violence. Another was the leadership of the Los Angeles Police Department, eager to show a new approach after years of controversy. The City Council came out early in support. Organized labor and local clergy joined the Occupiers and insisted the mayor do the right thing. And the Occupiers themselves adhered to a code of non-violence in an effort to keep the focus on Wall Street.
But to believe the writer Naomi Wolf, who was arrested during one of the New York protests, the Occupy movement inevitably faced a brutal crackdown because of its threat to the status quo. Wolf has written in the UK’s Guardian that the recent crackdowns on Occupy have been a coordinated conspiracy between local officials, police, the FBI and Homeland Security. As evidence, she points to conference calls between officials and police in eighteen cities that preceded the raids. She claims that a “shocking truth” behind the crackdown is the vested interest of Congress in protecting its own insider stock dealings on Wall Street. In one passage, Wolf accuses the White House of blessing the “war on peaceful citizens.”
Wolf is not entirely off the mark. But her monolithic conspiracy model needs more investigation and cannot explain the case of Los Angeles.
There is no doubt that the conference calls were conducted, and public records act requests may yet shed light on what was said. The mayor of Los Angeles was not on those calls, and says he didn’t want to be.
While there is no evidence thus far of FBI or White House coordination of the crackdowns, what is most naïve in the Wolf analysis is her notion that coordinated crackdowns are new with the advent of Occupy Wall Street. Since the 1999 Seattle protests, the involvement of the FBI with local police has followed a repeated pattern. First, an FBI counter-terrorism task force warns local officials, media and the public that thousands of masked “anarchists” will be invading their cities to break the law, fight the police, break windows and destroy property. They then advise that all protests be literally fenced into protest cages. To sweeten the coordination, tens of thousands of federal dollars are offered to local police forces for “security” [acquisition of the latest in gas grenades, launchers, surveillance cameras, even paper shredders in one case]. Young people and their convergence centers are targeted for prior detention, with the assistance of informants and provocateurs.
The list of cities where this has occurred is a long one, starting with Seattle: Los Angeles (2000 convention), Washington DC (2000, 2002), Genoa (2001), Quebec City (2001), Oakland (2003), Miami (2003), New York (2004, 2008), Minneapolis-St. Paul (2008), Denver/Boulder (2008), to list only the most dramatic and recent. None of these are remembered in Wolf’s inflated narrative, as if the Occupy movement has been unique in provoking the ruling class to order up repression.
There was one exception to this recent pattern: Mexico’s handling of the anti-WTO protests held in Cancun in 2003. Instead of following the FBI’s script, Mexico decided to de-escalate the police response, perhaps to protect Cancun’s tourist economy, perhaps to improve their security forces’ tattered reputation. It was quite remarkable to observe. In spite provocations by the so-called Black Bloc, in spite of protestors taking over the streets, in spite of a horrific ritual suicide by a South Korean farmer, the police and army remained largely disengaged or passive. When they arrested one group for sitting in an intersection, they placed them on an air-conditioned bus, which drove them back to the protest site.
The lesson that was driven home for me in Cancun is that the police, and those who dictate their policy, have enormous discretion over whether a confrontation turns violent. It mostly depends on what image they want to project. That is, it depends on politics.
To return to the case Los Angeles, I am not arguing in favor of the Mayor’s eviction order. There was no particular reason for the order to be imposed. Left alone, the Occupiers might have decided on their own time that it was the moment to move on. Even Adbusters, the Vancouver culture-jamming magazine that called for Occupy Wall Street, has editorialized on the need for a new phase. Or the LA occupiers might have descended into negative feuding and folded their tents. There was a serious risk in forcing them out of their encampment. Nor do I believe the mayor bowed to pressure from downtown property owners to clear the encampment. His own explanation as an elected official makes more sense: that sooner or later, an incident would occur at the encampment (a death, a rape, a fight) for which he would be held accountable politically.
But the way the LA eviction has been handled so far is a very important achievement for a city plagued by fifty years of police scandals, brutality, corruption, and court-ordered reforms. Only four years ago the LAPD’s fabled Metro Division went wild and trampled peaceful protestors and media at a huge immigrant rights rally. The LAPD still stops and frisks hundreds of thousands of inner city youth each year,a potential scandal that is so far invisible.
Under the direction of the mayor and Chief Charlie Beck, however, the LAPD officers on Sunday night were as “tactful” as could be, in the phrase one Occupy sympathizer who works at City Hall.
Once considered an “occupying army” projecting a threat against the least disturbance, for one night the LAPD allowed Occupy LA to co-opt their old brand.
The Occupy movement also showed an evolution in thinking about street tactics. A decade ago, the phrase “diversity of tactics” allowed a range of actions from strict nonviolence to “fucking shit up”, as certain anarchist factions used to say. Experience showed that such “diversity” only allowed the most violent sensational tactics to dominate the media narrative, despite being employed by a tiny handful of activists and provocateurs in some cases.
So far the clearances in LA have been peaceful. On Monday morning the mayor met with a delegation of inter-faith leaders who have been joining the occupiers for several weeks. The clergy communique from the meeting commended Chief Beck for “the restraint shown so far by the LAPD”, and made a “commitment to sustain the Occupy presence and message in LA going forward”, including a promise by the Mayor to use his “bully pulpit” as head of the National Conference of Mayors to push the major themes of the national Occupy movement: “the need to halt the avalanche of home foreclosures, the need to reverse corporate ‘personhood’, the need to fully enforce the Dodd-Frank law, and the need to gain needed federal and state tax revenue to support municipal services in LA and throughout the nation.”
The dire scenario painted by Wolf does not tell the story of Los Angeles, where for the moment a crack of hope has been opened for nonviolent conflict resolution and a transition to a new stage.
- Posted in
116 Comments so far
Show AllHe may get some things right, but Hayden's condescension towards Naomi Wolf is troubling. The tone of his post seems deferential to police authority even while mentioning its significant lapses. Further subtext of this article reads like an endorsement of Mayor Villaraigosa, if not a tourist promotion for the now kind and gentler city of L.A. If someone on the purported Left wishes to make a point about OWS and how "authorities" are handling the movement, they need not do so by putting down a principled woman activist. It's either Hayden's male chauvinism or that Naomi's politics make his own centrist positions deeply uncomfortable. (If this was the person Jane Fonda was married to, it's obvious to me why she moved on.)
Also, I've seen some in this forum use a similar tactic when they wish to reinforce the dying status quo. Twenty examples may be offered to suggest that matters are out of hand, but they'll find the one exception to "the rule," and use that as a means of seeking to counter the larger argument. Ultimately that strategy attempts to normalize what mutliple events prove is anything BUT normal. In other words, Hayden is arguing FOR the status quo. His own comfort zone (and clinging to power) is more important to him than the truth of millions of lives, those wounded by policies that are consistent with the bankrupt ethos of Disaster Capitalism. (And yes, I realize that book was authored by "the other Naomi..." Klein.)
You write: "It's either Hayden's male chauvinism or that Naomi's politics make his own centrist positions deeply uncomfortable. (If this was the person Jane Fonda was married to, it's obvious to me why she moved on.)"
How silly. She moved on...to Ted Turner. So, obviously, politics and sexism were not her reasons.
Nicely stated SR. I stopped reading about half way through. Whatever happened to Hayden remains unclear. Somewhere along the way he sold his soul to empire for a handful of silver coins. Everything he writes since Obama ran for president demonstrates a clear agenda to paint Obama and his corporate handlers as if they are our saviors when in point of fact they are our dismantlers; furthermore, any attempt to negatively critique his critique brings the Apologetic wing of the Democratic Party out in force. Hayden likes to call himself an "environmentalist" but I am wondering how that sells on the streets, and not behind the closed doors of the DNC party machine that pays trolls to participate on sites like this? Moreover, the recent environmental article that is still circulating on CD clearly demonstrates that Obama sold Mother Earth out long ago, and can only be added to his other long list of sellouts like social security, Medicaid, Medicare, Single payer/ and public option in favor of a For Profit health care; or add necessary programs for the disenchranchised like Head Start, Home Heating programs for the poorest of the poor all downsized in payment for extending Bush Tax cuts on the wealthy one percent. What is truly SILLY is the loyal Democratic Courtiers like Hayden are propagating this shit with a straight face. I sincerely hope Hayden got a nice payday from his corporate handlers for this latest piece of propaganda.
___________________________________
Maybe he has been offered a new cabinet post in Obama’s next Administration: MINISTER OF PROPOGANDA.
Well, EarthFirst, I would recommend that you go back and finish the article, because while it might first appear that Hayden is being an apologist for the police, one of his primary points is that Wolf is being naive in thinking that the coordinated crackdown on Occupy is something new.
"What is most naïve in the Wolf analysis is her notion that coordinated crackdowns are new with the advent of Occupy Wall Street," he says, and goes on to document the numerous examples of federal-local conspiracies to shut down protests over the years, primarily related to the anti-globalization movement.
Hayden was rightfully rebutting this unsubstantiated, inaccurate claim by Wolf: "Why this massive mobilization against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people? After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown."
Even if Naomi Wolf overlooks the many incidents of coordinated violent repression against the anti-globalization movement -- as Hayden correctly points out -- surely she should be aware of the similar repression of antiwar protests. Back in 2003, the FBI sent a memorandum to local law enforcement agencies before planned demonstrations against the war in Iraq. The memo detailed protesters’ tactics and analyzed activities such as mobilizing protesters over the Internet.
The FBI instructed local law enforcement agencies to be on the lookout for “possible indicators of protest activity and report any potentially illegal acts to the nearest FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.”
Prior to the 2004 Democratic and Republican national conventions, the JTTF raided the homes of activists who were organizing demonstrations, while FBI agents in Missouri, Kansas and Colorado spied on and interrogated activists.
The FBI also began collecting thousands of pages of internal documents on civil rights and antiwar groups including the ACLU, Greenpeace and United for Peace and Justice.
In December 2005, NBC News revealed the existence of a secret 400-page Pentagon document listing 1,500 “suspicious incidents” over a 10-month period, including dozens of antiwar demonstrations that were classified as a “threat.”
As someone who has written extensively on the erosion of civil liberties in the USA, Naomi Wolf should be aware of this background, and for her to write that "protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown," is simply false, and Hayden is right to call her out on that.
We need to stop treating every new development in the USA's devolution to fascism as some kind of novel event. I know it is easier than dealing with actual historical facts, but laziness is no excuse.
DC-CPH Absolutely correct.
"He may get some things right, but Hayden's condescension towards Naomi Wolf is troubling. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To me, it's more important that he got the facts right than that some people interpret constructive criticism as "condescension".
Naomi Wolf wrote in her piece entitled "The Shocking Truth About the Crackdown on Occupy :
"After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown.
Hayden rightly points out that:
"... what is most naïve in the Wolf analysis is her notion that coordinated crackdowns are new with the advent of Occupy Wall Street.
Well, that notion of Wolf's IS both false and naive. Only a naive person would be
"shocked" at any coordination behind the crackdown.
Wolf goes on to write:
" I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response. That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message".
Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening."
Could anyone sound more naive? Be honest. Wolf was "deeply puzzled"...then "frustrated"...then when she found out what the protesters wanted, it was an "eye-opening" experience?
"When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes."
Scales fell off her eyes? How blind could she have been?
Compare that to Tom Hayden's well-informed realism:
"Since the 1999 Seattle protests, the involvement of the FBI with local police has followed a repeated pattern. First, an FBI counter-terrorism task force warns local officials, media and the public that thousands of masked “anarchists” will be invading their cities to break the law, fight the police, break windows and destroy property. They then advise that all protests be literally fenced into protest cages. To sweeten the coordination, tens of thousands of federal dollars are offered to local police forces for “security” [acquisition of the latest in gas grenades, launchers, surveillance cameras, even paper shredders in one case]. Young people and their convergence centers are targeted for prior detention, with the assistance of informants and provocateurs. The list of cities where this has occurred is a long one, starting with Seattle: Los Angeles (2000 convention), Washington DC (2000, 2002), Genoa (2001), Quebec City (2001), Oakland (2003), Miami (2003), New York (2004, 2008), Minneapolis-St. Paul (2008), Denver/Boulder (2008), to list only the most dramatic and recent. None of these are remembered in Wolf’s inflated narrative, as if the Occupy movement has been unique in provoking the ruling class to order up repression. "
Hayden is absolutely correct here, isn't he? Be honest.
And what's all this nonsense about Hayden being some corporate sell-out . That's a gross falsehood. I disagree with him on a number of issues, but the truth is, Hayden gets vilified and slandered here for one reason only: he has stated that he would vote for Obama if the alternative is a far-right extremist Republican.
Of course, it's perfectly valid to disagree with that position, but it's completely wrong to distort out of all recognition Hayden's progressive views on the corporate-Wall-Street-military complex.
It is pretty clear you have hardly been following this site over the last four years. Article after article has repudiated Obama as a faux progressive – in fact most authentic leftist characterize Obama as a stooge for the neo conservative right. In fact, the only disingenuous people who continue to call themselves progressives are making a career disseminating meme’s like “Take over the Democratic Party” or “Hold Obama’s feet to the fire” to name a couple; pundits like Hartmann, Nichols, Katrina, Hayden, Flanders, Reich, The Nation, et al, pretty much keep the gloves entirely off Obama; Hayden is particularly skillful in this regard. Really your obfuscations are dishonest.
____________________________________
I invite you to resurrect even one Hayden piece that negatively critiques Obama on the following issues. And since you raised the issue of FACTS, I would invite you to be equally forthright as you ask us to be. Let me provide a brief summary of facts. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and concomitantly downsized Head Start and Home Heating programs in the same bill so the 1% could keep their privileged status. Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan by quadrupling the troop levels. Obama signed executive order authorizing the assassination of Amerikan citizens without due process rights. Obama extended Patriot Act without due process protections. Obama continues to authorize drone strikes which many human rights organizations assert have taken thousands of innocent lives, i.e., non combatants. Obama provided a green light for BP to dump trillions of gallons of dispersants into the Gulf which numerous environmental organizations told us is one molecule away from anti-freeze. Green Peace additionally did a biological survey of the gulf and told us it is a dead zone with submerged oil caking the bottom of the Gulf. Obama also attacked whistle blowers on this issue as numerous CD asserted and contrary to his ‘so called’ transparency promise. Obama sunk both Single Payer and Public Option to advance a For Profit Health monstrosity in behind door deals with corporations as reported in numerous articles on CD. Obama voided habeas corpus; He appointed Bush’s assassination general in Afghanistan and later fired him for Petarus now CIA Director. He appointed numerous Bush economic advisors to head up his economic team including insider connections to corrupt financial interests like Guethnier, Summers, Volker and numerous others too many to list and additionally noted in article after article on CD. Obama despite promises to keep the internet neutral reneged by diluting the rules and opening the gate for corporate control. Now we hear that social security, medicate, and Medicare are on the chopping block via the so called trigger that was negotiated as a concomitant sell out to supersede the Cat Food bipartisan committee had they not agreed. The deal was done before the faux committee ever sat down at the table. Essentially the committee proved cover for the real deal that was hammered together behind closed doors void of transparency. Obama authorized the assassination of Osama by bowing to the myth of redemptive violence. Obama re-opened deep water drilling shortly after the press spot light was turned off. And additionally authorized expanded drilling off the eastern seaboard something Bush never did. Obama keeps advancing a fantasy called ‘clean coal’ to accommodate the coal industry payoffs to his campaign run (refer to Opensecrets . org), Obama has authorized more Mountain Top removal permits than the Bush administration. Obama deferred a decision on Tar Sands, kicking the issue into his next Administration after which his approval will bear no punishment. Obama helped destroy environmental accords which called for REAL reductions (read the current article on Obama’s deceptive practices on environmental issues.
________________________________________________________
With regards to Hayden’s corruption it is clear from his hands off approach to Obama and Democratic sellouts . Furthermore, his association with the Democratic Party speaks for itself. He also lived off of Jane Fonda’s dime for years, all funded by Hollywood a corporate entity. I also assume he gets paid by the rag he wrote this article (the Nation) , and collects life-long perks from the Democratic party for his Senatorial career in California. Again, I challenge you to resurrect even one article that negatively critiques any of the legislative fiat I’ve just noted. Or maybe you can tell me why Hayden has never written one word about Obama’s capitulation to the neo-conservative movement on every issue?
___________________________________________
I have not seen you post here before. If you are Hayden disguising yourself with an alter ego, that would be the height of cowardice. But since Hayden has never laid a glove on Obama, it hardly surprises me that his surrogates would either.
There is tons of stuff I don't see how you could miss it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/obamas-wars_b_155669.html
"It is pretty clear you have hardly been following this site over the last four years. Article after article has repudiated Obama as a faux progressive."
I never claimed otherwise, did I? Why bring in a strawman? I could tell you that Obama was a corporate-militarist long before he ran for President. (And, btw, I've been coming to this site and posting here for a lot longer than four years.)
So your "brief summary of facts" are quite well-known to me--and also irrelevant to any point I made.
Regarding Hayden's critiques of Obama--they are numerous. Maybe not as "authentically leftist" as you or I would like, but I never made any claim that Hayden in that regard. So once again, you are attacking a strawman.
Can you grasp the fact that Hayden could be wrong on Obama in various ways, but still have important things to say on other issues?
Tom Hayden: December 2, 2009 :
"Obama's escalation in Afghanistan is the last in a string of disappointments. His flip-flopping acceptance of the military coup in Honduras has squandered the trust of Latin America. His Wall Street bailout leaves the poor, the unemployed, minorities and college students on their own. And now comes the Afghanistan-Pakistan decision to escalate the stalemate, which risks his domestic agenda, his Democratic base, and possibly even his presidency."
"Adding 30,000 to 35,000 US troops will raise the US death toll by over 1,000 by 2011 on Obama's watch, in addition to the 750 who died under Bush. The numbers of US wounded are rising faster than ever, with 300 counted in the past three months. Civilian casualties are under-reported according to the UN mission in Afghanistan. The budgetary costs are growing to $75 billion annually, and could become another trillion-dollar war."
Tom Haycen January 12, 2010
"Obama Bombing Yemen in Secret War"
"While President Obama says he will put no American "boots on the ground" in Yemen, NBC already has quoted one unnamed US official saying that the president personally ordered naval missile strikes in Northern Yemen on December 17. [NBC News, Dec. 18, 2009].
In addition, Gen. David Petraeus confirmed today that US aid to Yemen will double this year from the current level of $67 million, and the CIA and other agencies will focus on training, intelligence and equipment. [Philadelphia Bulletin, Jan. 12]. It is not clear how that support will arrive without boots.
Yemen thus becomes another front in the secret, spreading Long War, the US campaign to locate an elusive 'al Qaeda central.' ETC."
Tom Hayden March 2010
"No matter that both Iraq and Afghanistan are trillion-dollar wars and, according to the latest federal budget analysis, there is "virtually no room for domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors."
The neo-conservative stealth strategy of destroying government programs by 'strangling the baby in the bathtub' (the phrase of Grover Norquist) is working."
Tom Hayden March 2010:
"It's been a long winter for the peace movement. Waiting for Obama has proved fruitless. The Great Recession has strengthened Wall Street and diverted attention from the wars. The debate over healthcare still won't go away and has demoralized progressive advocates. Given a chance to exit from Afghanistan when the Karzai election proved to be stolen, President Obama escalated anyway..."
"Tellingly, the CIA's secret war in Pakistan, which includes the escalation of drone attacks, has drawn no meaningful Congressional opposition. The likely reason is that, with the exception of reports by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker, the casualties and costs of the drone war have been hidden from the American public."
Tom Hayden May 2010
"One Case Against BP, Wall Street, and War"
The need for greater linkages between the environmental, peace and Wall Street reform movements grow by the day in the face of the epic oil spill caused by British Petroleum, a multinational firm tied to Goldman Sachs and Halliburton in oil wars from the Gulf of Mexico to the Persian Gulf.
Peter Sutherland, chairman of BP’s board for the past decade, had headed Goldman Sachs International and, in the 1990s, was a director of the World Trade Organization. According to Bloomberg/Business Week, Sutherland is connected to 124 corporate board members in seven companies spanning 16 industries.
Last year Sutherland touted BP’s founders as the “cream of Edwardian society” who organized the Anglo-Persian oil company in 1909 with a concession extracted from the Shah of Persia. Renamed the Anglo-Iranian oil company in 1935, it was nationalized in 1951 by the elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh, who was overthrown in a 1953 British-US coup.
In Iraq, meanwhile, BP dominated an oil consortium called the Iraq Petroleum Company, until it was nationalized in 1972 by Saddam Hussein, in what historian William Polk describes as “ perhaps the most popular move Saddam ever made. “ [in Polk, Understanding Iraq, p 127] But with America’s installation of a new regime in Baghdad, the return of BP was only a matter of time. The 2007 Baker-Hamilton Study Group recommended that Iraq’s nationalized oil industry become a “commercial enterprise” with investment from global energy companies. [In 2005, Baker chaired BP’s “independent” panel which reviewed “safety management systems” and “corporate safety culture”. During the Baker-Hamilton process, BP’s CEO Tony Hayward was on the advisory board of Citybank, which was represented by Citigroup on Baker-Hamilton’s “expert working group” on Iraq’s economy and reconstruction.'
And now BP has been rewarded Iraq’s concession to exploit what “could be one of the largest expansions of crude-oil production every achieved anywhere”, according to the Wall Street Journal...."
Tom Hayden August 2011
" No sane person can defend Col. Qaddafi. But according to the New York Times account today, the “moral clarity” of the original mission has been “muddled.” (Aug. 14) Violent splits have erupted within the anti-Qaddafi movement. Its top leaders come from the ranks of the Qaddafi regime: Qaddafi’s former development minister, his former minister of justice, and his former interior minister, at least until that person was killed by other rebel leaders not long ago. A brittle coalition indeed, fueled by hatred of Qaddafi’s repression, glued together by Western funding and protected by several thousand Western air strikes.
If and when order is established, the questions should be whether Western military intervention was justified against a former colony, and whether NATO powers will establish a neo-colonial regime running a pro-Western oil supplier. It is possible too that Egypt, Tunisia, South Africa and Turkey will demand and diplomatically foster a more independent Libya. In the meantime, the prospects for civil war, bloody tribal conflict or insurgency are very real. De facto geographic partition may occur if power-sharing arrangements cannot be imposed. "
Tom Hayden October 2011
" The Occupy Wall Street protests began in Los Angeles Saturday. The Mayor and City Council should acknowledge the justice of their cause. The LAPD should treat them with courtesy. The financial powers should consider that their day of reckoning.
Of course the protests might come and go like a gust in the wind. But the wind is here to stay. The organizers are coming to fan it along, through the October 6 demonstrations and the American Dreamers meeting in DC next week."
" If the only response of the establishment to this spreading protest is to send in the police with pepper spray, batons, dragging nets and undercover informers and provocateurs, that bankrupt act on behalf of the filthy rich could inflame hundreds of thousands to respond. Virtually every inner city uprising [riot, call them what you will] of the late 1960s began with a specific incident of police brutality, for example, an assault on a Newark cab driver in 1967. That’s all it took, and it could happen again. Unlikely? Yes, of course. But the future begins by surprise, by accident.
It is not the business of the police to protect the lawbreakers of Wall Street or carry out the suppressive counter-intelligence agenda of the FBI. It should not be the role of the police to provoke a new cycle of law-and-order politics to benefit those who already have all the benefits. The police instead should look carefully at Wisconsin where, in a rare act of union solidarity, the police and firefighters took the side of the teachers, students and public employees in spite of the governor’s policy of exempting them from his assault on collective bargaining. A traditional confrontation between police and protesters was averted in Wisconsin. Instead, the forces of “law and order” there aided and abetted the daily occupation of the Capitol by singing, chanting nonviolent occupiers. That’s a possibility of solidarity the rich and powerful of Wall Street need to fear."
EarthFirst: "Everything [Tom Hayden] writes since Obama ran for president demonstrates a clear agenda to paint Obama and his corporate handlers as if they are our saviors."
The small sample of quotes posted above prove definitively that EarthFirst's statement is false.
Hayden has NOT demonstrated any "agenda" to paint Obama &Co. as "saviors".
One wonders why there is the need to resort to such obvious falsehoods and personal character attacks.
Your citations are watered down tripe. Read my response later down the thread. Same goes for your collegues.
Pop, I read the following rebuttal on one of your other handler's thread (Katrina), and am posting it here written by Karlof1. It creatively rebutts (better than I) your neverending apologetic and even more accurately describes the type of so called journalism engaged in by Hayden and comes from one of Greenwald's powerful pieces, while describing people like you and Hayden assuming you are not the same:
______________________________________________
"Golly Gee Whiz! Here we have a great example of the type of "journalism" Greenwald's been attacking since he strated writing at Salon. His essay of today, while pointed at a WaPost writer could easily be applied here:" [karlof1]
_________________________________________________________
"Behold the mind of the American journalist: Marcus — last seen in this space three years ago demanding that Bush officials be fully shielded from all accountability for their crimes (the ultimate expression of “respect for authority”) — wants everyone to learn and be guided by extreme deference to political officials and to humbly apologize when they offend those officials with harsh criticism. In other words, Marcus wants all young citizens to be trained to be employees of The Washington Post. In a just world, Marcus’ column would be written instead by Sullivan’s mother, who exudes what the journalistic ethos should be — “I raised my kids to be independent, to be strong, to be free thinkers. If she wants to tweet her opinion about Governor Brownback, I say for her to go for it” — but people who think that way only rarely receive establishment media platforms. Instead, we’re plagued with the Ruth Marcuses of the world — “inculcate values of respect for authority”!!! — and that explains a lot."
Earth First: Thank you for so patiently laying it all out for the obfuscator, "Populist Progressive." I guess this individual's concept of Progressive lies in the camp of a Nancy Pelosi or Katrina Vanden Heuval.
And as for DC: The problem with rolling out the carpet of all previous Civil Liberties violations gives the sense that you are merely stating this is all a norm. That line of thinking either purposely obscures, or misses the point that these things ARE escalating... I guess you missed the part about the new bill that could lock up anyone for any pretense of a crime. THAT is not part of this nation's history, with the exception of several historical lapses during war or under dark conservative paranoid influences.
It's difficult to know if persons who write long posts using all sorts of historical references do this to diminish the levels of repugnance persons paying attention ought to face. It's like some of us are saying, "Get out of the water! The authorities are bringing it to a boil!" And you're arguing back, "Heck. It's no big deal. It's always been kept on a hot simmer." Why would you do this? Is it more important to emphasize trespasses to freedom that are part of the historical record, or make people aware of the growing dangers that are NOW in their midst?
With all the embeds in this forum, it would not surprise me if some used left-seeming messages for the purposes of knee-capping full awareness, and/or action. This, too, works effectively to normalize the status quo. And isnt' that what the "law and order" crowd and those sworn to uniforms are all about?
And Beth: Your juvenile response doesn't warrant a comment on my end.
Additionally I invite you to read Chris Hedges numerous books/articles since you assert an inerest in "realism." But I don't expect the scales to fall off your eyes with a truly prophetic voice like Chris.'
_______________________________________
I almost forgot. In three years, the Obama Administration never launched a single investigation or prosecution of the Banksters who destroyed the economy but instead gave them unlimited funds which to continue their destruction on the middle class and poor. (Read the current article by Kucinich.
_________________________________________
Yeah, purporting 'realism' is rich coming from a Dem apologist like yourself.
I've never been an Obama supporter, nor a "Dem apologist". And I need no invitation to read Hedges--I've read most of his work and agree with most of it. You are attacking figments of your imagination, I'm afraid.
I mean this sincerely: you need to slow down, take a deep breath, and avoid jumping to false conclusions and pigeon-holing people you don't know anything about. You would serve our cause better that way, imho.
Thanks for your latest Dem apologetic. Given your many additional posts to my single entry from last night, perhaps it is you and not I who need to take a deep breath, slow down, and avoid jumping to conclusions.
__________________________________________
None of your citations from Hayden express anything more than shallow critiques of Obama and certainly not the type of robust pieces Hedges challenges us with; nor do any of those citations invalidate anything I said.
__________________________________
Your entire strawman hinges on, and is entirely juxtaposed against the other point you made about Hayden declaring his vote for a Democrat
__________________________________________
Such a declaration only affirms our critiques that no matter what Obama does, nor how many innocent people he murders in his endless war campaign/drone strike policies; or no matter how deeply he cuts and voids social programs which the elderly and poor need to live on; Hayden will nevertheless vote Democratic because of the "extreme Republican" boogeyman lurking surreptitiously in each of your own minds. Thanks, but no thanks. I will still vote for any third party challenger to the status quo. You are certainly free to follow the standard Dem apologetic which will lead to more suffering for people without power or wealth.
Hayden is not Hedges? Is that your point? Nobody disagrees with that. Your idea seems to be that only people who share the same view as Hedges are worthy to be published at CommonDreams. Unfortunately for you, CD, is not a society for "group think".
A variety of opinions and healthy debate are welcome here.
You stated that Hayden portrayed Obama as a "savior". That's was your word, and the characterization has been shown to be false. You ought to be man or woman enough to retract your false hyperbole now that it has been exposed.
Hayden's critiques of Obama may not be as radical as you or I would like, but there is no doubt that he has severely critiqued Obama numerous times, as the quotes posted undoubtedly show.
To suggest otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.
"You are certainly free to follow the standard Dem apologetic which will lead to more suffering for people without power or wealth."
I never have and never will follow any "standard Dem apologetic". Your attack has no basis at all. And it undermines our cause. It's transparently McCarthyistic for you to through out demonizing labels like "Dem apologist" and think you can escape from having to defend your positions with facts and logic.
Things don't work like that in progressive forums like this one where most people are committed to critical thinking and civil discourse, not ad hominem attacks and cheap labeling.
Progressive Pop - I agree with your and DCH's reading of the article. One has to be careful not to read into a piece what is not there. Bringing an oppositional posture to discussions such as these often distorts perception.
Of course you do.
"Could anyone sound more naive? Be honest. Wolf was "deeply puzzled"...then "frustrated"...then when she found out what the protesters wanted, it was an "eye-opening" experience?"
That's well said, Progressive Populist. At the risk of being called sexist, I will concur with Hayden and yourself, Naomi Wolf is being NAIVE!
She is "puzzled" at the state's reaction to these protests? Really? Anyone who has paid attention for the past decade-plus should have expected EXACTLY this sort of repression (if not worse), and if you hadn't, then you are either naive or dishonest. (I actually thought Hayden was being kind to call her naive rather than dishonest.)
I think Hayden is, if anything, guilty of being simply exasperated and fed up with the kind of anti-historical, shallow analysis that Naomi Wolf presented in her piece on the crackdown on OWS. He could have written a stronger, more focused rebuttal of Wolf's naive (or ignorant) claims, but to call him sexist, as CDers are doing all over this thread, is ridiculous and unfair.
Agreeing with Progressive Populist and DC-CPH, but I think Hayden and you are being too kind. Wolf's piece goes beyond naivite. Of course, she had to know, as we all did, that the state would respond as it has. I consider the shock and awe from Wolf and others patronizing. Patronizing is a means of control, of weakening the legitimacy of the movement, as though OWS is a group of pre-schoolers who need protection. At the same time, she is giving legitimacy to the state, the system that is, asking for better behavior on their part. Ironically, or maybe not, her piece is paternalistic, deep in the bowels of patriarchy.
Actually, when I first read Wolf's piece in the Guardian, I chalked up the false-framing as either the work of the Guardian's editors, or her attempts to reach and connect with a broader audience on this issue of police violence. But anyway, her name is on the article as its author, and she should know better than to patronize her readers like that. Whatever good her article brought to the discussion on police repression was overshadowed by her mischaracterization of the past decade-plus of US history.
The feds have been coordinating with local police for years -- as I said above, at least since the 1999 WTO protests. This coordination has been institutionalized with the formation of the Department of Homeland Defense, the Joint Terrorism Task Forces and the Fusion Centers. Naomi Wolf should know about these developments, and if she doesn't she needs to do more research before publishing an article like that at the Guardian.
It may not be popular to some of you political horse-jerkies, but one staple of TRUE Progressive values is not to knock another person. This insane ego-driven rush to slay the reputation of Naomi Wolf because her analysis doesn't dovetail exactly enough with your own is, besides being UGLY, hardly indicative of anything remotely progressive. And here's why: by the nature of its derogatory commentary, it's intended to sew divisiveness. And the divisiveness is based on the assertion that a few spectators on the sidelines are Right at the expense of Ms. Wolf. Plus, the've drawn lines (in terms of the values they epouse) that align with the authority figures DOING the crackdown, as opposed to the person protesting these acts. So one has to question the motives of those making these allegations. Then, too, there is the OVERTLY sexist part, which Sherry, picking up the torch for the "late" Katrine manages to invert into some comical accusation of a patriarchal stance. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainborowe, Sherry, Populist Progressive & DC... all either hold an authoritarian attitude, agenda, or pseudo Progressive values. And boy did their boy Hayden get put in his place for the gross hypocrisy at the core of this article... all his touting of the oh, so, amenable LA authorities till the 2 A.M. crackdown came. He's a complete sell-out. And sickening. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A true Progressive looks for common cause. The ones who attack, then turn around and blame the Left for not being organized, or being as difficult to herd as cats are the ONES doing the dismembering, member by member. I don't trust any of you.
I think you mean "sow" divisiveness, not "sew."
Have you ever read "The Port Huron Statement"? As the alleged "defining document" for the so-called cultural revolution of the '60's it's pretty damned suspicious that the term "bank" doesn't appear in it once. No discussion of our co-opted financial system or the primacy of Wall Street interests. Hayden is a left gatekeeper and status quo apologist who did his job and has rested comfortably in his legislative seat ever since.
I think you make good points, SR. Hayden is very centrist, a Democratic party insider who is playing a gatekeeper role here. I don't think it is sexism on his part, just a naive desire to defend Obomber and the Democratic Party at all costs. The use of the put-down terms "conspiracy theory" and "monolithic conspiracy model" to characterize her argument is outrageous, since the term has become so loaded from years of corporate media propaganda vis a vis SCADs--State Crimes Against Democracy.
MEMORY: I just find his verbiage so patronizing... but you could be right about the non-sexism. Maybe. And JSkinner... excellent characterization. Nice to see OTHERS paying attention. This forum has a lot of Observers who use their training to slant arguments towards their own agendas. If you notice, it's always about downplaying: 1. the usurpation of our civil rights 2. the degree to which the Democratic party has sold out 3. the truth about the fake election count 4. the truth about Fukushima and the radiation still escaping 5. the truth about how deeply our economic system has been compromised by the Hedge Funds melding their own fictitious instruments of non-wealth into what once had been a viable economy 6. the truth about global climate change, etc. The common denominator? Make people feel calm so that they "stay seated in the lower sections of the Titanic so the rich can be safely boarded into the lifeboats." What a calling! This is why you see me show them little respect. Their motives are on a par with the M.A.D. doctrine; after all, ultimately they're asking that we calmly accept our "fate" and just die.
It seems that Naomi Wolf was correct in her conclusions. Why else would so many articles denouncing her come out in so many different sites? Me thinks they protest too much. Anyone can connect the dots when cities around the country all decide to evict protesters on the same day.
Agreed. First of all, Naomi Wolf didn't originate the idea of police-FBI cooperation. That came from an Examiner reporter, who got it from an anonymous source. So, whether Hayden agrees with it or not, he should at least get his own facts straight and point to the correct sources. Second, his claim that evictions in CA have been "almost entirely peaceful" is garbage. They weren't peaceful in Oakland, and yesterday police in Los Angeles and Philadelphia stormed Occupy Wall Street encampments under darkness. "Stormed" doesn't indicate "peaceful."
Why do people continue to listen to Tom Hayden? He sold his soul to the corporate establishment years ago. No surprise to hear him criticizing Naomi Wolfe for her outstanding journalism on the unified efforts of our police state to shut down the Occupy Movement. Conspiracy on the part of the government to quell dissent? How could that be happening in the grand ol' U.S. of A.? Oh, by the way Tom, how's that Obamakin thing working out for you? Are you planning to endorse that war criminal again in 2012? Hayden should ridiculed, then ignored. He is a parasite.
I'll repost a link I shared yesterday: an important article detailing the background of UC Davis Chancellor Katehi, which includes participation with the FBI in a group called the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board, and the setting up of a "Student Activism Response Team" more than two years ago. The institutional apparatus of a police state runs much deeper than Tom Hayden is prepared to admit.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/nov2011/kate-n28.shtml
There are two university systems in CA, the UC system has always been right of center.
I agree with all 3 of you above. The reference in this piece as to Naomi Wolf being "naive" -- I'm sorry, but that sounds sexist as heck - is all throughout the piece and seems to be the whole reason he wrote it. He even admits himself that Mayor Villagorosa refused to participate in the conference call with the other mayors because the LA Mayor, obviously, had his own ideas for how to treat the protesters (which was non-violent). How does that make Naomi Wolf wrong in her assessment? It doesn't. JeffC is right -- the institutional apparatus of a police state runs much deeper than Hayden is prepared to admit. (In my book, that makes HIM naive).
Truth: Thank you for your sensitivity and for noticing. The other "attitude" I pick up from this piece is a sort of plea to trust authority figures. It's as if he uses past instances of police brutality as a reason to suggest that nothing like that is happening now. Makes you wonder if he's on Homeland Security's payroll. Something just doesn't jibe here, although I've never been especially fond of the man.
How is it that everyone has apparently missed Hayden's point that Wolf has ignored the recent history of federally coordinated police repression? It's not sexist to point out that it's naive to think that the repression of OWS is some novel development, because it is, in fact, naive. This sort of federal-local coordination has at least been going on since the WTO protests of 1999, and is well documented.
For Wolf to argue that this is a new development (motivated primarily by congressmen who fear that they will no longer be able to invest in Delaware-based corporations) is either naive or based on a selective reading of history. The police state has been in the works for a long time, which is precisely what Hayden is arguing. It's interesting that somehow CD readers have drawn the opposite conclusion from this piece.
Yeah, the (anti-Hayden) mob has their torches lit now, and they hate to waste them.
"the (anti-Hayden) mob has their torches lit now, and they hate to waste them."
Yeah, I think you're right about that, redballoon, but considering Hayden was a strong supporter of Obama and the Democrats, was either unable or unwilling to connect the obvious dots (Obama's corporate donors! duh) and has never really come to terms with Obama's record of brutality and complete sellout - certainly not at the level of terms he came to during the Bush regime - the double standards that Hayden employs simply makes our blood boil. You think Hayden the "radical" would be going ballistic by now, not trying to find new ways to make the sales model Obama appear less dangerous than Bush or Republicans. And as far as I know, he has never delved into the obvious collusion between the two corporate parties, a collusion that is meant to ratchet towards the far corporate right.
Take over the Democrats from within? Talk about naive. I'll get a job sweeping floors at Walmart. I'll make a bet with Hayden that I can gain significant influence at that one corporation before authentic progressives can do the same within the Democratic Party.
I agree, this has become the, Is Tom Hayden a worthy progressive voice instead of examination of the points he writes about OWS-LA. Or, Naomi Wolf (which has done some great work) needs a reexamine her point-of-vview which is understandably different from Hayden. What I find troubling is that some people think they have the ability to define what is progressive and what isn't and in a very narrow perspective. It is almost like a lynch mob at times and it serves to polarize everything by this definition.
The problem is that Wolf's detractors are actually disputing this coordination itself as some sort of overreach, not her framing of it in "conspiratorial tones."
DC: AS IF... there has not been a careful step-by-step desecration of every fundament of Law... with the latest, after a complete collapse of checks & balances, being a presidential order which can have anyone imprisoned on virtually spurious charges. "Torture? What's not to like." Right?
Maybe you should get a taste of water-boarding and then return to this forum and see if you still wish to be so cavalier about setting up a FALSE equivalency between "the way it's always been, " and what's happening NOW. And I am not going to debate you point for point or tit for tat. Some of you seem to have all day... no real job, or are you on a payroll to post HERE?
This article is confusing and doesn't help the people focus at all. So it makes me wonder if Hayden and Villaraigosa are both party to a different conspiracy: To defend the reputation of Los Angeles and Follywood as the decades-old propaganda campaign it has waged on the people in the interest of elites becomes more fully exposed and threatened by a growing public awareness of the people's better interests. We certainly have not been helped by Follywood. The simple fact at hand is that Follywood, along with all the centers of power/influence, has always been highly conscious of the mechanisms of power and under no circumstances will it leave to chance their maintenance. Villaraigosa, for sure, is acting on behalf of Follywood.
Tom Hayden finally writes about something he actually knows about, he is correct Wolf needs to do her homework.
Sometimes, I wonder if these "journalists" get politically contracted assignments for thes "articles" like "take down Wolf - she's gettin too hot". Well, he shouldn't have even tried - a pathetic attempt at best without a coherent argument to be seen and certainly no match for the excellence of Wolf's investigative work.
This is condescending BS. As to why LA and others haven't experienced as violent a crackdown is that it's pretty obvious that after the beatings at OWS raid at NYC and especially the UCPD pepper spraying of students at UC Davis, the police nationwide have a case of horrible PR and the majority of the American public is firmly against their exposed brutality. About time.
So it's a waiting game, another false flag/agent provocateur = another raid, more violence.
At Occupy Cal in UC Berkeley, I outed and informed to our GA that FBI snitch/agent provocateur Brandon Darby and partner Lee Stranahan was filming on campus the other week. (They seem to be also working for Breitbart) So that's proof that the feds have their grimy hands on this. Why so many articles so eager to doubt this?
UC Berkeley is affiliated with Lawrence Livermore Laboratory a federal institution, of course there is going to be a lot more oversight.
I feel sorry for Tom Hayden. He truly is a lost soul. I've watched him closely at various events that he shows up to in Santa Monica with his stack of manila folders and loose papers and he resembles a man that dropped a piece of his brain in the parking lot. A "beautiful mind" meets Napoleon Dynamite.
He then gets up and delivers a condescending diatribe as if he's moses coming down off the 1960s mount and it's actually embarrassing. When Chomsky does it, or Zinn used to do it, or Mumia Abu-Jamal does it, it's beautiful. But Tom is a major league sellout.
I listened to him defend the war criminal in the Big House and it was pathetic. The ex-revolutionary acts as if revolutionary thought is folly and that one needs to work through this corrupt system owned and operated by gutter swine to affect change.
He was much more impressive when he was banging Jane Fonda. I'd be babbling and wandering around Pico Boulevard too if I let Jane get away.
Tom - Naomi nailed it. LA is simply a friggin' exception for a variety of reasons. Just give the LAPD a little more time... it should start looking all too familiar.
I've have long been disappointed in Hayden but that doesn't mean there isn't some truth to his article. There is more to this story than covered by Wolf and more examination is needed. JMO
Numerous journalists have covered this story so far with as much veracity as Wolf, she is far from alone in this ongoing and still unfolding story. And as far as Hayden's "truth" is concerned - even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Well that is true enough, but here we have to wonder if that clock was ever in Jane Fonda's bedroom or not and how sexist is that? I think Wolf's article was good. but brief. Occupy LA is the story and it is an anomaly that they haven't been brutalized. I think that is worth more than a passing interest and I didn't see that mentioned before.