EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Occupy Wall Street: The Enthusiasm Gap
The latest polls indicate that approximately 75 percent of Americans agree with the goals of Occupy Wall Street. Nonetheless, only 29 percent consider themselves supporters of OWS. What accounts for this enthusiasm gap?
The October Time magazine poll asked respondents if they agreed with the positions advocated by Occupy Wall Street and discovered extraordinary concurrence. 86 percent agreed that, "Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington." 79 percent agreed that, "The gap between rich and poor in the United States has grown too large." 71 percent agreed with “"Executives of financial institutions responsible for the financial meltdown in 2008 should be prosecuted.” And 68 percent agreed that, “The rich should pay more taxes.” Nonetheless, there remains a 45-50 percent enthusiasm gap, because the same voters who express these strong positive sentiments say they don’t support OWS.
Perhaps these voters don’t know enough about OWS. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that 59 percent of respondents felt they didn’t know enough to approve or disapprove of the movement’s goals.
It would be easier to accept the excuse “we don’t know enough” if there was not a pattern of passivity. When we consider the past decade we can find many examples where average Americans should have taken action but didn’t. In 2000, George W. Bush stole the presidency; many voters were outraged but few of them took to the streets in protest. On September 11, 2001, the US was attacked by terrorists; there were legitimate concerns that the Bush Administration had been asleep at the wheel yet once again Americans were passive observers. The terrorists were traced to Afghanistan and the US launched an attack; in December of 2001 most of the terrorists escaped from Afghanistan into Pakistan – it was a glaring example of White House ineptitude but most citizens were quiet. Faced with failure in Afghanistan, the Bush Administration turned its attention to Iraq and, on March 20, 2003, launched an invasion; this time there were more protestors but the bulk of Americans stayed at home. Over the next several years there were glaring examples of Presidential incompetence – for example, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina – but for the most part voters were quiet. Then the housing bubble burst and, in late September 2008, Wall Street came close to melting down; Americans were stunned and depressed, but few took to the streets. Since the turn of the century, American voters, the 99 percent, have had a lot to be angry about, but have been passive.
Historians contrast this last lost decade with World War II era America where average citizens, the 99 percent rose up, built the weapons, and fought the fights that defeated the Axis powers. What’s happened to us?
Perhaps American workers don’t have the time. It’s a tough economy and many work two jobs. For the 99 percent it’s a grueling daily chore making ends meet. Perhaps they don’t have the energy to get involved with OWS.
Perhaps they don’t get it. Many observers believe Americans no longer invest in our children and, as a result, many have poor schools, teachers, and study habits. We’ve raised several generations of “non intellectuals.” The average American spends 2.7 hours per day watching TV and only a few minutes reading. Perhaps the 99 percent don’t understand what all the fuss is about.
Perhaps they’ve checked out. The Pew Survey of Religious Affiliation found that 26.3 percent of respondents were evangelical Protestants; this does not include Black and Catholic evangelicals and many observers believe the true number is closer to 40 percent. A recent Pew Research Poll found that 41 percent of respondents believe that Jesus Christ will return to earth by 2050 – when the rapture will occur. Perhaps the 99 percent are not involved because they are preparing to shuffle off this mortal coil.
Perhaps they’re severely damaged. The official US rate for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is 7.8 percent – with a higher incidence among veterans. However this does not include survivors of violence against women and children. The American Psychological Association reports, “Nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood” – four million US women are assaulted each year. Approximately one third of US children under 18 experience abuse during their childhood – in 2009 6 million children were reported as abused. And then there are the adults that have been economically abused – laid off because their job was moved overseas or fired and rehired as a temp with no benefits. It’s reasonable to assume that a majority of Americans – a huge segment of the 99 percent – suffer from PTSD. As a consequence they are depressed, hopeless, and numb. Perhaps these American agree with OWS but can’t get it together to participate.
The enthusiasm gap is a result of a combination of these factors. The challenge for Occupy Wall Street is to find new ways to engage members of the 99 percent who agree with OWS objectives, but are too tired or numb to participate.
- 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...


60 Comments so far
Show All"Historians contrast this last lost decade with World War II era America where average citizens, the 99 percent rose up, built the weapons, and fought the fights that defeated the Axis powers. What’s happened to us?"
inverted totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism: It Can Happen Here - by Paul Street / August 23rd, 2008
http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/08/totalitarianism-it-can-happen-here/
{In Brave New America, the People do not need to be hardened and rallied to inflict violence on designated ideological and ethnic enemies of the state at home or abroad. Their main jobs are to buy stuff, watch their telescreens and pursue their private interests. The definition of meaningful popular participation in the polity is reduced largely to casting an occasional vote in carefully crafted elections where none of the candidates are foolish enough to think they could run viably funded and broadcast campaigns in the name of the social-democratic and anti-imperial beliefs that most Americans privately and passively tell pollsters they hold. Meanwhile the ex-citizenry is encouraged to believe that it is in charge of the nation.}
...peace...
You want to see Americans revolt? Try taking away their Smart Phones!
Yes indeed, that is true! Well done, donna.
Burnett's characterizing the 1%'s actions as "incompetence" is inaccurate, misleading, and contribute's to so many Americans' not supporting OWS.
All of the events Burnett identifies have strategically faclitated the 1%'s ingenious wealth transfer scheme that continues its deadly march to the sea.
ray, Yes, Sherman would be proud.
Media has painted the deceitful portrait.
a conversation had yesterday, I live in Wisconsin:
friend: Walker did what had to be done (cut budget).
your's truly: Wait, the first thing he did was give tax breaks to the wealthy. The numbers match almost dollar for dollar.
friend: ....... (silence).
He had never heard this before and thinks Walker had balls to do the dirty work.
The message from this poll offered by the humanists at Time is:
It's ok to think it, just don't act on it.
The only thing missing from Mr. Burnett's article is the role TV has played in this passivity. Iowa, your post's content reflects on this missing element; and as has been recommended often in this forum, a view of You Tube's "Century of the Self," for insight into the powerful impact Edward Bernays had on not just advertising, but vast campaigns of social engineering, is a must!
Maybe the elite's monopoly of the media is used very effectively for spinning, distracting, and modifying what is discussed.
First of all, mr. burnett obviously supported the original invasion of afghanistan. Feel free to correct me, please, if i am wrong. I could be. He just thinks W. was incompetent in the execution of said war.
Secondly, i don't find it uplifting that americans get energized to make weapons and fight a war, which seems to be something americans are able to get excited about most always. His allusion to ww2 sounds like tom brokaw talking.
Third, i wonder if the author was on the streets with millions of us before the invasion of iraq? He seems not to be aware of the minyons that were there.
As far as americans being burned out and depressed, as a psychologist who works on very deep levels with a cross section of people - that is true. But they also really don't 'get it'. I know because i bring these larger global issues into most of my sessions - since we are all connected and effected by our larger reality - and they just don't have the passion. That is who they are. When they weren't depressed, they still weren't activists. Sometime i am told that they don't follow the news because it will just upset them. And i will also add that abuse of women and children is nothing new. That statistic hasn't changed, only the fact that it is spoken of in recent years.
My dentist, just last week, after filling my tooth, kept me in the chair and insisted that i explain what this ows craziness is about. You would have thought he got his news from mars and he figured i was the one person in his life who would be able to speak about this menace. I actually laughed at first because it was just so absurd. I said that i thought glenn beck was off the air now. But i digress.......
It is interesting that mr. burnett needs to read stats to figure out how the 99% live. , Sorry for the sarcasm but i just looked up and read the bio. here.
"First of all, mr. burnett obviously supported the original invasion of afghanistan. Feel free to correct me, please, if i am wrong."
You are wrong. The writer took no position on the rectitude of the war on Afghanistan because his subject was not Bush or the war but rather the disengagement of Americans from their government's actions in which this was just one of a series of examples. You are criticising the writer for not writing on a subject you wanted to read, but instead addressing the subject he wanted to write about. But don't worry. It's one of the most salient features of the comments section of this site.
A founding executive at Cisco Systems...?!
"Search Cisco Systems jobs in Nebraska and related jobs at Green Job Search. ... programs; National/Ballistic Missile Defense Systems; Computer Network"
http://greenjobs.greenjobsearch.org/a/jobs/find-jobs/q-Cisco+Systems/l-nebraska
So according to Cisco Systems working on "National/Ballistic Missile Defense Systems; Computer Network" is a green job?! This is a guy talking about the 99% and OWS? WTF?
Thanks for the info. Zero G. That says a mouth full.
Actually, the mish-mash of pernicious factoids contained in the sentence beginning "On September 11, 2001, the US was attacked by terrorists..." is itself ironic proof of a pattern of complacent, uncritical acceptance of top-down, consent-manufacturing official narratives-- a crucial component of the "passivity" Burnett addresses.
Thank you for that, OS. I had a similar thought but decided not to 'go there'......Except, you threw in the observation that burnett's own acceptance of official narratives is a crucial component of the very passivity he addresses. I didn't take it that far. My hat is off once again.
The full sentence reads:
"On September 11, 2001, the US was attacked by terrorists; there were legitimate concerns that the Bush Administration had been asleep at the wheel yet once again Americans were passive observers."
What is disputable here?
The label "terrorists"?
Do you have a theory in which the motivation for the attacks was not to spread fear and terror?
"Terrorist" doesn't = bin Laden and al Quaida in this sentence.
That waits for the next sentence.;)
denruter, I agree with you on the importance of vaccines, the lives that they save, & the harm that's posed by the those fearmongering about them. As for the significance of the occupy movement, beyond the percentages from the latest polls, the fact that there are hundreds of occupy sites of various sizes & configurations taking place in america, not to mention europe & elsewhere, doesn't this say something beyond mere percentages? Something, perhaps, about the universality of the desire for change? Will the occup;y movement change the world? Maybe not, but too soon to rule it out. What'll be telling is how (whether) it evolves into something that expresses the creativity of revolution in ways that not only capture the imagination of the public, but draws people into the fray. Expanding the reach of the movement's leaderless yet with everyone a leader general assembly to beyond the local meeting (internet?) might draw many more people into the fray. One thing for sure, though, is that without revolutionary change we're all doomed on account of perpetual war + global warming = doomsday, and time running out. So if occupy america isn't the one, there'd better be another movement in waiting or that'll be it, folks.
the rockefeller takeover of the education system, heavy metals in the koolaid vaccines and fluoride in the drinking water hasn't helped much either
back to sleep sheeple
you are getting sleepy.....
newt gingrich is good...
you are getting sleepy
obummer deserves another term to, as he put it, "finish the job"
you are getting sleepy..........
They CURED polio.
What we have now is just management. God know what "new revelations involving vaccines thought safe by the masses" Ly'n Brian will be blabbing about 10 years from now.
sounds like you got a good dose of yours
maybe you should take another shot
Yeah, as an anti-war progressive, I don't get the anti-vaccination movement, either. There are COUNTLESS little kids around the world who will not be vaccinated and suffer horrible consequences as a result. In fact, after the first Gulf "War" (during the sanctions era) and after the 2003 invasion, vaccination rates for Iraqi children plummeted and have resulted in high mortality rates for children from preventable disease (here's one mention of what happened after the Gulf "War" from a Washington Post article titled "Letter From Iraq; A Land In Limbo, Sinking Ever Lower"; the quote: "UN officials, meanwhile, have documented acute problems exacerbated by the sanctions, including a steep rise in infant mortality after the Persian Gulf War and recurrence of diseases due to poor sanitation and the initial collapse of immunization programs"). Moreover, people who are supposedly against vaccines don't seem to understand that they still rely on them via herd immunity.
Who is trying to do anything other than control the vaccine regime of their own children?
I hadn't heard that any group was trying to stop vaccines through aid programs an the like, just that some were questioning the current U.S. vaccine schedules.
I think many that don't understand the current bru-ha-ha must not have small children.
The CDC recommended vaccination schedule has radically changed over the last 20-odd years. There are now significantly more vaccines given total, significantly more given in combinations with other (often less necessary) vaccines, significantly more vaccinations for low-harm and low-risk viruses, and all of it on a faster and earlier schedule of actual shots than anyone of us 20-plus-year-olds underwent.
Nearly ever parent I know divides into one of two types on this question:
Type 1 - knows nothing to a little about it, unquestioningly trusts the authority figure of the doctor, follows the current hyper-schedule exactly.
Type 2 - knows a little to a lot about it, sees the patently (pun intended) evil drug companies standing right behind the doctor, deviates in some manner from the current hyper-schedule -even if just by pushing most vaccinations back to the lead up to "pre-school" or sticking to the pre-profit-B.S. scheadule from 20 years ago.
That's the place to start to see the core of the issue here.
CDC vaccination schedule 2011 versus CDC vaccination schedule 1989.
And also compare the current U.S. recommendations to other countries'.
Finland recommends half of the vaccinations the U.S. does!
Yes, not all vaccinations recommended here in the U.S. are necessary to maintaining certain standards of public health (e.g. the flu shot, which one can choose to go without, for the most part - unless it's supposed to protect against an epidemic of an extremely lethal strain, it's mostly recommended for those who may be immunocompromised and mandatory for health care workers, to prevent transmission to patients). Also, various countries may have different vaccination recommendations due to differences in climate or differences in sanitation, etc., and thus variations in environmental pathogenic milieu and prevalence of specific diseases. For instance, there may be other vaccinations recommended to people who travel from the U.S. to certain other countries. Also, some vaccines here in the U.S. have been phased out of the current recommendations due to absence of the disease, Stateside, and, possibly, public health concerns that arise directly from the vaccine itself (yes, not every vaccine that has ever been created is perfect).
I have no problem with people who may choose to vaccinate their children on a slightly different schedule. Nor do I think that Big Pharma is free of corruption (FAR, FAR from it!). Nor did I say that the anti-vaccination crowd is trying to impact vaccination programs anywhere else (I brought up the situation in post-"wars" Iraq as an example of a situation in which vaccines would have been helpful). However, you have overlooked one segment of the anti-vaccination crowd: there really are people who have refused to vaccinate their children AT ALL (for an example, see http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/30/us/when-parents-say-no-to-child-vaccinations.html). That is crazy! Especially if they travel internationally to places where sanitation may not be that good or where their children may be exposed to pathogens that no longer pose a significant public health threat in the U.S. (and yes, some of those people do travel to places like that). Furthermore, it's selfish for people to refuse to vaccinate their children: if an unimmunized individual does manage to contract some disease that would have been more-or-less preventable due to recommended vaccination, that infected person may pose a significant health threat to others.
I was also making the point that children who are not immunized (or who may have had recommended immunizations deferred for a long time) are still benefiting from vaccinations, although their parents may not recognize that fact.
Orthodox medicine and its emphasis on vaccines may take credit for what better hygiene and indoor plumbing has affected. Instead of filling babies' bodies up with more questionable chemical detritus (note those supersonic autism rates!), it would be FAR wiser to:
1. Eliminate pesticides, herbicides, insecticides (these are now housed in our bodies)
2. Arm the EPA to actually enforce rules related to industrial polluters (these escaping toxins increase things like Asthma rates)
3. Create a national program for pharmaceutical drug collecting so big Pharma's cocktails don't end up in public water ways (as tests prove they do)
4. Serve natural foods at school lunch programs, to offset the sugar-drug and the epidemic of Diabetes/obesity
5. Limit fast food's marketing tactics aimed at children and/or low income families
6. Stop nuclear power plants and testing... (there's anecdotal evidence suggesting that cancer rates have risen as a result of these).
It's often the pro-miilitary types in the forum who push agendas like this.. now it's the "get your flu shots/vaccine meme," while also casting doubt on those who prefer to live closer to nature and avoid all the government's "health" programs.
I'm not against those 6 things. We also need better regulation of drugs, for sure. In fact, you're preaching to the choir on those points. I AM, however, for essential vaccinations, coming at it from a basic science and public health perspective (not a military one). We are very lucky to be living in an age and society in which routine vaccinations have made our quality of life drastically better that it would otherwise be.
Health care has many different aspects to it, and it is unfortunate that medicine, as practiced today, is often more palliative than preventive (i.e. geared toward easing symptoms, not always the disease, and without regard for informing patients about how best to eliminate the lifestyle/environmental causes of many diseases). I view vaccines as a type of preventive medicine. Perhaps they may not be necessary for every individual, but for *populations* of people, in which disease susceptibility can vary from person-to-person due to a whole host of things (genetics, epigenetics, nutritional status, sanitation, other illnesses, and exposure to toxins/environmental insults), vaccines have been incredibly helpful in reducing mortality rates for certain diseases.
What's "woo woo dark age" is posters like yourself who constantly bash anything spiritual or esoteric. It was narrow-minded persons like you, who not that long ago lent their homage to the all-seeing authority of the church. Now your church is science, and in your particular case, a love of mechanical objects like guns. What is Dark Age are persons attempting to limit the scope of discourse to insure that anything not of a practical, ergo material nature, will never be up for any consideration. It is YOUR denying MY voice: that of the mystic. And guess what? The time for closing off that subject matter is over.
You seldom miss a chance to cast negative aspersions on a field in which you are ignorant. Confusing what you don't understand for what doesn't exist, or what you can otherwise assault is not the mark of a Progressive thinker. You're an authoritarian bent on shutting the discourse down, or keeping it within a range that YOU find comfortable. So whatever your professed views, you are just another gate keeper and guardian of an ideological status quo .. in spite of your pseudo attempts at posturing Left. I'd wager that half the anti-spiritual types who post here are angry at capitalism because they never produced an income that would allow them to own a decent home. The most creative and compelling thinker on this subject is SALUSA... and while I've seen the either-or only apologists try to dismantle his arguments that blend capitalism with socialism, it will be those possessed of a capacity for nuance, those who are not restricted in their thought process to narrow, linear black-white equations who will be the Architects of Tomorrow's World. YOU are clearly not among them. Now you can go back to polishing your gun collection.
One of the great fallacies regarding mass revolutions is that they are mass movements. Almost without exception, there will always be a sizable segment of the population that is simply too passive to do anything to better itself or are too wholly invested &/or duped by elite lies. What Occupy Wall Street wants is to achieve is a critical mass of numbers proportionate enough to be reckoned with...and they are well on the way to doing so.
Yes, very much so! Thank you! I was afraid that the "99%" slogan would be misconstrued to mean that there was an attempt to get 99% of the population to agree on a course of action, which is ridiculous. All that was ever meant was that this is a vocal portion of the 99% disenfranchised/economic ground-losers.
If your read Paul Hawken's "Blessed Unrest" it may give you another perspective of what's going on. There is a huge movement on this planet that is mostly undetected. It's a movement of people who understand that as long they fight against another group of people that the outcome will always be that we loose.
We either are smashed by the violent elite that is very accustomed to using violence or if we somehow "win" the fight we will invariably turn into what we fought against. Why? Because the mindset of winning over others is what got us into this predicament to begin with...
Now we are actively engaging in building another world that works for everyone, we are building an alternative and for the longest time we are undetected by the media, by the politicians, by the financial elite etc. And when they detect us they don't know what to do because this is a movement that functions on a higher level of complexity and on a more evolved way of thinking... they don't have the means to intervene because they don't understand this phenomenon.
It's up to us to be smarter and show the heart for other human beings... no matter where they are coming from... even if they part of the 1%.
Great post, Daniel. And incidentally, Daniel is the name of the lead character in my new book... and it's all about healing our planet. (I like when "coincidences" like this happen. I term them "Omens of agreement.")
Occup[y Wall Street and its many counterparts across the country are inspiring, but most Americans have lost any belief they may once have had that collective, democratic action is effective. Many even think it is immoral.
While the events since 2008 have shown that the capitalists are not able to prevent major disruptions of their system, their power has not been undermined. Instead, by continuing to act as before, and in some countries to dismiss elected governments and install their own appointees, they have shown their continued dominance. The passive Americans are either supporters of that power, for whatever reasons of self interest or ideology, or they are convinced it is invincible.
American political culture has been transformed by a long period of defeats for labour, a massive "re-education" campaign by the capitalists, and by technological and economic developments that have centralized economic power (in spite of the mostly mythical "power of the internet" etc.) and made it more difficult to engage in purposeful, continuous collective action to counter it.
All the problems Burnett cites as possible causes of widespread political passivity in America also existed, probably more intensely, in periods we now regard as full of political activism. Many of the activists were themselves plagued by those problems.
The fact is that for most Americans the current crisis has not caused serious problems.The people directly affected are outsiders for the most part, excluded from participation in American society, relegated to the sidelines. People of colour, illegal immigrants, prisoners and parolees, older unemployed people, residents of impoverished communities who find themselves unable to move elsewhere, poor people, etc.
American society is very effiicient at pushing its problems "downwards", so that over time the middle class is relieved of problems, while the poor, the weak, the excluded are forced to deal with them. The example of HIV/AIDS shows how a problem that originally affected a minority that was excluded in some ways, but not subjected to economic exclusion (gay men), has been deflected from that group and turned into a problem mainly of the poor and excluded -- injection drug users, poor women, men of colour, etc. The "middle class" can expect to be protected from the worst effects the economic crisis, and does expect to be so protected. No wonder so many of its members remain passive. It is not a direct concern to them.
As for the excluded groups, they can expect the middle class to support actions that keep them powerless. A certain portion of the middle class, of course, is willing to stand with the excluded and, frankly, to speak in their name. But while their moral and political solidarity is inspiring and valuable, without a real and organized connection with those groups, these good people will find themselves isolated and ineffective.
So I suggest that the most item on the Occupiers' agenda should now be to find ways of building support among the excluded groups, by pushing for policies and programs that will benefit them directly, help them deal with daily problems they face, and mobilize them (and others in the middle class) to act collectively to confront those problems.
One big issue that is never directly dealt with (except in terms of "greed" etc.) is the massive weight of debt that is crushing Americans. I'm not talking aobut the national debt -- that can be solved by inflation, which amounts to a kind of debt repudiation. . Who cares if it's called some stupid name like "quantitative easing", as long as it's radical enough to slash real debt.
Peronal debt is a huge issue for most people. Occupiers and their supporters should be calling for a program of "forgiveness", "write down", or just plain repudiation, facilitated by the government either paying that debt (a bad idea), or legislating the terms of a major write down by the creditors who are, as the Bible said, "grinding the faces of the poor" with their usurious interest rates and wildly unrealistic demands for repayment.
The government also needs to act to break the capital strike now in effect, by which capitalists who are receiving gigantic profits refuse to use them to invest in jobs, on the laughable excuse that they are waiting for confidence to come back, or for the socialists in Washington to stop legislating things like Obamacare. In other words, until they get a Republican administration in power again. It can break the strike by taking over banks and other holders of unused capital and going ahead and using it to hire millions of Americans to do the work that is needed. The money is there to create millions of jobs, but it's being hoarded by a few speculators and other criminals. Open the vault! Hire the unemployed to upgrade America.
Occupiers should call for an immediate amnesty for "illegal" immigrants, and an end to raids and roundups of working people by "La Migra". If capitalism is global now, if money can move across borders at the speed of light, then why are human beings subjected to misery for exercising their right to move about as they see fit? While America and other countries throw away their economic sovereignty, they get more ruthless in "protecting" their increasingly meaningless borders."No one is illegal" should become a major slogan of the Occupiers.
Slash national debt through inflation, and be sure to legislate adequate protection for the poor and others who might be hurt by it.
Slash private debt by forcing massive write downs of unpayable, fictitious debt that is turning Americans into a nation of debt slaves.
Break the capital strike now undeerway and use the trillions in hoarded profits to hire millions of Americans, by the government if necessary; by co-ops and non-profit entities if possible.
Free the "illegals", Bring in an amnesty that will admit millions of excluded Americans into the citizenry. Halt the repression of La Migra against American workers and their families.
These may sound terribly impractical. But, one way or another, all of them will happen because these measures are absolutely necessary. Why not mobilize people to fight for them, so they come about, not as a reluctant, flawed result of plutocratic deals and lobbying, but as a response to the demands of the American people?
LEEZA: You raised a number of compelling points and laid out a powerful case. I would add that we can't totally judge tomorrow by this moment, or precedents set yesterday. Truly this movement, along with the collapse of a number of systems (some dissolving in slower motion than others) is going to create the wake-up call your post appears to argue against. When all the metrics change rapidly, people are forced to adapt and face things (as well as how they think about things) in unprecedented ways. As I used to say to an attorney I dated, "Why limit possibility?"
Talk about a flight of fancy. This is a B-1 bomber.
This article is a bit disjointed. How is the word enthusiasm appropriate to describe the grouping of factors as stated above? Not being in support of how others are working on a solution to the corruption in the government does not in any way indicate a lack of enthusiasm for fixing the problem. It shows a lack of direction for fixing the problem. The OWS movement has fallen down in this regard because they have offered no direction for the average American voter. It is clear that those in power today should not be in power. What is the normal procedure for making that happen? Through clear identification of those abusing the powers of the people and clear action to redress the abuse. Giving a message of who to vote for is one of the logical first steps in a sequence of steps to a two pronged approach of dismantling the corruption while building a modern American system for living in a fair and sustainable environment. Who are the OWS or any of the O movements in support of this election season? Obama? Romney? Gingrich? Any third party representatives stepping up or even starting the initial steps to campaigning yet? I have not heard anyone even begin to discuss this issue. It's problematic. Are any of the protestors willing to step up and offer America a different choice for their vote? Time to occupy the election system! Occupy 2012.
OWS cannot be asked, a few weeks after its came spontaneously into being, to propose the kind of platform that even longstanding and well financed political parties fail to propose. In another post, I urged OWS to raise several important issues, like the crushing weight of personal debt that is enslaving millions of Americans, debt into which they were forced by a corporate sector that refused to increase wages, and by a financial sector that pushed easy credit like a drug that would offset the effects of 40 years of stagnant wages.
You are especially mistaken when you try to suggest that the best path for OWS to follow is to join in the corporate-funded and designed vaudeville spectacle that passes for electoral politics in the US nowadays. That would be the shortest route to irrelevance. OWS is an expression of a growing feeling that American democracy is a sham, and that the decisions that count are being made by a few rich people and implemented by their flunkies. In turn, those flunkies rely on a well financed and cleverly operated smokescreen of infotainment and distraction to ensure that most Americans acquiesce in the power of the few.
This is a very powerful message, one that resonates with millions of people because it is the simple truth. Rather than be drawn into the phony game of political "debate" that has little impact on the way decisions are made, OWS is right to stress its main insight again and again, and to demonstrate its truth by the fact that the people in power are determined to cruch them.
Instead, OWS should, in my view, put forward some broad issues that directly affect the oppressed people in America, and put forward some radical new ideas on how to solve those problems. That's how OWS can both broaden its base, and mobilize support among the people who have a direct interest in change -- because in the end, people tend to be most effective when they are acting in their own interests, not simply joining in a widespread mood.
But the mood is important because it opens the door to all kinds of questions that never seem to get asked in mainstream American politics -- no doubt because the fairly obvious answers would undermine the powerful.
Asking OWS to make a choice among shysters like Gingrich and Obama, Romney and Paul is asking OWS to commit suicide. The electoral system has been taken over by the corporations. It no longer works for the people. Facing that fact is the first step in making the radical changes that are urgently needed in America.
My God. I pale to think of the level of conceit and ignorance that is brewing because a few thousand protesters have gained the spot light yet again. Same as the tea party. It will be a passing fad unless it can get the majority of Americans behind it. 26 % being polled and expressing they understand that Washington is over influenced by corporate power is not something that the OWS movement has brought the spot light to, Obama beat them to it. Then he made his excuses for why he could not make effective change against entrenched Republican interest and Corporate abuse that even Obama paints himself as a victim of. The election machine of the party calling them selves 'democrats' is warming up, waiting for their moment to take the stage and this year the amount of money it will have at it's disposal and the level of media blitzkrieg we are about to witness will have never been witnessed before. I expect to be brushing virtual shoulders right here on Common Dreams with the hordes of Obama bedazzled posters pondering if he really is the one who can make change they believe in. I predict at the rate of 60-80 percent turn out of those all but endorsing him when he and his army get done with their campaign to prove he is the one. I will be here to witness it all and marvel. Mark my word.
As part of the 75% but not part of the 29% I can only speak for myself. But for me it's the lack of any specific agenda or demands. People aren't going to support something until they know what they're supporting. Marches and demonstrations and singing songs may make people feel good, but they don't change anything. I want to see some clearly stated goals and means for achieving those goals, and a commitment to do what is necessary to achieve change, which will mean organized violence against the elite. Pacifism is for children, not adults.
And there is also the fact that progressives have, rightly or wrongly, a reputation of being anti-semitic. 99% of Americans strongly support Israel's courageous and noble stand against violent, right-wing extremism, now more than ever. No civilized person is going to want to be associated with anyone who supports Hamas. Period. This issue has to be confronted, and there has to be open denunciations of those who engage in anti-semitism, and it has to be made very clear that the OWS supporters support civil and human rights, and the rule of law. You can't claim that if you criticize Israel.
Mike: This statement is close to insane:
"the fact that progressives have, rightly or wrongly, a reputation of being anti-semitic."
I don't think this is true at all. You speak in hyperboles...
It is insane, and speaks to a greater paranoia at the heart of the American psychological derangement. Even after reading countless articles (or maybe not) it seems like Mike is still making excuses not to be active or at the very least supportive.
Spoken like a true computer warrior. Please list the violent acts you have been involved in, so we can judge the degree of violence you are demanding of OWS. Or are you just a "child". i think I know the answer to that one.
I am a civilized person, and I disagree with Hamas on many issues, but the fact is that in a free and fair election they were chosen to represent the people of Gaza as their government. Many movements like Hamas, which employed violence, held beliefs unappealing to many in the "civilized" West, and allied themselves with whomever was available and willing to help, are now in power in their countries, and are accepted as part of the "international community". Apart from the American revolutionaries, an example that is very old, there are the governments of South Africa, the governments of Cuba, Vietnam, China, and yes, Israel.
For Israel was founded by believers in Zionism, which many in the West found unappealing; used violence when it suited them, and allied themselves with whomever would help them reach their goals. Please remember that the first country to recognize the State of Israel was the USSR, then ruled by Joseph Stalin. Did Israel reject this gesture from a horrific dictator? It did not. In fact it sent Golda Meir to visit the USSR to cement relations with Stalin's regime.
I won't go into the oft repeated facts of the campaign of violence and terror that was used by Zionists to make Palestine ungovernable for the British; the violence and terror that was used to drive many thousands of Palestinians out of their country to open it up for Jewish settlement; the decision to retain the West Bank as an occupied territory in the face of worldwide disapproval; the long history of cooperation between Israel and apartheid South Africa; the use of violence to grab land in the West Bank, drive its resident off it and settle natives of Brooklyn and similar places there instead; and the disgraceful incident in which Turkish citizens were killed by Israeli soldiers on the high seas, in order to prevent them from landing in "unoccupied" Gaza. Let others present the details of those events.
What I mean to say, if it isn't obvious already, is that Israel obeys the laws it finds convenient to obey. When called to account for breaking laws and breaching human rights, it resorts to calling its critics antisemites and pretends that without such behaviour another Holocaust would ravage the Jewish people. The evangelicals who believe in the End Times find no fault with this approach to "legality", but many people find it not only disgraceful, but a betrayal of the noble principles of Judaism itself, now discarded in favour of an opportunistic and cynical willingness to ally with anyone no matter how corrupt, and to abuse anyone no matter how sincere.
American progressives should join with their fellow progressives in Israel, take to the streets for peace and economic justice, for human solidarity, and for an end to illegitimate domination by one group over others, no matter what phony arguments are used to justify it.
"The Pew Survey of Religious Affiliation found that 26.3 percent of respondents were evangelical Protestants; this does not include Black and Catholic evangelicals and many observers believe the true number is closer to 40 percent. ... Poll found that 41 percent of respondents believe that Jesus Christ will return to earth by 2050 – when the rapture will occur. Perhaps the 99 percent are not involved because they are preparing to shuffle off this mortal coil."
Yes, that. This is part of the reason that I've objected over the past couple of weeks to the characterization of OWS as the "spirit of Christianity," when it becomes rather obvious by doing a head count that it's largely been a movement of people who gave up on same at an early age, or were never exposed to it.
from the article:
~ The latest polls indicate that approximately 75 percent of Americans agree with the goals of Occupy Wall Street. Nonetheless, only 29 percent consider themselves supporters of OWS. What accounts for this enthusiasm gap? ~
I neither agree with nor support OWS, but will take a shot at answering the question...
a fan of logic, I would suggest the 'enthusiasm gap' the author bemoans might be best explained this way...
there is no logical connection between the economic conditions of this country and the strategies and tactics these people have chosen to address...
since the actions involved have no chance of impacting the issues described, there can be no success, hence there is no reason for support...
this is like wondering why people aren't more enthusiastic about going to the zoo to get their car fixed, only to be pepper sprayed...
they don't fix cars at the zoo...
they don't change tax code on Wall Street, but they pepper spray and billy club...
the mechanism for legal change, tax code or other, is Congress, not Wall Street, and enthusiasm regarding Congress, at least on my couch, is extremely low...
perhaps this explains...
or, to give even greater credit to the average citizen, maybe they realize our troubles are way bigger than a bunch of media hype, our challenges are more internal than external, and our road ahead much more difficult than passive-aggressive complaining will be able to handle...
we have reached the time of sacrifice, not demand, and OWS but demands...
perhaps this explains...
Well Bob not everybody is a wealthy retired Cisco exec. pal.
OWS is a symbol. If you have massive media power, you can easily tarnish any symbol you don't like. The 1% own the media, obviously they don't like OWS. Predictably their media will tarnish OWS, and popular support for it has to go down. When the whole thing stared, I knew it was just a matter of time.
The specific goals are a different matter. There is a completely different basis for how goals are rooted in people's consciousness. Maybe with massive and prolonged effort over years and decades, the media can effectively propagandize a majority of us into abandoning goals that we originally have, but they can't do that in just a few months, in the way they can manipulate our attitude toward symbols. So the support for the goals of OWS, who coincide with the goals of the 99% will remain high (even if not as high as 99%!), but support for OWS as a symbol will take a hit.
Something similar occurred with Bill and Hillary Clinton's proposal for overhauling the health care system. After much debate and media manipulation (remember Harry and Louise?), polls uncovered the paradoxical finding that most people supported the individual provisions of the proposed law, but had a negative idea of the law as a whole. That's because the whole had been turned into a symbol, and from there it was vulnerable to attacks by the media, especially the segment of the media sometimes referred to as the right wing noise machine.
The solution? There is none! Except for the fact that it is within each of us to become educated on matters of communication and manipulation, so that we can see through the propaganda and at that point it will not influence us. But that's a tall order. The 1% after all has immense resources, and with a small fraction of their power they can continue refining their propaganda methods once they realize that some of the old tricks no longer work. It's like an arms race, with most of the resources on the side of the 1%. What a pickle!
perhaps also:
--There is no draft to personalize war.
--They view the OWS as demonized hippies
--People are working too hard at two jobs and are too tired to protest.
--People just want to chill out in front of their teevees and computers.
--People are too afraid of losing their jobs, credit, etc. by getting blacklisted.
--People are afraid of getting beat up, sprayed, getting a police record, etc.
--the 1% have successfully demonized the OWS
--Some of the 99% prefer to escape with drugs and alcohol
Brawling with cops? With no weapons? So physically locking down is now brawling? I guess Gandhi and MLK were also brawlers. When did Americans become so cowardly?
Cowardly, delusional got big after Vietnam. Hope it's peaked and the worm has turned; we'll see?
Hariet99 is correct.
However, if OWS's next major move would be to organize an Occupy Washington March-----fashioned after the Great Depression's Bonus Army's march, and occupying of DC.........in the spring............ after finals.....where it is less likely that people would be maced............I could see that 29% taking a major move up.
I got PTSD from working at an increasingly abusive corporation. We are legion.
Americans are perhaps the most psychological crushed people on Earth and necessarily so for the maintenance of an Empire that is sucking their lifeblood without giving anything of substance back. People in dictatorships at least know that the truncheon cannot replace conversation, and when the fear subsides, the streets belong to the people. In America and other advanced countries, the instrumental power of the state is much greater, and when reinforced by a media noise machine unmatched in history, it instills both helplessness and endless distraction in its citizen victims. While in developing countries, street blockades and the pelting of police with rocks is pretty common, in the north it is abhorrent to the masses who remain deeply indoctrinated by the state.
Goethe's dictum, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free," also applies quite aptly here.
People in masses don't support OWS yet because they are hiding from identifying with people who are upset with the state of our society. They want to continue to believe everything is sorta alright and to support OWS would link them with the realization of malcontent.
Sadly, their time will come too as in these times Truth is uncovered and our greed and fear visit us in the daylight. Hopefully that time will not be too late to reclaim power of the people over the power of elite finance.
NEQUALITY = END OF EMPIRE
One hundred Historian and ask them to identify the nation
with this unequal distribution of Wealth and Income
(50 to 1—83 to 1---18 to 1) Mexico?Zimbabwe?Congo??????
NO-America is your answer
FACT CHECK
10% own 70% all Net Wealth—-------80% own 15%-----$50 to $1 for each worker
10% own 70% all Financial Wealth—80% own 7%------$80 to $1 for each worker
10% get 46% all individual Income—50% get 13%----$18 to $1 for each worker
Those ratios are in Third world nations not Democratic nations
Democratic leadership should throw these in the faces of Republicans until the people all know them and cannot forget them. Congo! Mexico!
Clarence swinney olduglymeanhonest political historian Lifeaholics of America
Author-Lifeaholic—Success by working for a Life (family-health-work-finances)
not just for a Living ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)
comments questions welcome at cswinney2@triad.rr.com Burlington NC