General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Many of us are still going to protest. Some might not like our "tactics". [View all]DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)The Fox mantra that they should "march on Washington" something they would never advocate for in a GOP administration. IF McCain was president, there would incidents that make Kent State look like a party, and Fox would be supporting it 100 percent.
Yes, sometimes OWS can show some sharper thinking (like making sure the folks who show up just for a free meal or street cred do their part), however, as far as actual disruptions go, they have been outright serene. Has any Wall Street type been beaten up? Are any execs in the Hospital? Heck, not so much as a Starbucks window has been smashed, unlike the "battle in Seattle." IT is non-violent, and as a result, has forced people to talk on the issues; they have not fallen into the trap of being violent, which will allow the media to focus on the violence, and get the camera lens off of the issues they are so desperate to avoid. When folks like Ted Rall urge them to get violent, they wisely ignored them.
AS far as "leaders" the entire reason this works is because it has no set central organization: as sopon as someone "controls" OWS, in will come the powers that be with, to quote Warren Zevon: "lawyers, guns and money." Money and Lawyers worked to bamboozle the Obama administration, but the GOP knows guns work to stifle movements; they did it before in the 1960's, and they will do it again. They can do it easier as they can paint shooters as "mentally disturbed", and act as if this was some unforeseen event, despite the fact the Tea Party makes a point of showing up with guns and "second amendment remedies." Never mind the fact that the powers that be would pop champagne and light cigars in the back room, because they could not be blamed for what this shooter did, right?
Let me give another analogy: the way we Yanks beat the British was by using Guerilla Warfare against the Redcoats, who, in true European fashion, would still be in line even as they got blasted. For the past 40 years, we Democrats have acted like the Red Coats; we stay in a line, use the same results, trying to be honorable against enemies that know no honor, while tons of money and religion offered the enemy cover. The last straw was Obama, who showed that the establishment had gotten so entrenched that it made even the Oval Office irrelevant. Yes, Hillary would have been the same, because Wall Street vetted both of them, and both of them are Policy wonks that really think the world works like they were taught in school.
Now, that is not to say that there is not a lot of room for improvement with OWS. For one thing, they need to pander to the mass, which means find something people can grunt out in low brow, reptile-brain, Anglo-Saxon english. "tax the rich" is good, but adding something specific, but still gruntable, is the problem. I would say "revive Glass Steagall!" which is the main law that, once removed, allowed the banks to gamble. A simple one: "Ban deratives!"