Here is another OWS thought I had. If the movement becomes one with a central leadership

[county worker]

and a specific set of demands, it would be easier to fight because it would be easier to fit it into the right vs left
thing. That would let the right apply all the anti liberal baggage to the movement thus narrowing it's appeal to average Americans.

[RKP5637]

1. Yeah, I think it's best to be as diversified as possible. That's probably what is

frustrating the hell out of the RW spin propagandists. They're having trouble portraying them as a bunch of dirty hippies. They are better groomed and more fit than most of the teabaggers were IMO.

And they know how to spell. I never did understand why the story was the teabaggers were so very well educated. If so, they sure didn't go to the universities I did. They would have flunked out their first semester.

[LuvNewcastle]

2. If the focus of the movement was narrowed,

it would be much easier to stop it. It is important that the OWS movement doesn't limit itself to one or two issues. We face so many problems today, but they all have a common origin and the different threads must be woven together to make the cord that will hang those responsible for our state of affairs. What the PTB fear most is that all of their deeds will be exposed to the people, so that everyone will see just how deep goes the betrayal. Choosing leaders who will negotiate a compromise on a single issue would only make sure the movement accomplishes nothing.

[RKP5637]

4. Yep!!! Agree!!! n/t

[kster]

11. I agree.... The People's Mic... fox news says, its so much easier to discredit one leader/

speaker how do we discredit the peoples mic???



K&R

[Exilednight]

3. My problem with fellow liberals, especially those with a microphone, is that many are

not truly liberals, and the few that are hide the fact. RWers are not afraid to claim to be conservative or right wing, but liberals are scared to be called liberals or left wing.

Could you imagine what would to a Republican candidate who didn't claim to be a conservative?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. I couldn't agree more. Let it grow this way, without a leader, till most of the country is involved

That would make it unstoppable.

[applegrove]

6. Likewise in that it has no leader - that person cannot be attacked. If the right attacks

OWS it attacks us all and not just the leadership.

[customerserviceguy]

7. The lack of recognized leadership

is not slowing the reich wing down as it works tirelessly to cast the protesters as spoiled, dirty, perverse, druggie hippies. I see the same language being used today that was used against antiwar protesters forty-five years ago.

[badtoworse]

8. Without leadership and a specific set of demands, how will it focus its energy?

Until those things emerge with credibility, I doubt anything of consequence will happen. Look through history - can you point to any movement that had no leadership and no defined objectives that accomplished anything noteworthy? I can't

[starroute]

9. Women's liberation, for one

Although OWS may be casting itself in what seem like political terms, it's actually more of a liberation movement than a political cause.

Women's lib -- at least as it was originally conceived in the 1960's -- may have been modeled in part on the civil rights movement, but it was never just about equality. It was also about looking at the world from a different perspective, one that was based on women's issues and women's contributions. It involved restructuring history and art and literature. And although it had spokespeople, it didn't have anybody with the authority to set the agenda or negotiate on its behalf.

OWS seems to be going in something of the same direction. It starts off with a basically ecological, grassroots, horizontal view of society -- one in which the important relationships are those among equals, decision-making is collective, and every voice is respected -- and it applies that view as a moral standard to judge everyone and everything.

Right now, what is happening in Zuccotti Park and the other primary occupy locations is a voyage of self-discovery -- combined with a series of provocative moves that are leading other people and groups to declare themselves to be either for or against it.

When that phase is complete, you will have something a bit like the old distinction between hip and square -- which was another leaderless, agenda-less "movement" -- to the extent of being a distinction between those who "get it" and those who don't. But the "it" in this case will be the new, networked, bottom-up way of doing things.

As one example, the protest up in Harlem for which Cornel West was arrested today was planned and carried out by old-line leftie groups -- but it was endorsed by and coordinated with OWS, and as a result it took on increased moral authority and got way more media attention than it would have otherwise. In the same way, I expect a lot of other causes are going to get caught up in the OWS spirit and be reenergized as a result.

It's hard to describe clearly because it's only just beginning -- but I think things will fall into place very quickly over the next few months and then what is going on will be obvious to everyone.

[kster]

12. All I can say to you is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnLnRo_TQds

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. First great revival...comes to mind

Yes there were names among them preachers but hardly would call them leaders.

In case you wonder they successfully challenged the Anglican church. The religious freedom clause passed by the Virginia house of burgherse, penned by one Thomas Jefferson, was the end result...indirectly you owe them the First Ammendment.

[Exilednight]

14. George Whitefield n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

10. ...

The benefits of the Occupy approach, which could be characterised as nebulous indignation, are actually fairly obvious. By not settling on specific demands, the movement remains broadly inclusive: the goal is one of fairness and simple social justice, and that’s a widely appealing cause.

...

In the face of such a monumentally unfair system, how long would a list of demands have to be to make any meaningful difference? The lack-of-demands criticism suggests that the Occupy movement can’t win, but this is a classic glass-half-empty approach. The primary benefit of not issuing specific demands is actually that it can’t lose. You don’t need extensive experience of a bureaucracy to predict how a “victory” might pan out: a bill addressing, say, increased taxation on capital gains and reform of the banking system will be so diluted and filled with loopholes that any apparent victory will be utterly nullified.

Instead of pretending to be a policy think tank, the Occupy movement is transparently a campaign of civil disobedience, and it has had immediate success. It has already altered the parameters of the debate, with talk of balanced budgets and deficit reduction – pernicious euphemisms for small government – rapidly being supplanted by talk of inequality. And by reframing the debate the Occupy movement has already perceptibly shifted the ground on which next year’s US presidential election will be run, forcing Democrats to the left. It has achieved all this in a month.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/1022/1224306276512.html#.TqIW5_SeQbU.twitter

[meow2u3]

15. It's also easier to assassinate the leader

You kill the leader, the followers scatter. That's what the right wants.

I agree with OWS in that because there's no one leader, the right is trying to attack a moving target. It's easy to take out a leader; it's impossible to kill an idea.

[tblue37]

16. And they could easily take down a leader--just as they went after Assange

to discredit Wikileaks.