Imagine if we had to settle our differences in the 'street'

[bigtree]

What would be the outcome if we had to decide issues like taxation, services, representation, justice, etc. without our legislatures?

That's what I keep in mind when I vote.

Our Congress isn't apt to do worse than a crowd of us facing off in the middle of the road or across a bargaining table. It's bound to do better, and often does.

That's what I keep in mind as I cringe through the compromising and accommodating that goes into almost every piece of legislation that advances into action or law.

That's what I keep in mind as I support our Democratic party.

Our Democratic platform remains the most effective vehicle available for elevating our ideals and initiatives to the point where they can be considered, and hopefully, agreed on. I imagine that, if I was born in the days of Lincoln, I'd likely be a republican railing against the notion and practice of State's rights, be-damned any other issue which contradicted that.

We choose the best coalition because it's a challenge to advance one ideal or the other to fruition and perpetuity. We are challenged to unite -- even as we hold our separate interests, needs, and expectations.

That's why I'm a Democrat. That's why I support this Democratic presidency. It is the most effective vehicle available for the potential for elevating my own particular concerns into being. I suspect that's what motivates the millions who also agree to support this Democratic presidency.

[zerox]

1. If we settled our differences in the street...

in the same way that Congress "settles differences," they would need trucks lined up to dispense all the cash.

Congress definitely works more efficiently.

[bigtree]

2. don't just brush past the alternative

. . . it's not as if there isn't an electoral process for reforming our legislature, like in some countries.

[zerox]

4. the last decade or so has proven the failure of that process when it comes to reform.

a non-functioning system of reform is little better than none at all, and is probably even worse.

[bigtree]

7. so, we keep pushing

. . . from the outside, and from within government. I don't think we have any other good choices, except to remain determined and persist. Certainly that's the aim of all of the negative influences.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. If you call that an electoral process, then you must be talking about a different country nt

[bigtree]

16. it's certainly not easy or assured

. . . especially for a country as large and diverse as ours. But, there is an electoral system in place which hasn't been fully utilized in my lifetime.

Consider all of the problems that some countries have which pale our own in comparison. Still, the percentage who participate in their elections often dwarfs our own voting rate.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. But it's been failing to function in the benefit of the majority.

To begin with, campaign financing in the U.S. guarantees that the will of the richest will be done, and not that of the rest. Further, decades of right wingers have removed the oversight which was in place before.

The politicians currently in office have been asked to stop kowtowing to corporations, but they don't.

The only alternative is this movement.

[bigtree]

24. not arguing against protest

arguing against abandoning the political system to the conservative opposition who won't go any where and will stay engaged until they get what they want. They'd be more than happy to have us step out of the way and leave the floor to them.

We need to maximize both responsibilities and organize.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. I don't know that OWS is abandoning the political system. I think it's pretty much ignoring it

since it's proved useless for the past few decades, and probably will not pay attention to it until it changes a lot.

[Modern_Matthew]

3. I have zero faith in this political system.

535 people representing over 300 million is insane.

[bigtree]

5. good point

It is a type of insanity.

I'll say this, tho . . .

We should care enough to involve ourselves in every instigation of democracy which confronts us. Our government is a reflection of everything we choose to neglect and every cynical impulse we reflect.

Those in power who are motivated by greed will show up every day to collect their share, and ours as well. Can we afford to turn away and let all of the negative influences have the floor to themselves?

We have to come to grips with our individual responsibility to vigilance. We have to show up every day to make certain the government is representing all of the people -- not just the corporate few who show up every day to collect our money. They will always fill the halls of Congress with their favors, bribes, and obstruction.

As my old friend, Guy Washington used to say, "Good always leaves, but bad comes to stay."

[leftstreet]

6. You mean 535 people to represent the 1%

Which isn't bad if you're the 1%

[Telly Savalas]

23. The 99% outnumber the 1% 99 to 1 at the voting booth

If as a group they'd quit voting for such insufferable shitheads, maybe our interests would be better served.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. You've got a point, particularly when they're all dependant upon corps and banks to run for office

It's a sham process.

[JVS]

14. We need a sequestered randomly selected unicameral legislature

Sequestered in order to keep them from being prone to bribes and unable to bribe each other.
Randomly selected in order to keep them represented.
Unicameral because the Senate is by it's very nature designed to interfere with popular representation.

[H2O Man]

8. Discussions in the

public square is an essential part of the democratic process. It should go hand-in-hand with deciding who to vote for, as well as continueing to pressure elected officials -- including both those you voted for, and those that you didn't.

[bigtree]

9. right, I get that

. . . maybe not so clear in my presentation.

I'm not trying to highlight the dynamic between the two constants in our democratic society, as much as I'm attempting to explain why I come to the political process and remain engaged in that effort.

Pressure from the outside is indeed an integral and vital element in our political system.

[bigtree]

15. I answered you much too quickly as I ran out the door to work

I did my typical second-guessing and arguing with my self over my response as I tried to reason where the line is between the 'outside' of our government and the 'inside' (where many folks here tell me they're through trying to look for solutions).

I reminded myself of Dr. King (because you discuss him often) and his efforts meeting with President Kennedy to try and hash out civil rights legislation, I believe. That would be the balance I'd like to emulate between protest on the outside of government and working to advance clear legislative goals within the political system -- and the challenge of making the most out of both efforts.

[H2O Man]

27. I liked both

the OP and your first response; thanks, though, for expanding on the topic here.

I've been investing time re-reading various works by King -- both the famous speeches/writings, and the less well-known. I also got out my old copy of David Dellinger's "More Power Than We Know: The People's Movement Toward Democracy." It can be difficult to gain, much less maintain, the proper balance between movement groups, and identified leaders and/or elected representatives. I think we agree that, at this point, there is no such balance ....and that includes movement groups with local, state, or national elected officials.

Yet the public demonstrations will serve as fertile ground for the lessons of the past to germinate, bringing forth "new" approaches .... which are generally the application of older concepts to newer situations. For although learning from history is essential, perhaps the most important lesson is that "what worked" yesterday cannot be duplicated exactly as it once was.

New ideas will thus include not only the potentially successful, but also some definite failures. For that is always an important factor in social movements. The combination will lead to the movement groups finding leadership, not only in the form of individuals within the group, but more importantly, within each individual participating. In the final sense, it is most important for the movement groups to find that balance within the first one discussed here: to find "leaders" who are not then separated from the movement group, to break bread with those elected representatives, in the sense that King (and other Civil Rights leaders) frequently came to a city with an active movement group; met with the group, then the politicians; and then struck deals that were not close to what that movement group had aimed for. That risks dividing the movement group along internal fractures that are always just beneath the surface.

By mid-1967, King recognized this had happened. Thus, he was in the process of building the "human rights" movement, by combining Civil Rights with the Anti-War movement. More, he was preparing the Poor Peoples Campaign, for a grass roots occupation of Washington, DC. He had identified the proper balance.

[bigtree]

28. fascinating

I was just reading a complex account of Bayard Rustin, The dead end of despair: Bayard Rustin, the 1968 New York school crisis, and the struggle for racial justice by Daniel Perlstein. In fact, I just posted a revamped essay using a few of his quotes and philosophy to make a point about today's protests and legislative imperatives.

Although I wasn't convinced that Rustin had become as removed or distant from his commitment to peace and social justice as the author suggests, I found it fascinating
how Mr. Rustin came up against the same entrenched resistance to change and progress when he attempted to forge an alliance between Labor and his Civil Rights agenda which was rooted in economic justice more than it focused on the racial disparities his counterparts in the movement were pushing for.

Rustin had reasoned that the notion of many black leaders that the 'community' could better look after its own needs -- as the system had not been at all accommodating -- was a weak substitute for what could be achieved within the system by forging alliances and remaining engaged in the political arena.

from the essay: (http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/justice/downloads/pdf/the_... )


"Even within the black community, Rustin argued, the separatist fantasy impeded social equality. Discounting working-class proponents of community control, Rustin charged that the leadership of the fight for the Negro to completely take over the schools in the ghetto is not the working poor ... it is not the proletariat...."

"Community control was ineffective as well as wrong. Relying on a lumpenized "black slum proletariat" that lacked the leverage of an industrial working class to exact concessions from society, Black Power invocations of anti-colonial struggle in the ghetto could not "create the preconditions for successful, or even authentic, revolution.... Before we are permitted to impose our will on the majority of Americans we will be crushed." Community control, Rustin concluded, constituted "a giant hoax ... being perpetrated upon black people by conservative and 'establishment' figures." It epitomized "the opposite of self-determination, because it can lead only to the continued subjugation of blacks.""

"Educators and black parents alike needed to realize that a local school board without "real power, democracy, and the funds to carry out new programs" could not "substantially affect the educational system." And even real power and money would not be enough. "Unless there is a master plan to cover housing, jobs, and health, every plan for the schools will fall on its face.""

"The resources needed to initiate such a master plan, Rustin added, could only be secured "by a unified black movement joining with other progressive social forces to form a coalition that represents a majority of the population." Because quality of life is determined by "the economic and social nature of our institutions," blacks needed to ally themselves with the group that most forcefully advocated the democratization of economic and social life-organized labor.""


In his effort to build a labor-civil rights coalition, Rustin was caught between the demands of the grass-roots activists he hoped to lead and the white allies he sought to nurture," the essay concludes. Of course, the establishment wasn't at all ready to accept blacks or their movement. Labor's 'grassroots' was particularly hostile to minorities. Rustin had reasoned that any incremental concession made by the establishment was justification enough for associating with them which increasingly put him at odds with those blacks who were pressing for something more than the meager concessions Rustin was soliciting.

In fact, along the lines of what you wrote, I read where Dr. King had actually helped Mr. Rustin in negotiations to end the riots and unrest following an incident where a white police lieutenant killed a black ninth grader on his way to summer school in, I think, Bedford-Stuyvesant.

Rustin witnessed the riots and assisted with those bloodied by police. He tried to urge blacks to nonviolence and he was, himself, attacked and ridiculed by some of the protestors. Rustin found his way into negotiations with the New York mayor, but as blacks in the streets were demanding accountability for the police brutality, Rustin, enlisted the help of Dr. King in negotiating a far less concession of a promise to seek money for a jobs program. Dr. King and others in the civil rights movement reportedly felt like the unrest in NY would hurt the image of the movement and were anxious to put a lid on the protests which had escalated into violence.

I'm heartened to read the account you provided which suggests that Dr. King had decided to take his advocacy to a higher plane. I'm reminded of how difficult it is for folks to remain focused and determined in these protests in the face of conciliatory moves which fall short of their demands.

I'm also feeling my age when I think of trying to reconcile all of the different interests and opinions among protestors about message, organization, targets, and goals. Most folks don't realize just how 'young' Martin was at the time. I'm in admiration of anyone who commits to such a movement. I saw a report where one OWS protest was struggling to 'insert a discourse of structural inequalities into the movement.' Whew!

Thanks for reading and responding in such an informative fashion. You never disappoint.

[loyalsister]

10. Maybe we do....

"I know we're here for a purpose- a serious purpose, but I've never been a part of a street gang before and that's pretty much what we are. A pretty well financed one. But, anyway what I wanted to say is it feels good. And maybe after this meeting maybe we should go out and get girls and maybe knock over a fruit stand or something..... and we need to learn to sing and dance." - President Bartlett (Martin Sheen) on The West Wing

It's interesting to consider how presidents may personally feel knowing what kinds of ugliness they are often responsible for.
"Having our government "face - off" in the legislature under such an angry environment- trying to keep millions of us in mind is a much more complicated job than I would want. My strategy is the same as yours get behind the ones who share most of my beliefs.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. Uh... clearly sitting down for the past few decades has resolved nothing for the poor and the

middle class. In fact, Democrats have been bending over for Repukes for decades.

It's time to take it to the streets.

OCCUPY WALL STREET!!!!!!!!!!!

[bigtree]

17. it's always 'time to take it to the streets'

Americans have been remarkably shy about doing so in my lifetime, even with the notable exceptions. Look at the hundreds of thousands who gather in other countries when they have grievances. Perhaps that's also a reflection of poor representation within the system.

I'm not arguing at all to disengage from protesting in favor of some myopic focus on legislating. I'm attempting to explain why 'I' stay engaged in that legislative process and organize those efforts under our Democratic banner.

[blkmusclmachine]

18. OCCUPY! OCCUPY! OCCUPY!

The old way you espouse won't work anymore after Citizens United. The WH is a lost cause to TPTB. The tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico springs to mind. BP called all the shots. DC is totally bought-off and sold-out. Both Parties are absolutely corrupt. Can't turn there. There are few viable options left to this old democracy.

[bigtree]

19. gotta ask

what's the alternative? -- more importantly, can you describe an alternative path (to our electoral system of government) to effecting the changes you want in a timely manner?

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. Voting will not make a significant difference in itself if they aren't even talking about the issues

The New Deal only became possible after decades of agitation in the streets created a political climate in which politicians paid attention to the demands of labor and it became possible to vote into office politicians who would carry through those demands - something respectable politicians would not do at an earlier time before the political culture had changed. The civil rights movement did not begin with voter registration drives. Voter registrations drives only became relevant after long periods of mass action created a political culture where it became possible to elect politicians who would carry forward the demands of the civil rights movement - something respectable politicians would not do at an earlier time before the political culture had changed. And most certainly the gay rights movement did not begin with voter registration drives - Voting only became relevant after long periods of agitation and resistance created a political climate in which politicians paid attention to the demands of the gay rights movement and it became possible to vote into office politicians who would would carry through those demands - something respectable politicians would not do at an earlier time before the political culture had changed.

Both political parties are now utterly dependent on the financial support of Wall Street interest. If one is actually serious about wanting to break this stranglehold the financial industrial holds over both political parties - it is most certainly not going to happen and respectable politicians are not going to willingly cut-off their own supply of dependable financial support that they really do need in order to get elected - until the political culture changes and public demand forces a situation where respectable politicians have no choice but to break from the stranglehold the financial industry holds over both political parties.

Already only a few weeks into this great new movement something is happening - The issues of Wall Street's stranglehold over government as well as the issue of vast income disparity has moved from the fringes only voiced by the ravings of leftist and malcontents into the mainstream of political discussion. This is truly incredible. But to break the stranglehold that Wall Street holds - and to make it even possible to vote for politicians who will address income disparity, economic injustice and corporate control - will require more than voting for politicians with their latest slick sound bites, platitudes and talking points. What is happening now may very well be the beginning of something that can change the political culture and make it actually possible to vote for politicians who will actually address the issues of income disparity, corporate control and the stranglehold of the financial industry.

[bigtree]

21. well, folks in the streets speaking their minds is certainly encouraging

. . . hard to say, though, where we'll see concrete impacts from the public pressure manifest itself in any significant legislative form. That's where I'll measure progress. after all, we want concrete actions, not just understanding.

It's also hard to gauge how the protests will manifest in our elections. We could easily see an apathetic response at the polls from folks who are fed up with trying to move legislators to vote and act according to their interest or need.

That's what I'm looking at -- not trying to make an argument between whether to protest or engage in our legislative system. As you say, both are needed to make our democracy responsive and progressive.

I see the pressure -- and I see some movement on the part of some of our Democratic politicians in response to that pressure . . . in an election season, not surprising or particularly reassuring.

I hope the folks who are working to advance whatever movement they're experiencing in their part of the nation are prepared to remain engaged in that effort for a long haul.

I also am hopeful that those who feel disaffected enough to take to the streets remain engaged in our legislative process - working to develop concrete goals and organizing the necessary support within the political system along with the organizing from 'outside', in order to actually advance those interests and concerns into action or law..

[Better Believe It]

25. Oh? Is that what the labor, civil rights, women's rights and gay rights movements did?

Get in the streets and stay there until the ruling rich and their politicians agree to the economic and political demands of the people.

It's the pressure of independent mass movements in the streets that changes things.

That's when you see progressive legislation enacted.

[bigtree]

26. yep, that's what they did