Lessons From Wisconsin
From Chris Hedges at Truthdig, quoting Occupy Movement organizer, Kevin Zeese:
“The recent election in Wisconsin shows why Occupy should stay out of the elections,” Zeese said. “Many of the people who organized the Wisconsin occupation of the Capitol building became involved in the recall. First, they spent a lot of time and money collecting more than 1 million signatures. Second, they got involved in the primary where the Democrats picked someone who was not very supportive of union rights and who lost to [Gov. Scott] Walker just a couple of years ago. Third, the general election effort was corrupted by billionaire dollars. They lost. Occupy got involved in politics. What did they get? What would they have gotten if they won? They would have gotten a weak, corporate Democrat who in a couple of years would be hated. That would have undermined their credibility and demobilized their movement. Now, they have to restart their resistance movement.”
“Would it not have been better if those who organized the occupation of the Capitol continued to organize an independent, mass resistance movement?” Zeese asked. “They already had strong organization in Madison, and in Dane County as well as nearby counties. They could have developed a Montreal-like movement of mass protest that stopped the function of government and built people power. Every time Walker pushed something extreme they could have been out in the streets and in the Legislature disrupting it. They could have organized general and targeted strikes. They would have built their strength. And by the time Walker faced re-election he would have been easily defeated.”
“Elections are something that Occupy needs to continue to avoid,” Zeese said. “The Obama-Romney debate is not a discussion of the concerns of the American people. Obama sometimes uses Occupy language, but he puts forth virtually no job creation, nothing to end the wealth divide and no real tax reform. On tax reform, the Buffett rule—that the secretary should pay the same tax rate as the boss—is totally insufficient. We should be debating whether to go back to the Eisenhower tax rates of 91 percent, the Nixon tax rate of 70 percent or the Reagan tax rate of 50 percent for the top income earners—not whether secretaries and CEOs should be taxed at the same rate!”…
“The object is to shift people from the power structure to our side, whether it is media, business, youth, labor or police,” he went on. “We must break the enforcement structure. In the book ‘Why Civil Resistance Works,’ a review of resistance efforts over the last 100 years, breaking the enforcement structure, which almost always comes through nonviolent civil disobedience, increases your chances of success by 60 percent. We need to divide the police. This is critical. And only a mass movement that is nonviolent and diverse, that draws on all segments of society, has any hope of achieving this. If we can build that, we can win.”
In general I think it would be a matter of practicality for the resistance to get inside gov. – in large numbers. So getting involved in elections would be part and parcel to that process.
However, Zeese’s observation of the O-R debate and B-rule is accurate – it’s not about the people, as in 99% people. Heck, it’s not even about the lower 90% economics wise. There is a large gap to be closed and that will take time. And pain.
The pain is the wildcard. Will it be the 1% losing there yachts and vacation homes or will it be the X% paying his mortgage but screwed out of it, one way or another by virtue of capitalism gone awry ?
I spent the weekend with the upper middle class and they were feeling no pain whatsoever.
I assumed that was the present state of affairs of that segment at this time. I expect that to continue for the next 20 years of so.
Related:
Just saw where Obama’s prof Unger(?) is being quoted as ‘O must be defeated’ due in part to not ‘causing pain’ for that segment of population, in particular.
I argued long and hard for Occupy Greensboro to stay out of the elections. Of course, no one listened to me. People think you can fix the system from inside but that has proven to be impossible. Once you’re in you are subject to influence and if life has taught me anything it’s that the easiest way to get rid of an activist is to offer him or her a cushy job.
I had high hopes for Occupy but like the Tea Party they were quickly taken over because they went inside the system.
But like the old saying goes, there’s no fool like an old fool and I was fool enough to believe.
The system won’t be fixed until it completely falls apart and all fall with it.
Foolish people often do amazing things.
It is said every man has his price.
There are exceptions but they don’t get in the history books.
Should it not be recognized that the Tea Party did change the system in Wisconsin?
Not only did they get Walker elected and defend him from recall, but the man they got elected, and embedded within the system, changed the system.
Wisconsin is better off for it today even if Occupy isn’t.
A little premature there, Froggy. as to whether or not Wisconsin is better off is yet to be seen. Time will tell and you may be right in the future but as of today we don’t yet know.
From a fiscal perspective Wisconsin is already better off. Walker entered office with a $3.6 billion deficit which is now a $154 million surplus. Real estate taxes are down, few public sector employees were fired, and without reductions in medicaid.
As to changing the system, of 60,000 or individuals forced to pay union dues around 32,000 have stopped having been given the choice.
Imagine being forced to support a political party you don’t agree with.
Jeri, Until that surplus has been returned to the wallets of tax payers no one is better off. Like I said, time will tell. Until then it’s only a numbers game.