The Next American Civil War: The Populist Revolt Against the Liberal Elite

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday May 03, 2012 · 3:28 PM PDT

2012/05/03 · 15:28

There is Nothing Wrong With Kansas:
A Review of The Next American Civil War: The Populist Revolt Against the Liberal Elite by DeMarquis.

While the title may sound like another Glenn Beck-style rant, this book is actually written from a fairly objective viewpoint. Reading between the lines, one gets the definite impression that author Lee Harris is a left-leaning writer trying to be as fair as possible to the conservative populist views he is discussing. Also, Harris isn’t concerned with the more ideological or doctrinaire attacks against the left, which is what most of us are most familiar with; instead, Harris wants to understand the more visceral “man or woman in the street” reaction against the “liberal elite”, the kind of people who make up the rank and file members of the tea-party movement, which makes for a more interesting and ultimately more important analysis.

Harris opens with a description of two events that he believes exemplifies a trend in contemporary politics: Republican Scott Brown’s upset victory over Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, and the disruptions that occurred at town-hall meetings across America in 2009. In both cases, the really interesting point is the level of paranoia and simplistic propaganda that conservative supporters were endorsing. We are all familiar with the litany of such conspiracies: “Death Panels”, “Birthers”, “Socialism” and the sudden increase in purchases of guns and ammunition that year.

Harris also personally knows people in this movement. He writes: “The easiest answer to why so much paranoia persisted after the election would be to conclude that people like those I had talked with were merely hopeless basket cases and crackpots… But these people are my friends, neighbors and acquaintances. They are not lunatics or nutcases. They don’t want to blow up anything. They are thoroughly decent and law abiding people, many of whom would happily go far out of their way to lend both friends and strangers a helping hand” (5).

That being the case, what is Harris’ explanation of why these people, these conservative stalwarts and tea-party members, are so extreme in some of their views? “But they all have one highly conspicuous quality in common. They don’t like other people telling them what to do… These are people that might be best dubbed “natural libertarians”. They may never have read a single piece of the classic libertarian literature. They may never have even heard of John Locke or John Stuart Mill, but they have instinctively adopted Thomas Paine’s maxim that “government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil.” To such people, there is nothing so odious or obnoxious than a government whose attitude is “Don’t worry, we know what is best for you”” (6).

This is one of the two main themes that Harris makes, the other being that these fears and anxieties are, historically speaking, and once the hyperbole has been stripped away, actually rather well founded. “Talk of death panels, for example, is sheer collective paranoia- and yet, it is a paranoia that must be seen in perspective. It is rooted in the average American’s healthy fear that concentrations of power will be used to rob them of control over their own lives and destinies… In fact, if the state is called upon to ration health care, then it will inevitably be forced to decide who gets care and who doesn’t… an impersonal mechanism that would operate without the need for real human beings to agonize over the death sentences that they pass down on real human beings standing in front of them” (7).

These arguments are important because of what they imply regarding how best to respond to such anxiety-fueled paranoia. Facts and logical arguments are unlikely to make much of a difference. “The Obama death panel is a myth- but it is a myth that expresses a genuine anxiety that decisions over our lives and deaths could one day end up being made for us and not by us. It is not enough to simply discredit the myth, which is relatively easy; it is necessary to address the underlying anxiety, which is much more difficult, since the source of this anxiety is the well founded fear of the little guy that those who wield power over him will not be inclined to use it for his benefit. Those who dismiss this anxiety as shrill or alarmist are also misguided. For history has repeatedly shown that the little guy is right to entertain these fears. Power breeds arrogance… Power must always be watched and feared, and when necessary, resisted” (7)

Harris argues that the most common form that this resistance takes in America is populist revolt. Thus, Harris sees this style of populism as both necessary and beneficial- because no one else is in a position to protect the liberty uniquely enjoyed by the relatively powerless in America than the mass populace itself. This in spite of the very well recognized dangers inherent in popular and populist-based movement and rebellions. “Most Americans will agree that our home grown populism has played an invaluable role in shaping our nation precisely because it has made ordinary men and women wary of allowing any single group to amass too much power over them. Yet all too frequently American populists have undermined the strength of their case by espousing an overly simplistic understanding of how the world works. They turn to populists and demagogues and charlatans… They may rebel for reasons that others find bizarre and incomprehensible, and their resistance can take on forms that others see as grossly disproportionate to the real threat to their freedom. Yet both this paranoia and this quickness to rebel have played an indispensable role in the creation of those rare and exceptional societies that provide liberty for all, not just the lucky few” (8). In other words, the paranoia is simply the unavoidable price we pay for a society of ordinary people who are willing to push back against the more powerful. For “liberal elitists” do exist (in the form of expert technocrats and their supporters) and they are a danger, just as dangerous in their own way as the populist demagogues who oppose them.

All this is presented in the introduction. The rest of the book is spent supporting these key arguments. Speaking now in my own voice, I can agree with most of what Harris is proposing here. I, too, and personally acquainted with the type of people he wants to understand. As a left-leaning member of the Occupy Movement, I can attest that one hasn’t really lived until one is suddenly and unexpectedly called out to defend your views in front of an audience of Michigan Militia members, over a camp-fire in the woods miles from any other people. Some of those militia members were friends of mine, others were strangers, some of them were thoughtful and well-meaning, others were uneducated racists, but all of them shared the basic mental attitudes that Harris describes here.

The problem with Harris analysis isn’t his account of the right-wing populist masses, which seems basically accurate, but he seems unaware of recent trends in political culture that have greatly undermined this role. Once, it may have been true that “natural libertarians” were the strongest bulwark against elitist power, but in the last thirty years or so this has changed. Now they are prey to a small group of highly professional and very skilled political propagandists using persuasion techniques based on the latest scientific research. The rich have a new weapon- marketing tactics that were developed and tested in the consumer sector, and now find application as political “attitude engineering.”

Not that such social engineering is solely an artifact of the right- the left is happy to make use of them when it appears convenient (it just doesn’t appear convenient as often). This actually comes out in Harris’ book in chapter two when he discusses Thaler and Sustein’s recent book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, which he describes as ‘soft paternalism’: “arguing… that the government should play the role of the savvy parent who is well versed in the psychological techniques of subtle persuasion… the government could nudge citizens into making better choices in their lifestyles… These methods, according to Thaler and Sunstein, could be carefully designed by psychologists to give citizens the illusion of free choice while subtly and subliminally directing them to make the “right” decision” (30). Harris uses this as an example of why populist fears of a “liberal elite” are not necessarily wholly unfounded. Given unrestricted control over federal policy, the kind of technical experts that Thaler and Sunstein represent might actually feel tempted to regulate peoples’ lives in ways they do not fully understand nor approve of.

“Nudge” is a recent popular work in what has become known as “behavioral economics”- the study of the biases and pre-dispositions in human decision making, esp. when the involve perceptions of risk. Thaler and Sustein really do recommend that the government utilize subtle and subliminal methods of persuasion to influence citizen decision making, but whether that constitutes an advance in policy implementation or a threat to individual liberty is likely going to be a matter of individual opinion. One example they use to illustrate what they mean is the City of Chicago, which has marked a dangerous section of road not only with the standard sign (“S-Curve ahead”) but also with a series of white parallel lines, which appear progressively closer together as the driver nears the dangerous bend. That’s ‘nudging.’ This appears to be an attempt to provide drivers with additional information, designed to take advantage of our perceptual biases. This seems relatively benign because the result of making a bad decision- losing ones life- are so undesirable it is hard to imagine someone objecting to the method used to warn drivers. Other examples give more pause. As one reviewer put it “Thaler and Sunstein adopt the deliberately oxymoronic label “libertarian paternalism” to describe their general approach. It’s libertarian in that people retain the right to make their own choices: they’re free to select the savings plan with the lowest projected return if that’s what they really want. But the govern¬ment — or an employer, or the person in charge of laying out the food in the cafeteria — is nonetheless nudging people in the direction that somebody thinks will make them better off” (http://www.nytimes.com/...).

It’s not hard to imagine such tactics being used less responsibly and more to protect the interest of the people who control the means of the nudging. Even policy makers dedicated to the public good could find excuses to use nudging in less acceptable ways- depending on the ideology involved, one could imagine the government ‘nudging’ people to do everything from investing their life savings in the stock market to informing on their neighbors. Libertarians, either of the ‘natural’ or ideological kind, have good reason to be suspicious of these methods and techniques.

Chapter three provides some historical background for this line of argument. One of the anxieties driving conservative populism is the idea that America is losing it’s exceptionalism. Different versions of American exceptionalism exist along a kind of spectrum, ranging from conceptions of “manifest destiny” to America as a democratic role model among nations. According to Harris “The populist revolt underway in today’s America, symbolized by, but not restricted to, the Tea Party movement, is based on the deeply held conviction that the United States is rapidly losing it’s exceptional status as the land of the free… what is being demanded is a restoration of those liberties our forefathers once enjoyed, but which are now under attack by a central government that has obtained a degree of power over our lives that our Founding Fathers never envisioned” (43). This is, at its root, basically a critique of the regulatory state. Starting with FDR and the newly named “Liberal Movement”, so the story is told, the Federal Government began to use policy as a means of taking care of people, solving social problems for them, while all the while passing more and more restrictions on individual freedoms. The policies of the Obama administration, such as the infamous “Obamacare,” are perceived as just more of the same.

This is not wrong. Contemporary “liberals” are those who are content to sacrifice certain individual liberties so that more of us can be free from such ills as poverty, poor health, and prejudice. “Conservatives” today are those who are not so content, who feel that the price we have paid is too high. They harken back to the ‘yeoman farmer’ of Jefferson’s day, and not without some reason, given who they are. “Jefferson’s yeoman farmer still has spiritual descendents living in America… they don’t work for Big Business or Big Government or Big Universities. Instead they are individuals who own and operate small businesses, and are justified in thinking of themselves as their own boss… to the self-made man of today… the American tradition of rugged individualism is not a quaint myth- it is the realization of his dreams and aspirations” (46-47). It is this way of life, in the face of Big Government’s bailout of Businesses “too big to fail” in the wake of the banking crisis, that the Tea Party and others are afraid is being lost. And of course it would go without saying that once lost in America, it would be lost for good, since no other country in the world exemplifies the value of the self-made man like America does.

The point is not whether this view of things is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’- the degree of historical revisionism involved here is obvious. The right-wing populist revolt is clearly much more a product of the feelings of ordinary people in response to traumatic social changes rather than driven by an ideology.

Should America strive to fulfill a unique role among the nations? It is undeniable that we are uniquely different, a difference that derives from our culture. Research clearly documents that in terms of it’s extreme individualism, and the very low degree to which Americans accept differences in power as legitimate, America is an outlier (http://geert-hofstede.com/...). America may very well be unique in the way that people here value and encourage individual initiative, innovation and self-expression. There are definite costs in the form of allowing people to languish who cannot support themselves, and a tolerance for discrimination based on group membership, and a spirit of competition that can seem ruthless and even corrupting, but by and large, Americans are true to their belief that individuals should be allowed to take advantage of what opportunities they can.

This is an important point as it highlights the difference between an ‘entreprenurial’ approach toward solving problems versus a more systematic ‘scientific’ one. America appears to operate according to a mass ‘trial and error’ approach- a willingness to experiment, and then to reward whatever seems to work. This approach relies upon, and produces, a wide diversity of ideas, a large ‘solution pool’ which can then be tapped into by ordinary people who communicate results to each other but otherwise work independently. It sets an ‘organic growth’ approach to social progress, rather than a reliance on centralized planning based on research or specialized expertise. And it can be argued that for certain kinds of problems, one’s that do not necessarily have one objective correct answer but are more creative in nature, this type of ‘random walk through the solution space’ represents the most effective approach. America seems to uniquely value this kind of social strategy. And that is what today’s populists are trying to preserve.

They just happen to be ornery about it. They tend to look for evidence that confirms their presumption that someone is trying to oppress them, and they over-react to the slightest hint of oppression, but the underlying motivation in not misguided. It is very important to preserve this conservative American tradition of ‘ornery independence’ because it acts as a ‘countervailing force’ to large institutions that might otherwise capture national policy and use it against the interests of less powerful. And if these people are currently being manipulated by professional ‘attitude engineers’ then the most effective response on the part of our society as a whole, and for those of us who lean left, is to encourage and strengthen their propensity for resistance, rather than attack them for it, or try to undermine it.

Someone should step up and explain to everyone what the real threat to individual liberty really is: concentrations of wealth and political connections that are currently engaged in a struggle to capture elections and direct policy toward the interests of a tiny segment of our society. Someone has been lying to all of us- and it is in confronting those lies that we find the common ground between the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement, between the extreme left and the extreme right- the interests of all populists everywhere. It’s not hard to demonstrate this claim: why does so much government subsidy go to large agri-businesses and not family farmers? Why did so much of the TARP funds go to big banks and not home owners? Why did so much of the benefits of Obama’s health care package go to the pharmaceutical industry and not, say, senior citizens? It’s almost trivially easy to show that it wasn’t the anarchist left that supported any of that. And it certainly wasn’t the libertarian right. So who?

It’s in the seeking for an answer to that question that the way forward for America will be found.

America is Becoming An Extraction Economy

DeMarquis

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday April 14, 2012 · 2:51 PM PDT

2012/04/14 · 14:51

An “Extraction Economy” is a concept from economics that refers to nation that derives most of it’s productivity from non-renewable resources, with the implication that elites are skimming a certain percentage off the top, and instead of investing that money in productive enterprises, spend it on non-productive activities instead. There is a new book out that takes this concept and uses it to explain why some countries seem mired in a permanent state of poverty. It’s “Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty” by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson.

Based on fifteen years of original research Acemoglu and Robinson marshall extraordinary historical evidence from the Roman Empire, the Mayan city-states, medieval Venice, the Soviet Union, Latin America, England, Europe, the United States, and Africa to build a new theory of political economy with great relevance for the big questions of today.
Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson conclusively show that it is man-made political and economic institutions that underlie economic success (or lack of it). Korea, to take just one of their fascinating examples, is a remarkably homogeneous nation, yet the people of North Korea are among the poorest on earth while their brothers and sisters in South Korea are among the richest. The south forged a society that created incentives, rewarded innovation, and allowed everyone to participate in economic opportunities. The economic success thus spurred was sustained because the government became accountable and responsive to citizens and the great mass of people. Sadly, the people of the north have endured decades of famine, political repression, and very different economic institutions—with no end in sight. The differences between the Koreas is due to the politics that created these completely different institutional trajectories. (http://www.amazon.com/...)

Acemoglu and Robinson are economists, the first at MIT and the latter at Harvard. Both are well known for their academic publications and specialize in developing economies. This time, however, they are writing for the popular audience, and “Why Nations Fail” is well-written and easy to read. They have a very specific idea in mind, and spell it out very clearly:

In this book we will argue that the Egyptians in Tahrir Square, not most academics and commentators, have the right idea. In fact, Egypt is poor precisely because it has been ruled by a narrow elite that has organized society for their own benefit at the expense of the vast mass of people. Political power has been narrowly concentrated, and has been used to create great wealth for those who possess it, such as the $70 billion fortune apparently accumulated by ex-president Mubarak. The losers have been the Egyptian people, as they only to well understand.
We’ll show that this interpretation of Egyptian poverty, the people’s interpretation, turns out to provide a general explanation for why poor countries are poor. Whether it is North Korea, Sierra Leone, or Zimbabwe, we’ll show that poor countries are poor for the same reason that Egypt is poor. Countries such as Great Britain and the United States because their citizens overthrew the elites who controlled power and created a society where political rights were much more broadly distributed, where the government was accountable and responsive to citizens, and where the great mass of people could take advantage of economic opportunities. We’ll show that to understand why there is such inequality in the world today we have to delve into the past and study the historical dynamics of societies. We’ll see that the reason Britain is richer than Egypt is because in 1688, Britain (or England, to be exact) had a revolution that transformed the politics, and thus the economics of the nation. People fought for, and won, more political rights, and they used them to expand their economic opportunities. The result was a fundamentally different political and economic trajectory, culminating in the industrial revolution (Why Nations Fail, Acemoglu and Robinson, 2012).

They themselves do not focus on the United States, except as an example of a rich nation that got inclusive politics right. But the implications are obvious to anyone, especially in light of the changes in the American political system since the 1970’s that have been well documented in “Winner Take All Politics” and “Republic, Lost” (see http://dmarkkey.weebly.com/). The key point is that politics drive economics, and changes in the political process will cause corresponding changes in the economic structure. Acemoglu and Robinson focus on the positive side of this (nations can improve their average standard of living by becoming more “inclusive”), but again, the obvious implication is that the reverse must also be true: as a nation changes from inclusive to more exclusive, economic opportunities will disappear and productivity will fall. The further implication, that an elite class might deliberately undermine political inclusion in order to begin “extracting” more wealth for themselves, is a focus of several different chapters which outline how political institutions can become more extractive over time, essentially reserving wealth for those in power, but again they do not apply this to America.

Other commentators have not been so coy. Hoyt Hilsman at the Huffington Post wrote in his review of the book:

The most pressing thesis of Why Nations Fail is that economic success depends on a political system -- and in particular political leadership -- that is the most inclusive. This is especially true in the emerging global economy, where technology has opened global markets, allowing greater access to millions of people. Greater inclusion has meant more growth, and nations around the world are benefiting.
However, in the United States, we are still having a debate not about greater inclusion, but about increasing the power and exclusivity of the economic and political elite. From immigration to health care and education reform, the Republicans are arguing for restricting access not only to the poor, but chiefly to the middle class. At the same time, they are arguing for a greater concentration of wealth among the elites through everything from lower tax rates and unrestricted campaign donations to limiting access to health care and educational opportunity (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...).

This is “Buttonwood” at the Economist:

There are two potential candidates for extractive elites in Western economies. The first is the banking sector. The wealth of the financial industry gives it enormous lobbying power, including as contributors to American presidential campaigns or to Britain’s ruling parties. By making themselves “too big to fail”, banks ensured that they had to be rescued in 2008.
Much of current economic policy seems to be driven by the need to prop up banks, whether it is record-low interest rates across the developed world or the recent provision of virtually unlimited liquidity by the once-staid European Central Bank. The long-term effects of these policies, which may be hard to reverse, are difficult to assess.
It is tougher to argue that the financial sector has inhibited growth in other areas of the economy... (http://www.economist.com/...)

In fact, in the wake of the 2008 recession, it’s not that tough. Damn near the entire global economy collapsed due to the poor judgment and unethical practices of securities brokers. That in turn was powerfully enabled by, of course, government deregulation, sloppy oversight and inaccurate ratings by government and private sector risk management experts, which in their turn have been driven by the increased strength and influence of the professional lobbying industry, and their wealthy clients. In other words, as America’s governing institutions have become more exclusive, the economy has become more extractive. In a study they published in 2009, some political scientists led by Frank Baumgartner presented data that the issues that the public consider most important are not the same issues that lobbyists focus their resources on, which largely determines political activity. They write “It may be that political systems built around majoritarianism work better for lower-income citizens. It is certainly the case that in the United States… inequities… are sharply exacerbated by the organizational bias of interest group politics.” (http://www.unc.edu/...). It’s striking how the research by Acemoglu and Robinson on developing economies parallels the research by Baumgartner and his colleagues on the United States.

The rise of interest group politics over the past thirty years is turning the United States into an exclusive political system and an extractive economy. Doing something about it is going to be tough. As Baumgartner’s research illustrates, the lobbying community so strongly reflects elite interests that the status quo is unlikely to change unless the balance of power dramatically shifts toward the concerns of average Americans. Perhaps the only chance to accomplish that is amending the Constitution to overturn the Citizens United ruling. You can read more about that effort here: https://www.facebook.com/...

Occupy the Fear

DeMarquis

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday March 10, 2012 · 10:24 AM PST

2012/03/10 · 10:24

In my recent review of Wael Ghonim’s “Revolution 2.0”, his memoir regarding his experiences in helping to organize the Egyptian revolution, one overall theme stood out: “The Egyptian revolution showed us that the great mass of people who are normally risk averse, aren’t normally activists, can become extraordinarily brave and active when they unite together as one…It was when large numbers of people discovered that they were not alone and overcame their fear that the revolution really took off."

So what’s the problem here, in the United States? While I’m not advocating for revolution (I’m more of a reformer), still, it’s been three years since the financial crisis began, years of massive layoffs, over six months since the Occupy Movement began, how come we don’t see more movement here? While much has happened, and continues to happen (see this article for news on this spring’s planned activities: http://abcnews.go.com/... ) and while there are clearly still protest events going on, and public discourse has shifted somewhat, on the whole I see little evidence that public opinion on the issues, or public policy, has changed at all in response. It isn’t that the public doesn’t support things like progressive tax policies or employee rights, because opinion polls indicate that they do. Yet, while we have some new regulatory structures and some new laws, wealth disparity continues to increase, corporate handouts continue unabated, markets continue to be under-regulated, and most importantly of all, the systemic corruption that results from campaign funding, partially the result of recent Supreme Court rulings, deepens unabated.

So what is holding us back? Malaise? Oppression? Stupidity? Lies in the media? While those sources of inertia are undoubtably important, I feel that there is a more critical barrier, the one Ghonim identified with respect to change in Egypt: fear. I think average, ordinary American are afraid to commit themselves to making change because of the risks they perceive that are associated with that. In Egypt, people were afraid of state repression- people, including Ghonim himself, were “disappeared” if they were suspected of involvement in resistance to the regime. Such authoritarianism isn’t practiced here in the U.S., so what is it that people would be so afraid of? In a word, it’s unemployment. People are afraid of losing their jobs if they stand up for themselves.

That Americans are terrified of losing their job seems obvious, even common sense. As the jobless rate stays in the upper single digits, it’s a “buyers” market, giving employers an opportunity to practice “hire the best, and fire the rest.” Certainly the fear of losing one’s job remains high, according to surveys: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

But what may be less obvious is the way our society seems set up to exacerbate such fears. Obviously, in a country in which most health insurance and retirement benefits are purchased through employer-based plans, losing a job means much more than losing a paycheck, it means losing most of your financial support network as well. National policy uses employment as the gateway to a great many benefits, presumably because from a systemic point of view it’s easier to manage that way. Private sector services are also affected by employment status- everything from one’s credit rating to the cost of insurance is affected. In each of these cases there may be justifications for doing so. Yet a general policy which relies on employers to funnel social support to employees also ends up empowering employers in ways that are patently unfair: make me angry and you will lose much more than a job.

Beyond that, “Job Creators” have become the lynchpin of economic policy. The business community has become sanctified almost to the point of deification as the source of all jobs. While economists argue over how much economic production should originate from within the public vs. the private sector, no politician running for office, from either party, dares question the “common wisdom” that anything good for American employers is per se good for all Americans. They merely quibble over which specific concessions to make to employers, and which rights to take away from employees (“Employee Rights Act” anyone?).

Becoming unemployed has other terrors. It’s well known that the longer one remains unemployed, the less likely it is that one will be re-hired. The phrase “long-term unemployed” has largely replaced “welfare bums” or even “slackers” as the euphemism of the day for people who are considered unworthy of respect. The loss of self-esteem and identity among laid off workers is very well documented, as is the rise of crime, suicide and mental illness. There is an entire mental health industry that has been built up to service such people (for a fee, of course).

So no one messes with the Man. But not only does this fear undermine the efforts of people to improve their own working conditions, it also has societal costs. The term “The Lost Generation” was recently borrowed to describe what happened to an entire cohort of young Japanese professionals in the wake of that country’s seemingly never-ending economic recession. An unprecedented number of college graduates simply never found work in the field for which they earned their degree, condemning them to lifelong under-employment and debt. The United States has not yet reached that point, but it isn’t entirely unrealistic to fear that it one day might.

No one talks about “job preservation.” Yet if one looks closely at the expressed fears and desires of Americans, people are not just concerned about high pay and good benefits, important as those may be, because what Americans really want, what anybody really wants, is financial security. It’s the simple ability to plan ahead- people want to know what assets they will have in a year’s time, or ten years. How else does one make certain fundamental decisions, such as whether to buy a home or rent one, how much to invest in retirement vs. the children’s tuition, whether or not to even have children? The mantra we hear is that if employers are prevented from laying people off whenever they see a need, they lose “flexibility” and become less competitive, but fewer people talk about how competitive our consumers are. If people feel their future is financially less secure, they spend less in the present, thus slowing the economic recovery, and keeping under-employment high.

“Fear is the mind killer” as Frank Herbert once wrote. It’s also the progress killer, the justice killer, and the future killer. In Egypt, all it took was a facebook page to convince people that they were not alone, that millions of others were willing to confront the regime and demand that their tyrant go. Here, it wouldn’t be that easy. We have no single person who represents oppression. But a law that put an end to regular, massive lay-offs would be an equally effective step, both as a symbol and a real solution. So would de-linking benefits from employment, or a national job bank. Agitating for legal solutions isn’t necessarily as inspiring as fighting tyranny, but it would bring hope to hundreds of thousands of people who fear that they have would have nothing left if they lost their job. So would protest actions against the worst offenders.

Ultimately, we overcome fear by helping each other. A sense of solidarity and community gives people the courage to stand up for themselves. Staging occupations of things like housing foreclosures and state legislatures are very important and will continue, but the one thing we need to help everyone "occupy" is their fear. I’ll end with these words:

“…Of course I believe in free enterprise, but in my system of free enterprise, the democratic principle is that there never was, never has been, never will be, room for the ruthless exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few.”
Harry S. Truman

For more book reviews and essays, see my website: http://dmarkkey.weebly.com/

Revolution 2.0: Principles and Tactics Compiled from the book by Wael Ghonim

DeMarquis

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday March 04, 2012 · 1:21 PM PST

2012/03/04 · 13:21

My intention in preparing this list is to use the experience of the Egyptian Revolution, and in particular the on-line aspects of it as described by Wael Ghonim, as a source of ideas for those who may desire to liberate their own countries from corruption and authoritarianism. This is in no way a substitute for reading the original work, which is highly inspiring and contains a wealth of information that cannot be captured by a simple list like this. You can find Ghonim’s book here: http://www.amazon.com/... (most of the book can be read by clicking on the “Look Inside” window).

This list is inspired by, and is partially intended as an update to, the famous list of “The Methods of Nonviolent Action” which can be found as an appendix in Gene Sharp’s book “From Dictatorship to Democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation” available for free download here: http://www.aeinstein.org/...

The listings are divided into two groupings: “General Principles” and “Specific Tactics”. In each section, each entry is followed by a brief explanation, sometimes by a quote and finally the page number in parenthesis.

Gene Sharp wrote: “No outside force is coming to give oppressed people the freedom they so much want. People will have to learn how to take that freedom themselves.” This is how.

General Principles
1. The Internet as a Force for Change: It provides the means to communicate, organize, and promote real world actions (51-52)

2. Utilize the “Sales Tunnel” Approach to Marketing the Revolution. Four Phases: 1) Join the Page 2) Interact with the Content (Liking and Commenting) 3) Contribute Content 4) Take Actions “In the Street” (67-68)

3. Web Page as a Non-Hierarchical Organization: mobilizes street action from the bottom up (79)

4. Web Page as a Community: Encourages expressions of hope, solidarity, and community (79)

5. Breaking Free of Fear: Encourage members’ expressions of hope and optimism (childrens’ drawings, etc.) (68)

6. Cycle between on-line and real-life: Build support between demonstrations (86-87); The rapid pace of events drove home one of the key strategies that I learned from the revolution: to achieve your vision, you need friends and communication channels more than you need plans. The world moves too fast for even the best-laid plans to hold up. (232)

7. Encourage members to remain non-confrontational/non-political in face of violence: “…marching and chanting were the cause of these confrontations…” (104); “Why Do They Attack Us?” (to scare people at home and to provoke extremism) (105); Ghandi’s example (“…there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill…”) (107)

8. Commit to Participatory Democracy: On-line survey regarding how page is managed (108); Whether to cover events in Tunisia (86% in favor) (131); “My plan was to base my own decision on the majority’s opinion… even if the result was gunfire from the presidential guard…” (285)

9. Let Purpose of Page Evolve Over Time: “…the page’s primary concern… had evolved to focus on the abuses of the Egyptian police…” (123)

10. Staying just ahead of the mainstream/events: “…with the toppling of the Tunisian president… I found myself unable to resist the word revolution…” (136)

11. Let demonstrators organize themselves: “…I sent Maher a message saying we were lost. Nobody was in charge; everyone had his or her own idea about where we should meet. He said that the bright side… is that the security forces are lost too…” (150)

12. Promote Ideas Not Heroes: “People’s attachment to ideas is much stronger than their attachment to individuals, who can be doubted or defamed…” (266)

13. Stick to Demands, Make No Concessions to the Regime: “I received two phone calls later that day from officials who wanted to discuss possible ways out of the current crisis… I agreed to attend both meetings after clearly stating that the demands of the people in Tahrir were my demands- and they were non-negotiable… The Minister spoke of Egypt’s situation and how impossible it was for President Mubarak to step down… All three of us strongly rejected the minister’s attempts to persuade us… In the absence of a revolutionary leader who could easily be pressured, the will of the people was in control… “You obviously don’t understand the youth. You think everything is about deal-making. You thought we were willing to negotiate the rights of martyrs in return for a photo-op with a minister or a prime minister”… We all left the room… We tuned in and heard an announcer cite Dr. Badrawy as the source of the news that the president had decided to step down…” (270-282)

14. The Revolution Starts With One Person: “I was no more than a guy with some marketing experience who started a facebook page that snowballed into something greater than any of its’ thousands of contributors” (293)

15. This is Revolution 2.0: “The Egyptian revolution showed us that the great mass of people who are normally risk averse, aren’t normally activists, can become extraordinarily brave and active when they unite together as one… it was truly a spontaneous movement led by nothing other than the wisdom of the crowd…” (293)

Specific Tactics
1. A place to post multimedia files on a specialized topic: Islamway.com (14)

2. Counter-propaganda using factual sources: El Baradei’s facebook page (39)

3. Make Demands by using On-Line Petitions: “Together for Change” (44)

4. Form and Build On Face-2-Face Connections: Meeting El Baradei (46)

5. Use Twitter to Engage Informally: El Baradei’s account (48)

6. Use Opinion Polls to Make Collective Decisions: “Why Haven’t You Signed The Petition?” (50); Selecting a Protest Option (285)

7. Use Opinion Polls to Share Information: Reactions to the first demonstration (83)

8. Solicit Questions from public then get them answered (Google Moderator): “Ask El Baradei” (55)

9. Balance Activists vs. Mainstream Public (Aggressive language vs. Moderate tone): “We Are All Kaled Said” page (59)

10. Make Powerful Initial Impression (page name, first post, writing style, essays, visual): “We Are All Kaled Said” (60)

11. Provide Links (to on-line media, real world events): Torture videos (61)

12. Respond to Members Input (even if disagree): Removing an unsubstantiated video (62)

13. Solicit Member Generated Content: Evidence of government lies (66)

14. Organize On-Line Actions: Members adopting a common avatar on Facebook (67); Members self-photos holding sign (68)

15. Non-Confrontational Demonstrations: The “Silent Stand” (70)

16. Use the “Event” function on Facebook: The “Silent Stand” (70)

17. Distribute Press Releases to the Media (to inform general public): The “Silent Stand” (73)

18. Measure Performance of Pages using on-line tools (page counts, etc.): Silent Stand Event page vs. El Baradei page (Time to 100,000 members) (73); Numbers of ‘likes’ and comments per day (85); “…even though our page had 30% fewer members, the participation and comments on our page were sometimes double the other page’s…” (111)

19. Solicit Designs for logos and banners: “Yes, We Can” (75)

20. Encourage Members to send invitations: The “Silent Stand” (75)

21. High Frequency Posting before an event: “…nine straight hours…” (75)

22. Solicit Relevant Celebrities: Kaled Said’s mother (75)

23. Use Twitter for Real World/Real Time Updates: “…more than a hundred people have showed up…” (77)

24. Document Event Using Video: Still pics, ‘drive-by video’ (78)

25. Celebrate Every Small Victory: “…eight thousand people…” (79); government concessions (85)

26. Combine music and lyrics with imagery: “The Resurrection of Egyptians” (86)

27. Protect Anonymity using Proxy Programs: using Tor (82); Facebook notification that revealed sender’s identity (115); page members getting arrested (190)

28. Balance Facts/Statistics/News with Emotional Bonding: “Clearly both are needed” (87)

29. Reveal own interests and ideology (but it’s not about yourself): “Who Are You, Admin?” (88)

30. Reiterate members’ Goals and Dreams (esp. for outsiders): “What is it you people want?... I Wish…” (150)

31. International Outreach via National versions of the page: www.elshaheeed.co.uk

32. Use very short works of fiction/dialogue to make a point: “Abbas and the Administrator” (‘Abbas’ is a very negative character) (95)

33. Promote dialogue with members of the security forces: Members asked to send non-confrontational messages to police officers with on-line accounts (100); Photos depicting positive interactions between the army and demonstrators (140); “…I posted… news of good, honest police officers…” (158)

34. Build on popular culture: holidays, movies (101/102)

35. Be aware of your “brand” and style: “…the issue lies in the difference between activists and regular non-politicized young men and women…” (111)

36. Mobilize members to monitor an election: “…We asked our members to report any violations they witnessed…” (119)

37. Mobilizing “Human Shields” to protect vulnerable populations: “…I wrote that the perpetrator (of a bombing at a Christian church) did not just cause 21 Christians to die, he also caused 80 million Egyptians to fight…” (129)

38. Appealing to organized groups: “…I began with the “ultras,” as zealous soccer fans are known- many thousands in number…” (139)

39. Protect demonstrators by announcing location at last minute: “…two or three days before…” (145)

40. Utilizing photographers: “The Camera is my Weapon” (155)

41. Compile all relevant information into one document (so easy to print or distribute): “Everything You Need To Know About Jan25” (164)

42. Force the Regime to React to You: “The regime’s decision to block these two websites was a grave mistake, they did not realize it was impeccable testimony to the strength of the protests…” (186)

43. Backup methods if website blocked: “However, several activists had begun spreading information via traditional means. I remembered the backup e-mail list that included 20,000 members, and I quickly set up a Google Group to send the message to everyone… The Revolution had transcended any single Facebook page, event invitation, video or design…” (195)

44. Force the regime to affect non-protesters: “On the morning of Jan28, all communication in the country was cut off… Little did the regime know that this was the single largest promotional effort possible for the revolution. Every citizen who had not heard of the uprising now realized that a major challenge to the regime must be underway…” (212)

45. Use public gatherings to promote demonstration: “The ritual Friday Prayer was ideal for mobilizing the masses and later proved to be the main reason behind activists’ success on Jan28…” (212)

46. Resist lawlessness (by thugs or the Police): In the absence of security measures and police protection, “Popular committees” formed to protect districts and neighborhoods… They also formed checkpoints at key entrances… Religious Muslims and Christians protected each others’ places of worship…” (224-225)

47. Organize the Occupation: “The sit-in participants were organized… some groups were responsible for cleaning litter, while others took care of securing the entrances and searching people coming into Tahrir. Doctors… established a field hospital… Plumbers brilliantly converted a few of the now dysfunctional armored vehicles into public restrooms… Other people created a lost and found desk… One guy rigged up a power-charging unit using a light pole… Many citizens outside the square also played a critical role delivering food and medical supplies. They also handled traffic control…” (225)

48. Pressure the security forces to declare their position: “The armed forces’ response was a clear statement of support for the protesters…” (227)

49. Prepare in case administrators get arrested: Arrange alternate admin’s, passwords changed if arrested, delete sensitive info (230)

This list is obviously taken directly from Ghonim's book, but I am interested in the knowledge and experience of the people reading this diary. If you have suggestions, questions or ideas regarding this list of methods and techniques, please share them.

Visit my website at: http://dmarkkey.weebly.com/

The Dirty Little Secret of Occupy, Part 2

DeMarquis

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 21, 2012 · 10:45 AM PST

2012/02/21 · 10:45

First, let me state how gratified I am that so many people contributed to the comments section. I deeply appreciate the time and attention that so many of you generously provided. Of course, the majority of the comments were negative, but that's perfectly alright, it shows that this is a topic that many of you feel passionately about, and I respect that. Plus, I learned quit a bit by reading them. For example, my heartfelt thanks go out to the commentor who mentioned Alexis Goldstein, of "Occupy the SEC", who is my new heroine. Seriously, everyone needs to stop reading this right now and go view this video: http://www.bing.com/... Especially note what she says about the Occupy movement at about 13:40 or so- I'm in complete agreement with her, esp where she points out that reformers can choose to work within the political system while others try to come up with a whole new alternative.

I also want to point out that I am a very strong supporter and participant of OWS and I very deeply want it to continue and succeed. If I criticize it, which I intend to continue doing, I do so from love. And curiously, the thing that many of you seem to have been most powerfully engaged by was something that was almost a throw-away line: "..no coherent goals..."

Now, I understand perfectly well that OWS doesn't necessarily need goals. No less than Lemony Snicket wrote:

"It is not always the job of people shouting outside impressive buildings to solve problems. It is often the job of the people inside, who have paper, pens, desks, and an impressive view" (you can read more by Lemony on Occupy at http://occupywriters.com/...).

Occupy exists fundamentally to express the anger of ordinary people at the financial and political elites who are still abusing them. It can continue to do nothing more than that and still remain true to it's original purpose. A perfectly valid argument could be made that the most important thing right now is to draw as much attention as possible to the injustices going on, to make as much noise as possible, so that important issues aren't swept under the rug, so that candidates for office and the mainstream media cant use social issues to distract us from the fact that we are still being exploited and lied to. Nevertheless, having said all that...

...I'm going to stand by my statement. Perhaps I should share a little about myself to help explain. I have a wife and two young children to support, a mortgage that is underwater, and I have no job. Until recently I was a full time faculty member at a state-supported university, until I was laid off as part of a wave of lay-offs that were the result of a massive state budget deficit, itself partly the result of a collapse in property taxes. All of this ultimately traces back to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the financial speculation of Wall Street. I respect that people come to Occupy for a variety of reasons, but my reason for doing so had nothing to do with economic models, or political theories, or radical politics. I desperately dont want my children to have to face the kind of financial insecurity that I am currently undergoing. As I say on my web page:

"...I am not attempting to address what many see as the true “underlying problems” of all economic crises. I am not trying to “uproot the rot” or “cure the disease”. Those kind of goals may very well be important, but they are long-term transformative changes that I and my children can’t wait for. I can take care of my own short term needs, the long term goals and aspirations of humanity will have to wait upon a much wider global conversation. But I need the hope of middle term solutions now."

There are very specific things that I believe need to be done, right now. We need to get money out of politics. We need a more effective federal regulatory regime, including the regulation of the financial sector and Wall Street. We need to protect and strengthen the government's commitment to civil liberties, esp. in the face of the fear-mongering campaigns that have accompanied the War on Terror. We need a more responsible and effective foreign policy that isn't driven primarily by domestic political agendas, but reflects the complexity of international problems and is based on an understanding of long-term environmental, political, economic and cultural sustainability. And Finally we need a less centralized set of democratic institutions, starting with empowered neighborhoods and local communities.

I joined OWS because I thought I could help with accomplishing some of these things. And I still expect this- not in spite of it's leaderless nature, but because of it. Occupy functions a little bit like anonymous (not surprising, nor a coincidence, Anon helped found Occupy)- there are lots of independent voices and groups, and as long as they do not try to impose their agenda on others, anyone with a particular set of answers is free to try to attract as many others to work with them as possible. That is truly wonderful. But it also has costs, and one of those costs is a vulnerability to having its efforts dissipated across too many diverse approaches. I don't want that to happen. If Occupy remains nothing more than a venue to express frustration, then Godspeed to it. But I hope for more.

The Dirty Little Secret of Occupy

DeMarquis

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday February 19, 2012 · 10:49 AM PST

2012/02/19 · 10:49

There is a general feeling across many of the local occupations, and among the on-line folk, that the OWS movement is losing steam. I think that's true, and I think I know one of the reasons why.

The other day, I was having a conversation about the Occupations at this place: http://www.themultitude.org/... We were discussing the problem of how to deal with the disruptions caused by mentally ill participants at meetings. I had this to say:

“Occupy has a problem, not just with the mentally ill, but with inclusion generally. OWS was designed from the very beginning to be an “all inclusive” movement, to represent the “99″, with especial emphasis on under-represented communities. Thus, the General Assembly and Spokes Council structures were adopted with the explicit idea of utilizing consensus as the basis of decision making. This was also the basis of claiming to be a “leaderless movement”, one that didn’t respond or follow one particular narrow interest, like the Democratic Party or the Labor Movement. It also didn’t restrict itself to a particular issue like political corruption or unemployment. It sought to give voice to all stakeholders in society, and that has been it’s primary strength.

But it’s strength is also the source of the greatest frustrations and problems. I am aware of many examples over at the NYCGA threads where a group of people complain that one or another meeting or project is being “blocked” by a single recalcitrant individual … There are complaints of parades being hijacked by the Black Blockers, meetings taken over by anarchists, and projects sabotaged by people with a particular political agenda. There was even one incident recently where someone who had physically assaulted other participants was nevertheless allowed to continue attending meetings. The point is that it isnt just the mentally ill or the homeless that are causing disruptions, and NY isnt the only place where this sort of thing happens.

In short, Occupy has a general weakness with enforcing rules and standards. No simple solution presents itself. There are solutions, but they aren’t simple ones, they consist primarily of a large number of techniques that have been developed by protest movements over time. What the occupations need is better training in meeting and event facilitation, but that takes time and money…”

It’s very enlightening to look at some of the news stories that were done on OWS back at the beginning. For example, this one: http://www.salon.com/... In it, Kalle Lasn (one of Adbuster’s editors, and an early organizer of the original occupation) has this to say:

“Originally we thought that the idea of one demand was very important. There’s been a debate going on between the one-demand vision and this other vision that is playing itself out right now on Wall Street. I think it’s a wonderful debate and there are good pointers on both sides. Currently this leaderless, demandless movement — that is still growing in leaps and bounds — I think it is fine the way it is. After these assemblies have been conducted and debates have been had in cities all around America, demands will emerge. These demands will be specific things like reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act or a 1 percent tax on financial transactions or the banning of high-frequency trading. We will get into specifics, just give us time.”

But his timeline was something like November. Now it’s February, and still no coherent demands. He also says “The political left has always had problems with this. All my life I’ve been sitting in meetings where loony guys get up and talk, and eventually very little happens. This is the kind of weight that is dragging the political left down. We don’t seem to have the clarity of vision that for example the Tea Party has. This may be our undoing again…”

I’m not claiming that this is exactly what has happened, but I do say Occupy still has a problem with managing inclusion. Without formal leaders, OWS will always be vulnerable to being hijacked by informal “leaders” who, because few procedural restraints are in place, easily turn into petty tyrants. Ironically, according to David Graeber, this was how the original General Assembly was born in the first place: http://www.wnyc.org/...

“So a few of us, me and my friends, showed up at this announced general assembly on August 2nd to plan the Wall street action on September 17th. And we were rather disgruntled to discover that it wasn’t a general assembly at all.” Graeber characterized what they found instead as organizers standing on a stage, rallying through microphones, calling for the assembled people to march with a list of demands the organizers had already printed. [As an alternative] “Have a group of people, without a leadership structure, come together and make decisions collectively. And people within the anarchist, anti-authoritarian and also feminist traditions in America have been working for years on how to do that, people kind of know how you can conduct a meeting in a real democratic way. There’s been a lot of people putting a lot of thought into that. But he hadn’t really done it on a mass basis. So we thought, let’s try.” He said that organizers tried to keep control of the action and would not shift the structure to one he would find more democratic. “So we formed a circle on the other side of Bowling Green, and gradually everyone started breaking off from the rally and came over to ours, and that was the real birth of the movement.”

Now, I cant say how accurate his version of events is, since I wasn’t there, but I find it interesting that apparently a similar pattern is still repeating itself. OWS is, I think, at a cross-roads of sorts. If it doesn't move ahead it will eventually dissipate, but in order to move ahead I think it needs to return to first principles, and by that I mean principles of self-organizing. It's very difficult for leaderless groups to be successful. It can be done, but it requires a lot of skill. It would help if someone would write down an "Idiot's Guide" to organizing a protest movement, but until someone does, it requires research and continuous re-commitment.

But here’s the thing- we solved this once, and we can do it again. We have to keep with it, make it work, follow the principles and techniques that feminist groups and international protest movements have developed before us, and get a set of principles, then goals, then action plans to accomplish the goals, passed through our General Assemblies. It’s really a test of the whole Occupy principle- and this is the real moment of truth. If we remain true to the spirit of genuine democracy, we cant lose.

Read more essays at my web site: http://387442890115614373.weebly.com/

Introducing Myself

DeMarquis

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday February 16, 2012 · 2:56 PM PST

2012/02/16 · 14:56

From an ordinary member of the 99:

Hello all. Let me say how excited I am that these occupations are taking place, and that I have the opportunity to contribute to change in some small way. I decided to come here because I would like to address certain issues that matter to me, including why I support the movement and where I would like to see it go. This is important to me, because my perception is that public support for our movement is beginning to slip, and to maintain our momentum we need to continue to show initiative and growth, by listening to many voices, and considering a diversity of ideas.

I don’t pretend to speak for anyone but myself. I’m no one important. My reasons for being here and showing support are based on my own recent personal experiences. Until recently I was an educator at a public university, until I was laid off at the end of the summer. This was due to state government cutbacks that resulted from the sudden fall of property tax revenues, which in turn I blame on the collapse of the property bubble, due in large part to irresponsible speculation in the financial markets. Consequently, my investments, my savings, the value of my home, my children’s tuition accounts, my retirement plan, and my health care have all lost value, through no mistake or decision of my own. To add insult to injury, the financial leaders whose poor choices cost me so much now want to avoid responsibility for what they have done, and transfer the blame, as well as the sacrifice, on to me and others like me: “The 99”. So I speak from the heart.

I do not want anyone to give me any free handouts. I do not want someone to give me a job, or to forgive my debts, or to offer any pity. In spite of all that I have gone through, I’m not here for myself. I am also not vindictive. I do not want specific individuals to be punished (unless they broke the law), I do not want bankers to be tarred and feathered (in word or in deed), I do not want vandalism, rage or violence against the authorities. I’m not an idealist, and although I respect idealism and I support conversations about transformative reforms, that’s not why I’m here.

I want to help prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again. To accomplish that, I want three things, three outcomes that I feel are necessary to protect ordinary Americans from the consequences of poor decisions that they had no part in making. I support three practical reforms that, although they might not achieve global justice or eliminate greed and corruption from the world, would at least give me and others like me the assurance that our risk is being managed effectively. That’s all I ask. The three things I want are:

1) Reduce the influence of money on politics. I don’t care how it’s done- whether Congress can pass a law, or a series of laws, whether we need to publicly finance election campaigns, or take re-districting away from the state legislatures, or if we need a new amendment to the Constitution to redefine the rights of corporate persons, or if we need to restrict the influence of lobbyists, whatever it takes. I’m happy to debate any or all of those things, but I don’t need to start a revolution. I just want to know that my voice is still being heard, even though I am neither wealthy nor well-connected.

2) Reduce the effect of speculation on banking. Again, I don’t care how. Maybe we should create a firewall between personal accounts and investments, maybe we should pass a law that no bank is too big to fail, maybe we should strengthen the power and authority of government regulators, maybe we should use tax incentives to promote smaller banks, maybe we should outlaw certain types of derivatives, or re-write the accounting standards or nationalize the credit rating agencies. Again, I don’t need to overthrow Capitalism, or redistribute all wealth. I just want to know that my family’s financial future is safe from people who irresponsibly and without accountability gambled with my money.

3) Strengthen the safety net for people who suffer from circumstances they did not help create. Cutting health care, unemployment insurance, or social security in an era when ordinary people are suffering financial hardship due to bad decisions made by the financial elite is simple injustice. Whether this will require forgiving debt, or increasing taxes, or cutting the military budget, creating new forms of semi-private/semi-public insurance, or working with the business community to create green jobs, doesn’t matter to me. I just want it done.

I am aware that these suggestions of mine, which represent nothing more than my personal desires, will appear to various others as both too modest and too hard. Too modest because I am not attempting to address what many see as the true “underlying problems” of all economic crises. I am not trying to “uproot the rot” or “cure the disease”. Those kind of goals may very well be important, but they are long-term transformative changes that I and my children can’t wait for. I can take care of my own short term needs, the long term goals and aspirations of humanity will have to wait upon a much wider global conversation. But I need the hope of middle term solutions now.

Too hard because the outcomes I want run directly counter to the vested interests of this nation’s most powerful stakeholding groups. I know that money will always talk. I know that any organized nation needs a leadership class, who however noble or carefully regulated, will always pursue their own self-interest. I know that the system fights back, and that a very large number of people have already given up on change, gave up a long time ago, and that even modest reformers fight against long odds.

I speak only for myself. I’m not especially intelligent or well-informed. I don’t know the solutions to these problems. I have no ultimate answers to offer anybody. I can only describe how I feel right now. I am frustrated, but not enraged. I am concerned about the future, but not intimidated nor afraid. I am ready for a long and difficult struggle. Winning or losing can wait until tomorrow, right now I am ready to take a stand and fight for what I want. That’s why I support the Occupation.

Thank you.

Newer
Older

RSS