Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: An open letter to Lawrence O'Donnell

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 12:02 p.m. EST by alex5045 (40)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Mr. O’Donnell

Thank you for your vocal support of the OWS movement to date - but now we need more - a big concerted push. A push not only from you but also from Rachel Madow, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Bill Maher, and so on.

The OWS movement is being heard and noticed. But is beginning to stall and split along lines of those who have specific “wrongs” they feel need to be addressed. Although the World Wide Occupy movement grows by the day which gives it the appearance of being a single body - it is not and its needs to coalesce around and behind a single common demand - if there is one. If not OWS will be easy to potray as a “hippie”, far left, unrealistic, unkempt and unwashed group of people who want handouts.

I believe there is such a single commend demand that OWS can get behind and push.

It simply is we demand to have our government back! By this I mean we need to remove money and special interests from our electoral and government bodies. If we can do this, ergo we have the environment in which true discussion and debate can take place - absent the dictates of the 1% and corporate special interests. I believe this may be the only way all OWS supporters will be able to achieve their disparate goals. Although I suspect some within the OWS movement advocate for a totally different form of government - I think the majority are not looking to destroy the system but rather to bring it back and establish equal representation for all. I don’t think we wish to constrain free speech - including that of the 1%. What OWS supporters want is to be able to be heard rather than to be dictated to.

Secondly, I believe it is imperative that we find a very few of us who can be our spokes people. At the moment all we have is a gaggle and cacophony of disparate voices calling for this and/or that. Without a voice or a few voices speaking for all of us we have no structure within which we can press our demand and give the current government a single point to work with to achieve what I feel needs to be our initial primary (sole) goal. We need to be able to convince our elected congressmen and women that WE are the people who elect them and it will be at their peril if they ignore us. We need them to understand that it is not they who decide who to take direction from - that has already been decided and is baked into our constitution - it is and always should be the 100%!

If we can achieve a government that truly represents us - which means lobbying, PACs, donations of incredible magnitudes, etc. and even unions will be barred from the electoral and on going governing process. By definition this also means taking money out of politics - including holding those responsible who have used the system to pad their bank accounts at the expense of the 99%.

If you agree we need to coalesce around some focus you have the bully pulpit from which to press such an approach. You and your peers have that ability - we “the common people [God how I hate these demeaning words]” do not. I challenge you to build a News Anchor’s chapter of OWS. I also challenge you and your peers to work with OWS to find a way we can get the same message and facts of life to mainstream America. Whereas your programs have sizable audiences - I suspect for the large part you are all speaking to the same relatively small group of people - who by now are already converts to the cause.

How do we get to those in middle and rural America? To those who watch the Simpsons and Reality Shows as opposed to the programs of you and your peers. I do not mean this in a derogatory manner - in general this segment of Americans does not have exposure to both sides of the story. This segment of Americans must be exposed to there being 1% who control 45%, and they need understand that supporting this is not the same as supporting the American Dream. In fact supporting it makes achieving the American Dream more difficult. They also need to understand while they deal with the problems of the recession, the 1% have accumulated even more wealth and in many cases knew fully well that their actions would only accrue to their benefit at the expense of the 99%. We also have the responsibility to explain why this doesn’t have to be this way, and that they have the voice to change it. I think if this was to happen then this segment would also sign up for the OWS movement.

We desperately need your help - help beyond that which you have already given. We need you to first speak to OWS and tell us we need to focus and have people who will represent us in communicating OWS’s demands to the 1% and our elected officials. We need you to also get your peers to take the same bold steps.

I thank you advance for your assistance at this historic moment

Alex P Westport, CT

13 Comments

13 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 13 years ago

It's not a historic moment.

[-] 1 points by alex5045 (40) 13 years ago

What is it then?

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 13 years ago

It's angry people, standing on a corner, holding signs, blaming others for the discontent in their own lives.

[-] 1 points by alex5045 (40) 13 years ago

PS. Mr./Ms. Yepper - what are you looking to be achieved by OWS and how do you suggest we go about achieving it? I am all ears and not closed to only what I have put forward for consideration.

[-] 1 points by alex5045 (40) 13 years ago

With all due respect Mr./Ms. Yepper - Nothing in my Post mentions or suggests our current President. The fact that the list of anchors I suggested happen to be Democrat is the result of their being the ones who vociferously denounce the money in politics - whereas the Republicans support the stat quo and even suggest more of it. Tell me a Republican that supports making lobbyists (including unions) banned from interacting with members of Congress the I will be glad to include them in the list

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 13 years ago

Republicans can't do that because they are the minority and by a large margin. They need money in politics to stay relevant. They need the electoral collage also. Take that out and there will be no more Republican party.

This is a rough estimate from the 2004 census...

  • 55 million registered Republicans

  • 72 million registered Democrats

  • 42 million registered as independents.

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 13 years ago

The USPS carries an extraordinary financial burden that no other government agency or company bears, the ad notes. A 2006 law, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, requires the Postal Service to pre-fund the healthcare benefits of future retirees. It forces the agency to pre-fund a 75-year liability in just 10 years, and costs the USPS more than $5.5 billion annually. This mandate is the reason the Postal Service is threatening to close thousands of post offices, eliminate hundreds of mail processing facilities, end Saturday mail delivery, and lay off 120,000 workers. In addition, the Postal Service is required to overpay billions more into federal accounts.

“Congress created this problem, and Congress can fix it,” the ad concludes

[-] 1 points by Yepper (277) 13 years ago

re>A push not only from you but also from Rachel Madow, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Bill Maher You serious...there goes any credibilty this movement had. So this is nothing more than a left wing campaign for a failed President? Time for us to go home.

[-] 1 points by enough (587) 13 years ago

Agree. Apparently, Alex didn't get the memo. OWS as a group is strictly non-partisan, although every individual is entitled to his or her own political viewpoint. If that isn't the case, you're right...it's time to go home.

[-] 1 points by alex5045 (40) 13 years ago

Dear Enough

I am not saying or recommending that anyone who supports and/or is part of the OWS movement should be of a political persuasion. I am not suggestion OWS should be partisan.

What I am suggesting is - at some point we need to be practical if we want to changes our demands into reality. This involves primarily 2 things, namely; (1) spreading the word and getting more and more people part of the movement, and (2) figuring out how to get a swelling body of energized people to move from demonstrating to getting things accomplished.

I am presuming you are not suggesting we need armed insurrection? So we need the power of public opinion to achieve what we want. Getting public opinion overwhelmingly behind OWS needs getting the word out to millions of people. The two best vehicles for doing this are Social Media and TV. Whether we like it or not the TV News Anchors who are behind and believe in OWS are the ones I listed in my letter to O’Donnell. Am I supposed to list people like Glen Beck who will rip the OWS and what it believes apart? Let’s be real.

In terms of a need for spokes-people/leadership and there being none - all of the popular uprisings of the Arab Spring developed leaders so that the efforts of those seeking freedom could be co-ordinated and the rest of the world could deal with an entity as opposed to 100,000 fervent rebels demonstrating in Tahir Square. Once again lets get real. Ghandi was a leader, as are Tutu and Mandela. Movements need leaders to be their voice. If we want to achieve anything meaningful we need to have some small group speaking for us.

If you cannot grasp this - so be it - you have a right to express your opinion - if you want to simply give up and go home - then I most certainly won’t try and stop you.

Alex P

[-] 1 points by enough (587) 13 years ago

With all due respect, you still didn't get memo. See the OWS homepage. Read the article: "70% of #OWS Supporters are Politically Independent". In all likelihood, 70% of the group would not appreciate a bunch of Democratic Party-leaning TV hosts or a bunch of Republican-leaning TV hosts leading the OWS movement. Certainly, you can grasp this. That's why OWS needs to remain studiously non-partisan as a group.

[-] 1 points by FuManchu (619) 13 years ago

Ed is already talking about OWS like it's a pro democratic party movement.

[-] 1 points by enough (587) 13 years ago

Apparently, Ed and the others like him should read the description on right-hand side the OWS homepage that says "Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions". Perhaps, this statement should include a simple sentence saying that "OWS is a non-partisan movement" so there is absolutely no misunderstanding. The description should also include the word "ages" in the phrase "people of many colors, genders and political persuasions".