Forum Post: avoiding unnecessary & harmful polarization

I am an avid supporter, participating in the occupation every saturday here in my town, and closely following various websites and online newspapers for coverage. I believe we can reduce criticism and garner support from more quarters if we take advantage of what seem to be repeated opportunities to model a spirit of inclusion and avoid the trap of polarizing language. I'll offer two examples.

First: I too was thrilled when Mayor Bloomberg, at the behest of the owners of Zuccotti Park, withdrew the order to evacuate last week. However, the banner headline "WE WON!" made my heart sink. In taking that attitude I believe we play right into the primitive polarization that only provokes primal game-playing ("now WE need a win!"), and makes those who criticize us as immature only more certain of their assessment. What could have been the effect of responding to the withdrawal with something like: "Thank you Mayor Bloomberg, and the owners of Zuccotti Park, for honoring the importance of a free people to peacefully assemble and discuss important issues in a privately owned public place.”

Secondly: This point comes from viewing a recent episode of Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show." A reporter for the show was sent to OWS to investigate how participants are managing bathroom needs. Several shop owners animatedly expressed their dismay at the abuse and even destruction of their bathroom facilities. One well-coiffed bakery owner reported a camper asking her to take and dispose of plastic bags filled with human waste.

If the city hasn’t provided port-a-potties, why not let supporters fund them? They can be and frequently are mounted on large flat bed trucks - the military does this, for example - and conveniently located. What the City could do is provide the necessary permitting. If OWS applies for a permit and it’s granted - great. If it applies and is turned down, those gathered have few options, even though this is unfair to the neighborhood, something OWS would properly be sensitive to. It is also a way of changing the dynamic: instead of OWS against shop owners, it becomes OWS and shop owners, shoulder to shoulder, identifying a win-win solution to a problem.

This movement has brought world-wide hope to millions for an end to the extreme power imbalance and economic injustice that has almost completely, albeitly covertly, co-opted democracy. Let us take every opportunity to win support by avoiding unnecessary and incendiary antagonism. The tendency is to allow things to devolve into blame.
Instead, isn't it great to see OWS take advantage of every opportunity to promote thoughtful discussion of problems which politicians seem unable to effectively address? When people are polarized, they tend to stop thinking and become reactionary. OWS, at its best, models something better. It models the promise of deep democracy.