Forum Post: Can Occupy create a third political party? We need an "Occupation Party".
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 20, 2011, 3:40 p.m. EST by Ramblesphere
(23)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Is it possible for Occupy to work within the current system to begin to change that very system? Could the next phase of the OWS movement be the formation of a third political party? Where in the past those attempting to form official third parties have failed, OWS has the following and the support to potentially make it finally happen--and once that party has some legislative power, it could potentially help make bigger shifts in government focus and process. Why not vote within the movement to nominate some as worthy candidates at all levels of government, and try in the next election to reach the critical mass necessary to present a real challenge to the two parties currently holding the nation hostage to the status quo? Why not recruit sympathetic public officials to jump ship from their current party to wear the name of this new movement? Give them someplace new to land when they jump besides the generic "independent" label. [I nominate Bernie Sanders.]
Bernie Sanders doesn't want to be president. He's doing fine where he is. Once a fresh movement like Occupy starts endorsing candidates, especially if they're easily pigeon-holed as "socialists" or "progressives," and if they're established politicians, it would be much easier for the media to discredit the far-reaching goals of the movement. Once a 'face' is put to the movement, that face will be smeared and made to look ghastly. We must be in it for the long haul, be creative, not settling for quick, common "solutions" to the enormous problems we face. True change isn't going to happen from the inside of Washington no matter who gets elected.
Well said.
Bernie hasn't been merely pigeon-holed, he is a socialist. What's wrong with that? It's time for people with "progressive" or "socialist" ideas to reclaim those terms instead of running away from them. Maybe with a twist "new socialist" or "democratic socialist". I'm also talking about putting forth third party candidates at ALL levels of government, not just POTUS or house/senate. Maybe with enough candidates similar to Bernie in state and local politics, media scrutiny would eventually work in our favor--people would hear these candidates viewpoints and maybe finally get it that socialism isn't the boogie man. If you believe that you can avoid the "inside", that is, the system as it exists currently and as it is codified into law, then you aren't going to get far. We need people on the "inside" to help change the whole landscape of that inside world. We are still a nation of laws, and that's where laws are made. Currently, those on the inside will not vote for our interests, only their own. We need new people in there who will vote for out interests. Why shouldn't they come from the OWS movement, where there has already been experimentation with new ways of doing things, new ways of arriving at consensus. Thanks for offering your reply to my comment and engaging in discussion.
Absolutely nothing wrong with it; if more politicians had his courage, Washington would be a far less toxic place to do business - er, I mean serve as arbitrators of the will of the people they dutifully represent....umm. Yeah.
I love Naomi Klein's answer to someone who asked if this was a progressive answer to the Tea Party. She said:
I think she's thinks right.
"" True change isn't going to happen from the inside of Washington no matter who gets elected. "" Let no one forget this. So true. The ones in power will NEVER EVER just relinquish it. It has to be taken, preferably within the law, ultimately by force.
ynot
Please take the phrase "ultimately by force" out. As a supporter of Occupy Wall Street, I repudiate this approach to redistributing power/money.
As fiercely as I believe the very rich must give up their capital gains advantages along with their tax cuts, I also believe in the power of reaching out and finding who people are inside. There are only a very few true sociopaths or psychopaths responsible for our current debacle. We now have to straighten everything else out without offending the vast majority, who are decent, well-meaning people doing the best they can. This approach melts resistance and dissolves resentments. People suddenly realize with clarity the truth of a situation and act much more effectively. Don't allow those who would sabotage these noble efforts to ruin this moment in history.
Ebri but your perfectly fine with being forced to do things that corporations and corrupted officials imposed on you? There is a time when you have to ultimately stand up for the freedom of everyone. There is a time when you realize the laws in place are only there to benefit the few and not the majority. There comes a time when you have to say enough, is enough! And when that time comes, it is only you who can make that choice for you and your grand children's future.
People always wonder why German soldiers during Hitler's reign didn't stand up and protest against the butchering. Does that mean Germany was a nation of thousands of Hitlers? Think about that and ask yourself why didn't they stand up and fight back? I bet your views align with theirs... Scary.
My views certainly don't align with any phase of the criminality which took place in Germany during Hitler's reign.
The problem is that violent actions always devolve into more violent actions, don't they?
Of course, one might argue the American Revolution was somewhat violent, yet necessary.
I side with Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and others who advocate nonviolent means.
I have, it is true, submitted to terrible things the corporations and corrupted officials have imposed on me. I had no choice, and it still hurts. It was a raw deal.
But I can't be violent. I have chosen to give up, in a sense, to retreat, withdraw for now, until I have the means to fight more powerfully than with violence.
I have experienced, in my life, a connectedness with others whom I unconsciously perceived as my enemies, only to discover in them however briefly the capacity for -- actually -- a kind of love, or something like it, which completely dissolved my resistance and allowed me to perceive the world more clearly. Love was indeed stronger than hate in that instance. I hope we as a people could discover this and solve our problems this way. I hope we could look at the numbers, look at what we all need, and solve problems.
"" As a supporter of Occupy Wall Street, I repudiate this approach to redistributing power/money. "" Me too, I repudiate violence. It would be nice to change society just by protesting and talking to your oppressor. But reality is something different. Read what is happening in Syria, Yemen and again in Egypt. The rich and powerful will never give up one inch unless it is taken by force. I really really hope that this will never happen in USA or in any European countries.
ynot
What gave rise to this movement were the sheer numbers involved when showing wealth disparities. At least, that's how my involvement began.
There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to the astounding size of the chasm between those at the very top of the wealth strata and the rest of us. The 26 wealthiest Forbes 400 Americans are collectively worth 591 billion dollars alone. I don't even know how much collectively the remaining 376 are worth. This reminds me of the kings and queens during feudal times. Are we all right with this?
I am not all right with this. Let's enforce existing tax laws or change them to make them pay their fair share in taxes (no "confiscatory" policies here), with no "out" available, like hiding their wealth in foreign banks. The fact that we all assume the very wealthy will break laws with impunity explains why this movement is so powerful. Its premise is based on our being "mad as hell" about this and not willing "to take it anymore!" (referring to a scene from the movie "Network") We've known about and put up with this reality for at least fifty years. Only now with the rise of electronic media do we have the means to fully address it. Violence just won't work.
You say "within the law", but the ones in power are making those laws--and breaking them, as they attack protesters. Unless you're prepared to wait a few decades for big changes (and maybe you are, I don't know. I just know I'm not willing to wait that long), working within the current system that makes the laws is something that will have to happen--but I'm not only talking about washington. Local politics are important as well--that's why in my original post I said "at all levels of government". As for them "relinquishing" power--they have to if we elect new people. Those people, I'm suggesting, should be not merely allied with OWS, but operating under a platform created by OWS.
The purpose is to make those who are making the laws extremely uncomfortable by raising the number of average Americans in one loud outcry against the blatant greed and cronyism of the Wall-Street-Washington nexus. (To put it in bloated terms ; )
Making a new party does not create more people for you. It guarantees that everyone who is a solid member of the other parties is against you.
And THANK YOU to Ebri for the repudiation of violent approaches. There are many, MANY people who are likely to be friends of the Occupy Movement because they, too, are outraged by the ills of Wall Street. Bringing harm to their peaceful lives will in no way bring democracy in droves to your cause. Such is foolish talk.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
Also, people who are still talking about this being the "Left answer to the Tea Party" have some serious self-esteem issues, &/or are extremely short-sited. The idea of working in the supposed "Two-Party" system is not "doable" if the goal is real, people-represented change.
There are people who say that, but in my original comment I wasn't one of them. I also wouldn't speak in terms of left and right, since these are pretty simplistic buzzwords that don't really say anything of substance anymore--and seem to put people on the defensive for some reason. An actual, official party, created through the current legal apparatus governing third party creation, has so far not been attainable because the numbers weren't there. I think OWS has got the numbers to make that happen now if they can mobilize people to vote as well as they mobilized people to come out and protest, and to put forth a candidate. BUT I think that would require the creation of a clearly articulated platform--which could potentially have built into it a stipulation that even the platform will evolve or be re-visited within a certain time frame as goals are reached and new goals need creating.
If the movement were to become a third party, it would...
1) Lose many of its participants who could not agree on what the party platform should be,
2) Lose all Democrats and Republicans by being something that has declared itself as clearly "other" than them.
You don't have to make an organization out something for it to succeed. Let it work to bring greater and more responsible action out of the parties that already exist.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
Take back our democracy from the two party hegemony.
Devalue Wall Street duopoly dollars that give the Democrats and Republican an artificial and unnatural power over us.
Register Independent and promote alternative INDEPENDENT candidates who reflect and respect you social justice values.
Fuck the Democrats and Republicans!
Fuck the subverted political party "system".
VoteSmart.org registration information for each and every state http://www.votesmart.org/elections/voter-registration
As a party you would have to work within the rules imposed by the Democrats and Republicans at the state ballot access level.
As Independents you can Write-In candidates of your choice without bowing to the restrictions imposed by the two party corruption.
Liberate American democracy: Register and vote Independent.
Rather than select a presidential candidate, which will then be accosted by the media for personality disorders, OWS should continue with its slow methodical progress of emergence.
Let's figure out all of the appoint able positions that the president makes, and identify people to take those roles.
Then by summer 2012, OWS can put in place a manager of those people (i.e.. a presidential candidate).
In this way the President is beholden to the people in all of these roles.
Importantly, this also keeps OWS focused on actions, rather than personalizations. The problem with the media is they personalize everything, thus avoiding discussion of facts and actions... "he said she said"
An "unconditional base income" is exactly what everyone is entitled to, in this age of automation. We must commit ourselves to helping everyone in society, "winners" and "losers" included. We have the means to allow "losers" to be "winners" in their own right. Everyone, no matter how seemingly different from ourselves, unless truly pathological, wants to contribute in some way to society. We can find ways to allow them to do this.
Many people don't want to work hard because they are depressed or hurt, not lazy. Some are very resentful. Let's face it: automation has rendered most manual labor obsolete, and the very rich that much more wealthy, while their media shills try to fool the rest of us into thinking we deserve substandard water, food, environmental quality, neighborhoods, schools, health care, and government functioning. The truth they don't want us to know is that automation, technological innovation, etc., have actually made it possible for the rest of us to work a lot less and enjoy a lot more. But the greed of a very few keeps the rest of us mired in poverty and debt.
Most of us have had to bury our own pain and do our jobs all our lives ("lives of quiet desperation"), but that doesn't mean life has to be this way. Most importantly, we shouldn't project that fate onto others.
The top 1% -- 315,000 out of 315 million -- make one half of all capital gains on the sales of shares or property after one year; they make 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.
The 26 wealthiest at the top of the Forbes 400 are collectively worth over a half a trillion (591 billion dollars!). Twenty-six people! I don't even know what the rest of the net worths of the remaining 374 wealthiest individuals are. In the world, the most dysfunctional countries have the greatest differences in wealth and poverty. The "Gini" graph comparing wealth disparities in first and second world countries puts our country's status into perspective.
Try to stay focussed on the issues.
Regarding "truly pathological" there is some new research showing that the 1% is pathological: no empathy and self serving... but of course, how else would they have gotten there if not.
The American myth of individualism is what enables the Republicans to use phrases like "job creators" which legitimizes such pathological behavior. True enough some individualism helped our country, however a shot load of work was done to build this country by people who believed in community.
It takes both individual initiative and collective support.
Unconditional Base Income (also plenty on the web) precisely supports individual initiatives, by creating a safety net allowing people to take the risk of actually developing a new business.
By contrast mush of the statistical data on "self-employment" has been skewed in the last 10 years by people who have been laid of, who then start a business. Essentially they are doing the same thing they did before, but are being paid less. This is not innovation, these are repressive employment policies masquerading as "new businesses."
Thank you for this information! It really helps. Thank you for acknowledging efforts like the CCC and WTA, and community support for noble goals generally.
Thank you for being a voice of sanity in this discussion.
This is why we need people on the inside at all levels of government--that's where laws surrounding media ownership and regulation are made. That's where rules about campaign finance and PACs and SuperPACs are made, and right now those things are rigged in favor of the very people making the laws. Viscious circle.
Politics are center-seeking. A third party allows the powerful to co-opt undecideds, diffuse political will, and tilt votes in their favor. A third party doesn't allow a true majority rule.
I think this is exactly what a two party system does--it's winner take all. Having a third party, and people on the "inside" of the system which, like it or not, makes the laws, might give us a chance at changing laws--for instance, the implementation of instant runoff voting everywhere, not just in a few places, so it's no longer winner-take-all in our elections.
Instant runoff voting everywhere would work! Could you illuminate the details of this new voting system? The speed of electronic communications makes this possible.
Any talk of electoral action on the part of OWS is way way too premature. So-called third parties really have a trivial affect on American politics, much less than OWS has already had, in its infancy, outside the electoral arena. All entering the electoral arena at this time would do is espose OWS's weaknesses.
The alternative is even worse, which is being caught in the trap of the Democratic Party, which has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the Populists. In my view the trap of the Democratic Party is the greatest danger that OWS faces, greater than cops, black bloc, cold winters or anything else imaginable.
I'm not sure how you can say that "so-called third parties really have a trivial effect on American politics" when we haven't had an official third party in modern times. I'm not talking about the legal creation of an official third party, and everything that that entails. As I've said above, if this were combined with run-off voting at all levels of gov't, it might make people get involved and vote again, since it has the potential to restore their voice in gov't. Thanks for comments and discussion.
I'm the first one to acknowledge that the Populists and even the Socialists between 1900 and 1920 had a profound impact on American politics and in particular the organization of a culture of opposition, but that is outside the living memory of nearly everyone and certainly the so-called third parties: the Green Party, Tony Mazzochi's Labor Party, the New Party, the Citizens Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, etc. have been trivial, if noble, efforts. On the state and local level, with examples like the Vermont Progressives or Progressive Dane in Madison Wisconsin, independent parties of left opposition have been somewhat more successful. Having been a Green Party activist for some years I can say that there are real problems with seeking legal sanctions for a new party. It's not that it's difficult, which it is, but the fact is, American election law is so restrictive that a "legal" third party, ironically, can do a lot less politically than a nonelectoral movement can. This was not the case back in the days of the Populists and the Socialists, which partially accounts for their relative success at the time.
If we picked a standard for voting out politicians, like ditching anyone who took the big wealth protection pledge of Grover Norquist, and could get enough people to support it, it would affect both parties.
First because there are pols in both parties who have signed it, and second because removing a few politicians based on a clear principle would shake things up.
I hear people talking a lot about "voting out" politicians (not just you, I hear it everywhere). This doesn't exist. The only way to "vote someone out" is to vote someone else "in". We don't have a mechanism to vote against someone that I'm aware of, only a mechanism to vote for someone, so when we talk about "voting out" what we really mean is voting in some alternative. The official third party would present such an alternative candidate. I'd personally like that alternative to resemble some of the many articulated ideals of the OWS movement.
I understand your point, but if we vote for candidates who are not as bad, and ditch the worst offenders, things begin to move in a better direction. It isn't fast, it isn't easy, it isn't perfect, but it can produce change.
Yes I agree this is the way to go, let's look at their voting record and how much they are obstructing true progress for this country. If it meets a certain standard, they have got to go. NOW assuming we can mobilize en masse in such a way, we should discuss how to determine which of the candidates for a given office to vote IN. Clearly the face of politics is changing pretty rapidly here. I would suggest that 1) any candidate that receives support from a large number of OWS persons should sign on for public campaign funding, ONLY. 2) We don't try to publicize that the person is an "OWS approved candidate," I think that could have some pretty disastrous consequences.
OWS has a huge following. Why shouldn't they put that clout, very publicly, behind a candidate if they really support him or her? To do otherwise is to advocate the lack of transparency that has been the tool of the current system, IMHO.
I suspect that very very few candidates would be willing to limit to public campaign funding (although we have some good ones on the state level here).
If we can at least show our effectiveness in targeting and eliminating some of the worst, we will have a serious impact. Talking and educating is amongst ourselves is key, I think.
Targeting and eliminating involves putting forth a viable alternative candidate.
Starting by electing the "less bad" candidates begins to push the system in a better direction. It is far from ideal, but has a better chance of working. We won't get great candidates immediately, but culling the worst would get the politicians' attention big time.
The "Occupation Party" operates differently than the Dems/Repubs:
THEY pick one personality, and allow the real issues to be done behind closed doors.
WE select all of the appointed positions first. That way we know who is accountable for what. Then after all those positions have been made, we select a "General Manager" who essentially is the President. The difference being the Occupy General Manager is beholden to all of the appointed positions that we have selected.
It is in the OPERATIONS, that we are strongly different.
We don't need primaries and "TV show" debates. We need to carefully select all of the positions that are appointed. When this list is made public, the American people can vote for the Occupy General Manager (President) or not.
American voters would then be comparing: a Democratic personality, a Republican personality, and a Occupy strategy of action. It's no surprises all the personalities in DC can't even agree to small reductions in an ever increasing debt problem.
There is a great research paper, very abstract though, titled "Societal Scale Decisions Making Using Social Networks" by Marko Antonio Rodriguez and Daniel Joshua Steinbock from about 2008.
yes, lets, do that.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
why not form the exchange party. pledge to vote for the new candidate. vote out all encumbents. if a significant number of encumbents loose their job, the exchange party has produced a change with opportunity. new blood can tear down the walls of graft in dc. it would be possible to pass 5 - year terms for representatives and 8 - year terms for senators limited to one term in congress. the ultimate for the exhange party would be to have 1 term senators and one term representatives working for the 99% even after their five & eight year terms are finished. (house - 5 year, senate 8 - year) sincerely, charles&randy walker 4103882733------ranrobby@yahoo.com
why not form the exchange party. pledge to vote for the new candidate. vote out all encumbents. if a significant number of encumbents loose their job, the exchange party has produced a change with opportunity. new blood can tear down the walls of graft in dc. it would be possible to pass 5 - year terms for representatives and 8 - year terms for senators limited to one term in congress. the ultimate for the exhange party would be to have 1 term senators and one term representatives working for the 99% even after their five & eight year terms are finished. (house - 5 year, senate 8 - year) sincerely, charles&randy walker----- ranrobby@yahoo.com 4103882733
Yes, and there would be about 50,000 people in it- less than the Green Party...
protest vote best
vote for a innocuous person or even cleaning brush or something like that to register disgust at corrupt system
We don't need to create a political party.
The green party supports most of the things we support.
Members of the Occupy movement can support a new party but there's simply not enough ideological unity for the OWS itself to form a new party. Many people are more attracted to being noticed protesting than actually organizing politically as many already have their own political affiliations/ideologies. I've opened a discusion on an idea I've come across called 'The American Liberty True Democracy Party'. As far as I can tell, it's not actually an already existing political party but just an idea. Nevertheless, although I've presented its ideas for discussion by OWS members, so far there is little to no interest in simply discussing the ideas that would seem to be in line with OWS. It seems people would rather come up with excuses for why things can't change from within than to actually organize in an enduring effective way. I hear things like 'the election process is rigged' as a major excuse but I know that excuse is irrelevant. The system was rigged when Obama ran for office but the sheer vast numbers of voters for him overwhelmed the rigging. And then there's the Tea Party. Where were they in 2009? Non-existent. Where are they a mere two years later in 2011? In Congress threatening the entire economy. Regardless of who ultimately owns them, their party went from non-existent to having political positions of power within two years. Mass support for a new party can definitely overcome rigging and get representatives into local, state, and national offices but there has to be a people who actually want it and so far I just don't see that desire among the majority of the OWS participants. So far what I see are a bunch of young adults who just want to be seen and heard and have things magically change based on that. Politics determines how things are run, not protesting. Protesting draws attention to wrongs that need to be righted but if there's no attention being brought to an organized process for righting those wrongs, the protest becomes meaningless.
why not vote for the green party
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-not-vote-for-the-green-party/
"Occupy Congress!"
Put together a slate of candidates of honest people drawn from the occupy movement's ranks and elect them to Congress.
The first order of business is to take big money out of federal politics. Pass the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 750 and H.R. 1404). A law where political candidates for federal office would raise a large number of small contributions from their communities in order to qualify for Fair Elections funding. Contributions are limited to $100.00. Strictly voluntary by the candidate to avoid legal issues.
Require new FCC regulations granting 100% FREE TV air time to all federal candidates who obtain sufficient petition signatures and/or votes to get on the ballot and participate in the primaries and/or electoral process.
End Political Corruption - End the "revolving door" of politicians and their staffs from ever becoming becoming lobbyists and prohibit all federal public employees, officers, officials from ever being employed by any corporation, individual or business that they specifically regulated while in office.
Clean Up Wall St. - Break up the biggest banks. Reenact Glass-Steagall. Abolish credit default swaps. Derivatives must be traded on transparent exchanges. Tax all Wall St. financial transactions at 1%. Damp down speculation and raise $400 billion a year.
End The Wars - Reduce the military budget by half ($275 billion).
Clean The Air - EPA to STRICTLY enforce the Clean Air Act.
Create Jobs - A ten-year federal program that involves a New Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to create millions of jobs rebuilding America that includes infrastructure banks run by engineers, not politicians to extricate ourselves from the Great Recession now and increase productivity later.
Invest In Education - Begin with the federal government paying tuition and fees for all students, part and full time, who are enrolled in two-year public institutions in the United States.
Create A Fair Federal Tax Code - The marginal tax rate ought to be raised to 50 percent on income between $500,000 and $5 million, 60 percent on income between $5 million and $15 million, and 70 percent on income over $15 million. There should be a 2 percent annual surtax on all fortunes over $7 million. The estate tax should be 55 percent and kicks in after $5 million. Capital gains should be taxed at 35 percent. End the home mortgage deduction on first homes over $1 million. End the home mortgage deduction on all second homes. Corporations should be taxed by a variable amount based on the percentage of payroll going to US workers. A small business employing 100% US workers should be taxed somewhere between 15-20% while a company that has completely shifted its production overseas should be in the 50% range. Eliminate corporate loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and deductions, subsidies and end offshore tax haven abuse. Expatriation of capital should be subject to a maximum tax-rate penalty, with violation considered a felony act.
Make Health Care Affordable And Accessible To All - Medicare For All. Allow Medicare to purchase drugs directly. Give the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MEDPAC) more authority to drive down medical costs. End fee-for-service.
current system needs to be trashed, adding new/another party is continuation of same sickness
Occupy Wall Street should not work within the system. The worst thing for a mass movement like this would be for it to become an organization. Let it stay alive and young and flexible and uncontrollable because it has no center that can be controlled. It is a MOVEMENT, not an organization.
When something good happens and is exciting, people want to institutionalize it to make it last forever. That is what happened with the life and teachings of Jesus. Eventually people turned it all into an institutions.
Let these things live fresh. Avoid the perennial desire to institutionalize everything.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
I am concerned about setting up another "Party" because we would be competing in the same rigged game (elections), that TPTB have corrupted over the last 40yrs. I think it's time to form a Direct Democracy!
Read more ................
http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx
“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history - whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by the small elite."
Cheers!
Agree. Would be so nice to have someone besides Democrat or Republican to choose from. This is a good time for it, as we have some momentum. The 3rd party concept with Perot was working, but it was Perot that let it down.
I'd like to see OWS get a list of independant/write in candidates to take over Senate and Congress positions. We need to get the career politicians with the lobbyists and special interest groups out of the system and start to slowly filter in regular people who can represent the 99% of the population instead. Is this being discussed? I'd love to see some options in the 2012 elections.
George Washington: "Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally." http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/gw.htm
Political parties are canker ridden pustule oozing social diseases infecting the body politic of American democracy. Organized mobs brought together only to overpower one person one vote democracy.
We at United Republic think that such eras don't come easily. We won't be able to fix the country's many problems unless we first get money out of politics. And doing that will require a big fight, with bold tactics, substantial resources, and millions of people involved. Millions of people of all stripes--left, right and center--who may not agree on everything but can agree that democracy should never be for sale.
We're just getting started. Over the next several months we'll be expanding our website, and rolling out some exciting new ways for folks to get involved and fight back. But we need to hear from you, too. What are you thinking and planning? How can we help? Let us know, and we’ll let others know, too, when someone comes up with a great idea that deserves more attention.
In the meantime, spread the word and tell your friends: Democracy is not for sale; join United Republic.
Here's to a stronger republic!
Thanks,
The United Republic Team
http://www.unitedrepublic.org/
Ross Perot was way ahead of his time and did not choose his running mate wisely. Study as many of his videos, from the 1992-93 presidential race, as possible.
That, and the Constitution, including the 13th Amendment.
Nothing else is needed.
Keep in mind, the constitution repeatedly refers to "reasonable man", I'm not opposed to subsituting "person", or perhaps "citizen" for "man".
However, just because you consume air and have party parts, doth not make you a reasonable person that should be granted rights in The People's government.
Reasonable is the key and proving one is reasonable, should be a requirement.
Through the years of perversion and twisting of the 1776 English, landownership granted a person "reasonable" standing, and so on. These things shall be undone.
Third party this late in the game insures Republican victory in 2012.
No we don't need a Occupy Party! We need our political parties to hold true to their beliefs & QUIT allowing those beliefs to be bought off by Wall Street billionaires & corporatist that don't give a shit about us or our planet!
OK. Tell me how that will happen. Will they wake up one morning, simultaneously and have a revelation about the suffering of the American people? A third party, while having the potential to become corrupted, as all parties do, also has the potential to transform those other parties when it gives the people a real choice, not merely "the lesser of two evils". A third party has the potential to keep the other parties more honest, if the right people are in that party. I think some who support the ideals of OWS could be those "right people".
Wrong. Parties do not work. This is bigger than the current flawed system.
You're right that our current parties don't work. But we haven't had an official third party yet to see if that might change things. Along with a third party, I advocate instant run-off voting in all elections, national state and local. That has the potential to make voters feel like they actually have a stake in elections, and can actually be heard.
Massive congratulations to everyone at occupy UC Davis!
they have effected our first retreat of sadistic police forces! the following exchange was heroic... the protestors gave the police permission to leave! ... and the police left!
Occupiers: “WE ARE WILLING…”
MC: “to give you a brief moment…”
Occupiers: “TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF MOMENT…”
MC: “of peace…”
Occupiers; “OF PEACE…”
MC: “so you may take your weapons…”
Occupiers: “SO YOU MAY TAKE YOUR WEAPONS…”
MC: “and your friends…”
Occupiers: “AND YOUR FRIENDS…”
MC: “and go.”
Occupiers: “AND GO.”
see more here:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/on-the-narrative-of-pepper-spray-at-uc-davis-or-mike-check-for-president.html
I prefer the term Open Source Party.
Allow GAs to form a platform and direct democracy to control it.
I like that idea. It's similar to something I said in a reply above about making evolution of the platform part of the platform.
I believe it's a powerful enough idea to create an effective third party.
A true representation of the people.
There is already a communist party USA, go join it...
I still like the comparison to the Tea Party, but call this one the Flea Party (credit goes to someone else for that name).
[Removed]
[Removed]
Trting to create a 3rd Party would indicate a desire to make meaningful change in American politics. That is not the intent of this movement. But you are right, that is what is needed.
I think meaningful change IS the intent of this movement, overall. As part of this movement, I can attest to the fact that meaningful change is exactly what I and others desire. I don't always agree with the methods of OWS, but often I do. I'm feeling impatient, though, with the need to move on the the next phase--whatever that might be--because waiting too long, the movement can lose steam. If people don't see that change happening, they'll lose interest. The only change I've seen so far is that the movement has made people talk about these issues and get involved--and that's an important change--but we have to do more, and get to the next goal.
If you can't then maybe you are not really the 99%.
Not sure what this is referring to. So maybe the wrong thread?
Go to http://www.americanselect.org/ If the whole Occupy movement signs up and nominates a candidate we can have the first non-partisan presidential candidate on all 50 state ballots for the first time in history.
Everyone who supports Occupy should support this effort.
Please, get the word out and sign up!
Third parties abound. We have a much better chance to gain influence by coopting the Democratic Party than we do by starting a third party. We already have numerous allies nationwide; certainly given the electoral college, we stand no chance whatsoever of having an ally gain the Presidency unless s/he was running on one of the two major party tickets.
No--an official third party does not even exist, let alone "abound". We're talking about different things. And I don't want another democrat or republican in office, who is more beholden to their party than to the people. Laws on ballot access vary from state to state, but they can involve % of votes required to access ballot without need of paper signatures of a certain number of voters, access to public funding, etc. Right now, most laws regarding ballot access for parties (written by our elected officials who are of the two major parties) favor the two major parties.
Any Dem, or Republican, who has signed on to the pledge never to tax the 1% must be voted out. That would make room for some better candidates.
Agreed.
See comment above re: "voting out". There is no such thing. You can only vote "for", so focusing on finding viable alternative candidates who represent our (the public's) broad interests more than their own narrow personal interests is necessary. But you're right--I don't think we should be voting "for" anyone who signed that stupid pledge.
Obviously we would need to vote for someone else to "vote out" an incumbent. When enough people look at the signer of the pledge, and go vote (and better yet work for) the opponent, the pledge will stop being a strength and start being a weakness.
Against all pledge-signers - it's a clear standard.
I think we can begin to field primary challenges to democratic incumbents we believe are not sufficiently behind us, and we can field new candidates in republican held districts.
I hope you're right.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/move-the-movement-to-dc/
That was done where I live, to a state senator. He still won - no surprise - but it got his attention as nothing else had done. It improved his positions on issues significantly. So I'd support what you say!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/move-the-movement-to-dc/
I can't physically go, but am working as best I can from here. I'd suggest that the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", which is really a pledge to protect Big Wealth, should be a standard for working to unseat any incumbent.
We need an straightforward way to point out some of the worst pols - and that's it for sure.
Do you think an Occupy party within the Dem party is doable? Kinda like the Tea Party within the GOP?
The GOP Owns the Tea party lock stock and barrel,.. After the fist 4-6 months every "real" Tea Party person had left and all the events (and their agenda's and the messages they sent) were drafted by the GOP and the companies the GOP serves/represents in government. That's why you had guys marching with signs damning anyone who would raise taxes on people who made millions, because their rich overloards trickled that message into the TP with "And it's SOCIALISM Oooo!!! scary, get your guns, vote agains the socialist taxes." Large groups of people are easy to control in today's society even when they claim to be free thinking individuals.
Please create this third party today so that it detracts votes from Obama. I would love to sit back and watch liberals prevent other liberals from office.
It's called the Green party, occupiers.
Look at the top of the page. Right under where it says Occupy Wall Street. It says the world revolution continues! What in the world does changing a few faces in public office have to do with making a revolution. If you think there is anything revolutionary about that, you sure have a considerably more constricted view of what a revolution is all about than I do.
Our U.S. political issues are largely due to the fake Democrat/Republican system driven by corporate funding. We're working towards that. Another way to move towards that is to break up the two-party system.
I agree with some of OWS, but there will be no large-scale U.S. revolution anytime soon. There are too many in the 99% who are ignorant about our political problems. You must start somewhere, anyway you can.
I agree with some of OWS, but there will be no large-scale U.S. revolution anytime soon. There are too many in the 99% who are ignorant about our political problems. You must start somewhere, anyway you can.
I don't know of anybody in OWS who thinks there will be a revolution any time soon. The revolutionaries in OWS are in it for the long haul: years, decades or perhaps several lifetimes. Patience is a revolutionary virtue. Ironically it is the more moderate reformers in OWS who are most impatient. Fortunately, however, they are having a lot of trouble getting their act together.
It took Wall Street decades to totally deregulate the system and gain so much control. But they had victories along the way. Revolutions need rallying points or they lose momentum. That is what supporters are searching for on this post. Something to rally around. Symbolic or real victories that confirm we're gaining ground.
Some people would argue that what a revolution amounts to is a sum total of incremental change, though the historical evidence would suggest otherwise. This is not to say that ruling elites don't make incremental changes in an effort to buy off revolutionary movements. The point is, those revolutionary movements force those incremental changes by standing in stark opposition to everything that is, not by working within the system
I understand what you're saying and perhaps I have a romanticized skew on the movement, but I still think something akin to Woodstock would meet your criteria of stark opposition and be a rallying point, a larger event that all can draw strength from. What do you think of some event like that being organized?
The most important thing about OWS as a movement to me is its unique tactic of physically occupying space 24/7. It creates a visible space where the curious can go any hour of the day or night to learn about the movement. Take away the cops, replace the tents with modest permanent houses, make sure there are adequate shower and toilet facilities for everyone and I think it is a model for the kind of society we want to build. PhD or junkie, we are all truely equal. Sure there are problems integrating the chronically homeless into an egalitarian community, but we are working them out, certainly better than the city administrations that we are challenging and learning as we go.
That cannot be done with one big demo, which would necessarily be temporary. My advice to people who don't live near an occupation is to start a GA in their community and work toward an occupation there. If that is too difficult start a GA in your neigborhood or on your block and start and occupation there. That is how we will begin to build a new society, not by making demands on a corporatist government that will never represent our interests no matter who is in office or what legislation is passed.
That is a sensible plan. Could someone teach how to start a local GA in their community or direct those so inclined to a source if it already exists?
If you hunt around there is information on this website as to how to start a GA. My suggestion is, I know people have busy lives. People have jobs to go to and families to raise. Some people have disabilities. But nearly everyone has two days a week off and I've seen people in wheel chairs at OWS. I would suggest that anyone sincerely interested take a day out of their busy life and visit the occupation nearest them. Unless you are really isolated there is probably an occupation within several hours drive. Try to spend 24 hours there. If you can't at least spend several hours there and especially sit through an entire GA.
Then go home. Look in a mirror. If you really concentrate you will see the leader of your local GA. Use facebook, twitter, other social networks and your own friendship network. Call a meeting. Whatever else you do at that meeting, be sure you schedule the next meeting. If you really need more help ask the closest occupation to send somebody to help you out, though you may need to help them out with travel money and a place to stay.
Thanks. Will do.
First, we're not hoping to change a few faces in public office. We want to change a lot of them, and not just the "face" of things. A well-organized third party has the potential to do that. It may be that your view of revolution is constricted if you think it absolutely can't involve changes in our representation in government (that is, to make it more truly representative).
While the very worst thing that could befall OWS would be to become captive of the Democratic Party, the grave yard of every mass movement since the Populists, a third party at this point would only reveal the weaknesses of OWS. I am not suggesting that at some point OWS might not want to enter the electoral arena, but at this point I think it is premature, a view that is apparently shared by most OWS activist, though, in truth, given the strong anarchist currents on OWS, a lot of OWS activists think it should never engage in electoral politics.
I spent the day at the Philly occupation and talked to dozens of people there. To a person, every single one of them said they were a revolutionary. Every single one of them rejected intervention in the electoral arena, advocating legislative changes or even Constitutional amendments and said we had to overthrow the entire system. These were not my views, but the views of the people I talked with, which is my point. A lot of liberals are signing on to OWS as a result of a misunderstanding. I don't believe that the initiators of OWS are in any sense manipulative. They do not hide their point of view. They are very radical, but they are also not sectarian. They realize that their project may take years, probably decades and perhaps even several lifetimes, but patience is a revolutionary virtue and they find points of contact with their more moderate allies and work together around those commonalities, which by no means includes electoral politics.
Support Ron PauI. He is leading the GOP race and will take the power away from the oligarchs. Find out for yourself, but don't overlook Dr PauI
Please see the website's guidelines. This site, and my initial thread, is not a platform for any candidate running for office right now. While Ron Lawl, sometimes, seems like a nice man, I don't want someone as short-sighted as him running my country. Thanks. And btw, he's definitely not "winning".
The problem with Paul is that some of his beliefs and policies are not progressive. He's got some good ideas, but his lean is wrong.
"Is it possible for Occupy to work within the current system to begin to change that very system? "
No,.. Because the basic core belief of OWS (not the stuff that most people agree with, but the unshakable unmovable core of OWS) isn't about fixing problems, it's about promoting OWS's "way of doing things" and that way doesn't work/scale in the real world once you take it out of a city block. This page and it's 20billion messages are proof of that. OWS will die off and if we're lucky, the responsible intelligent people who were made aware by OWS will go on to do things in a much better way.
Consider OWS's "Occcupy" tactics as Phase I (it really should have been phase 3 or 4 after (plan objectives, ensure our message is correctly representing those we say we are etc...) but hey, they're mostly non-structure oriented people so,..best intentions n all. NEXT. The next thing to do is to have an "ACTUAL" organization who's goals get defined by the people (that will take a while as to get input from the majority, but with the help of "all of us" it can be figured out. So really Building an infrastructure, coming up with a clear message, then coming up with ways to enact change would be the really rough blueprint. We talked about this in the thread: http://occupywallst.org/forum/so-much-of-whats-here-is-contrary-to-the-actual-mo/
OWS has such a bad rep in the public eye right now that having a party based on it would be counterproductive as the core tennants of the founders/movment became more mainstream knowlege, support from the average US citizen would dissapear.
Find the major party (Democrats, right?) most closely allied with Occupy's tenets and back it. Some pragmatism can go a long way.
I agree with your first paragraph. It seems OWS has its own little 1% within the movement. While it's disappointing, it's not really surprising, human nature and all.
The good thing about human nature is that there's a vast history of it. It boggles the mind that OWS would chose the methodology least likely to work and/or gain support by it's audience.