By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 25 November 2011
Edit Thread
richardhutnik said:
badgenome said:

That's the problem. Why are the protests directed at Wall Street for taking money and favors rather than at D.C. for giving it to them to begin with? To the extent that they are not merely a demonstration of inchoate rage by the flakier elements in American society, the OWS movement would seem to be a protest against corporatism. But since money always finds power, as long as the government retains the power to pick winners and losers, there will always be corporatism. OWS is generally in favor of a larger and even more powerful government, but they assume that it somehow won't be even more corrupt than the present one because they labor under the misguided belief that you can legislate away corruption. In reality, ethical consumerism and a higher wall of separation between government and business would be much more effective in attaining their purported goals.

Why not protest anywhere BUT DC?  If it gets into congress, due to their inability to act, they will then appoint a supercommittee to resolve the deadlock, which will then fail and things are they way they are now.  For there to be any change, there is going to have to be sufficiently large amount of public support for something to get congress to act in a certain way.  Protesting Wall Street is a symbolic way to mobilize.  Protesting Washington DC won't do much, because congress is currently at 9% favorable rating.

As far as getting "ethical consumerism" whatever that is (does it mean that you wait politely in line as you max out your credit card to buy made in China junk you don't need?) , how do you propose to get that by protesting Washington?  In the latest bit of rounds, Liberate Philly, in response to Occupy has decided to stage a BUYcott on Black Friday, where they want people to buy ever more stuff.  Remind me again how exactly consumerism becomes ethical through cries to buy more stuff mindlessly?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45416232


Congress's approval rate is actually one of those statistics that's wildly misleading.  Reason why?  There are a ton of them... only a few of which are actually elected by any particular person.

So while "congress" has a 9% approval rating.  The actual approval ratings of congressmen and senators in their districts are DRASTICALLY higher.  

I mean, haven't you ever wondered why it's almost impossible to replace congressment despite the fact that since 1974 congressional approval ratings only reached over 50's twice.    (In 2001 & 2002) 

Even then I think that was just due to a 9/11 bump.  Though granted congressional approval rating was rising before then so it probably of got there on it's own in 2001 since in 2001 it was like a 56% approval rating.

The congressional approval rating is so low because when you take into account regional interests almost nobody is just like "your guys."

So instead of symbolic and damaging to your message protesting (as can be seen by a meteoric cratering in OWS' support even considering support always drops off for protests.)

It'd be better if they did actual REAL mobilization and protested their local government officials.

Hell, that's likely why Occupy LA is trying to bribe them to leave.  Unlike most sites, Occupy LA is situtated DIRECTLY outside LA City Hall, because of the anger in general over the anger at being essentially the American version of Greece.  (Though, like the greeks they seem to be protesting more the result of needing austerity, rather then the cause for overspending.)

They want to win elections and hope the protests don't target them more directly.