Comments on: The People Should Lead: The Meaning of the Occupy Wall Street Movement

By: Michael Corey

Michael Corey — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:13:00 +0000

Is there a point when the current demonstrations shift from attention getting to alienating policy makers and public opinion? In July of 1978, the American Journal of Sociology published a quantitative study by Paul Burnstein and William Freudenburg, Changing Public Policy, that dealt with the impacts of antiwar demonstrations and war costs on Senate voting. (Serendipitously, I happened upon it while sorting through my research files). The conclusions might be worthwhile considering relative to the current demonstrations. “Recent demonstrations seem to have moved the Senate in a dovish direction up through the time of the Cambodian invasion; after that, their impact became negative. In other words, those who claimed that the Senate responded positively to antiwar demonstrations and those who claimed exactly the opposite were evidently both partly right. Early demonstrations may have indeed had conscious-raising impact that their supporters claimed, but later demonstrations may also have had the alienating effect that many of their opponents claimed … Demonstrations are more effective for attracting attention than for providing detailed guidance on coalition building.”

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:21:00 +0000

Yeah, it’s just like Jesus said, “…for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I lost my 401k in a financial meltdown that was not my fault, and you said, ‘Not my problem.’”

By: Casey E. Armstrong

Casey E. Armstrong — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 04:00:00 +0000

While every day DC insightful analysis, I am increasingly concerned what seems to be an increase in ad homenim attacks, and comments that are antithetical to the original intention of this blog as laid out in the “About” section. In comments we are to strive for professionalism and civility. In analyzing the complex situations before us, we are to avoid the temptation to use one-sided arguments and distortions; we are to deliberately consider the situation. Controversial opinions are to be embraced, but our goal is to inform and understand. Controversy doesn’t need to be accompanied by incivility and divisiveness. This blog is something special, and we are all its stewards.

By: Keepingitreal

Keepingitreal — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 03:26:00 +0000

That’s because I’ve worked very hard to get mine without any government handouts, so yeah, you nailed it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 00:14:00 +0000

we are beyond reason here. You cannot look at what is being done through the lens of reason. They have spent the $ and they don’t know what the fu*k to do, so they argue against social safety nets. I am trying to think of an apt analogy to kids or teenagers— and I too tired, but you get the point. But we are are on round two with the devolution of Europe, so nothing is getting solved soon.

By: Casey E. Armstrong

Casey E. Armstrong — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 00:02:00 +0000

My greatest hope is that this is the progressive response to the Tea Party. In its inception the Tea Party had just as divergent group of grievants (deficit hawks, birthers, libertarians, anti-federalists, global warming and evolution skeptics…) with nothing to say but ‘no.’ I will reluctantly say that they have succeeded in forming a coherent narrative over the past several years — less government. With the AFL-CIO breaking further from Democrats perhaps there is an opportunity for a new political landscape emerging from the dissatisfaction with the gridlock in DC.

By: Casey E. Armstrong

Casey E. Armstrong — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:51:00 +0000

I have to agree that the movement has done a poor job defining what they are fighting for, and could benefit from more clear articulation. As Jeff Goldfarb explored in his studies of the Romanian revolution, it is simply not enough to say ‘no.’ A movement must also say ‘yes’ to something.

My interpretation is that “Wall Street” is both a symbol for inequitable wealth which threatens democratic society, and shorthand for the complicity of the financial sector in creating our current economic circumstances.

As a child of the rust belt I also am glad you pointed out the significance of the erosion of our industrial base. The problems of “Wall Street” are inevitably tied up in many larger issues. I am glad to see Americans on the “left” exercising their rights as passionately as those on the “right” have been. But I do hope that they are able to articulate their beliefs better as time goes on. A leaderless and goal-less movement sounds democratic in theory but, in my limited experience with such actions, it ends up creating cliques where the loudest screamers rise to the top (not a group of equals coming together to define a situation).

By: J Coles54

J Coles54 — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:40:00 +0000

Wall Street doesn’t use “their” money for power and control? Get real already! And if your 401k is wiped out in a financial crisis, I suppose you’ll think its nobody’s problem but yours. Probably not.

I would summarize your attitude as follows: “I got mine Jack, screw you!”

By: keepingitreal

keepingitreal — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:06:00 +0000

Im still trying to figure out how taking Wall Street’s money (you know, the thing everyone’s retirement (401k, etc.. is tied to) and giving it to politicians that will use the money for power and control, will solve anything. At least the money in the corporate hands will ensure that everyone’s mommy and daddy can afford to retire through their investments one day, meaning they can enjoy the end of their life without financial issues, then leave that money to you so you can do the same. Oh, was it your family that never planned nor invested for the future? Not my problem, and its damn sure not corporate Americas….

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:19:00 +0000

Those on the “right” have finally taken notice of the Wall Street protest, and for the most part, they are not happy about it one bit (as is evidenced by their typically derisive remarks). Ignorance is certainly playing a major factor. On “InfoWars,” the protesters were characterized as “totalitarian.” Their evidence? Despite the fact that the protesters, as do the majority of Americans, wish to raise taxes on millionaires, the author of the article in question pointed to a sign found in Liberty Park that read: “A government is an entity which holds the monopolistic right to initiate force.” The author took this sign at face value, as if the protester that made it was actually advocating for such a government, rather than condemning it. I found it hard to believe that anyone could have misunderstood so completely.