OWS's Failure - A New Reason From the Gallup Poll

reply to post by butterflyowl

Dear butterflyowl,

Ok, I can agree with what you've said about the pull to the right. I can see two choices now, let me know if I've missed some. Either tear down the system, or persuade people to make changes in a more traditional way.

Sorry, but I can't see a revolution. If you can, I'd like to hear about it. But if we want to persuade people we need a good message and good presentation. Gallup seems to be saying that attacking Business isn't going to do it, so where do we go?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Here is the problem. You have a divide not only in a two party system, but also within society itself. You have the old guard that will vote and support their party regardless. You have a new generation that knows it needs to change, and are frustrated at how to accomplish it. The money machine rests with the old guard, so the issue then becomes how to change them so they are more aligned with whats right and just for the country so they will stop voting party lines out of loyalty to a particular party. Fix that and our country can begin to get back on the right track.

Originally posted by haarvik
I think this poll directly speaks to a lot of the responses I have seen on the various forums concerning OWS. A lot of members, myself included, have said all along that they were targeting the wrong thing. They should have been targeting the government. I think if government had been the target it would have gained more mainstream support and actually gained a lot more steam.

That is what I said all along. It should be "Occupy the Government".

I KNOW that business donates to government in order to get the benefits from their bought-and-paid-for-cronies in government. BUT we can't elect new businessmen, and we CAN throw out the corrupt politicians with non-corrupt... Change what we CAN (elected officials), and allow the rest to follow (no more special deals for special buddies).

reply to post by haarvik

Dear Haarvik,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the experience of the Tea Party show that having a good message will be sufficient, even without loads of money? That's my hope anyway. And if the right message will spread and grow on its own, what is the right message?

Has anyone that clicked the link noticed the drastic changes in the differences between Democrats, Republicans and Independents the years 2006, 2009, 2011 in what they feared the most?

Back in 2006 they were much closer together, and flash forward to 2011 and it's become obviously polarized (like this thread). It seems the trend is Republicans fear Big Gov, and Democrats fear Big Business. Both are a major threat and both are being spotlighted by their respective wings (Tea Party for Big Gov), (OWS for Big Business). Why not meet down the middle? I do not trust government for the life of me nor do I expect the "markets" to "regulate themselves". Surely there must be some middle ground?

Government is bloated and out of control. Wall street practices along with banking system is ripe with legal robbery (hand slap at worse). Wall street wants big government (just not regulation aspect), and Government want to keep Wall street the way it is (it's in their favor to keep it that way because of donations). Both need major overhauls and both are interconnected. Both OWS and Tea Partiers are limited in that they only see one side of the equation.

As for the OP, you start off by having a title which is divisive and go on to show that more people fear the government as if to say or imply that the Tea Partiers are right and the OWS are wrong. But if you think about the question itself why are people to fear big business? The informed ones certainly do, but most would agree that government with the power to take away your freedom, put you in debt forever, continue pointless (at least in their minds) wars and write laws that effect you personally are the ones to fear. How is prove any point when it's quite obvious? Again another example of partisan blindness.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

I like your thinking, would you go a step further for me? A lot of people are saying this will be a close presidential election, Obama does have certain advantages. To work your idea of changing things through voting, do we back one party over the other? (That has the advantage of being clear and easy.) Do we figure out some way of identifying all the corrupt politicians and target them individually? (That has the advantage of being focused.) Or, do you have something else in mind?

reply to post by charles1952


The government is just as much their target if not more so. People just don't know that because the news isn't reporting it. Occupy (not occupy wall street) is planning their biggest rally for D.C. in spring. Then we will really see how this all goes. Their message hasn't been properly portrayed by the propaganda media.

It isn't fizzling out though. There were thousands of protesters in Oakland yesterday. Why do you think it's fizzling out? Just because the news isn't reporting it anymore doesn't mean it's fizzling out.

reply to post by charles1952


Yes, you are correct. However, even with the strides the Tea party made, they still did not have a lot of the old guard on board. They made a dent, and who knows, maybe this go around it will have more of them. But to the point directly, the reason the TP gained so much so fast was that it did in fact target government. It was anti establishment, and also addressed the main issues that were foremost in peoples minds. Sure, people are fed up with corporate bailouts and bribed politicians. But to target a business segment didn't really sit well with most Americans. Why? Because they see an attack on them as an attack on their jobs, something they are not willing to mess with.

Now, for another movement to gain momentum like the TP did, they need to target government, and they need to take up the issues that most Americans can identify with and would be supportive of. A lot of them can be the same issues OWS was espousing. However, the grievances MUST be directed at DC, not WS. It also needs a leader, and it has to be focused on what the message is. A list of 20 some odd demands are not going to fly. You pick one or two, move forward and when those are addressed you work your way down the list. This is how you do it. The TP used it's momentum to oust a lot of insider politicians. The key is to keep replacing them if they fail to support Americans and our concerns. It may take a while, but sooner or later they will get the message, and if they wish to remain in DC they will have to tow the line.

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms

Please let me take you substantial thread in two parts; statistics first, then my partisan blindness.

I kind of wish you hadn't brought the statistics up. Reviewing them over time just discourages me.

First, here's the part I understand. 68% of Republicans feared Big Government in '06. Over 5 years that went up 14 points. Over the same period, fear of Big Business fell 12 points. Simple story.

And a simple story for the Independents. Their fear of Government went from 60% to 59% to 64%. Basically no change. And the same is true for their feelings toward Big Business.

The problem is the Democrat responses. Their fear of Big Government went from 55% in '06 to 32% in '09. TWENTY-THREE POINT DROP IN THREE YEARS! I welcome any other explanation, but the only thing that makes sense to me is "Big Government under Bush = Bad, Big Government under Obama = Not Bad." That makes me think they like Big Government if it's run by their guy. Meaning, they don't think Big Government is a bad thing.

If that's the Democrat attitude, and 82% of the Republicans currently have Big Government as their biggest fear, good luck finding a middle ground.

Let me give you a perspective on OWS from my neighbor. He is what I would term the old guard. Retired recently, and a conservative. He is not "plugged in" by any stretch. Doesn't even own a computer. His information comes the old fashioned way. Radio, TV and newspaper. You will find a lot of other Americans fall into this category as well.

Now, keeping this in mind, here is his take on OWS. He views it as a bunch of lazy hippies and ungrateful college kids looking for nothing more than some attention and a handout. He views them as dirty, unruly and disrespectful. Now, this is HIS view, not mine. What you have to remember is these people like him still believe everything the MSM tells them. They have no other mechanism to give them a different point of view. Sure you can say "they need to go see for themselves". But again, these are older people and they will not go there in person.

This view of OWS is what the average American has of the movement. Like it or not, that is what happens when you let people just mill about with no leadership and no focused goals. You can't have the drum beaters and the councils that try and be a headless organization. The older crowd still has too many fresh memories of the 60's and 70's and this reeks of that era to them.

So now you know the other side of the fence and how your movement is being viewed. Right or wrong is irrelevant. As they used to say, a picture says a thousand words, and those pictures are speaking volumes to the older generation, and they control the money and the clout.

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms

Dear chewingonmushrooms,

Let me respond to the "partisan blindness" portion of your post. May I say first that I had no intention of starting an argument, my goal was sparking a discussion. Let me explain.

I didn't think my title was divisive, I didn't mean it to be. It is not simply the lack of coverage by the press, but commentaries written by those inside and outside the movement that say they didn't accomplish what they wanted to. I took that as failure. Just like at the end of a game, you've lost or won. But the important part is that there is another game to play. Even in this thread, there is a looking forward to creating a new strategy that will result in better results. That's what OWS is doing.

The Tea Partiers are right and OWS is wrong? I don't think I've even hinted about that, What I have said, even in the title is that OWS picked a problem, Big Business, that few Americans relate to. That was a mistake.

But if you think about the question itself why are people to fear big business? The informed ones certainly do, but most would agree that government with the power to take away your freedom, put you in debt forever, continue pointless (at least in their minds) wars and write laws that effect you personally are the ones to fear. How is prove any point when it's quite obvious? Again another example of partisan blindness.

You're going to have to watch me here, because I don't think I've understood the message of this paragraph.

In my own, personal opinion, I fear Big Anything. Lord Acton taught me that. Are you arguing that it's obvious that most people fear Big Government, so my thread is superfluous? If it's so obvious that people fear Government, then how to account for OWS picking Business as its target?

And I have no clue what you mean by partisan blindness. Republicans and Democrats haven't meant anything to me in this thread beyond what you brought up with your very good point on the statistics.

With respect,
Charles1952

I welcome any other explanation, but the only thing that makes sense to me is "Big Government under Bush = Bad, Big Government under Obama = Not Bad."

Very interesting and valid point. I am not democrat, but I surely have noticed this myself and it really irks me. I HATE partisanship if you haven't noticed already, and I hate hypocracy. If you are going to vocal about something then do it because of the principle of it not because of some ideology.

But you see that's the problem with "team mentality" and standing by your partyline in that you close a blind eye to things when your "man" is at the helm, and become hysterical when the other team's man is at the helm. That's the silly (deeply rooted psychological) part about it. To the people that support Obama tell me how has his policies (the major ones) changed from Bush? To the people that supported Bush, tell me why is Obama the worse president ever !1! when Bush was pretty much went along the same road? I freaking hated Bush and I freaking hate Obama because he is more of the same.

You're going to have to watch me here, because I don't think I've understood the message of this paragraph.

What I was trying to say in that paragraph is that people instinctively are going to fear Big government more. Why? Because Big business can't put you in jail, cannot take away your freedoms (they can), cannot tax you, cannot prevent you from traveling etc.. only government can. So a person with little political knowledge, or understanding of world and national events (which is the majority of Americans I am sad to say) will view big business simply as a business (in other words neutral which it is not). But they don't need any context or understanding to see that if they break the law they go to jail. Government is real and tangible to them, big business and it's externalization of costs and damages is undercover and not so obvious to those that don't make the effort to research it themselves (example child labor, slave labor, environmental destruction etc.. are all hidden from the eye).

Most people when asked what is wrong with the country will say "crooked politicians" and when probed what the solution in the minds are will say "vote them out". They do not see the other side of big business meddling and preventing any real change from happening, thus they lack the totality of the whole picture.

TLR version. Government oppression is OVERT, big business oppression is COVERT. When polled the result doesn't surprise me at all.

As far as the partisan blindness part, my apologies I read your intentions wrong. Highly ironic I speak about the psychological process yet turn around and react in selective blindness myself. Thank you for the correction, sometimes we are not aware why we reach a certain way, but I believe that as long as we strive for the truth instead of "rightness" then we as a people will come a long way. Good day to you..

reply to post by haarvik

Dear haarvik,

Thank you for your series of thoughtful posts. You are pointing out, much better than I could, the problems and potential solutions for OWS.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms

Dear Chewingonmushrooms,

I don't want to be premature, but I THINK YOU"VE GOT IT! The answer to life, the universe and everything.

Remember your earlier post where you said "Why not meet down the middle?" (Or, something like that.) Why not apply that to your most recent post:

To the people that support Obama tell me how has his policies (the major ones) changed from Bush? To the people that supported Bush, tell me why is Obama the worse president ever !1! when Bush was pretty much went along the same road?

Pull together a list of things that both Presidents were hated for, and say OWS is against that! Maybe I've had too much coffee, but this looks great!

With respect,
Charles1952

Unfortunately protests start with a unity of perceived wrongs and morph into agenda lidden fringe topics and/or wing based rallying cries. Happened with Tea Party and it's happened with OWS. Not sure if it is self destructive or whether it is inflitrated, but either way the result is the same.

This us against them, or more deeply, viewing differences and not having understandings why those differences are there in the first place blinds us to believe that the only thing wrong with this country/world etc.. is "them" (as in outside of their click/posse). But that's a wrong sided approach IMO because we are all connected and are all one in the same. No one agrees on all points (thank God because this would be a boring owrld is they did lol), but a common ground approach is lacking and I believe we are manipulated that way on purpose. To point to universal problems like you say would certainly be the way to go, but what do you expect in a world (all of us including myself) where 2+2 = 5?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

I like your thinking, would you go a step further for me? A lot of people are saying this will be a close presidential election, Obama does have certain advantages. To work your idea of changing things through voting, do we back one party over the other? (That has the advantage of being clear and easy.) Do we figure out some way of identifying all the corrupt politicians and target them individually? (That has the advantage of being focused.) Or, do you have something else in mind?

And therein lies the problem. It's not as simple as one party over another. Both parties have great ideas in their platforms based on their philosophies, but BOTH parties also participate in crony politics. I identify most closely with conservative solutions, but that doesn't mean that I think we fix this by voting strictly Republican. It's obvious that the Republicans are JUST AS bought and paid for as the Democrats...look at Newt. Look at Obama. Yuck. Both of them are bought and paid for.

I don't know if we have TIME to find enough honest politicians for 2012, since we are already so far along in the election cycle. In the presidential race, Ron Paul seems to be one of the few who actually votes with his convictions rather than for the highest bidder. The main problem, though, is Congress. We've GOT to clean it up.

What we need to do is start a movement (NOT Tea Party OR OWS...also, one that is not partisan...and do NOT allow either side to take it over) with the best ideas we've got for getting rid of those corrupt politicians. Start by letting them know we are watching them...even those who are not up for reelection in 2012. That we will be keeping track of their votes AND who their campaign contributors are. Until we start watching individuals, letting them KNOW we are watching, and CALLING them on it, nothing is going to change.

This would have to be huge, and it would, as I said, have to be bi-partisan. It would have to be citizen driven, and our goal should be to strictly get the cronyism and favoritism out of politics. We get so caught up in making sure OUR party's platform gets advanced by voting along party lines that we will NEVER solve the problem unless we stop doing that. I'd vote for an honest Democrat over a crooked Republican.

PS: And the movement should ban both bongos and tri-cornered hats.

Dear Chewingonmushrooms,

"Hey, man, like, don't be a downer, ok? I'm feelin' real grooooovy." (Do people talk like that?)
"I want to believe." (Do people still say that?)

Can't we break our manipulation? Or, manipulate ourselves? I don't mean enlightenment, or anything like that. (Excuse me, but I am about to become incoherent.)

Can't we believe? Can't we try? We've got people on ATS saying they're willing to take a shotgun to any revenooers that come on their land. We've got Mr. Spooky Dude himself spending Billions to support change. With a little diplomacy we could have OWS and the Tea Party working together. Glenn Beck and Ed Schultz can get air time, why cant we? Think of what could happen if OWS, the Tea Party, and Ron Paul got together for a nationwide campaign!

Golly gee, Mr. Wizard, can we do it, huh? huh?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Here's how you do it.

First, get a few people together who don't follow party lines, they follow common sense and what's best for America.
Second, you have got to get them into some sort of discussion forum to bring the issues to light.
Third, once you have them in a dialog, then you have to get them on youtube (MSM won't give them time of day). From there, social media to spread the word. If the message is clear and concise, it WILL get attention and a following. However, it has to be a regular thing. Sort of like a 60 minutes or Meet the Press kind of format where they discuss current issues and address how we deal with them. By building this sort of forum, you will gain far more attention and support from the populace at large. It WILL start the dialog with people to effect the changes needed.

I see it this way, change (as in real change) is bound to happen in the near future. Too many systems are on the brink of collapse and too many notions held dear to so many (at the expense of their growth) will be brought to light (or illuminated if you like :lol. Many people are angry and many people are starting to realize that we are capable of so much more. At this point in time we will either transition into a form of communal moneyless society based on mutual work and happiness or a world that is totalitarian. Either scenario will require a massive reduction in population. For sure though the way of life that we have all become accustomed to will be changed for the better or for the worse IMO.

Dear haarvik,

Thank you, I needed a dose of reality and common sense.

Let me ask a few follow up questions. Are the people we find politicians? (Preferably retired? Or do we try for Ron Paul and a very few others?) Are they Academics? Bloggers? (Some have a pretty large following.) Existing think tanks? ATS? (Which might have a tainted, "tin foil" reputation.) Normal people? (Whatever that means.) Try for an OWS - Tea Party cooperative project? Something else?

This is leaving the realm of the academic for me and is starting to enter the realm of the practical. Let me ask about your other points later.

With respect,
Charles1952