Bill Clinton's point about OWS is sound

[cthulu2016]

He rejected the idea that OWS needs an actual platform, but said that the movement should have a handful of identifiable specific goals.

I think that is correct, given the history of movements. It is important to have some moments of distinct, objective victory to keep the narrative going. (And to make the media take notice that something measurable is happening.)

The bus boycott was a broad civil rights thing and a narrow objective thing -- the establishment gets to save face by undoing a rule about buses. The movement doesn't go away, but heads for the next target emboldened.

Same thing with student protests. They would take over the Dean's office and demand an end to the Vietnam War and the creation of a multicultural studies department. They would get the multicultural studies department and feel their effort had been well spent, while also advancing the inevitability of the goal of ending the war.

Gandhi picked fights he could win that were proxies for the larger fight. It's not like being forbidden to glean sea salt was the only objection to colonization. It was a narrow fight that could be won, to the benefit of the larger fight. To show that winning was even possible.

(I fear that quoting Bill Clinton may result in some negative reaction to this post but since his well-known comments led to this discursion it wouldn't have made sense to distance myself from them. And when being professorial he's not a dumb man.)

ON EDIT: I should have offerd this link to the comment in question:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/shahgilani/2011/12/06/the-rumors-about-bill-clinton-are-true/

[dionysus]

1. lol, questioning *anything* about OSW will get you flamed. toss in clinton, and we can have a bbq!

[vaberella]

13. ROFL... I totally agree. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. +1

[dionysus]

47. why i aughta.. karate choppin at me.. i'll answer with...

kickboxin!

<-- kickboxin'

[Taverner]

2. "handful of identifiable specific goals" Agreed.

I really wish they would have done that...

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. They have, just that the NYT will not bother

See post number four.

[randome]

53. So Bill Clinton is one of those who are easily fooled?

Like everyone else who disagrees with you.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. " How dare you " and the fact he was in Australia on 9/11

put him on my ignore list.fu Slick Willy

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. As I pointed out yesterday they do

And I get why he does not know this, media narrative is they don't

So for the upteempth time

1.- Get money out of politics, read this as citizens united. This is like top of priority list. You can't do shit really until that happens.

2.- Finantial reform, this includes student debt relief, fraud, glass Steagall and foreclosure crisis

3.- Medicare for all.

Points two and three switch back and fouth.

But those are the three major agenda items. If you read elite media, big dog does, you will not know this. The narrative is they don't have an agenda and don't know what they want. Never mind there is.

Point number four, in case you wonder, is environmental concerns.

Now individual occupies have also local concerns and this has also become a fight for free speech.

[Enrique]

9. but what do they want?

[Fire Walk With Me]

17. No one knows what they want!

http://presstv.com/detail/219582.html

[pinboy3niner]

24. You can't explain it!

--Bill O'Reilly

[cthulu2016]

10. Those are not realizable in a time frame that helps a movement grow.

That's like saying MLK's goal was racial equailty... of course it was, but what kept the movement going was a series of discrete victories.

Take some narrow things that can be done on the local level and that will plausibly be granted.

Then you get that moment that old folks will recall when somebody with a bull-horn addresses the crowd and says, "I have in my hand a letter from the dean/mayor/governor saying that the homeless don't need pictue ID to use the computers at the library, or company X has agreed to stop doing Y." And the crowd goes wild. [b}And the crowd does not then disperse, but is eager to sign up for more of the same. People are front-runners. They like victory.

The sort of objectives that civil disobedience wins because it is too much trouble to deny them.

That builds a pattern of victory that sustains a movement.

Meanwhile, the large objectives you cite remain as relevant as ever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Look at move to Ammend

And social movements are not stuck in the election cycle.

Civil rights took at least thirty years...the suffragists took fifty...getting rid of slavey took 120 years.

In our instant culture I get it, we want it now.

As is they are moving faster than other social movements, see move to Ammend and actual proposed ammendments in the House.

I get it that big dog has to rely on media narratives, which don't even recognize this. The rest of us do not have that safety/bubble excuse.

Oh and I forgot, they are also fighting city hall in minor ways. I have even reported on it, but somehow that's not considered news here... Seems silly procedural shit that involves free speech is not news.

[cthulu2016]

19. "Civil rights took at least thirty years...the suffragists took fifty..."

Yes... years with inumerable identifiable discrete victories along the way that maintain the movement and build the sense of inevitability that becomes the reality of inevitability.

In England the Suffragists were bought off time and time again... relentless incremental pressure that leads eventually to the eventual snap.

Ireland. India. Civil rights.

Heck, slavery was abolished incremetaly around the world, nation by nation and in subsets within nations. Even in the US we set a date to ban importation of slaves (a ban that was poorly enforced) in the 1780s.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. But to say they have no agenda is a media narrative

A non true one to boot. That's my point. This is not a political party with a biennial platform.

[cthulu2016]

26. We cannot sensibly accept that the media doesn't take it seriously

It's very true that the media doesn't care. It is also true that a mass movement without mass-media has a serious growth and sustainability cap.

If the media doesn't take it seriously then that fact must change. The media is manipulable. (Moreso than most institutions.)

[randome]

54. You are one thousand percent correct.

[Dewey Finn]

18. Your point #1 is excellent!

And I agree that nothing much else can happen until that's addressed. What's the route you foresee to getting that done?

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. The San Diego occupation is voting tomorrow

Whether to canvas for a state wide petition getting rid of it. I have not read the pettition yet, by the way, I suspect other occupies in Cali will vote for this, and most will reach consensus. This means deploying an army of signature gatherers to get this on the ballot.

They are also working with move to Ammend and other allied groups.

This is possible in Cali. I suspect other states will work within their systems to do this.

[Dewey Finn]

27. Thanks!

I'll be interested to hear what happens tomorrow.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. I'll have to watch it online

Or get the media blast...this cold is truly killing me.

But I think they will reach consensus. Just like they did in challenging the local muni code used to harrases them.

[fascisthunter]

55. THANK YOU! (nt)

[RKP5637]

5. Yep, agree! I also think it would give focus on some concrete doable goals for all

OWS supporters. I support OWS all the way, but I do wish there were some handful of identifiable specific goals everyone was driving toward.

At some point without that IMO it allows the opposition to tarnish your objectives, because the opposition will definite your goals for you and air them even though they were in no way yours, but they will use that to undermine a movement ...

... and the unknowing, of which we have millions in this country, will start to side with those spreading lies and falsehoods, because they are naive, gullible and uninformed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. See post number four

[RKP5637]

8. Thanks nadin, as always! When the weather warms up it will help a lot, it sort of got in

the way of things. To me, as the 2012 election nears, OWS will be a major focus for we in the 99%. I wish MSM were not in the way of everything when it comes to factual reporting.

[NancyRamirez]

11. I always thought...

The point of OWS was muddled at times but pretty clear on most points. Granted, the media did a bang up job of reporting it - the weeks of media blackout were a nice touch.

[Bruce Wayne]

12. You can never defeat a large machine attacking the head first.

You have to study your enemy, explore its weaknesess, maybe infiltrate it a little or develop informants who can help you plan out the way to exploit your enemy's vulnerabilities. OWS are good people, but they don't always think strategically.

Still, how can you not love these kids, when their hearts are clearly in the right place.

[wandy]

15. For the long term Clinton is right.

For now. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more, is the most important part of the message.
Spesific demands will only result with a few crumbs, followed by..... "There, why aren't you satisifed now"?
Leaders will only provide a target.
Just enough focus to keep things moving. Determin the most important/achievable goals.
Then focus on a target with the next targed planned.
For now simply gather forces and develop the orginasional skills to use those forces.

[orpupilofnature57]

32. Who does the 1% feed ,who do they starve ?

Who sucks up to ,lies for ,Enables them the most? Identifying the perpatrators ,WHILE their doing the crime is the only way to stop it ,simply Stopping It is the goal.

[JackRiddler]

16. Brutal repression of the protests has already set an important agenda item...

The right of the people, peaceably to assemble, must be restored and protected.

All else must and will follow.

On the big agenda, I think stopping foreclosures and forcing renegotiations of underwater mortgage debt (as well as other forms of injust personal debt) are the intermediary goals with the highest legitimacy, clarity and attainability. MERS can still turn into the badly-needed legal Waterloo for the criminal banks.

Otherwise, the points all along have been that many issues are related in one highly dysfunctional system and that the normal channels and institutions long ago lost legitimacy, forcing "occupy" as a strategy to be heard. (Without OWS, the public discourse and corporate media would have continued to indefinitely suppress the issues of poverty, wealth concentration and economic injustice.)

The most important thing of all is to come back in larger numbers as the weather improves and keep it growing the year round.

When the insolvency of the TBTF banks becomes obvious again - it's a question of when, not if - there is an excellent chance that OWS will explode in size and stop further bailouts. From their failure, massive changes to the system necessarily follow.

[cthulu2016]

21. I agree!

If Bonnie and Clyde could be folk heroes just for destroying loan documents while robbing banks there is ample precedent that the public will rally to specific bank vs. human being fights. And people being thrown off the homestead is highly sympathetic.

[Cleita]

22. I find the goals of the OWS movement pretty clear.

We need to get the corruption out of our system and set up a society that works for everyone, not just the 1%. I don't find that ambiguous at all.

I can understand the Republican propaganda machine trying to spread this echo of no clear goals, but I don't appreciate it when the Democrats join in. What would Clinton know anyway. He's a millionaire today and isn't close to the common people anymore.

[tledford]

31. Bingo. Bill is part of the 1%. eom

[orpupilofnature57]

41. Excatly ,hurtful but True

[randome]

56. It isn't a goal without a method to reach it.

'Get the corruption out of our system'? Who would disagree with that? Now how can we get that done?

That's what gets everyone riled about OWS. Its adherents want to make statements like the above without doing anything concrete to make it happen.

[Cleita]

57. How can they? It takes legislators to change things.

Otherwise you have revolution. The OWS is sending the message to the legislators to change those things and "get the corruption out of the system."

They would rather bloviate about them having no message. They know what the message is and they don't want to do anything about it.

[coalition_unwilling]

23. Not sure which OWS Clinton is referring to. The Demands and Objectives Committee of

Occupy Los Angeles released a set of 8 demands about one month before the raid busted up the camp. First on that list was a demand to "End the wars."

I posted about those goals extensively on DU2. I guess Clinton doesn't stay up to speed with DU

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. He is referring to the NYT version of OWS.

He is correct insofar as this media narrative has told him they got no goals. Sept 17, the New York Assembly published a statement of principles. For some reason the NYT never ran that.

[maggiesfarmer]

29. This is the BEST discussion of OWS that I've seen since I've started lurking on DU K&R

I need to read this more carefully, think, research and then reply.

quick thoughts without taking steps above n(it's Friday night, thinking has already become difficult):
- Clinton and OP are correct, movements succeed best with narrow, well defined goals (Bill is a credible speaking, IMO)
- OWS has not done a great job of getting the word out, if indeed these well defined goals exist
-- yes, I'm willing to suggest that PR is the responsibility of the movement and blaming MSM is a little too easy. yes they're biased, that's part of the problem. OWS knew MSM was biased and has yet to account for that in their PR strategy. not saying it's 'right', just saying they haven't succeeded here
- nadin listed some interesting points suggesting they are the goals (I've seen many of his posts but remain uncertain of his ability to claim to be able to state the intentions of the movement -- nothing personal, i'm a natural skeptic).
-- OP's comments to the effect of those goals being too broad are well put and salient
- I'm willing to give this subject much more thought and hope the discussion stays rational

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Nothing personal, but media bias is a serious problem.

And you got a bunch of primary sources here.

I mean, not like my media does anything but count arrests.

[maggiesfarmer]

33. you bet, and definitely nothing personal

you WON'T find many on this board that won't ACK bias in the MSM. my only point is that the OWS has failed to get out a consistent, well stated intention of their goal. Further, they knew about the bias and were unable to account for it. I'm not placing blame just pointing out what I see.

further, individual 'occupy' movements with the same tactics taking place at the same time with different messages are confusing the message. i'm not saying their messages aren't just as valid, just that all the rhetoric gets blended together

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. They have by creating a whole paralel media

Granted, I had that discussion with an occupier, it is just a different flavor of bias. It is like reading labor papers in the library.

The problem they are having, just like democracy now, is that unless you are part of the converted, joe and Jane six pack will stick to local "trusted source in news" never mind trusted will say things like " you thought occupy San Diego was strange."

Now they are starting to get a better coverage in places like Dylan Ratigan's show and Countdown has always been an ally.

We have media control in the us, albeit not government control. Getting through that has been a constant challenge for chiefly left leaning social movements.

[cthulu2016]

35. Spot on, re: media.

It's like when people complain that their candidate is being treated unfairly by the media.

It is a candidate's JOB to be treated well by the media. It's like a football team explaining that they only lost because the other team scored more points.

Of course the mdeia supports big interests. Everyone knows that going in.

If you have a comprehensible message and it isn't getting out then it is failing as a message. By the standards of a message, which is to be communicative and reach the intended parties.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. This is not a candidate here

That's a major error...

See the tea party even got more reporters than demonstrators. This shoud have woken people up.

[cthulu2016]

39. If a mass movement's job is not to get attention then why occupy at all?

There is a communication failure.

The media will not unilaterally decide to be better at their job.

Hence that communication must be better. It is not fair, it is just reality.

That's not blaming the victim. I will blame the media 24/7, but it doesn't change the practical equation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Here is the practical problem

Cops beat protestors, insert protestor here, really does not matter, every outlet and their sister will show up.

Protesters take on city hall...most likely zero will show up. And when one does I am told that is not news.

That is why they do things like occu-carrols, not covered by most media, occupy the corners, direct contact at busy corners, canvassing of local neighborhoods, not covered. And yes, going on national media like today at Dylan ratigan (move to Ammend) and countdown.

There is a concerted effort to keep people, yes even former presidents, uninformed.

This is also part of the arc. The logic is simple, if we diminish them, sooner or later they will go away.

For the record this shit is extremely predictable and a sign that something is not a grass roots, is the coverage the t parties got. Threatening movements are are always ignored.

[cthulu2016]

43. What's that progression? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...

...then you win.

I think that's how it goes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. And we are at the they fight you stage in some things

They laugh at you in others.



Goal one, citizens united, is national and not just OWS.

[randome]

50. Why the hell would the media cover 'occu-carols'?

And what is 'occupy the corners'? Does that mean standing on a street corner looking about?

LOL. If you want the media to notice you, start doing things instead of street theatre and proclamations and 'statements'.

My God, Bill Clinton himself -Zeus from Mount Olympus- is now telling OWS that it needs to get more specific and you STILL want to believe that the world simply misunderstands.

Incredible.

[randome]

52. You just make yourself look foolish when you do that.

Obviously it does nothing to stop me -or any of the other DUers, or even Bill Clinton- from stating what's on our minds.

[applegrove]

40. To teach about inequality could be a goal. To bond the 99% with each other could be a goal.

Goals don't have to be policy statements.

[madrchsod]

45. right now i`m far more impressed by what is going on in wisconsin

i think clinton is right. there does need to be identifiable goals.

what i have seen that the ows has done is unite the unions with the new social movement taking place across the country. i have over 20 facebook likes devoted to either ows or the union sites. during the 60`s it was unthinkable that we could get any union support to end the war or reform our educational institutions. today we are united against our common enemy. personally i think this movement is the strongest united front the country has seen in a long long time.

[maggiesfarmer]

46. this is an interesting point.

has anyone done a comprehensive compare/contrast of the 'Wisconsin movement' to OWS?

[Fire Walk With Me]

48. Wisconsin is more concentrated, with more people involved in one area

than any single #Occupy camp, excepting possibly #Wall Street at its maximum including those who attended and not just pitched tents. I could be seriously wrong on this, and will happily accept factual data!

Wisconsin is kicking ass. I love them dearly. #Occupy are working to raise those numbers and those awarenesses across the world, but it's only -truly- taking hold in places like Spain, Italy, Greece... Americans appear to require a problem to be sitting in their lap before they'll get up -together- to demand righteous change. I'm not being absolute, but the "austerity" measures with which they are punishing parts of Europe are driving the people into the streets. The same would/will happen here under similar circumstances. Wisconsin face such issues but in different form, and they are doing it right. Going to grass roots, going door to door, spending lots of time on the problem and collecting signatures in all sorts of bad weather, getting the word out, DOING IT.

I crave the day when the entire country gets it into its head and heart to follow suit regarding Glass Steagall, the purchasing of politics, income inequality, toxic loan modifications, etc. It would be a truly magnificent thing to witness, to be a part of. It's trending, but not yet hitting. Excepting perhaps for the young, who know they'll never get out from under piles of student loan in a market without adequate job opportunities. They won't be quitting any time soon. For them, "Za'ha Dum" (No future). What better basis is there? When will we join to support their futures, in strength?

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. First they are

My central labor council are part of the universe of allies to my locals for example.

Second, outside of WI there has been a concerted attack on unions that do...you might remember the national president of the SEIU was arrested in new York in nov 17, for example.

In WI is ten times as concentrated though.

[kurt_cagle]

58. Objectives vs. Platform

I have, over the years, been a part of a number of different protests, marches, and rallies, with some in the 100s of thousands of people. Most were inspiring - being a part of something bigger than yourself almost always is - and the street theater and creativity on display was always amusing and heartening. And yet, at the end of the day, it was preaching to the choir - it did not change opinions, it did not get people elected, in most cases if these events were displayed on the evening news, there was always very careful editing to show the smallest, nastiest collection of people, almost invariably followed up (or preceded by) the "opposite" view point of the ten right-wing fundamentalists who showed up to counter-protest.

In that regard alone, OWS has made a difference. The MSM overall has been forced to cover them because they have refused to stay invisible, but are of course doing what they can now to belittle them, to show them as drug addicts and homeless bums, or to castigate them for their hypocrisy. Yet for all that, OWS continues to gain support, both on the Internet (where the MSM has a much harder time spinning the message) and even in more and more outlets of the press, especially the press that isn't firmly under the right wing thumb. This by itself is far more threatening than any platform, and in many respects, by keeping the manifesto relatively vague, it makes it harder for the MSM to counter the message, because the real message is that real people are beginning to rebel against a right-wing dominated agenda.

OWS is not yet fielding candidates, because it's not a political party. Political parties outside the Rs and Ds are marginalized. OWS is probably more closely aligned to the progressive Democratic faction, and I do not doubt that many in the OWS movement are in fact working with their local Democratic caucuses in order to push forward those who might be electable and who respect the goals that OWS is trying to achieve, but in this regard it's no different than a church or organization on the right doing the same thing. The Evangelical Baptists generally do not put forward a political platform, primarily because they legally can't without becoming a political party in name as well as in fact. I think there are enough people in OWS who recognize this that clearly defining its "platform" will be counterproductive.

Finally, re: Bill Clinton. This is the man who spearheaded the creation of NAFTA, who allowed Glass/Stegall to be dismantled, and who was a founding member of the DLC. Many of his advisers went on to become advisers to Obama, who went from being a moderately progressive candidate to a very centrist president on the strength of that advice. Frankly, the advice they provided was disastrous. NDAA aside, there is some evidence that for the first time in a while Obama is moving beyond these beliefs (most of these advisers have since left, and the people he is picking to replace them are considerably less centrist). I would take anything Bill Clinton says with a large amount of salt.

[cthulu2016]

59. About the Clinton thing

Everything you say is true, of course. But there is a distinction to be drawn. I think that Bill Clinton identifies strongly with OWS while having done everything you describe. That's a paradox of power.

I'm sure Obama would also rather be on the side of "the littles" emotionally, even though he often is not in practice.

So I do not assume that Clinton's comments are subtrefuge intended to hurt OWS.

And he does know a lot about what makes groups of people do things and hold attitudes. So to me his abstract analysis of how things work in political life (not just electoral life, but politics writ large) is not presumptively erroneous.

That doesn't make it right. Just not dismissible out of hand.

[pinboy3niner]

60. Something else Bill Clinton said about OWS: “I think what they’re doing is great"

“I think what they’re doing is great. Occupy Wall Street has done more in the short time they’ve been out there than I’ve been able to do in more than the last eleven years trying to draw attention to some of the same problems we have to address."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/shahgilani/2011/12/06/the-rumors-about-bill-clinton-are-true/

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Dopey me, I forgot that section

Thanks...