OWS--I am a little confused

[Velleity]

I am totally behind the OWS movement, but there is a strong element of the PL and then there also seems to be a Ron Paul component and I can't stand those assholes.

How do we reconcile this?

[There Is No Spoon]

[KonaKane]

I'm aware of the PL element (who I simply consider to be a pain in the ass), but Ron Paul? That's a fresh one, and caused a giggle or two. How on earth could Ron Paul seriously lay any anchors in OWS?

[Velleity]

(11-28-2011 05:45 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  I'm aware of the PL element (who I simply consider to be a pain in the ass), but Ron Paul? That's a fresh one, and caused a giggle or two. How on earth could Ron Paul seriously lay any anchors in OWS?

The ones I encountered were scornful at first but they made a connection with movement against the bankers.

Remember that Ron Paul acolytes are conspiracy theorists and they have the whole anti-Fed thing going. They also have the whole crap about how there is tungsten and not gold in Fort Knox.

They're out of their minds batshit crazy Kona. What can I tell you?

[RoyGBiv]

(11-28-2011 05:12 PM)Velleity Wrote:  I am totally behind the OWS movement, but there is a strong element of the PL and then there also seems to be a Ron Paul component and I can't stand those assholes.

How do we reconcile this?

When you name yourself "the 99%" you're going to get those because they're kinda sorta part of it.

[Velleity]

(11-28-2011 06:57 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(11-28-2011 05:12 PM)Velleity Wrote:  I am totally behind the OWS movement, but there is a strong element of the PL and then there also seems to be a Ron Paul component and I can't stand those assholes.

How do we reconcile this?

When you name yourself "the 99%" you're going to get those because they're kinda sorta part of it.

That's a very good point about how it came to be, but my question was how do we reconcile this?

I can't control them. Nor can I trust them.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-29-2011 09:22 AM)Velleity Wrote:  That's a very good point about how it came to be, but my question was how do we reconcile this?

Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "reconcile." The way you phrased it seemed to imply something along the lines of how we reconcile being supportive of a movement that has people in it who are critical of Obama. If you mean something different from this, please let me know.

But on that question, I don't think you do reconcile it as such. The minute you try to enforce detailed ideological purity into a mass movement that is not strictly tied to the movement's goals, it will begin to splinter into a lot of ineffective subgroups.

The art of politics is the gathering together of people with differing specific views on various issues who all seek an overarching common goal. Not many people do this well anymore, but the OWS leaders have done a fairly good job of it. *We* don't need to do anything but let them keep doing it.

Quote:I can't control them. Nor can I trust them.

People and groups are going to attach themselves to whatever is popular if they can. You can't stop it. You just have to keep them from taking over. Part of that is not assuming that they have taken over just because they put themselves on the teevee in support of whatever it is we're talking about. Their assumption of power often begins with our own assumptions of what power they already have.

[Velleity]

(11-29-2011 01:17 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(11-29-2011 09:22 AM)Velleity Wrote:  That's a very good point about how it came to be, but my question was how do we reconcile this?

Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "reconcile." The way you phrased it seemed to imply something along the lines of how we reconcile being supportive of a movement that has people in it who are critical of Obama. If you mean something different from this, please let me know.

But on that question, I don't think you do reconcile it as such. The minute you try to enforce detailed ideological purity into a mass movement that is not strictly tied to the movement's goals, it will begin to splinter into a lot of ineffective subgroups.

The art of politics is the gathering together of people with differing specific views on various issues who all seek an overarching common goal. Not many people do this well anymore, but the OWS leaders have done a fairly good job of it. *We* don't need to do anything but let them keep doing it.

Quote:I can't control them. Nor can I trust them.

People and groups are going to attach themselves to whatever is popular if they can. You can't stop it. You just have to keep them from taking over. Part of that is not assuming that they have taken over just because they put themselves on the teevee in support of whatever it is we're talking about. Their assumption of power often begins with our own assumptions of what power they already have.

What I meant to do was provoke some thought and some discussion. One definition of reconcile is "Cause to coexist in harmony; make or show to be compatible." Yes, the anti-Obama parts of OWS are something I have a problem with and I assume you have that problem too.

The harmony has to be in our own minds. We aren't going to change them. I just have a bit of the problem with the cognitive dissonance.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-29-2011 03:38 PM)Velleity Wrote:  What I meant to do was provoke some thought and some discussion. One definition of reconcile is "Cause to coexist in harmony; make or show to be compatible." Yes, the anti-Obama parts of OWS are something I have a problem with and I assume you have that problem too.

Oh, it's not going to be harmonious. When you put two people in the room who hate the same thing but have different ideas on what caused that thing to come into being and further what to do about it, you're going to have conflict. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Your intent was to provoke thought and discussion; we get thought and discussion from disagreement.

That said, a distinction needs to be made between those who have principled disagreements and those who are attempting to exploit the movement ironically, that is attempting to insert themselves in it for personal profit or with the ultimate goal of blowing it apart. I think we have people of various persuasions who are attempting that. We don't need to accommodate these people. We need to point at them and laugh.

[Velleity]

(11-29-2011 03:46 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(11-29-2011 03:38 PM)Velleity Wrote:  What I meant to do was provoke some thought and some discussion. One definition of reconcile is "Cause to coexist in harmony; make or show to be compatible." Yes, the anti-Obama parts of OWS are something I have a problem with and I assume you have that problem too.

Oh, it's not going to be harmonious. When you put two people in the room who hate the same thing but have different ideas on what caused that thing to come into being and further what to do about it, you're going to have conflict. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Your intent was to provoke thought and discussion; we get thought and discussion from disagreement.

That said, a distinction needs to be made between those who have principled disagreements and those who are attempting to exploit the movement ironically, that is attempting to insert themselves in it for personal profit or with the ultimate goal of blowing it apart. I think we have people of various persuasions who are attempting that. We don't need to accommodate these people. We need to point at them and laugh.

Constructive conflict can be very positive but we have experienced not so constructive conflict with these people. I would like to see it become more constructive but again I don't trust them.

My current thinking is that next year could cure a lot of our ills. I wish I had more certainty.

[sandnsea]

At this point I think they've become TUS, The Usual Suspects. If they had stayed focused on one unifying issue, like the banks and the fraud and the predatory mortgages, we might could have gotten somewhere. The Ron Paul contingent might have even learned a thing or two and realized why they aren't really behind Ron Paul because they don't really want to pave their own streets and have no stop lights or speed limits on them. After reading the list of demands, that really smacks of a prison riot, I just sighed and hope for some outside event to create another spark like the $5 debit fee did.

I was reading on Michelle Malkin the other day about an immunization contract to some lab. Oh they were all going on about cronyism and government waste and abuse. lol, really, over that but not billions lost in the defense dept. Anyhoo, I checked it out and it was a contract started in the Bush Administration that is going to a company working on a new method of growing the cells to make the immunizations. Routine stuff that really is non-partisan. The right wingers had no clue it was first awarded back in 2006 or something, and didn't care at the time. But now they care about cronyism. Point is, they probably do care about cronyism, they just get lied to so much they actually think Democrats are guiltier of it than Republicans. When we get something we all hate and that is simple enough to grasp, like a $5 debit card fee, then we find out how much alike we actually are, at heart.

[KonaKane]

Ron Paul has been trying to co-opt every populist issue I can think of over the years, just to try to grow his seemingly ungrowable movement and to watch his doe-eyed followers sing his praises in every form of media. I don't know whether to laugh or to puke when I see people so cleave to him just because he was against a war or two and wants pot legalized. They seem to ignore things like his suggested solution to hurricanes like Katrina ("handle it like Galveston in 1900" - no government relief funds, people can die in the street). He's a disgusting little man who is also a major hypocrite seeing that he has made a career off of the public dime since 1973.

I look at Ron Paul elements in OWS like a turd in the pool: all you can do is try your best to fish it out without scaring the swimmers out of the water.

[Velleity]

(11-29-2011 12:05 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Ron Paul has been trying to co-opt every populist issue I can think of over the years, just to try to grow his seemingly ungrowable movement and to watch his doe-eyed followers sing his praises in every form of media. I don't know whether to laugh or to puke when I see people so cleave to him just because he was against a war or two and wants pot legalized. They seem to ignore things like his suggested solution to hurricanes like Katrina ("handle it like Galveston in 1900" - no government relief funds, people can die in the street). He's a disgusting little man who is also a major hypocrite seeing that he has made a career off of the public dime since 1973.

I look at Ron Paul elements in OWS like a turd in the pool: all you can do is try your best to fish it out without scaring the swimmers out of the water.

I see Ron Paul and his acolytes as being much like Larouchies.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-29-2011 03:39 PM)Velleity Wrote:  I see Ron Paul and his acolytes as being much like Larouchies.

An apt comparison. I suspect there's some overlap.

I suggest leaving them marginalized and mostly ignored, though pointing and laughing can't be helped from time to time. I worked with a disciple of Saint Lyndon. That man was an idiot but one of the best researchers I'd ever worked with. I guess you kinda have to be to try to find all this obscure insanity they come up with.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

(11-29-2011 12:05 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Ron Paul has been trying to co-opt every populist issue I can think of over the years, just to try to grow his seemingly ungrowable movement and to watch his doe-eyed followers sing his praises in every form of media. I don't know whether to laugh or to puke when I see people so cleave to him just because he was against a war or two and wants pot legalized. They seem to ignore things like his suggested solution to hurricanes like Katrina ("handle it like Galveston in 1900" - no government relief funds, people can die in the street). He's a disgusting little man who is also a major hypocrite seeing that he has made a career off of the public dime since 1973.

I look at Ron Paul elements in OWS like a turd in the pool: all you can do is try your best to fish it out without scaring the swimmers out of the water.

ROFLOL...Ayup, like moths to a flame, RP's contigent is anywhere video cameras are. I mean remember the rEVOLution??? Wtf does love have to do with ron let him die Paul

[There Is No Spoon]

An overarching theme in political discussion these days seems to boil down to "believe what I believe or get away from me." Politics wasn't like this when I was younger. I understand fighting fire with fire, but just remember we're all going to burn if we don't learn to deal with people who have differing perspectives/priorities but essentially the same goals.

[Velleity]

(11-29-2011 04:10 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  An overarching theme in political discussion these days seems to boil down to "believe what I believe or get away from me." Politics wasn't like this when I was younger. I understand fighting fire with fire, but just remember we're all going to burn if we don't learn to deal with people who have differing perspectives/priorities but essentially the same goals.

I don't know Spoon. Politics has always been a nasty business in this country.

There is a tilted "whisper room" in the Abraham Lincoln museum in Springfield, Illinois. When I walked through there I swear it could have been the same crap that was being thrown at President Obama.

Of course information is circulated much quicker nowadays and the news cycle is shorter. I also think we're in a period of incredible polarization, particularly on the right.

Where are the Republican moderates? E.J. Dionne has a good column about this today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/d...story.html

[There Is No Spoon]

(11-29-2011 04:23 PM)Velleity Wrote:  

(11-29-2011 04:10 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  An overarching theme in political discussion these days seems to boil down to "believe what I believe or get away from me." Politics wasn't like this when I was younger. I understand fighting fire with fire, but just remember we're all going to burn if we don't learn to deal with people who have differing perspectives/priorities but essentially the same goals.

I don't know Spoon. Politics has always been a nasty business in this country.

There is a tilted "whisper room" in the Abraham Lincoln museum in Springfield, Illinois. When I walked through there I swear it could have been the same crap that was being thrown at President Obama.

Of course information is circulated much quicker nowadays and the news cycle is shorter. I also think we're in a period of incredible polarization, particularly on the right.

Where are the Republican moderates? E.J. Dionne has a good column about this today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/d...story.html

Didn't you essentially just answer your own question?

Did you see the survey of the Senate that this group has been doing since I was a kid in the 60's? It shows that the Senate was 55% (IIRC) moderates when the survey was first conducted and has exactly "0" moderates now.

So yes, politics has changed significantly in this country since I was a kid.

[Velleity]

(11-29-2011 04:29 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(11-29-2011 04:23 PM)Velleity Wrote:  I don't know Spoon. Politics has always been a nasty business in this country.

There is a tilted "whisper room" in the Abraham Lincoln museum in Springfield, Illinois. When I walked through there I swear it could have been the same crap that was being thrown at President Obama.

Of course information is circulated much quicker nowadays and the news cycle is shorter. I also think we're in a period of incredible polarization, particularly on the right.

Where are the Republican moderates? E.J. Dionne has a good column about this today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/d...story.html

Didn't you essentially just answer your own question?

Did you see the survey of the Senate that this group has been doing since I was a kid in the 60's? It shows that the Senate was 55% (IIRC) moderates when the survey was first conducted and has exactly "0" moderates now.

So yes, politics has changed significantly in this country since I was a kid.

Everything changes except, perhaps, human nature. We don't seem to get any smarter.

I didn't answer my own question, at least not in any way that satisfies me. I guess I shouldn't say "we" but you and I and most of us here are so much on the same page that I feel I can do that.

I am not sure what the 0 moderate thing means. I see Democrats as being moderate and Republicans with few exceptions being the extreme right. But that doesn't really address my question here.

My question comes after listening to a few OWS spokespersons (to the extent they can be spokespersons) trashing President Obama and other Democrats in a way that I find to be unfair and unproductive. I saw this and while I absolutely agree with OWS I am wondering how I can reconcile the unfair and unproductive and unwise blather with my support for OWS.

This theoretical reconciliation is supposed to take place in my own mind but, as I say, we here are of such like minds that I phrased the question as being in our minds.

I suppose the only answer is to ignore the blather? I have always known that our success has to come with some compromise with these people regardless.

But I have trouble with that. Not a whole lot of trouble, mind you. But still I do see it as cognitive dissonance.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-29-2011 04:23 PM)Velleity Wrote:  There is a tilted "whisper room" in the Abraham Lincoln museum in Springfield, Illinois. When I walked through there I swear it could have been the same crap that was being thrown at President Obama.

Oh, it was a lot of the same crap, but there's a major difference. Excepting southerners and people like Clement Vallandingham, those who flung the poo still worked with him. Benjamin Wade thought right up to the day Lincoln died that the President was a moron, but he still worked with him and tried to craft legislation that he knew the President would support.

The 37th Congress is an interesting study of this point and the one TINS makes in response here. Despite what the mythical narrative tells use, the US Congress during the Civil War was *not* dominated by radicals. It was dominated by moderates who were far greater in number than radicals among either Republicans or Democrats. The direction that Congress took was dictated by which way the moderates went.