Occupy the Electoral Process

I’m sorry, but this article comes across as clueless blather from a liberal who is in some sense part of the very political establishment that the Occupy movement rejects, and the author clearly has no idea what the Occupy movement is about. Although Democrats like Liz Novak would love nothing more than to co-opt the Occupy movement, what is so impressive about this movement is precisely what Novak and others simply fail to grasp.  The political system has failed us and the Occupy movement gets this.  And that is why the Occupy movement has resisted being co-opted up to his point. 

The Occupy movement rejects electoral politics because they realize that the system is broken, and Democrats are part and parcel of that broken system.  The fact that Obama was in 2008 the largest recipient of Wall Street donations of any Presidential candidate in history tells us precisely what is wrong with the system and with Novak’s own Democratic Party.  Her comment that “President Barack Obama does not offer a plan for the comprehensive social and economic transformation envisioned by the Occupy movement” incorrectly characterizes the issue because it misrepresents the problem at hand.  The problem with Obama is not with what he <i>doesn’t<> offer but rather with what he does—which is to say, his active support for corporate interests at the expense of the 99%.  Like a lot of liberals, she echoes a common nonsensical refrain that suggests “disappointment” with Obama for “not going as far as we would like”, when in fact Obama is part of the enemy ruling political class who is actively pursuing an agenda that is contrary to what the Occupy movement wants.  And he stands at the top of a party that she somehow thinks the Occupy movement should support?  Come on, get real.  That would be a sellout of everything the movement is trying to achieve.

The fact is that real power to effect change in our political system has always come by mass popular movements standing outside of the electoral process.  As Chris Hedges points out, the most powerful person in the US in 1968 was not an elected official, but rather Martin Luther King.  Hedges correctly points out just how broken the electoral process is, and has much more of value to say about OWS than Democratic Party apologists like LIz Novak.

Posted by Mike V on Jan 4, 2012 at 6:34 PM

As I sit here with gloves on because I can’t afford to turn on heat until it hits freezing in here,I am struck by the comments here trying to justify staying out of the electoral process. Martin Luther King voted. So did his followers and supporters. It was their power at the polls that brought about the fulfillment of the goals of the civil rights movement.  IF OWS supporters do not get involved with actually engaging individual candidates, they will have no one to blame but themselves when they become irrelevant, The TEA party certainly is involved and now wields near veto power in Congress.
I have participated in OWS and continue to in the cold weather operations.  I most certainly advocate picking concrete goals to engage in, such as calling and writing state AG’s about mortgage fraud and not settling with banks but prosecuting them.
Assisting in getting people registered to vote despite widespread efforts to intimidate voters and put de facto poll taxes on the right to vote IS in line with occupy goals of holding banks accountable. Sitting outside the lobby won’t change anything about accountability. Voting for people who agree to change their own way of operating in elected office is crucial to real change. The right to vote and have it matter was part of the goals in Tahir Square. Throwing away the most important right we have in this country, or advocating it,is narcissistic at best and helping the banks maintain the status quo at it’s worst
If you believe in the movement then take a stand politically as well. THIS is what Democracy looks like.

Posted by cruzecon on Jan 4, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Martin Luther King’s importance as the leader of a political movement has nothing to do with whether he voted or not.  It was his actions in the streets, not the voting booth, that made him so influential and important.

Both parties are agencies of the corporate ruling class, and Obama is a tool of corporate interests.  For an anti-corporate movement like OWS to support either party that represents that ruling class would be contrary to its principles.  I think it is really that simple.  When institutions of power are corrupt, the solution lies not in participating in those corrupt institutions but rather in challenging them.

I would argue that real democracy can only be built outside of the moribund institutions of power and the there-ring circus known as elections.  I believe that real participatory democracy, from the ground up, can build a new and radically democratic society.  Tahrir Square was a lesson in how easy it is to short circuit geniune radical democracy.  As soon as Mubarak was gone, the demonstrations melted away, while the military simply took control and re-established the same status quo that people fought against.  It is even beginning to look like Mubarak will get off scot free from the charges leveled against him.  The institution of the military still has solid control and acted to tame and co-opt the revolutionary movement in Egypt.  This is essentially the role that the Democrats want to play in the US—-to tame and co-opt the revolutionary power of the radical democracy from below that arises through Occupy Wall Street.  Democrats have historically short-circuited, co-opted, and tamed radical movements.  It is what they are good at.  That is why the Democrats are frequently called the graveyard of social movements.

The Tea Party movement is not some kind of mirror image of OWS and so it is apples and oranges to compare the two.  The Tea Party is a billionaire-funded movement that acted within the existing political structure and did not seek to overturn the institutions of power.  The Tea Party movement is just one element of an entire system that needs to be challenged—just as Obama is another part of that same system.

Posted by Mike V on Jan 4, 2012 at 8:38 PM

I am speaking of individual participation in the electoral process. I believe the movement itself should not advocate for any party.
I never compared OWS as a mirror of the TEA party. I pointed out that the movement moved into the political arena where they wield real power over policy and therefore over real people. Just look at the state ballots on “personhood at conception” or further restricting a woman’s right to choose, or the voter ID laws that target the elderly, the poor and the disabled for what amounts to a poll tax in getting the ID to vote. Some of these people have voted for over70 years and now may not be able to?
Voting is how things get changed. It really is that simple. Whether it is voting for a candidate or how that candidate now votes as our representative. We are a republic after all.
Martin Luther King understood that. What he did in the streets translated directly into how people voted - some against and some for what the movement was working towards. Make no mistake, the system is rigged because the corporations convince people their vote doesn’t matter. We have seen in Iowa what 8 votes could do.
We, as a movement cannot afford to cut ourselves off from a proven avenue of change -the ballot box. IF we really want democracy to work, it has to be more than a slogan, it has to be more than a general consensus it has to be individual change and participation.
I agree that the Democratic party has been coopted but that is no reason to abstain from voting at all. Change comes from within, and political parties are no different. IF, for instance, we can convince people to really take Bernie Sanders proposed Amendment to void Citizens United seriously then we have a foot in the door. He is an Independent. Kucinich is a voice of reason in the Democratic party. There are Republicans too, who when not being strong armed, have a good moral compass. That sense of morality has to be tapped into. You are right again that social movements - usually liberal or progressive come to the Democratic party for support and find themselves starved to death. But, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the solution to dirty politics. The so called Left is no more radical than those movements on the Right. Both challenge the status quo. IF we really want change then we have to use any and all means to accomplish that and if that means picking an imperfect candidate in November then it is our obligation to do so. Remember the next President will hold the future of the Supreme Court and thus the future of all social movements in his or her hand. If you think the police actions unleashed on OWS have been over the top just think what can happen if the Court does not strike down the NDAA provisions for indefinite detention. Voting does matter. It is one of our most important tools. We CAN influence candidates and we can effect change through the system as well as commenting and acting outside the established system.
As a veteran who entered that system with a goal of changing it to be more than it was when I entered it, I know that change can happen within a system. It worked then and it will work now, both within the system and as a force changing the conversation from outside the established system. Giving up our vote now, is giving it to the corporations. They are more than happy to have us not vote, in fact they are counting on it.

Posted by cruzecon on Jan 4, 2012 at 9:35 PM

I would argue very that the Tea Party did not challenge the status quo.  On the contrary, they supported the perpetuation of the corporate-ruled capitalist regime that has power in our society.  That is why they had billionaire support from the Koch brothers.  This same status quo is also what much of the “left” (which is to say, liberals) also support.  That is why Wall Street gives so much money to Democrats like Obama.  That is why corporate executives like Bill Daley or John Corzine are so comfortable in the Democratic Party.  Certainly this is what Obama is all about.  Only truly radical voices from the far left—people willing to talk, for example, about socialism—challenge the status quo—and they challenge it by not selling out to the two parties that represent the corporate ruling class.

I am not necessarily against campaigns for third party candidates as a way of expressing protest against the corporate-backed duopoly, and as a way of educating the public about issues that need to be raised.  But it is naive to believe that politicians of the two major parties will act on behalf of the interests of the 99%.  Republicans are just plain wacko,and Democrats suck the life blood out of progressive social movements.  We have a moribund political system that serves the interests of corporations.  If the system is what is wrong, then to continue to support that system is inevitably going to lead to failure.  What we need to do is build a new system from the ground up, rooted in truly participatory democracy.  We need to bypass the institutions that serve the corporate overlords.

Posted by Mike V on Jan 4, 2012 at 11:24 PM