OWS: Not the flag but the occupation of buildings

[Yo_Mama]

If this poll is right, OWS Oakland's recent tactics aren't helping the movement in San Francisco:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/01/31/cbs-5-poll-occupy-movement-losing-bay-area-support/

Here is the breakdown of the poll:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=1dd2e8b1-38aa-456a-b000-c1ab1639f64d&d=0

71% of those polled opposed the attempt to take over vacant building's for OWS' use.

I don't think OWS will gain anything with strategies like this. There is a huge peril if the people in the movement are only talking to each other and ignoring the public, because OWS must build public support if it wants to be an agent of change.

[TheWraith]

1. Nope. It's boneheaded and incredibly damaging.

And it's the direct result of the "OWS can do no wrong/criticism is an attempt to undermine the movement!" fervor/paranoia that convinced people it was a good idea to turn the entire premise into a fight with cities over camping instead of anything concrete.

[Joe the Revelator]

2. This is why movements need leaders...this entire thing...

Has been mismanaged from right around week 3. Such a shame, such a lost opportunity.

[MadHound]

3. Funny, I imagine that the same percentage opposed it back in the sixties,

When anti-war protesters occupied various college campuses. You know what, it paid off and helped end that war.

[EFerrari]

5. No kidding. Good thing CBS didn't run an intertube poll

on the sit ins at Columbia. lol

[Yo_Mama]

8. Please look at the poll

I have a lot of respect for you.

According to this poll, 26% used to support OWS and now don't, and only 3% have converted to supporting OWS. That's going the wrong way.

I don't think that the anti-war movement back then is a good analogy to the current situation, because everyone knew what the goal was back then - to stop the war.

OWS is a movement that should not only be mobilizing and expressing the widespread dissatisfaction with our government's support for the interests of the few, but also MUST set forth a few concrete goals as to how to correct that.

[EFerrari]

12. Your argument is unconvincing.

Especially based on one poll set in the context of 24/7 anti-OWS propaganda.

And back then, contrarians said exactly the same thing you're saying now. "So we stop the war? Then what? These anti-war people have no concrete answers".

[FrodosPet]

20. They stopped -A- war

And yet, things got even more militaristic in the aftermath.



Rather than centralized "shows", what about people going door-to-door, explaining the problems to individuals on a personal basis, and discussing positive action for a change? It's easier to dismiss a distant group than a present individual.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

17. Yes, when the students shut down the campuses and the profs. and students

held teach-ins, people were in favor of those actions. But the students didn't get support, when they destroyed things. I know I was there.
The war ended because we lost it.

[onenote]

22. more precisely, the war ended 'cause mothers got tired of their kids being sent to an unwinnable war

Comparing the anti-war movement to OWS is comparing two different types of movements from two different times.

[Luminous Animal]

4. All movements start off "talking to each other."

Do you honestly believe that the labor movement, the civil rights movement, and the women's movement had mass appeal at their inception. I look at this as a decades long movement.

[EFerrari]

6. We wouldn't want to upset anybody.

[Luminous Animal]

11. :)

[Bonobo]

7. If protests were designed to garner the approval of everyone...

Last edited Thu Feb 2, 2012, 04:56 AM - Edit history (1)

They could just collect cute kittens and bring them around to schools, nursing homes and the like.

But that is NOT the way protests are done.

So, this "concerned survey" is really based on a quite faulty premise now, isn't it?

As is all the concern expressed over losing the support of people that don't support them anyway.

[Yo_Mama]

10. No, what concerns me is the conversion to non-support

Look at the poll results:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=1dd2e8b1-38aa-456a-b000-c1ab1639f64d&d=0

If 26% used to support OWS in the SF area and now don't, and only 3% didn't support OWS and now do, the protest would seem to be mobilizing public opinion AGAINST OWS. That's not good.

Right now there is almost no other visible focus other than OWS for the crux of the problem - over the last two decades, government got in bed with big banks and speculative finance, and most certainly is still there. Unfortunately, it is the people who are getting screwed! This must change.

If OWS convinces the public that their protests are all about OWS, then they will lose public support.

[sudopod]

13. They've been at it four months.

If we're willing to give the President three years (and quite rightly so), I think we can afford to see how it plays out before we start in with the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Moreover, there's nothing OWS can do about the idiot media except for building their own.

[JDPriestly]

18. Protests are not successful unless they make most people feel uncomfortable.

Can you imagine how the majority of people felt when African-Americans marched in Selma and integrated lunch counters. The majority of white Southerners were frightened and angry. To avoid having to take responsibility for their own terrible conduct, they blamed what was happening on outside agitators.

African-Americans of course supported the movement but they were nervous and worried about what would happen if the movement failed. People, both white and African-American were killed and jailed.

The civil rights movement made people feel very uncomfortable. And the race riots in big cities? Do you think they were popular. They were much more violent than anything OWS has done.

OWS is about issues just as important as civil rights, but when people demonstrate, point out injustice and fight for change and simple fairness, it frightens most people.

The lower approval scores are the sign that the Occupy movement is crossing into the comfort zones of a lot of people. This is OK.

The important thing is that the ideas and language of the OWS movement are becoming mainstream. Without crediting the movement, politicians and newscasters are having to deal with the issues that have been raised by OWS.

That was precisely the way it worked with the civil rights movement. First the majority of people reacted with curiosity, then fear, then vehement disapproval of the "extremists." Then gradually people acknowledged that maybe the civil rights protesters had a point.

And of course then legislation was passed that started real change for the better. It took years to get as far as we are today, and we have by no means achieved a truly colorblind society.

And so, the OWS has met with approval among the majority of Americans faster than did the civil rights movement in the South. The grievances that OWS is dealing with are nearly universal, and the ideas of the movement are becoming part of our national vocabulary. They are being absorbed into our national consciousness.

The approval statistics are exactly what we should expect. No one should worry.

[inna]

19. terrific post, thank you for the great insight!

(that's why i still love DU... at times)

[FrodosPet]

21. RIOTS? What did the 1967-1969 riots gain for Detroit?

Besides burned out buildings (some of which are still standing useless 45 years later) and a reputation (alas, not wholly undeserved) as one of the most dangerous places on earth?

[JDPriestly]

30. I condemn the rioting, but I understand that it is common

when you have an economy that is bad, social injustice and police repression.

We had riots in the early 1990s in LA. They were associated with the Rodney King arrest and the police excessive force that was shown on the video of that arrest.

It's just a recurring phenomenon. It is counterproductive but it is a sign of desperation. Let's hope that authorities take the OWS concerns seriously. I think Obama is. And even Romney referred today or yesterday to being on the side of the 99%. OWS is bringing the major social issues in our society to the forefront. I think that is their goal, and they are succeeding.

You will always have impatient nuts who want to be a part of a strong movement. It happens over and over in history. So we should focus on what OWS is achieving. The police will take care of those who overstep.

I have to say again that there are longstanding problems in Oakland regarding excessive use of force and bullying by the police. That is a specific problem in a specific city. New York also saw a lot of that sort of thing. There was a little of it at the closures of all of the OWS sites, but most of the police, I believe, tried to be careful in their use of force. And most of the demonstrators were nonviolent -- the commitment to nonviolence on the part of the demonstrators is very impressive to me.

The burning of the flag is completely inconsistent with what OWS is about. Very strange. It just does not make sense.

[Yo_Mama]

28. People are already hugely uncomfortable

OWS has no need to arouse discontent.

People, en masse, are hugely uncomfortable. They are worried about the future, and they are worried about the present.

The young are worried about jobs and loans, the middle-aged are worried about everything, and the old are worried about retirement, and rightly so. The level of economic and social insecurity in this country is very high, and that is so not because of Zeitgeist but because of real problems playing themselves out in the lives of the average person and the average person's circle of associations.

People want change. They are not getting it. OWS' purpose ought to be to crystallize the belief that we can truly change to work out a better future. The very last thing OWS needs to do is generate suspicion of its own motives among the general population.

OWS, if it fails, is not the only game in town and will just die a death of deserved obscurity as the focus of people's discontent and desire for change moves to other avenues. However there is a real danger that the other avenues might not be good ones that advocate for healthy change. But OWS, right now, is a movement that still has the capacity to crystallize and articulate a groundswell of desire for true reform, and so it has been a good thing.

However that good thing will change to a bad thing very quickly if OWS adopts tactics that convince the general public that the police are at least somewhat right, that the protesters are unrealistic, and that OWS goals do not serve the majority interest.

The majority of people don't support OWS right now, and OWS is losing support on certain tactics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Well some folks would have problems with this

(Warning, cute kittens)



I mean, some of us are ALLERGIC to the furry ones.

[chrisa]

24. Isn't the point of a protest to persuade people?

Not just send messages to people who already agree with you? If you were going to do that, you really wouldn't need to protest in the first place.

[Taverner]

9. There is a huge difference between vandalism and violence

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

16. And the Occupy movement shouldn't condone either.

Neither one will build the movement.

[Taverner]

26. I disagree. Sometimes vandalism is a must.

Even Jesus thought so...

[wiggs]

15. This is a way to build public support

see occupy identity project at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002247693

[Zorra]

23. Democrats lose control of the House as voters slam Obama with worst losses for 62 years

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326053/MID-TERM-ELECTIONS-2010-Democrats-lose-House-Republican-tsunami.html


Good question, isn't it?

Maybe it's the relentless onslaught of RW MSM media propaganda?

[lunatica]

25. OWS still has everyone talking though doesn't it?

And talking about the right things. The Truth being one of them.

[morningfog]

27. Exactly. They have been incredibly effective at staying relevant and in the headlines.

They are months into it and still changing the dialogue. Thanks to Occupy, not only has inequity become common place discussion, but issues such as freedom of assembly, speech and excessive police force, too.

[socialist_n_TN]

29. You know it's really funny that the same people who COMPLAIN

about the Occupy movement not having demands and a focus, then complain when they GET a focus. Or maybe it's because that focus isn't what they thought it should be.

These types of reactions are what happens when you focus in on particular issues and take a side. It's easy to "support the 99%" when that support involves some nebulous claims for "fairness". But when it comes time to actually ACT on those issues, to actually try and DO something about them, some are going to chicken out. It's inevitable.