Monday, December 19, 2011

THE DRUMBEAT -- Progressives' impatience. Will everyone else please stop being complacent and get things moving where clearly they should go - and should have gone after WW II and onward.

The quote shows my view of why the Occupy movement was needed, including a part about the Obama Big Time Disappointment, a part I left out of my extended quote, which excerpts from yet another extended quote, from a deeper and broader analysis. I found it posted by David Atkins, at Digby-Hullabaloo, quoting from Robert Cruickshank. Readers should check the Hullabaloo post first, simply because the site is a jewel.

NOTE: The link now given by Atkins at Hullabaloo to the original post is WRONG. Go here for the entire item.

http://robertcruickshank.com/2011/12/occupy-the-progressive-movement/

(I have emailed Hullabaloo, so the link might be fixed when readers have a look - Atkins posting at Kos, as thereisnospoon)

It was time for a correction anyway. What we have learned is that winning elections isn’t on its own enough to produce change. What’s needed is a clear policy agenda and a strong external movement that can help progressives in power implement that agenda – and stop others in power from implementing a bad one. That requires a movement in which electoral organizing is just one piece. In other words, the progressive movement needs to grow not only in numbers but in the diversity of what it does.

That isn’t what drives most Occupiers, however. Occupy is also a rebuke of organized politics. They’re in the streets because they believe it’s the only way change can be produced. What it has revealed is that distrust of government is now rampant on the left as well as the right. To most Occupiers, government is the enemy. And their confrontations with local governments showed this. Even though the vast majority of local electeds in the big cities are sympathetic to the Occupy movement and are no friend to the 1% (with Bloomberg being a notable exception), Occupy’s choice of tactics reflected their belief that anyone in government was either incapable of helping or was determined to break the protest. And Occupy has brought a new group of people into political activism. New voices are popping up online, new leaders are emerging, and they are much less interested in the more incremental changes that the progressive movement had unfortunately become accustomed to accepting.

Occupiers are openly advocating revolutionary change from the streets. But here is where I think the progressive movement’s love affair with OWS should find its limits. Occupy alone won’t produce the changes we need in this country. By focusing on physical occupation of public space, they’ve muddled their early message and have alienated potential allies. On the other hand, they have succeeded in kicking a door open. The public wants action on inequality and wants to go after the 1%. Progressives should walk through the door that Occupy opened – and they should be willing to work with anyone, Occupiers or not, who are interested in providing the leadership that is needed to make lasting change happen.

The goal of progressives should be to build a broader, long-term, mass movement to achieve a democratic economy, an equal society, and a peaceful planet. Taking to the streets is a tactic to help get us toward that goal.

And that is why John Marty was my hope last election cycle for Governor of Minnesota. It did not happen, but it will.