Members of the political elite have finally had to confront the question of the #OccupyWallStreet protests and the larger movement for social and economic change that it represents. Sen. Jeff Merkley agreed with the goals of the protesters and their belief that the system is broken, and expressed interest in going to a protest. Ron Paul also supported the protests, though he made an assumption that they were fully aligned with his particular vision for the country. Likely Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney muttered something about class warfare. He also said that “he had spoken to the people involved,” which I find highly dubious. Maybe he meant some bank executive, like Andrew Ross Sorkin.
One of the big questions about the Take Back the American Dream conference was whether there would be a co-opting of the #OccupyWallStreet movement and their message, channeling it into electoral politics or some kind of policy scheme. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka addressed this on a conference call today, delineating between supporting the movement and co-opting it.
“These demonstrations are truly spontaneous,” Trumka said. “They’re happening around the country. We intend to be supportive of them. We believe as they believe that the economy is shutting down 99% of the people. We think there’s a different and a better way. So we’re going to support them any way we can. We’re not going to try to usurp them, we’re going to support them. I hope they’ll support us.”
Clearly, the anger and frustration in an economy that doesn’t work for 99% of Americans has a unifying force and an ally in organized labor. Trumka pointed out that his organization had a demonstration in the spring of 2010 on Wall Street with 15,000 working people. This is part of the longstanding movement for bank accountability that a number of groups have taken on. “Like the protesters on Wall St. are saying, we have an economy and a political process that isn’t serving the 99% of our country,” Trumka said.
The AFL-CIO will try to put that outrage to work to create jobs through the legislative channel. They’ve planned hundreds of events across the country starting on October 10. And that’s fine, though I doubt it will succeed. But the wariness of joining, and taking over, the #OccupyWallStreet protest is a pretty good sign from the establishment left. First of all, I don’t think they actually could co-opt such an organic movement. But this ensures that the movement will remain independent and without a hierarchical structure and a continued voice of important dissent with a dysfunctional system. Maybe the establishment left can provide some options that the movement can choose whether or not to endorse. Trumka mentioned writing down mortgage debt and a financial transactions tax to pay for an immediate investment in jobs. Great ideas, and I’m sure many at the #Occupy protests would find them worthy of support. But that’s a decision that they can make, not one that needs to be imposed.
“There’s a groundswell happening, people across the country are declaring that we are the 99%,” Trumka said. When you have that broad a constituency, the instinct should be not to herd it but to let it flower.




29 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I’m doubtful that the 99% will ever have a voice as long as Holder is Attorney General. I am convinced that Obama could get reelected if he replaced Holder with someone committed to enforcing the laws the banks have flouted.
If Trumka supports Obama, then his “support” of OWS is blatanly cynical, being both meaningless AND an attempted “Usurping” by “association” …
DW
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Has Trumka met with the GA yet?? Or just the cameras.
Elizabeth Warren was asked about OWS last night. Pretty good answer aside from the horrible first two sentences.
One wonders how Elizabeth Warren will do with this, davidmizner:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/democratic-senate-candidates-foreign-policy_n_994965.html.
DW
Yeah I haven’t seen much on her foreign policy, have you? It’s going to be disheartening if she basically embraces the Bush-Obama Terror War. We’ll see. I saw that two of the few pols she’s donated to (which include Obama) were Wellstone and Feingold, so maybe she’s a genuine liberal across the board.
the fact that warren is the great liberal hope is telling
all she is proposing is common sense regulation that would have been uncontroversial before 1980
on other matters, like marijuana and the military, warren appears to be a centrist
even the answer you quoted about ows sounds much like someone carefully offering very conditional support
warren is very sharp and will befuddle scott brown head to head
but how she manages obama may be decisive
when asked yesterday whether obama “made a mistake” agreeing to extend the bush tax cuts for the rich, warren gingerly spoke about letting the cuts expire NEXT time
i suspect she will soon find such dodges unavailing
otoh: who is going to challenge her to condemn obama’s neoliberalism?
You said it for me….They can’t really espouse support for Obama & then champion OWS,it’s blatantly disingenuous.
But keep an eye out….there is no doubt in my mind that they,DNC, will try to co-opt OWS.
Just last night I saw Ed Shultz on MSNBC saying, “well if all these people had voted in the last election Boehner would not have had the gavel”….
Maybe someone ought to give Shultz the memo,we are pissed cuz when the Dems had the WH & both houses of congress they did nothing for ordinary Americans.
Both political parties are Corporate whores.
Actually, the lawbreaking she referenced was that of the Wall Streeters, not the nonexistent stuff implied (or outright falsely stated) by the establishment press.
How do you know? She said “everyone” which would seem to mean everyone, as in both the protestors and the Wall Street criminals. Reminds me of Hillary’s “both sides need to behave” responses to the Arab uprisings.
I don’t think Trumka will try to usurp. He knows it’s not possible, for one thing. For another, he’ll likely want to distance himself if some yahoos (likely agents provocateur) show up and start breaking windows and throwing things despite the OWS insistence on nonviolent protest.
There is only one political party, both “ends” $uck!
(Possible bumper-sticker?)
What do you think, BMcGarth?
;~DW
I take it as her effort to take a meme being pushed by the establishment press and doing a verbal pivot on it to discuss the crimes of Wall Street.
Well I would hope that most people would have abandoned the idea that there can be such a thing as a great liberal hope. The knowledge that it takes an uprising seems to be behind OWS.
As for Warren, I basically agree that she’s offering nothing radical or sufficient, just the kind of moderate populist liberalism that used to be standard stuff in the Party. That said, I’m persuaded that she’s a genuine anti-Wall Street liberal but won’t distance herself from the President during the campaign.
Let us see what he makes of the “association”, shall we?
Trumka refers to OWS as a “constituency” … one hopes his definition of that term is similar to: “A group of people thought to have common objectives or views … and therefore sometimes appealed to for support.”
However, real and genuine support MUST go both ways, and Donna Edwards’ suggestion that the “gavel” be given (back) ” … to those who know how to use it” is VERY suggestive of political calculation. Trumka is nothing, if not a politician … if he wishes to support OWS, then let him take sharkbabe’s advice from an earlier thread, let him show up ” …anonymously, in civilian clothing, and with a sleepingbag.”
That is the essence of beginning truly respectful support, methinks, PW.
What think you of that “approach”?
DW
*SIGH*
Love her. Done with her.
i suspect you are correct about warren’s political strategy
notwithstanding the extreme disappointment w obama even among ma dems, warren probably stands to lose more than she would gain by attacking him
obama is stiil relatively popular in ma and ma still has lots of partisan dems who might recoil at attacks on the dem prez by a dem senate candidate
the interesting question is whether warren will be forced to give direct opinions on obama’s performance or whether, like last night, she can get by fudging
I think my favorite “line” in the article to which I linked, wbgonne, is this “advice” to the Dem Senators and would-be Senators, “In other words, establish credibility without really saying anything.”
One imagines that is where the Dem -”end” of the Unitary Party … is “at”.
Appearance NOT substance.
Ah well, so much better than the other “end” … “$ucking less evilly”.
DW
It is likely that PW is much too busy reassuring “everyone” about what others, whom she admires or “supports”, say and mean … or mean to say … to respond to certain comments, dm.
Perhaps she might surprize us, one never knows …
;~DW
This is a good sign — her quote on President Obama in Confidence Men:
“You can’t run a policy based on a misdirection, on a fiction. I don’t know what the president is thinking. . . . He meets with bankers. He doesn’t meet with me. But if he’s involved in this at all, he’s got to know that his angry words at Wall Street, at their recklessness and dangerous incentives in compensation, about how they do their business in ways utterly divorced from what’s actually good for the economy — that he can’t just say that sort of thing, and then dump money in their laps and be credible.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/books/review/confidence-men-by-ron-suskind-book-review.html
She needs to be asked about that statement, dm.
If she “walks” it back or tries to “make nice”, then such ACTION will speak far more loudly than words.
Frankly, I hope she sticks to it.
Elizabeth Warren, has gotten to where she is on her own merits … and the ONLY way she can be truly effective is if she continues to take her own counsel and do what is right … for then, she, herself, will be “credible” …
Thank you for that “tidbit”, btw.
DW
Just ordered Suskind’s book
So far so good w Warren
She certainly is impressive
Hey, I asked the same question 2 or 3 days ago for members of the NPA to answer and the answer I got was: 1. They (OWS)will NOT let the protest be co-opted and 2. They will NOT make the protestors decide between the movement or helping with the Presidential election because that would be divisive to the members/protestors. http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/New-Progressive-Alliance/172365886150915?sk=wall
Couldn’t help but notice that the word “pivot” is becoming VERY popular when used n a political sense.
OTOH, “to pivot” in basketball, means to move around in circles with one foot being planted firmly in place while not actually pushing the ball down the court.
On second thought, I suspect that IS a perfect usage of the word, politically speaking.
Here was the original question: http://www.facebook.com/#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=255234481178633&id=172365886150915
Here is the response: http://www.facebook.com/#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=255234481178633&id=172365886150915
Really? How many OWS battalions has the NPA?
That is an interesting article, it’s subtle but says much….
the DSCC wants candidates to chain themselves to Obama’s foreign policy.. of empty words that can mean anything…. “tough” and “smart”..
Stalinists is what they are. Totalitarians.
In the communist party the members of the lower orders had to pledge never to challenge the top down policies, even if they were democratically elected. This is inverted democracy.
I get that you don’t want the movement to be co-opted and will rebuff assistance from progressive organizations. I understand that the protesters hate all politicians of both major parties and hate all corporations. Media, even non-Fox personalities, are apparently not welcome and definitely not considered allies. So I’m left believing that the protesters just want to march, chant, and carry signs with no end game except to show they’re angry. Okay. I just don’t see how that changes the fate of anyone.
But the salient point remains: The system is and will remain, dysfunctional, defeating all attempts at significant change thru tying them up in a labyrinth of dead-ends. The SYSTEM is the problem.