I think the reason its hard to tell at times is because your real solutions tend to be as nonsensical as the humorous ones...
I'm curious to hear your take on the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon. I always respect your positions whether I agree or not.
I agree with this. However, I think it is best to keep the initial focus vague. Even the average Fox viewer/ talk radio listener knows on a certain level he has been had by Wall Street and the bankers and the politicians are all bought. Let the inchoate rage against the Street and the bought politicians build till you have a movement. If you come out too soon with specific proposals, you will have the typical process. Koch/wealth funded think tanks will focus group test some talking points against the proposals or at least to water them down to meaninglessness. Then that sound bite will get hammered over and over on Fox and talk radio. Then that will be picked up by the mainstream media. Eventually Obama will negotiate with the GOP, concede 90%, and declare campaign reform as another major accomplishment and nothing will change.
I view it as an exact replica of the Tea Parties, except on the left - a bunch of people who are angry and protesting, but in many cases, don't really have any solutions. I'm a big believer in focusing on solutions rather than simply complaining, so I don't hold these things in very high regard at all. That said, when the tea parties started, I thought they were a nonsense movement that would flame out pretty quickly. I was very wrong on that - they grew into a powerful political movement, though I still contend that they have no real governing philosophy. They are still against a lot of things and have some talking point platitudes (balanced budget), but have no real plan to get from where we are to where they want to be. In the long run, I hope the left is not stuck with its own Tea Party because I think they are a huge negative for the GOP and the country as a whole. That said, I'm reserving judgment a bit to see if they develop any kind of proposed solution to the problems they point out. Most protest movements start with just the complaints - that's the easy part - and where they tend to fall apart is trying to agree on a solution. The Tea Parties settled on the most extreme solutions to every issue, which I also would never have expected. On a side note, the tea parties kind of started on the same core principals (anti Wall-Street, anti-bailout) by angry conservatives but then got co-opted and became a general GOP movement. This one is those same principals by angry liberals - we'll see how the Dems react to or try to incorporate them. At the end of the day, my problem with these movements is that their "proposals" tend to be unrealistic and unworkable when you actually think through how it would play out. So you'll never satisfy them and they'll eventually turn on the "rational" leaders - and having a bunch of crazies in Congress is not conducive to anything but gridlock, which is exactly what we don't need if we actually plan to address the real issues out there.
Also called "actual solutions" as opposed to your preferred yelling and screaming. I said that if they cared about the actual Wisconsin workers instead of scoring political points, they were stupid not to push the compromise that was being floated, which gave Dems most of what they wanted in practical terms. Instead, using your "we have no solution but to protest" method, we got Walker's bill passing in full - screwing over all those Wisconsin workers - and Dems didn't gain control of anything politically. So yes, I stand my statement. You might be content to have won 2 state Senate seats at the expense of losing all their bargaining rights, but I think it was a terrible tradeoff. The difference back then is that the protesters had solutions and an end game - they had a bill and they had a strategy to get it enacted. As I pointed out during the Wisconsin debate, those legislators had no end game but to complain. And it played out exactly how I suggested - that the bill would ultimately pass, and the Dems might score a few political points here and there in exchange for losing the collective bargaining rights. Funny that you seem to think that was a good outcome.
I suppose nearly all populism and mass movements seem like "yelling and screaming" to you as opposed to wonks in backroom maneuvering. Well I'm not sure how you think that the Wisconsin workers can't decide what is best for themselves rather than just letting a few moderate wonks cut a deal with a fanatic. . I would think that most observers would think that, though they might have to wait a while they ultimately will get more by their mobilization, than the cautious deal you advocated. BTW I do think there is a role for the "yellowing and screaming" aka as mobilization of mass movements which then leads to the situation in which the wonks/attorneys/deal makers can iron out the details favorable to the movement.
Well, if we can just get their oil and deport all the spanish speaking people back to spain...then.... DD
You suppose wrong. Wisconsin workers didn't decide anything. They got trashed by their legislators who played politics instead of fighting for the best interests of the workers. The "cautious deal" that I advocated gave unions EVERYTHING they wanted. The only thing they functionally lost was their bargaining power in 2011 which they had already stated they would not use. Agreed - I have no problem with that. But the problem in Wisconsin is that the deal makers didn't even try to make any deals. They walked away to score political points. They had a possible deal very favorable to the movement and didn't even attempt to push it. The problem with the Tea Partiers is that they aren't ever interested in making deals at all - they simply want some crazy, extremist solution that can't work in reality. We have yet to see what the Occupy Wall Street protestors will come up with. At the end of the day, your movement has to have a rational, passable legislative endgame for it to be viable. Anything else, and you're just fighting to score political points rather than to actually help anyone.
I should point out - my criticism of Wisconsin was not the protestors but the legislators. They walked out - a brilliant political strategy to generate support for their cause. And *it worked*. They generated that support. They got public attention; they got protests. But then they have to use that to craft the deal. They never even tried that - all they did was say "don't pass anything". That's where they failed, and that's where my criticism comes from - they had an opportunity to sway a couple of moderate GOP Senators with a middle ground deal, and that's all they needed to kill Walker's bill. But they didn't do that.
Oh, I'll be there, alright! I was just thinking that you should coordinate your efforts on what's already going on.
HAHAHA, I see he attempted to clear that up, but I was thinking the exact same thing after reading the first few pages.
Look up New Left Media on youtube, they're left wing, obviously, but they interview people at rally's, the unintentional comedy is awesome.
They were doing the protest at my school... Most the people protesting had no idea what they were talking about if you actually asked them anything. It was a headache listening to them.
