Skip to main content

View Diary: The Washington Post Asks "Why Aren't Blacks Embracing Occupy Wall Street?" (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have several issues with the article (7+ / 0-)

    (a) It has the smell of the so-called "talented 10" where w eare supposed to look to "black leaders" to tell us what we think rather than actually bothering to ask black people what they think. Its an issue I often have with the "black leadership" of this site. I put that in quotes because on policy questions or specifici questions like this we needed to accorded the same respect as white people rather that what I feel to be the racist meme that if you ask a few anecdotal questions of a few- that's enough to tell you what black people think. Its insulting.

    (b) I suspected that the polling data would say the opposite because if it didn't (and I can't imagine it hasn't come up in polls) I can't imagine a writer leaving it out unless it was contra to the conclusion that the writer was trying to push.

    (c) They aren't interested in the deeper point of "do they agree on issues" this is once again a telegraphed strategy to control what OWS is about. So of course, they aren't going to tell you that whatever htey think of OWS they agree on the issues being raised by OWS. This is about the elite trying to kill any backlash against the elite

    (d) In short, the point as I keep saying is co optation. black people here are supposed to be a monlith that hte Democratic party is supposed to control as represented by identity politics through Obama.

    THe idea that we may have complex views in which some support Obama, and some don't , and yet on the policy we agree even if not with Obama, is not something you are supposed to arrive at. to prevent you from arriving at that overlap of interests, they co opt you into the identity:

    As I noted several weeks ago, WH-aligned groups such as the Center for American Progress have made explicitly clear that they are going to try to convert OWS into a vote-producing arm for the Obama 2012 campaign, and that’s what “Occupy Congress” is designed to achieve. I believed then and — having spent the last few weeks talking with many OWS protesters around the country — believe even more so now that these efforts will inevitably fail: those who have animated the Occupy movement are not motivated by partisan allegiance or an overarching desire to devote themselves to one of the two parties. In fact, one of the original Occupy groups — as opposed to partisan organizations swooping in to exploit it — has announced its own D.C. occupation to, in part, “demonstrate the failure of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress to represent the views of the majority of people.”

    http://www.salon.com/...

    I have discussed with you on specific policy how that worked out with the public option

    Here are some of the results of the telephone survey of 2,999 households called from November 9-17 as part of the Thomson Reuters PULSE Healthcare Survey:

    * Believe in public option: 59.9 percent yes, 40.1 percent no.

    * 86 percent of Democrats support the public option versus 57 percent of Independents and 33 percent of Republicans.

    * Quality of healthcare will be better 12 months from now: 35 percent strongly disagree. 11.6 percent strongly agree. 29.9 percent put themselves in the middle.

    * Believe the amount of money spent on healthcare will be less 12 months from now: 52 percent strongly disagree, 13 percent strongly agree.

    * 23 percent believe it will be easier for people to receive the care they need a year from now.

    http://www.reuters.com/...

    so,how are they able to get away with it? co optation. By limiting our choice in the meda and the fight for ideas to whatever the Democrats or GOP disputes, we are limited to whatever they say is ont he table. So even if 90 percent of us agreed or 100 percent it would not matter. this is the game being played. This is why we are not  a democracy and not even a representative one for reasons I won't get into other than to say the structure of the house and senate are designe to prevent representation.

    The Democrat-GOP partisan frame controls what is acceptable debate. OWS threatens that. Remember before this "economic policy' was austerity and the need to cut the social insurance safety net. I believe the principle reason that the super congress failed is not as the front page here claims- extremism-, but because the face of the public debate was shifted to the left by OWS. but for ows, I don't think the super congress would have failed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site