Skip to main content

View Diary: EPIC WIN! Occupy Wall Street OWNS Santorum in Oklahoma. OKLAHOMA! (127 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can anyone point to research that (8+ / 0-)

    addresses the efficacy of shouting down political opponents?  Someone must have studied this.

    Where are we, now that we need us most?

    by Frank Knarf on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 07:32:50 AM PST

    •  I'm an organizer in OKC (14+ / 0-)

      I'm a prominent progressive organizer in OKC and I have disassociated myself from this event and the tactics employed. Central Oklahoma is becoming more and more progressive (last year a Green Party member was elected to the City Council). I think this kind of behavior sets us back. Now, when I try to have an event with a progressive speaker, the Right, which has the advantage of numbers still)  will, quite justifiably, think they can come disrupt it. And they probably will.

      I am extremely saddened by this. Having it celebrated by other progressives makes it all the worse.

      Oklahoma: birthplace of Kate Barnard, W. Rogers, W. Guthrie, Bill Moyers & Eliz. Warren. Home to proud progressive agitators since before statehood. Current political climate a mere passing dust cloud; we're waiting it out & planning for clearer days.

      by peacearena on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 07:41:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, I can tell you.... (5+ / 0-)

      ...that it makes the person doing the shouting-down feel better.  Also, it makes it impossible to criticize one's opponents for doing the same thing without looking like a hypocrite.  Worthwhile trade?  

    •  As a (4+ / 0-)

      political scientist, I'm pretty sure no one's studied it. It would be too difficult to operationalize.

      However, from a common-sense perspective, my strong inclination is to agree with you that it's counterproductive. It's a performative activity that feels good while you're doing it, and it fits nicely with the dominant narrative here that being "tough" is always good for its own sake. But whether your goal is to gain favorable media coverage, influence the speaker you're disrupting, win supporters to your cause, or change policy, I've never heard a plausible case as to why it would help.

      •  No opinons are changed by occupy "mic checks" (9+ / 0-)

        No one has ever listened to a mic check and thought "oh my god, they're totally right. How could i be so stupid?" afterwards. The purpose of them is purely to disrupt, and its not productive in any way.Media attention to them is not favorable - hell you have the media saying Santorum preaches tolerance now. Thanks occupy...

        •  Compared to Occupy, he does appear to be more (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Radical def, erush1345, peregrinus

          tolerant.  We all know it's not true, but that doesn't matter.

        •  This is an issue very worthy of discussion ... (4+ / 0-)

          ... and i'm honestly ambivalent about it at this point.  Certainly, the Tea Party/Republican disruptions at the health hare town halls were very successful, but they also had the benefit of receiving favorable, corporate owned media coverage that was strongly sympathetic to their view point.  Occupy protests receive no such coverage.

          I really think the strength of Occupy, and the emphasis of Occupy, should be education.  At every event, Truth Booths should be set up to counter the lies that have become the bedrock of the Republican party.

          •  The town hall disruptions (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345, Quicklund

            weren't about shouting down a politician in the middle of their speech. Yes there was plenty of yelling and rage, but it came off in the media as being legitimate anger at the policy, not person attacks against the politicians.

            •  disrupting politicians in the middle of the speech (0+ / 0-)

              is OK if it's not what the disruption is about???

              It's OK if it's just what you do (the tea party) but not if it's what it's about?

              That makes no sense, unless you're trying to rewrite history and say that the Teabaggers didn't disrupt politicians in the middle of their speeches.

              Ask your barista what her degree is in.

              by happymisanthropy on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 01:34:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  the Tea Party disruptions were NOT successful (0+ / 0-)

            beyond the early stages.  At first, they startled people and brought a "What the hell is going on?" reaction.  Lots of publicity.  ALso, it really shook up some Congresscritters who just don't get yelled at.

            BUt over time, the public view of the TeaParty has gone from favorable to unfavorable, and I think the disruptions contributed to that.

            The Occupy movement, in it's early stages, got lots of publicity through creative and stubbornly persistent non-violent tactics.  (And, to be honest, because some stupid jerk cops with pepper spray couldn't control their hostility even though the KNEW that video tape is now everywhere.)

            Occupy needs to continue to develop tactics that are confrontationally non-violent, and get publicity; but shouting people down at rallies is not going to do it.

    •  I am personally against shouting down (4+ / 0-)

      opponents as a default.  I believe there are exceptions (like Walker) but generally I don't think it is a good idea.

      If a bunch of teahadists were trying to shout down the President, or Boxer or Pelosi, it would only make me mad, not change my mind.

      "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

      by Sychotic1 on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 11:47:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site