Skip to main content

View Diary: [UPDATE - MORE PHOTOS] 200,000 Rise Up in Brazil - "The People Have Awakened" (333 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Agreed (4+ / 0-)

    We lead the world in crowd control measures and techniques.

    And of course, we now know the government has new improved and legal ways to use computers and the internet to find out who supports the protesters (dangerous terrorists!) and who lacks loyalty to the government.

    I agree that the occupy movement had a great deal of public support.

    I kept wondering in 2011 when Pres. Obama would publicly talk about the concerns of the Occupy movement.  It seemed to me a moment tailor-made for the president to take advantage.  He never did at that time, but while campaigning in 2012 did talk then about economic inequality.  And since then, nothing.

    Sadly, the take-home message is that the democratic party is not interested in the national problems of economic inequality, ending banking fraud, or a sustainable economy.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:11:23 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Occupy scared the heck out of Obama (6+ / 0-)

      it scared the corporate conservatives in both parties as well as their sponsors.   Obama never supported Occupy, had no intention of discussing any of the pertinent issues they raised.  The prospect of regulating Wall Street, holding those criminals accountable and pushing an agenda for job creation and economic recovery was repulsive to him.  

      The fact that Obama won re-election hasn't changed any of that.  The massive amounts of corporate money both parties "hoovered" up has made them more committed than ever to follow the corporate agenda and stifle public dissent.

      A lot of protestors have probably been harmed in ways they'll never fully realize - red flag on their files that prevents them from getting jobs, mortgages, etc.  The revelations of the last couple of weeks validated it.

      "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

      by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:22:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's not Obama (0+ / 0-)

        Obama has never been the problem.  The problem has always been that we simply do not have a liberal progressive party.  Anywhere. The Dems are just Republican-Lites. They are not on our side, and have no interest in being on our side.

        And there things stand.  (shrug)

        •  I disagree (5+ / 0-)

          Yes, Dems have always had a pro-corporate conservative wing in the party, but there's never been a Dem POTUS who has worked so thoroughly and maintained such laser-like focus on transforming the Democratic Party into a corporate financed tool for conservative policy.

          Obama and friends have taken the tired old Reganomics policies embraced by groups like DLC/Third Way etc. polished them and elevated them to the highest level in Dem Party history.

          Fortunately, these policies are still as shitty as they ever were and either fail immediately or eventually to capture public support.  But Obama has done real damage to the Dem Party (and to the country as well) by pursuing bad public policy.  

          It was pervasive the damage will be long lasting, but we'll eventually get it cleaned up.  To be fair, I wish he would relinquish his stranglehold on the national party now and let us begin rebuilding it.

          "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

          by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:35:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree about this. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      virginislandsguy, Aquarius40
      I agree that the occupy movement had a great deal of public support.
      So why didn't that "great deal of public support" translate to "a large number of people participating in Occupy"? That is a major question that Occupy needs to be asking itself—and, given that people who are under much more repressive regimes have mobilized much larger mass protest movements, it's not enough to just blame police brutality.
      Sadly, the take-home message is that the democratic party is not interested in the national problems of economic inequality, ending banking fraud, or a sustainable economy.
      No, I think the take-home message is that American political life continues to operate much as it always has—where those who are capable of producing the greatest amount of political pressure are the ones who see their agenda put forward.

      I think the take-home message is that whether we like it or not, the fact that we're not seeing much talk about income inequality, putting Wall Street in jail, and creating a sustainable economy, is that those who are pushing for such things are not as effective in putting pressure on political figures as those who are pushing for other priorities.

      The question, then, is not "why won't the leaders pay attention to us?"—because that puts the onus on them, rather than on us.

      The true question here is "what can we do in order to put more pressure on American political figures to put forward our interests?"

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:28:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  See all those protesters wanting more bank fraud? (2+ / 0-)
        "No, I think the take-home message is that American political life continues to operate much as it always has—where those who are capable of producing the greatest amount of political pressure are the ones who see their agenda put forward. "
        Yes - but notice the distinct lack of public protests/demonstrations for more bank fraud, or all those people marching for more deregulation of the petroleum industry, or the huge number of people saying they want tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

        These days political pressure is measured not by public support, but by the number of dollars you can give to a political party or candidates for office.  

        The agenda of the wealthy and corporate interests is served by our legislators because those wealthy and corporate interests are able to buy the legislators and the laws they want, not because they have massive public support.  Some weathy interests like the Kock Bros. tried to generate public support by creating the Tea Parties - but that public support has largely died.

        What we the people can do is obvious: become richer.  Of course, many Americans would like to do just that, except the laws these days make it difficult if you are currently not wealthy.

        But whether you have the wealthy enough to apply political pressure or not, the fact remains that our political system was originally founded on the idea of government of, by, and for the people.  Government of, by, and for the wealthy is antithetical to such a philosophy.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:08:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not an immovable object. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador, Aquarius40
          These days political pressure is measured not by public support, but by the number of dollars you can give to a political party or candidates for office.
          That is how political pressure is measured "these days," because those who lack dollars to donate to a party, candidate, or super PAC have not effectively used the power they do have in an effort to make it otherwise.

          There are numerous examples just in the last five years of countries whose people had significantly less political power and were under significantly more oppressive regimes were able to make their voices heard and demand change—either by building a new power structure, or by scaring those in power to make government more responsive.

          So "money to donate" is obviously not a timeless or unchangeable measure of political pressure, but a condition that can and should be changed... and thus, the question shifts to how the people can change that condition.

          Or, in other words, as I asked above: "What can we do in order to put more pressure on American political figures to put forward our interests?"

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 12:36:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Guns laws? Climate change? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ray Pensador

            The topics of gun laws and climate change come immediately to mind.

            Both topics have massive popular support, yet despite that, the government does little to change either (my applause tho' to Pres. Obama for at least advocating for greater regulation of gun sales and use).

            Despite that very popular support and a great deal of direct activism, the policies in place oppose the popular wishes.  Money wins out over popular support and activism.

            So go ahead and tell us what we can do without money to move our government.  Yes, change has happened in other countries, typically only with violence (Iran, Libya, Egypt, ?Syria).  Is that what you are advocating?

            Of course we could try to get richer, because the government only responds to the political pressure of money, but that would only be pouring gasoline on our burning "democracy".

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:50:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Direct activism? Hardly. (0+ / 0-)
              Despite that very popular support and a great deal of direct activism, the policies in place oppose the popular wishes.  Money wins out over popular support and activism.
              There's been a lot of popular support, but really not a lot of direct activism—at least, not on the scale that we're seeing in Brazil.

              Sure, there have been a lot of people signing online petitions, forwarding emails, and liking Facebook pages, and a few rallies and protests, but we haven't seen cities shut down because the people demand climate change legislation or better gun safety laws.

              We haven't seen oil refineries where the trucks can't get in or out due to the mass of humanity blocking the way. The NRA met just last month at a convention center in Houston with very little difficulty; members could get in and out easily, without being blocked outside by 100,000 protesters standing against their opposition to gun safety laws.

              So go ahead and tell us what we can do without money to move our government.
              200,000 Brazilians are telling you pretty clearly what we can do without money to move our government.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:04:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site