Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[grumbler]

So the US shouldn't address the deficit since that issue was put on the agenda by the populist Tea Party movement?

  You genuinely believe that issue of the US deficit was put on the agenda by the Tea party movement?

Wow.

[Admiral Yi]

So the US shouldn't address the deficit since that issue was put on the agenda by the populist Tea Party movement?

He he.  Good one.  I will amend my position.

All the things you mentioned are plausible issues.  Now we let the process run its course.  We propose solutions to problems.  We openly debate the pros and cons of these proposals.  We test slogans in the fire of logic and fact.  We attempt to convince others.  We vote people into office we hope will further our agenda.

What we don't do is barge into private property and pout when The Man doesn't instantly solve all our problems.

[Jacob]

  You genuinely believe that issue of the US deficit was put on the agenda by the Tea party movement?

Wow.

That was Yi's claim, as per this exchange:

I think the Tea Party radically changed the debate in the US.

Not for the better.

Disagree.  The deficit is an issue now.  Before it wasn't.

[Jacob]

I don't believe even they know what specific policies would make them less unhappy.

Maybe politicians, political thinkers and strategists and various experts on policy can think of something? It could be worth a shot.

[Jacob]

He he.  Good one.  I will amend my position.

All the things you mentioned are plausible issues.  Now we let the process run its course.  We propose solutions to problems.  We openly debate the pros and cons of these proposals.  We test slogans in the fire of logic and fact.  We attempt to convince others.  We vote people into office we hope will further our agenda.

What we don't do is barge into private property and pout when The Man doesn't instantly solve all our problems.

I think the feeling is (and certainly it's the justification for populism and protests in general) that sometimes the establishment finds it inconvenient to do anything at all about the issues at hand.

I agree that we propose solutions to problems.  We openly debate the pros and cons of these proposals.  We test slogans in the fire of logic and fact.  I think the protests are the starting point for that - they're outlining the problem in broad strokes. They're inviting proposals for solutions; some are even proposing some (many of them harebrained, some perhaps not). As more proposals emerge, we continue to debate pros and cons and, as you so eloquently say, test slogans in the fire of logic and fact.

As that goes on, and that takes time, we attempt to convince others.  We vote people into office we hope will further our agenda.

So the reason we barge in to private property and pout is to kick start that process, because we feel it's been rather anemic up until now.

Like Sheilbh said, and you more or less said about the Tea Party, it's about setting the agenda and calling attention to the problem; the solutions aren't really clear at this point, but perhaps some of the problems are.

[Oexmelin]

What system is fucked?  What regular folks are getting shafted?

I happen to believe, or hold dear, that a system in which inequalities are ever more important is fucked - especially so when  people who get shafted become convinced that this is the "way of things", and that an ever growing segment of the upper middle class close rank and now say that there is nothing wrong with this. In that regard, Canada might be slightly better than the US, but is not the equalizing bubble of social democracy you seem to believe it is.

[grumbler]

That was Yi's claim, as per this exchange:

Didn't see that.  Sorry.  Carry on.

[The Minsky Moment]

Not for the better.

Disagree.  The deficit is an issue now.  Before it wasn't.

I disagree that it wasn't an issue.
Where the TP has had an impact (with help from Grover N. and co) is to make it into an issue that is politically incapable of rational resolution.

[grumbler]

Maybe politicians, political thinkers and strategists and various experts on policy can think of something? It could be worth a shot.

I think that we should let the politicians, political thinkers and strategists and various experts on policy work on solving the many social and economic problems that face the country as a whole.  Abandoning the work that would help millions to try to mind-read and then address the concerns of the thousands would be an abrogation of their true responsibilities, IMO.  It is not always the squeaky wheel that justly commands the attentions of politicians, political thinkers and strategists and various experts on policy.

[Sheilbh]

I opposed to all efforts to placate populism.  It's like paying off hijackers.

Populism and protests are different things. 

As it is populists are just part of the political system, no better or worse than elites.  I think it's important to strike a balance between the two.  Europe's crisis is, to some extent, the product of an entirely elite driven process.

[Jacob]

I think that we should let the politicians, political thinkers and strategists and various experts on policy work on solving the many social and economic problems that face the country as a whole.  Abandoning the work that would help millions to try to mind-read and then address the concerns of the thousands would be an abrogation of their true responsibilities, IMO.  It is not always the squeaky wheel that justly commands the attentions of politicians, political thinkers and strategists and various experts on policy.

It may be that solving the many social and economic problems that face the country as whole will also address the concerns of the protesters.

I suppose it all comes down to what the protesters represent.

If, as I believe they see themselves, they actually represent the concerns of the millions then the contradiction you suggest doesn't exist. If the political class can begin to effectively address the social and economic issues that face the nation as a whole, then they will have satisfied the protester's (somewhat incoherently expressed) demands.

On the other hand if, as seems to be the dominant perception on languish, they are primarily feckless dilettantes representing no one but themselves, with demands that are incoherent and self-indulgent, then it would be a misdirection of resources to try to address them (if there even is a way to do so).

So what does it mean? Is it mostly petulant acting out? Or is it an expression of built up tension boiling over because the political class have failed to grapple with significant social and economical problems for too long? Is it possible to be both at the same time?

Whatever the truth of who they are, I think how they're perceived is going to have significant influence on what happens next. If you think there are significant social and economical problems to be addressed as a priority, then it's probably in your interest that the protests are seen as an expression of those (even if it's not particularly accurate); on the other hand, if you think there aren't really any issues, or if you think they exist but don't think they require any kind of particular action, then your interests are probably best served by the protests being dismissed and marginalized as much as possible whatever the truth.

Personally, I tend towards interpreting the protests as being an expression of real issues in the US even if some number of the protesters may be obnoxious twats. I'm less sure about the Canadian protests, as the situation is different up here, but maybe there are bigger problems than I'm used to thinking.

[fhdz]

I like this one

[Ideologue]

The "corporations are people!!1" misunderstanding is one of things I like the least about the OWS movement and associated leftism.

Oh, you just mean you'd have sex with her?  Sure.  Me too.

[grumbler]

It may be that solving the many social and economic problems that face the country as whole will also address the concerns of the protesters.

Agree that the protests are redundant.  It is my belief that, for the vast majority of them, the movement is about the protestors' boredom and not the "cause."  The reason I believe that is that there seems to be no "cause."  Just a vague feeling that things aren't going any better now than they have been for the last four years, despite the expenditure of vast sums of money.

If, as I believe they see themselves, they actually represent the concerns of the millions then the contradiction you suggest doesn't exist. If the political class can begin to effectively address the social and economic issues that face the nation as a whole, then they will have satisfied the protester's (somewhat incoherently expressed) demands.

If, as I suspect, these protests are simply the result of boredom by people who would (like those less bored but not bored enough to join an inchoate "protest" movement) otherwise be at work if wok were to be found, then the protests don't actually communicate anything not already apparent from election results and poll results.

So what does it mean? Is it mostly petulant acting out? Or is it an expression of built up tension boiling over because the political class have failed to grapple with significant social and economical problems for too long? Is it possible to be both at the same time?

I have always maintained that it is both; these are people who are suffering no more nor less than their peers, but they think they shouldn't be the ones suffering.  At the same time, they have been sold a bill of goods about a "political class" that is acting against their interests, so they think that, if they just protest loudly enough and incoherently enough, they can defeat Them who are holding the country back from paradise.

Whatever the truth of who they are, I think how they're perceived is going to have significant influence on what happens next. If you think there are significant social and economical problems to be addressed as a priority, then it's probably in your interest that the protests are seen as an expression of those (even if it's not particularly accurate); on the other hand, if you think there aren't really any issues, or if you think they exist but don't think they require any kind of particular action, then your interests are probably best served by the protests being dismissed and marginalized as much as possible whatever the truth.

Disagree.  I don't think that the choice is between siding with the protestors are believing that there are no pressing social and economic problems to be addressed.  In fact, I have scarcely been the only person here that has been arguing that there are pressing social and economic problems to be addressed since long before this protest movement started.

Personally, I tend towards interpreting the protests as being an expression of real issues in the US even if some number of the protesters may be obnoxious twats. I'm less sure about the Canadian protests, as the situation is different up here, but maybe there are bigger problems than I'm used to thinking.

I don't know anyone who doesn't interpret the protests as being an expression of real issues in the US.  I think the issue is whether the protestors are actually attempting to accomplish something, following which they will disperse, or whether they are essentially just amusing themselves by engaging in a protest rather than sitting around talking about being unemployed.  Unemployment is an issue either way.

[Admiral Yi]

So the reason we barge in to private property and pout is to kick start that process, because we feel it's been rather anemic up until now.

What makes you think they want to kick start any process?