Try this on, dipshits: the reason "politics as usual" is like that is because you don't fucking vote.

The idea that people can encourage their representatives in government to be more to their liking by not voting is ABSURD. OCCUPY THE VOTE, nimrods.

Excuse me for saying this...wait, fuck that. Anyone who doesn't vote can't fucking complain when things go bad. That's the way I feel about it. Our political system would look a lot more like they want it to look if they voted. So, if it's true they don't vote- fuck them.

I've voted in every single election I was eligible for since I turned 18. I carefully research who I'm voting for and read the endorsements from both very local and national sources.

And yet I think I hate every single elected official in both Washingtons. They are all part of the problem.

So, tell me again, what is the point of voting? Based on the actual evidence and results, there doesn't seem to be much of one.

My vote is trivial compared to the billions of dollars corporations pump into politics. Until that situation is changed, until there is more separation of corporation and state (an obvious goal of the OWS protests), I'm failing to see the point in voting just because we were all told it was one of the most important aspects of American society in our 3rd grade social studies class.

Maybe it was... at one point. Times change, and not always for the better.

May be they don't vote because neoliberals control both parties and the resulting policies aren't very different? If nearly half the political spectrum of ideas wasn't missing from national discourse, may be they'd go vote?

#1 - The problem lies with the American political system, which actively disenfranchises anyone who does not agree with the policies of the Democratic and Republican parties. In a parliamentary system such as the European democracies, it is much easier to remain engaged, to find a group that reflects your ideology or to start one up. In the United States, that is exceedingly difficult: the result has been that very large numbers of American voters just don't vote, and typically see politics as a no-win game so why bother being involved.

And, of course, the Two Party goes out of its way to encourage such defeatist thinking.

So... one non-problematic thing the Democratic Party can do is register these folks to vote. We've had people registering at the major Eugene events and have had a fair amount of success (which, of course, means that there were fewer people registered than I would have suspected). Not that all (or even most) of the protestors will register as Democrats, but I suspect a voter registration drive at the Occupy events will ultimately benefit Ds more than Rs.

I hope the Democrats in Seattle (and in NYC for that matter) are doing the same (if not, perhaps Slog can encourage them to do so?).

@3, "until that situation is changed". There's the crux of your problem. That situation isn't going to be changed.

And if it is, it's going to be changed by your elected officials -- but since you have lost the capacity to distinguish between D and R, there's no chance that can ever happen.

Similarly, @5, you are living in a dream world. The two party system isn't going anywhere, and if it did it would never in a million years be because people didn't vote. Also, your understanding of the level of "engagement" and the efficacy of finding a group that supports your ideology in "Europe" is mistaken. Someone still wins in all of those countries. And sometimes it's Berlusconi, which is not an improvement.

@6, if voter registration results in more left-wing third party voting, it absolutely will help the Republicans over the Democrats.

Since only 35% of eligible voters in New York state voted in the 2010 midterm election, these Manhattan protesters are more engaged than your average citizen. Which is kind of pathetic.

Maybe they don't vote because they understand the economics of voting means your vote doesn't really matter, anyway. Every single one of these people could all have voted the same way on various issues related to the current financial/social situation, and not changed the outcome one bit.

I never get tired of the old "if you don't vote you can't complain" claptrap. It's a perspective used to stifle action.

I prefer Emma Goldman's take: "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

For a more contemporary perspective:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blo…

"Take liberalism, subtract the Democratic Party,"

No need, that happened a while ago.

Um ... fuck the Democrats. There are no viable third options. There are no other representative voices. The Democrats sell us out to monied interests faster than we can blink. There is no reason to vote because whether you do or don't, it all goes the same direction anyhow. Maybe if President Perry gets this car in the ditch a little faster, it'll end all the complacent bullshit from the armchair liberals on this blog.

@11 Yeah, there's some bitter comments here. I'm sure this type of antagonism will help the Dems GOTV! Fuck 'em.

http://sinkers.org/stage/?p=975

@8 - I get that a left-wing 3rd party could take votes away from the Ds. But in a theoretical world, if all of the folks registered vote for a 3rd party, that doesn't hurt the Ds at all, since those voters weren't going to vote D anyways (since they weren't registered). If there was a 3rd party that was large enough to be a viable contender with Ds or Rs, then the story would be different, of course.

In reality, I heard anecdotally that most of those registered were Non-Affiliated Voters (OR's version of undeclared/independent), with the remainder being primarily Ds and secondarily Rs/Libertarian/other 3rd party. That fits with the Occupy narrative, I think (both major parties are the problem, etc.), and the fact that there's not a single 3rd party stepping up to receive the protesters.

GAH.

It's infuriating whenever I come across a statistic of how few people are actually voting. REALLY PEOPLE? WHY DON'T YOU VOTE?

If 100% of people voted I guarantee we'd be having a totally different conversation right now. The Bush Jr Years wouldn't have happened, we wouldn't have been in multiple wars for 10+ years and the nation would be in a very different place.

VOTE MUTHER FUCKERS.

I have to wonder how much of that reported 61% of protesters who didn't vote in the last election can be accounted for by the fact that they were actually TOO YOUNG to vote last time. (We need to keep in mind the age demographic of the protesters here)

Also: Doug @9 FTW!

If you don't vote, you're part of the problem. It may not be perfect, but it's sure as hell a lot more effective a means of change than sitting on your ass in a park.

In addition to voting, what if we 70-100K people all decided to occupy the Democratic party? Start showing up. Take it over. It's just sitting there, all built and ready to use. No need to start a new party from scratch. It worked for the Tea People, and they reportedly only have about 20K.

"the reason "politics as usual" is like that is because you don't fucking vote."

Quite a bit of turnout in the last election for Obama, didn't really change that much at all. Just hardened and normalized the neoliberal economic policies and neocon warmongering and police statism of Bush. In fact, on the police state front, Obama's clearly moving in the wrong direction.

Since more people voted for Dems in 2006-2008, it doesn't really hold up at all. We may have had a cosmetic reprieve from some things but it's mostly been shit and these guys (THE FUCKING Rs AND Ds) are proposing austerity in the middle of a depression. There will always be an excuse for these bastards (and you'll be the first one obediently pilfering it, Fnarf) to not do what you want. Let's see, first they said they weren't filibuster proof when they had four years to change the rules with a majority vote. Then they hastened to get their vote total under 60 (yes, I really think that) so they didn't have to come up with some other bullshit nonsense. So, clearly, keep voting and keep voting D!

I challenge any of you to name ONE positive social change in this country that wasn't a result of mass action. The empty suits you vote for only act out of influence. Usually that influence comes from the moneyed interests; the only way for us little people to have similar (if not more) influence is by taking to the street.

@11, everything Emma Goldstein ever worked for happened in the halls of elected government or it didn't happen at all.

I understand the attraction of magical thinking. If we just want something hard enough, maybe it will happen! But it doesn't work that way. The real problem for you is that most of the people in America don't agree with you. Fortunately, we have a process established for deciding disputes between people who disagree on political matters. It's called the American political system. It has been called "the worst of all possible systems, except for all the others".

But if you don't like it, you are screwed, and no amount of protesting is ever going to make a difference. If you want a real revolution, meaning kicking out the current government by force and replacing not just them but the system, you are never going to get your way. Almost no one agrees with you.

If you DON'T want to overthrow the government, but want it to be more responsive to your desires, you need to work the system. Period. There are no other ways around. And the fact is, people in government always, always, always ignore people who don't vote.

@20, the policies that you want Obama to take, but which he hasn't, ARE NOT POPULAR POLICIES. You folks always act as if only Ralph Nader would run for president, he'd win in a landslide and everything would be hunky-dory. But Ralph Nader HAS run for president, and the only thing he ever accomplished was GWB. If Michael Moore or whomever your current hero is ran the same thing would occur.

There are a number of things you can call people who take to the streets and demand political changes that the vast majority of people do not want. "Democracy in action" isn't one of them.

@20,

Well gosh gee, we turned out for the Presidential vote, and since the President has unlimited powers, that's all we needed to do.

OF COURSE NOT. There are tons of veto points in the American system, and many of them are occupied by Republicans or moderate/conservative Democrats. The Tea Party was successful because they put up primary challenges against Republicans that were deemed insufficiently conservative. Until this movement does the same against moderate Democrats, they're not serious.

And for those of you who think voting can never change anything: just LAST YEAR there was an initiative in Washington to make our tax structure far more progressive by creating an income tax. It was crushed at the polls. If you didn't bother to vote for that and are now in the streets protesting the distribution of wealth you've already blown your best chance to get what you want.

@22: It's Goldman, FYI. Yes, often the RESULTS of protests and social movements happen in the halls of elected officials but it starts somewhere else. Those results are never possible without people in the streets. It's not "magical thinking" it's an analysis of social history.

@23 An argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.

Unpopular policies (according to Fnarf):
-medicare for all
-Progressive tax fairness
-Actually doing shit for working class folks in a depression instead of being a complete clueless jackass
-recognizing basic Constitutional rights
-Labor rights

I don't get how you think I'm a Naderite; actually the guy personally is not appealing. I don't have any such "magical thinking." We're trapped. It doesn't mean I have to buy into your magical thinking trap that voting will improve things. That's bullshit that you can't even coherently defend.

You're wrong about Goldman, btw. She was an activist in every sense of the word and it's only because someone like her ahead of her time was willing to do things outside of the system is how there was electoral change later on.

@24 FTW.

@21, ever heard of the Sixteenth Amendment? Remember all those discussions about how the top marginal tax rate is lower than it was under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or Bush I? (If not, I can wait). How do you think those earlier, higher rates got there? Direct action in the street? Uh-huh.

In contrast, I would defy you to name a single positive social change that DID come about because of direct action in the street.

@11,

Voting has been illegal or simply not existed through the majority of human history. People have fought and died for YOUR ungrateful ass's right to vote. It was illegal for women to vote the entire time Goldman lived in the United States.

Fuck you AND Emma Goldman.

@23 I know I've read more than once that there is 60%+ support for things like pulling out of Afganistan, raising taxes on the rich. Many of Obama's policies that anger liberals are things that benefit the power structure and monied classes and do not at all enjoy popular support.

Fnarf @27:

Is "The Suffragettes" too obvious an answer for you?

@24, This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen. That those of us who don't want the President to be a fucking Reaganite accuse him of having unlimited powers. Bullshit. We expect him to be the president though and not hold contempt for us. He's also the head of the Democratic Party and can persuade people in his party to vote the way he wants. If you have a hard time believing that, just observe that the President worked very hard to get Congress to pass President Bush's free trade agreements and when Kucinich was grandstanding and pretending he'd block Obamacare, Obama got him to turn very fast in a little plane ride on Airforce One.

There's plenty in Obama's purview, like:
-appointing neoliberal domestic cabinet members
-keeping the neoconservative appointees of the previous president
-signing death warrants for American citizens
-committing war crimes by refusing to follow the Geneva Conventions and obstructing justice
-signing an anti-choice executive order to get a Heritage Foundation health insurance and pharma bailout bill passed

You people think you've got some exclusive knowledge of how the system works--I'm not dumb guy, just aware.

But, no, just lazily say, "You guys expected the President to be Jesus! Doh!"

Anybody who doesn't vote because they can't get everything they want doesn't deserve what they have. And that includes the Bill of Rights.

@27 You might want to look up The Bonus Army.

@32 Even idiots like you who don't understand what "rights" are, deserve their rights.

@27: You can't be serious, but here's a big one: The Civil Rights Act.
Otherwise, off the top of my head: the 8 hour workday, the right to collectivley bargain with employers, EPA, the end of the draft, FMLA, gay marriage (where applicable), and women's suffrage. Anyone else want to help?

@28: That little tantrum doesn't even make sense.

(Nobody seemed to notice, but I said the Tea People had 20K. That was an estimate from when they were first forming and building their platform wiki. Silver says 300K as of 2009.)

Pardon my spelling of collectively.

@23 "the policies that you want Obama to take, but which he hasn't, ARE NOT POPULAR POLICIES."

That must be why Obama is now campaigning on the left while he governs on the right. You are either clueless or disingenuous. Have you looked at the ~60% (on average) of the population supporting single-payer healthcare, taxing the wealthy, stopping wars, gaining austerity policies, etc ..? It's not because corporate propaganda successfully gets corporate tools elected that most people aren't on Obama's left.

@30, the sufragettes used the moral authority of their argument to persuade men to vote for the vote for women. But that's about 1% of the story there. The suffragette marches were not the primary reason that laws were changed. The rights of women is an idea that had been coming into focus for a long time in many ways. History is complex.

If you want to pull out another example, try Prohibition. Wait -- oops!

@31, it must be nice to live in a dream world where there are no Republicans and your 10% views always take precedence no matter how unpopular they are. "Medicare for all" is lovely but IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You yourself are making it LESS likely, not more.

@27 "In contrast, I would defy you to name a single positive social change that DID come about because of direct action in the street."

How do you think they "made FDR do it"? (clue: sitting on their couch until the next election isn't the right answer)

@39 It must be nice to live in a dream world where voting is the end-all be all, even with obvious proof to the contrary.

Medicare for all is unlikely. Thanks for that. I get it, goddammity. But you said it's unpopular. Is it?

In more useless studies, a statistical geek said that, in a survey of Mostly liberal users if the FourSquare app who checked in to Occupy locations, it was mostly liberals.

Duh.

Phone surveys of those who don't screen calls revealed respondents to mostly by old white folks too.

Duh.

Only Feet On The Ground works any more, lazybones. Yes, that means you.

Remember, if you don't have billions, you can't complain.

Unless you're a corporation.

Or shorter: What do with a problem like a two party political system + electoral college?

drink heavily then vote and hope for the best... seems to have worked out well for some 230 odd years, amirite?

If somebody really cares about something, it shows in their actions. Even if voting only makes a tiny, tiny difference, a person who was truly concerned would demonstrate that concern by expending the minimal effort necessary to check a series of boxes on a ballot. Somebody who claims to care deeply about their democracy yet can't be troubled to participate in the simplest way is just preening.

Often it's the combination of sympathetic public officials and a loud public outcry that produces change. Lyndon Johnson sure as hell wouldn't have signed any civil rights legislation if his feet weren't to the fire (he reportedly said "we've lost the South for a generation." upon signing the Civil Rights Act, lamenting the bill's political cost to the Democratic Party.) But sign it he did.

That's how it works. Vote and make noise.

"Vote and make noise." I agree with this to the degree that voting is consequential locally.

However, if someone wants to exercise their right to vote for somebody else that's their right. If they want to dispose of their right to vote, that is also their right and they're not somehow precluded from participating in the system. I don't see the benefit of lecturing them on how they're preening or supporting Republicans is even useful, especially given the argument above that only participating in Democratic politics is a worthwhile effort.

@35,

Right. It doesn't make sense that I'm pushing back against your highly offensive, flat-out wrong, and just plain stupid assertion that the powers that be are absolutely happy to "let" us vote.

You have the intelligence and maturity of a spoiled, 5-year-old brat.

Have you looked at the ~60% (on average) of the population supporting single-payer healthcare, taxing the wealthy, stopping wars, gaining austerity policies, etc ..?

The majority of that 60 percent doesn't vote. Why should politicians give a fuck what they think?

You know whom politicians listen to? The elderly, who vote in overwhelmingly large numbers and vote Republican. They're what happen to idiots like bhowie when they *finally* grow up.

It should be noted when griping about how corrupt the system is: A major reason and very likely the primary reason corporate money has such influence over politics in this country is that it costs 8 arms and 10 legs to get elected to higher office and the reason it costs so much is that the majority of the American populace that actually gets out and votes lets their TVs tell them who to vote for. The ignorant electorate gets the government they deserve.

Can't voting AND direct action in the street be effective? AND other things, like writing, etc.? I don't get the black and white thinking. Fnarf, you say that history is complex but then you demand that people find some issue that was brought about by one type of action, in order to prove that protesting works. I don't get it. You might as well say, "Name one law that was passed without politicians' votes or a referendum" and use that to make your argument.

We definitely need to vote, but we also need to figure out a way to reform our system so that we actually have something to vote FOR, something our current system has been specifically corrupted to make it impossible to do. We need to make our vote worth something again by getting the money out of our elections, and just how the hell are we supposed to do that solely by voting, when the current system won't tolerate candidates that run on a platform of completely publicly funded elections? Pretty much everyone here is madly in love with Elizabeth Warren, but she’s only a coherent MODERATE. She only appears radical because most everyone else in office these days has already drank the neoliberal kool-aid.

We need votes and we need protests. We need to change the political reality our politicians live in. But really, do people doubt we won’t get people w/ populist platforms primarying Dems AND Repubs out of this? If OWS keeps gaining steam, how could we not? Of course it will likely splinter the movement some because many won’t want to play the game while it’s still rigged, but it will happen. Then we’ll see what happens when they run, how effective OWS is at supporting them, how effective Wall Street is at destroying them, and how they act once they’re in office if they make it. We’re the underdogs, pitting ourselves against the most powerful forces on the planet, we need to be in this for the long haul.

@49 HAHA, I'll never live that down irrelevancy. NOPE, I didn't.

@52, but you're going to next year, right?

@46:

If they want to dispose of their right to vote, that is also their right and they're not somehow precluded from participating in the system. I don't see the benefit of lecturing them

I'm not so much concerned with lecturing people like you as with presenting a counter to your evangelism for disenfranchisement. If you were content to not vote and shut up about it, how would I even know to care? But what you are trying to do is convince others to march under your banner of self-righteously accomplishing exactly nothing in exchange for the reward of endless bitching rights about how the world wouldn't be so fucked up if everybody did things your way.

In this sense you're no different than a LaRouchie -- nobody can say your ideas are wrong because they've never been tried and they never will be. Hey, congratulations!

It's amazing how, when cynicism guides one's every action, it never wants for confirmation in the world at large. Betting on failure is always the safest bet, especially when you hold the power in your hands to ensure failure. The problem is that winning that bet means you fail.

Also, for all of you who think there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats so who cares who you vote for, I have some rebuttals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Rob…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._A…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Th…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Sca…

vs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotom…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_G._…

Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer are all in their seventies. Hmm.

@44 wins and this thread is inane.

Voting is not the entire democratic process. Without public debate (and yes, protests) there is nothing to vote *about*.

Should these apparently politically active people vote? Probably. Who they should vote for, I couldn't say. Democrats have been poor on the policies relevant to OWS and good only by comparison on most progressive social issues. Vote third party*? That is apparently vilified as idiotic, too.

People are asked to choose representatives from either D or R. Some of those people don't think either represents them. Their options are to opt-out (morons!), vote third party (might as well opt-out!), and/or make their case to the public (lazy hippies, many of them don't even vote!).

What do you propose as an alternative, Fnarf?

* I do, with some exceptions.

Occupants are possibly rational actors who understand that the private economy, not government, holds their solution.

Same as the tea party.

@47 "The majority of that 60 percent doesn't vote. Why should politicians give a fuck what they think?"

Pols will give a fuck when these people are in the street. Note that history shows it is a 'when', not an 'if'.

@54 I am actually doing rather the opposite, that people do enfranchise themselves--but please continue to preach yourself, about one's motivations or ideas, how they care or don't when you don't know them, or derail them because they disagree with you. Congratulations, you've illustrated my point and have been a prick in the process! Good job at encouraging people to vote!

Interesting that you say my ideas have never been tried, because they rarely are, are they? And your presumptuousness about my ideas is no better than the rightwing trolls who infect this thread. I never really said I wanted magical fluffy ponies and unicorns, but I became pretty fucking concerned when those in power kept doing the same things--it's pretty conspicuous isn't it? I became concerned when I thought I voted for a moderate and he turned into the Tea Party president. So fuck you.

I don't have much cynicism in me. For that, look to yourself and Fnarf, minimalizing separate opinions of people and limiting rights to your belief in a system that's rigged from the beginning. You have no imagination, much less hope. My hope is far deeper than silly proselytizing or a pretense of defending the folks who can't read on their own without the benefit of Proteus' and Fnarf's didactic stories of suffering at the hands of EVIL "Naderism" and "disenfrangelism." But please keep teaching those who you think can't think for themselves!

Oh, and I don't care about failure. I really don't.

So fnarf, why is Obama campaigning to the left of where he governs if most folks aren't on his left?

@53 Oh, fnarf, please afford me some respect and not try to reduce me to a Naderite--IT'S SO FUCKING LAZY. I've said several times that I never and won't vote for the guy. He's actually not my favorite person. I sure as hell am not voting for Obama though. Blame away.

Given the demographics of the occupation, there are probably plenty of people at the OWS protests who weren't even eligible to vote in the 2010 elections.

@55 "for all of you who think there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats so who cares who you vote for"

Whatever people here think has no effect on the huge number of disenfranchised finding little actual difference between R&Ds. If either of the 2 parties wanted the mass of people to vote, they'd give them a reason to go vote.

Fnarf how do you not see a problem with saying in #8: fixing the broken vote-based political system is only possible via voting.

@59: I differ from Fnarf in that I'm all for people taking to the streets with their concerns -- provided they also vote. Your rap about how it doesn't matter who they vote for because both parties are the same is A: demonstrably false and B: pure political poison. I've heard it a million times from people who should know better and it never gets any smarter.

I'll say it again: Tell it to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who would still have their families and loved ones alive if the USA had elected a different president in 2000. To encourage people to opt out of a decision that carries that much real world consequence is unconscionable. I probably agree with you on a great many of your political positions, but the "don't vote" meme is pernicious and I'm going to say so every time I hear it, so get used to it.

The first time I voted for a president was in '08 (I'm old enough to have voted for Clinton in '92) not because I totally bought into the "Change" bullshit but I thought Obama would be an improvement regarding war and civil liberties. I think that was the "hope" of many people who voted for him. I even got teary-eyed the night of the election.

Even though he had many mandates and a majority in the house and senate all I saw was more of the same--worse in fact. I was disillusioned before '08, then actually had some faith in the political system for a minute, only to have it permanently dashed on the rocks.

If you want to vote and find it meaningful, fine. I'm not going to wag my finger at you, don't go wagging yours at me. I've got years of life experience and a decent amount of historical analysis that says voting is NOT democracy. If you want to debate me, fine. It helps me better articulate my own positions. If you just want to heap insult riddled scorn on me you can go fuck yourself.

@65 "Tell it to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who would still have their families and loved ones alive if the USA had elected a different president in 2000."

You couldn't tell that to 500k Iraqis who died due to Clinton's embargo. "Estimates of excess civilian deaths during the sanctions vary widely, but range from 100,000 to over 1.5 million."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sancti…

@65 I pretty much believe in the "simultaneous work" (foots in the streets and voting) hypothesis you just gave. Which is why I fully support OWS.

FTR, I'm a voter, even if I recognize and support the right to dispose of a vote doesn't mean I am doing that. There is a difference.

@65 And I'd like to know if support for the Dems has helped prevent the US' continued bellicosity as well. It hasn't.

"I differ from Fnarf in that I'm all for people taking to the streets with their concerns -- provided they also vote."

@59, but you are against them taking to the streets with their concerns if they choose not to vote? People are entitled to engage with the system in the way that seems best to them. Protesting is political action, if they think it's the best action available to them, that's what they should do--completely independent of whether they think voting is also a useful activity.

If you have political goals (eg. electing Gore in 2000) it falls to you to persuade others to take the action that suits you. It's important to get that straight. Some people think their best option is not to vote (and let's grant they may be making a horrible mistake, born of frustration or apathy). It's *you* who wants them to vote. If they don't vote enough for your liking, that's not their failure, but yours.

^^^ should be @65

@70: It's a free country. They can march in the streets and not vote, they can stand on their heads and demand free pie if they want.

But let's not kid ourselves.

I am with Fnarf on this one.

It's infuriating and thoroughly indefensible that otherwise intelligent people don't vote.

I'm questioning the "intelligence" assumption these days.

I support protest without reservation. But it's not a very reliable means to long term change. Even when it is successful.

Participating in even a broken system is crucial.

@61, "not Obama" IS "Nader".

@56 Well said.

@74 Oh well, if we get to generalize, then “Obama” IS “Bush”.

@76: Ha! Exactly.

@72, I'm not sure who is fooling themselves. It could be all of us.

But whatever you think about voting, what these people are doing is better than what you seem to be asking them to do, which is to stay home ashamed that they didn't vote in 2008. They can redeem themselves by voting party line in 2012, right?

@76, yes, that makes perfect sense, if you are six years old.

Personality cult much? It's not ABOUT Barack Obama; it's about the group of people and ideas that he represents -- not the president but also his cabinet and staff and many thousands of department heads and LET'S NOT FORGET JUDGES. That's who you're voting for.

If you're voting for some super-liberal, he or she doesn't have any of those things; and she or he doesn't have even the remotest chance of winning, or even influencing the vote in any way except a pro-Republican one. That's what makes him or her "Nader". Nader also is irrelevant as a person or as a proponent of ideas.

Ideas don't matter if you don't have power. Power comes from votes. Votes in the ballot box and votes in congress.

None of you have even the tiniest glimmer of a clue how to translate your desires into action. You somehow think that by protesting, by getting into pathetic little scuffles with cops over your tents is going to somehow convince the powers-that-be to just walk away from power? You think they're going to see a hundred people standing in the rain and think, "yeah, you know, I think I WILL vote for that tax increase"?

How's it going to go down? Just tell me that. How is anything on your laundry list ever going to make it into a bill before congress? Or, you know, revolution -- because a hundred of you, who can't even stop a handful of policemen from arresting you for sitting on the sidewalk, are going to overthrow the most powerful government in the history of the world? Huh? HOW?

You got nothing. I got not much more, maybe, but I'm at least a small part of the system. The ONLY SYSTEM THERE IS.

And it has devolved into all-caps raging.

Fnarf, I like you. You are a good influence on slog in many ways, but that rant was nuts. Breathe.

As for how it's going to go down: Democracy, maaaannnn. Public debate and 'pathetic scuffles' are part of the process that leads to those all important votes. How hard is it to understand that?

Fnarf is nothing more than a denier of the history of popular mass movements that have led to political change throughout time.

Not voting and then bitching and moaning about how your fantasy projects never happen, while willfully ignoring the harsh realities of what it takes to push through legislation to change things is perfectly ludicrous.

This is ludicrous: "I've got years of life experience and a decent amount of historical analysis that says voting is NOT democracy." What is democracy then? You as dictator? Did it ever register that part of democracy is other people voting too, often ignorant people who are opposed to all the great things you support?

That said I think is off base saying protesting is ineffectual. Look how terrified grown up representatives and senators were of being heckled by tea party jackasses during the run up to the 2010 election. We for sure need some energy on the left to counter the sputtering rage on the right and OWS seems to be providing some of that, at least at the moment.

@81, democracy is voting, pure and simple. People in the streets is not democracy. Voting is the method by which the will of the people is expressed. Come November 2012, guess how many electoral votes the protesters will get, as opposed to the two candidates? If you're not voting, you're not part of the discussion.

"not Obama" IS "Nader"

Christ, you don't even know the system in which you have so much faith. How is this true in Washington State, much less King County unless the Dems have monumentally fucked up even more than I thought?

@83 Stupid, but also wrong. Discussions happen elsewhere. Democracy began with assemblies.

For Fnarf, things are complex when other people are talking, but when he's talking they're very simple.

@82: Let me clarify: When I say voting is not democracy, I mean democracy is not ONLY voting. Voting can be a part of democracy but a truly democratic society is made up of so much more.

Fnarf, I often respect a lot of what you say on other threads but here you are way off. You fail to grasp the complexities of both social history and sociology. "Pure and simple" it ain't.

Yo FNARF: @56 asked you a very good question. I'd like to hear your answer.

@83- "democracy is voting, pure and simple. People in the streets is not democracy. "

So that's why we didn't bother with the rights of expression and assembly...

Seriously Fnarf, just apologize for being pigheaded and move on.

@83 As if voting and mass movements were mutually exclusive. I guess you never heard of direct democracy, for one example among many. The truth is you just don't know what you are talking about and when folks point out to you that you are factually wrong, not only do you just continue with a new line of argument as if nothing happened but you pretend to give lesson about the reality of politics. Why don't you educate yourself?

@56, your option is to either try to persuade your candidates and/or other voters that your positions are correct, or to SUCK IT UP. You don't always get what you want. You very rarely get what you want. But if you try sometimes, etc.

If you can't get votes your protests mean nothing, and no one will remember them afterwards.

@90, no, why don't you educate me? Oh, that's right, because you're soft in the head. Trust me, sunshine, I know plenty about what I'm talking about. Direct democracy? Terrific, as long as you live in a country with fewer than 100 people. In the US, "direct democracy" means Tim fucking Eyman: no thanks. And it is still about voting, isn't it?

I am not factually wrong. A person is free to disagree, and to go protest in the street if that's what floats your boat. But if you think it matters, you're mistaken. That is my message. Street protests are at best writing on sand; at worst, ammunition for your enemies.

Elderly, conservative people vote at twice the rate of people half their age. If you hate Republicans, but were too lazy to get your ass to the polls to vote against them, then shut your whining gob. I've voted in every election since I turned 18 and will keep voting. If people my age voted at the same rates as 60-70 year olds did or better, then the kids wouldn't have to take to the streets demanding justice. No vote, no voice. Hate the status quo? Vote against it! Hate corporate bankers? Take your money to a credit union! Don't like jeezus nuts dictating law? Donate money to Planned Parenthood or Southern Poverty Law!

@79 For the record Fnarf, I wasn't saying that I think Obama is the same as Bush. He's better in some ways, very similar in some ways, and very much worse in others. I was just saying that if you get to generalize Not Obama is Nader, then I get to generalize Obama is Bush. I don't think Not Obama = Nader, just like I don't think Obama = Bush.

People should get to vote for who they want, their vote should not be restricted to the two establishment parties as you so seem to wish. People should have the right to vote their conscience. It's the job of the candidate to earn our vote, not our job to perpetuate a duopoly. If the establishment candidates ever actually want to earn our votes, they know where we are.

@91- Why do you assume street protests don't motivate people positively and/or function as cheap advertising for your cause? It seems you're arguing that these protests are somehow anti-voting when that's actually an opinion held by a minority of the protesters. 39% voted in a midterm election (according to a small poll), that's actually pretty close to average, isn't it? How many are going to vote in the next election? It's going to depend on what is being offered, and I hope (and feel some confidence) that some of these people (and everyone watching on the news) are going to show up for the primaries and help shift America's political discourse back to reality.

If you can't get the votes, you might not be remembered. If you do get the votes you might get a monument built to you. If you just sit at home except for one day a year then you're not really doing much at all.

91: Okay, please, explain to me your thoughts on the labor movement and the civil rights movement. Is there any reason to believe that Hoover or Goldwater would have done differently? Maybe, but highly unlikely. In both cases concessions had to be made because of widespread unrest, and the ruling class was demanding it.

@91 You're just wrong about protests. How else do you persuade politicians? I gave you The Bonus Army, which had no small part in the election of Roosevelt and eventually Congress gave them what they wanted. And guess what? Roosevelt made some very nice concession to them but he didn't give them what they wanted. It wasn't Roosevelt, it was a fearful Congress who overrode Roosevelt's veto, IIRC. They saw what happened in 1932.

Furthermore, if you seriously believe that Obama wants to do the right thing (I don't) but is held back by one thing or another, this is EXACTLY what he needs to push a more liberal agenda. The ruling class doesn't like poor people to get anything, but to stem the tide of unrest they make politicians throw bones. Hence the Wagner Act, and many other examples.

My bad, it would have been Nixon. Still, no difference.

Fnarf: "The Christopher Hitchens of Slog" (in case you were wondering, I mean this as a complement and an insult, but on this thread it's an insult)

Let's review your accomplishments to date: hmm, there doesn't appear to be anything here. Your abysmal turnout Saturday -- a fraction of the soccer game crowd at the other end of downtown -- tells your opponents, and more importantly your friends, that you can be safely ignored. Good job! You'll get some lip service from various factions, but the prevailing point of view amongst the people who matter is "hmm, interesting, that's still going on" (turns page or channel).

Now, for your history lessons: you people are deeply confused. For one thing, the progressivist reformist movements of a hundred years ago took place in a vastly different America. The left was different, and the right was different, and everyone was naive; nobody knew anything about it then. But this symbolic game had turned into tic-tac-toe by the anti-war (and everything else) protests of the late-sixties, and since that time all the moves are plotted out in advance. You're not exercising free will, you're acting out a script. In 1932 you could catch the right wing unawares, but not anymore.

But your Bonus Army example is ridiculous on the face of it. They were veterans demanding a very specific thing: cash money. Is that what you want, a payoff? I don't think so. Also, they won their battle after several of them were shot by police; is that what you want? It would probably help your public standing.

Parallels to the sixties college activism are more apt, but not to your favor, and I would suggest you avoid them as much as possible. Nothing, but nothing, agitates the right like the blinkered view of the sixties that they have in mind, and I have to say that in political terms I agree with them. Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman were, in fact, mercenary shit-stirrers with a suspect agenda that was half radicalism, half self-aggrandizement; Chicago '68 was, in fact, a deliberate provocation of a riot that they knew was coming; most of the classic sixties SDS/Weatherman radicals were, in fact, hard-core leftist lunatics who idolized Mao and Kim Il-Sung (notorious right-wing bugbear Bill Ayers wrote and performed a whole mess of bad songs about the glorious revolution in North Korea at one famous SDS/Weatherman meeting). The Black Panthers stormed the California State Capitol with rifles in their hands (that was back in the day when the RIGHT was promoting gun control, believe it or not). Lots of people who should have known better would seriously chat about overthrowing the government at the drop of a pin, and a lot of normal people, disturbed by how their world seemed to be falling apart (sound familiar), were terrified by it.

Idealized 68-72 nostalgia glosses over just how silly that season was, politically, but the results are pretty plain: Nixon in '68, Nixon by a massive landslide in '72. Remember, also, how blindsided the left was by '72; I think it was Joan Didion who said, "I can't believe Nixon won; I don't know a soul who voted for him". That's called being out of touch, and it's described left Democrats ever since.

And the war went on much longer than it would have. And then the Reagan went on much longer than it would have. And then the Bush went on much longer than it would have.

And this was a serious mass movement, or certainly appeared to be at the time; in hindsight, statistically speaking hardly anyone was politically active on the far left in the sixties, however much noise they made among the rememberers. You are not making that much noise. And you will meet with as much success.

The sixties and seventies were about far more than people marching in the street, of course, and the change that came about was genuine, or at least entertaining. But those days are also gone. It's your enemies who are energized by "the sixties" now (and who have adopted some of the same organizing methods, and alas some of the same weepy victimhood). Y'all don't seem to be aware of any of this, but because you still idolize the dimwits who went before you, you're bound and determined to repeat their mistakes.

And make new ones; because your enemies are much cleverer than they used to be, and they know all the signs and symbols and secret handshakes just as well as you, if not better, and they're using them against you. And you're getting creamed. They're better at theater than you.

By all means, keep up the conversation; it's a good one, and I have contributed to it here. You want to talk about CEO pay and marginal tax rates and everything else, let's go. Let's try to change some minds. Yell at your elected leaders; you have their phone numbers and emails. But standing around in Westlake with a sign saying something unintelligible about salmon while an indie rock band isn't a recipe for success.

Has no one yet made this point:

Although only 39% of the occupiers voted in the last election, you can damn well be sure 99% of them will in the next.