Part One: Where We Go From Here

NOTE: This is the first in a series of articles that will lay out an action plan for uniting the populist movement.

The Political Landscape

To accurately gauge the efficacy of the Democratic Party base as a political entity, you need to understand how deeply compromised its members are by “magical” thinking.

Liberal activists on the Daily Kos – the PR arm of the OFA -- frequently post comments that serve as useful benchmarks for measuring the level of wishful thinking used to conceal the moral bankruptcy of the party:

Hillary may have accepted millions of dollars in corporate cash, but she says she is a liberal, so I believe her, and I’m all in for Hillary!

Barack Obama may be working to pass the TPP, but the Republicans forced him to do it, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

One of the best examples of mythical thinking is the frequently repeated meme asserting that populists can force Hillary Clinton to “move left” once the Democratic presidential nomination has been resolved. Nothing could be further from the truth. The most likely scenario to be played out at the 2016 Democratic Convention, will be an inter-party challenge led by a token populist; he or she, will be soundly defeated, and then the DNC leadership will chastise progressive members to stop making it easy for Republicans to win; they will then tell the party faithful: “You’ve had your chance, you lost, and now it’s time to start supporting the democratically elected candidate.” And in the end, the common progressive mantra will become: She wasn’t my first choice, but she’s the Democratic nominee, so I’ll support her over a Republican candidate.

And the progressives will have lost again, and they will have learned nothing.

In the current political environment, the only available avenue for creating viable political change exists outside the control of either major political party. Party strategists know there is little to fear from members of the Democratic base. They monitor our blog sites to gauge the level of populist disaffection; and they know more about our complaints and proposed solutions than most populist activists; and they have developed contingency plans to counter our every move. They understand our predictability, and they know the policies we prefer; and they are prepared to do anything in their power to see that we never stand in their way.

An OWS style, grassroots uprising is the type of movement they fear most. They know it is difficult to compromise voices that refuse to be influenced by money and political spin.

And despite spending millions in campaign cash to hire think tanks and focus groups to preempt resistance, Hillary Clinton has made a strategic mistake by opting to rebrand her image. She is not a populist, and if her duplicity and true ideals are exposed, she will become vulnerable.

But still, the party elite control the money, they control the media, and their spin machine is next to none. So our opposition is formidable.

Where Do We Go From Here?

If meaningful lessons can be gleaned from the collapse of the Occupy movement – lessons that might influence the direction of a new grass roots model of activism -- they would have to be culled from the failure of the movement to re-emerge as an effective entity following the FBI’s brutal attack on its members.

The easiest and most obvious weakness to identify was a lack of meaningful action; instead of advancing clearly defined objectives, OWS activists continuously moved laterally, effectively dooming the movement to expend energy floundering in a state of perpetual motion that left no achievable end in sight.

If its only objective was to draw attention to inequality, then it realized a moderate level of success, but even within that narrow latitude of accomplishment, it produced no meaningful results.

Its main strength -- recognition that each member was an equal partner – was also its biggest weakness. In the end, it was nothing more than a runaway train with locomotives attached at both ends, straining to move in opposite directions. But because injustice fuels unrest and unrest leads to change, equality has long been a building block of grass roots movements. And even though securing an equal voice for each member was a lofty goal, when realized, it created confusion and a lack of clarity that led to the loss of common purpose.

And therein lies a basic lesson for the new populist movement; we suffer from a similar state of self-inflicted inertia. In our current form, we are amorphic, lacking even a basic framework to identify our coalition as a political entity.

And as much as progressives like to emphasize inclusiveness; as a political entity, we actually exist more as a coalition of disparate parts united in a quest to achieve a few common objectives. The idiom commonly assigned to liberals -- trying to organize them into a cohesive movement is like trying to herd cats -- is not unfounded. Our innate nature is to resist conformity.

And that lack of common vision, and that natural resistance to structural processes presents the first major obstacle to creating a viable populist movement.

Fortunately, the problem is solvable, but it requires a fresh approach, a new paradigm based on the current trend to create a “sharing economy.”

In the initial stages of development, adopting a modular structure instead of creating a third party entity could mitigate problems associated with linking disparate causes. A more modest definition of the movement’s objectives might be needed in the beginning, but the modular structure creates the perfect environment for facilitating rapid growth. For example, it seems unlikely the movement will convert enough voters before 2016 to win a three-way election (unlikely, but not impossible—especially if Elizabeth Warren enters the race), but creating an alliance that could exert enough clout to defeat an unpopular program, such as the TPP, is a realistic goal. And by eliminating the requirement to merge into one entity, and focusing instead on concatenating them to construct a united front with enough power to influence members of Congress to vote for populist initiatives, generates momentum, and it creates breathing room to build a larger coalition based on the successes we achieve.

To be successful, we don’t have to win the 2016 presidential election; we just need to create a political entity that can exert enough pressure on members of Congress to create the change we desire. Both major parties have become dinosaurs; they are cumbersome and much too slow to adapt to the rapid changes that are reshaping the political landscape. All we need are enough members to guarantee the defeat of either party. That creates clout. Twenty percent of the electorate could swing an election in either direction, and reaching that number is much more achievable than attaining the forty plus percent of votes needed to garner a majority in a three-way election.

An example is the impact Ross Perot’s candidacy had on the 1992 presidential election. Prior to Perot’s entrance into the campaign arena, Bill Clinton had a commanding 58% to 37% lead over G.H.W. Bush, but when the final votes were tallied, Clinton’s lead had dropped to 43%, with Ross Perot capturing 19% of the vote. It was close enough to catch the attention of party leaders, and it is the prime reason third party candidates are no longer given a place at the podium during presidential debates.

But a 20% slice of the pie in today’s environment would equal substantial clout. Obama’s 2012 victory was won by a margin of less than 5% of the electoral vote. And capturing 20% of the electoral vote is an achievable goal for the populist movement. Any surprise surge that might sweep a populist candidate into the White House would just be icing on the cake.

Objective One: Create a modular framework for structuring the populist movement

Action Plan:

1. Create a database of individuals, organizations or groups that support populist causes.
2. Ask each entity to identify his/her/their objectives
3. Have them identify current leaders or potential leaders within that organization.
4. Identify common objectives that might unite all members.
5. Identify issues that might cause contention.
6. Create a hub that will facilitate interaction among populist members, and create an information network to keep members abreast of important changes in the political landscape. We need a way to bypass the mainstream media.
a. Agree on common terminology to limit confusion.
b. Organize major populist writers under one umbrella
c. Create an app to facilitate the sharing of ideas and critical updates

Part Two will address the issue of creating a hierarchy of leadership

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

excellent praenomen, much to chew on here. It fits perfectly with the discussion we were having over the weekend. I'm anxious to hear what other folks have to say. Thank you very much for this.

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

JayRaye's picture

And since we can't know what "populist" means, how are we supposed to know what a "populist" movement is?

up
0 users have voted.

Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons

than turning a very diverse group of people into a working coalition.

The reason I continue to use the word populist is because of its common acceptance among populist bloggers and the main stream media...if I had written a diary that used any other name, no one would have been understood the movement encompases many untested coalitions. And because I'm talking about creating an alliance with a very large swath of disparate groups, a name that includes almost all grass movements is needed.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

JayRaye's picture

That we not allow ourselves to be confused with the right wing. It is very easy for the those who oppose many of the policy of the Democratic Party from the left, to get themselves confused with right wing populism. This happened with Occupy when they attracted many Ron Paul supporters.

I think the name does matter right from the start. And the name "populist" encourages fuzzy thinking, because the name means exactly nothing, and could mean everything and anything.

up
0 users have voted.

Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons

mimi's picture

modular framework. Searching for groups that work on fighting for popular causes? Mentioning them here in comments? Putting them together and looking for common goals everyone can agree upon?

May be it's easier to state all unpopular causes, exclude them and then all what is left would belong to the popular ones?

Well I have no clue about all of it. So, I'll watch what you will do and see if there is anything I can do to support whatever comes out of it. Great diary, sounds very politically professional. 6a. is to me important. 6b. is great. 5. I don't understand, contention is what exactly, finding the issue that might cause the movement most likely to win?

So, this will be the hub? Sounds all good to me. Thanks. Smile

up
0 users have voted.

grass roots voters is that very few of them understand the global economy; in fact, most people aren't even aware it exists and how much it is inmpacting every moment of our lives.

And anyone who has worked with liberal groups long enough understands how difficult it is to reach a consensus among its members; as I said, we are just not very good at structural processes.

The current political system in America is obsolete. and it needs to be replaced with a new model that can respond quickly to the new sharing economy...

Wait until I have posted the entire series and if you still are struggling with the concept, I will be glad to walk you through it.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

Big Al's picture

I'll wade in.

These are the needed discussions, trying to figure out what to do about our "predicament".
The action plan is a good idea and is something that the long anticipated impact of the internet on
on major activism could be better realized.

But I'm not clear on the mission. Or at least what that mission would accomplish. It appears you're
not advocating a new third party, but some kind of Occupy type movement that can exert pressure on
elections. I may be reading that wrong.

I can understand trying to build a database and network of organizations and individuals with common
causes. I've thought for some time that type of effort needs to go global. It could be developed without
a specifically defined goal or actual demands but eventually that's where the rubber meets the road.
What do we want?

up
0 users have voted.

then think about defeating fast track for TPP as prae points out. Think stealth strikes, like Lieberman, only by people who mean it and can't be bought off. That's what I took for step one

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

shaharazade's picture

This is not just an American screw it's Axelrod's 'world as we find it'. Globalization and it's political manifestation across the planet is not about sovereign nation states. OWS had the right idea in their horizontal movement outside the by-partisan plutocracy or what ever the vampire squid is called. I call it oligarchical collectivism as Orwell did in Goldstein's Book. I also like the OWS idea that seemed to be a riff on the hippies which was go local think global. I highly recommend a pamphlet which helped spark OWS and all of the global springs and populist peaceful resistance to the global takeover of the vampire squid on humanities face.

I'll give my input down thread. But global and local is the only thing that's going to work. When Clinton the big dog started with his new world order talk and NAFTA hit the floor I knew deep inside that the only way workers could counteract this was with some kind of global resistance. btw NAFTA ate my living which was not much to shout about but enabled me to be a low tech artist, artisan craft, person and sell my wares and paintings at a decent price.Competing with absurdly low priced beautiful work from Tunisia, SA and other countries not only killed American artisans living but considering the quality and work opf the cheap imports it certainly didn't raise the foreign workers boats either.

up
0 users have voted.
shaharazade's picture

The book? is called Outrage Now and was written by Stephene Hessel, He was a French Resistance hero and later a co-writer with Elenore Roosevelt of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Outrage-Indignez-vous-St%C3%A9phane-Hessel/dp...

In 2010, when most people are winding down and after a long career as a diplomat, Hessel's life took yet another dramatic turn when his 48-page pamphlet Indignez-Vous!, sold 4.5m copies in 35 countries. It was translated into English as Time for Outrage.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/27/writer-activist-stephane-he...

"The global protest movement does not resemble the Communist movement, which declared that the world had to be overturned according to its viewpoint," Hessel said in an interview a year ago.

"This is not an ideological revolution. It is driven by an authentic desire to get what you need. From this point of view, the present generation is not asking governments to disappear but to change the way they deal with people's needs."

OWS and the global protest along with Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine changed my whole political trajectory. There is no way in hell that people can change the 'The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism' by using our thoroughly compromised and useless electoral or political process. They broke it and there is no way to reverse the damage done via the sad remains of our system. It may have been flawed but it had checks and balances and kept these really evil fuckers at bay. People have always had to deal with these want to rule the world Visigoths and it's time to take them on again. Too bad we no longer have any parliamentary, political means to affect needed change but I'm sure that people globally will find a way. History or politics are never static and change is only constant.

Say somebody how can I get those cool text boxes I see here for quotes?

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

Look at your tool bar immediately above your comment box. About 1/3 of the way in from the right side of the tool bar, there is a button with quote marks on it. Click on that button and the words blockquote will appear in the comment box. Insert the material you want to appear as being quoted between the blockquotes and voila you have the cool quote box. Smile

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

type the text out first and then highllght the text in question and then click the quote button (") and the text will automatically be wrapped by the HTML, that makes it easy if your working on a piece that's already been typed out. Most of the buttons work in that fashion.

up
0 users have voted.

thinking for most Democrats, but it is achievable and at this time we could use some victories, no matter how small.

I don't think most progressives are aware that a group called "The World Alliance Against the TPP & TTIP" exists, and I don't think they have any grasp of how unpopular neo-liberalism is on the international stage...

It is much easier to pitch this on a global platform than it is in the U.S. because too many Americans have been kept in the dark by the main stream media.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

snoopydawg's picture

before Clinton. I just read an article about it yesterday.
I will try to find the link. But George Bush Sr. mentioned it it in one of his State of the Union addresses.
September 11, 1990 -- President Bush calls the Gulf War an opportunity for the New World Order. In an address to Congress entitled Toward a New World Order, Mr. Bush says:

"The crisis in the Persian Gulf offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times... a new world order can emerge in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.... Today the new world is struggling to be born."

July, 18, 1993 -- CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in the Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA:

"What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system... a first step toward a new world order."

I actually commented yesterday why 3rd party candidates WERENT all anymore. It was because Perot scared the pants off of TPTB when he talked about the jobs going offshore if nafta passed. The league of women voters used to run the debates, then another organization took over and another organization took over.
Jill Stein was arrested when she tried to go to the debates.
And after the TPP passes, then the new world order is complete. they've been working on this for decades.
good to see you writing again Praenomen'.
KOS has another Hillary is special diary up and of course everyone who doesn't like her policies is called a hater.
Not very many are aware how dangerous she was as SOS. Pushing countries to open up for fracking and then there's wh the Clinton foundation is involved in.
Someone brought up Nuland and ukraine and of course no one wanted to hear about that.

Here's the link. Make up your own mind whether this site is CT or not.

http://www.threeworldwars.com/new-world-order.htm

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

I remember the small stir it caused inthe media.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

lotlizard's picture

Absolute monarchs who aren't just the 1%, on this planet they're the 1%-of-1%-of-1% of the 1%.

up
0 users have voted.

The following is a from the book "Worse Than You Think: The real economy hidden beneath Washington's Rigged Statistics, and Where to go from here" which I think is an important book on political economics. I have been in contact with many here about dong a series on DK, which could start here, which goes through every chapter. Years ago Joannelon encouraged me on the project and suggested that I post each chapter along with a diary. The text for each chapter is on line and the book is available on amazon.com for 99 cents for down load. Even though the book is a couple of years old, it is an important general discussion necessary because politics has been overwhelmed by economics, and it is a corrupt neo liberal economics.

This is from Chapter 7 "Selling Congress"

Taming The Presidential Debates

The last remaining bump in the road to mindless elections was the presidential debates. They did not fit the model of campaigns as theater. The debates were a recent thing, held at bay for more than three decades. The age of radio, begun in the 1920s, had created a national audience, yet the debates didn’t happen. No candidate wanted to be the first to debate before the entire public. What if he made a mistake, said the wrong thing, stammered his answers, or appeared indecisive? Could a bad performance cost him the election? Since it was untested water, no one knew the answer. Therefore, no candidate jumped at the chance to make history. It was too risky.

Franklin Roosevelt was as popular as a president could get. It put him way ahead in the polls. And he was no stranger to the radio. Roosevelt used the radio often for his fireside chats. The off-the-cuff soliloquies let him speak his mind to the public, but in a way that gave Roosevelt complete control. A radio debate was different. What if he made a mistake? Roosevelt could lose his lead in the polls. He might even lose the election. He refused to debate.
Eisenhower could have been the first president to debate on television. He turned down the chance. Eisenhower was enormously popular. But he was also an awful public speaker. He flubbed his words and often spoke in incomplete sentences that made no sense. Like Roosevelt, he did not want to throw away his lead in the polls by doing poorly in a debate.

History had to wait until 1960 for the first presidential debate. It was between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. The debate was so popular that the public made it a rite of passage for presidential campaigns. Future candidates who ducked debates were punished at the voting booth.
In 1976, the League of Women Voters sponsored the debates. The League was the ideal choice. Its sole purpose was to promote honest democracy through a discussion of the important issues of the day. With the League in charge, it was difficult for candidates to avoid tough questions on issues that really mattered. But this created a problem. Washington no longer served the people. It served the corporations and the rich. It would not do to have the League on television before a national audience asking questions that exposed the scandal of our stolen democracy. It was urgent that the Democrats and Republicans take the debates away from the League and run the debates themselves.

Three elections later, in 1988, the leaders of the two main parties conspired to hijack the debates. Behind the scenes they created the Commission on Presidential Debates. The name sounds official, like a committee that congress appointed to take care of the public good. It is nothing of the sort. It is a private corporation, funded by corporate sponsors like Xerox, Ford Motors, and the agribusiness giant ADM. And the commission certainly does not have the good of the public in mind when it organizes debates. At the same time, the Democratic and Republican candidates met secretly to make their own rules for the debates. These rules turned the debates into a glorified press conference. There would be no hard questions or no real give-and-take debate.
The League of Women Voters refused to accept these limits. It was clear the candidates wished to avoid substance and spontaneity and to skirt tough questions. They wanted to turn the debates into a fraud. The League announced at a press conference that it “has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”46

When the League backed out, the Commission on Presidential Debates was in the aisles waiting to take over. It has been running the show ever since. Under its rule, in the place of debates, the candidates exchange sound bites. Answers to questions must be crammed into a tight one and a half to two minutes. And the commission keeps third party candidates off the stage, even when polls show the majority of Americans want them included.47 Third-party candidates are too dangerous. They might raise real issues.

Even with all of the controls, candidates still worry they might make a flub in front of millions of voters. The commission protects them by scheduling the debates at a time when people are likely to be watching something else. This is why so many of the debates are shown opposite MLB playoff games.4

up
0 users have voted.

It is obvious that a lot of thought has gone into this and produced a very tangible outcome. I can't wait to hear more.

Once Jane Hamsher suggested at dailykos that the left and teapots join together to take on some piece of repulsive proposed legislation. There are so many I can't remember which one. In any event, they almost burned her at the stake. Howard Dean also suggested this during his campaign when he said even southerners with confederate flags and guns appended to their trucks needed to eat. He was brought to the woodshed too. Joining disparate groups in common cause makes total sense, which is why it keeps getting shouted down.

I do have a question. Is someone already doing this and you are sharing, or is your diary leading up to "be the change you want to see"? I can't wait to read Chapter 2.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

to get it.

This is my own project. I've read a lot of great discussions re: how we move forward, but none I've seen approach it from a management viewpoint, so I decided to take it through the basic steps of preparing an action plan on the corporate level, and after preparing the outline, I had a pretty good understanding that we can't continue to follow the same path, and we are not going to influence anyone by remaining a member of either one of the major political entities.

I think the next article will demonstrate why the modular approach is needed. It provides a way to stop the bickering that is tearing us apart, and replaces it with an alliance structure that promotes cooperation.

Thanks

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

we have no power. No power = no change.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

gulfgal98's picture

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

mimi's picture

plenty of institutes and groups who could go into your database. For example the Peri Institute. (See TRN from this evening on the EB).

up
0 users have voted.

Please feel free to contribute your insight. It will be warmly welcomed.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

Roger Fox's picture

Cause thats what needed.

up
0 users have voted.

FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

Unabashed Liberal's picture

(partly) to avoid AstroTurf organizations--which are mostly of what the so-called "left" has.

Head of so-called "Bold Progressives" is a Washingtonian, born into a political family, and former Clinton WH intern--real bold and real progressive, LOL!

Everything that he's had anything to do with (that I can find), has been with, and/or on the behalf of the Democratic Party Establishment. Heck, he even acknowledges that his organization is designed to work with Dems legislatively, yet some folks buy into him as being some kind of trail-blazing liberal.

Go figure.

(Oh, and he's had nothing to say but glowing words about FSC on his most recent C-Span appearance--never acknowledging, of course, that he worked in her husband's WH. Only found that out because Amy brought it up on Democracy Now.)

Anyhoo, finding any true grassroots organizations on the left, will be a monumental challenge.

But certainly worth a try!

Mollie

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

It is a monumental task getting liberals to buy into any new idea, and you are correct about needing to avoid the faux democrats.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

am engaged politically in some state wide fights here in OH

and spending time with Green party

your diary on DK was great and you brought out the troll

how many of them are on the payroll of the dem party?

how much does DK get from the party?

up
0 users have voted.

Your questions about the party henchmen on the DKos are the same questions I've been trying to resolve -- to a certain extent, I know the answers to "who" and "how" but I haven't found the "smoking gun," so the quest continues...

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

Do you rule out a third party, to challenge the Democratic and Republican parties?

If so, why?

up
0 users have voted.

Don't fight the stream - Tyr Anasazi

mimi's picture

Isn't it the electoral college which makes it impossible for any third party to win a majority over either Democrats or Republicans? If the system is structured in that way, who would have the nerves to vote for a third party then?

The only third party I would vote for is the one, who would completely rewrite and overturn the electoral college. A party that would work on the system and its own political goals in addition. No one has seriously suggested that so far. May be I don't understand your voting system, but I think it's dysfunctional and rigged and undemocratic. And as long as a third party has to function within that system, it probably can't change much.

up
0 users have voted.

If you keep asking these types of questions, you will understand how the proposed system will help eliminate or restructure obsolute rules.

At the onset, our first objective is simply to organize and put in place a model that allows everyone a seat at the table, while eliminating the normal issues associated with developing a new political entity.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

mimi's picture

I want to vote for a third party ... which one?

up
0 users have voted.

I'm only suggesting that we create a framework that allows the populist movement to operate under a new, more responsive paradigm.

I -- as do many people -- believe the current political system is obsolete. I'm offering a model that eliminates most of the obstacles you would normally encounter when creating a new party. Because of its modular approach, it will make it possible for the movement to grow rapidly. When it reaches the proper level of membership to compete on the national level, then the decision to form a third party would be made by member organizations.

The first step is to tackle achievable goals, and to reach a strength level that will provide the movement enough clout to earn a seat at the table. Consider how toothless the progressive movement is at the moment. We have almost zero chance of influencing policy.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

gulfgal98's picture

I am a firm believer in social movements as a vehicle for change. Politicians are guardians of the status quo which is why voting alone will not bring about major changes. I am now trying to read up on social movements, and found this little guide to them which may be helpful.

http://www.turning-the-tide.org/files/Bill%20Moyer%208-stages%20Social%2...

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

I was about to post Part Two, and then I read your comment, so I want to take time to study this outline before I post anything else.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

gulfgal98's picture

but I found it handy as perhaps one of many ideas out there. I hope I have not derailed your series. One thing I was trying to find is some sort of quantification of how many people must buy off on a social movement for it to have a major impact. I do not believe that it is anywhere near 50% although that chart seems to counteract my intuition on that fact. I remember Ray Pensador quoting 5-10% in many of his diaries before he was banned, but I never saw a link to verify that. I certainly believe a strong core well under 50% can effect real change. Regardless, I am looking forward to reading more of your ideas on this.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

I think 17% is a likely number, but it would only take about 8% to 10% to have an impact.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

lotlizard's picture

BTW, gulfgal98 — since your sig quotes Cornel West — have you seen this piece about Cornel West and the "liberal" establishment's attempt to smear him in the pages of The New Republic?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fear-of-a-Black-Prophet-T-by-Chris-Floy...

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

I think the article you linked lays out what may be the real reason West has been attacked by establishment Democrats.

I have read where he is some sort of egomaniac and in it all for himself. That is not what I experienced. In 2012, I met Dr. West when he came to speak to Occupy Tallahassee. Dr. West was a big supporter of the Occupy Movement. Coming to speak to us was his idea even though our group was a very small Occupation. Dr. West took time out from his busy schedule to come visit with us and speak to us while he was in town for a paid speaking engagement at Florida State University.

My sig line is a quote from the speech he gave to Occupy Tallahassee. He is a riveting speaker and IMHO, a truth teller. He spoke for about fifteen minutes and then stayed on to pose for pictures, sign books that people had brought, and talk to each of us individually. He is a hugger and I found him to be a very warm, humanistic, and genuine person who honestly was interested in what each of us had to say.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

shaharazade's picture

the loyal Democratic partisan's all voices that our outside the establishment Democratic apparatchik or the propaganda media are simply in it for themselves. Greenwald, Snowden, Assange, Michael Moore, Cenk, Jessica Raddick, Taibbi, West, Russel Brand, KO, Kucinich, Dean, the list is long and ongoing. It includes anyone who dares to speak their truths and gathers an audience that listens.

They not only must be silenced but personally attacked especially regarding their motivation and integrity. They pose a threat to the delusional double think mindset that is required to be a believer in the reality of the partisan political kabuki show. Kind of fanatical if you ask me. Step out of the drawn party line on any issue or expose the naked emperor's and you must be invalidated and eviscerated.

I have always liked Cornell West. We used to watch him on Bill Maher's late night show back in the Bush days. He is humanistic, funny, articulate and smart and knows how to preach it. He ran circles around the conservatives in any debate. Funny how all the great voices who stood up to the Bush regime and RW became the enemy once Obama was elected and the pragmatic centrist Democratic machine became once again ascendant.

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

when I posted these diaries:

2. Update - Dr. Cornel West arrested at Supreme Court in Washington DC

This Brother Speaks for Me - A Principled Black Leftist

well, then someone said Dr. Cornel West never worked in the, I think they used the word, trenches. I have to say that a lot of things in the reactions to these two diaries confused me quite a bit. Of course, I have not your insider US education to understand it at first glance. I have the feeling there are some feelings of jealousy towards Dr. Cornel West from some critics, but then what do I know.

FWIW, I am my brother's keeper.

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

the hard way. I wrote a diary about Dr. West speaking at Occupy Tallahassee and it was virtually ignored.

I believe that a big part of the problem is the Dr. West has challenged the first African American President on the substance of his Presidency in terms that are often very unflattering to those who are heavily invested in his Presidency. This creates a negative emotional reaction that, as a white privileged woman, I cannot fully understand. However, analogous to that is that I am a white privileged woman of the very same age as Hillary Clinton but I do not feel the least defensive when people criticize her policy stances, regardless of the language they use. Maybe that is because I am not emotionally invested in having just a woman President or in Hillary Clinton herself. I am more invested in having good governance regardless of the age, gender, race or ethnic origin of the person(s) governing.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

shaharazade's picture

I rec'ed your excellent diary from 2013. Sorry it took so long but I missed it when it was published. What a blast from the past looking at the people, long gone in the thread. I really liked geomoo and wonder whether he still blogs or is political. Yes I do think their is jealousy towards Cornell West as well as resentment from the old school AA establishment big names. Perhaps they resent that his ideas and values do not look at success in the status quo world they now represent and work for. I can not bring myself even as a woman to identify with Hillary. To me she represents everything I fight against. Success in her world is a world of pain and misery for most women globally. Liberation, equality and power for women should not be tied to breaking corporate ceilings and bombing villages of women and children.

up
0 users have voted.