Reading these commentaries on the Occupy movement really opens one’s eyes to the situation that is quite simply this: The generalization of the movement has given it no real direction with no clear cut goals and has lent itself to contradictory positions at the hands of others who seek to define the Occupy movement for themselves.
This is no more plainly stated than in this article wherein one commentator states the movement seeks an Obama presidential victory while the other states the movement “doesn’t give a damn” about politics. These two positions are not mutually exclusive in today’s political arena. The result: while the movement has not been a failure, the movement has not done enough to reach out to the general public at large. Perhaps maybe it was never intended to do so……….
EDITOR: Perhaps my notes mislead on this point. Every speaker prefered that Barack Obama be re-elected. However, they see the Democrat Party and the Reupblican Party as serving the same 1%, addicted to campagin funding.
My sense is that many of those in attendance, including this writer, would welcome a responsible new party. I say “new” rather than “third” because many of us see the Democrats and Republicans as basically one party, an autocracy, at this time.
Of course the heart of the problem is the unrestricted campaign funding which can no longer be reigned in due to the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court other than by a Constitutional Convention…risky but perhaps our last hope.
It also shows the reality of the trapped nature of U.S. voters. They are stuck in picking from the lesser evil corporate candidate. For one group the lesser evil is Obama, for another group of voters the lesser evil is anybody but Obama.
Very few have broken out of the two party trap. It is a representative democracy that does not represent the people.
KZ