This is the first submission I received, from Jeremy Russell up here in Saugerties, NY (near my neck of the woods). He addresses some ways we can reach out to the populace at large, as well as obstacles to that happening. I've edited it for length, with the author's permission.
I'd been voicing my apprehension for the future of this country among my former co-workers, whom were less informed about topics occurring outside their homes, specifically when the issues in Wisconsin were taking place. This probably took place for all of 2010 and 2011. You couldn't imagine how elated I was on September 17, when OWS formally commenced, because I personally couldn't brainstorm any other plausible, seemingly unattainable solution. Although it was quite possibly the worst time in the world for me to quit my two jobs, I did so anyway, because I was overworked and unhappy, and had no real possibility to work on anything of redeeming or fulfilling value. So, in August, I quit anyway, moved back in with my Dad, and began writing and blogging. Suffice to say, I've been consumed by the happenings of OWS.
My idea has not been to try fixing or proposing solutions right away. This is because there are too many people that are against OWS altogether. Because I believe in power in numbers, I've thought it'd be better to try and figure out what the issues are that keep people in disagreement. There are many levels of dissenters, from the completely aloof, to the misinformed, to the ardent detractor. There are some people, similar to what politicians term "swing-voters," that the movement could easily pull in. There are some that will take a lot of work. There are some that may be impossible...but I try not to think about them, 'cause Times They are a Changin', and on one can predict the outcome of all this. Therefore, in general, my idea is to keep building on our power in numbers.
What I'm finding (because I frequent the opposition message boards and so on) is that those against the movement are so because the "movement stands for nothing," and "it's a bunch of sex-crazed drug-addled people looking for handouts." These are a higher percentage of dissenters, and this is due to misinformation. This is something that could be an easy fix, depending on the situation of these people. This may take some urging, but my suggestion is to canvass those that don't identify with the movement, and encourage them to try a visit with their local chapter...so that they could voice their problems, how they're being hurt, and see that they aren't so different from the rest of us hurting, and how welcoming the communal aspect is...as it is with all other organizations designed to help others. This is the easiest part.
Another high-percentage group are those that are doing relatively well for themselves...and disagree with the movement, because, for them, life may not be so bad. Some of those people did work very hard for themselves, and see this movement as a means to denigrate the work that they've put in. I see a reflexive reaction because of this...which I don't necessarily blame. However, although these people haven't been affected yet, they are very likely to in the future. Those of us involved know it isn't just about wanting a handout. I am doing this for the future of this country as much as I am my own future. I'll even one-up myself...if more than one person can benefit from anything unfavorable that happens to me, I'm all for it. As long as the message is delivered. We need to advise to these people that their future may not seem perilous now, but the domino effect is very powerful, and eventually, they will be affected just the same.
Another group, which may be a mixture of the previous two, are those that have likened OWS as a movement by the Democrats, which they see as an assault on their Republican beliefs. This is a little bit confounding...but I have had some success in neutralizing this temperament. The beginning of the Tea Party movement Did have some very basic parallels. I think it's best to recruit the original Tea Partiers, because they too should have a voice. We know that the Tea Party wasn't a party concerned with electing legislators until after it was adopted by Americans for Prosperity. Those identifying with the Tea Party movement before (that started in 2006/ the Bush years) the hijacking had virtually the same outlook - problems in government. The movement picked up about 75% of its supporters later, once it was attached the Republican Party. That's the unfortunate part...those that have that outlook but refuse to support OWS believe that OWS should focus on Obama, Fannie and Freddie, and all the other Republican talking points. Because we transcend party lines, some of that has already been taken care of. For the rest though, we have to convince them that it's about the future, not the past...we need to focus on the most pressing flaws...Citizens United, the internet suppression bills, and that taxes need to be raised, and jobs created. and that the student loan bubble is set to burst. It's really difficult to find someone in the true 99% that these aren't mostly matters worth fighting for. And lastly, the message needs to be disseminated that this is not a Democratic Party function. This is solely an altruistic function.
The last and smallest group are the wealthy that are fighting, with their money, to suppress the movement. These are also the people with the most power. These people can be convinced, but it's obviously the hardest group. I think this will best be attained by picking a date, using the numbers, and descending on Congress to petition our government. We need to focus on strengthening our local groups. As we grow, we should choose a date, far into the future, and we try to amass all the local movements we can, and protest at the most symbolic landmark we can. The Statue of Liberty crossed my mind, but I don't think the logistics would work...I think the US Congress building in DC would be the most accessible by the majority.
Politicians aren't stupid. They know what we want. They are just finding ways to avoid, deter, and combat it. The only way we'll really begin to see change, is if the rest of us stop being lazy, get out, and show how large the number of angry people are. If we could get millions to Washington, the rest of the world will see, and more pressure will be applied. It won't work now. Remember, this will be a slow process. Work on the population, discover what deters people from OWS, and try to include everyone. If we show our true numbers, Congress just won't be able to ignore millions. I think the one-year anniversary, Sept. 17, would give ample time to plan this out. We need to find solidarity.
Thanks,
Jeremy Russell
- One point I forgot: I think there are some things that turn non-supporters off. The mic-checks are invigorating to us, but turn those "swing" people off. They are effective at speeches involving the cronyism we want to end, but not things that have more than one side. I'm not suggesting it end, but it needs to be more effectively propagated. If I am in an argument with someone, and they choose to yell over me, or get louder and louder, and interrupt, I'm inclined to feel that this person can't effectively engage in proper discourse. Sometimes, they can...sometimes they can't. Violence instinctively turns people off. Unfortunately, so does being unkempt, or exceedingly unruly, and all the other unfair aesthetic elements people use to be judgmental about. It's a fact of life. Organization and careful planning help. Let's face it, there are a lot of stupid people out there, but we need to identify the best ways possible to convince everyone that we're here to help...hopefully we can once again be United.
No comments:
Post a Comment