|
Post by tonydestefanis on Jun 25, 2012 12:12:05 GMT -5
The original 99 declaration stated in grievance 1: 1. Elimination of the Corporate State. The merger of the American political system of republican democracy with the economic system of capitalism has resulted in the establishment of a corporate government of, by and for the benefit of domestic and multinational corporations. I believe this language must be restored. In fact this one statement provides the rationale for all of the other grievances.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 27, 2012 12:30:17 GMT -5
I think we can come up with better language Tony. The phrase "Eliminate the Corporate State" is a trigger phrase that is going to cause us to lose the support of at least 1/3 of the population.
Here was my stab at the introduction that provides the rationale for other grievances, using the basic ideas presented in the original frist grievance:
We, The 99% of the People of the United States of America, are aware that we are a critical juncture in human history. We do not believe our current form of government represents the values we want to live by, and question whether our economic system in its current form does as well.
We categorically REJECT the subversion of our democratic and moral principles by special moneyed interests, and REFUSE to live under a Form of Government where our elected officials are often forced to choose between the interests of the people, and the interests of those who largely fund their campaigns.
We, the 99% of the American People REJECT the concept that money constitutes speech, and that corporations should be allowed to spend unlimited undisclosed sums to influence the outcomes of our elections...
I don't think you have to worry that this idea will be included in some fashion, but as discussed before, if we are trying to appeal to the 99%, we must avoid triggers like "end corporate personhood" or "eliminate the corporate state."
|
|
|
Post by tonydestefanis on Jul 1, 2012 11:16:36 GMT -5
I don't really know what you mean by a "trigger phrase". Sounds like some PR BS that gets batted around in focus groups by politicians trying to figure out how to convince the public that what ever corporate sponsored law they want to shove down our throats is really in the interest of all Americans. Second where did you get the statistic that its inclusion would cause a loss of 1/3 of support from the public? Did you just make this up or is it your gut feeling? I can tell you now that "elimate the corporate state" would get 100% support from the people now on the mall for the Occupy NatGat. I guess you are talking about the folks who get their news from FOX? Perhaps for once we should stop pandering to the right and corporations and pretending that the current mess is just the result of some general corruption. Over ten years the people on Wall Street spend billions of dollars trying to deregulate and they got their way and they plunged the country into the worst recession since the Great Depression. The banks got bailed out. The FED gave over 16 TRILLION in virtually interest free loans to every major financial institution in the country. Fought two wars without paying for them and now they want to make cuts to the neediest Americans and make no investment in infrastructure because we all have to share the sacrifice? Reallly? The Bush tax cuts continue and corporations like GE not only pay no taxes but get millions back in refunds. The answer is not to elimate this language but to make people aware of what this really means. Unprecedended income inequality, the elimination of the middle class and the American dream to benefit the wealthy and corporations. Hell, the six heirs to the Walmart fortune have more wealth than the bottom 30 percent of Americans, 150 million people. I am pretty sure if we could get the message to them they would be supportive (unless they have been disenfranchised by the REPUBLICAN sponsored voter laws now being enacted in many states) Maybe it is a "trigger phrase" but it is a trigger that could be used to rally the people who could support this movement because they feel the effects in their daily lives. It is not a hypothetical to them. They are suffering and they are angry. Reallly why should I or any other American pay more in taxes than GE who made billions? Why should a secretary pay a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss. These are real issues that real people can understand. This isn't about socialism or class warfare it is about fairness and I think if educated most Americans can see this. I don't believe you are for eliminating this type or any other of language because you think it will cost us support. I believe you are doing it for ideological reasons to try to blunt the impact of reform on these interests which I was under the impression that we all oppose. If I am wrong on this account, mea culpa, but as Shakespeare said, me thinks thou dost protest too much. If we don't address the core underlying issue, as it exists, not as you have chosen to spin it in the first place you are ensureing that this movement will go nowhere, and perhaps that is your goal. If it is not your goal then your strategy will ultimately drive away the support of people like me and others because you are being just as compromising and obsequious as the current Democratic party. It will also not gain you the support of these 1/3 of Americans who would't support eliminating the corporate state because they already think the root of all the problems is President Obama anyway. If you are sincere about wanting to change things then please just stop with the fear that someone will see this as anti-capitalist or socialist. The American people are not so dumb that they can't see that this isn't a problem with capitalism it is the abuse of capitalism if not an outright crime. Remember the Sherman AntiTrust Act? Roosevelt the Trust Buster? Were they socialists? No too big to fail means no competion which is theoretically antithetical to capitalism. We need "triggers" Your preamble has the emotional appeal of the tax code because it is too vague. (or is that the objective just like those financial disclosures with real truth hidden in the footnotes, obfuscated by dull legalese.) It is like if the Declaration of Independence failed to mention the king but blamed some unnamed "special sovereign interests" for the colonists problems. Hell the King wasn't responsible for all of the things they accused him of, but it didn't matter, it rallied the people, made them feel righteous and not traitorous. Jefferson's plan to blame the king for the slave trade got torpedoed (I guess they figured it would have lost the support of 1/3 of the people, but the slave trade and ending the corporate state are not the same or ARE they?) It doesn't take Columbo to see who needs to be blamed and if the truth leaves a bad taste in the mouths of 1/3 of Americans so be it. Keep in mind that if any of these proposals gets before congress they will be compomised and watered down there in the face of republican and even democrats. So we can't start with the watered down version in order to try to seek popularity. It is a basic principle of negotiation. You don't start with the offer you think they will accept. You start extreme because you know you will be forced to meet somewhere closer to the middle. If you want to sell your house for 200,000 but you you think the market will realistically only pay 175,000 do you just list it for 175,000 only to get bargained down to 160? It is foolhardy to start with the compromised position. I would preferred to be remembered as a revolutionary and not another beaurocrat. Remember I think "Give me liberty or give me death" was a trigger phrase too, much better than something like, "life with liberty is preferable to life without liberty. " THERE IS OUTRAGE AND WE NEED TO REACH OUT AND FAN THE FLAMES or nothing will get done. See Bernie Sanders recent speech on the senate floor about Americans being angry. I would borrow heavily from that speech for finding a rationale for the grievances.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jul 1, 2012 16:29:32 GMT -5
Hi Tony,
You wrote...
"I believe you are doing it for ideological reasons to try to blunt the impact of reform on these interests which I was under the impression that we all oppose. If I am wrong on this account, mea culpa, but as Shakespeare said, me thinks thou dost protest too much. If we don't address the core underlying issue, as it exists, not as you have chosen to spin it in the first place you are ensureing that this movement will go nowhere, and perhaps that is your goal."
This is the 99%Declaration. America is roughly 1/3 each conservative, liberal, and independent. Gallop has conservatives at 41%. There are a lot of red states, enough that they control the House. I am an ardent reformer. I agree with liberals about as much as I do conservatives. If only the liberals get everything they want, this will be the 33% Declaration. That's partisan politics. If we can get to what we all agree on, then it will be the 80% or even the 90%Declaration, and we'll change the country. Here's my point...
If we ban corporate political contributions to or for (or against) candidates, elected officials, and political parties; which essentially stops the bribery and extortion of elected officials—how is that pushing some ideology?
If you call this End Corporate Personhood, it sounds to half the country like what Denying Global Warning does to Liberals. I don't think it's useful to incite both sides with the words they cannot hear.
But as a compromise, and also because there is no proof that a solution to Citizen's United polls strong enough to pass as a constitutional amendment—today or in the near future, I think we can get to near consensus on total transparency of PAC money. Which again would be a tremendous win for 2012.
Most reformers, left, right, and center, agree on a ton of stuff. I just think it's more useful to discuss those items first, before we get into the stuff that is intractable. I do agree the 1% and the media have reasons why they want us regular folk, and us reformers, to not unite. Let's not let them divide us.
Hope we can have some time to talk during the Congress.
Cheers, Jon
|
|
|
Post by tonydestefanis on Jul 1, 2012 18:09:00 GMT -5
Well I don't believe that issues of income inequality and ending the corporate state are intractable issues. I also don't care how any of the issues poll because I do not support these things because I believe they will be popular, I support them because I believe they are right and that I have a duty to fight for what I believe is right. People may not support such things NOW but they can be convinced if the issues are framed correctly (this is exactly what fox news does 24/7). I for one want to convince people that what is best for billionares is usually not best for them. That the middle class is in grave danger from the recklessness of wall street and the failure to respond from our elected officials and they have been essentially fleeced and robbed by a bunch of callous criminals, yes on both sides of the aisle, but deregulation is like religion to the right where it only occasionally practiced on the left and it was much more a product of the right . PAC transparancy is not enough. There must be concrete steps taken to redress these issues and to mitigte the damage done over the past few decades. Elimination of the Bush era tax cuts, corporations and the wealthy must be made to bear a fairer share of the tax burden. The budget cannot be balanced on the backs of the poor, the elderly and the most needy. Any "reform" that does not address these core issues is basically business as usual. Even if you elimate corporate and other contributions to the political process you still have an inherent motivation to support the rich and powerful because they make up the majority of our elected officials, their families and their friends. As far as being the 33% declaration your usage of the phrase the 99 percent , intentionally or otherwise, distorts the original intent of this particular slogan. We are the 99% was a reflection of how the top 1% of the population controlled most of the wealth and how the rest of the population was getting screwed over as a result of that arrangement, even if they believed it was Obama fault and not the rich and powerful. It originally, and hopefully still does, have a much more radical connotation then you imply with your overly literal rebranding of the slogal into literally representing the 99% of the population numerically. I cannot imagine why anyone on the right would have been attracted to this convention in the first place when all of the initial grievances were to the left if not to the radical left. I wouldn't show up at a tea party meeting and try to push a message of moderation in order to achieve consensus. If I did they would laugh me out of the meeting and rightly so. I don't think the focus on political corruption is going to be effective. Much of the shenanigans on wall street were legal so they can't technically be called corrupt. Regulating donations may or may not have any effect on this issues of primary interest to me and many Americans. There will always be some degree of political corruption in the sense of influence peddling ("honest graft" as Boss Tweed said) and to me I don't care as long as the interests of everday Americans aren't just callously and contemptuously ignored. What ever happened to noblesse oblige? In mob parlance we expect them to wet their beaks a bit, but they have overreached and are shamlessly skimming way too much off the top, and it is time they got, figuratively, whacked because of it. I am all for uniting with anyone who supports the same outcomes I do (and as far as I can tell 99 % of the occupy movement, not to speak for them) I just don't see the point of compromise. Its not like we were a real congress where it might be better to get something than nothing but I really didn't anticipate there being some contingent from the right that had to be satisfied like you would in a real congress. It is enough for me to try to spread the message that I am hearing from people in regard to what changes they want. Maybe I'll go join the tea party patriots and try to effect change from the inside and promote consensus. What is the point of reforming the political process if the outcomes don't change?
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jul 1, 2012 21:34:35 GMT -5
Hi Tony, I actually think we agree on like 70% of everything you write about. I believe we have far exceeded critical mass to affect that 70%. Is it better we all decide to win those items now, together, than to splinter apart and lose it all? If the ERA movement had simply answered conservative concerns early on, that America will still be a meritocracy after the ERA, it probably would have passed. To learn from that, if we bring conservative reformers into the tent early on, on corruption, gerrymandering, election funding, it will seriously inhibit corporate control of government. Then, next year, we can see what else we can work on together.
Cheers, Jon
|
|