This is part of the problem that the supporters of OWS don't understand. It isn't just "right wingers" who don't like the group and think they are a disorganised mob with no perceptible aims, no identifiable leaders, and nothing to offer a civilised political debate. There was a smattering of empathy for them, in their early days, from civic leaders, business leaders, union leaders, and many other people who could have provided them support and guidance.
And they had one of the best marketing slogans in recent memory.
What did they do with it? They pissed it all down the drain and united everyone--leftists, centrists, rightists--business people and unions--educators and police--renters and property owners--net debtors and net creditors--against them. This is practically a first in the history of political movements. The OWS and the various Occupy movement have almost deliberately marginalised themselves into the same category as the Aryan Nations, LaRouchists, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Marxist-Leninists. None of those starry-eyed sociology students from upstate New York are ever going to include their participation in this train wreck on their resume without a substantial disclaimer about their withdrawal before it degenerated into a howling pack of violent criminals.
Those who sympathised with them the most and felt that there ought to be more accountability for corporate America should be the ones most angered by their antics. It is those people who were primarily betrayed by the bottle-throwers, graffiti-sprayers, and looters.
Bravo for what? He just made a comparison to the KKK! Yeah! Bravo to that! WOOOOOOO HOOOOOOO! Bravo!
Sure, there's a fair amount that is not valid. OWS never "degenerated into a howling pack of violent criminals." It just did not set controls to stop the violence from those members that did engage in it, and the KKK references are more about associating a group that he does not like with a group that is easily dismissed as wrong thereby allowing the group in question to be easily lumped into the 'wrong group' category without serious analysis. which is the same reason why pretty much everything that people have not liked over the years have been related to Hitler.
The whole post was not invalid however, and the parts that are not get to the heart of the issue.
OWS started out with a great slogan and message. "We are the 99%," advocated that the policies of the Country should more reflect the needs and betterment of the whole of society which improves the financial state and strength of the whole Country. Instead of pursuing the lobbying pressure of the 1% which has only reduced vitality of our Country, including for the 1%.
That is a message that can speak to everyone in the Nation. It was an issue that was previously known about, but was not being addressed, and OWS can rightly be credited with bringing that important issue to the forefront of debate. Which was evident by the initial support for OWS from young and old, East and West, poor and rich.
However it was the subsequent collective decisions by the organizers of OWS that overwhelmingly reduced the credibility, favorability, and survivability of the OWS movement. OWS made a decision to be purposefully negligent in their ability to control violence, radicalism, and abuse by their members because they did not want to deal with the difficulty of having to control themselves.
Without any leaders, without any effective means of controlling themselves, and by making a decision to make their struggle a fight against police instead of a decision to work with them, OWS movements throughout the Country
encouraged a habitual pattern of violence. Including assaults, rape, vandalism, and murders. OWS'a lack of control in preventing their members from attacking people, churches, and those that initially supported them oly led to their further alienation.
The lack of control diluted and subverted their message as well. Instead of sticking to a widely accepted message of advocating for more sensible political and economic policies, OWS made the grave mistake of allowing Anarchists and Communists to join the movement who only wanted to destroy the system we live in, not fix it.
When Stilicho comments that, "There was a smattering of empathy for them, in their early days, from civic leaders, business leaders, union leaders, and many other people who could have provided them support and guidance... Those who sympathized with them the most and felt that there ought to be more accountability for corporate America should be the ones most angered by their antics. It is those people who were primarily betrayed by the bottle-throwers, graffiti-sprayers, and looters."
He is talking about how OWS could have become a serious political force, and there were people who were willing to help them do that, but because those involved with OWS chose to not stop the "bottle-throwers, graffiti-sprayers, and looters," who were part of their movement, they allowed the whole movement to crumble. Which alsodamaged any future movement who wants to take up the genuine goals of supporting the 99% by being negatively associated with the negligent and violent actions of the OWS movement of the past.
