If you have been paying attention to the news, you may have heard of this “Occupy Wall Street” thing going on in New York. Basically, a bunch of young Liberals are protesting the greed and corruption of Wall Street and want more accountability within the financial sector. At least I think that’s what they are complaining about. Their rough draft of their manifesto is kind of weak.
But I see promise in this. I think we finally have a counter to the Tea Party movement. For far too long I felt that no one on the left was doing anything anymore and we were just handing over the country to the far right. But I have a few concerns for this movement that I would like to address.
Can we turn this into real political Influence?
When Liberals and Democrats stayed away from the polls in 2010, it gave Republicans the House. They bitched during the campaign season, they bitched after the election, but they didn’t vote. I’m afraid that Liberals will do everything BUT vote to get their message across and this is one of them. When November 2012 comes along, how many of these people will actually go to the polls and vote? Obama won in 2008 with the help of the youth vote and he’ll need it again in 2012 to win. However, I’m afraid who they might vote for.
Splitting the vote.
Will this movement empower Democrats, like the Tea Party has done for Republicans? Or will it become a separate Third-Party movement? I hope that it doesn’t become a third-party movement because it will destroy any chance of Democrats ever winning again.
One Hundred years ago next year, Woodrow Wilson won the presidency. Why? Because the Republican Party split. After failing to win the nomination, Theodore Roosevelt bolted the Republican Party and took the progressive wing with him, forming the Progressive or “Bull Moose” Party. Republicans went with incumbent William Howard Taft and a three way Wilson-Taft-Roosevelt campaign was on. At first glance it doesn’t look like the Republican split hurt them too much.
Wilson’s 435 Electoral Votes to a combined 96 for Taft and Roosevelt is pretty sad; one of the biggest landslides in history. However, looking at the popular vote is another story. The national combined popular vote would give Republicans 7 million to Wilson’s 6 million. Of course popular vote means squat at the national level, but if you look at the popular vote at the state level, you find something very interesting.
In 24 states that Woodrow Wilson won, he would have lost them if he were faced with a united Republican opposition*. That would have given Republicans 351 Electoral Votes to Wilson’s 180. (Of course that is assuming that every Roosevelt Progressive would have voted for Taft. Progressive Republicans could have bolted the party and voted for Wilson, giving him a greater edge had Roosevelt not run. This is, of course, just a “what if” scenario.) Wilson got lucky in 1912, because four years later, the Republicans would be united and they would give the nation one of the closest elections in history.
Alternative 1912 Scenario:
Red = Republicans, Blue = Democrats
(California Split its Electoral Votes. 11 for Roosevelt, 2 for Wilson. I included this for the Alternative Scenario)
This alternative Republican victory is roughly the equivalent of Obama’s victory in 2008. It would have been a replay of last three elections. Why do I bring this up? Simple: DON’T SPLIT THE PARTY! I have some hope as I saw this article talk about a Liberal PAC trying to get more progressives to win Democratic primaries and challenge Tea Party Republicans in the general election. That strategy did work overall for the Tea Party in 2010 (even if it did cost them the Senate). As long as these people don’t vote Nader, I’m fine.
Organization.
This movement isn’t very organized. It’s just a bunch of young people camping out in a park, complaining of the system. To get the momentum going and make political progress, they need to organize like the Tea Party. They need someone on top to define their goals because…
What are they trying to accomplish?
Like I said earlier, the rough draft of their list of demands is just that, rough. Very very rough. It quotes from Wikipedia and Documentaries heavily. They say there is a coherent list of what was done by Wall Street and how it was bad, but they have to actually look it up and put it in later. They misspelled “award”. They praise Matt Damon for being brave in narrating the “awared winning Documentary”. It’s just a mess.
Within the turd, though, are some nuggets of gold, and I understand what they want; more regulation and oversight of Wall Street. They are upset over the growing gap between the rich and poor and the shrinking middle class. They really need some people to come in and convey this more clearly. Unfortunately…
Michael Moore is involved.
I hate Michael Moore. With a passion. His films, while entertaining, are far from accurate. He maliciously edits his films to make his opponents look silly and he starts with the ending and works backwards, getting information that suits his views and ignores those that contradict them. He is basically preaching to the choir at this point because only Liberals will listen to him and believe everything he says without question. So when I see him involved, I see these protestors as people who just blindly hate corporations because of his and a few other “documentaries”. I agree that we need more regulations, but I don’t “hate” corporations.
If “Occupy Wall Street” and its supporters can vote, support Democrats, organize, articulate what they stand for, and back away from Michael Moore, I’ll give my blessing and support it. Even if they get 4/5, I’ll be happy.
*(http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ Select 1912 on the left side of the page. For some reason, there isn't a separate URL for each election)
No comments:
Post a Comment