November 2011

Top of This issue Current issue



Occupy Wall Street [OWS]


by Peter Bearse, Ph.D.


OWS represents another somewhat broad-based, spreading movement of discontent, ignited not only by widespread economic decline but by the apparently chronic inability of politics and government to do anything that offers even any promise of reversing negative trends.1


Until a systematic, large, random-sample polling of OWS participants is accomplished, the degree to which the protest movement is indeed “broad-based” may be open to debate. As of the end of October, 2011, only a few “polls” or “interviews” representing small numbers, had been reported.2 These revealed what one of the OSW initiators, Adbusters, had reported early-on -- that what became a movement later on was started by a small set of activists. Some were inspired and guided by a political intellectual, David Graeber, who had worked during 1989-91 helping a community in Madagascar, Betafo, that had been completely abandoned by the government. Its residents learned to make choices by themselves in a “direct, decentralized way (via) consensus decision-making…” This is a process that that Graeber describes as “democracy without a government.”3


The initially small-scale protest quickly grew, however, to include a broad, diverse set of other participants in New York. Then it multiplied nationwide and worldwide. Some of the individuals that a steadily increasing number of diverse media reported to be involved in the protests included people from a broad range of ages, occupations and economic circumstances, such as:

  1. a 49-year-old home attendant who has a son in Afghanistan…

  2. David Parsons, 59, a businessman…

  3. a subway motorman who said that subway suicides are up…

  4. Marilyn Kosimar, an expensively attired woman…as she walked her lap dog…

  5. A construction worker in an orange hardhat…(who said) “I’m pro-capitalism, I just want to work for everybody.”

  6. A 45-year-old ironworker named Rob Chamberlain…who announced (he was) “Pissed off at Wall Street (and) pissed off at D.C…waiting for something to happen.”4

  7. Ken Alandt…53, an out-of-work stagehand, who stated: “Bro, I’ve been lied to so many times that I don’t know who to believe.”

  8. Liz Hourican, 40, who belongs to the antiwar group Code Pink (who said) “We’re all stepping up and saving something’s wrong.”

  9. Lucy Horwitz, 79, who participated in Occupy LA…“What brings me out here? Outrage (but) Right now, the first issue…is that corporations can buy congressmen.”

  10. Kay Merryweather, 34, an artist (who) volunteers giving out food…”The bankers were getting all these millions (said she)…And we didn’t have enough food.”

  11. Daniel Saltzman, 23...cited on a charge of criminal trespass…at Occupy Tucson … (who said) “we don’t have the money to fly to NY, but we can still make a difference in our community.”

  12. Sara Amis, a writing instructor at the Univ.of Georgia: These problems are everywhere…”

  13. Jean Marie Simpson, an actor and peace activist (who) “objected when her fellow demonstrators surrounded a man who had assailed the movement…””5


Among the millions of non-participants observing the reports of “Occupy…“ protests on TV was Don Kielbasa, a construction worker who had helped with this author’s campaigns for Congress as an independent, conservative Republican. Interviewed by telephone, he remarked:


I’m not familiar with OWS activity excepted as reported out of Boston . It appears to be a mish-mash, simply put. “Occupy Boston” seems to be an early stage of Occupy Wall St. in New York City. I agree with certain points, esp. those vs. big corporate/capital’s domination of our democracy. But we can’t denounce capital; that’s America. It’s a diversion from talking about what really needs to be done. Bringing down fat cats won’t create jobs. (etc.)


Notwithstanding the movement’s inclusiveness, OSW participants were mocked and scorned by many media pundits using all sorts of negative labels: “increasingly radical and potentially violent activists…”, “ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos”, “zombies”, “deluded,” “dirty smelly hippies“ (etc.)… rather than a diverse collection of “hundreds of passionate, rebellious, creative people…(mostly) a political in nature.” This is not surprising given the history of dissident movements in the U.S. and the ways they were reported as they occurred. Nevertheless, the treatment of this dissident movement has been mostly like that Fox News claims in its self-description -- “fair and balanced” (even though some of the above denigrating labels were voiced by Fox).


One is tempted to assess the similarity or difference of OWS with the Tea Party [TP] movement. Both are far more diverse representations of America than the stereotypical labels tossed out by early media pundits. What’s the #1 common denominator? -- outrage and anger -- in reaction to bank bailouts, economic depression, and people’s power-lessness in the face of institutional failures and bad decisions by elites at the highest levels which have cost people dearly while holding the decision-makers harmless. As Jeremy Varon, a historian at the New School for Social Research wrote: “Anger does not move countries, but it moves movements -- and movements, in turn, can move countries”.6 As for more specific comparisons, we are somewhat stymied by the lack of a systematic, random-sample poll of OSW participants, but let‘s look further on the basis of press reports.


There appear to be more young people, especially college students, involved in OWS happenings than in the more typically older crowds attending TP events. Many college students are concerned about the overload of student loans they have taken on in the face of declining job prospects. This younger/older contrast begins points to another that is more fundamental -- the political attitudes of OWS participants appears to be more liberal; the TP, more conservative. It also harkens to a traditionally leftist distrust of outside authority. As Gitlin reminds us, recall “Bob Dylan’s lyric “Don’t follow leaders, watch the parkin’ meters”…cheekily pairing hierarchy with overregulation.”7 Ironically, however, the latter -- aversion to over-regulation, is something that OWS has in common with the TP, along with some “hostility to elitism.”


An overall contrast in attitudes towards both groups was provided by a TIME magazine poll of Oct.9-10, 2011, which showed “more voters support the (OWS) protesters than the Tea Party,” The percentage of those with attitudes “favorable” was twice as high (54%) towards the OWS as that towards the TP (27%).8 Attitudes “unfavorable”? -- OWS (23%); TP (33%). Another highlight: 73% of those polled “favor raising taxes on those with annual incomes of $1 million or more to help cut the federal deficit. Support for the OWS is most strong among Democrats (66% favorable) and also among a majority of Independents (55% favorable). Just 34% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of the protests. The polling firm’s interpretation?: “As the protest movement continues to gain support, it appears the influence of the Tea Party is waning.”9


If these significant contrasts are reliable indicators, then the GOP should sit up and take notice. Republicans bet on Tea Party support and won in 2010. They might not be so lucky in 2010. Nearly double those polled say the Democratic Party (30%) better represents their views compared to the Republican Party (17%). A plurality (42%) maintain that they trust Democrats, more so than Republicans (31%), to do a better job dealing with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years.


Low and middle income Americans have a far more favorable opinion of the OWS protests than upper income Americans, as follows:


  1. Lower income (under $50,000) - 57% favorable opinion

  2. Middle income ($50k to under $100k) - 59% favorable opinion

  3. Upper income ($100k or more) - 44% favorable opinion


More young people (60%) have a favorable opinion of the protesters than middle aged (52%) or older Americans (51%).


OWS protesters, upset with government policies they feel benefit the rich at the expense of most Americans; have widespread support across the country. Among those familiar with the protests [24% were not], most agree with the protesters' positions, as follows:


  1. Wall Street and lobbyists have too much influence in Washington - 86%

  2. The gap between the rich and poor in the US is too large - 79%

  3. Executives of financial institutions responsible for the financial meltdown in 2008 should be prosecuted - 71%

  4. The rich should pay more in taxes - 68%


The disconnect between politicians in Washington and Americans across the country continues; three in five (60%) Americans believe the political debate in Washington and the media does not represent the concerns they discuss in their own communities. Fully, 35% say neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party represents their views. One in five (18%) say they wouldn't trust either party.


Yet, despite extensive support, most of those familiar with the protests (56%) believe the movement will have little impact on American politics. This poll result, however, may say more about Americans depreciation of politics than about the potential political impact of OWS as a movement. Why? -- Because of another big difference between the TP and the OWS. The OWS movement is not a conventional political movement; it is more of a “happening” that draws from the political culture of the 60’s than politics-as-usual. It is not set up to make “demands” that can yet be introduced to the “powers-that-be” for their ?? “consideration.” This is what Bearse (2004) called the “WHAT” side of politics, focused on the whats of media headline issues. Focusing on the latter would put OSW into the role of playing the same-old/same-old [SO/SO] political game of lining up interest groups’ support for demands.


No. OSW rather challenges all of us with a new model -- not a “game” but a process -- of how we can renew and fulfill the American Dream by becoming a deliberative public capable of exercising democratic self-government. It represents the “HOW” side of politics -- how things get done. This emphasis treats people as ends, not means. It enables us to escape from a major, implicit but very wrong, at least unethical, assumption underlying politics-as-usual -- that “the end justifies the means.” And so the movement has already “been described as too diffuse and decentralized to accomplish real change…”10 Diverse, yes; “diffuse,” no. “Decentralized” - Yes!, as our Constitution calls for. After all, we are supposed to be a federal republic. The departure from this vision -- the over-concentration of power and money in Washington -- is one source of many of the protesters’ complaints.


What is the OWS “process”? -- It is a leaderless, egalitarian, decentralized, “intensive process of participatory, consensus-based decision-making…For example, instead of petitioning the government to build a well, members of a community might simply built it themselves…Or, as an editorial in the protest’s house publication, Occupied Wall St. Journal put it, “This occupation is first about participation” (in democratic decision-making”…(first,) via “affinity groups” and “working groups” (that) replaced organized factions and parties.” [Remember the adverse attitudes of Madison and other founders towards “factions”?]


Gitlin’s observation is ‘right on’ (as his ‘60’s-70’s political generation might say):


What the Zuccotti Park encampment calls horizontal democracy is spunky, polymorphic, energetic, theatrical, scattered and droll…It tends to care about process more than results.”


Todd’s conclusion, however, is unfortunate:


Occupy Wall Street, then, emanates from a culture…a counterculture…that is diametrically opposed to Tea Party discipline.”


I beg to disagree. At least, let us weigh judgment on this point. We shall see. The jury is still out.


What is OWS not? -- It is not is just a set of protesters marching about with signs announcing what they are against. More to the point: They demonstrate what they are for -- building democratic, self-governing communities. They “walk the talk” in real action -- to establish a:


  1. General Assembly: to hash out a “policy focus” and make decisions for the group via “laborious group meetings that are run by consensus.”

  2. Post Office Box

  3. Bank account in an supportive community bank

  4. People’s Library

  5. Media Center

  6. First-Aid station

  7. Community newspaper

  8. Collection and Distribution activites: For food and other supplies needed for a durable movement11


Thus, most of the “Occupy…” sites have been established as small, self-governing communities. The OWS group in Zuccotti (formerly “Liberty”) Park in New York City looks like they are there to stay. But are they? Should they be? Probably not, especially since they have (at least by the time of this book’s publication) made their point and broadcast their message, not only via their own social media [blogs, Facebook, ….] but with the mixed bag of coverage from the “MSM” (mainstream media) which OWS folks and this author have so severely criticized.


One of the many examples of the “mixed bag” was Daniel Henninger’s editorial in the Oct.20th, 2011, WALL ST. JOURNAL, “Squatting on Wall Street.” He reverted to the MSM’s scurrilous typecasting of OWS participants as “a motley collection of punks, anachists, socialists, hackers, liberals and artists…”12 (and used this as an excuse to damn President Obama for his seeming support of the movement). Henninger put down the OSW crowd as “a retinue of “activists” and their political community-building initiatives as “bargain-basement progressive politics.” I myself see these as compliments. Why? -- Because, throughout American history committed activists have been mostly positively influential sources on influence on the rest of us. They have been the “American Dreamers” -- prophets, other leading lights, troublemakers and hell-raisers to wake us up as to major sources of injustice that, if unaddressed, would have led to oligarchy or pluto-cracy and the failure of our capitalist system.13 As for the “bargain basement” politics feature, great! Let’s have more of it! Or would you rather see ever more of the steadily increasing domination of politics by big money, big corporate interests and big media?


Notwithstanding Henninger’s slanderous put-down of a movement that is as broadly based on legitimate grievances as is the Tea Party (TP), his editorial helps us to see one of the differences between them; that is, some differing attitudes towards private property. For Zuccotti is not a public park; it is private. To the TP, private property is sacrosanct. To OWS folks, maybe so if we could poll the majority of them to find out but, meanwhile, the loudest voices in the movement have been activists with orientations that are highly critical of the private sector, even socialist.


Another difference may be in attitudes towards large corporations. Most TP followers regard “the free market” as also sacrosanct. And so the size of economic units, and the influence of “size” on politics, has not appeared to be an issue. This difference was illustrated in the Henninger editorial by a photo showing a sign that read: “I’ll believe corporations are people…when Texas executes one.” Sharp, but telling. For a fundamental factor in the long-running debate on campaign finance reform has been the debate over whether a corporation should be viewed as a “person.” The recent Chicago United decision of the Supreme Court, which overruled more than 100 years of opposition to corporate money in politics, reverted back to an even earlier Court decision that stated that a corporation is, indeed, a person.


So? There’s an equally legitimate, ongoing subject of public debate here as to the proper balance of public and private influence in an advanced market economy. Let the debate continue and let it be resolved democratically.14 In the meantime, the “squatters” should have returned to their home communities. Why? -- To:


  1. Help lead the debate,

  2. Reach out to and engage withthose who do not agree with them, including TP counterparts,

  3. Run for local or state offices and/or establish local branches of their “movement,”

  4. Demonstrate how their grassroots approaches to engaging “We the People” in politics and decision-making can revitalize our democratic Republic, and…

  5. Help fulfill America as the “City on a Hill.”


In other words, if OWS folks want to make a real difference, politically, they should begin to act in some ways politically similar to their TP counterparts. They need to engage in politics if they are ever to bring it ‘round to empowering real people to effect real problems in real places. In contrast to the leftist tradition reflected in Kazin‘s “American Dreams,” the driving issues of our day are not so morally compelling as those that drove “the influence of reformers, radicals and idealists in shaping America” in the past.15 These issues are primarily ones of political and economic financing, organization and management. Those of the past were primarily abolition of slavery, civil rights, industrial exploitation and oppression of women.16


Leftists and liberals, if they have solutions that can indeed advance the public interests of the great American majority, need to subject them to testing and judgment in the political marketplace of ideas -- even while working to broaden and deepen people’s participation in that marketplace. Otherwise, they will, as in the past, either faced repeated failures in elections or have to retreat to utopian communities. As Todd Gitlin recognized in his review of the OWS movement, with a nod to the TP, politics is “a vision of power and how to attain it.” Though Gitlin starts and concludes with an observation that “similaries…mask profound differences, the one most profound similarity is that of a shared concern for “We the People”’s empowerment, starting at the grassroots.17 The only “deeper” difference he specifies will indeed need to be addressed by the TP in the course of dealing with its prime concern for debt reduction: This is that “The Tea Party movement…shows no signs of understanding, let alone addressing, the contemporary, out of control economy.”18


Is there a “liberal” vs. “conservative” issue in this discussion? Yes; it’s unavoidable. It’s provided a lot of fodder for the media; however, the issue could prove to be more manufactured than real. The use of old labels is misleading here as so often in other matters. “The times they are a’changin‘.” Look more carefully and you’ll see how there is a core of overlapping TP/OWS concerns. They are:


  1. Crony capitalism” -- incestuous relationships and unholy alliances between big government and big business;

  2. A federal government that, in part due to the above, is no longer representative of the interests of “We the People.”

  3. A Constitution that is honored in the breach and/or that, selectively, needs to be amended.

  4. MSM that insufficiently fulfill the fundamental purpose of responsible journalism -- to inform us so that we can make our own choices of what is best for our country [and so, a need for more informative, alternative media].

  5. A similar loathing of “the elite,” including the “political class.“ More of a populist approach ~ a people-based politics.

  6. Suspicion of, and even opposition to, the “establishment” hierarchies of both major parties and of “career politicians,” who have “artfully arranged a…back-scratching society to enrich themselves.”19 More…”distrust of an authoritarian ruling elite.”20

  7. Even the “anarchism” that many OWS activists are accused of bears a curious similarity to a strong libertarian strain in the TP, which includes Libertarians, “Free Staters”, and State Representatives who advocate “small” and “limited” government, along with conservatives like Paul Jacobs who advocate for more “direct democracy.”21


Thus, at least some significant elements of the TP need to reach out to significant others on the other (OWS) side to begin to make common cause. Otherwise, both may fail to “make a difference,” politically. Then all bets are off for the future of our democratic Republic.


Unfortunately, as we have read and seen, leaders on both sides were starting to demonize the other, slinging labels that deny the essential truth noted above -- that there is a common core of concerns that provide a basis for a “3C’s approach to politics: Communication and some degree of Cooperation, or perhaps even Collaboration.22 Yet, the old labels of “left” and “right” no longer have much currency, especially when the prime issue is empowerment of “We the People.” The “vs.“ usually placed between them is actually a way of separating us from real attempts to solve our problems and reclaim our democratic Republic, together. Let us remember: “We either (learn to) hang together, or we shall surely hang separately.”

______________________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT [based on visit to Occupy Boston, where the above essay was distributed to over 30 protesters with whom the author had conversations]:


Occupy Wall St. is a dense community encampment occupying Dewey Park next to the Federal Reserve of Boston’s skyscraper in the midst of the city’s financial district -- a tent mini-city that has all the community attributes of OWS/ It’s a great location, although I’d prefer the protesters to be occupied next to State St. Bank and the occupation called “Occupy State St.”. Why? -- because the State St. Bank, along with some other major banks and financial institutions, has been implicated in a “forex” scandal. This is where they have, according to the testimony of whistleblowers directed involved in their foreign exchange transactions, have systematically ripped off institutional investors, including major pension funds, by charging at the high end of each daily price range and giving back to their customers at the low end. Why did none of the protesters to whom I spoke think to mention this at Occupy Boston.


The group is not as diverse, however, as indicated earlier for the original OWS. Distinctly lacking is racial diversity, as “Roxbury rabble rouser” Jamarhl Crawford observed.23 There were only a few blacks there on Monday, Oct. 25th, and a couple of those were panhandlers. There was also some observable lack of diversity in other terms such as age and occupation. Most of those present were actually or relatively young. Since many of the protesters among the recorded occupants of the tent city of approximately 150 were still sleeping or otherwise hidden from view in their tents, however, perhaps these “observations” of only those observable should be taken “cum grano salis.”


I cited the direct observations of Jarmarhl Crawford above. Here are some others worth reporting from the source cited below:


  1. “…no one was saying what they really think.” {Comment: Not quite; I talked with a few who said so.}

  2. They can come {to Boston’s black counterpart, “Occupy the Hood”} either as observers or as supporters…when we say, “Can you feel that?” we want them to say, “Fuck, yeah!”}. Comment: Yeah, but not “fuck you!”, because, apparently, disagreement is not permitted a a form of “diversity” in a radical black group.

  3. I saw the clusterfuck, but I also saw that this movement was pregnant with potential…(but) they need to be in support of current organizational efforts, because people have been doing this for years.” Comment: Agree!

  4. In response to Chris’ question: “What exactly is Occupy the Hood”…: “…a community speak-out… I’ll also have politicians there…something I haven’t seen much of [at Occupy Boston (or OWS)]. As long as you have a legitimate issue, a track record…then rock on -- please…we’ve been asking them, “What are you going to do when you get there.”” Comment: AGREE!!

The latter point is agreed to in bold because it again highlights a crucial difference between the OWS and TP movements -- the latter’s connectivity with, contrasted with OWS’s seeming indifference to, electoral politics and even like-minded “politicians.” The difference is further underlined by a letter to TP members just received from a TP colleague/leader: “The Naples Tea Party will try to keep you updated on all the local candidates and offer you an opportunity to meet them. Please take the time to get all your questions answered regarding the positions of all Collier and Lee County candidates. Once you have decided who you like, give them your support and help with their campaign.”24


The latter quote also documents one instance of a nationwide trend in the TP, notwithstanding all the media flak over over-hyped, 2012 Republican presidential primary races: emphasis on local and state politics and races. This is why I urged many of those to whom I spoke to eventually “decamp” from Dewey Sq., return to wherever their (diverse) “permanent” homes were or wherever they chose them to be, “spread the word and build your base” and get involved with the political process -- even run for state or local office themselves. Along with at least one of the protesters (There are said to be others, but I met only one), Jim Stewart, from Rochester (NH), I also urged that protesters try to link up with some of their TP counterparts and get a conversation going. Jim believes, as I do, that efforts should further be made to forge an OWS/TP alliance or “collaboration” over a core set of shared concerns like those noted earlier in this essay.


Unfortunately, Willoughby’s letter also highlights some of the emerging stereotyping of the sort that is very likely to inhibit, even preclude, any constructive “3C” initiatives that might serve to bridge the gap between the TP and OWS “counterparts.” Note and consider:


How about those Wall St. occupiers.? I call them “squatters…nothing but a mob of socialists and anarchists. When the first bit of bad weather comes, they will scatter like cockroaches…I welcome the fact that Democrats and Obama are embracing them…so is the Communist Party USA, along with every other socialist group…”


This goes along with parallel stereotypical characterizations of OWS from other Republican’s; e.g., New Hampshire’s GOP activist Grant Bosse, who recently commented on his visit to Occupy Manchester (NH), remarking that the protesters he observed were “homeless, clueless liberals.”


If such remarks continue (from both sides with respect to the other), the chances of any chance for stereotypical labeling to be overcome and “left” and “right” forces to be brought together to effect real change for the great American majority will be substantially reduced and, therefore, sooner or later, defeated.


Perhaps, though, it’s also worth noting some quotes from signs and placards I saw at Occupy Boston:


  1. Boycott the Bank of America / They are morally bankrupt.”

  2. Democracy is being sold off to the highest bidder.”

  3. Take it back / Tax Wall Street”

  4. A reference from one of the protesters to whom I gave my “OWS” piece: Gelderloose, Peter, CONSENSUS Handbook [a guide to the “democracy without government“ procedures being employed by the OWS General Assembly(ies)].

  5. 99%: Too Big to Fail.”

  6. Demanding a modicum of fairness is not class warfare; It is sound policy.”

  7. Every government is degenerate when entrusted to the rulers. The people alone are its only safe depositories” [Thomas.Jefferson], followed by advocacy of “term limits, fair tax, balanced budget & fiscal restraint.”] I remarked that these overlapped TP positions. The sign holder, Jim Stewart, from Rochester (NH), also advocated an OWS/TP alliance.

  8. IF your income is less than $1,600,000 [annual amount that big corporate interest spent on lobbyists -- nearly $3,000 per congressional legislator], then you’re also one of the 99%.”

  9. Greed is not just a sin; it’s a disease.”

  10. Website on placard: Ø www.phatoff.com.

  11. Don’t be deceived.” [Comment (from myself and my Occupy Boston, co-visitor, colleague and sometime collaborator, Carmine Gorga)]: THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE.

Enough said, at least for now. Stay tuned. Pay attention to what’s going on with both movements, especially as to whether and how they gain traction and spread among “We the People.” And with you, the reader(s)?

_______________________________________________________________________


P.P.S.: This essay, after some additions and editing, is to be included as a section of Chapter 3 of the author’s forthcoming book:


A NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION: How “We the People” can truly “take back” (what should be) our government.”


Follow-up feedback and input is welcomed to peterjamesbearse@yahoo.com.

1 During October, 2011, there was a debate among commentators whether OSW should really be termed a “movement”. The rapid worldwide spread of “Occupy…” protests put that debate to rest.

2 One of these was reported by Douglas Shoen in the Wall St.Journal of Oct.18, 2011: “Polling the Occupy Wall St. Crowd.” His editorial page characterization of the OWS protesters as “leftists out of step with American voters, however, seems biased. It is hard to see how his method of conducting “interviews” can be squared with the process by which a “systematic random sample” is taken for a poll. Anyway, his results are inconsistent with reporting elsewhere.

3 Quotes from Berrett, Dan (2011), “Intellectual Roots of Wall.St. Protest Lie in Academe.” CHRONICLE of Higher Education (Oct.16).

  1. 4 Examples drawn from Daly, Michael (2011), “The Face of Anger,” Newsweek (Oct.22).

  1. 5 Examples cited by Marc Lacey in his Oct.19, 2011 New York Times article “Countless Grievances, One Thread: We’re Angy,” which ends with the statement: “But the inclusive nature of the movement…gave it its strength.”

6 Quoted by Gitlin, Todd (2011) in “The Left Declares Its Independence”, NEW YORK TIMES (Oct. 9, 2011).

7 Ibid., op.cit., here and at the paragraph’s end.

8 TIME/Abt SRBI poll among a random sample of 1,001 Americans ages 18 and older. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. The full questionnaire and trend data may be found at www.srbi.com.

9 As noted by Seth Brohinsky in his write-up of the details of the TIME/SRBI poll found in www.srbi.com -- also the source of additional statistics to follow.

10 Here and to follow in this section, quotes are from Berrett, Dan, op.cit., except where otherwise indicated.

11 As reported in various articles (referenced in Appendix A); for example, that by Scherer, Michael (2011), “Taking It To The Streets,” TIME (Oct.14th), quoted from p.23.

12 Scherer, M., op.cit., p.22.

13 See Kazin, Michael (2011), AMERICAN DREAMERS: How the Left Changed a Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

14 One good example of a book contributing to this ongoing debate is forthcoming in 2012: Vietorisz, Thomas, TRAVERSE -- THE CULTURAL TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A Coyote Perspective. London: Oxford University Press.

15 The quote is subtitle of a review of Kazin’s book entitled “Greater Expectations…”, NEW YORK TIMES, BOOK REVIEW (Sunday, September 18, 2011).

16 This is not to ignore moral overtones in some current debates; e.g., the federal debt. TPers say, with considerable justification, that the huge overload of federal debt is immoral in being levied on their children and grandchildren. OWSers say that the political influence of large corporations is immoral insofar as it overrides the dignity and providence of real persons.

17 Quotes in this paragraph from Gitlin, Todd, op.cit., who goes on to write: “This is the Obama generation declaring their independence from his administration.”

18 Quote from Gitlin’s Mar.5, 2011, Letter to the Editor (one of several) as to “How the Tea Party is Not Like the New Left,” written in response to David Brooks “The Wal-Mart Hippies” column of the same day, in which he noted “certain parallels between the New Left of 40 years ago and today’s Tea Party.”

19 Latter quote from Gitlin, op.cit.

20 Latter quote from a Mar. 5, 2011 Letter to theEditor of the NEW YORK TIMES from Arnold S. Cohen, President &CEO of Partnership for the Homeless.

21 As in Paul’s newsletter “Common Sense.”

22 As this writer tried to point out in an address to the Rochester (NH) “912” group on September 8, 2011, saying: “Don’t act like Bolsheviks. Get out, talk to people who may not agree with you and build your membership” (which, given the low attendance at the meeting, seemed to be declining). __________________________________________________________________________

23 In Chris Farone’s “Jawarhl Crawford on Occupy,” in the BOSTON PHOENIX (October 21, 2011), p.4.

24 Letter from Barry Willoughby, Chair of the Naples (FL) Tea Party (via a another colleague, Kathryn McMichael, Chair of the Bonita Springs Republican Town Committee) dated Oct.22, 2011, received on Oct.23rd. See www.naplesteaparty.comcastbiz.net for more information.