Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Guest Post: The Republican Primary from an American Conservative Abroad

Shawn Adams is an American teacher in Oman who has been a lifelong conservative, and someone I consider a comrade. Our paths crossed some time ago, and many debates involving politics and culture followed. This is his take on the 2012 Republican primary.

I have been a conservative all my life. I have almost always voted for Republican candidates, but these past few elections have made me rethink who I was voting for and why. When I was asked to write this, I had no idea what to say about the likes of Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, or Rick Perry. So I decided to examine my opinions the frontrunners and evaluate their chances of getting the Republican nomination, and in some cases, how I think they would do in the presidential election. SPOILER: Not Very Well.

Michele Bachmann: Honestly, this woman kind of freaks me out, even as a conservative; she just has some strange views, and her husband's odd views do not help her in any way. She may be able to rally the Uber Right, but she will never pull in the undecided voters in the election, and the Republican Party knows this. She will most likely not be nominated.

Rick Perry: This guy just strikes me as Michele Bachmann with XY chromosomes, and I bet most voters feel the same way. Voters tend not to mind you talking about your faith, Rick, but when that is all we hear you talk about, it makes us uneasy. If it makes conservatives worried, then how much more will it put off the swing voter?

Ron Paul: Once again, he's a little too weird to pull in those much-needed swing votes in the election. He may, in the eyes of most undecided voters, be way too far right of the game to vote for. He and Bachmann both need to see that although the far-right rhetoric may garner a lot of votes from your own party, this will not equal winning an election. For this reason, he will have an uphill battle to get the nomination.

Mitt  Romney: I had a hard time choosing whether I thought Mitt or good old Newt Gingrich would be the front runner of this primary. I came to the conclusion that Romney's Mormon beliefs would put him at a serious disadvantage over Newt and would be a real deal breaker, both with the swing voters and the Far Right. Voters might feel that this guy does not think like we do:  will he vote like we do in the crunch time?  Plus, come on: you put this guy up against Obama, and he will look like a wacko religious nut, even if he is not.

Newt Gingrich: He can take the primaries and probably will get the nomination. All the skeletons are out of his closet. Which means no October Surprise for old Newt. He has proven he is a strong leader and will fight for what he believes in.   Newt happens to be the only candidate in this primary who seems normal and who has not gone off the deep end.  The problem with Newt is that he can be too liberal for the conservatives, and he may be too conservative for the undecided.

None of these non-candidates will have a fighting chance against an incumbent president anyway, mainly because the voting public is scared of change and always has been, but also due to the fact that most of the candidates at the moment are just plain out-there or way too religious for the common public's comfort. Even if any of these guys (or gals) gets the nomination, they would need a miracle to win the presidential election. So assuming that Obama doesn't screw up in the coming year (and it would have to be a major screw up), we are looking at four more years of Hope and Change. But hey, these are only my opinions. Take them or leave it.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Ron Paul: The "Just Don't Look" Candidate - Part 2

With Ron Paul facing a firestorm of criticism over the overtly racist newsletter he published in his name for decades, it is necessary to understand that it is Paul’s ideas and worldview that are abhorrent, not simply a few racist statements. The paleo-right Ron Paul comes from and that he helped cultivated for decades is as ugly and reprehensible as it once was; its advocates have simply found more acceptable ways to transmit the same old conspiratorial and anti-internationalist nonsense. 

Yesterday, I posted the first part in this series directed at Paul’s domestic policies. I argued that while advocating a libertarian free-market, free of government intrusion and regulation is not racist, it ends up working towards the ends advocated by the powerful, as well as racist organizations. I respect a number of libertarians and often appreciate the libertarian impulse for greater individual control of one’s body, time, and resources. Having said that, I have seen how the old-right has adopted a libertarian exterior to pursue their true goals: maintaining the class and power status quo by undermining policies which redistribute opportunity and access to resources to the poor or downtrodden. It is no surprise that racist organizations routinely trumpet the “less government” and “state’s rights” appeals commonly echoed in the Ron Paul camp; if they can’t control the federal government and its national instruments, they can fall back into communities they dominate and avoid contributing towards the “greater good” they loathe. 

Ron Paul has garnered a great deal of support from self professed liberals and lefties, generally due to his anti-interventionist foreign affairs position. With the United States having achieved little in the way of political success in its most recent wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), it is easy to see how Paul’s brand of anti-interventionism would be popular with those who may also find his domestic laissez-faire policies reprehensible. I will get into the realities of a Ron Paul foreign policy later, and its lack of historical context. What first needs to be discussed is the role racist and anti-Semitic notions play in formulating Paul’s policy recommendations, and how Paul’s foreign policy is rooted in the same conspiratorial worldview that dictates his domestic program. His ideology cannot be divorced from the policies he advocates, and liberal and leftist supporters should be wary of supporting the man. 

Mr. Destructo has scanned and posted a number of Ron Paul’s newsletters, and for those of us that follow the radical right, there really isn’t anything new here. A distrust and distaste for minorities in the United States, as well as a heightened sense of superiority over colored people living in other nations. The “New World Order” (NWO) conspiracy has been eluded to by Paul for years, and is a requiring point of contention in his speeches and statements. Just a few years back, while on the Alex Jones radio show, had this to say:

“The new world order people see it as an opportunity to move one step forward.” Paul stated, alluding to an infamous description of the current US led international coalition of powers.
“Bush senior bragged about that, remember he didn’t want to go to Congress, he came and got a token approval in 1990/91 for the Persian Gulf war, but he got his orders from the UN, he didn’t need to go to Congress… That was the first time I heard a president use the words ‘new world order’, anyone who used that had to be a conspiracy nut, but Bush was saying this is what we need to do for the ‘new world order’.” Paul explained.
 In 2003, Ron Paul said we should renounce the UN for the following reason:
“Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN's own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren't interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.” (Emphasis mine)
 For those unfamiliar with the New World Order, it’s a conspiracy that has its roots in the far right in the 19th century as a reaction to liberalism and modernity among some Christian groups, but became more popular in the 1990s, and worked its way into other political persuasions and movements. The NWO is conceived as an un-elected, totalitarian, and often anti-Christian world government that will subvert all nations and people to its will. Many of the early supporters of the theory believed that the NWO would be controlled by the anti-Christ, and would bring about the end of days. William Guy Carr was a formative conspiracist who infused the religious and anti-Semitic overtones of the existing NWO theories to post-war anti-communism popular in the 40s and 50s. Public Eye detailed the outlook that followed Carr’s work:
“Anticommunism became a broad umbrella under which those with a wide variety of views as to "who is really behind the conspiracy" could find common ground. Was the plot run by Moscow Reds, Wall Street Plutocrats, British Bankers, or the Jews? Issues could have multiple subtexts. For instance there was concern over the erosion of national sovereignty by the United Nations because it was seen as favoring communist-style collectivism. Right-wing conspiracists expressed the conviction that the United Nations would erode nation-state sovereignty, and facilitate intrusive federal intervention on the local level. The concern over federal violations of states' rights was promoted in some cases by libertarians, such as the publishers of the periodical The Freeman, but "states' rights" often provided a veneer that masked underlying segregationist and white supremacist sentiments, even if they were unconscious. 

Anti-Jewish allegations could easily be added to anticommunism. In the mid-1950s William G. Carr promoted the anti-Semitic variant on conspiracism with books such as Pawns in the Game and Red Fog over America. According to Carr, an age-old Jewish Illuminati banking conspiracy used radio-transmitted mind control on behalf of Lucifer to construct a one world government. The secret nexus of the plot was supposedly the international Bilderberger meetings on banking policy. The anti-Semitic Noontide Press distributed Pawns in the Game for many years.”
Whether Paul believes some of the crazier positions Carr argued or not is irrelevant. Paul’s insistence on a NWO controlled through the UN, and meant to undermine American sovereignty and values, is simply a new branding of an old and sinister conspiracy. One can argue that international aid doesn’t help the people it is intended to support (a position I will challenge in the next piece), but one cannot also say that Ron Paul’s self professed ideology does not contribute or dictate his policy positions. Believing that only 5% of “blacks” have “sensible political opinions,” and that “internationalists” are trying to control American foreign policy for their own nefarious ends surely influences who you believe should receive international assistance and aid. If foreign, colored, and non-Christian peoples are not seen as capable of formulating rational thought, and the UN is the vehicle in which the American character is being undermined and destroyed, then you should avoid contributing to them.

Ron Paul may argue that he is merely advocating a “realistic” approach to foreign affairs, but his ideological footing says otherwise.

Part 3 this weekend.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Ron Paul: The "Just Don’t Look” Candidate - Part 1

Up until a few days ago, I figured Ron Paul was enjoying his apparent “front runner” status following his strong polling in Iowa. His message and persona had been picking up traction for years, and having a fanatical base of support across the country has helped spread his message significantly. That was, until people started to pay attention to the things Ron Paul says and believes. I don’t know how the racist newsletters ordeal is going to affect his chances in Iowa, but it has shaken a number of his supporters.  Some have acknowledged that the things printed in the Ron Paul newsletter were reprehensible, but have argued that his message is still one that needs to be included in the national debate, and thus still deserving of support.  However, the problem with Ron Paul goes beyond some terribly racist comments made in his newsletter 20 years ago. It is the entire worldview and ideological perspective that informs Paul’s policy prescriptions and that of the paleo-right in general.

Ron Paul isn’t
objectionable because some racist diatribes were published in his name, but because he wants to undermine the very norms of international and domestic solidarity with a libertarian pipe dream that will never be, and great harm can come from attempting it. 

The fact that Ron Paul has swam about in the conspiratorial and racist right for years is nothing new. But public notice is a double edged sword for Paul and his obsessive followers: once you begin receiving the mainstream media’s attention, people are going to start taking seriously the things you say and believe, and the old defensive positions will not be strong enough to deflect scrutiny. 

A few years back, David Neiwert posted an extensive review of Paul’s ideological foundation and its manifestations. David was surprised (as I was at the time) that Paul was picking up so much support on the Left regarding his isolationist stance. However, many of those supporters ignored or were unaware of Paul’s larger philosophical underpinning. David wrote:
A more important point, though, that's overlooked in all this is that Ron Paul has made a career out of transmitting extremist beliefs, particularly far-right conspiracy theories about a looming "New World Order," into the mainstream of public discourse by reframing and repackaging them for wider consumption, mostly by studiously avoiding the more noxious and often racist elements of those beliefs. Along the way, he has built a long record of appearing before and lending the credibility of his office to a whole array of truly noxious organizations, and has a loyal following built in no small part on members of those groups.

And it's equally important to understand that he hasn't changed his beliefs appreciably in the interim. Most of his positions today -- including his opposition to the Iraq war -- are built on this same shoddy foundation of far-right conspiracism and extremist belief systems, particularly long-debunked theories about the "New World Order," the Federal Reserve and our monetary system, the IRS, and the education system.”
Those who have not been involved with radical politics may not grasp how old Paul’s positions are, and while he has altered the messages advanced by the likes of Alex Jones and the John Birch Society,  he continues to further their causes nonetheless. 

Nor should the racist newsletters ordeal be a simplistic and one dimensional pile-on. Paul and his fans claim that this is just a diversion from the larger issues “neocons” and the like want to undermine. So let’s forget for a moment that Ron Paul has habitually supported the worst fringe figures and groups on the right for decades. Let’s also forget that his policy prescriptions are superficially different from these various conspiratorial and racist organizations. Discussing and debating the justifications for military intervention and the role of government in our society are some of the most pressing and necessary questions of our day. If we removed Ron Paul from the equation and were left with a more acceptable vessel for this message, would these positions be more palatable? Perhaps, but you can’t escape what libertarians and paleo-cons actually envision for the U.S. and the world at large. 

Ron Paul made the following argument concerning racism, one that is often argued by like-minded individuals.

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism."
David Neiwert keenly recognized in the aforementioned piece that this is just a repacking of old-right tropes. Libertarians argue that they simply want to live in a society that only recognizes the individual, and that the free market and a small state will create the conditions that will undermine and remove racism. David writes:

“This is, in fact, just a repackaging of a libertarian argument that multiculturalism is the "new racism" -- part of a larger right-wing attack on multiculturalism. This is, of course, sheer Newspeak: depicting a social milieu that simultaneously respects everyone's heritage -- that is to say, the antithesis of racism -- as racist is simply up-is-down, Bizarro Universe thinking.”
It isn’t racist to believe an unrestricted free market would produce an individualist society free from racial strife and class preference, but it is highly naive and ahistorical to argue that the creation of this libertarian dream world will alleviate past prejudices and inequalities. While I respect the desire for personal freedom many libertarians advocate, the state and its redistributive attributes can (and have) helped mend past wrongs and made more just societies. There is no doubt that individuals who belong to a previously discriminated group or class can achieve success in this libertarian pipe-dream, but many will not, and it will not be because they were stupid or lazy. When you lack access to resources or capital, your chances of success are limited, while those who have said access and resources have a drastically better chance at achieving success.  Antidotal observations should demonstrate this sufficiently, but statistical studies also verify this point. The Urban Institute, found that:

“Being poor at birth strongly predicts future poverty status. Using the PSID, this study finds that 49 percent of children who are poor at birth go on to spend at least half their childhoods living in poverty. In addition, children who are born into poverty and spend multiple years living in poor families have worse adult outcomes than their counterparts in higher-income families.”
In creating an economic system that allows history’s winners to avoid paying for the corrections needed to remedy past inequalities would be class war repackaged under the guise of “liberty.” Such a system would not ease class or racial divisions, it would solidify them, keeping the old racial and class order in place. Paul and his libertarian brethren may claim to be blind to race, but in avoiding the deal with these past discrepancies, reveal that they are blind to history as well.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Our Lady of Guadalupe in Kelseyville

December 12th is celebrated as Our Lady of Guadalupe in the Catholic tradition, and in my small California town, it is a holiday that units the Mexican community and celebrates its traditions and cultural ideals. It is a celebration that starts the evening prior, and at Catholic Churches with a large Mexican disporia, it gathers a significant crowd. Here are a few pictures from the event in my town.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Guest Post: OWS and its Discontents

This is a guest post from The New Centrist in response to my previous piece on the Occupy movement. 

Like most political events of the 21st century—the George W. Bush presidency, the War in Iraq, the electoral victory and presidency of President Obama, the rise of the Tea Party, and most recently Occupy Wall Street (OWS)—all provide a Rorschach Test of political sensibilities. What you think about the Tea Party (grassroots movement or “astroturf”) is highly indicative of whether you are conservative or liberal. The same holds true for OWS. I realize this is a broad generalization. There are elements of the liberal establishment that are critical of OWS just as Tea Party conservatives face opposition from elements of the Republican establishment. However I think the generalization holds true in both cases.

Populism of the Left and Right

Another generalization that can be made of both groups is their populism, a notion that the country is governed not by the citizens but an unaccountable and out of touch elite. In the case of the Tea Party, the elites are the political class while OWS rails against the wealthy (the 1%). Both decry the increasing role of “special interests” although different ones and often for different reasons.

Spencer Sunshine’s recent article (linked here) on this populist aspect of OWS is worth reading. He displays a solid understanding of Marxism and anarchism but his analysis of the conservative right is far less developed and verges on caricature. To be specific, lumping supporters of the Tea Party movement with neo-Nazis and noting they have “no clear focus” shows the author has not taken the time to pay attention to the development of the movement.

One does not have to be a Tea Partier to know their focus has always been on Constitutionalism, lowering taxes (Tea stands for Taxed Enough Already), and shrinking the size of the federal government.. The movement started out small and was generally conservative, populist and to a lesser extent libertarian. Of course there was a fairly sizable percentage of political kooks (Paulistas, La Rouche supporters) in the ranks--setting aside the colonial revival clowns with their tricorn hats--as the movement grew and the political potential was clear, the movement was co-opted and the kooks were largely pushed to the margins.

Manufacturing Consent?

One thing that has been evident to most conservatives (and I suspect many independents) is the stark difference in the way the Tea Party was presented in the mainstream media and the way #OWS has been presented. In the case of the Tea Party, the emphasis was placed on racist images and slogans carried by some of the protestors as well as the calls for taking up arms against the "tyrannical government." These were the views of a small segment of the Tea Party but the entire movement was painted as being a bunch of violent white racists.

With #OWS, the role of radical groups and organizations has generally been downplayed, the movement is presented as mostly spontaneous, and largely harmless. But when we compare the number of violent incidents or crimes at Tea Party rallies versus the Occupy movement here in the U.S., the difference is stark. I am not aware of any violence or property damage at the Tea Party rallies held across the country. With Occupy, there have been reports of burglary, theft, at least one rape, and a young teen being pimped in one of the camps. The final straw was the murder in Oakland. A murder.

OWS, Anarchism and the Scourge of Consensus

Some including Paul Berman and Michael Kazin identify anarchist elements of OWS such as presenting a living, breathing, counter-model to capitalism and the utilization of consensus decision-making.

The notion that you can create a rival community, a new world "within the shell of the old", a counter-culture, is intrinsic to anarchism. That this must be consensus-driven is much more recent. It is not evident among the various groups that considered themselves anarchist--anarcho-mutualists/collectivists/syndicalists/communists—from the mid-nineteenth century until the Spanish Revolution. All of them felt that voting within their own organizations and groups was just fine.

By the 1960s, elements within the New Left including Students for a Democratic Society and others were experimenting with styles of decision-making that were viewed as more inclusive, participatory and democratic. These themes were also taken up by the Radical Feminist Movement in the 1970s. Certainly by the 1990s consensus organizing was gaining steam primarily though the work of Food Not Bombs (FNB), Earth First! and a few other groups. FNB in particular was effective at distributing inexpensively reproduced literature, including their Handbook, promoting consensus as the only way to order a local chapter:

We make decisions by consensus rather than voting. Voting is a win or lose model in which people are more concerned about the numbers it takes to win a majority than they are in the issue itself. Consensus, on the other hand, is a process of synthesis, bringing together diverse elements and blending them into a decision which is acceptable to the entire group. In essence, it is a qualitative rather than quantitative method of decision-making.

From my experience on the radical left, the influence of consensus decision-making was incredibly negative. The long, drawn-out meetings with no discernable outcome eventually take their toll. People start to drop out.

While Michael Kazin, Paul Berman and others note the attempt by the OWS movement to create a counter society (some have termed the encampments “micro societies”) an important difference between OWS and the classical anarchists is an emphasis on what form the future society would take. All of the utopian socialists going back to St. Simon and Fourier had a model in mind. Never mind how wacky the model was, at least they had something to refer to. This is completely missing from OWS. They say this is “all part of the process” but it is not enough for most of us. We want to know what you want, especially if you claim to represent us (as part of the 99%).

What Is Next?

None, including the Occupiers themselves, can cogently answer: what is the goal? I understand the whole "We are 99%" but what else? What sort of specific policies flow from this besides tax the rich?

If this is all the Occupiers have to offer, you should be concerned. Tax increases might start with the rich but eventually will trickle down to the middle-class because that is where the real money is:

It serves the interest of both parties to argue about taxes on corporations and the wealthy because neither wants to discuss the alternative, which is where things get touchy. To solve our debt problems, we have to go to where the money is — the middle class. People who earn between $30,000 and $200,000 a year make a total of around $5 trillion and pay less than 10 percent of that in taxes (owing mostly to tax incentives and the fact that most families make less than $68,000, where larger tax rates begin).

This is an NPR reporter in the New York Times, not a mouthpiece for the “right-wing conspiracy”. Whatever side of the aisle you place yourself, get prepared for American austerity. Unless you are there already...

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

The Occupy Movement: Bakunin, Bolsheviks, and Change in America

The Occupy Movement is now a few months into its life-cycle, but since I live in a rural area, I was not able to drop by any of these encampments in Northern California until this previous weekend. Much has been said about these various occupation acts, and I have mixed feelings about the movement (if we can prematurely call it such) and the tactics it has used. While my experience with these protests is limited, I have been following the discussions and debates related to the movement and its tactics, and will dwell on and discuss some of those debates here.

Terry Glavin has not been kind to Occupy crowd. In his recent piece in the Ottawa Citizen, Terry argued:

"The aborted lunacy of Occupism is now descending into merely a Jonestown of the Imbecilities, with eviction notices and standoffs and arrests breaking up Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Oakland, Occupy Toronto, Occupy Halifax, Occupy Vancouver, Occupy Victoria, and on and on. And as usual, there is a celebrity with a conspiracy theory to explain why. Famous pseudo-documentarist Michael Moore fingers the Department of Homeland Security. "This is not some coincidence," Moore says. "This was planned and I think the question really has to be asked of the federal government and of the Obama administration. Why? Why?"

Why? It just could be that maybe the Department of Homeland Security doesn't have its agents doing the devil's work in the bylaw-enforcement offices down at 12th and Cambie in Vancouver, and that ordinary working citizens and taxpayers are growing bored with having their public parks expropriated by people who dump buckets of their own urine on parks board workers."

Terry wasn't the only one that has a problem with the currents driving portions of the Occupy movement forward. Spencer Sunshine writing for Shift Magazine recognizes many of the problems a broad movement encounters on the left (and should be of no surprise to readers of this blog):
"All progressive social movements have dark sides, but some are more prone to them than others. Occupy Wall Street and its spin-offs, with their populist, anti-elitist discourse (“We Are the 99%”) and focus on finance capital, have already attracted all kinds of unsavory friends: antisemites, David Duke and White Nationalists, Oath Keepers, Tea Partiers, and followers of David Icke, Lyndon Larouche, and the Zeitgeist movement (see glossary below).
On one hand, there is nothing particularly new about this. The anti-globalization movement was plagued with these problems as well.(1) This was sometimes confusing to radicals who saw that movement as essentially Left-wing and anti-capitalist; when the radicals said “globalization,” they really meant something like the “highest stage of capitalism,” and so from their perspective, by opposing one they were opposing the other. The radicals often saw the progressives in the movement as sharing this same vision, only in an “incomplete way”­—and that they only needed a little push (usually by a cop’s baton) to see that capitalism could not be reformed, and instead had to be abolished.
But for numerous others, “globalization” did not mean capitalism. Just as for the radicals, it functioned as a codeword: for some it meant finance capital (as opposed to industrial capital), while for others it meant the regime of a global elite constructing their “New World Order.” And either or both might also have meant the traditional Jewish conspiracy’s supposed global domination and control of the banking system. Whether they realized it or not, the many anti-authoritarians who praised this “movement of movements” as being based solely on organizational structure, with no litmus test for political inclusion, put out a big welcome sign for these dodgy folks. And in that door came all kinds of things, from Pat Buchanan to Troy Southgate."
I agree with both of their points. I bought a cup of coffee at a cafe across from the Occupy camp in San Francisco, and asked the woman working the register how has business been with the camp across the street? She complained that they would come in and steal from the shop and make a mess of its facilities. Even if it is a minority of those at the camp, pissing off the working folks around the location is never a good political tactic, and I hear this woman's sentiments echoed at other Occupy locations.

The picture above was taken at the Occupy San Francisco location by someone on Indybay. While I can not say with certainty, re-enacting Glass/Steagall has been one of Lyndon Larouche's talking points for years now. The frequency in which I see Larouche cult members at protests over the last few years is troubling. With that in mind, the core political principle behind the movement is one that I do support (as would most Americans for that matter). Paul Berman eloquently notes:
"Yes, yes, at Occupy Wall Street the madmen, the madwomen, the Groaners and the neo-Muggletonians will eventually have their day, and the movement will be ruined. Already the Maoists of the Revolutionary Communist Party are at work, together with Ron-Paul-ists, according to another of my informants. Visiting the demonstration on Thursday I noticed that the Workers World Party (which secretly controlled some of the big anti-Iraq War demonstrations, in the name of advancing the cause of North Korea) was already in evidence. The costumed neo-hippies and neo-anarchists will prove to be no match to the fanatics of Leninist discipline. Sooner or later the screw-ball groupuscules will wreck the whole thing. “Creative destruction” is originally Bakunin’s phrase, but the destructiveness of the Revolutionary Communist Party will not be creative.
So the movement will stumble and fall, and a lot of young people will feel a little embittered and distraught. But not every movement or street manifestation has to be what the wooden-head Leninists call a “pre-party formation.” The Tea Party is a pre-party formation. Occupy Wall Street is not, even if some people imagine otherwise. Occupy Wall Street is a festival. It is declaiming truth, and this is good. Wall Street has led the country and the world over a cliff. Somebody needs to say so. The damnable conga-drummers in the downtown streets have appointed themselves to say so. The drumming is not too articulate, but the job of festivals is not to be articulate. (It is the job of magazines to be articulate.)"
The Daily Show recently ran a scathing piece of commentary on the splits that have occurred in the Occupy Wall Street camp. Listening to activists drone on about "horizontal leadership" and other post-modern platitudes often results in its share of eye-rolling on both sides of the political aisle. My criticisms of the lingo used by the New Left to communicate its aims are numerous, and the pseudo-academic babbling has always gotten under my skin. It routinely makes those on the activist Left sound ridiculous and unconnected to real struggles around them.

Having said that, attempting to create different ways to organizing a community, is not without merit. I don't believe for a second that the anarchist model of organization can work on a large scale, and thus undermines its usefulness when confronting pressing problems on the national and international level. Yet, experiencing a community governed by those idealistic and leaderless principles can be inspiring, if even just for a fleeting moment. It may not work on a large scale, and the participatory democracy advanced by the Occupy movement may eventually devour itself, but I feel sadness for those who have not contributed and taken part in a project like this before.

Michael Kazin from Dissent magazine, recently penned a piece concerning the way Anarchism as a political idea has been thrust into the public debate, even if it is not addressed by name. He writes:
"The “principles of solidarity” adopted on October 25 by the General Assembly at Zuccotti Park usefully summarize the updated utopian creed. They include beliefs in “direct, participatory, and transparent democracy,” “a consensus-based decision-making process,” “valuing people before profits and eliminating the exploitation of labor,” “full rights for all people, regardless of document and citizenship status, sexual preference, or gender identity,” “a sustainable economy in harmony with nature.” Red Emma would endorse all these principles, although the one about “practicing and supporting wide application of open-source technologies” would surely puzzle her.
Such romantic notions are easy for pragmatic liberals to deflate: How would “direct democracy” preserve Medicare? Wouldn’t an open border between Mexico and the U.S. lead to an increase in “the exploitation of labor”?
Yet there is something both bracing and even rational about the anarchist revival. When the political and economic heights are occupied, on both shores of the Atlantic, by men (and a few women) who seem at the mercy of finance capital and are unable (or unwilling) to do much to help ordinary people in trouble, it should not be surprising that a kind of non-doctrinaire anarchism has become popular. Anti-authoritarianism can be a useful corrective to authorities who have lost the confidence of the citizenry, if not their legitimacy to rule. It also keeps the Occupiers on guard against Leninist sects and other keepers of extinguished flames and encourages individuals new to activism to speak their minds, create their own slogans, and imagine how to build a better world whose structure is not and cannot yet be known."
Having these ideas discussed, debated, and put into practice is not a scorn worthy exercise, but one worthy of support. I no longer share that idealistic fervor exuded by some of the Occupy movement, but I appreciate seeing these radical principles put into action beyond the university's ivory dome. Perhaps the lasting effect from the Occupy Movement will be a whole new generation of individuals who recognizes the power they have to shape their own lives and the world they live within. That do-it-yourself mindset should be celebrated. As for the sites themselves, this is what I observed at each location.  

My first stop was UC Davis. The day prior, UC Davis police had attempted to disperse a number of students who had occupied one of the school's administrative buildings. Captured on a now infamous viral video, one of the police officers doused sitting students with pepper spray.

By the end of Friday evening, police had successfully cleared the building of occupants, as well as the quad in front. I only found a lone box with the words "Occupy" written on the side down the road from the site of the occupation. As the weekend progressed, the video picked up national (and international) media attention. Since I am still classified as a graduate student at UC Davis, I received a flood of emails from my department condemning the act and demanding action be taken. The school's chancellor was working to minimize her role in the event, and sent out a slew of emails to staff and students. By Monday, the pepper spraying was all anyone was talking about, and a large protest was planned on campus.
The following pictures were taken by the Aggie, the student newspaper on campus.
Definitely the largest protest I have seen on campus, and apparently the quad is now reoccupied with tents on the lawn. The media attention brought to the Davis Occupation surely surged its numbers in the immediate aftermath of the pepper spraying, but I assume the school will not tolerate the quad being occupied for long. With the winter break coming in a few weeks, I would also expect to see less physical support for the occupation as students leave town.  

San Francisco
Those responsible for the Occupy camp in San Francisco did pick a picturesque location to set up camp. With the Bay Bridge as a backdrop, the camp was pretty quiet while I was there, as the rain kept folks inside their tents and out of the cold.
You could see a clear divide between the activist crowd, busy cooking breakfast for the camp and contacting members of the media or city politicians, and the transient and homeless population that has convalesced around these Occupy camps around the country. A handful of folks, clearly on drugs and acting erratically, seemed to put the other campers on edge. The police, perhaps hoping to avoid the fugazi that occurred in Oakland, were cordial to the occupiers. Some of the activists seemed to know the police personally, and they discussed problems around the camp. The only altercation I observed was between a deranged woman who refused to leave one of the public toilets the city had set up for the occupiers. As she was carefully escorted out of the camp, I got the sense that most of the occupiers observing the ordeal were relieved to see her go, and did not see the incident through a "Police vs. Protesters" lens.
Occupy Oakland was clearly the main event for the Occupy Movement here in the west. The city's mayor had handled the occupation poorly, and well publicized confrontations between the occupiers and the city resulted in unwanted media attention for the city still reeling from allegations of police brutality and abuse. Zombie has a round of pics (and a series snarky comments) of the Oakland camp that existed a few weeks back. What I have found interesting about the Oakland protests, has been the way some of the more destructive and reactionary portions of the activist community have been condemned by an overwhelming portion of the Occupy movement. A few weeks back, the Black Bloc, a loose collection of anarchists that often piggybacks on other protests, roamed through Oakland smashing up shops and causing property damage. Some of the group's participants posted a screed on Indybay justifying their actions. Surprisingly, the comments that followed the piece were overwhelmingly negative, with most condemning the actions of these vandals. One of the commentators wrote:
"I'm an anarchist, and I am also highly annoyed at the way people are employing Black Bloc tactics. What the hell people?
If the folks who insist on doing this were truly interested in creating a world where we can all feel free, then that means that they actually need to calm the fuck down for a second and start listening to what everyone else is talking about. To them I say: Grow up. It's not all about you getting off on "fucking shit up." Some of us are actually trying to bring about a world where we can move beyond Crimethinc tactics and create real, difficult, meaningful dialogue. It might be less glamorous, but it will last a lot longer. I support squatting; I am not even saying that property destruction never has value. But I am saying that if folks don't start reeling it in, we are done. Seriously."
The debate over tactics and property destruction is not a new one on the left, but the fact that Occupy Oakland was on difficult footing to begin with, likely intensified the reaction by members of the activist community opposed to the Black Bloc;s tactics. It was their movement on the line, and they didn't want it dragged through the mud by activists more concerned with destruction and reaction, rather than creation. On Saturday night, some of the Occupy Oakland activists decided to occupy a park off 19th St., just around the corner from the Fox Theater. Unfortunately, it was wrapped up quickly, and both sites were empty by the time I arrived on Monday.

Things were pretty quiet on the Berkeley campus on Monday morning, with just a small handful of Occupy protesters present. As with Davis, I get the sense that the university occupations will fade with the coming school breaks (and as it gets colder outside).
And what would a protest in Berkeley be without a mix of the old counter-culture thrown in? I saw this book lying on the ground in front of dedication of sorts. For those too young to know (or simply too uninterested to care), Bhagwan Rajneesh was a New-Age guru from the 70s that garnered some significant media attention related to his views on sex, and his opposition to socialism and Gandhi. He developed a legion or followers worldwide and has been influential on New Age religious thought that is popular in places like the Bay Area.