Replace voting with twinkles?


The New Republic:

Occupy Wall Street and the Return of the McGovernites

The supposedly anti-authoritarian 68ers helped create a more cumbersome and bureaucratic government in the name of protecting newly minted rights. That affinity is being recreated in Zuccotti Park. It’s not just that the Occupy Wall Streeters are filled with hopes of recreating the spirit of the 60s. It’s that they are literally recreating the follies of the 60s in miniature.

Like their 1960s predecessors, they’re chasing their tails trying to imagine procedural reforms that will allow the demonstrators to govern themselves, while also curbing the power of those greedy capitalists. Nick Pinto of The Village Voice found it “amazing to watch a bureaucracy being born,” as he observed the creation of one of the fifty committees called upon to govern the Zuccotti Park occupation. There are committees dedicated to managing, food, internet access, the park’s library, artists and culture, finance, outreach, site planning, graphic design, direct action, and sanitation (although the working chair of that last group acknowledges that “a lot people are dirty and don’t mind.”) Intensely self-conscious, there are information and media committees as well as an Occupy Wall Street Journal, an OWS TV group, and even an OWS archive.

Like their putative enemies on Wall Street, the OWS lawyers gamed the rules to achieve their success. In this case they were able to set up their semi-permanent site by gaming the bylaws governing Zuccotti Park, land privately owned by the Brookfield Corporation. Like the Wall Street bankers they disdain, the Occupy Wall Streeters—who, judging from my conversations with them, seem to work primarily in the media world of PR, party planning, and personal services—show little of the self-restraint necessary for self-government or productive participation in the economy. What they have in common with the bankers is that they all work in abstractions, as opposed to practical problems.


If you demand change, it is implied that you know what changes you want. Throwing out the current system without some idea what you want to replace it with is to invite disaster.

But I want to talk about the “consensus” method, up/down twinkles and the “progressive stack.”. Imagine trying to obtain consensus from a Congress filled with Tea Partiers, Libertarians, Progressives, Blue Dogs, Greens and one or two Socialists. If you think caucuses are bad, imagine trying to elect a president using up/down twinkles.

The “progressive stack” is the idea that when people line up to express their opinions, women and minorities get to move to the front of the line. While that sounds nice and politically correct, if your group is like OWS and is dominated by white males then they get the last word. Imagine a three hour meeting where the all the speakers in the final two hours are white males.

For more on the consensus topic and leaderless movements check out Cannonfire


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Replace voting with twinkles?

  1. myiq2xu says:

    Obviously this woman never heard of the Jewish Banking Conspiracy:

  2. myiq2xu says:

    Another FOX employee:

  3. WMCB says:

    While these idiots are cheering on their “consensus” model that is proving unwieldy even for them, do they not realize that if it barely functions even for a group as like-minded as them, it is never going to work for an entire country?

    Of course they don’t. Ya know why? Because they persist in the delusion that no one who really, truly, sincerely, and logically thinks differently from them exists. They don’t even deal with the pesky problem that most of the country would vehemently disagree with them.

    Only roughly 20% of this country even self-identifies as liberal, much less global socialist. That’s not a single, skewed push poll, that’s been across the board in many many polls for years. Roughly 40% identify as conservative, and the rest as either left or right leaning moderates.

    Sorry, but you are not getting your collectivist or socialist utopia without riding right over the objections of over half the country. You are NOT going to completely remake this country without ignoring or brutally oppressing a big chunk of those who disagree. So if that’s your plan there are only two possibilities:

    1) You’re a budding authoritarian, all ready to crack down on the rubes “for their own good”

    2) You’re an idiot chasing rainbows

    Pick one.

  4. murphy says:

    He’s a “liberal militant progressive democrat.”

    “I’m an idealist who’d probably cause a lot of people to bleed.”

    And he taught children in NYC public schools for 20 years.

    Oh.My.God.

    “And a lot of the great terrorist leaders of the past were teachers.”

  5. murphy says:

    The woman in the top video is a pitiable crazy loon. Dismiss-able.

    But teacher dude? He’s actually quite sane and appears to be knowledgable/intelligent.

    Holy shit.

  6. DeniseVB says:

    Meanwhile, back in Congress where an important probe is about to take place …..

    http://nationaljournal.com/conyers-wants-house-probe-of-college-conferences-20111020

    Sigh.

  7. myiq2xu says:

    NPR fires host that acted as Occupy DC spokesperson

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for MSNBO to do the same with Rattigan.

    • Mary says:

      Or Sharpton, for that matter.

      BTW, Cannonfire article is excellent. Thanks.

    • parentofed says:

      Goodness gracious! Is it CPB fundraising time again?

      They must really need moolah this year. Usually they just haul out a 60s Motown reunion or Lawrence Welk, but to fire an NPR staff person sounds more serious. Or maybe they’ve been wanting to ax her for some time, and this is a great opportunity.

      The color for the day is: skeptical.

Comments are closed.