On 2012-01-01, at 10:21 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Jan 1, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>> On 2011-12-31, at 11:54 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>>> ...there'd probably be no Occupy without him (Obama).
>>
>> I'd say the Occupy movement had little to do with Obama except that he presided over the recession which was ultimately responsible for it. The movement was triggered by the public sector union protests in Wisconsin and Ohio and the Arab Spring. I question that there would be no Occupy or something like it without Obama - that is, if McCain had instead won the 2008 election and the Republicans had formed the government.
>>
>> In fact, the movement might well have appeared earlier.
>
> I'm not sure about that. A lot of the kids involved were very active in the Obama campaign and were mightily disappointed. Much of the left-of-center pop would be whining about how awful the Reps are and how we need a Dem back in the WH. There's nothing like a Dem pres to underline how The System sucks.
Actually, I'd be surprised if most of those who participated in the Occupys, apart from the young anarchists and aging Marxists, weren't Democrats who'll vote for Obama as the lesser evil come November. That'd certainly be true of trade unionists who protested against the anti-labour legislation and spending cuts in the Midwest and who began joining the Occupy movement in greater numbers. Is this impression from the outside correct?
And, yes, happy birthday to Ivan.