Oh, I whole-heartedly agree that we need people on the inside/outside to effect real change. I'm just saying that the OWS crowd qualifies as neither group.

In fact, a strong argument could be made that the so-called brilliant "99 percent" slogan was co-opted by them from Obama/Biden/Geithner - the three amigos who had been harping about the the top two or three percent of the wealthiest Americans who have not been paying their fair share of taxes over the last decade or so since they took office.

I would make the case now, but I'm saving it up for after the conventions when we get serious about Obama/Biden re-election campaign. :)

Unfortunately for the real 99 percent, it appears that Geithner is going to pass on a second term. And, who the Hell can blame him?!

@Liz
I think we need both. People working on the inside to enact change and people working on the outside to make the case for change.

The goals of the Occupy movement always fell much more into the latter category. Yet at the same time, this helped the Obama administration and inside Democrats tremendously because finally the media and the country were focused on what was actually wrong- not on the faux-narrative of cutting government spending.

-David

@Joshua
Obama has said the same thing. Basically, "make me do it".

Its important to conservatives as well. This is why they spend so much money to continuously shift the goalposts ever further to the right. Exhibit A: Ayn Rand.

-David

You know, that is precisely the example (MLK, MX) that I use to make precisely the same point. And it's a good one, that's for sure. One group speaks softly (so to speak) and one group carries a big stick. Often, it's the only way to get things done.

dsws -

I still love the story of the C student who got Amendment XXVII passed, personally. Heh.

-CW

Where were the those card-carrying members of OWS when the Republicans and their Wall Street lobbyist friends were (and are) doing everything in their great power to thwart Dodd-Frank when Geithner could have used their support to make a strong set of financial regulatory reforms even stronger?

No, I'm pretty sure that these people don't know the first thing about what has been done to protect their interests against those of Wall Street. They don't need a "boot camp for protesting". At least, not before they get an education on what the Obama adminstration is doing to protect and sustain the middle class and what the Republicans in Washington are doing to prevent any progress on that score.

Amending the Constitution with an actual amendment? That's almost as quaint an idea as declaring war with an actual declaration of war. We don't do that any more in this country. We have Supreme Court cases, and resolutions authorizing the use of force.

I'm pretty sure it's been confirmed experimentally. I don't know whether I'm really remembering any of these details at all or just filling them all in. This is just to show the level of plausibility I associate with the claim.

You randomize people to two groups, then you show group 1 a series of videos including one saying that X is a huge problem, that it's absolutely awful that lots of people are doing X, while group 2 gets the same series except for a video saying that X is harmless but no one does it. You make it seem as though the experiment is about something else, like whether they can remember details like the furniture in a video better if there's a longer delay in between of if there are more other videos in between. Then you make it seem as though the experiment is over, but have them wait to get the few bucks you give them to participate, and observe their behavior when given an opportunity to do X. Group 1 all does X, and nobody in group 2 does.

The point is, if you visibly make it seem as though there are lots of people taking a stand on some issue, it becomes much more acceptable to do so. And that effect is much stronger than any actual persuasion.

you're right, it's tough to convince people to do much of anything, even if they agree with you, even if it costs nothing and carries no risk. convincing people who only 70% agree with you to take actions that do have costs and risks is a huge challenge.

as to working within or without the system, i'm of the belief that real fundamental change requires both. in order for the people within the system to make changes happen, there needs to be the specter of even bigger changes from the outside. it's the nature of any entrenched system to delay and divert useful changes into near oblivion, as occurred with the PPACA, cap and trade, campaign finance reform, and so on. if there are radical changes waiting in the wings should the change not happen, it's a lot easier to make progress. MLK would have seemed like a wild radical for his talk of nonviolence, racial justice and universal integration, had there not been a Malcolm X talking to the public about african-american secession and armed resistance.

~joshua