Jackson Free Press

Progressives in Mississippi can be a shameful bunch. They rarely speak up in public, and when they do, they tend to whisper or demand they not be quoted by name. Progressives peer over their shoulders often and spend much of their public life acting as if they are ashamed of saying out loud that they believe in a better society and one that cares for the neediest among us. They want a better world for the next generation, yet they are too terrified to demand it. They wait until a month out to speak up against ballot initiatives that could push the state, and potentially the nation, backward.

The pent-up frustration caused by not speaking out in a clear voice finds a venue this Saturday when some Jacksonians will gather in Smith Park for Occupy Mississippi, a localized version of the Occupy Wall Street protest movement that spread to other U.S. cities in recent weeks. We fear, though, that many of the frustrated protesters could lack focus and are venting.

It's not just Mississippi. "The Occupy Wall Street movement may look radical, but its members' ideas are less radical than those you might hear at your average Rotary Club," David Brooks, a New York Times columnist, wrote in an op-ed piece this week titled, "The Milquetoast Radicals."

We need somebody, anybody, to shake loose the way things are now. Radical-right Republicans (and Democrats pretending to be) need real challengers. Too often politicians from both parties focus on the voter pool already motivated to vote. They leave out all the people who don't identify with either party, or who are frustrated with conservative extremists and those pretending to be. Young voters and others who haven't been to the polls are looking for change.

Occupy Mississippi needs to do more than just take up space and raise hell. It needs to align itself with specific actions to fix long-time problems in our community. Improving the education system and evening out health-care disparities (starting with saving "Obamacare") are two causes that come to mind.

For this movement to have measurable outcomes, it's got to feel like more than angst, or it's going to have limited appeal. We sincerely hope it will grow into something more useful than the Tea Party on the Left.

Instead of protesting just to protest, find the systematic things to worry about and focus on them. Worry about the U.S. Supreme Court and how its makeup might look in a couple of years if progressives desert the president (remembering that Ralph Nader helped put Bush II in the White House). Work for balanced, reasonable justice that rebuilds our state's future at the same time.

Go to Smith Park Saturday and join Occupy Mississippi. But do more than yell. Find a focus. Challenge other progressives to speak up boldly, take the brave stand, and be true to themselves and their core beliefs. Then have the courage to take action and make change happen. Start with getting out the vote and putting up candidates who aren't ashamed of progressive ideals.

Previous Commentsshow

What time does it start?

wellington

Oct 13 2011

7am is the official start time. There are a lot of One-Issue groups out there already and where are they in terms of making change? There is So Much wrong with politics and the economy today that One, Two or even Three-issue groups are just not going to cover it. We need elections reform - but who is going to do that? Certainly not the ones who are already elected and in the system. They are addicted to the money and power. We need financial regulations - but what politicians are going to do that? Most are bought and paid for by the financial institutions. We need "Citizens United" SCOTUS decision overturned or a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that Corporations are not People and are not covered by 'free speech.' Again, what paid-for politicians will turn on their masters? I don't know if Occupy is going to provide solutions, but the demand to politicians is crystal clear - "You are doing it wrong! Fix it! Now! Do your Job!"

BobbyKearan

Oct 13 2011

This Walls Street thing is really catching on. Last week me, Toe Frog, Munchy, Slangshot, Not Too Bright and Hammer were dranking gin and corn liquor on Walls Street in Ridgeland when all of a sudden Not Too Bright said let's march to express our displeasure with the way things have gone on Walls Street. We started marching and saying all kinds of incoherent things including some cuss words. The next thing we know the police pulls up and takes us off to jail for public drinking. We were quite offended by the charges in that we had long run out of anything to drink. We had to hire DO-A-LOT Bail Bonding to get us out. I'm passing on our story to encourage y'all to be careful at the rally. Good luck.

Walt

Oct 13 2011

I don't think the Occupy movement should listen to calls to be "responsible" and immediately coalesce around issues. It's plain that the central message of the movement is that disparities in wealth have corrupted the political system. Reform of education and health care are both worthy goals, but they're not the central concerns of the Occupy movement. If you don't support the movement, then don't show up. The movement is unlikely to take this short of finger wagging seriously, especially when it quotes David Brooks.

Brian C Johnson

Oct 14 2011

Brian, you're the only one who used the words "responsible" and "coalesce." I didn't actually write this column, but I had input on it and helped shape its message. The point isn't to coalesce around specific issues; it's to have actions, and outcomes (intended and unintended, long- and short-term) in mind so it's not a waste of time and energy. I covered young protest movements for years before coming home to Mississippi, and I always wished more people would talk about focus and actions so they would bring sustainable change. I'm encouraged by this movement; it's certainly not "finger-wagging" to do a bit of action/focus cheerleading (or to help remind everyone about the long-term Supreme Court problem we're all facing that everyone needs to have center of mind). I probably wouldn't have quoted Brooks in print had I written it, but he actually made some good points, even if it was him. I like the message of not trying to be radical just to be radical. Be radical to make sustainable changes. That's possible here -- but only with focus and dedication to real action and outcomes.

DonnaLadd

Oct 14 2011

(The movement is also going to need to be tough enough to take a bit of healthy criticism/cheerleading.)

DonnaLadd

Oct 14 2011

I regularly read Brooks and sometimes agree with what he writes, but the column quoted above was one of his worst. It is full of false equivalencies and deceptive claims. For example: Even if you tax away 50 percent of the income of those making between $1 million and $10 million, you only reduce the national debt by 1 percent, according to the Tax Foundation. If you confiscate all the income of those making more than $10 million, you reduce the debt by 2 percent. For all of his claims of being realistic and productive, this argument is outrageously misleading. No one measures revenues by their impact on the debt, because any change in policy will look tiny compared to 14 trillion dollars. The proper measurement is the impact it would have on the deficit. Brooks knows that but he is playing games. All while lecturing activists about putting rhetoric over substance. I found the column to be almost worthless. He caricatures the movement's claims and goals throughout, while celebrating supposedly "moderate" ideas such as scrapping federal income taxes in favor of a national sales tax. Again, I do find Brooks enlightening at times. This was not one of them.

Brian C Johnson

Oct 14 2011

My reaction against the editorial is that I've seen a lot of this kind of rhetoric coming from people I respect, and it makes me uneasy. I think we need to give the Occupy Wall Street movement time to develop and stake out its own political territory. The fact that it does not yet have a list of policy proposals is fine with me. Moreover, the energy in the movement is that it is giving voice to people who have fallen out of the political system, especially young people. They should be supported and encouraged to come to the table on their own terms. Finally, I don't think it would be so bad if the Occupy movement turned into a Tea Party of the left. If they push the electorate to the left and make it impossible for Congress to slash entitlement programs without significant increases on taxes of the wealthy, so much the better. I completely agree with them that the concentration of wealth in the top tier of our society is a grave threat to our democracy. It is, for me, the issue that trumps all others. In short, I appreciate the point the editorial makes, but I disagree. Occupy Mississippi hasn't even had a rally yet. Let's give them some space.

Brian C Johnson

Oct 14 2011

Talking about the need for focus and outcomes is not taking up their space, Brian. I have no problem that you disagree. Everyone gets a voice on it; that's the point. I do see a problem with a Tea Party of the left and what it could help us end up with. That's why we're warning not to become one, but to be something more effective. The young people of the Civil Rights Movement come to mind. They didn't agree on anything, but they did have specific outcomes and actions that each of them could and often did take. It got some of them killed.

DonnaLadd

Oct 14 2011

Here's a link to a NY Times Opinion piece that ran yesterday, which offers a well-reasoned explanation for the lack of an "agenda," "cause" or "message" of OWS. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/occupy-wall-streets-political-disobedience/ posted by Terry Williamson

pigbodine

Oct 14 2011

"The young people of the Civil Rights Movement come to mind. They didn't agree on anything, but they did have specific outcomes and actions that each of them could and often did take." Ladd you lost me on that one sister, when you said they didn't agree on anything, what do you mean - are you refering to debates they had over how to address certain issues or something else? Just trying to understand your perspective?

Duan C.

Oct 17 2011

Meant: *everything* -- thx for pointing it out, Duan.

DonnaLadd

Oct 17 2011