The protest is beginning to take on significant momentum and the article addresses the "actual" concerns pushing it forward.
The article covers the general history of "grass-roots organizations" progress in general and "the establishment" "casually dismiss[es] [protestors] as hippies or rabble". Who is to say that has not been true? Although, I agree that "the establishment" gives off signs when it is scared by posing the protestors under derogatory names. It deliberately expresses an idea that people are either separated by or united under self-interest, and inequality, which is reasonable enough. This doesn't mean that this is the only idea out there that causes these protests, but it is an effervescent one.
In the article, it is stated that "the protesters are considerably more focused than their critics acknowledge" because of the evidence shown that the banks have returned to patterns that people are convinced were at the heart of the crash of 2008. That may be so due to the actual organizations and labor unions that led their members to join the protest in order to gather extra incentives for the public to become involved with policymaking. If these numbers of inequality between the top 1% of society and everyone else are wrong or exaggerated up, the protestors may be inspired for the wrong reasons. However, there is a long list of things to put into policy and therefore, to be protestable about so the protest could still live and be beneficial in another broader way.
Speaking of organizations for change in general, an honorable mention would be the Tea Party, which has distinguished itself from the Occupy Wall Street protest http://http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-tea-party-occupy-0111011,0,4839479.story.
In the article addressing the shifts to policy from protest, the author really just acknowledges the strategic movements that the Occupy Wall Street protest that give it the potential to become a movement. The only significance that I see from this statement is that the protest has become nationally spread. A possible cause of such understandable, insecure frustrations with the economy being included as an underlying factor in the protest may probably be the policy shifts coming from policymakers. As well as the ideals of the movement itself, I can see it is legitimately relevant as far as the publicity of the protestors show the nation what the protest really wants to support. Of course, the organizational aspect will somehow have a creative output to what the supposedly up and coming movement will focus on in the policy they will suggest to government. I agree that the "maybe"s of the future of the protest are too subtle at this stage, but I also admit that the transition will be quite interesting since the ideals are appealing and impacting nationwide to densely populated places where people could afford to protest.
The article covers the general history of "grass-roots organizations" progress in general and "the establishment" "casually dismiss[es] [protestors] as hippies or rabble". Who is to say that has not been true? Although, I agree that "the establishment" gives off signs when it is scared by posing the protestors under derogatory names. It deliberately expresses an idea that people are either separated by or united under self-interest, and inequality, which is reasonable enough. This doesn't mean that this is the only idea out there that causes these protests, but it is an effervescent one.
In the article, it is stated that "the protesters are considerably more focused than their critics acknowledge" because of the evidence shown that the banks have returned to patterns that people are convinced were at the heart of the crash of 2008. That may be so due to the actual organizations and labor unions that led their members to join the protest in order to gather extra incentives for the public to become involved with policymaking. If these numbers of inequality between the top 1% of society and everyone else are wrong or exaggerated up, the protestors may be inspired for the wrong reasons. However, there is a long list of things to put into policy and therefore, to be protestable about so the protest could still live and be beneficial in another broader way.
Speaking of organizations for change in general, an honorable mention would be the Tea Party, which has distinguished itself from the Occupy Wall Street protest http://http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-tea-party-occupy-0111011,0,4839479.story.
In the article addressing the shifts to policy from protest, the author really just acknowledges the strategic movements that the Occupy Wall Street protest that give it the potential to become a movement. The only significance that I see from this statement is that the protest has become nationally spread. A possible cause of such understandable, insecure frustrations with the economy being included as an underlying factor in the protest may probably be the policy shifts coming from policymakers. As well as the ideals of the movement itself, I can see it is legitimately relevant as far as the publicity of the protestors show the nation what the protest really wants to support. Of course, the organizational aspect will somehow have a creative output to what the supposedly up and coming movement will focus on in the policy they will suggest to government. I agree that the "maybe"s of the future of the protest are too subtle at this stage, but I also admit that the transition will be quite interesting since the ideals are appealing and impacting nationwide to densely populated places where people could afford to protest.
No comments:
Post a Comment