Some questions for the "occupy" defenders:

[wdomburg]

Would you be as supportive if pro-life activists flooded into abortion clinics and shouted at workers and patients over bullhorns, led marches against the private homes of doctors and clinic workers, vandalized businesses thought to be sympathetic to pro-choice causes and hurled epithets at anyone who expressed disagreement with them

Comments

[object_sleep]

The difference being that the pro-life supporters have been doing such for years, so much so that not only do they believe in their cause enough to actively protest, actively hold up signs, actively try to scare, and belittle, and deter already scared and vulnerable women, and actively, without even the glimpse of an argument, shoot, kill, harass and domestically terrorize doctors who are doing their jobs.

And aside from all that, not even counting the ones on the front lines, but they've also gotten bills passed, in at least one state, with the potential of a couple more, that say that women who miscarry can be held accountable, jailed for negligent homicide.

And the biggest difference of course is their legitimacy; their representation by those who hold public office; the power behind it all, the hierarchical ways which lend their cause actual, tangible, legal legitimacy.

And there's more, and of course you know that, and of course you purposefully framed this post in such a way as to actually compare the two, when you know perfectly well why they are apples and oranges.

Can you say the same of the occupy movement?
Where are their congressional cheer leaders pushing to make their cause law?

[wdomburg]

Actually, I wasn't making a comparison to the modern pro-life movement, which has largely abandoned those tactics, but to the protests of the early nineties. For example, the "Summer of Mercy" in Wichita, Kanasas and the "Spring of Life" right here in Buffalo.

Both involved continuous presence, aggressive and often confrontational tactics, outbreaks of violence at the fringed (never condoned by the core movement) and deliberate attempts to interrupt the operation of private businesses. Goals aside, the tactics and nature of the two movements are very similar.

As for legitimacy, who gets to decide that? The nascent pro-life movement grew under a pro-choice administration and against public opinion. The nineties brought Title X funding for abortion counselling, foreign aid to international family planning organizations, federal and local laws specifically targeting pro-life protesters, and a near retreat on abortion issues by the Republican party.

On the other hand, the Occupy movement has a sympathetic administration, a significant numbers of sympathetic legislators, and the support and aid of the unions (who, ironically, are among the biggest political contributors).

It's hard to say where the cheer leaders are pushing to make their cause law, since their cause is so ill-defined. But many of the causes claimed were already being pushed. Greater regulation of the financial industry? The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Greater consumer protections for credit consumers? The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act. Universal health care? The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. School loan forgiveness and income-based repayment? The College Cost Reduction and Access Act. Obama's recent executive order. Mortgage loan modifications? The Home Affordable Modification Program. Foreclosure moratorium? Funny enough, that was done voluntarily by the banks being protested (against the wishes of the Obama administration). Come up with a cause, and there are plenty of mainstream cheerleaders, whether you're talking about making the tax system more progressive or ending corporate welfare (which probably has at least as many cheerleaders on the Republican side of the fence).

[object_sleep]

Except we're being led to believe that these things are actively working, and in an actual, tangible way, they are not.

[wdomburg]

Some of that legislation hasn't even taken effect yet, so it is hardly fair to pass judgement on it. And some of it has obvious, tangible benefits for consumers, like the CARD act. (Of course I consider that piece of legislation window dressing since many of the same protections had already been passed by the Federal Reserve under pre-existing authority.)

But the effectiveness of the legislation is somewhat beside the point. There clearly are - and have been - cheerleaders for these issues and legislators attempting to address them. Why they have not been more effective is another debate entirely.