FYI: DC Douglas is the handle of the guy who used to do voiceover work for Geico, but was fired after upsetting the Tea Party by leaving an inflammatory voice message to Freedomworks.
My kinda guy.
And if you're afraid, you'll have to overlook it. Besides: you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
Andrew Young is reinforcing observations made by Al Giordano, another lifelong veteran of community organizing and civic protest, about the flaws in what's going on with OWS. In a highly recommended piece called "Traité du Savoir-Vivre for the OccupyWall Street Generations" that offers excellent advice to those interested in achieving a positive impact through civil disobedience, Giordano noted in the aptly sub-titled section "Death By Consensus Process" :
“There’s a difference between an emotional outcry and a movement,” said Andrew Young, who worked alongside the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. as a strategist during the civil rights movement and served as mayor of Atlanta and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. “This is an emotional outcry. The difference is organization and articulation.”
….Ambassador Young said that to be effective, the protests need a serious discussion component and that leadership needs to emerge.
“I can understand people being frustrated with Wall Street, but this just needs to be more than people voicing their frustrations and a few leaders having their 15 minutes of fame,” he said. “It is important for those who have thought through their values and objections to somehow be heard.”
Giordano gives a vivid illustration of how group consensus can be used to undermine the goals of the group, which red-shirted "if we let Lewis speak it means he's better than us" demonstrated in the OccupyAtlanta clip. Instead of embracing an ally an possibly winning over scores of activists and people of color like myself who've taken a "wait-and-see" attitude based on concerns about the direction and ultimate goals of the group, seeing the video of this experience left even more questions in the minds of many and probably did more to undermine their cause than any other action the movement has undertaken thus far.
The experience of the Clamshell Alliance and the anti-nuclear movement with consensus process is instructive. Once that movement had brought nonviolent civil disobedience back into popular use, other ideological and political sectors sought to wrestle it away and take power over the movement. Indeed, a kind of coup d’etat occurred in 1979, months before the Wall Street occupation that year, the result of a series of long consensus-seeking meetings on what the next action by the Clamshell would be. A group calling themselves “direct action” advocates (“direct action,” to them, was distinct from “nonviolence” most specifically because those people wanted the movement to bring wire cutters to the next protest to cut the fences around the Seabrook nuke construction site) obsessed on this proposed tactic to the point of fetish. This, despite the fact that the local residents of Seabrook who had provided the farmland and staging areas for previous occupations warned that this escalation of tactics would lose significant public support for the movement at its most local geographic base.The “direct action” faction – overwhelmingly they were activists, students and ideologues from metropolitan Boston – found, in the consensus process, its wedge to blow up and then take over the name of the Clamshell Alliance, even if it meant losing most of the organized bases that had created and built it. At first they used the power of any person to “block” consensus on any decision (and therefore block any taking of action at all) on any and every proposal that did not include fence cutting. This went on for weeks. It was frustrating for many movement organizers, so much so that, one by one, they walked away and stopped attending the long meetings where the same point got debated over and over again. After almost everybody who had organized the movement had been worn down, the last few adherents to the idea that this fence-cutting nonsense would destroy a lot more than mere fences (it would also wreck the cohesion, unity and public support enjoyed by the movement) eventually “stepped aside.” In consensus-speak, that means they expressed their objection but agreed not to block consensus. It was on that day, in the Marigold Ballroom of Salisbury, Massachusetts, across the state border from Seabrook, that the Clamshell Alliance shattered into splinters and for all practical purposes, was no more.