Occupy Chicago "Mic Checks" Rahm, Ald. Joe Moore [UPDATED]

Image via NBC Chicago screen grab.

In actions planned to oppose Mayor Rahm Emanuel's budget and to call for dropping the civil disobedience charges of hundreds of protesters in October, Occupy Chicago managed to “mic check” both Emanuel and 49th Ward Ald. Joe Moore yesterday.

Late yesterday afternoon, Occupy Chicago activists interrupted the mayor’s remarks at an appearance on their way to City Hall to deliver petitions. As Emanuel remarked on the new "Lightscape" installation, demonstrators chanted “let us exercise our First Amendment rights!” and went on about cuts to mental health facilities and public schools, reports the Huffington Post.

Afterward, members of Occupy Chicago headed up to the 49th Ward to a Democratic Party meeting where Moore was speaking. Demonstrators chanted at Moore: “We are here because you and the City Council unanimously chose to support Rahm Emanuel’s budget. This budget will cut services in Chicago’s poorest communities by 17 percent…This is not an honest budget,” NBC’s Ward Room reports.

Occupy movement "mic checks" Joe Moore from Kaavya Chandrasekaran on Vimeo.

Some in the media have criticized and will continue to criticize Occupy Chicago for their tactics in interrupting the Mayor and one of Chicago’s more progressive Democratic Alderman. (Edward McClelland asks “does Occupy want allies?”) OC is well within their rights to criticize publicly and politically.

The point of both of these actions wasn’t to make allies or collaborate, but hold each politician accountable for his respective actions. Demanding Emanuel drop the charges at this point is futile — he won’t — and calling for a permanent place to camp doesn’t seem logical, given that winter’s coming and OC has said multiple times they’re looking for an indoor space. But, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take their grievances to him.

While Moore may have publicly sympathized with the movement, they’re unhappy with his choice to vote for the Mayor’s budget. It is well within the rights of any person, be they a member of Occupy Chicago or a member of the Tea Party, to voice their disapproval in public protest of a politician’s decision. McClelland wrote:

“Occupy, you alone are not “the people.” The people of Chicago elected Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the City Council, who voted unanimously for this budget. If you try to shout them down, you’re violating the democratic principles you claim to support.”

Such an analysis leads me to believe that McClelland suggests that, because a politician chooses to support some policies, it’s then proper to support every vote and action he or she takes, out of concern for building or respecting an “electoral majority.” In other words, political criticism of policy should only go towards candidates with which one disagreed, out of fear of criticizing potential allies.

If anything, that’s part of the culture of politics that Occupy movements around the country have said is a contributing factor to the mess we’re in. If we don’t hold our politicians accountable after we elect them, then what’s the point of voting them in at all?

Contact the author of this article or email tips@chicagoist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By aaroncynic in News on November 22, 2011 3:40 PM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

occupark

America has a very low voter turnout rate for many reasons. Sure, that oughta change but for that to happen people have to believe that voting can change things for the better. These Occupy-ers are fully engaged in holding corporate industry and the politicians that cower before them accountable for what they have done to this country.

And think about the commitment there. These occupiers have been beaten, pepper sprayed, arrested, harassed, spied on, sound-cannoned, tear gassed, shot by rubber bullets, slandered, and ridiculed relentlessly for the entire two months they've been on the streets- in hundreds of cities across the country. (not to mention the rest of the world.) Yet they are still pushing a non-violent movement for change. So they yell at a few sell out politicians. Tell me you haven't wanted to do the exact same thing. As long as they're willing to put themselves on the line on behalf of this country's people and speak truth to power I say go get 'em.

That day/night they were the only people willing to stand up for those mental health patients that budget hurt so badly. Thats what matters.

ReverendSlappy

The point of both of these actions wasn’t to make allies or collaborate, but hold each politician accountable for his respective actions.

Fair enough. One thing that's always disappointed me about left wing movement politics is an inability or unwillingness to see things through in a practical way; too often, liberal activists try to get (and fail or succeed to) elect their candidates of choice and then just kind of vanish -- if they even bother with electoral politics. But politics is a grind, a tedious, sometimes excruciatingly slow slog, involving achieving progress incrementally; Republicans have historically been far better at taking the long view and focusing on chaining together small victories starting now and being content to let the Big Picture fall into place later. They get involved and stay involved. And a big part of that is holding already-elected officials "accountable". So good on Occupy for aiming to do that here. I hope that kind of continued involvement isn't fleeting.

That said, I'm not sure I agree, from a tactical perspective, that shouting down officials is an effective means of holding them "accountable". "Mic checking" is something that looks more like something a vocal but decided minority would do; it's the kind of tactic a small group interested in affecting changes that outsize their real influence would utilize. In other words, if Occupy really does speak for the 99%, they should adjust their tactics to reflect that: gathering petitions, sponsoring forums, meaningfully lobbying aldermen and the mayor's office before these kinds of votes take place, and -- if necessary -- finding viable candidates to challenge and beat aldermen who don't support enough of their agenda... those are the kinds of things that will change minds and policies, IMO. Not shouting people down.

laprofe63

be a thorn in their sides!! make them uncomfortable and let them know that "business as usual" is a thing of the past!

occupark

I think the public shaming of politicians who have chosen to do things like balance budgets by denying desperately ill patients care is a a very fair thing to do. People say they "want occupy to succeed', then come crawling out of the walls to say that they want the movement to not adversely impact their favored friends.

The banks got bailed out, we got nothing. Choices were made by elected officials to handle that arrangement the way it was done. Those individuals came from both parties. Locally, Rahm decided to deal with his budget in this fashion. For that, he is held accountable. Moore decided to join Rahm in that decision. For that he is held accountable.

As for who better represents the 99%, I suggest you look at voter turnout, and then the effect of money on politics. Rahm received about 350,000 votes, out of 2.7 million people in the city. Thats about 13%. That leaves Occupy Chicago to represent at least the 87% of the city.

ReverendSlappy

The banks got bailed out, we got nothing.

What furytrader said. The shitstorm that would have most certainly happened had those banks failed would have most certainly impacted you -- and not in a pretty way. Disagree with how it was done -- or that it was done in general -- fine. But the claim that avoiding that catastrophe "got" you "nothing" is pure fantasy.

As for who better represents the 99%, I suggest you look at voter turnout, and then the effect of money on politics. Rahm received about 350,000 votes, out of 2.7 million people in the city. Thats about 13%.

Obviously I'm not going to claim that Rahm's big money haul didn't play a role. But let's not pretend that the other candidates were compelling ones, either: voting for Chico was basically voting for the old machine, and voting for del Valle was basically voting for Ed Burke (who'd have walked all over him.) And the rest were basically clowns.

And Mayor Emanuel received 323,546 out of 585,628 votes. That's 55% of the people who could be bothered to show up to vote (I assume given your haughty tone you were one of them.) Maybe the remaining 1.5 million voting-age people didn't show up because they knew Rahm was going to win and they were okay with that. Maybe they were dissatisfied with the field in general. Maybe a bunch of them are Republicans. Or maybe they just don't give a shit. Regardless, this...

That leaves Occupy Chicago to represent at least the 87% of the city.

... is about as vainglorious and preening a bit of self-supposed importance as I've read.

Change is made by the people who show up. On election day and afterward. And if you think you can arrogantly presume to speak for all those who don't show up, then you've got another thing coming.

Jane Scrotando

So when people don't express a preference (by voting) they automatically are best represented by the unemployable occupy group? (The same group who is polling at less support than the freaking tea party?)

Of course, at least the tea party idiots bothered to figure out how to run for office. These occupy jackasses can't do anything but stamp their feet and hold their breath.

Navin_Johnson

I have two jobs and support #OWS, as do loads of supporters, it's funny that you pull the cliched "get a job" out here, um, that's kind of a big part of what it's about you moron. Long term unemployment is at record levels for U.S. citizens, whether they support #OWS or not. Unprecedented income inequality and unemployment. It's not just the U.S. either, it's the world. Which is why you see people in Tahrir Square supporting #OWS, not The Tea Party... This is why there's unrest in Europe, South American, and The Middle East.

aaroncynic

Yep, I'm sure the folks who had their homes defended from foreclosure in MN, LA and a few other cities would agree that these "jackasses" haven't done a thing. I'm also very certain that the proposed Amendment to the Constitution to overturn the Citizens United decision had zero to do with Occupy movements. I'm also confident that without these foot stamping, breath holding unemployable occupiers, the national conversation would definitely still be about corporate influence in politics, rather than keeping the evil scary socialist government out of Medicare or death panels.

Tafter

Dude. Step back. You aren't covering the movement anymore. You are a part of it.

"The point of both of these actions wasn’t to make allies or collaborate,
but hold each politician accountable for his respective actions."

Really? Do you not see how this type of statement just torpedos your credibility. You are speaking on behalf of the movement. Why should anyone besides a devout follower read your coverage?

I do not come here to read OWS press releases.

Navin_Johnson

Actually, unlike the Tea Party, #OWS is a credible movement, not a corporate manufactured one, one that's only purpose is to shill for the wealthy elite. They aren't playing by established terms, because the political system is far beyond broken, this is why they are being fought so hard, this is why the wealthy and their leashed politicians are so frightened. #OWS is following these people to their ratholes and doorsteps. They aren't allowing themselves to have their terms or methods defined by politicians, the wealthy, and shills like yourself. Let's face it, despite all your disingenuous "concerns", you've been against this movement 100% from the get go.

All these stupid demands from idiotic malcontents: "Distill a million problems down to one sentence", "Appoint a boss of the movement....". It's bullshit and you know it. "Give us a leader to address".....(so we can promptly, spend millions of dollars discrediting them*). #OWS is denying the scoundrels their face, or their "slogan", and it drives you nuts.

The W goes to #OWS.

* the bank lobbying firms proposals to discredit and undermine the movement have already surfaced.

furytrader

"The banks got bailed out, we got nothing."

.... because if Citibank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JP Morgan, and US Bancorp had failed, your life would go on completely unaffected.

Navin_Johnson

They shouldn't have "failed" or been bailed out like they were, where we end up buying all their bad debts. If they couldn't come up with private backing then they should have been completely restructured/taken over. This is how more responsible, less corrupt countries have done it when they've engaged in *failed* neoliberal experiments in deregulation etc.

Why do you think that the only two options are a shady bailout where taxpayers buy all banks bad debts or complete financial collapse?

BTW, the big banks you mentioned now have 63% of our country's GDP...................

Carfree Chicago

The question isn't whether it's within their rights to criticize, the question is whether their approach is smart or will serve their goals. There doesn't seem to be much strategy behind their actions. I'm saying this as someone who wishes a grassroots group like this would succeed in fighting corporate interests. McClelland may have used poor wording, but he has a point that considering the last election, the mayor much better represents the 99% than the handful of Occupy Chicago protesters. If they want anyone to listen to them, they need to first develop a clear message, then stick to their message. Are they fighting against the banks or against Ald. Moore? I don't think it's clear at all to the public or to our elected leaders.

Navin_Johnson

the mayor much better represents the 99% than the handful of Occupy Chicago protesters

Was it when he was piloting NAFTA, or making love to Wall St. in the White House? Or making millions (and receiving it) from high finance while briefly in the private sector? I have a hard time identifying with that.

The people of Chicago elected Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the City Council,
who voted unanimously for this budget. If you try to shout them down,
you’re violating the democratic principles you claim to support.”

^ Nice logic there....as Aaron points out, that's b.s.

Tafter

I'll point out, then, that your point is "BS".

They are certainly allowed to criticize politician that purport to be "on their side." I would argue that the tactic is both helpful (in that it "sticks it to the system") and unhelpful (in that it possibly alienates parties that may otherwise be on their side).

But the thing that gets me about OWS aren't necessarily their tactics, but that they claim to represent the 99%. Which is utter, complete garbage. True, they are in the same income bracket as 99% of people. But does that really mean that 99% is on their side? The fact that I even need to ask the question is absurd.

As flawed as the system is, a democratically elected representative better represents their constituents than a random group of disgruntled citizens pushing their POV. True, OWS have ideas that appeal to a large percent of the populace. But to go from that to "we better represent you" is a crazy leap in logic and is just untrue. They *are* our representatives. We have opportunities every 4 years to throw them out and to elect someone who is more aligned with our goals or might even try to reform the system.

This reminds me in so many ways of the Tea Party. The Tea Party claimed that they represented America. They told us that Americans cared about fiscal responsibility above all else. They told us to vote for their candidates even though they held socially conservative views because, in that election, social issues weren't important. It's all about fiscal responsibility!!

Fast forward to now. OWS says that income equality and those evil bankers are the problem. Above all else, we should care about their issues. Put your differences with their extreme leftist ideas aside. After all, do you really side with the bankers?

Navin_Johnson

But to go from that to "we better represent you" is a crazy leap in logic and is just untrue.

That quote doesn't exist in the article above. The alderman was stating the opposite. Maybe you can find it up there though?

I can just see you guys when we invaded Iraq:

"George Bush was freely elected and congress voted to give him the power to invade, so shut up........."

Nope, that doesn't fly son.

ChicagoD

I don't think I understand how the budget is "dishonest." It might be wrong-headed and ill-conceived, but it strikes me as one of the more "honest" budgets we've had in years.