Advice for the Defeated

As a Democrat, I am well acquainted with the profound emptiness that loss brings. Political impotence is never a comfortable state to endure, so I have taken a moment to compile some advice to help guide you through that expanse of doubt before you. 

While it might seem sensible to change nothing and continue on the same course, it is not. Apparently, when “the people” request “change,” they mean it. With dullard Gore almost winning in 2000, it seemed only logical to later nominate duller Kerry. Ah, but no. You might find that Joe the Advisor (fmr. Plumber) and your pleisticine tax-cut-based economic growth model that failed over the past eight years will fail now, too. 

It also seems equally logical to imitate the victors, but strangely enough, “change” isn’t skin deep. Owing to their propensity to investigate rationale, the public discovers and is thusly infuriated by political figures who do not “walk the walk” but simply “talk the talk.” On such occasion, you will note that “change” is more than mere breasts or melanin. This is an understandable mistake and realizing it is a key step toward betterment. 

While many of you flaccidly trawl the halls of government, others have found yourselves of the more unemployed persuasion. It is certainly regrettable that you have no job and that none are available now because of you, but you should resist the temptation to view this predicament as negative. Joblessness provides the opportunity to pursue passions which have been heretofore unexplored. Mr. Stevens, you may, while imprisoned, finally get a chance to experience the virtues of Mohammed. Mr. Coleman, you may again grow out your "freak flag", slap on some Jefferson Airplane, and (allegedly) smoke some purple. But, if like Mr. Cheney, retirement doesn't suit you, I have an aunt who runs an employment agency down in Houston who can set you up with a temp position. Holly (that's my aunt) has found that former legislators are well equipped for hours of filing. 

You needn't worry forever. You will have your day again. After all, we're democrats. We're bound to fail again some time. It's kind of what we excel at. Until then, remember: you fucked it all up, and we beat you. 

Show Me the Money: the Success of the New School Occupation

For 13 hours, from 11 a.m. until midnight, I reported from within The New School occupation and outside until its conclusion in the early hours of the morning. In retrospect, many have deemed the December occupation of 65 Fifth Avenue a failure. But the problem with the critics’ arguments is that they are using the wrong criteria to evaluate the protest. 

If one judges the protest on whether or not President Bob Kerrey and Executive Vice President Jim Murtha were ousted, then sure, it was a failure since they are still here. If, however, one judges it on whether or not the financial behavior of The New School has been reformed then the occupation is only successful.

The media coverage has misled many to believe that the full fury of the protests was directed at President Kerrey. In a December 18 article titled “Protest at the New School Seeks Kerrey’s Ouster” the New York Times reported that the occupation was “to protest the leadership of the institution’s embattled president, Bob Kerrey.” In another City Room blog post, the Times’ Colin Moyniham and Trymaine Lee share a harrowing account of the protesters chasing President Kerrey down Fifth Avenue. While true to a certain extent, the *Times* only tells part of the story and leads readers to the conclusion that the protesters only wanted to oust the top administrators. Yes, protesters did object to President Kerrey’s leadership and yes, they did chase him (much to the embarrassment of many others in The New School community) but when the negotiations began, the protesters barely pushed for the resignation of President Kerrey and Murtha.

As the protesters formulated the final list of demands to the administration, many regarded the resignations as “best case scenario,” but probably impossible. The resignations were kept on the list largely for symbolic reasons in order to demonstrate that they still disagreed with the management policies of the administration. 

Many of the same actors who participated in the occupation were also a part of the demonstration on December 10, protesting the Board of Trustees' lack of investment transparency. The goals there (despite what the Times reports) were the resignation of Robert Millard, Treasurer of The New School Board of Trustees, and the establishment of a socially responsible investment committee—goals more consistent with the results of the occupation than the demands at the outset.

While the occupiers did disagree with the policies of President Kerrey, he was not their primary target. The consistency between the first protest and the conclusion of the second demonstrates that the efforts of the protesters were actually directed toward creating accountability for New School financing. With that criteria the protest is a success (despite how embarrassing it became) and has created a space for students in the administration of their university. Whether or not the occupation could have been even more effective, whether it was right, justified, or even worth our time in the first place, are different debates entirely, but do deserve to be discussed at length.