When you're dealing in situations that are uncontrollable and combustible, you try to stabilize the situation as quickly as you can and then work toward and work out toward democratic reform.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
But transitions from the politics of violence to democratic compromise are always messy.
When you have that window of opportunity called a crisis, move as quickly as you can, get as much done as you can. There's a momentum for change that's very compelling.
In constant pursuit of money to finance campaigns, the political system is simply unable to function. Its deliberative powers are paralyzed.
You need a real crisis before you have reforms.
Many original occupiers believe the political system has become so corrupt that even participating in it, engaging with it, corrupts the movement. I understand what they are saying. But often, change does come more quickly from the inside rather than the outside. My advice: try both. But don't try violence.
Reforming public education, cutting property taxes, fixing adult and child protective services and funding our budget can all occur when Democrats and Republicans engage in consensus and cooperation - not cynicism and combat.
How do you defend inaction in the face of crisis? How is that defensible for anybody?
A cardinal rule of politics is that if an issue has the potential to cause problems for a candidate, it is best to deal with it well before the election so the dust has time to settle.
We have to reform the entire political process. It's got to start with leadership by example.
If, as is natural, you focus on the corruption and on those threatened institutions that are trying to prevent change - even though they don't really know what they're trying to prevent - then you can get pessimistic.
No opposing quotes found.