It is a breath of fresh air to find an account of the Occupy movement that is avowedly radical instead of liberal, optimistic instead of regretful or bitter, and based on a first-hand insider perspective. The origins of Occupy Wall Street have become much contested, and at this point it is a badge of pride for some to say they were there at Zuccotti Park on the first day, September 17, 2011. But David Graeber was there long before that, at the first General Assembly in New York following Adbusters’ call – which, as he tells it, was almost hijacked so that it was not a GA at all but rather yet another rally with designated speakers, until he and other anarchist-leaning “horizontals” who were there dragged it back on course.

hen Bob McChesney raises the alarm about a media issue, I say pay attention. Even if no one else is sounding the alarm, pay attention. Why? Because no one spends more time than McChesney engaged in the serious endeavor of figuring out how we now communicate, how we will communicate, how powerful media corporations seek to influence that communication, and how government agencies can and do fail to protect the public interest in a wide-open and wide-ranging democratic discourse.

That’s what McChesney has done with Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy.

I can think of few books about a slice of American history that have more relevance to the vital debates of today than Sam Pizzigati’s “The Rich Don’t Always Win.” Sam’s book tells the story of how the United States, one of the world’s most unequal societies in the early 1900s, became by the middle of the 20th century one of the most equal nations on earth. He shows how average Americans, organized in the labor and other movements, mobilized and vanquished a plutocracy even more powerful than ours today.

Why is this relevant to today? Well, starting with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the U.S. government — fueled by a far right ideology — passed “free market” taxes and other policies that left the nation once again as one of the most unequal on earth by the beginning of this century.

Recently, while standing in an hour-long U.S. Customs line at Washington Dulles, I pulled out Slow Democracy. Listening to others complain about the untenable situation as we crisscrossed back and forth, I read, holding up the book title for all to see. Finally someone said, “What is that book about?” I delivered a succinct summary, consciously using tools I had just learned to include diversity, to all within earshot. What followed was a splendid example of slow democracy.

People rallied from jetlag, shook off fatigue, spoke over wailing babies, and listened to each other share stories and experiences about an issue close to all our hearts: the democracy crisis in America. I was inspired to see in action the main contentions in Slow Democracy: i.e., people care about democracy and want to bring it back to the local level.

It is amazing to watch how desperate some of the so-called “deficit hawks” are to cut Social Security and Medicare. Peter Diamond wants to see these programs cut so badly that he is effectively advocating we sacrifice the core principles of democracy just to make it happen.

The OSCE is a body, which the United States is a founding member. Observers have been sent to the United States to observe US elections since 2002. But, now, Republicans in states where voter suppression could potentially occur are suggesting to Americans these people are here to violate American sovereignty as part of some left-wing ACORN conspiracy.

As dispiriting as it is to be a Democrat these days, what with the equivocating and serial cave-ins to the opposition, at least it isn’t downright embarrassing. All but the most craven of Democrats at least vaguely attempt to run on a platform of some sort, and have the decency to make at least desultory attempts to implement it if elected. More importantly, they generally make a pretense of playing by the rules in elections.

Not so Republicans.

Hugo Chavez was elected to a fourth term on October 7. The victory immediately set off a flurry of United States media reports noting alleged inequities in Venezuelan elections that permit Chavez to continue to hold power.

Alan Simpson is upset that somebody besides those with the accumulated wealth of a Pete Peterson gets a voice in our democracy.

I’ve tried really hard to avoid this brouhaha over Conor Friedersdorf’s article on why he refuses to vote for Barack Obama. It’s probably generated far more discussion than it merited, since it amounted to an unsurprising statement of support for a libertarian candidate from a right-leaning civil libertarian. That liberals pounced on it as an example of Naderite perfidy, though the circumstances are quite different, is something that I found revealing of liberals, and this post can stand in for my thoughts there.