Oligarchies have never willingly yielded power to the mass societies they rule, and they never will. Unless the organic (i.e., living, breathing) citizens of this country can take it back from the "corporate" citizens endowed by the Supreme Court, we will live in the dark future Dick Morrill describes. "Occupy Wall Street" is the bow wave of a social and political movement of those who have had enough.

A "political radical" that's spent a career in the university system. Careful what you wish for, professor, that bow wave might wash away institutionalized outsiders like yourself who claim populism while cashing ever-larger public checks.

"destroy the country to avoid taxes....." ohhkkkk, sure, that makes a lot of sense. and this is being planned in a secret fortress in
Arizona? and when 80% of the country is destitute and milling around with fire arms and theres no food and water, the tax dodging Republicans will have achieved their goals? ohhkkkk. Man, I used to think the nut jobs on the right were scary but at least most of them were grade school dropouts. 50 years in academia to dream up this crap?

UW Professor: Smart-Growth, Rail Transit are "profoundly anti-poor".

I don't get the 'rail transit is anti-poor' comment either.

But largely, I think the professor's predicted scenario is highly likely. First, let's all agree that the political parties are little more than cults today, particularly the Republican party. The elected officials serve the monied lobbyists rather than their constituents. This is particularly true in the Republican party.

The national (and now international) uprising is neither leftist nor rightist. It's merely anger and outrage at the fact that corporations have all the rights in our country today and people have almost none. It's profoundly incorrect to label the Occupy Wall Street protestors as leftist. From what I've seen, most identify most closely with Ron Paul. They want government out of everything except the basics. They want to end the wars, end the fed and shut down the military bases all over the world. They're against the bailouts, just like the Tea Party but they seem to be more favorable toward social programs.

The main goal of the Occupy Wall street group is to hold people and corporations accountable and to end the corruption in the financial industry and DC. As someone said above, the people in power aren't going to hold themselves accountable on their own.

The Democrats have been far more prejudicial than Republicans. We don't care the color of skin, just the content of character. That is why Obama is failing, because he has a corrupt character - he has lied about everything he promised. His is NOT a transparent presidency. He bypasses Congress. He covers up scandals. His AG does selected prosecution. His administration has violated bankruptcy laws. He promotes cronyism. He is increasing the wars we're involved with including starting one in 'the Heart of Darkness' Congo where George Soros' investment in Ugandan oil is at risk. Obama promotes turning food into fuel that the UN says has put over 100 million more people into starvation. He and his cronies are 'de-developing' America so as to punish America.

This has NOTHING to do with racism and everything with Progressives hating American success.

"This has NOTHING to do with racism and everything with Progressives hating American success."

Randy, the problem with getting your message points from Fox News is that they make you sound stupid, ignorant and angry.

If only matters were so simple. What we've seen in the past decade is the largest growth in the world's industrial workforce ever and rapid advances in telecommunications technology. Whether national policies promote or hinder this trend, there will be no going back to the 1950s, and one should be careful of false promises.

It used to be seen that protectionism was seen as in the interest of big business and at the expense of ordinary Americans. The Whig and Republican Parties generally promoted protection as a way of nurturing American industries, whereas the Democratic Party, strong in the South and West, opposed higher tariffs on the grounds that they raised prices for agriculture. This conflict between industrial and agrarian interests was present in almost every political conflict of the 19th century, including the Civil War.

So, small Government is what the Republicans, Tea Par-tiers and Ron Paul supporters want? Seems to me that George Bush wasn't President of a small Government. And where are these people when they want to use roads, need a cop or have a kid in school. What are they thinking? They aren't. All they see is that the current President isn't doing what they want so they want him out. Yep, the parties of NO is all they are. Dick is probably right...the no people will surely topple whatever is left of this country, hook, line and sinker. I remember a time (not so long ago) where being an American meant that you supported your fellow Americans. Taxes? Of course! Where else are we going to get the bucks to run this beast? Is it just going to fall from the sky? We had empathy for those who weren't doing as well as we were. We supported our old folks...why? Because we know that someday we will grow old, Duh! A selfish disease has overtaken amerika, greed.

I think the Republicans, Tea Partiers and Ron Paul supporters are all on-board with roads, cops and schools, amerika. But when the "roads" money gets spent on bike paths and the "schools" money gets siphoned off to politically-connected non-profits for "social-justice" work, the budgets grow, the mission creeps and the taxpayers get upset. Travel back to that time when people said "taxes? Of course!", compare the scope of government then to now. That "greed" to which you allude has run rampant in government.

Well, of course everything has grown in size...more people, that's more schools, more roads and more cops. But we are all Americans...I personally think that Democrats have a better sense of what is right for the country than the Republicans do. Just my two cents... social programs are necessary and worthy of more taxes...but not on the backs of the poor or the middle class. Tax the rich, BlueLight.

I don't think we should blanket-excuse things, amerika. We shouldn't say "social programs are necessary and worthy of more taxes", because surely some are not (Silas Potter is about to be prosecuted, hopefully, for his role in a "social program"). By doing so, we send the message that we are unwilling to critically assess government programs. That we are unwilling to audit, to adapt, to sunset. Ever hear that the hardest thing to kill is a government program? Well, we either have to kill some or quit making new ones.

If the debacle foreseen by Mr. Morrill takes place, it will be entirely the fault of President Obama and the Democrats, specifically their abandonment of New Deal principles and their refusal to articulate the grievances of the real Working Class – that is, 99 percent of the U.S. population.

Again if the 2012 elections turn out as Mr. Morrill predicts, "constraints" will be the least of our worries. The Republicans will reduce the United States to a de facto Fourth Reich, this time "under god" – beneath the Cross of Jesus and the Stars and Stripes – rather than under the Swastika.

And the Republicans make no secret of their intent: zero-tolerance corporate-funded theocracy, jack-boot dictatorship at home, genocidal imperialism abroad. We'll suffer ideological discipline imposed by Christian fanatics and policed by a Department of Homeland Security expanded into a latter-day Gestapo. We'll witness a Final Solution to the problems of poverty and unemployment – slave labor for jobless people and extermination (by whatever means) for those of us who are elderly, disabled and thus no longer exploitable for profit: this in addition to the debt slavery by which so many of us are already oppressed.

I believe the prognosis is far worse than Mr. Morrell's 50/50. Note how Obama – for whom I voted in 2008 – has reduced "change we change believe in" to the most egregious Big Lie in our national history – the real reason the 2010 electorate turned in desperation to the Republicans. Which is why, in my blog (Outside Agitator's Notebook), I repeatedly refer to Obama as "Barack the Betrayer." In my opinion – specifically because of the irreparable damage his betrayals have inflicted on our electoral process – his is the most ruinous presidency ever. Its dire legacy is already a kind of hopeless nihilism in which legions of embittered voters embrace a self-destructive ethos of “throw the bums out” – and damn the consequences.

Thus the methodical destruction of government services; thus too death by neglect and abandonment – genocide without death camps – for millions of Americans who are elderly, disabled or amongst the chronically unemployed.

In response to a Republican victory such as Mr. Morrell anticipates, the Occupy Wall Street movement could only become more determined in its non-violent protests and civil disobedience.

Meanwhile it is deliberate misrepresentation by Ruling Class Media that gives the Occupation the anarcho-libertarian, Ron Paul/Ayn Rand taint of which Mr. Borkowski writes. While it is true the movement is ideologically undefined, its big-tent character results from its (exceptionally wise) choice to articulate Working Class grievances rather than preach ideologies – trusting an ideology will evolve accordingly. Precisely as these protesters so often chant, “This is what democracy looks like.” Though the outcome cannot be predicted, underlying sentiment seems close to that indicated by current U.S. opinion polls: beyond the confusion of labels, an instinctive leaning toward democratic socialism as the only effective long-term antidote to capitalist greed.

The Democrats could ride this rising tide to electoral success by publicly repenting their betrayals, re-asserting the principles of the New Deal and remaining true to those principles once in office. Alas, I fear the party is too dependent on Wall Street money to break free of the associated quid pro quo enslavement. I also fear the Democrats' record of serial betrayals has destroyed the party's credibility beyond any hope of repair.

Besides which (and exactly as proven by history from the late 19th Century onward), the one percent that owns and/or controls the world's wealth vastly prefers the paradigm of governance that is now undeniably the essence of capitalism: absolute power and unlimited profit for the Ruling Class, total subjugation and inescapable poverty for the rest of us. In other words, tyranny of the sort the 20th Century knew as fascism. Witness not just the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis but Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile and the Republican rat-labs of Scott Walker's Wisconsin and Jan Brewer's Arizona.

One thing is certain: the magnitude of protests that would inevitably follow a Republican landslide in 2012 could easily be twisted by the Ruling Class into precisely the rationale it seeks to abolish our few remnants of liberty, replacing all pretense of constitutional governance with unapologetic dictatorship.

But that does not mean we should allow ourselves to be silenced. Indeed we would all do well to bear in mind these words from Peter Gabriel's epic song “Biko”:

You can blow out a candle
But you can't blow out a fire
Once the flame begins to catch
The wind will blow it higher...

(Disclosure: though in the above I speak only for myself, I am one of several seniors involved with Occupy Tacoma.)

I think you are wrong lorenbliss. I think you and yours are looking for someone to blame. Go ahead, blame Obama because he didn't make your dreams come true. HA! Better yet blame Bush for starting unending wars with peoples we don't even understand, think they wanted McDonalds and Target, and spending all the damn money we never had in the first place. Yes, your world view when the Pigs get into office are real...but don't blame Obama.

BlueLight states: "By doing so, we send the message that we are unwilling to critically asses government programs." While this is fine and dandy, the problem is that many, BlueLight in particular, fail to make "critical" assessments. One or two line quips, such as BlueLight's first two comments are the antithesis of critical. Talk about specific government corruption (as opposed to systematic corruption) is simply a red herring. Sure, there is corruption in various social programs, but there is also dirty politics in the promotion of the Viaduct Tunnel and the failure of the monorail project very "conservative" results. The implication is that these issues transcend liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican dichotomies. To use inconsequential "excess" examples to bash Democrats or Republicans grossly dumbs down the conversation and can hardly be called critical.

As for Mr. Morrill's dire predictions, I think they are a little extreme. For starters, I think the predictions over-estimate the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. While Republicans have had a easier time implementing pro-corporate "reforms," to say that mainstream democrats (i.e. democrats who run for the presidency) do much more than pay lip service to their base is naive. Big corporations fund both parties because they know that whoever they help into office will return the favor. The perfect example is Afghanistan and Iraq. If Obama was such a liberal/progressive why wouldn't he get the troops out of there, or take any action to reduce the American military/industrial/oil complex that dominates the globe? Thus, if these sorts of Republicans take office the outcome will be poor but not poorer.

In addition, a distinction needs to be made between Republican and Tea Party politicians. Republican politicians, as I argued above, are not that distinct from Democrats except on certain "social issues" (abortion, gay rights). These Republicans believe in big government and bad government (at least for people). In contrast, Tea Party politicians, as embodied by Ron Paul, seem to want small government. Sure they may be socially conservative too, but the primary focus is on the end of big FEDERAL government. These are fiscal values not social values. And honestly I don't see such a huge problem with a small Federal government, assuming that the military/industrial complex and the variety of other corporate subsidies are ended and states have the right to taxation and regulation. Since neither of these assumptions are particularly threatened by the Tea Party, I don't see them, at the national level as any threat to poor people, and indeed, may free up local tax resources to allow urban states and localities to provide more social services to the poor.

Thus, either "doomsday" reality, the Republican or the Tea Party is not really that much worse per se. As Occupy Wall Street and to a lesser extent the Tea Party demonstrate, there is severe dissatisfaction with corporate Federal policy. There may be many marches in the near future because Americans are tired of the status quo, but a severe recession into social conservatism is unlikely because the protest discourse (no matter where it comes from) is about ECONOMIC or general spending issues NOT an appeal to Christian values, or racism etc. Therefore it is very unlikely that any of these movements will develop into some sort of authoritarian regime.

Finally, lots of people have ideas about how to restore the economy, it's just that no one in power is willing to take the strong steps needed to do so because powerful interests don't want, for example, fair taxation of the rich or banking regulation.

"...powerful interests don't want, for example, fair taxation of the rich or banking regulation."

Banking regulation like, say, the Community Reinvestment Act?
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-27/wall_street/30009234_1_mortgage-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates

I'm guessing staybailey might mean banking regulation as in once again separating investment banking from commercial banking.

I'd be happy if the banksters who committed FRAUD were brought up before a jury. We have congressional testimony on the fraud, we know they didn't transfer the mortgages to the bond holders even though the bond sales said they did. We know that when the loans went bad, they committed a second FRAUD to cover the first by claiming that they mislaid the paperwork and had standing to start a foreclosure proceeding, when in fact all they are is the servers of the loans, and that the bond holders are the only ones who should be able to foreclose.

This is all existing law. It has nothing to do with Glass Stegall, although I too believe that the tax payers should not be the backstop for investment banks.

And it has nothing to do ACORN, or the fair housing act, or liar loans.

You've got it right Gary. Most Americans believe that if you succeed, you deserve the just rewards. The $15 Trillion bailout turned that American principle on its head.

The banksters managed to turn themselves into corporate welfare babies, ruined their companies, crashed the economy, got a huge bonus AND have thus far avoided prosecution.

This was the essence of the Tea Party. It is also the essence of the Occupy Wall Street movement even though the corporate media lies and lies and lies about it.

Any fix for this economy will be short term. The "expand or expire" economy depends on constant growth within a closed system (the planet) and isn't sustainable. As the conservationist Edward Abbey put it, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell". There are some important short term fixes, like reinstating the Glass-Steagall act to separate bankers from brokers, and getting real campaign finance reform to separate money from politics, but a long term fix doesn't mean returning to the "American Dream", it means waking up from it.
We need to transition to local, sustainable economies that respect the environment and reduce income inequality. Good news! You don't have to wait for the centers of political & economic power to bestow this boon upon you. You can start right now, as the Occupy Wall Street protests have shown, by empowering yourself.
Financiers, corporations and bankers (and the politicians they sponsor) rely on money, so starve the beast! Fire your bank and switch to a credit union. Screw Starbucks, find a local coffee shop that carries fair trade, organic coffee. Buy your produce at a farmers market or at local family owned farm. Seek out local, sustainable businesses, and pester your local neighborhood and environmental groups to compile and post lists of those places, complete with links, addresses and Google maps, so that each one of us doesn't have to go through hours of research to find an oasis of sustainability in the corporate desert that our landscape has become. If you can't find what you need there, try yard sales, thrift stores, Craigslist or Freecycle. Take the bus, the train, ride a bike, go for a walk. Do everything you can to put money into the hands of your neighbors instead of someplace ending in "Inc".
That's why the OWS movement isn't issuing demands. It isn't about speaking truth to power. Power already knows the truth, it just doesn't give a shit. Instead, let's speak truth to our neighbors and empower ourselves.

These are a fascinating set of comments and reveal how widespread frustration and uncertainty are today. What I didn’t see are many specific counter-arguments against my doomsday scenario! One, with which I can agree, is that not all Republicans support the more extreme social and economic views that seem to fill the headlines.
I was a little surprised not to hear alternate scenarios of the emergence and effect of potential 3rd (and even 4th) party candidates in 2012.
A very good point is that the US is a federation of states, which have significant power. Thus, even with a national conservative Republican victory, we could see many states, including California, Oregon and Washington, not only holding on to more progressive policies and programs, but also innovating new ones, even on job creation, as well as attracting talented, progressive and innovative people from more regressive or intolerant states.
I appreciate the references to social democracy, which will I believe, eventually triumph even in the United States. It is not socialism, but rather a regulated capitalism, to prevent monopoly concentration of power and wealth, a battle that has been ongoing since the 19th century. Maybe after 2016? Historic reminder. Roosevelt, Truman, even Lyndon Johnson were close to de facto social democrats. It’s time to bring back that vision. And I dare to hope that the courts, state and federal, will continue to appreciate that all our constitutions require the separation of church and state.

Well said! dhal9000— we sure as hell don't have to wait for the laggards in charge to come around— it's in our own hands right where it's always been.

For particulars download the consumption atlas summary found here:
http://www.acfonline.org.au/consumptionatlas/
Australian Conservation Foundation: "What's the Environmental Cost of Our Spending?
Everything that we buy has an impact on the environment. In fact, the energy and water that goes into the goods and services we purchase is often much greater than the energy and water that we use at home. ...the more you buy, the greater the cost to the environment."

As to Morrill's concerns about product A ( linear concentric rail "mass" transit) and product B ("smart" growth) see
http://city-journal.org/2011/21_3_nathan-glazer.html
“I recall, as a social-minded, and socialist, youth, looking at this picture, proud at what had been done, worried about how long it would take to clear away the surrounding sea of slums.” But those tenements that survived, he continues, “are now often more desirable not only to poor people but to middle-class people too.” Glazer cites the East Harlem brownstones of his youth: 'No one has ever had a good word for this nondesign, this simple adaptation to market needs—until we started destroying it. Then we discovered that the brownstones could provide good living quarters; . . . that the tenements, once the severe overcrowding was remedied, . . . also provided good living space.'

These observations lead Glazer to questions that transcend architecture and again arrive at social policy. 'Why is it that the sophisticated intelligence of socially minded architects and planners didn’t produce satisfactory environments for those with the least choice? Even worse: why is it . . . that environments built by commercial builders, trying to simply make a profit as best they could, so often beat out architects’ environments in terms of appeal to ordinary people?' For Glazer, the architects’ and planners’ failure reflects their distance from, even lack of interest in, the lives and desires of those of modest means. He quotes Norman Dennis’s 1970 study of Sunderland, a city in England: 'As Edmund Burke said in another connection, the high level of satisfaction in areas like [the ones scheduled to be torn down] is the result of a choice not of one day or one set of people. . . . It is made by the peculiar circumstances, occasion, tempers, dispositions and moral, civil, and social habitudes of the people which disclose themselves only in a long period of time.’ ”

&
http://city-journal.org/2011/21_3_nathan-glazer-interview.html
..."The Jane Jacobs vision attracts all people of humanistic sense and instinct. And now the question is: Why is it always something else that actually gets built? Think of the Brooklyn area, the few blocks that are coming down for the basketball arena at Atlantic Yards and its associated development, if it ever happens. At least in the accounts, there was such energy with which it was resisted. People were already moving in, and stores were opening. Buildings were being reused. Nothing like the arena project was necessary there, nothing. So if Jane Jacobs won, why did they push ahead with that? Why would Mayor Bloomberg push ahead with that? Well, he’s saying, “It will give work to building trades.” Okay, one thing. “It will increase taxable property, we hope, maybe.” The arena won’t increase taxable property. It just costs money. It costs the city’s money. Why do they do that?

&
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08111140903308859
Urban Policy and Research
Volume 27, Issue 4, 2009
Transport, Housing and Urban Form: The Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Emissions of City Centre Apartments Compared with Suburban Dwellings
"...The total per capita emissions for apartment households varied considerably but, on average, exceeded those of both the inner and outer suburban households. This resulted from lower occupancy rates and higher emissions arising from higher dwelling operational and embodied energy CONSUMPTION. Overall, it cannot be assumed that centralised, higher density living will deliver per capita emission reductions for residents, once the combined per capita life cycle emissions from housing and transport have been accounted for...." EMPHASIS ADDED.

The beauty of adding more bicycling to a community is that there are direct economic benefits from not sending money to foreign countries for things like fuel.

http://www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/fp_docs/2008%20Portland%20Bicycle-Related%20Economy%20Report.pdf

Portland in 2008 has a $90Million bicycling industry. That's not just pocket change.

The reality is that ultimately the transformation that must occur will flow from the sheer physical limitations of the planet. And they are kicking in now. A planet with finite resources cannot support exponentially going consumption for long. Remember the classic example of the bacteria in the test tube whose population doubles at regular intervals? There is still 50% of the initial space and resources left when the bacteria are only 1 doubling away from using it all up and then dying off.

An economic system predicated on endless increases in consumption is not sustainable. A political system so entwined with that economic system that it protect and enables it will also be unsustainable.

I expect that the necessary readjustments will include both soft adjustments (think transition town movement)
and some really nasty hard landings (fascism, famine). Unfortunately, there will probably be more of the latter than the former.

The Occupy movement is simply a manifestation on the political-economic level of the former, while the TeaPublicans are clearly of the latter.

That last doubling is actually quite hard to do in practice. It does it easily in mathematics and of course unpaid loans, pensions etc. but in terms of population growth when the resources get tight, reproduction slows way down. You can see it in the population growth of Japan, Italy and even the USA where here we wouldn't be growing except for immigration.

Otherwise we are pretty near that 50% mark on a lot of resource usages.

Oh don't forget, disease. Overpopulation and insufficient food leads to less healthy individuals, who then get sick, infecting other healthy individuals. One good 1918 style flu could easily take out 1/4 of the population in a month or two.