Pam Brown's Blog l emission - control. net: Why it's Time for New Yorkers to Demand that Mayor Bloomberg to Step Down

I have started a petition demanding that "Mayor" Bloomberg resign from his position as mayor of New York City in hope of drawing attention to and remedying the fascism we are living under here in the Big Apple. Fascism sounds like a strong word, but it is actually the most accurate description of what has happened in New York City. We typically view fascism as a kind of nationalistic regime that happens at the point of a gun. But in reality fascism is something that happens slowly. Fascism can be described as a tendency toward autocratic control. In our neoliberal capitalist world, often times guns are unnecessary to achieve control, because money can be used instead. This is what has happened in New York City.

New Yorkers had a law limiting any elected mayor to two terms. In fact this law was voted on twice in recent elections. Unfortunately, this law did not apply to Bloomberg. Why not? Because he believed he was above it, and had the money to thwart it. Bloomberg was able to convert his billionaire level economic status to political power by influencing the City Council to change the law. He argued that his leadership was necessary to restore economic order to the city and nation due to the economic crisis on Wall Street. Evidently, in the minds of the individual City Council members, the consequences of resisting a change to the term limit law outweighed the consequences of going along with the billionaire Mayor. But why was the City Council able to change a law voted on by the people of New York City? The intellectual history of this law is actually quite fascinating. Since the French Revolution, laws have been carried forth to prevent violent revolution except when absolutely necessary. The law that allowed the City Council to make this change originated with the need to prevent an arrogant and powerful leader from taking over a government in a violent coup d'tat. The calculation was that by granting an additional term, the leader might be persuaded to step down at the end of that period, and if not, then violence might be necessary to maintain democracy.

Even though he was able to thwart the two term limit, many New Yorkers were so against Bloomberg's manipulation of the system, that he was forced to spend millions of his billions of dollars in personal wealth to drown out his democratic opponent. Not surprisingly, some of that money was spent in possible violation of campaign finance laws. And in the end, he spent so much money that even President Obama did not bother to take a strong stand for his democratic opponent, who most certainly would have won had Bloomberg not been able to use his personal wealth to spend $102 million dollars - about $174 per voter - to win the campaign. To put things in perspective his opponent spent less than $10 million. In other words, Bloomberg had no problem using his economic power to change the law to enable himself to run for a third term, and also to use incredible amounts of personal wealth to further subvert the system by drowning out his opponent.

As we consider the occupation of Wall Street and the ways in which this protest may play out, we also should consider the kind of person we have in charge of the police force in New York City. Right from the start of the Occupy Wall Street protest Bloomberg's cops have used disproportionate violence against peaceful protestors. First, there was the pepper spraying of unarmed, female protesters who were already penned behind a barricade. Then, there was the arrest of 700 peaceful protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge. This incident also entailed dispatching the transit authority to transport the imprisoned protesters, an act of questionable legality. Then finally, there was what can only be described as a police riot when protesters attempted to walk down Wall Street. In this incident NYPD cops beat unarmed peaceful protesters with their nightsticks and indiscriminately sprayed them with pepper spray. Even the Los Angeles Police, who have earned a reputation for brutality, publicly stated last week that they did not want to handle the movement in the same way as the NYPD, and that they believe their duty is to protect the protesters. The consistency of these incidents of police brutality makes it unlikely that a couple of rogue New York City cops are acting violently on their own. It seems more likely that the NYPD policy is to create violent encounters with peaceful protesters in an effort to quell the Occupy Wall Street movement. Should we be surprised by this sort of fascism, when the person responsible for the police thwarted basic democratic principles to extend his rule of NYC?

Furthermore, Bloomberg has used his bully pulpit to intentionally distort the motivations of the protesters. Last week, he stated that the occupiers are protesting against workers making $50,000 dollars a year in the financial industry. Later, he went even further to accuse the protesters of trying to destroy jobs. Are we really supposed to believe that the "mayor" is this dense? Of course, this is just a strategy to create the image of the protesters as silly and misguided, and to drum up negative public opinion. How far does his media influence extend? Who does Bloomberg really represent? Of course, he does not represent the people making $50,000 a year working on Wall Street; he represents the 1% that the 99% are forced to serve.

And as if all this isn't enough, Bloomberg's live in girlfriend is one of the board members of the corporation that owns Liberty Square, the park being occupied by the protesters. When Bloomberg says that the protesters cannot stay in the square indefinitely, whose interest is he representing? Who has been whispering in his ear? And what does it mean that they cannot occupy the square indefinitely? Presumably, this means that he is willing to end the occupation by force.

Under these circumstances, there is simply no way that Bloomberg can represent the interests of the people of New York City. If the Occupy Wall Street movement is about anything, it's about rejecting the insidious intermingling of economic interests and political power. As much as Wall Street symbolizes an institutionalized form of economic injustice, Bloomberg puts corruption into human form - the greedy, self-absorbed, individualist, who believes his wealth raises him above all others and that he can do whatever he wants to those with less economic influence. Bloomberg symbolizes and serves the 1%. The 99% have found their voice, and this is why it is time for the people of New York City to demand that Bloomberg step down. Please sign the petition linked below.