After finishing the first three posts in this series I found the first link returned on searching "bloomberg occupy wall street" quoted him Tuesday in the Daily News. Reporters are motivated to play up controversy, so I figure the reporter may have taken the quotes out of context. Based on what I read, I see Bloomberg increasing the polarization, taking sides, and missing his opportunity to lead. As a leader, I think the opportunity is not to delve into what people are saying, except to make sure it's legal and non-violent, but to support their right to speak, as long as they stay non-violent and legal. If you support that, you can come down hard if they become violent or illegal. Once you selectively enforce…

Okay, now we understand the situation. What can be done? As I wrote yesterday, people don't want to protest. They want their voices heard and to understand and agree with the process they're talking about. The opportunity for the Mayor of New York City is to follow a three-fold path Support the right to speak freely in his city Recognize the need for order and non-violence Support the city's great tradition of active participation in politics First, acknowledge protesters' right to free speech... Stating clearly there are multiple issues at play, only one of which is law and order in the street will lose him no support. Another issue is law and order in finance. Most importantly, as Mayor, simply acknowledging citizens want to speak…

Following yesterday's context... Bloomberg has done a lot for the city. I like the increased bike lanes and pedestrian zones in Times Square, Herald Square, and Madison Square that have appeared under his leadership, for example. But personally I remember him most for what I saw as his lack of leadership during the 2004 Republican convention in New York City. People wanted to protest non-violently. The police refused permission to meet in Central Park, where larger groups had met before. The mayor's voice was largely silent. 500,000 people intended to speak their minds non-violently. The police both prevented it and illegally arrested many protesters. Wikipedia, citing the New York Civil Liberties Union, says 90% of those arrests were overturned. 500,000 people is a substantial fraction…

This series of posts will present easy, low-risk-of-error, high-chance-of-success actions that would-be leaders can do. As always in this blog, it begins with context and an overview of the relevant principles as I see them. So far, the movement has revealed a stunning lack of leadership all around. People ask who is leading the movement. Great question, but the protesters are only one place lacking leadership. While most people point out the protesters' lack of leadership, I am more stunned by two other cases of absent leadership: the government's response and the changes to the financial system that prompted the protests in the first place. The protesters can at least point out they never expected the movement to resonate so strongly — an undeniable sign…