Village Idiots at Large
The American left is still shaken by the success of spontaneous conservative grassroots participation in tea party activities leading up to the 2010 elections. In desperation, leftists now hope to profit from the Occupy Wall Street gatherings which have spread to many other locations.
Haven’t the mainstream print and broadcast media, overwhelmingly liberal, given massive and sympathetic coverage to the Occupiers? Isn’t this a good way to build enthusiasm among the base the left needs to win the 2012 elections?
Probably not, even though Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, many extremist labor unions, the Socialist Party USA, the Communist Party USA, and others on the left are singing praises of the current demonstrators. So many want to lead the Occupiers.
One week after the Occupy Wall Street protesters first gathered, the New York Times ran an opinion piece by Michael Kazin, “Whatever Happened to the American Left?,” offering his guidance in left-wing movement building. He urged the demonstrators to focus on “demanding millions of new jobs that pay a livable wage.”
A fat lot of good that demand would do.
Creating new jobs requires creation of new wealth, something that government has never been able to do. Government can and frequently does destroy jobs by interfering with wealth creation. At best, government can facilitate the creation of wealth (and jobs) by restricting its activity to protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, punishing fraud, and deterring violence.
The idea of leftists “demanding millions of new jobs that pay a livable wage” reminds one of the famous “cargo cults” which sprang up in the South Pacific after World War II. Allied forces visited many remote islands during that war, built air strips, and flew in large quantities of goods needed in the war effort. Native islanders, unfamiliar with modern civilization, received some of those goods from Allied forces who wanted friendly relations with them.
After the war, the planes stopped coming. Some primitive islanders created cargo cults. They built crude replicas of airplanes and prayed to the replicas, hoping to receive additional free goods from the sky. As evidence of the persistence of human folly, a handful of the cargo cults still survive, but most have faded away after generations of disappointment. Leftists demanding from government millions of new jobs will be similarly disappointed.
For better or worse, though, the Occupiers are too diverse to unite on a single demand. What attracts their current supporters, from top government officials to the avowed Marxists and Leninists, is their potential usefulness in promoting class warfare, an ancient and common thread which runs through the entire left. Maybe, somehow, the Occupiers will build a great surge of hate, invigorate class warfare, and help the left to maintain and increase its power, despite the growing public disapproval of President Obama and his allies.
And maybe not. We’ll see.
Right now, the protesters don’t seem to be winning public approval, despite sympathetic news coverage stressing their “idealism.” My late father often said, “Anyone can get his name in the newspapers if he’s willing to take his pants off in public.” Many of the Occupiers have done that and worse, which generates for them more contempt than admiration. The TV interviews with randomly selected Occupiers are suitable to run only on comedy shows.
Before the current age of easy communication, every community had its village idiot, someone everyone knew couldn’t think straight. The local village idiot was pretty isolated and usually tolerated well, often with affection because of his affliction. “Poor fellow.”
Today, village idiots can find each other easily online, and sometimes they can gather in large numbers. Such gatherings are ugly, but they attract media attention, which attracts more idiots. Their idiocy, when it is directed toward leftist politics, may be ignored or soft-pedaled by the major news media, but the mainstream media has lost its former monopoly on mass communications.
Most Americans have easy access to conservative media’s broadcast, print, and online communications which widely expose the idiots’ wackiness and bad behavior.
Who but the willfully blind still approve of the Occupiers’ protests and flights of fancy? Political linkage to these demonstrators will hurt, not help candidates in the 2012 elections. But this doesn’t occur to the left, who are stuck in a rut with an outmoded world-view just when millions of conservative Americans have become newly activated as responsible political participants. The left cannot accept the increasingly obvious fact that big government is destroying jobs and bankrupting our country and its people.
Leftists are fascinated by the Occupy Wall Street protesters because, for generations, their organizing principle hasn’t changed. It was best stated in 1901 by future Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin in his newspaper Iskra (The Spark).
Lenin wrote, “Our task is to utilize every manifestation of discontent, and to gather and turn to the best account every protest, however small … Concentrate all droplets of popular resentment. Combine all these streamlets into a single gigantic torrent.”
More recently, Saul Alinsky taught much the same thing to many who now cannot resist applauding the Occupiers.
That old strategy won’t work in America today. Most experienced political analysts predict that President Obama cannot be re-elected unless our national economy improves dramatically before November 2012.
More government can’t generate the growth necessary to save the left in next year’s election. And even if it could, the current Congress would defeat any major attempts to increase government spending and government control of the economy.
The ironic fact is that the Occupy Wall Street protesters will, to the extent that they vilify profits and shame and frighten employers and prospective employers, discourage private investment in new activity which alone can create new jobs. By linking himself and his allies to these protests, President Obama is scaring off job creators and damaging his chance of re-election, not building his base of support. Fortunately, there aren’t enough idiots out there.
- Morton Blackwell's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
believing their own version of history
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 6:09pm.
The Left lives under a huge illusion that street demonstrations change people's opinions. They really believe the demonstrations in the 1960's ended the Viet Nam War. Not true. The majority of the people were behind the military right up to the end. The war was allowed to end because a majority finally decided enough was enough. We tried. The protesters were seen as backstabbing traitors. The demonstrations then and now are doing more to fire up opposition to the Left wing causes than they are gaining supporters.
Backing the military and disillusionment with the war
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 7:13pm.
are not mutually exclusive. The national fatigue over our long involvement in Vietnam and its enormous cost in blood and money resulted in a pervasive disenchantment among the American public over the prospect of our continued military presence. To the extent the demonstrations--and I am referring to the overwhelmingly peaceful marches, not the acts of violence--reflected that broad disillusionment, they did indeed hasten our disengagement.
Jer
depended on where you lived
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 8:22pm.
Then explain why in 1972 Richard Nixon beat the Peace candidate George McGovern in a humiliating landslide. McGovern won one (!) state. This was two years after Kent State and after years of demonstrations. No it was normal everyday people who finally decided it wasn't working. They had no respect for the demonstrators and saw them as traitors.
oh, and another thing...
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 8:32pm.
Nixon won reelection by 18,000,000 votes, a total blowout. By contrast obama won by 8,000,000+ in a country with a much larger population. But Nixon's total showed just how much the country rejected the Leftist democrats of that time.
For one thing, Nixon was able to co-opt McGovern's position
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 9:00pm.
by continuing troop withdrawals and winding down the war prior to the election. Our force level was approximately 500,000 when Nixon was first elected in November of '68. After reductions over the course of the next three years, there were scheduled withdrawals via the following announcements by Nixon beginning a year before the '72 contest:
Nov '71--45,000
Jan '72--70,000 [which would reduce our troop level to 69,000]
Apr '72--20,000
Jun'72--10,000
Aug'72--12,000
On Jan 27, 1973, after re-election, the war ended and between then and March, 23,500 troops were withdrawn, and on Mar 27 the remaining 2,500 were withdrawn marking the end of our involvement in Vietnam.
Jer
steak versus tofu
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 9:15pm.
Yes I remember Nixon said he had a secret plan to end the war. I believe it is still is a secret. : ) But the country did want the war to be reduced or ended but with 'honor'. That is why Nixon won overwhelmingly, McGovern was seen as a person weak on defense and was associated with the dirty hippies and violent street demonstrators.
Right...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 10:01pm.
and Nixon "honored" us with the deaths of another 20,000 Americans. But, I have to admit campaigning on a secret plan to end the war followed by a manipulated withdrawal was sharp politics.
Jer
I have to agree
Submitted by ahusser on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 9:46am.
I was no fan of Nixon and his cynical ending of the war just happened to coincide with the presidential election. However we did abandon our allies to their imprisonment and deaths which is now the norm for our foreign policy. The inability of Americans to stick to their guns and honor their stated commitments is a national character flaw and disgrace. That war was not a military failure but a political one. Nothing like the leftist anti-war movement to sap the will and morale of a nation snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (i.e.Tet was an overwhelming failure and a military disaster for the North effectively destroying the Viet Cong but the left turned our successful and dramatic defense into a propaganda disaster). When finally the Dem congress and senate defunded the war our political retreat was in full swing. The waffle should be our national symbol.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
ahusser....our intervention in Vietnam was predicated
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 7:41pm.
on fundamental, yet entirely understandable, misconceptions regarding the dynamics of the conflict--its historical origins, the ultimate objectives of the principal combatants, the basic, long-held desires of the majority of inhabitants, the mandates of the Geneva Accords--and, most important, a Cold War era confusion of essentially nationalistic aspirations with extensions of Soviet and/or Chinese hegemony.
Ho Chi Minh was, as were nearly all Vietnamese, primarily actuated by an intense yearning for a unified, autonomous state--one that was no longer a colonial client of the French, nor subjugated by the Japanese, or controlled by the Chinese, or by the Russians, or by the United States. By the early 50's, we were actively supporting the French who were attempting to retain their political foothold and preserve their economic interests within the region, efforts which were nevertheless dealt a critical blow with the crushing defeat of the French at Dien bin Phu in 1954. The national elections which were subsequently guaranteed at Geneva were blocked by the western powers who feared--with good reason--a sweeping electoral victory by Ho. Consequently, a puppet government which had been installed in the south and a divided Vietnam remained, setting the stage for our later, gradually intensifying military role.
True, our military prevailed in every significant encounter with the Viet Cong insurgents and the North Vietnamese conventional forces, but the political and social progress necessary to win the confidence and support of the general population was a far more problematic undertaking--and one that was largely underestimated and ignored by Westmoreland--resulting in a persistent, intractable, and continually destabilizing obstacle away from the battlefield.
There are those--such as the very able Lt. Col. Lewis Sorley, USArmy [Ret.]--who persuasively argue that our Vietnamization policy had made extraordinary progress such that the South was indeed on the verge of victory at the time of our eventual complete disengagement, which, coupled with our pulling the financial plug, precipitated the collapse of the ARVN and the loss of the war and the entire country to the communists. Despite my utmost respect for Sorley, I believe he has fallen victim to wildly optimistic, unrealistic conjecture. At the very least, it would have necessitated a lengthy if not permanent garrisoning of tens of thousands of US troops in Vietnam who would have been the constant target of insurgent attacks.
No one should question the depth of our sacrifice, the extent of our commitment to South Vietnam. I believe the American public collectively determined and made it known--by means far broader, more convincingly, and more rationally than the anti-war ranting and violent conduct of the fringe left--that enough of our treasury had been exhausted and enough blood of our youth had been shed. It was time to come home.
Jer
Yep,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 10:13pm.
The hippies won,
Vietnam and Cambodia are such paradises to this very day. Great job!
Well, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 10:24pm.
Why don't you run for President on a pledge to refight the war in Indochina. And we'll see how many votes you get.
Nixon was CIC. Do you think he said "well, the hippies are demanding an end to the war, so that settles it. We're outta there."
Jer
You dont?
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:17pm.
I thought you were up on all of this stuff. Nixon was elected to stop the war, no?
If I ran for Chief, we would'nt re-fight wars, we would cut loose the American Dream and make a ton of wealth and friends!
He wasn't elected by the hippies, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:39pm.
and certainly didn't take orders from them.
Jer
The majority
Submitted by coin of the realm on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 5:38pm.
of us wanted the Iraq war ended years ago. That didn't seem to work.
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. Mayer Amschel Rothschild
You ended 6 weeks ago troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 9:41pm.
Your hayate1 account was banned for cause 6 weeks ago. And here you are on your backup account. Take a hike troll. You are cold busted.
http://newsbusters.org/users/hayate
Good evening coin
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 9:49pm.
We want all wars to end but not the way you want them to end. If you were in the army we'd have to issue you kilts and tennis shoes so you could sh-- and run at the same time.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
coco,
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:58pm.
LOL - You forgot the obligatory white flags for when the sh*t really impacted the impeller.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Good evening Dave
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:03pm.
Oui. I forgot the democrat flag. I haven't had much experience with it but it would be an absolute necesssity for present day democrats
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Coward of the realm
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:04pm.
Actually, YOU wanted the Iraq war ended in American defeat. And you STILL do.
Wars sadly take awhile to end. Korea has been going on for 58 years, coward.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Speaking of the Village People, er, Idiots, PJMedia has a list
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 8:50pm.
of " groups, organizations, individuals and entities that have expressed their support for, sponsorship of, or sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement".
And, that doesn't even include the SEIU, AFL-CIO or the other "good" unions.
I think that you are
Submitted by coin of the realm on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 5:32pm.
engaged in an exercise of wishful thinking and selective use of data to make a case that isn't wholly true at best and at worst , paints a picture that is not only inaccurate but manipulative.
The plurality of Americans support the movement in it's outcry against corporate greed and corruption. The movement is consistently more popular than the Tea Party and OWS even has the support of 27% of republicans in a recent poll of NY voters. The top republican in Congress is now voicing understanding of the OWS rational while the TEa Party is getting ever more hostile towards it.
The OWS majority don't support Obama and yet it is portrayed as a tool of his. That is a lie. The OWS movement is not against capitalism , nor profits, nor jobs , nor most of the things you claim it is against. It is not Marxist, maybe some elements have entered the mix that are, but the movements overarching raison de etre is the excessive greed at the top combined with the government bailouts at our expense. All this against burgeoning public debt which is partially due to the tax breaks and rewards the super rich have been given over the last decade. All upside, no downside for them while many Americans are looking at all downside and very limited upside.
As to the grass roots nature of the TP vs. OWS, you have it wrong there too. Noonee thinks that the TP was an organically created group. The roots are clearly found with Dick Armey, the Koch's and a few other conservatives who started it and then had Fox news relentlessly promote it on TV. OWS is not supportive of either party nor was it started by the dems.
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. Mayer Amschel Rothschild
coward...
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:12pm.
coward of the realm, yours is a propaganda piece worthy of Neues Deutschland.
By the way, I note with much amusement that you and your Marxist buddies all shrieking about evil corporate greed are yourselves the greediest, most parasitic pack of ingrates the world has ever known. All of you whine, bitch and moan about how evil corporate greed is, all the while YOU LIVE OFF THEIR LARGESSE.
I'll believe you and your Marxist buddies right around the time I see a massive bonfire where you and your Marxist buddies start a bonfire where you are tossing all of those goodies you enjoy - courtesy of corporate greed - into a massive bonfire. But methinks you wouldn't hack life very long without your laptops and Macbooks, iPads and iPhones (all connected by corporations via equipment built by corporations), to say nothing of other goodies you losers make use of.
Besides, have you ever given any thought as to what corporations are made of? That's right, PEOPLE.
You pathetic propaganda vomiting coward.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Plug Nickle
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 1:30am.
I am almost certain you posted this same exact post elsewhere here on NB. Not sure yet but am going to look. I am also almost certain that this is a cut and paste from something and not your words at all.
Unsane
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 1:38am.
they hate what Tech. and Corp. and Capitalism is and stands for. You nail it just right. The hypocrisy is astounding as can be seen here in their own loveable little site. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/29/occupy-protesters-armed-with-te...