Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 26, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama Targets Fox News
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Morton Blackwell's blog
  • Scientist Corrects Gullible Reporter: ‘Climate Change’ Not Causing More Tornadoes
  • Taranto: ‘Obama Presidency Has Given Liberal Media Bias a New and Dangerous Form’
  • Fox's Ed Henry: Colleagues Cheered Me On When I Grilled Bush Administration - They Don't Now
  • Bozell Column: The 'Assassinate Wall Street' Movie
  • Paul Krugman’s Flagrant ‘Austerity’ Double Standard
  • WashPost's Milbank Mocks Nikki Haley, 'Reached Out to' 'White Supremacists'
  • Networks Give Three Times More Quotes to Supporters of Gay Scout Admittance Than Opponents
  • State Dept. Official Who Altered Benghazi Talking Points Promoted; Only Fox Covered

Village Idiots at Large

By Morton Blackwell | October 31, 2011 | 17:38

A  A
Morton Blackwell's picture

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?

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

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.

  • Wall Street protests
  • Events
  • Column
  • Morton Blackwell's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

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.

  • Login to post comments

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

  • Login to post comments

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. 

  • Login to post comments

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.

  • Login to post comments

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

  • Login to post comments

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. 

  • Login to post comments

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

  • Login to post comments

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.'

  • Login to post comments

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

  • Login to post comments

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!

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

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

  • Login to post comments

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!

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

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

  • Login to post comments

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

  • Login to post comments

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

  • Login to post comments

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

  • Login to post comments

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

  • Login to post comments

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

  • Login to post comments

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)

  • Login to post comments

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.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

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

  • Login to post comments

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)

  • Login to post comments

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.

Motor City Madman said it best - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkEbqgbSqs8
  • Login to post comments

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...

Motor City Madman said it best - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkEbqgbSqs8
  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • Obama/Holder DOJ's radical departure on press freedom is chilling (Boutrous @ WSJ)
  • Oops: Obama fails to salute Marine, went back to shake hand (Weekly Standard)
  • Deputy kills PBS NewsHour staffer (Washington Examiner)
  • Oklahoma disaster was tragic, but larger ones have occurred (USA Today)
  • Mainstream Media Scream: Today’s Savannah Guthrie questions GOP ‘overreach’ (Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner)
  • Desperate Carney complains asking about scandals like asking about birth certificate (RCP)
  • Look at NYT's partisan-hack rewrite of the IRS hearing (Draw and STRIKE!)
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Column: When Did We Vote to Become Mexico?
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: Why Tim Tebow Is an Ultimate Clutch Player
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Gosnell's Just the Tip of the Iceberg
more cartoons
  • Leno: Obama Can Close Gitmo By Making it a Government-Funded Solar Company
  • Charlie Sheen Changes Name to Carlos Estevez for Upcoming 'Machete Kills' Film
  • HUH? Slate Editor: Kaitlyn Hunt Case 'Is About Gay Rights. But It’s Not About That'
  • Weekend Open Thread
  • Leno: ‘Not Looking Good for Obama - Today His Teleprompter Took the Fifth’
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use