Occupy Wall Street Revisited
I'm getting sick of Occupy Wall Street. I loved it when it started, because it represented a genuine populist movement with social democratic values. Now, OWS seems to have evolved into a semi-permanent encampment of angry, confused kids who don't know what to do other than to agitate. Also, the complaints that Mayor Bloomberg's move against them somehow violates their "First Amendment Rights" strikes me as pathetic and sad. Essentially, the OWS people feel they have the right to occupy a park indefinitely without threat of eviction. Never mind that other members of the so-called 99% might wish to use the park themselves. This, folks, is how people turn into conservatives.
I'm not a conservative and don't intend ever to become one, and that's what frustrates me most about Occupy Wall Street. At its inception the movement represented a populist claim against income inequality, lax government regulation of the finance industry, and other legitimate issues. Now, what does OWS stand for? Rather than honing its message through a platform, the movement has instead taken on all types of grievances, ranging from random social issues to the general hatred of the police. By trying to stand for everything, OWS now stands for nothing.
Within a year of its birth, the Tea Party was a major force on the American political scene, sponsoring candidates for office and establishing a caucus in both the House and the Senate. Occupy Wall Street had that potential, but now it's being squandered under the false banner of "inclusiveness". The result? A legitimate, promising political movement will again be shunted to the sidelines, while the idiotic Tea Party marches on.
November 21st, 2011 - 00:15
OWS has begun to annoy me too, but I couldn’t quite express why, so thank you. It is the lack of a plan beyond the act of occupying that fails the movement. The movement succeeded in getting the world’s attention, but squandered the opportunity to use it. Now is the time for true leadership.
November 21st, 2011 - 05:34
80%/20% is the ratio I think about. 20% of the world are living a middle class lifestyle in Europe/Australia/New Zealand and North America and the rest of the world (the 80%) wants that middle class lifestyle too. And can we sustain a world where there are 7 billion consumers copying what they see on western mass media? True democratic economics are leading to self destruction. So the OWS wants to pull up the draw bridge so that everybody in the 1st world countries can live a middle class lifestyle and then xenophobic political agenda to keep out the riff raff.
December 5th, 2011 - 10:14
Holding conservative views often has more to do with understanding how to reason properly and foresee consequences than with gut reactions to liberal excess.