Let Occupy Occupy

Mayor Bloomberg has drawn criticism from some conservatives for letting Occupy Wall Street stay indefinitely. In some ways, it is easy to understand why critics are upset with Bloomberg. Garbage is piling up, one person defecated on a police car, and many of the protestors do not even seem to know why they are there.

Even charitable accounts note that, after three weeks of protests, organization “is still lacking and political goals still need unpacking.” This group has protested for three weeks without knowing what its goals are. So it isn’t hard to see what critics are upset about.

But there are four good reasons for conservatives to applaud Bloomberg’s decision. The first is that it favors democracy. Contrast Bloomberg’s decision to Governor Perdue’s recent suggestion that we should suspend congressional elections for two years, so that Congress could concentrate on fixing the country’s financial problems. Or consider the claims by many on the left, including Vice President Joe Biden, that the Republican were akin to terrorists, because they engaged in debate and would not immediately let the Democrats raise the debt ceiling.

Elections and congressional deliberation are two core parts of America’s democratic system and it is worrisome to me that some would suggest bypassing either. In light of these things, Bloomberg’ decision to support free speech seems refreshingly Democratic. This is, I think, the best reason for conservatives to support Bloomberg’s decision. But it is not the only one.

When Fox's Brian Kilmeade asked who he thought Occupy Wall Street benefitted, conservative columnist Mark Steyn replied that it benefitted everyone. Here’s why:

Kilmeade: Mark, who is benefitting from these protests downtown?

Steyn: I think we all are, actually, because, this is a very clarifying moment. I mean, I think it’s the dumbest revolution (so-called), of the last hundred years. It’s basically non-workers of the world united. It’s basically all the economically non-productive elements of society from America’s vast pampered college class, big labor is supporting them, the spend-a-holic Democratic Party is supporting them. And I think it’s symbolically useful in that sense, because it gets to the heart of the biggest problem in the western world today – that too many people lead economically unproductive lives and to have them all down there in lower Manhattan providing a great visual reminder of that actually does us all a service.

Steyn is right. The protestors do a good deal to expose the problems many conservatives have with certain elements of the leftist base. These problems range from the willingness of some do or repeat anything, to the apparent contradictions in their positions.

For instance, Occupy is marching both against high student tuition and against lowering the salaries or lessening the benefits of Dartmouth professors. I suspect that it would be hard to lower tuition without lowering salaries as well.

Furthermore, Occupy is protesting against the rich, while defending some of the richest academics in the country. The average salary for a Darmouth Faculty is $203,140 – higher than the average salary for faculty at Cornell and Brown. The university currently has a budget deficit of $96 million. Yet Occupy is protesting even the most modest cuts in faculty salaries.

Perhaps Occupy would be more supportive if Darmouth administrators could levy a tax on faculty instead. At any rate, both the hypocrisy and the unworkability of certain leftist ideas are put into the spotlight by the protests.

But Occupy doesn’t just expose problems with the left’s base. It also exposes the hypocrisy of some of the most prominent political figures on the left.  Perhaps the most vocal congressional critic of the tea parties has been Nancy Pelosi. She first dismissed Tea Party protests as “astroturf”, then went on to treat the Tea Party as an uncontrollable and fearsome group. She urged Republicans to take back control of their party. She hinted that Tea Party protestors were creating a culture of violence. Contrast this to the way she reacts to Occupy. Does she say that Occupy is promoting a culture of violence? Is she scared of Occupy? Does she dismiss it as astoturf? Of course not.

Here’s Pelosi on Occupy (transcribed from a broadcast on C-Span):

The message of the protestors is a message for establishment every place. The focus is on Wall Street and justifiably so. God bless them for their spontaneity! It’s independent people coming. It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.

There are only a couple problems with this. One is Pelosi’s blatant hypocrisy. If people who are politically opposed to the policies she supports, they are dangerous and worrisome. If people more in line with her political ideologies protest against something, well, God bless them.

The other is that Pelosi is obviously wrong. She calls Occupy, which is largely financed by unions “independent”, while dismissing the largely grass roots tea parties as “astroturf.” She praises Occupy for its “focus”, even when even many of its participants admit that it has none. Occupy Wall Street puts the hypocrisy of figures like Pelosi in full view of the American people. The right ought to be happy about this.

Finally, when Occupy does express itself clearly, it is sometimes right. The group is right, for instance, about the wrongness of the bail-outs. It is right about the failure of the Obama administration to fix America’s economic woes. Occupy and the Tea Party would make unlikely allies, but I suspect that they do agree on some thing.

So, I say, let occupy occupy. Well done, Mayor Bloomberg.

Comments

[Jana]

Here's a couple of people who do support Occupy that may surprise you.

Vikram Pandit, CEO of one of the most visible Wall Street institutions in Citigroup, said he thinks the sentiments of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are "completely understandable."

"Their sentiments are completely understandable," Pandit said in an interview Wednesday with Andrew Serwer of Fortune Magazine. "The economic recovery is not what we all want it to be, there are a number of people in our country who cant achieve what they are capable of achieving and that's not a good place to be."

PIMCO founder Bill Gross said in a tweet Tuesday that the protesters are just "fighting back after 30 years of being shot at."

"I would also corroborate that trust has been broken between financial institutions and the citizens of the U.S. and that it's Wall Street's job to reach out to Main Street and rebuild that trust," he said in the interview. "I'd talk about the fact that they should hold Citi and the financial institutions accountable for practicing responsible finance."

[Miranda]

Thanks, Jana.

I'm not surprised that Citigroup would sympathize with a leftist protest group. Citigroup has often aligned itself with leftists politicians and causes. It was, along with Goldman Sachs, one of Tom Daschle's biggest contributors.

The group probably hopes that by sympathizing with the protestors, it will look like it is different or less corrupt than the rest of the banks on Wall Street. But protestors should not forget that it cost taxpayers $45bn to bail out Citigroup. They should also not forget Citigroup's role in the Enron scandal (http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-87.htm).

[duggersd]

Let them occupy, but wouldn't you like to at least see them quit harassing the businesses near there? They go into places and use their facilities without buying anything. That is bad enough, but they also trash the places. I read where one place had to clean their restrooms several times more per day due to these "occupiers". I have to say that I do sympathize with the business owners in the area and wonder why they are not getting the protection of the law.

[Jimi]

Duggersd,

Well it depends on what type of business it is. In some cases I'm sure the business owners love it, because their volume has probably doubled.

Look at the first comment on this thread. The lady didn't even bother to understand why these people would have come out in favor. I'm not gonna explain it to her. It is well too late in the game to attempt to eat that elephant. If I were her, I would have started with this list, and noticed that Citigroup was one of Obama's largest contributors.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

Then I probably would have done some research to understand what it is PIMCO does, and taken note that PIMCO pushed for a larger Stimulus I, a larger Stimulus II, a Larger TARP, asked to run TARP for free, pushed for larger QE1 and a larger QE2.

Some might say...."Well how is this relevant?" Well when you run a company that buys, sells, and trade debt for a living, and writes a letter to the presidential candidate before he is even elected, urging him to maximize deficit spending, and guide your own company to invest heavily in American Treasuries....you begin to see the "Forest thru the Trees" so to speak.

[duggersd]

Jimi, the stories I was reading about this involved people with brick and mortar establishments. The people making a killing were people who sold food on the street. BTW, here is one of the protestors explaining just what it is he is protesting for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wrPGoPFRUdc These people are a joke. At least on Friday the park is supposed to be cleaned.

[George Mason]

A couple of observations: If looked at closely you will probably see the finger prints of the obama campaign. The method in which these demonstrations were organized and the bussed in union thugs mirrors what was done in Wisconsin, Ohio and New Jersey early this year. The partisanship was evident by whose homes were picketed in New York. Bloomberg may be giving the Republicans help because most left-wing demonstrations eventually turn violent as has already occurred in Boston. Nancy Pelosi continues to slander the Tea Party with despicable lies while attempting to equate ows with the Tea Party from a diametrically opposed position.

[Dave]

"Mayor Bloomberg has drawn criticism from some conservatives for letting Occupy Wall Street stay indefinitely. In some ways, it is easy to understand why critics are upset with Bloomberg. Garbage is piling up, (conservative governance doesn't work either...) one person defecated on a police car (a homeless guy in Boston of all places), and many of the protestors do not even seem to know why they are there (according to the mainstream "liberal" media...)"

Where should I begin?

[Dave]

"Mayor Bloomberg has drawn criticism from some conservatives for letting Occupy Wall Street stay indefinitely. In some ways, it is easy to understand why critics are upset with Bloomberg. Garbage is piling up, (conservative governance doesn't work either...) one person defecated on a police car (a homeless guy in Boston of all places), and many of the protestors do not even seem to know why they are there (according to the mainstream "liberal" media...)"

Where should I begin?

[Miranda]

Thanks, everyone, for your comments.

DuggerSD: Of course. And where anyone breaks the law, I support reasonable enforcement efforts.

Jimi: I hadn't thought of the positive impact the protests might have on businesses. It would be interesting to see the data on profits versus losses.

George: I think that Pelosi might really believe what she says regarding both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. That might be more worrisome.

Dave: It was in Manhattan, which is in New York, rather than Massachusetts (where Boston is located. And according to The Daily Mail, which had the exclusive showing the photo, it was a protestor. I may be wrong, of course, but it would be nice if you could explain to me why a police car from New York's 81st Precinct was in Boston.

Here's the photo: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html?ito=feeds-newsxml.

I'm open to evidence that shows that this man was homeless, rather than a protester. I haven't seen any yet. He looks like he's had his hair cut recently and nothing about his clothing suggests that he is any different than the other protestors. I see several wearing the same sort of outfit.

The photographer, Stefan Jeremiah, says the following:

Having personally witnessed him in the park, walking, standing, sleeping, mingling over a number of hours in and amongst other protesters at the specific location of a protest rally. I felt the assumption and conclusion that he too was engaged in protest was fair. It is my interpretation that his defiling a cop car is an act of protest unto itself. I am therefore free to conclude he was a protester.

Here is the full account:
http://www.bearwitnesspictures.com/news52191.html

[Donald Pay]

George, you are a fool. You have no idea about what happened in Wisconsin.

I happened to have been there from day one, and not one thing you have had to say on the subject has been or is based in anything approaching reality. If you are getting your information from FOX News and the rightie echo chamber you are getting complete fiction. It's a well know fact that FOX intercuts old footage and tries to make it appear that it is current footage. This happened over and over again when FOX covered the Wisconsin demonstrations. They repeatedly showed footage of violence and riots and said union thugs were operating in Madison. But, if you happened to look at the footage they were showing, it had palm trees and green grass. The dumb and ignorant Tea Baggers were fooled, because they, like you, wanted to be fooled. But for those with over a single digit IQ, FOX was exposed for the fabricators they are.

By the way, Obama has stayed far away from the Wisconsin fight and the Ohio fight and the Wall Street occupation. Go smoke another one, George.

[George Mason]

Donald; Just look up what and how the obama campaign recruited the unions and provided the buses. Maybe you were too close to MSNBC to see the trees. These people used the parking lot next to my sisters business as a staging area before they bussed them to the square. How blind are they who will not see.

[Donald Pay]

Hey, George, the Obama campaign did nothing here in Wisconsin. Nothing. The Walker Administration and their budget repair bill tried to separate unions' unity by providing special rights to certain unions, the ones that endorsed him. Walker's attempt at crony unionism (sort of what goes on in totalitarian countries) didn't work. The unions saw through it. Sorry, George, you are your crony unionism and crony capitalism will soon be recalled.

[Bill Fleming]

This is what it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGRXCgMdz9A

[Miranda]

The film is cleverly put together, Bill.

But I'm not sure Occupy Wall Street is the same kind of protest. Most know what they want and from who. I will confess to being a little bit puzzled about why the left is protesting. They have the presidency. They have the senate. And these groups seem to represent much of what Occupy Wall Street represents. Here's Nancy Pelosi, nodding emphatically to "tax the rich!" chants. The Democrats, by and large, support big labor. They support high salaries for academics. They have plans to bring the troops home. They've passed their "landmark" healthcare legislation. So, why, exactly, are they protesting?

[Bill Fleming]

Miranda, I don't know. Let's listen and find out.

[Miranda]

Bill: Everyone charitably assumes that the group will, eventually, figure out what it wants. Maybe it will. But it's been more than three weeks now and Santa hasn't come down the chimney.

[Bill Fleming]

Okay, Miranda, but how long was it before the Tea Party people found their platform? Have they yet?

[Miranda]

Bill: I think the Tea Party started out with a better idea of what they were doing than the current protestors. The protests were (and are) against government overreach and government waste.

They have been since they began in 2009. The Tea Party protests began as protests against specific measures such as the implementation of an obesity tax in New York (an 18% tax on soft-drinks), the passing of the stimulus package and specific bail-outs.

[duggersd]

OK, so let me see if I understand this correctly, Bill. We should listen to these protestors and find out what they want. But they do not know what they want yet, so we should wait until they decide what they want. Does that about sum it up? The TEA party did not take long to find its issue. I believe it sprang up due to the health care bill being forced down our throats.

[Jimi]

Bill,

"how long was it before the Tea Party people found their platform"

Their platform is in the name, the movement existed well before it became well known by the mainstream media. The platform today is the exact same as the day of formation. Smaller government, less taxes, & less spending.

T-Taxed
E-Enough
A-Already

[Bill Fleming]

So the Tea Party is against taxation? Good to know. That settles that, Thanks guys.
I think the 99% have a little more going on than that, but we'll see.

[Bill Fleming]

..oh wait, duggerSD says it's about health care. Like when those people on SS carry those signs that say "Big Government, keep your hands off my Medicare."

Looks like maybe you guys need to keep comparing notes?

[Jimi]

Bill,

How do you get, "So the Tea Party is against taxation?" from Tax Enough Already?

[Jimi]

Duggersd,

"I believe it sprang up due to the health care bill being forced down our throats."

This is not correct. It's modern origin started February 20th, 2009: with the DontGo Movement, Smart Girl Politics, TCOT (top conservatives on twitter) and a handful of political insiders began to host conference calls to discuss a coalition of planners, after CNBC Rick Santelli's rant on national TV on February 19th 2009 calling for a "Tea Party in Chicago". It was decided that Tax Day 2009 was the appropriate moment for which to gather and protest.

Santelli's original arugement was that government should not be allowed to throw good money after bad, in reference to socializing bad mortgages in the name of Stimulus spending.

[Jimi]

Donald,

"the Obama campaign did nothing here in Wisconsin"

The Politico reported:

"The Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America arm – the remnant of the 2008 Obama campaign — is playing an active role in organizing protests against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s attempt to strip most public employees of collective bargaining rights."

The Washington Post reported:

"The president’s political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to mobilize thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals. Their efforts began to spread, as thousands of labor supporters turned out for a hearing in Columbus, Ohio, to protest a measure from Gov. John Kasich (R) that would cut collective-bargaining rights. By the end of the day, Democratic Party officials were working to organize additional demonstrations in Ohio and Indiana, where an effort is underway to trim benefits for public workers. Some union activists predicted similar protests in Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania."

It is a hard enough sell for anyone to beleive that the political machine directly tied to Obama does not influence the union movement, they have a symbiotic relationship, and not only does Obama publically support Unionism across the board, he had specifically thrown his shoulder behind the Wisconsin debacle.

[Bill Fleming]

You Tea guys and gals figure it out and get back to me, okay? ;^)

[duggersd]

Jimi, I really do not know why we bother to argue with Bill. His best ploy is to turn a phrase to mean something that it does not. I stand corrected on the beginnings of the TEA party. However, it did stand against the stimulus package that did not do what it said it was going to do and things seem to be worse in spite or because of it. Things such as the health care bill that has made things more expensive rather than less have added fuel to the fire that keeps the TEA party going. And, it is not popular with the Republican establishment. Oh, they like the votes, but they really don't want them out in public.

[Donald Pay]

So, you get your information from the corporate lamestream media? What a joke!!! The lamestream media didn't cover the protests, and had no knowledge about how they developed. You should look at local media to get the real story. All the lamestream media stories came out of DC from someone trying to puff themselves up and look relevant. They didn't set foot in Madison until way late.

I was there, an eyewitness to the protests during Febrary and March. The protests started on February 14 with a march up State Street from the University to the Capitol Building. It was organized hastily by the Teaching Assistants Association (TAA), my old union, and consisted mainly of graduate students and undergrads. This was three days after Walker's budget repair bill was announced, and two days before this bill was to be voted on.

You're a fool if you think any of this had any Obama knowledge or support. It's just the opposite. No one had any knowledge about what Walker was up to. There was at best token support from national unions until later. It was the local unions who organized here, and a few unions from Chicago and Rockford who had business in Wisconsin. It was almost totally a Wisconsin grassroots effort. In fact, just as with the Occupy Wall Street effort, the corporate lamestream media ignored the protests.

[Jimi]

Duggersd,

"I really do not know why we bother to argue with Bill."

The point is not to force Bill into our world view, the point is to determine what is reality and fact and to understand his. If there are aspects of his world view that strengthen mine, I would gladly adopt them. Typically, he has nothing and it's all about emotion.

[Bill Fleming]

Yes, Jimi, mostly I am emotional, as in laughing at your
and duggerSD's hyperbolic, overwrought, ruminations.

One of the best shows in Blogtown, bar none.

[Jimi]

Donald,

"They didn't set foot in Madison until way late."

First of all your contridicting yourself. First you said they didn't cover it, now they did but because it was not as quickly therfore it is irrelavent?

"You're a fool if you think any of this had any Obama knowledge or support. It's just the opposite."

So your position is that Politico and the Washington Post have it wrong?

"No one had any knowledge about what Walker was up to."

What are yout alking about. Walker campigned on that platform. The protest began on February 14th. By February 17th, Obama had already made a public statement, that he felt it was "an attack on unions." By February 19th the crowd had reached at least 70,000 with Richard Trumka making formal addresses to the crowd, and the crowd already had the typical Marxists signage and many in the crowd had matching T-shirts handed out to them.

This is a grass-roots movement to you? Who do you expect to believe this stuff?

[George Mason]

Donald; The reports cited above are all available from numerous sources including that hot bed of conservative thought ABC. Even the NYT referenced it. The coordinating body was ofa-Wi. So much for not setting foot in the state. Maybe you should read the tweets referenced in the articles. Above all Donald, never let the truth get in the way of what you sincerely want to believe.

[Donald Pay]

You can cite all the false and incomplete DC-based journalists you want. It proves only one thing: don't trust the lamestream media to provide you with on the ground facts. Of all the media, only John Nichols of The Nation was here every day. Everyone else was reporting from elsewhere. These "journalists" can quote whoever they want, but that has got diddly squat to do with what actually happened. The facts are quite different than they initially reported from considerable distance.

By the way, the lamestream media ran clarifications of all the stories you cite. They backed off all those reports of Obama or National Democratic Party organizing or supporting the protests. You might want to delve into the clarifications made by the OFA-Wisconsin, and how the sources and the news outlets backtracked on that story.

[George Mason]

Donald; You are paddling back up stream as fast as you can. Unfortunately the current against you is the truth, and the truth is an ugly thing for your ilk. I have family and many friends in Madison of all political stripes who kept me well informed on this so your protestations that you alone are the authority sinks just as rapidly your claim of no involvement by the obama campaign. As usual your response is insults. This is ample display of both the shallowness of your character, your intellect, and your arguments.

[duggersd]

Donald, I find it interesting you keep referring to the "lamestream media". Isn't this the same term Sarah Palin uses? So are you an admirer of hers? It has been my experience if CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC or any of the other major "news" organizaitons cover something such as what we are talking about, it is because it is so well known, they cannot ignore it. If you really believe Obama did not know or was not involved in sending the goons to WI, then you are even more naive than I thought you were.
BTW, Miranda, from Mayor Bloomberg:
"The longer this goes on, the worse it is for our economy. You just go down and talk to the stores in the neighborhood - there's one or two selling more pizzas, but most of them say this is hurting," Bloomberg added.
This is from JWF. I tried to find the original quote; it apparently came from his weekly radio show.