In the first post, entitled “The Stupid Party”, Peter Wehner considers it stupid for the Democrats to associate themselves with people who think like this:
Another 37 percent [of Wall Street protesters interviewed] say capitalism can’t be saved; it’s inherently immoral. And when asked to explain how they would fix Wall Street, New York magazine received the following responses: “A maximum-wage law.” “President Elizabeth Warren.” And “Burn it down.
A few posts later on, John Steele Gordon is writing about Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and says:
... as I suspect the people know and the chattering classes don’t want to know, the tax code cannot be reformed. Any changes just add to its monstrous and deeply corrupt complexity. It will be a dead weight on the American economy until it is replaced with a brand new tax system.
I agree with Steele and disagree with the OWS view of capitalism. But the same sense of helplessness in the face of an existing structure can be seen in both views: this can’t be fixed; we need to wipe it out and start over. Imagine the OWS position being stated as:
... as I suspect the people know and the chattering classes don’t want to know, the current economic system cannot be reformed. Any changes just add to its monstrous and deeply corrupt complexity. It will be a dead weight on the American economy until it is replaced with a brand new economic system.
Sounds a lot more reasonable, doesn’t it? In fact, it sounds kind of like what the Tea Party is saying. Now, the Tea Party means “get rid of crony capitalism, hack back the socialist elements, get government out of the way of business”; OWS means “get rid of crony capitalism, hack back the capitalist elements, get business out of the way of government”. But they’re both responding to the same sense that something has gone very, very wrong and, specifically, gone very, very wrong in the nexus of Big Business and Big Government.
I don’t think OWS speaks for - or represents - 99% of the people in the United States. But I strongly suspect that much of their anger resonates with much of the country. Instead of deciding OWS is stupid, those on the Right should be pointing out that what the protesters are angry about is what all Americans should be angry about - and then go on to lay out why the Tea Party’s solution of less government is a better way to fix things than is the OWS solution of more of the same.
Posts
9 comments:
That's a very good point. It may even be a reasonable argument: but if we are going to replace the entire economic system, with what shall we replace it?
Grim -
As I said, I disagree with the OWS on capitalism - I think capitalism is the best producer of wealth and progress there is. The Right needs to be arguing that the problem isn't capitalism - it's the lack of it.
I just ran across this at City Journal which I think does an excellent job of summing things up:
http://bit.ly/n3HLAX
The beefs I've seen in re OWS' complaints (George Will's for instance) have seemed to center on the political foolishness of the Democrats allying with and identifying themselves with the OWS. This may not be their intent--they may in fact think the OWS is terminally stupid--but that's the outcome I see. And as a political move, I agree--it's highly suboptimal for the Dems to have themselves and the OWS tied together.
Until something changes--and it may be--the OWS' complaints are too incoherent and too generally anti to be taken seriously. You're right that they have much in common with the Tea Party. But they also have this: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/12/occupy-wall-street-protester-i-want-my-college-tuition-paid-because-thats-what-i-want-update-landlord-asks-cops-to-clear-zuccotti-park-for-cleaning/ (scroll down and watch the video).
The thing that may be changing is that the unions are getting into the mix and beginning to impose some organization and some coherence on teh OWS. But the union imprint will be obvious, and that won't redound to the Dems' benefit, either.
I would have suggested that the Tea Partiers reach out to them, but the young man in the video, if he's at all representative, may imply that that would be a wasted enterprise.
I'd like to see the Republicans address the concerns more coherently, though. They don't need to say "as the OWS worries...," but they do need to addres the concerns, from a capitalist perspective.
Eric Hines
And there's this from the OWS, via The Daily Caller, on the OWS' attitude toward the park and its impending cleanup (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/ows-on-zuccotti-park-clean-up-this-is-an-occupation-not-a-permitted-picnic/#ixzz1ai9TTdRP ): If Bloomberg truly cares about sanitation here he should support the installation of portopans and dumpsters … We won’t allow Bloomberg and the NYPD to foreclose our occupation. This is an occupation, not a permitted picnic.
Gimme, gimme, gimme. And this park is ours, not the public's.
Eric Hines
Eric -
This is an occupation, not a permitted picnic.
I think the statement by OWS is very interesting. They are staking their claim to be seen not as a bunch of hippies hanging out in a park but as an occupying force, seizing and holding real estate. They are also saying that they do not hold the park because of the graciousness of NYC or the park's owners or anyone else; they hold the park by virtue of, well, hmm. Their superior numbers? Their revolutionary fervor? The rightness of their cause?
Unfortunately, paired with this:
If Bloomberg truly cares about sanitation here he should support the installation of portopans and dumpsters
it loses its strike-fist overtones and sounds like kind of a kid-type thing. Sort of: Mom and Dad are paying tuition; kid is majoring in beer; Mom and Dad tell kid to clean up his act; kid says he can do what he wants because he doesn't need Mom and Dad's help and, BTW, have Mom and Dad sent in the check for next semester's tuition yet?
And what in the Sam Hill is a "portopan"? It conjures up the most dreadful images.
I decided I don't quite like the imagery in my last comment. It's more like:
Mom and Dad are paying tuition; kid is majoring in beer; Mom and Dad tell kid to clean up his act; kid says he can do what he wants because he's an adult and why haven't Mom and Dad sent in the check for next semester's tuition yet.
They claim to hold the park because, like the boy and his tuition plea, they want it, and no one else has a superior, or equal, right to it. There is no reason to believe any motive other than their own self-importance. Certainly, nor their demands nor their agenda nor their goals offer any other motive.
A "portopan" conjures up an image for me of the business end of a turquoise porto-potty at a construction site. That's not something I'd go to a park to, umm, experience.
Eric Hines
Apparently they responded to the eviction notice by flooding the park with far more people than could easily be evicted.
That will work once.
Capitalism is like democracy; it's the better of several lousy alternatives.
Your summary of the TEA Party's plaints is dead-on.
Post a Comment