ConservativeHome's Big Ideas blog

The Village Idiots Cometh: The Left Misreads Occupy Wall Street

By Morton Blackwell

     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.

The next president faces an uphill challenge come 2013

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson

Whoever takes the oath of office as President of the United States in January of 2013 will inherit an
economy facing multiple challenges:

Undoubtedly, still-escalating federal spending will have the government bumping up against the debt ceiling again. By then, total federal debt will be larger than our GDP.

Unemployment is likely to remain high.

The supply and reliability of our power-generating infrastructure will be stressed and at risk due to President Obama’s anti-energy policies.

Social Security and Medicare will still need to be reformed significantly to address long-term fiscal imbalances. 

And the economy will encounter new headwinds as the landmines of tax increases with which Obama has salted the economic landscape are detonated. These include new taxes for Obamacare, the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and the end of Obama’s temporary reduction in Social Security withholding.

Obama has shown no indication of modifying his policies or agenda. Presumably, any of the Republican candidates would favor change on these issues (although perhaps not on Social Security and Medicare), but would he or she actually be able to solve these problems, even if there were a veto-proof Republican Congress? 

The big political question for election year 2012 is: How much change would Republicans want? Would they downsize government as much as Obama upsized it? Will Republicans nominate a safe, moderate candidate (think: Ford, Bush, and Dole)—a technocratic tinkerer who accepts the entrenched paradigm of Big Government, and seeks to manage Leviathan better than Democrats would? Or will they opt for an unabashed conservative, a major reformer with a radical vision for smaller government?

That question wasn’t even conceivable a year ago, but the tectonic plates in the American political landscape may be starting to shift. Whiffs of radical reform are in the air.

Herman Cain, who favors a three-step plan to replace the income tax with a national sales tax and the privatization of Social Security, has risen in the polls since his impressive victory in the Sept. 24 Florida straw poll.

On Sept. 27, Newt Gingrich unveiled his “21st Century Contract With America,” proposing to replace such venerable bureaucracies as the National Labor Relations Board and the Environmental Protection Agency. In doing so, Gingrich dared to challenge two of the most powerful Democratic special interest groups in America, environmentalists and labor unions (the strangest political bedfellows in our country, since hardcore greens would eliminate jobs in industry if they could).

It is possible that the bold proposals of Cain and Gingrich are just so much noise—red meat offered by dark horse candidates designed to excite passionate conservatives, but that are anathema to Republicans who believe that a more centrist nominee would be more electable?

Another possibility is that a majority of Republicans will regard the 2012 election as an existential crossroad for our country, a last chance to change direction before we end up like Greece—financially bankrupt, economically moribund, and politically convulsed. In this scenario, just as the Democrats in 2008 nominated a man of the left, Obama, rather than a more centrist candidate, so the GOP will nominate an anti-Obama, a true-blue conservative as committed to a radical swing to the right, just as Obama pushed a radical swing to the left.

If the political pendulum swings far enough to the right to produce a 2012 conservative electoral landslide, and then Republicans follow through with bold cuts in federal spending and power, the years 2013 and 2014 will be crucial. If conservative policies revive the economy quickly, then Republicans could hold on to their 2012 gains in the 2014 mid-term elections. If not, or if they step on too many toes, then there could be an anti-Republican backlash for moving too far to the right, just as voters punished Democrats in the 2010 elections for moving too far to the left.

If a sizable Republican majority were elected in 2012, would they “roll the dice” and risk political suicide by instituting major reforms? I imagine there is some serious soul-searching going on now. I wonder how many of them are grappling with the dilemma that must confront every office-seeker in a democratic electoral system: Should I do what will get me elected or re-elected, even if I know that the policies I support will weaken our country, or should I vote for what I know will help the country, even if it costs me my political career?

These next few years will be fascinating.

Visit the Center for Vision and Values for more commentaries.

 

Haight-Ashbury meets Wall Street

By Lowman S. Henry

It is interesting how a dispirit group of malcontents with nothing better to do that hang out on Wall Street all of a sudden are branded by the media as a "national movement."

The "Occupy Wall Street" protest is the latest incarnation of the Haight-Ashbury gang transported from San Francisco to New York. Loosely gathering under a mutual distain for the nation's financial community, the group appears to be a hybrid between Woodstock and a college political science class. The lawlessness and arrests have it tilting more toward the former.

Since the rise of the Tea party movement two years ago the Leftist news media has been looking for a "spontaneous" citizen movement to counter the conservative wave that has swept the country. Thus, they have seized on "Occupy Wall Street" as a counter to the Tea party.  It is nothing of the sort. "Occupy Wall Street" is little more than a group gripe session Astro-turfed by the nation's labor unions which otherwise have lost their reason for being.

The news media’s handling of “Occupy Wall Street” is vastly different than the coverage given to the Tea party movement during its early days.  As public revulsion with the big government policies of the new Obama Administration began to surface, the media at first ignored, and then dismissed the Tea party movement.  When the Tea party became too big to ignore it was attacked as a bunch of racist, Right wing nut cases.

And then, the Tea party lifted Scott Brown – a Republican – into the late Teddy Kennedy’s Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat.  That began a string of Tea party-inspired electoral victories that culminated in a wave election last November sweeping Republicans into a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

All along the way the Left-leaning news media kept searching for a counter to the Tea party.  There was a glimmer of hope as a “coffee party” tried, but failed to gain traction.  Now, with President Obama looking like a cross between Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, desperation has set in as the liberal agenda faces annihilation in 2012.

Enter a small group of dissidents who decided it would be easier to stage a sit-in on Wall Street than actually go out, get an education and look for jobs.  Before long they were joined by the professional protest elements of the Democratic Party’s ultra-Left wing.  Dressed as zombies, spouting rhetoric calling for a “change in America’s cosmic consciousness” (don’t ask me what that means), and egged on – in some cases even paid by – union organizers, “Occupy Wall Street” has been built-up by the media as a supposed spontaneous outpouring of Plebian anger aimed at the rich in America.

Now “Occupy Wall Street” protestors are digging in for months of demonstration. Assumedly during those months they won’t be looking for jobs.  Tea party activists don’t do that because they actually go to work.  And when they aren’t working, the Tea party is busy engaging in the type of political activism – registering voters, learning about the issues, working on campaigns – that actually does bring about real change. 

And that is why “Occupy Wall Street” will fail while the Tea party will continue to succeed.  This odd-ball collection of anti-war activists, environmental extremists and socialists will never jell because their stock in trade is protest and bluster, not actual work and activism.

Had these protestors approached the situation in a more mature way they might have made a valid point. In fact, they might even have common cause on a number of issues with the Tea party.  After all, the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP) and subsequent Obama “stimulus” – both of which were massive transfers of taxpayer dollars to the special interests “Occupy Wall Street” is protesting – are also reviled by many in the Tea party movement.  The lingering economic recession and unacceptably high national unemployment rate concerns all Americans, regardless of their political persuasion.

The difference, however, comes in the solution.  “Occupy Wall Street” seeks the soft Socialist “cure” of redistributing wealth.  The Tea party wants to empower individuals to create more wealth.  A glance over the pond at Greece and many European nations tells us the redistributionist approach will not work.  A look back at the history of our own nation demonstrates an economy based on growth and opportunity results in a higher standard of living for all.

While “Occupy Wall Street” fills the media’s need to cover something other than the Tea party, its patchwork collection of economic and political goals can never and will never work.  But, the protesters’ efforts have not been in vain.  At least they have really good costumes ready for Halloween.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.  His e-mail address is [email protected].)

 

 

Ohio Deserves a real Senate contest in 2012 (because it matters for America)

Dr. John Chapman, a dual resident of Canton, OH and Washington, D.C., is chief economist at Alhambra Investment Partners, a Miami-based investment management firm, and a research analyst at Hill & Cutler Co.

The media are prone to hyperbole in expression: every two years we are told that the upcoming election “is among the most crucial in history”.  With hindsight, we know that isn’t true: few elections were more important than the very first one in 1788, which set the tone for a new nation based on a radical precept of self-government.  1860 was a seminal election given the seething passions of the day: U.S. history would have been very different under a President Breckinridge.  And in the modern era, 1980 involved a major inflection point, as President Reagan offered a dramatically different policy mix than his predecessor, changing the course of American history in the offing.
 
However, 2012 is big – it’s a national referendum on the historic societal change initiated by President Obama.  Before voters is a simple question: should the federal government’s role in the economy and society be permanently enshrined as that of a European-style welfare state, as Mr. Obama intends; or should we return to a more free market model?  Specifically, 2012 is the last chance to preserve some aspect of a competitive market in health care delivery: the most significant legislative changes wrought by ObamaCare commence in 2013-14, and hence will be permanently enshrined as entitlements by 2016.  Among the consequences of this is the certain destruction of the private market for health insurance, as businesses “dump” employees into government-run pools of coverage to cut costs; once the single-payer model confers upon the federal government monopsony buying power, controls on every aspect of the entire health care industry, from research to provision to access to care, follow axiomatically.
 
While other Obama measures such as Dodd-Frank financial reform (which has led to increasing costs that will be fully passed on to bank customers over time in the form of higher fees, e.g., debit-card usage), energy production restrictions, and regulatory moves designed to benefit the labor movement all entail higher costs and lower profits for American business – and thus, slower economic growth and fewer U.S. jobs – it is the repeal of Obama’s health care law that is paramount.  For it is a canonical law of empirical economics that de facto government-run health care guarantees a permanently-lowered rate of economic growth.  Like high levels of government debt, government-run health care enervates an economy, and regardless of exact degree of causation, the correlation is indeed 100%.          
 
Given this, and myriad economic challenges now (viz., high unemployment, stagnant real incomes, rising consumer prices, incipient negative cash flow of entitlement programs, and outsized government debt-burden that will soon impel higher taxes on most Americans), Ohio voters deserve a vigorous contest of ideas in the U.S. Senate election next year, as the make-up of the Senate will crucially determine the degree to which real change is possible: remember, only with a 60th seat in the Senate did such radical legislation as ObamaCare or Dodd-Frank become possible.
 
To understand just how critical Ohio is next year, consider the current US Senate map:  in 33 contests next year, Republicans must defend their 10, and then take 13 of the Democrats’ 23 seats up for election, if they hope to get to a filibuster-proof 60 seat majority.  Pickups due to retiring or vulnerable Democrat incumbents in Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana, and (assuming a Republican year) Virginia and West Virginia would take the Republicans to 53 seats.  With good candidates, potential wins in Florida (against incumbent Bill Nelson) and Wisconsin (versus incumbent Herb Kohl) offer a “decently reasonable” chance to get to 55.  But then the climb to 60 gets harder: wins in Connecticut (likely only if it is a three-way race including Independent Joe Lieberman), Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington would have to be counted upon, again due to weak Democrats defending on a night when President Obama is led to electoral slaughter.  This would leave the number at 59; which state could provide the 60th seat?  Ohio seems most likely thanks to Senator Portman’s strong showing a year ago; otherwise, an unlikely win in Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, or New York would be needed – two from these states if Scott Brown cannot hold his seat in Massachusetts, as is quite possible. A look at this line-up shows how hard it will be to get to 60 without Ohio.      
 
But sadly, unless Ohio’s Republican Party fields a credible candidate to argue opposite the incumbent, Obama-acolyte Sherrod Brown, there will be no voice to counter Senator Brown’s ratifying defense of current economic policies.  And in such a critical year, Ohio is the poorer because of this.
 
Currently, GOP stalwarts in the state such as former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell or Congressman Jim Jordan have taken a pass at the race, which has only two likely entrants at this point: former State Senator Kevin Coughlin from Cuyahoga Falls, and the incumbent State Treasurer, Cleveland’s Josh Mandel.  Absent any change, Mr. Mandel, who’s already raised several million dollars, will win the nomination based on vastly superior fund-raising.
 
Barely eight months into his first term in statewide office, the 33-year old former Marine reservist and Iraq veteran may well have a bright future in politics.  But his deeply-limited experience in government is surpassed only by nonexistent time spent in the private sector in his young life.  And in a year in which jobs, economic growth, and the revival of Ohio’s moribund economy will be foremost among voter concerns, Mr. Mandel will be ineffective at best in persuading voters that he has the experience or a coherent vision for how to ignite an investment and job-producing turnaround in the Buckeye State, based on policy changes in Washington.  Additionally, Mr. Mandel enters the race ethically burdened: the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Mark Naymik points out that Mr. Mandel has not been forthcoming about his own finances, even as he touts transparency as State Treasurer.  And sadly, Mr. Mandel has also evidently decided to embark upon a quest for high national office on the back of what in blunt terms was once called a lie: he is on record last fall as stating on several occasions that he will serve his full 4-year term as State Treasurer, and disavowed a Senate run.  In an era when voters are fed up with self-promoting politicians who lack authenticity, this alone guarantees he will be tuned out. 
 
Any Republican challenger faces uphill odds in a state carried by Mr. Obama by more than 260,000 votes, and where registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 10% in 2008.  Modern-era history also teaches that Americans demand the wisdom that comes from age in the U.S. Senate: in the nearly 1100 U.S. Senate elections held in the post-war era, roughly 3% were won by candidates under the age of 40, and only two were won by 35-or-under candidates in states where they were the minority-registration party: John Tower in Texas in 1961, and Joe Biden in Delaware in 1972 – though both states were tending toward the victors’ political party in those years.  Far more so than the U.S. House, voters insist upon a level of gravitas in U.S. Senators, and for this reason too, a Mandel candidacy has no real chance in 2012.  This will deprive Ohioans of a well-articulated debate about the future at a time it is most needed, which is a shame given the serious Republican talent in the state.  Congressman Jordan, or (wildly successful) Timken Co. CEO James Griffith, are you listening?
 
Senator Brown remains highly popular among Ohioans, and perhaps his victory next year is assured in any case.  But given the serious tenor of the times and seismic changes that have occurred in our economy and politics in recent years, the Buckeye State will be best served if a legitimate contender, ideally one with private sector depth and integrity, can oppose him in a high-octane debate about our future.  Post-script: It should be pointed out that at least one prominent Republican strategist, Karl Rove, thinks that ObamaCare can be repealed with only 51 votes in the U.S. Senate.  Others with Senate rules/parliamentarian and constitutional expertise tell me this is incorrect: it will take 60 Republican Senators to forestall a certain Democrat filibuster over any bill to repeal ObamaCare.