OCCUPY WALL STREET The American left's Tet Offensive against capitalism!
Winter's coming, the left doesn't have toughness for Valley Forge...it's just too cold! by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Occupy movement has a very militant or military tone to it.
Start with the term "occupy." That's certainly not a friendly term. The Soviets occupied Eastern Europe at the end of World War II for half a century. The North continues to occupy the South to this day. Occupation indicates the presence of a hostile or foreign force being used to impose an outside will on someone or some people.
Then there is the strategy behind the Occupy movement. The Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War was a disastrous tactical defeat for the Communists; casualties were more than ten to one in favor of the United States and South Vietnam. But like the Alamo, the Tet Offensive was a strategic victory which set the stage for victory in war. Walter Cronkite, through his nightly visits to America’s living room proclaimed the US could not win. The Tet Offensive was a huge gamble on the part of the communists, but their boldness and audacity defeated American will. The American people lost the war, not the American military.
The Occupy Wall Street operation may be based on the Tet strategy. Something had to be done to counter the reality and size and breadth of the Tea Party. The left had to create the impression that there was a socialist movement in America as large as the conservative one. They couldn't get the numbers, but that was not as important because they had a friendly media which would exaggerate the size the Occupy movement. It was more important to have elements all over America, even if each of those elements didn't amount to several hundred people.
It’s getting colder, and unless the Occupy Wall Street crowd is prepared to provide a warm spot to sleep for the homeless in their tent cities in the major cities, I believe this movement is about to quietly melt away as the roads freeze up, sleet and cold rain saturate their camp grounds.
Let’s take a look at three different commentaries of three different liberal academicians who have published articles at the History News Network, HNN;
Occupy Wall Street: A Sign of Our Times, by Judith Stein is a professor of history at the City College of New York Graduate Center.
Occupy Wall Street Heralds a Global Counterculture; Mark Naison is a Professor of African-American Studies and History at Fordham [link edited for length] and Director of Fordham's Urban Studies Program.
Dr. Stein offers the insight ; “ the emergence of something like OWS [Occupy Wall Street] was predictable, at least in retrospect, after the failure of its predecessor, Obama-mania.” She goes on to explain; “the president and his allies urged the social movements to allow the administration to negotiate with Wall Street and the other interests. They complied. The young people went back to school, the black organizations glowed with pride, and the labor movement tried to trade support of the president for his backing of the Employee Free Trade Act “
Dr. Stein’s comments are important because she succinctly describes the relationship between President Obama and the participants in Occupy Wall Street. As a liberal, Dr. Stein’s description cannot be ascribed to Rush or some other conservative talk show host. Clearly, the Occupy movement is operating as a part of the left’s “Redistribution of Wealth” strategy. Stein asserts that the movement is an indication of the left's dissatisfaction with President Obama, and the Democrats in Congress.
Dr. Stein provides some background information to demonstrate that the left has a long history in the United States and that this type of political activity is not unusual. She writes; “These kinds of endeavors have a long history in the United States—from the creation of utopian communities in the nineteenth century to the formation of communes in the 1960s and 1970s. But their track record as a vehicle for change is poor.” She further explains that the movement has not made any specific demands. This tactic is eerily similar to that of President Obama and the Democrats to pass one national budget since he has been in office. It appears the strategy of the left is to avoid details and an explanation of their purpose and policies because they have learned that once they do their opponents can than dismantle their utopian and totalitarian policies. Americans are based in common sense, and in liberty. The Tea Party is much more popular than the Occupy movement because the original political instinct here was an opposition to taxes! Today’s Tea Party merely assumes the role of the original one, in opposing taxes and oppressive government.
Dr. Stein’s essay then shifts to the groupee aspects of the Occupy movement; “ One man from Westchester said to me that it was just like Woodstock although the music is not as good. Others were tourists coming to examine the exotics. Everywhere people were snapping pictures, which made me feel uncomfortable.”
Stein’s quotes in the article are filled with the eloquence of those involved in the protest. Foul language is an important element of each statement. The good professor closes questioning “… the value of street demonstrations and protests may be more limited in the United States than in countries like Egypt.”
Dr. Livingston is more explicit in the appeal of the protest as a left wing social reunion; “I went to Zuccotti Park [the other day], looking for the substance of Occupy Wall Street, knowing that Gina Bellafonte and Charles Blow had to be wrong about its political promise and intellectual composition, and asking whether Adbusters was really the presiding spirit of this protest” As you read Livingston's article you get the feeling of a flea market, or other temporary event like a festival or fair, where one spends time walking, looking at unique, worthless items whose main attraction is their cheapness and normal unavailability.
"All in all, an exhilarating experience." ends his article.
Dr. Naison's article is a bit more concerning. Dr. Naison indicates that he went to the Occupy Wall Street protest because "I had come for—a Grade-In organized by teacher activists." Naison's article is important because it indicates how the left organizes attendance at their rallies, protests, events. In this case students benefitted from being there. And yet, despite these incentives still Naison reports; "the day before, when more than 700 protesters had been arrested by the NYPD after marching onto the Brooklyn Bridge." New York is one of the liberal centers of America, with fifteen million people or more in close proximity. 700 protesters is an embarrassingly low number. The Sons of Confederate Veterans can muster more for one their events! Tea Party events reach thousands, tens of thousands if Sarah Palin is present.
Dr Naison than reports the most non - American aspect of the Occupy movement I have yet read or heard; “They were also, to my surprise, thoroughly international. Many of the people I met at the information desk, or who spontaneously started conversations with me, had accents which indicated they had come from countries outside the United States. “ Naisan goes on; " I felt like I was in the midst of the global youth community that I had seen emerging during my travels and teaching, but I had not expected to see at this particular protest. It definitely made the discipline, determination and camaraderie of the protesters that much more impressive."
Professor Naison's article is important because it introduces an awareness that the Occupy movement is integrated into a global movement, where the youth from the around the world, who have suffered for a variety of reasons can come to America and be counted as de facto Americans. They can add their numbers to the small numbers of the left in the US. No one will check, no one will know. Professor Naison demonstrates an appreciation for this global movement. He is not condemning as an action threatening American nationalism and self-determination, but rather is complimentary of it as a way to inject internationalist interests into the fight in America.
The Occupy movement may be more important than what I had originally thought. Communism has always stated its global intentions. Capitalism didn't do that ‘til the second half of the Cold War. When I grew up as a child I thought isolationism as the natural state for America. Two oceans separated us from the problems and history of the old world. God had given us (humanity) a second chance, and the father of the nation, George Washington has warned us of "entangling alliances." But US policy changed in the twentieth century, and really changed with the end of the Cold War. Neo conservatives brought us globalism. Our economy has been wrecked by it.
So the Occupy movement is kind of the second half of globalism, it is moving here to shadow internationalist business interests. It is bringing to America the problems we left when our ancestors six centuries ago left Europe.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
