It won’t be a real Democratic convention unless the Occupy Wall Street crowd adopts the next one as its home.
When delegates to the Democratic National Convention arrive in Charlotte, North Carolina, next September, they may find the streets occupied by the same protesters who are now the darlings of the media: the “Occupy Wall Street” crew. President Obama has expressed his support for OWS in such glowing terms that the protesters should read it as a personal invitation to the convention.
There’s little for the Democrats to fear in this, other than the lack of sanitation that will accompany the “occupation” of their convention city.
As we’ve seen in the past four or five Dem conventions, the press will do its level best to suppress any reporting of the craziest conduct of the delegates, of which there is usually enough to fill hours of broadcasting and thousands of column-inches. Were it not for the Washington Times, we’d probably never have known that the Boy Scouts were booed in the 2000 Dem convention when they carried the flag to the podium. (BSA didn’t allow homosexual scout leaders, so all the gay anger among the delegates was channeled into a rather large outburst.)
Next year, all you’ll see are flags waved, passionately staged patriotism and all the homosexual-transsexual-dope-smoking weirdness will be off-camera. Except for the gay soldiers, sailors, and Marines who will march to the stage to surround Obama and to demand more military “diversity” at various times.
Because President Obama has embraced the OWS protesters, many of the delegates may be drawn from among the protesters. “I understand the frustrations being expressed in those protests,” Obama told ABC’s Jake Tapper a week ago. He added, “In some ways, they’re not that different from some of the protests that we saw coming from the Tea Party,” and “The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side…” What better way to show that support than to enable an “OWS Caucus” at the convention?
Perhaps most importantly, the OWS crowd isn’t at all like the disaffected youth of 1968 that brought violence to the walls of the Chicago convention in 1968.
Nineteen sixty-eight was a horrible year. Martin Luther King was assassinated, resulting in huge riots in several cities. Bobby Kennedy’s assassination soon followed. And, all the while, some of the heaviest fighting of the Vietnam War — in the Tet Offensive, Khe Sanh, and Hue — poured gasoline on the fires of the anti-war movement.
The Vietnam anti-war movement was small before it became an anti-draft movement comprised of those who feared combat and those who wanted to use the timorous to gain political power. By the time the Democratic Convention kicked off in August, the nation was boiling over. Thousands of anti-war protesters went to Chicago with the express goal of interrupting the convention proceedings. They succeeded. Poor Hubert Humphrey had to campaign with the Chicago riots as his backdrop no matter how far from the convention he traveled.
The OWS crowd has no such goal. Or, discernibly, any other. The standard response to reporters’ questions seems to be “Um,” followed by a long pause before rehearsing some half-hearted talking point about the evils of Wall Streeters who, they believe, should be in jail.
Obama — and his media cohorts — would like American voters to believe that the OWS crew is just another version of the Tea Party. They’re all the same, just expressing anger at government over lack of jobs and economic distress. It’s just another false media narrative into which facts will be folded, spindled, and mutilated to fit.
So who are the OWS protesters? They’re not the underprivileged and, pretending to be disaffected, but unwilling to abandon the privileges to which they believe they are entitled. On-scene reports of four-star cooking being served in the tent cities, the profusion of iPhones and iPads, all paint a picture of over-privileged under-achievers who lack anything resembling a work ethic.
They’re not anti-war protesters trying to end the draft and the war. There is no draft. No one is threatening to send them to Afghanistan or any other place they may get hurt. In fact, no one is threatening to send them anywhere, even out of the city parks they are soiling.
The first Vietnam draft lottery was held in 1969. I remember the night very well. Those of us in ROTC watched in inebriated amusement as many of our non-ROTC classmates pulled lottery numbers in single digits. None of them, to my knowledge, fled to Canada as a result, but many others did.
Consider this 2011 version of the 1968 angry young man. He was photographed in Washington, D.C.’s McPherson Square the other day holding a sign that said, “college grad. will work for $75,000.” Only $75,000? He, like too many others of his generation, is spoiled by a sense of entitlement and privilege. He’s angry, all right, but only at “the system” which hasn’t awarded him a job at the salary level he believes he deserves. He’s unwilling to work for less, but he’d rather not live in his parents’ basement for another year because chicks don’t like going there.
He’s ignorant of the fact that a rising tide lifts all boats. If he were better educated, he might have understood that Obama’s economic ebb tide has left too many boats — including his — aground.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?