In most cities where they had been camping, the “Occupy” people
have drifted away, no longer welcome to create tent cities — even
in New York, where it all started, or in Oakland, where
well-organized anarchists (not an oxymoron in this case) led
militant assaults on the port. The one big exception is Washington,
D.C., where assorted leftists, layabouts, and Generation Y’ers (as
is Y work? and Y take responsibility for my actions?) have been
allowed to live non-stop in downtown’s McPherson Square for three
months.
Until the “Occupy” people came along, the square was
dominated by Civil War General James McPherson’s equestrian statue
(and his ever-present pigeons). It has long been a popular
pedestrian shortcut from “I” to “K” Street and its benches were
frequently used on warm days for resting or reading.
Washington’s mayor says his public health inspectors have
reported the tent camp is infested with rats and has the potential
for communicable diseases, hypothermia, and food-born ailments. So
why hasn’t he shut down the camp? It is the one city in the land
where the city government does not control the situation. The
National Park Service overseas McPherson Square. The NPS has been
oh, so tolerant of the campers despite the fact there is a clear
federal regulation prohibiting sleeping in such public
places.
To justify their inaction, National Park officials claim
that the camp is a “round-the-clock demonstration vigil” and the
tents are “temporary structures” and thus elements of free
speech.
Yes, but the NPS regulation say that “temporary
structures” may not be used for sleeping (the Supreme Court in 1984
ruled that a regulation preventing sleeping in a public park did
not violate the First Amendment).
Mayor Vincent Gray has written to the NPS to alleviate the
health hazard by clearing the park. (Neighboring stores,
restaurants, and many citizens have been complaining.) The NPS
hasn’t yet replied, though its spokesperson says it is “reviewing”
the matter.
The ever-cautious National Park Service must begin the
review by finding an employee who knows how to read. Then he or she
must read the regulation, digest its significance, then discuss it
with superiors. Who would they be? The Superintendent of the NPS
reports to the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the
Interior reports to, now let’s see — why, it’s the President of
the United States!
Early in the New York “Occupy” effort, Mr. Obama had kind
words for the Occupiers. He shrewdly deduced that even if there
weren’t many voters among the noisy campers many other left-liberal
types would sympathize with them and Obama’s quasi-endorsement
would help him sharpen his class warfare campaign message. Day
after day the campers obliged. Finally, the stench, noise, public
defecation, drug-dealing, rape, and assault were too much, and
police moved in and cleared out the camp. Other cities followed
suit, but not Washington.
The volume of criticism in Washington is growing daily. Of
course the White House is a bystander, as one of its spokesmen
recently claimed, with a straight face, that “operational decisions
have been and continue to be made” by Interior and NPS
officials.
Another “of course” is that this violation of a federal
regulation and the resulting public health and public nuisance
would not have been tolerated more than briefly unless tacit
approval of a hands-off approach had not been made by the White
House. Up until now, at least, it has served the Obama campaign’s
political purposes.
Just Tuesday this week, the “Occupy” people obtained a
permit for an anti-Congress rally of 10,000 people on west side of
the U.S. Capitol. Only a few hundred showed up to wave
anti-capitalist signs and shout slogans.
Congress is not idle in all this. The indefatigable Rep.
Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, has called a hearing for next Tuesday to determine who
is responsible for the decision to allow the “Occupy” people to
camp indefinitely in McPherson Square. The double-talk from NPS
officials and other administration operatives should be
entertaining, if not satisfying.
