ForexTV NewsDesk   |  October 9 2011 10:13 EDT

ForexTV.com (New York) by Timothy Kelly[OPINION] - Updates

It's getting “curiouser and curiouser”, Lewis Carroll could not have dreamed, or written a more bizarre fantasy than the one being propagated by the “grass-roots” or what I have referred to as the "Romper Room Revolution" and the labor unions.  In my earlier pieces on this subject I had raised the specter of the Occupy Wall Street show being a Democratic Party machination.  The Occupy Wall Street blog has repeatedly stated that the movement is not a political group.  However, the site clearly has overt political motivation, and banners carried by its members have very clear political messages.  It is undeniable that this movement has accelerated, and now has a political force of its own...the question becomes, Is it an extension of the Democratic Party, or a secular movement?

Immediately, I was lambasted by a virtual social media Gestapo.  Mostly, I was accused of “not getting it.”  However, what I suggested on October 1, has manifested in a very peculiar way indeed as (on-queue), and in such a manner of coincidence, the movement comes at a time when President Obama’s efforts have failed so poorly to lift the jobs picture.  Mr. Obama is not completely to blame for the current environment, but of all the politicians in this country, he is the one most responsible for making it better…and that simply has not happened. 

It is somewhat ironic when you consider then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statements on the Tea Party:

“This [tea party] initiative is funded by the high end — we call it astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.”

Just weeks later she changed her tune somewhat saying, ”"We share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, DC - it just has to stop…”

The difference between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street is very stark.  The Tea Party had a very clear agenda; it was based on fiscal responsibility.  No charades, no confrontation with police, no artificially-constructed rallies.  Had Mr. Obama stayed with his plan of “PayGO” (remember that relic of the campaign?), he too would have been a Tea Party darling.  Instead Mr. Oboma raised the debt ceiling by $2.8 trillion…exactly $2.8 trillion beyond the promise of PayGO to be exact.

The unfolding of this drama is either the perfect storm, or it is one of the most creative (and dangerous) experiments in political strategy in this country.  I am leaning towards the latter.  When Mr. Obama fired the first salvo on Thursday to politicize the movement, saying that it was giving a voice to the broader discontent of the nation, it appeared to be the signal for the Democratic Party members to release the hounds.  Within hours a cacophony of democrats including: Vice President Biden, Tim Geithner and Nancy Pelosi jumped on the Occupy Wall Street scooter and others followed suit.  Meanwhile, Republicans are becoming harsh critics.

The frustration over the state of the economy is perfectly understandable, and a desire to stop greed and corruption are right up there with world peace and a cure for cancer.  No decent citizen could argue against that.  However, creating class warfare is less benign.  When protesters begin to single-out economic groups and demonize them, it is injustice.  When politicians endorse these actions it is a failure of their duty to represent all of their constituents, not to mention that inciting a group which is practicing civil disobedience is the political equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater.

It appears that Democrats have given-up all pretense of representing all of their constituents, and are determined to wage class warfare, dismantle capitalism or emasculate it, and re-distribute wealth.  Obama’s 2008 Cooper Union campaign speech was the manifesto for this single-policy assault on the US economy and the unforeseen body blow to democrats in the 2010 midterm elections caught Mr. Obama off guard.  But it appears that the Democrats have not devised a backup up plan, or is Occupy Wall Street the backup plan?  


Mr. Obama and the Democrats had backed Republicans into a corner on several occasions, such as the Obama care fiasco when the proposed 1,000 page plan was delivered to Republicans only hours before a vote, so it comes as no surprise that they will not compromise.  For this abstinence, and the debt ceiling debacle the Republican Party deserve the ire of the people.  Both parties have acted recklessly on the debt ceiling issue which resulted in Standard and Poors downgrading the U.S. credit rating, in part, on grounds of "political uncertainty."  

If Occupy Wall Street had wanted to maintain any semblance of political neutrality they would have rejected the union overtures.  This group has all the usual democratic images, people and politics.  Occupy Wall Street was a made-for-the-democratic-party conception.  That may change as this movement has grown-up in a hurry and may have potential well beyond the effect of even the Tea Party.  Yet, it is still immature on fundamental political issue positioning.  Its future will depend on whether it can define solid concepts of goals and bovernance.

The Occupy movement has given itself a pat on the back for attempting to create a shadow-like organization where it can jump around the traditional pitfalls of past political uprisings.  Its message is intentionally vague and its tactics are cleverly passive-aggressive.  Despite its insistence that it is an ad-hoc group, Occupy Wall Street has been represented and advised by several well-known public-relations professionals.  The addition of the unions further dispels any pretense of political neutrality.  The unions are also responsible for bulking-up the appearance of the movement’s size by compelling their members to appear at the rally sites.

If the Democratic Party was not behind this thing one week ago, that certainly has changed now.  It is clever attempt  however  to take an issue that is largely the responsibility of the current administration (unemployment) and deflect the responsibility for it towards another group.  No sitting President has been re-elected when unemployment has been below 7.2% since Franklin D. Roosevelt.  The unemployment rate was 7.8% when Obama took office in 2008.  The current unemployment rate is 9.1% and has a likelihood of rising.

Read Also: 

Open Letter To Occupy Wall Street, Obama and Rep. Cantor; Create A Modern Marshall Plan

Forex research by ForexTV.com