As I write, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement's popularity is dropping just about as rapidly as the movement's masses are being kicked out of the places across the country they've all but destroyed. What was originally painted as an innocent expression of freedom of speech quickly morphed into a violent temper-tantrum against all forms of normal society generally, and banks and financial institutions specifically.
Unlike the Tea Party movement which is largely responsible for changing the nature of the debate in Washington, and in 2010, changing the face of Congress, OWS will most likely have zero impact on the political process due to lack of substance and provocative style.
For a short season, the silent majority caught liberals by surprise when they rose to the occasion and publicly expressed their views against Obamacare and other far-left policies. They learned in short order that protests alone were useless having fallen on the deaf ears of a Democratic Party-controlled Washington. Henceforward Tea Partiers became involved in the political process. While there are whispers around Washington suggesting the Tea Party has seemingly lost its punch, it would be wise to remember who controlled the debt ceiling debate a few months back.
I genuinely feel sorry for so many of the OWS protestors who still haven't a clue that they were played like pawns on a grand liberal chessboard by those who care little about financial inequality. Liberals are quick to come alongside protestors and claim solidarity, but fail to mention they are responsible for much of the mess the protestors are marching against. It's all about political power -- and naÃ¯ve, disenfranchised youth, brainwashed by college professors, bought into the whole "99 percent" marketing ploy.
The OWS movement was painted to portray protestors as representative of "the 99 percent" of Americans, but, evidently the paint was not permanent. After untold reports of public nudity, orgies and masturbating, personal property defecation, drug overdoses, robberies and rapes, Americans have discovered, with immense relief and much thanksgiving that these occupiers are not at all like the rest of us.
I can only imagine the protestors originally wanted to create some sort of "American Spring" where CEOs and Wall Street Bankers across the country turned in their resignation under duress and gave in to the protestor's demands. Then what? Are the same dredlocked do-gooders going to hold a shareholder's meeting to discuss the way ahead? Not likely. Likewise, during the Arab Spring protests, protestors fought for change, but when it arrived they didn't have a clue what to do with it. As I've watched the coverage of the Occupy protests, I have tried to gleam some sort of common thread binding them all together, and all I can come up with is anger. But to what end? Anger without purpose is dangerous.
Democrat leaders seemed to hope the OWS movement would sweep across the country and not fizzle out as it has. What they fail to understand is protests absent a purpose, don't accomplish anything. There's no lasting energy. The Civil Rights movement had a singular focus which captivated the nation, and as a result, the movement affected a change in national policy. Similarly, the Tea Party movement succeeded in changing the political focus in the country to fiscal responsibility and smaller government. The Occupy movement has only succeeded to annoy and disrupt the lives of innocent people who happen to make a living in the vicinity of the Occupy parks, and expose the underbelly of the Left as to who they really are - agitators.