Is the Mainstream Losing Interest in OWS?

Here's an excerpt from a poignant critique of OWS from the Washington Post's Michael Gerson. The whole article is worth a read.

At what point does a protest movement become an excuse for camping? At what point is utopianism discredited by the seedy, dangerous, derelict fun fair it creates? At what point do the excesses of a movement become so prevalent that they can reasonably be called its essence? At what point do Democratic politicians need to repudiate a form of idealism that makes use of Molotov cocktails?

The emergence of Occupy Wall Street raised Democratic hopes for the emergence of a leftist equivalent to the Tea Party movement. The comparison is now laughable. Set aside, for a moment, the reports of sexual assault in Zuccotti Park and the penchant for public urination. Tea Party activists may hate politicians, but they venerate American political institutions. Veneration does not always involve understanding. But the Tea Party’s goal is democratic influence.
...
And we are beginning to see what direct action means. Occupy DC protesters recently assaulted a conservative gathering, then took over a public intersection to prevent the passage of luxury cars. Blocking the path of one driver and his 2-year-old son, an activist shouted, “Sorry, but you have no power right now.” That is the opposite of participatory democracy — the use of power to intimidate a fellow citizen on a public street. It is the method of British soccer thugs.
...
Defenders of OWS dismiss this as the work of a few bad apples. But the transgressors would call themselves the vanguard. And they express, not betray, a significant ideological strain within the movement. Since the 1960s, some on the political left have sought liberal reform through the democratic process and nonviolent protest. Others have sought to hasten the crisis and collapse of fundamentally illegitimate social and economic systems. Both groups can be found within OWS, but the latter is ascendant.

As ANR has argued before and has been written elsewhere, Occupy Wall Street is fundamentally a flawed, if simply a "fake," protest movement. While there are certainly real grievances throughout America, OWS is not a viable movement that can address them. This isn't an argument about OWS's ideology (if it has one), which is certainly open to criticism on its face, but a structural criticism. It seems that the mainstream is starting to recognize this too.

The Hypocrisy of OWS

NRO's Jim Geraghty points out just a touch of irony that exists in Occupy Wall Street (OWS). OWS cannot seem to avoid the fact that the very things it is supposedly protesting against, are essential aspects of human nature and society—characteristics even OWS cannot escape from demonstrating.

[The full text is not available online since it is an email newsletter, NRO's Morning Jolt. I have included the it below.]

---

I'm just fed up with the greed of the rich and powerful, man, like those Occupy Wall Street organizers. The New York Post offers us a great belly laugh: "Even in Zuccotti Park, greed is good. Occupy Wall Street's Finance Committee has nearly $500,000 in the bank, and donations continue to pour in -- but its reluctance to share the wealth with other protesters is fraying tempers. Some drummers -- incensed they got no money to replace or safeguard their drums after a midnight vandal destroyed their instruments Wednesday -- are threatening to splinter off."

One occupier laments, "The other day, I took in $2,000. I kept $650 for my group, and gave the rest to Finance. Then I went to them with a request -- so many people need things, and they should not be going without basic comfort items -- and I was told to fill out paperwork. Paperwork! Are they the government now?"

You can hear the laughter at UrbanGrounds:

The obnoxious drummers are upset that their vandalized drums won't be replaced from the $500,000 in the general fund nor will they be getting funds for infrastructure (a shed) to keep them safe. The money collected is actually sitting in a bank, that's right a BANK! Isn't this motley crew opposed to banks AND capitalism? What bank and what is the name on the account? Is it an individual account or is it a corporate account? Is the person or group that the account belongs to registered and is making required filings? The Schadenfreude is strong in this one!

When the "Parasites On Parade" finally ends, and it will, some one or some small group is going to have a lot of "walking around" money, while the smelly masses who panhandled for it will be in the same sorry condition they were in before, blaming unknown individuals and corporations for all their troubles.

The Post also shares:

Filth-ridden Zuccotti Park is a breeding ground for bacterial infection loaded with potential health-code violations that pose a major risk to the public, an expert who inspected the area warned.

"It's like Walmart for rats,'' Wayne Yon, an expert on city health regulations, said yesterday.

"There's a lack of sanitation, a lack of controls for hot and cold water," Yon said. He saw at least 15 violations of the city's health code -- the type that would easily shut down a food establishment.

He noted the lack of lavatory facilities, as neighbors repeatedly complain about protesters defecating in the area and the stench of urine.

A.J. Strata wonders if the Occupy Wall Street crowd understands that they are inadvertent advertisements for why their vision of the world can't work:

So when I watch a tent city culture play government and cry for equality I see [it] for what it really is. Look at these people living in tents, calling one a kitchen and one a counsel center, fighting law enforcement while crime runs rampant amongst them. It's a sad joke!

What, am I supposed to trade in my upper middle class home I worked a life time to obtain, turn in my cars and motorcycle, give up all I have to go play communist commune in a park somewhere?

Are they nuts? Herman Cain wants to change the tax code and is getting nervous ninnies taking shots at him from all sides. These silly people in these occupy zones want to replace our entire society!

Good luck with that one.

Eat Local?

Here is an article that will make the elite "organic" crowd spew out their tofu in frustration. Foreign Policy writes how the "buy local" movement is horrible for the world's poor and not necessarily any better for the environment (or your health) than your standard internationally traded produce.

[T]hese First-World food fetishes are positively terrible for the world's poorest people. If you want to do the right thing, give up on locavorism and organics über alles and become a globally conscious grocery buyer. This should be the age of the "cosmovore" -- cosmopolitan consumers of the world's food.

The article goes on to discuss how genetically modified (GM) crops are not the horrible, unsafe perversion of nature that many on the left (and Europeans) make them out to be. While arguing they may not be a "panacea," the author correctly points to their possible current and future benefits.

Additionally, the article blows holes in the accepted wisdom that eating locally actually helps the environment. It states:

For example, it is twice as energy efficient for people in Britain to eat dairy products from New Zealand than from domestic producers. It is four times more energy efficient for them to eat lamb shipped from the other side of the world than it is to eat British lamb. That's because transporting the final product accounts for only a small part of the energy consumed in the production and delivery of food. It's far better to eat foods from places where production itself is more efficient. For example, New Zealand cattle eat clover from the fields while British livestock tend to rely on feed -- which itself is often imported.

The bottom line is that (global) trade is good. Economies of scale, which are often the result of international trade and improved technologies (GM crops), help both the environment and the poor—the latter by providing jobs and supplying cheaper food. Those that profess otherwise seem to widely out of step with their supposed enlightened aim of helping humanity. While anyone is certainly entitled to spend their personal money as they choose, they should at least be clear regarding their motivations and effects. The "eat local" and "organic" trends are a luxury that can be afforded in many Western countries; they are not noble solutions that positively address the global problems that many who live these lifestyles purportedly want to solve.

An Assault on Petraeus and Free-Speech

Recently at Georgetown University, General David Petraeus, current CENTCOM Commander, was shouted down by student protestors when attempting to give a lecture. This is relatively unsurprising as it is all too common at elite American universities for students to attempt to prevent those they disagree with from talking. A New Republican discussed a similar incident that occurred at UNC last April. Predictably, many rushed to defend the protestors in the name of free-speech. In an editorial in The Hoya, Georgetown’s school newspaper, one of the senior deans in the School of Foreign Service, James Reardon-Anderson, called the incident “one of those learning moments that makes campus life more interesting.” Such defenses trash the concept of free-speech and make a mockery of everything America and these universities are supposed to stand for.

Reardon-Anderson’s argument is simple. Freedom of speech means minority groups have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. He states, “Freedom of speech must allow for a minority to annoy and discomfort the majority….” But freedom of speech does not work this way. Freedom of speech prevents encroachment on the individual’s (or group’s) ability to speak its mind. The concept exists to prevent the quashing of dissent, to facilitate the free flow of ideas, and to promote discourse that will better the lives of all. This is the liberal principle which our nation is built upon.

The Georgetown protestors are decidedly illiberal in their approach. Their actions are not about promoting free-speech, but about silencing a perspective with which they do not agree. Reardon-Anderson tacitly acknowledges this by refusing to condemn the students’ removal. In fact, he applauds the success of the system:

Happily for those who found these interruptions improper, the system worked: The offending parties were warned to stop and — when they failed to heed the warning — they were removed from the hall or they left of their own accord. There was no threat to the health and safety of anyone. The event proceeded without further disruption.

The fact that he acknowledges that their removal was appropriate signifies that the protestors were not behaving in accordance with the concept of free-speech. If they were, any attempt to silence them should be castigated. The error that Reardon-Anderson and so many like-minded supporters make is that they confuse speech with noise. Free-speech prevents restrictions on the contribution of ideas to the community; it does not allow individuals to create noise to drown out others speech. Silencing Petraeus by talking over him is tantamount to duct-taping his mouth closed.

While it is the opinion of ANR that the constitutional right to free-speech is (or should be) only applicable to the government’s ability to limit speech and is not necessarily a restriction on private institutions ability to limit speech, we do support the voluntary commitment to this principle that institutions such as Georgetown profess. It is important to note that tyranny need not just come from the majority (if Petraeus is even part of the majority) or the government. Tyranny comes from anyone who unjustly abrogates the rights of another. Free-speech, as a principle, protects against this injustice. In this instance, the protestors are committing the highest form of tyranny by silencing another. They should have every right to present and discuss their perspectives, but only if they allow others to dialogue as well. The irony is that they are defended in the name of the very principles they cease to respect.

Free Speech? I Think Not

Despite allegedly being bastions of liberalism, American’s elite universities are deplorably illiberal. Take the recent incidents at University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (http://teamamericapac.org/) was brought to UNC by an on-campus group to give a speech about illegal-immigration. Before he could even start a group of anti-dialogue leftists unfurled a banner across the podium. They chanted loudly and prevented Tancredo from speaking. (See Michelle Malkin’s blog for a video of the event http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/16/where-are-the-adults-at-university-of-north-carolina-chapel-hill/.) The speech was never given.

This is, unfortunately, just one of far too many examples of the left’s desires to quash free speech on America’s university campuses. This is a bit ironic if you accept the Democrats’ rhetoric that they are the supporters of free speech. The irony fades if you understand Democrats not as supporters of free speech, but abusers of the philosophical concept of free speech to establish their beliefs as the only acceptable dialogue. Democrats, and particularly Democrat organizations on these campuses, use the term ‘free speech’ as a ploy to signify the freedom for left-wing ideas. However, when dissenting views arise, the notion of free speech is cast aside. It becomes embarrassingly clear that free speech is not a true principle of the left, but a figure of speech.

This is terribly concerning. Our institutions of higher learning should be the exemplar of free speech. Politically active people on campus should, not by law, but by policy and ideology be committed to the open and free discussion of ideas and policies. There should be no more perfect place for the free movement of ideas than at these universities. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

These liberal groups, which have now become the majority on campuses, seek to do what their platforms supposedly rail against. They claim to be representative of minorities. They claim to speak for the oppressed. Maybe at one point they did, but unfortunately the term minority has lost its true meaning. ‘Minority’ is not supposed to solely refers to racial classes in America, but to any viewpoint, ideal, or characteristic that is not is not ‘mainstream’. Democrats have hijacked the term, and claimed unmitigated representation of minorities.

However, when a group or idea that was once a minority becomes accepted by the mainstream, its proponents no longer have a role in defending that minority. Now they become the oppressors as they seek to use the same ‘protect the minority’ language to further their partisan agendas. This is seemingly what has happened in the women’s and black’s rights movements. Two noble causes that fought for and justly gained equality some 50 years ago, now no longer have much of a purpose. Yet they push on with bankrupt and out of touch leaders such as Al Sharpton.

This is the same phenomenon that we see on college campuses today. These misguided youth are fed a steady diet of illiberalness from professors and national organizations. When professors post pictures comparing George Bush to a monkey, or laugh at students that express different beliefs, or prevent students from open discussion (all of which has happened to me) an altogether restrictive environment is established. Students are not taught to think liberally but to think Liberally. The difference is that true liberals are open to discourse and dialogue. They want to learn and hear each other out. However, Liberals are simply those that tow the Democratic Party line. The Democrats try to claim these two concepts are one and the same, but they are clearly not.

It is necessary for Democrats to be truly liberal, not just Liberal. This should be a matter of policy. I do want to emphasize that I am not so convinced this is a free speech issue. I think private institutions (on the issue of public universities such as UNC I think this is a bit more hazy) have a right to approve and disprove of who speaks on campus. Inappropriate and un-educational hatemongers, such as Ward Churchill, should rightfully be precluded from speaking and teaching. That being said, as a matter of policies these universities should keep true to their supposed mission and allow open and free dialogue. Disrupters of this, whether on the left or right, should be punished accordingly. Preventing someone from speaking is not an exercise in free speech. Differences should be settled and discussed by allowing both sides to have the podium- and both sides being able to hear the other.