Much has been wrriten about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Without any empirical data at hand, my gut tells me that the mainstream media has been far more interested in this movement than the Tea Party movement. The obvious differences have been discussed in articles and emails going around. The Tea Party peaceful, OWS not so much. The Tea Party obtains permits and peacefully demonstrates accordingly, OWS not so much. Tea Partiers clean up after themselves, OWS - well, I assume you have all seen the pictures.
There are, actually, some areas of agreement between the two movements. No government bailouts of big corporations. An end to government and corporate corruption. But there remains a fundamental difference between the two groups, a difference that reflects two very differing views of America. The Tea Party wants a smaller government, and to be left alone as much as possible to pursue their own economic and personal interests. OWS wants Big government, and they want entitlements - good jobs from the government, no student loan repayments, taking money from the "wealthy," and other handouts.
It has been said that OWS lacks clear leadership. I disagree. Their true leader is none other than the President. Now, before some of you start criticizing me for saying nonsense, let's take a look.
The OWS crowd constantly refers to the 99% vs. the 1%. Who is the one continually criticizing the millionaires and billionaires (the 1%) for not paying their fair share? Obama. Who, as candidate for President, said he wanted to bring "fundamental" change to this country? Obama. Who said he did not want any restraints on his power based upon "some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?" Obama.
Who did Obama pick as his main Czar? Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar. Sunstein wrote a book published in 2004 entitled: "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why we Need it More than Ever." Unlike the original Bill of Rights, which assured freedom and liberty to the people by restraining government power, this Bill of Rights seek to enlarge government in unimaginable ways. Or maybe not so unimaginable. Here is the Second Bill of Rights:
1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
5. The right of every family to a decent home;
6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;
8. The right to a good education. (As reported by Aaron Klein in the 11/17/11 Jewish Press online.)
In the America of our Founders, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect Americans from excessive government power and unwanted government intrusion in our lives. It reflects the conservative view of America. In this Second Bill of Rights we see that it is a list of what government can do you for you. These "rights" are nothing other than "entitlements." It relects the liberal view of America.
Anybody seriously dispute that Obama does not agree with the Second Bill of Rights? He said he wants every young person to get a college education. He forced Obamacare on a country that did not want it. (Even though these socialists/utopians do not get that the right to "achieve and enjoy good health" is sometimes up to G-d, not man.) He may not have been able to create jobs for everyone (just the opposite with his job destroying policies) but in its place he sought unlimited unemployment benefits.
Now who exactly pays for all these goodies? We, the taxpayers, are already $15 trillion in the hole. So where does the money come from? Confiscate every dime from the millionaires and billionaires and you still will not have enough money for this. And what happens to an individual's drive and motivation to achieve something in life, when everything is already given to him? Well, in the utopian dream world of the left none of these questions is asked, and therefore none has to be answered.
Another top advisor and supporter and confidante of Obama has been Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union. Mr. Stern wrote an article praising the Chinese economic model over ours (as seen in the 12/1/11 Wall street Journal). Whereas China "plans" their economic growth, we still rely on old-fashioned capitalism. He laments the "demonization of government and worship of the free market at a historical moment that requires rethinking of both those beliefs." Sounds a lot like Obama's "fundamental change" to me.
He talks about a city in Western China building "1.5 million square feet of usable floor space daily...including 700,000 units of public housing annually." This is laughable. One of the news shows only recently had a segment about the vast amount of housing that had been built in the more rural, remote areas of China over the last few years. They showed one high rise apartment complex after the next in various cities. The only problem - they were virtually all vacant. Unless the government dictates where people must live, the Chinese made a very basic mistake of building where no market exists. That's right - NO MARKET. As in capitalism and free markets. But maybe people like Stern and Sunstein and Obama do not see any problem in having government dictate where people live.
Stern's views conflict with other realities in China as well. The very same edition of the WSJ had an article discussing China's sagging trade and real estate sectors. Stern ignores the reality that, even with their "five year plans," China has become more open to the free market, seeing the wealth that capitalism has created in their own backyard - Hong Kong.
We seem to have two very differing views of America: the OWS/Obama/Sunstein/Stern/Reid/Pelosi/liberal/socialist view, and the Tea Party/original Bill of Rights/Constitutionalist/conservative point of view. Some of you have sent emails in the past suggesting that it is time for the country to split: either east and west or north and south, liberals in one area and conservatives in another. Not very feasible; and maybe not desirable.
But how about this: at age 18 every individual registers as a conservative or liberal. If you register as a conservative, you may own a gun; liberal, no. Conservatives will pay 1/2 the taxes of liberals; someone has to pay for all those social equality programs. Conservatives will have the original Bill of Rights apply to them; liberals will have Sunstein's Second Bill of Rights. Conservatives will have a right to free speech, along with existing requirements for permits, and "time, place and manner" restrictions. Liberals get to occupy other liberals' property as they may see fit. Conservatives maintain their private health insurance. Liberals - have fun with Obamacare. And so on.
I am not a gambler, but if I had to bet, I would guess that 80% of the people would sign up as "conservative," with only the hardcore 20% or so on the left clinging to their government run utopia. Anyone ready to sign up?