It appears that the Occupy (enter the location) is a movement whose time has come and gone.
Americans have staged protests since the Boston Tea Party, if not before. But this protest was different.
There was no organization, no leadership and no practical solutions offered.
The protesters were upset about the growing disparity in the distribution of our national wealth. And frankly, any sentient American would tend to agree.
Columnist Charles Krauthammer described them as “Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters,” and “indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees.”
Harsh, but perhaps the comment contains a grain of truth.
With reports of filth, robbery and sexual assault in their campsites, and their seemingly passive acceptance of violent anarchists in their midst, the Occupy movement seems populated by those with idealistic expectations, an overwhelming sense of self-rectitude, and an abundant dose of chronic gullibility.
Those of a certain age see the similarities with the protests of the 60s and 70s.
The naiveté of some Occupiers is breathtaking.
One young lady complained her laptop had been stolen. She left it on a bus stop bench and just couldn’t understand how it could be missing.
The New York Occupiers attempted to close the Brooklyn Bridge and halt subway service, keeping workers from their jobs.
Possibly their motive was to prevent those evil Wall Street financiers from further exploiting the masses. But it also prevented people from earning a living.
The Law of Unintended Consequences will bite you every time. And what about their concern for the “99 percent?”
But before we become too critical, we should remember that the Occupy movement is more than “Revolution for the Hell of It,” to borrow Abbie Hoffman’s 1968 book title.
There are serious economic inequalities in this country and statistics indicate the problem is growing.
But, a chronic problem with the Occupiers is their tendency to oversimplify.
They have concluded that Wall Street is responsible for the nation’s economic troubles.
In reality, the problem is systemic and more widespread. Complex problems are rarely solved with simple solutions.
And the ends never justify the means.
Most of us want a more equitable distribution of the goods and services of this world, and a reasonable chance to attain them. But disrupting local businesses and preventing people from working will not move American hearts and minds.
Mobs are problematic. Civil disturbances, violence, property damage and injury are by-products of an unruly crowd.
Sam Rayburn, the iconic Speaker of the House, put his finger on it when he said “When everyone’s thinking alike, no one’s thinking very much.”
Perhaps a better tactic for the Occupiers would have been to stage silent protests in front of the New York Stock Exchange and other Wall Street locations.
The protests should have allowed people to use the sidewalks and public transportation. By doing this day after day, they would have attracted the media attention they craved while disarming any potential backlash.
An image from the Occupy movement is people mindlessly beating cans and buckets in some sort of percussive nonsense.
The nation is better served by practical and mature suggestions for ameliorating one of the central economic problems of our time.
Respond to Phil at
