Friday, October 14, 2011

The Ants Go Marching Up The Hill

The Occupy Wall Street protesters are without a leader. Not so much in the sense the media has been trumpeting, the lack of a cohesive message within the ranks of anti-war, pro-choice, millionaire-hating and anything-green-loving activists. Instead, this gang of disgruntled citizens is without a presidential hopeful to rally behind against the onslaught of Perrys, Romneys and now Cains.

This protest is more to scold those perched on Capital Hill, than it is about humbling the one percent that live behind its tax-credit walls. Instead of going directly after President Barack Obama, since there is no viable alternative candidate, the protesters are taking aim at his political Achilles’ heel: big money.

Probably close to a majority of those marching voted Obama into office. Deafened by the chants of “Yes we can!” no one really understood what kind of change to expect, other than having the first African-American president. Maybe, that was enough. Whereas Obama was able to put down one demon (OBL), another one popped up in the form of global sovereign debt. The tangled web of collateralized debt and bad loans unraveled a bit only to get wound back up in the global sovereign debt crisis that is taking down countries such as Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. The can is kicking back in the form of recession and mounting unemployment.

This protest is more about broken promises than broken bank accounts. But, instead of going after political reform like the Tea Party, the masses decided to camp out in city parks. Maybe something, or someone, will come out of this soup of cardboard signs and angst to lead this wayward crowd in one direction…towards the next election.

1 comment:

  1. Great post - you bring up some interesting points.

    I don't believe it's necessary for them to have a presidential candidate to satisfy the protesters' immediate demands. Obama can and should speak to them.

    I don't believe it's practical for the protesters to rally behind a presidential candidate now. 2008 was different - the incumbent wasn't running. We're seeing an onslaught of Perry, Romney, etc because they're all running for the Republican primary. The democrats already have a candidate and will spend their money in 2012.

    Is it appropriate for them to rally behind an opponent for Obama? Even if they do bring up another candidate on a separate ticket, they may end up splitting the vote and give the Republicans the election (see Perot in 1992, Nader in 2000), ruining their cause.