Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> Karl Rove: Occupy Wall Street protesters are just plain kooky
Patrice Riemens on Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:37:58 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Karl Rove: Occupy Wall Street protesters are just plain kooky (WSJ Op-ed)

Now you're all back from your local 'occupy' demo (I was at the
Amsterdam one, which was fun. My favorite placard, featuring the
famous Muppet Show character, read: "99% of all cookies are eaten by
1% of the monsters!"), you might want some comic relief, graciously
provided by Karl Rove, Buba's infamous front & henchman.

What appears to infuriate Mr Rove most is the parallel often drawn
between the Tea Party and Occupy as genuine grass-root (or populist
if you don't like it) movements, albeit at the opposite end of the
political spectrum. To demonstrate that nothing could be further from
the truth Rove does not hesitate to gloriously shatter what the French
satirical rag Le Canard Enchaine maliciously calls 'le mur du con'.

One thing is nevertheless certain: the 99% are kooky!

But enjoy yr week-end all the same!
patrizio & Diiiinooos!

Op-ed in The Wall Street Journal w/e edition 14-16 October 2011
from Karl rove's blog: http://www.rove.com/articles/345

Democrats Court the Wall Street Protesters
The strategy risks alienating independents and blue-collar voters.

At his recent news conference, President Barack Obama praised
Occupy Wall Street, saying, "It expresses the frustrations that the
American people feel." Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised the
protesters, saying, "God bless them for their spontaneity." Vice
President Joe Biden claimed the protesters had "a lot in common with
the tea party." And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is
circulating a petition seeking 100,000 signers to declare, "I stand
with the Occupy Wall Street protests."

The political calculation behind all this is obvious: Democrats hope
Occupy Wall Street will boost their party's chances in next year's
election as the tea party did for the GOP in 2010. But Democratic
leaders are wrong in believing that Occupy Wall Street is the liberal
alternative to the tea party.

The tea party is a middle-class movement of people who want limited
government, less spending, less debt, low taxes, and the repeal of
ObamaCare. Occupy Wall Street isn't a movement. It's a series of
events populated by a weird cast of disaffected characters, ranging
from anarchists and anti-Semites to socialists and LaRouchies. What
they have in common is an amorphous anger aimed at banks, investors,
rich people and bourgeois values.

The tea party reveres the Constitution and wants to change laws to
restore the country to prosperity. Occupy Wall Street started by
occupying a New York City park and then blocked the Brooklyn Bridge,
sparking the arrest of hundreds.

The tea party files for permits for its rallies and picks up its trash
afterwards. Occupy Wall Street tolerates protesters who defecate on
police cars, allows the open sale of drugs at protests, and features
women walking around rallies topless.

The tea party has settled down to democracy's patient, responsible
work, either by exerting influence on the Republican Party nomination
process or educating Americans on the issues in order to hold
politicians in both parties to account.

By comparison, Occupy Wall Street seems alienated by the American
political system. It has no concrete agenda and no plan to become a
political institution. Yet it needs both things to have an impact on
politics or policy. Without them, Americans will be interested in
Occupy Wall Street's weird and off-putting side show for only so long.

The fact that it lacks a clear program means that Occupy Wall Street
is susceptible to being captured by even more extreme elements. It's
no accident its rallies and marches around the country include signs
extolling wacky causes and marginal, but highly organized, left-wing
groups. Nothing draws ideologues who know what they want as fast as a
malleable crowd that doesn't.

What Democrats eager to latch on to the Occupy Wall Street protests
don't seem to fully grasp is that these events are in part an
expression of deep dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama and other D.C.
Democrats. Some young Occupy Wall Street participants are angry
because their economic future seems so bleak. They want someone to
hold responsible for the absence of jobs. Others see Mr. Obama as
insufficiently liberal. And some are simply nutty: A third of the
protesters polled by New York magazine say the United States is as bad
as al Qaeda.

While Mr. Obama and other top Democrats may be momentarily excited by
the notion of a long-term relationship, Occupy Wall Street may not
want to even go out for a date. The refusal of protestors in Atlanta
to allow Congressman and civil rights icon John Lewis to address their
rally is just one sign this may not be a terribly Democratic-friendly

Rushing to identify with Occupy Wall Street could well threaten Mr.
Obama's re-election by putting off the very swing voters whom the
president needs. It could further diminish the president's support
from center-left business leaders, already sick of Mr. Obama's class
warfare and faux populism. Appearing to condone the crude personal
behavior of Occupy Wall Street protestors can also further erode Mr.
Obama's standing with culturally conservative blue-collar voters.

Before they go much further with this courtship, the president and
other Democrats need to remember it's always dangerous to associate
with people who are just plain kooky.


'Le mur du con': wordplay on 'le mur du son' - the sound barrier, and
'con' - stupid, lame, dumb.

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org