Good Old American Protest

No matter what you think of the “Occupy” protestors, like the “Tea Party” protestors they have the right to assembly.  Both are protesting the intersection of government and special interests.  Both are frustrated with the idea that few in this nation have the accessibility to influence over the many. Both make points, yet neither is fully informed to validate their points without emotion.  The “Occupy” protesters have more critics then their counter-part the “Tea Party”.  Ironically, many of the critics who embrace the “Tea party”, scold “Occupy”.  Yet, as much as each protest is similar, the response from the critics against “Occupy” is to attack the voice of the people. 

I have heard many GOP politicians and “conservative infotainers” criticize the “Occupy” movement as the following: disorganized, no clear message, and anti-freedom.  Of course, they are disorganized; this is not a political party with money being thrown at it.  The “Tea Party” started the same way, until Former Rep. Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe’s FreedomWorks started to filter PAC money to the grassroots groups.  Money has a unique way of helping movements become political parties.  “Occupy” is now getting support from the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org, but this moves to the second criticism, messaging.

To me this criticism is the most valid.  In all of the coverage of the “Occupy” protest, I am able to understand the protest is about discourse, but the “for what” is missing.  Is the protest about the Wall Street bonuses?  Is it about the addictive gambling environment that spawned the tech bubble of the late 90’s and Real Estate bubble of the last decade?  Or is it like what many “conservatives” want it to be about, anti-capitalism?  The problem is that all of these basic questions are what the media is shaping the protest to be about, yet because this is not a political party, but a broad movement of people with a message, which is not succinct (I will add my belief of what the message should be on my next blog). The message that the political pundits and parties are missing is that a mass of protestors that have been missing for the last decade on issues to have a voice about are finally willing to make that voice heard, which the Founders protected in the First Amendment (you know the freedom amendment).

The final criticism is that the protestors are anti-freedom.  In my opinion, this criticism is the most egregious.  Besides Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment protects the right of people to assembly.  These protesters are exercising their ability to express a view and assemble in support of that view.  This is the exact exercise of “freedom” that is protected, calling “Occupy” anti-freedom is just a part of the “code speak” that politicians use to stir the emotion of the base.  Stirring the base is fine to win an election, but this venture to court votes from an ADD audience when it comes to the governance of our nation is the real anti-freedom behavior from those who should represent us (politicians) and those who are the stewards of information (media).