Replies

Barack Obama, US president, offered more support for protesters against the global financial system

The big problem for the "occupiers" and "99 percenters" is that they chose the terms that create lousy imagery.

Why "occupy" and "occupiers" are bad is self-explanatory. Was not this a bad word just recently when the Left was using it to describe our mission in Iraq as "occupation"? Now they are embracing it for their own takeover of public space and ambitions of taking over private enterprises and property. Overwhelming majority of people - who work and are concerned about their jobs - understand where the employment and their paychecks come from, and don't think that the "occupiers" are good for the economy or the jobs.

The "99%" sounds good and big on surface, but essentially it puts almost everybody (anybody who is not in the top 1% of earnings) in a position of being a "loser" i.e., the 5%-ers, 10%-ers, 20%-ers etc. etc.

Otherwise successful people, middle-class people, normal people with any kind of achievement or pride in their work and life are made to feel that they are being forcibly "adopted" into the faceless mass of "99% losers" - they couldn't possibly like it, so they are rejecting the dubious "honor" of being a part of this "99%"

"Occupiers" do not invoke sympathy and are not adding to or broaden the base of their support or Democratic voting block; if anything, they are exposing who they are, the group which are supporting them, and they are turning away many who would still contribute and vote for Obama and Democrats, despite the bungled economic and foreign policies. The longer "99% losers" keep the "occupation" going, the more permanent losses Democrats will incur. This is not the '60s and '70s, no matter how much they try to replay the old script.

They will either get tired of the protest that will be fruitless (because they don't know what they want and what to do about it) and will steadily lose interest from the media which will latch onto another story when the interest in the story and their ratings inevitably go down, or some of them will decide to escalate their frustrations over lost attention and indifference to their plight. In either case, the "occupation" will fail miserably and the politicians who supported them will themselves lose support. So the longer they can keep these "occupations" going, the more damage they will cause for Democrats and other liberal "causes" and movements.

From In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated - CNBC / NYT, by Nelson D. Schwartz and Eric Dash, 2011 October 15

Publicly, bankers say they understand the anger at Wall Street — but believe they are misunderstood by the protesters camped on their doorstep.
But when they speak privately, it is often a different story.
“Most people view it as a ragtag group looking for sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll," said one top hedge fund manager.
"It's not a middle-class uprising," adds another veteran bank executive. "It's fringe groups. It's people who have the time to do this."
As the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations have grown and spread to other cities, an open question is: Do the bankers get it? Their different worldview speaks volumes about the wide chasms that have opened over who is to blame for the continuing economic malaise and what is best for the country.
Some on Wall Street viewed the protesters with disdain, and a degree of caution, as hundreds marched through the financial district on Friday. Others say they feel their pain, but are befuddled about what they are supposed to do to ease it. A few even feel personally attacked, and say the Occupy Wall Street protesters who have been in Zuccotti Park for weeks are just bitter about their own economic fate and looking for an easy target. If anything, they say, people should show some gratitude.
"Who do you think pays the taxes?" said one longtime money manager. "Financial services are one of the last things we do in this country and do it well. Let's embrace it. If you want to keep having jobs outsourced, keep attacking financial services. This is just disgruntled people."
He added that he was disappointed that members of Congress from New York, especially Senator Charles E. Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, had not come out swinging for an industry that donates heavily to their campaigns. “They need to understand who their constituency is," he said. ..... < snip >
..... John Paulson, the hedge fund titan who made billions in the financial crisis by betting against the subprime mortgage market... “The top 1 percent of New Yorkers pay over 40 percent of all income taxes, providing huge benefits to everyone in our city and state," he said in a statement. “Paulson & Company and its employees have paid hundreds of millions in New York City and New York State taxes in recent years and have created over 100 high-paying jobs in New York City since its formation." ..... < snip >
..... Without a coherent message, the crowds will ultimately thin out, Wall Street types insist — especially when the weather turns colder. They see the protesters as an entertaining sideshow, little more than flash mobs of slackers, seeking to lock arms with Kanye West or get a whiff of the antiestablishment politics that defined their parents' generation. ..... < snip >

The "occupiers" are turning off the people who naturally would have sympathy for them and their politics, and who, in effect, have financed and contributed to their causes.

More "occupations" and "We're the 99%!" rhetoric, please!