Rich Lowery writes about Occupy Wall Street and misapprehends it in his article in The National Review, contrasting it derisively with the right-wing Tea Party and their manner of public "dissent."
The Right’s tea party had its signature event at a rally at the Lincoln Memorial where everyone listened politely to patriotic exhortations and picked up their trash and went home. The Left’s tea party closed down a major thoroughfare in New York City — the Brooklyn Bridge — and saw its members arrested in the hundreds.
The march on the Brooklyn Bridge did impede traffic, I'm sure nothing but grief for many commuters. But accurately, the bridge was shut down by the NYPD's decision to execute a massive, incendiary apprehension of hundreds of marchers, including members of the media.
But yes, #OWS interrupted New York City's grinding back-and-forth to make their intentions to persist more indelible.Tea Partiers had a luncheon, we took the streets - fine - you're goddamn right. We want to e be kind and open to discussion, but the least of our worries is a history of proper manners.
On the cusp of the confrontation, the protesters chanted “This is what democracy looks like,” betraying an elemental confusion between lawbreaking for the hell of it and free discussion. They flatter themselves that, in contrast to the wealthiest 1 percent, they represent “the 99 percent.” It might be true if the entire country consisted of stereotypically aging hippies and young kids who could have just left a Phish concert.
The author is obviously appraising the demonstration from a remote vantage point, because the marchers represent a diverse cross-section of cultures, social conditionings, and political backgrounds.
At this point the crow decidedly appears to be a wholesale rabble of professional political transients, because that's a common result of weeks spent living in an urban park. You see, this is a problem in communication which speaks to the larger issue - Deriding people for their apparent membership in a supposedly irrelevant interest group is fallacious. To do so remotely from the MSM's pictorial representations would essentially consist of judging merit by how nice one looks and the condition of one's attire. Lowery commits the crime of discarding the outcry of those who do not have obvious resources to back them of a pecuniary nature. Sweep away the poor...
Mr. Lowery might not feel very committed to his writing, he obviously did not bother to travel for the sake of accuracy, perhaps he wrote this because it is now expected, and this was the best he could manufacture. I would encourage him and everyone who is framing this movement third-hand to reconsider the situation, in person.
This is Class War.