-By Frank Salvato
Throughout the painful and paradoxical existence of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) we have been told by those in the mainstream media, as well as by sympathetic politicos, that at its root, at its genesis, the OWS Movement was both organic and legitimate. We were told that the movement was exclusively about a rebellion against high unemployment and crony Capitalism, even as those championing the cause disingenuously blurred the line between crony Capitalism and Capitalism. But, an honest examination of the underlying goal(s) of this movement – and who is serving to advance its agenda – exposes a nefarious, deceitful and dangerous reality.
The notion of “triangulation” is not new to American politics. Savvy politicians have triangulated messages and circumstances to their benefit ever since the creation of our country. One needs look no further than the debates that took place over the creation of the US Constitution to understand that even though our Framers and Founders were dedicated to their principles and positions, they were willing to employ rhetorical leverage to achieve their goals. Alexander Hamilton was a master at message triangulation.
Perhaps the most contemporary politician to masterfully employ the art of message triangulation was former Pres. Bill Clinton. In pursuit of re-election in 1996, Clinton senior advisor Dick Morris advocated for a set of statements, a set of policies, that differed from those of his fellow elected Democrats. These policies, which pandered to the ideological Middle and Right, included deregulation and balanced budgets, culminating in the false declaration, included in Mr. Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union Address, that the “era of big government is over.”
Triangulation, by way of definition, can be summarized as:
“…the name given to the act of a political candidate presenting his or her ideology as being ‘above’ and ‘between’ the Left and Right sides (or factions) of a traditional democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one’s political opponent (or apparent opponent). The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent’s ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.”
The same triangulation tactics used by politicos to further their careers can also be used by organizations and movements. In the case of the OWS movement, the use of a triangulated message by Progressives serves to blur the line between crony Capitalism and Capitalism, luring the citizenry to focus on the word “Capitalism,” associating it with the idea of “unfairness,” while Progressives present the notion of redistribution of wealth – a Progressive, neo-Marxist tenet – as being “fair.”
Crony Capitalism can best be defined as:
“A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.”
And while crony Capitalism is something that any honest, hard-working, taxpaying American should abhor, the attempt to foist the neo-Marxist, Progressive principle of redistribution of wealth on the American people under the convoluted guise of Capitalism being unfair, is, dare I say, wicked and evil; at the very least it is a lie.
A fair explanation of Capitalism states:
“In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated.”
The stark difference between crony Capitalism and Capitalism is that Capitalism is based on freedom: freedom of choice; freedom from government oppression and regulatory caveat; unfettered (or relatively unfettered) commerce between the producer and the purchaser. Crony Capitalism is based on an “unlevel playing field,” where government interferes with the free market process to create an advantage for a preferred faction. A perfect example of crony Capitalism is Solyndra, where the Obama Administration granted favoritism to a private corporation through the avail of taxpayer dollars to afford it a better chance in the market place. The fact that the corporation may or may not produce something of quality and value is irrelevant.
Back to the OWS triangulation…
While the Progressives behind OWS – and by now only the terminally daft still believe the canard that the usual suspects are not involved (i.e. MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, The Open Society Institute and George Soros, etc.) – disingenuously facilitate the crony Capitalism versus Capitalism argument, they seek to diminish the anti-Americanism of redistribution of wealth, moving the notion into the mainstream by framing it as benevolent and “fair.”
As OWS participants condemn the producers – even as they coordinate their actions via cell phones and iPads; even as they drink Starbucks while wearing their Abercrombie & Fitch clothing – they do so while presenting a litany of “demands” that redistributed wealth from the “producers” to the 21st Century “neo-Proletariat”; demands that include:
- The imposition of a “Robin Hood Tax” on most goods and services worldwide, with the aim of using its generated revenues to fund environmental and social-welfare programs.
- The Institution of a universal single payer healthcare system.
- A guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
- Free college education.
- One trillion dollars in infrastructure spending, now.
- One trillion dollars in ecological restoration.
- Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.
Each and every one of these “demands” requires that the producers – someone who works an honest job for an honest wage and/or invests money into a vehicle (company, business or corporation) that creates wealth for himself and others – subject themselves to the confiscation of their earned wages by government so that the non-producer (the neo-Proletariat) can benefit.
People, this is Marxism, “straight up,” to borrow and paraphrase from one of the neo-Proletariat, Janeane Garofalo.
The Progressive Left – the neo-Marxist American Left – is relentless in its pursuit of the transformation of the United States of America. Since its entrance onto the American political main stage, circa 1888, Progressives have been triangulating messages, redefining words, rewriting history and lying to the American people with a regularity that would make the producers of Metamucil jealous.
There is a great clamor in this nation for political “compromise” in the hope that said compromise will affect honest solutions for the very real problems that face our country. The problem with instituting political compromise today is this: Honest American politicians from both sides of the aisle cannot compromise with Progressives when Progressives negotiate from a position of dishonest, deceptive and self-serving ideological and political greed. Today’s Progressives – today’s neo-Marxist leaders and their self-indulgent neo-Proletariat – are just that abhorrent.
Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal . He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. His pieces are regularly featured in over 100 publications both nationally and internationally. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, and is a regular guest on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network, as well as an occasional guest on numerous radio shows coast to coast. He recently partnered in producing the first-ever symposium on the threat of radical Islamist terrorism in Washington, DC. His pieces have been recognized by the House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict. He can be contacted at email@example.com
Help the Soldiers!
American GeniusOur Founding Ideas
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Federalist Papers
- The U.S. Constitution
- Debates of 1787
- The Anti-Federalist Papers
- The Writing of John Locke
"Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
What THEY Say:
Foreign News In English
Click HERE for information
on my fedora collection.Antique Stetsons, hat history...