“Too little, too late.” I am not alone to suspect that the Occupy movement — the 99 percenters — started its protest against corporate greed and government cronyism several years too late.
Where were the Occupiers when the Tea Party protests started?
Dancing in the streets over the Obama presidency? Many Occupiers may have lagged because they thought that “their man” could and would clean up corruption and make Washington work for the everyone — or at least the “middle class.”
The “too late” charge can be directed against the Tea Party, though — and has been, repeatedly. The Tea Partyers waited to organize until a liberal Democrat was in the White House, one who saw Bush’s big government and, well, raised it.
Many would admit, later, how not “theirs” Bush was. Still, few protested Bush’s big government push.
To the Tea Party’s credit, it was first — kicked off by Rick Santelli’s CNBC “tea party rant” in early 2009, against the upsurge of bailouts for banks, car companies, home-buyers, you name it, as well as the very idea of government stimulus. (Though I ranted earlier.)
The time to protest cronyism and corruption in American government? The moment one opens one’s eyes to political reality.
Maybe the great age of protest has finally come.
I hope it’s not too late.
It always seems like citizens should have stood up to abuse of power sooner, but being late to the action is no excuse not to stand up now.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
6 replies on “Better Late Than Never?”
Paul,
Many of us were also active in the Porkbusters movement which started in 2005. The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama is openly Marxist and contemptuous of the Constitution.
The progressives were much better off with incrementalism. Most of the American people have been too busy living their lives and taking care of their families to really bother with what the criminals in government were doing. While they were taking tiny steps toward Marxism, the commies had a chance. Now, they’ve gone and blown it with the installation of our first Dictator, Barack Obama. Luckily, we have enough freedom left to possibly right 100 years of Constitutional usurpations. We live in very interesting times!
Were the Democrats the majority is both the House and Senate during the Bush Administration? Did the Senate approve of the invasion of Iraq? Was/Is the War in Iraq a budget buster?
Bush had a slim Republican majority in the house until 2007 when the Democrats gain a 233-198 majority. The Senate was split 50-50 at the beginning of his first term and 49-49-2 at the end of his second term. Republicans held the Senate majority through the remainder of his presidency.
Quibbling over the parties is moot. The mix has been about half and half. Both of them are equally culpable. Fixing blame to one or the other does nothing to help the problems they together caused or that they are continuing to cause.
And now they are fostering a “super” committee to be the whipping boy so that noone takes the heat for the dribbling of cuts that they are grudgingly parcing out, and that do nothing to forstall the hyperinflation that they are saddling us with. They have all got their retirment and nest eggs sequestered away leaving us hanging and hold the bag for all the bad borrowing to cover the continued irresponsible spending.
And only one Republican candidate that is even addressing the spending as a problem.
There is no common ground between the Trash Wall Street radicals and the Tea Party…
[…] difficult to do, though I applaud the Club for Growth, the Coalition to Reduce Spending and the Tea Party for supporting and holding candidates’ feet to the fire on spending […]