Free Markets, Free People

Takin’ it too the streets!

Professor Cornel West, who most likely wouldn’t have a job if he an others weren’t able to keep race baiting going, has emphatically stated that entitlements need to be increased, not decreased.  And he’s also made the point that if they aren’t, well, those seeking to have them increased may have to take to the streets:

"I think the problem is that the poor children, keep in mind it’s 42% of poor children who live at or near poverty, it’s 25% in poverty. Our audience needs to keep that in mind." Cornel West said on MSNBC this afternoon.

"Poor children need more than just a $1,000 for their family, they need a war against poverty to make it a major priority in the way which we have a priority for Afghanistan, and a priority to bail out banks, and a priority to defend corporate interests when it comes to environmental issues," West said about more and new entitlements for the poor.

Professor West didn’t just call for another war on poverty (the first war was fought by Lyndon B. Johnson), but went on to say that the push for more entitlements "is going to be fought in the streets." West showered the Occupy movement with praise for making people aware of the issue.

"It’s a major question of priorities here. That’s why the Occupy movement is so important because some of this is going to be fought in the streets. Civil disobedience does make a difference," he said.

A few points.   Poverty in the US is unlike poverty anywhere else.   If you’ve ever traveled outside the US to a third world country you know what real poverty looks like.  The Heritage Foundation gives us a little reminder of what those who are deemed “poor” in the US are likely to have (from the Census Bureau):

  • 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning
  • Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks
  • Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television
  • Two-thirds have at least one DVD player and 70 percent have a VCR
  • Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers
  • More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation
  • 43 percent have Internet access
  • One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD television
  • One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo

As for  the claims about hunger and homelessness:

As for hunger and homelessness, Rector and Sheffield point to 2009 statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showing that 96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food, 83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat, and over the course of a year, only 4 percent of poor persons become temporarily homeless, with 42 percent of poor households actually owning their own homes.

In fact, in the US, poverty is more of a definition than a condition.   And that definition is key, because if you fit it, then you are “entitled” to taxpayer largess.  So painting a bleak picture of poverty in the US in general terms is important to any argument for increased entitlements, even when everyone should know that we can’t afford them. 

Those who’s power is based in their advocacy for the poor see that as a threat.  So they’re left with either accepting the fact that their power will be diminished or threatening to resort to “civil disobedience”.  The reason West likes OWS is because that’s the sort of action he wants to see.  Tantrums in the street designed to get what they want.

And that brings me to point two – civil disobedience in today’s parlance isn’t the same as it was in Dr. King’s day.  OWS makes that clear.   Any demonstration today, even if the intent is non-violence, always attracts a violent faction.   West’s praise of the OWS isn’t just focused on awareness.  The methods they’ve used are fine with him too.  Provocation which eventually turns to violence.

Finally … it is also about holding corporations hostage.  This was a technique refined by Jesse Jackson.  Make the villain evil and greedy corporations.  Threaten them with direct action.  Make ‘em pay.  

So what you see West setting up here is part Jesse Jackson sting operation and part poverty pimping.   As we know from the previous “war on poverty” which wasted trillions and never moved the poverty percentage down a single percentage point, government intervention has been a failure.  So unwilling to be solely dependent on government (taxpayer) largess which, given the sad state of government finances, is unlikely to be increased, West is setting up the next patsy.

The Jesse Jackson model will meet OWS and instead of taxpayers paying the price this time, it will be consumers who will foot the bill while a new generation of poverty pimps use those defined as “poor” as their means of holding up corporations.

But first, the demonization must proceed.    And if you’ve been paying attention, you know that is well underway via OWS and the Democrats.


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

7 Responses to Takin’ it too the streets!

  • You can’t mention Cornel West without mentioning Tavis Smiley. These two have been touring together now for a while.
    Both are disillusioned that Barack Obama, to his credit, hasn’t been a “black enough” President, as if even if the President redistributed all the wealth of the rich 1% to the 99% that the 99% would even notice. Besides, the President has to have a “meal ticket” once he leaves office, and we all know where that will come from (hint: it ain’t the 99%).

  • President Obama’s slow ride down Gallup’s daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history.

  • All this desire for the OWS street violence sounds so 1930s. Don’t these guys know how “kinderfascist” they sound with their talk of sticking it to corporations, America and global capitalists and bankers (aka Jewry) for the benefit of the seething masses of poor, the workers, the environment and the downtrodden race-of-choice? Luckily it doesn’t seem like they can organize a putsch in a beerhall at the moment, but Lord, you don’t have to look far to answer the crusty old question of “how could that have happened in a civilized country like Germany?”

    • @DocD I have been reading an excellent history book called “Modern Times” and its been a real eye-opener, especially about all of the communist violence that started in Germany that made the Nazi violence thereafter seemed justified. People also forget that Mussolini started as a socialist and the Nazis were the national socialists,i.e. many socialist youth had no problem joining them to attack “the system.”

      Highly recommend the book, by the way, it starts out a little slow, but gets very interesting fast and is written from a non-lefty perspective and has tons of little known facts and funny quotes. I had to google some stuff I thought was not believable, but it was true, like Stalin offered Hitler a peace deal in 1942 that would have given Germany a similar deal to what it got in WW I from the Tsar, i.e. a whole lot of land.

      • @Harun “People also forget”… more like people prefer to ignore an inconvenient truth, to steal a phrase from Al Gore. History is written by the victors naturally and many of the victors do not want it remembered that much pre-war fascist and national socialist thought was pretty common amongst leftists. Oswald Mosley even later said “I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the Left and is now in the centre of politics”. Mussolini was a pretty intelligent and well read guy who ultimately rejected the the final Marxist ideals but figured that Third Way politics was a good way to govern a country… really quite ahead of his time since the unholy Big Socialized Government wed with Big Business so common now in every modern social democracy is pretty much what the old chap wanted.