Then there’s the President Barack Obama factor. For some blacks, joining the Occupy protests would be an admission that Obama has failed to deliver on his promises to make things better, to squash special interests, to diminish the influence of lobbyists, etc. It’s not hard for a black Obama lefty (redundancy intentional) to rationalize: “I thought a black president would make a real, actual, touchable difference in my life. He has not. But he’s trying. He inherited a mess that those awful Republicans left him. So, he deserves re-election.” How else to explain that while 57 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy, 86 percent of blacks approve?
The real reason for the lack of black participation, or lack of participation by anyone else in the Occupy movement, should be simple: a complete rejection of its sole unifying theme, which seems to be “give me some of what ‘they’ have.”
The real reason to reject the Occupy movement is that complaining about “inequality” without regard to how the haves became the haves is a time-waster. Those in the top earning demographic have some things in common: They are more likely than the non-top-20-percenters to have at least a college degree; are married; work long hours; and did not inherit, marry, steal or win their wealth.
The problem is blacks reject the Occupy movement, but not the party whose values reflect its unifying “victicrat” theme. Yet Democrats and the Occupy movement share a common philosophy. Obama said to the Occupiers, “You’re the reason I ran for office.”
Both believe in empowering government to address “inequality” by redistributing wealth. Both believe that those who achieve great wealth do so through exploitation, which justifies the claim others make on the money.
The economy of the early ’80s saw higher inflation, interest rates and unemployment than during the so-called Great Recession. But unlike Obama, President Ronald Reagan deeply and broadly cut taxes, continued deregulation and slowed down the rate of domestic spending. The result? Black adult and teen unemployment fell dramatically, much faster than it did for white adults and teens.
The real question is not why so few blacks belong to the Occupy movement. The real question is why so many blacks still belong to the Democratic Party.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Pages: 1 2
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyTheHood
There have been no shortage of Blacks and other minorities in the meetings and marches I've been to. I guess it all depends on where you are and what slant you are going for. This article is full of generalizations with numbers based on speculation. Come to Oakland and experience a protest. Everything looks different from your couch on the other end of the corporate owned media.
Recently the occupiers have been talking to black ministers about the recent acceleration of the countries economic degradation the has effected the Black Middle class so adversely.
It is thought since the ministers are willing to listen they may be ready to activate their congregations.
Larry Elder is over-thinking this one a bit. The reason blacks reject the OWS bowel movement is simple. One black acquaintance put it succinctly "That's the white boy movement.". Blacks are reflexively anti-white and even more so since Obama's election. Didn't the O.J. trial teach us anything?
But despite the tiny minority of blacks who get it enough to join the Tea Party (and those are probably middle-class or above) the majority support redistributionist policies. Why wouldn't they (apart from the central, moral issue)? They've done pretty well in the last forty years or so. The libs continually call them 'deprived' and oppressed and yet how does one get obese on deprivation. Where'd all those smart phones come from?
Even middle-class blacks with pretty good jobs approve of redistribution. And why not? So many of them were 'redistributed' their jobs via AA. They have only contempt for whites and especially for the current crop of lefty weaklings that comprise OWS (I share that contempt, for quite different reasons). Why do you think they use the term 'lily' white?
This has nothing to do with blacks rejecting any sort of OWS message. In fact, they can just stay home and let liberal white dupes go out and defend them, even while they rob the little snots of their goods. And the dupes still stand in solidarity with the People of Color, no matter how much they are abused by them. We should all have such reliable friends.
"How else to explain that while 57 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy, 86 percent of blacks approve?"
The explanation lies in the fact that blacks are the single most racist group in America today. Obama's skin color blinds them to everything else. In 2012 Obama's percentage of black votes will actually RISE because of the necessity of showing solidarity with their race when a fellow black is under attack.
In 2008 Charles Payne who regularly appears on Fox Business stated that he voted for Obama because of its "historic importance". Payne grew up in Harlem and took many beatings because he wanted to be a businessman. Despite a broken home and a hostile neighborhood Payne succeeded and is now the head of an investment firm. More than most people Payne knows what it takes to be a successful businessman. Still, despite knowing that Obama was an anti-capitalist, Payne voted for him.
Larry, the only blacks who won't vote for Obama in 2012 will be you, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. (Okay, maybe a more realistic number would be 2%)
I don't mean this to imply that blacks are fundamentally different from others.
In Massachusetts 3/4 of the people approve of RomneyCare. All this means is that it is possible to buy men's souls with gifts from the state. Racial differences can make this easier especially when there is a history of racial exploitation as there was of blacks by whites.
Dear Mr. Elder, why does having more black people in a group make it more valid? Isn’t that just part of the stereotype that black people are more authentic than white people?
It doesn't, you knob.
That's why the critique of the Tea Party that it is lily-white, and thus racist, is empty; to wit, because the Tea Party has so few blacks, it is racist and should be ignored.
Larry points out the numbers simply to expose the hypocrisy, and the shallow, racist thinking of the Occupiers.
The whole OWS movement is about as grassroots as astroturf anyhow, the primary sponsors were big public sector unions and George Soros front groups like ADbusters.
In Toronto, London, and other places most of the tents were unoccupied, only put there as a shell game to show numbers that did not exist. Most of the ones in Toronto could not identify senior politicians like the Prime Minister, yet we are supposed to turn to OWS activists for ideas on reforming society? I don't think so.
One question never raised here is how many blacks actually turn out to vote in elections? I know that among the U.S population in general only about 45% actually bother exercising their franchise, it of course varies from year to year. From what I read some time ago only a small minority of blacks that are elegible to vote actually do so, I think it was under 20%. So there in lies the explaination, if the majority of blacks feel so disengaged that they don't bother taking a relatively passive act like voting why would they make a showing at the Occupy Wall Street ? Maybe they figured it was a worthless gong show all along?