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.”

(more…)

Social liberals are extremely frustrated that the “worker’s paradise” that seemed so near three years ago, is fast slipping away due to voter rejection. With the huge borrowing and spending stimulus failing to revitalize the economy, social liberals took to the streets in Occupy Wall Street movements around the country. But the movement is rapidly being taken over by vicious Marxist elements bent on over-throwing capitalism with violent revolution, called “Black Bloc”.

In 2008, candidate Barack Obama campaigned in Germany and France to trumpet that America would soon bond with Europe and “Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth.” These are code words for America is embracing Europe’s collectivist march. Over the next two years, the President and his veto proof Congress legislated for the collectivization of healthcare, socialization of financial services, bail-out the unionized auto industry, and unbounded arrays of new regulatory constraints to fundamentally transform the U.S. economy. In solidarity: the United Nations designated October, 31, 2011 as the beginning of the International Year of the Cooperative to celebrate “the beginnings of a genuine discussion and debate about different economic models —models that value fairness at their core”.

The breadth of socialist ambition and the failure of massive borrow and spend initiatives to deliver economic recovery led to spontaneous rise of the Tea Part movement in America and an epic rejection of social liberal policies at the polls in 2010. Following that electoral shellacking, a broad spectrum of pundits urged President Obama in the words of Politico to: “move to the center to find common ground with the GOP and adopt the “triangulation” strategy employed by Bill Clinton” after his 1994 midterm losses.”

Social liberals have howled this year at what they see as the President lurch to the political center as selling out their core values. Bent on creating their own spontaneous movement; social liberals quickly latched onto the Occupy Wall Street movement. Over $500,000 in donations poured in as labor unions and elected officials embraced the movement. Marches and occupations sprung up nationwide to serve as a national microphone for the cause.

(more…)

The retirement of Evan Bayh is the latest heralding of difficult 2010 election year for the Democrats.  It is also a symptom of Obama’s mid 40s approval rating.  Smart Democrats know that the average midterm election year losses for the President’s party, when his approval rating is below 50%, is 41 seats in the House.  Three Presidents in the modern era suffered such a fate – Johnson, Ford and Bill Clinton.  Of those three, only Clinton went on to win a second term.  While it is likely Obama will suffer huge mid-term losses, it is more than unlikely that he will enjoy Clinton’s revival.

Clinton suffered the loss of 54 House seats in his first midterm election, despite a growing economy, because he broke his middle class tax cut promise – and the Republicans were smart enough to unanimously oppose that and run on the Contract With America.  Despite the loss of the House for the first time in 40 years, Clinton won reelection.

Clinton was able to win reelection in part because Bob Dole was not an effective candidate for the Republicans on the tax issue.  Clinton also famously triangulated in 1995 and 1996 with the help of longtime strategist Dick Morris.  Dropping ideology for practicality, in 1995 and 1996, Clinton pushed a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy, issued an order clarifying the rights of religious expression in schools,  supported uniforms for public schools, banned human cloning, signed Megan’s law and welfare reform to name a few less than ideological triangulations.  Even before that, Clinton incurred the wrath of unions by pushing the ratification of NAFTA.

Of course, as the Governor of a swing state, Bill Clinton leaned an early lesson in pragmatism after he was defeated in his bid for a second term.  After apologizing for the policies that led to his reelection defeat, he regained the governorship and went on to enact mandatory competency testing for teachers and granted tax breaks to businesses – again with triangulating guru Dick Morris by his side.

(more…)

In the wake of his divisive subpar first year, it is plainly evident that Obama has switched to campaign mode.  If we recall that Reagan told us that Democrats campaign for President as moderates and govern from the Left, we understand well why Obama sounded centrist in 2008, pursued a Leftist agenda in 2009 and, in this midterm election year, is now reaching out to Republicans.

We know that Obama has given his Presidential campaign advisor an “expanded” White House role.  In addition to that, Obama, in a high profile manner, met with Congressional Republicans on Health Care and is reaching out to them on a jobs bill among other tactics.  In the face of such Clintonesque triangulation, the questions become:  What should the Republicans do?  Meet Obama half way?  Stonewall him?  Or offer their own agenda?  Given that the political handshake can often be the kiss of death, especially in a Tea Party World, Republicans need to go on the offensive by framing the debate if they are going to avoid Obama’s Bermuda Triangulation.

It is essential to note that whoever frames the election debate is the likely winner of the election. Democrats win elections by promoting what government can do in the face of adversity that they blame on capitalism or the market.  Republicans win elections by exposing the limits and detriments of government in addition to trumpeting the limitless values of freedom and the American spirit.

(more…)