I am reading Walter Isaacson’s new book on the life of Steve Jobs. Like many adoring Americans, I will always be influenced by Jobs. I have enjoyed the experience of his many brilliant innovations.
Steve Jobs: An optimistic vision for America's opportunity and growth
A passage in the book continues to resonate with me. He told President Obama last year that he will be a one-term president if he continues his anti-business policies, stating that regulations and costs of operation are stifling economic activity. Jobs added that America’s education system needs a transformation if our country is going to be competitive.
What a critical yet positive statement about what America needs to thrive. Contrast this with the “Occupy Wall Street” invasions of our public spaces across the country. The unruly, unsanitary and illegal behaviors of OWS protesters are not going unnoticed, yet they don’t appear to be coalescing into a cohesive movement.
I have followed the OWS protests and have read differing points of view on their meaning. Many in the media are ignoring the real reasons behind these “never-ending” occupations of urban public parks.
One theory is that the Obama campaign machine is recruiting and compensating these lost youth in an effort to promote Obama’s agenda of change. Couple this with the threats and actions of the unions that are advocating city riots and upheaval during the next year. Their intentions to orchestrate or co-opt OWS are obviously designed in an attempt to derail the GOP efforts for 2012.
How will this play out? The agitating and increasingly violent behavior of OWS protesters may backfire on Obama and the unions who are openly supporting them as they begin to make their case for another four years.
Given the choice between a positive, pro-growth vision provided by Steve Jobs or the anti-business class warfare vision provided by OWS, Obama and his left-wing allies have chosen the latter as the foundation for their 2012 campaign.
OWS: A pessimistic vision of class warfare and revolution
Conventional wisdom has said that, if next year’s election is a referendum on Obama, he’ll lose, but if it’s a choice, he’s got a chance. By closely aligning with OWS, Obama has just made a “choice” election much clearer for Americans and considerably weakened his prospects for a second term.
The embrace of OWS by Obama and the unions may be more effective at solidifying opposition to a second Obama term while failing to energize his base. Consider Obamacare. The unions practically wrote the law, yet they secured waivers for themselves so they don’t have to comply with its damaging provisions. Is this the kind of change OWS protesters can believe in?
Considering what’s at stake, including the repeal of Obamacare and reversing Obama’s socialist agenda, his open courting of OWS should be welcomed as a blessing.