First off, I saw the term “Obamavilles” today, which I thought interesting. It evokes “Hoovervilles”, with the key difference that where there was actual suffering under Hoover–caused by his meddling in the economy, in part, but primarily by the Fed’s deflationary monetary policies–there is not much here. Many of these kids are likely rich, and many seem to be getting paid. Not sure what use the term has, but it is potentially useful.
The main point I wanted to make is what sane political use could be made of these protests, and it occurs to me that their utility lies in the very fact that they–they tell us as a matter of principle–don’t stand for anything (just like Seinfeld wasn’t about anything). They are a blank canvas, upon which can be painted many different narratives, whose value can be assessed and modified as needed.
For now, the use Obama (really, the people around him; he doesn’t think all that much)seemingly wants to make of them is to say that since they are there, some sort of crime must have been committed, and that since they are plainly not Republicans, the culprits must indeed be the Republicans. This is a weak story, but one plainly borne out of the desperate need he and his have to defend the indefensible, which practically means avoiding the topic and going on the offensive, hoping that their control of much of our media complex will enable this deception to work.
But this also provides added heft to his vote-buying schemes, as with student loans, housing, and whatever else he and his come up with between now and election day.
This is a bit of out-loud thinking.