79 Percent Of Americans Missing The Point EntirelyI've been trying to organize my thoughts about the coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests, not to mention the protests themselves, and I keep coming back to that Onion article,[1] because any way I look at it, just about everyone is missing the point.
WASHINGTON, DC—According to a Georgetown University study released Tuesday, 79 percent of Americans are missing the point entirely with regard to such wide-ranging topics as politics, consumerism, taxes, entertainment, fashion, and professional wrestling. . . .
The problem, and I suppose this was inevitable, is that Occupy Wall Street is being portrayed as some kind of anti-Tea Party. Left vs. right, blue vs. red, rock vs. country, et cetera—it's the only way we know how to draw battle lines anymore. But how are the two movements meaningfully different? I sure as hell can't figure it out. There are plenty of minor differences, mostly concerning priorities and demographics, but the similarities are much more substantial. Both are popular uprisings against powerful-but-nebulous entities believed to be responsible for America's economic struggles. Both are defined not by easily-identified leaders, but by the sum total of countless unique viewpoints, and thus are not capable of articulating their goals with any cohesiveness or specificity (nor should they be expected to). And both movements, to borrow the classification scheme created by Bill O'Reilly, are teeming with both pinheads and patriots.
And yet, over the last week or so each side has generated mountains of commentary saying, essentially, this: You know the one-sidedly [negative/positive] portrayal of the Tea Party we've been pushing for two and a half years now? Well Occupy Wall Street is totally the opposite!
- Paul Krugman describes OWS as "a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people." Meanwhile, Ann Coulter says the OWS protesters are angry at the wrong people (and also have poor hygiene, because why not?).
- Keith Olbermann says OWS is legitimately a grassroots movement that, at least at first, was ignored by the media. Rush Limbaugh says the Tea Party is the "organic" one, while OWS was "manufactured" by the media.
- ThinkProgess claims the OWS protests "better embody the values of the original Boston Tea Party." BigGovernment insists the protesters are "more aligned with Marxism; with Democratic Socialism; with Soviet Era Collectivism; with the very dangerous and elitist Progressive Movement" than with anything even remotely "American".
Not that I have any special insight into who's least wrong, but I'm a big fan of the sentiments expressed in this Reason article:
Of course, the type of loudmouth gadflies who show up at all large outdoor political events, whether Tea Party gatherings, GOP coffee klatches, or Democratic National Conventions, can be found in Liberty Plaza. But to dismiss an entire movement—one that is gathering momentum in cities all around the country—based on the inarticulateness of a few teenagers is entirely the wrong response. It's far more useful to try and understand what is going on here, to grok the meaning of these protesters' motivations, before prematurely passing summary judgment.Exactly. We should pay less attention to the individual lunatics, and more attention to what a movement is really about. Occupy Wall Street, at its core, is a reaction to the increasing power and influence of large corporations. The Tea Party, at its core, is a reaction to the government's constant interference with private enterprise. But wait a minute—aren't those things connected?
Bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, special rights and privileges, regulations designed to restrict competition—to name a few of the many ways the government protects and stimulates corporate interests, and those things are every bit as anti-free market as, not to mention directly related to, the high taxes and excessive bureaucracy that gets Tea Partiers riled up.[3] In other words, aren't these two groups—Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party—raging against different halves of the same machine? Do I have to draw a Venn diagram here?
Oh, alright, I'll draw a Venn diagram:
Yeah, I'm oversimplifying, but only a little. The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together. There are currently two sizable coalitions of angry citizens that are almost on the same page about that, and they're too busy insulting each other to notice.
1. The best part is the quote at the end:
"If I want to miss the point, that's my own business," said Ernie Schayr, a Wheeling, WV, auto mechanic. "If I want to complain about having to pay taxes while at the same time demanding extra police protection for my neighborhood, that's my right as an American. Most people in other countries don't ever get the chance to miss the point, and that's tragic. The East Timorese are so busy fleeing for their lives, they never have the chance to go to the supermarket during the busiest time of the week and complain to the cashier about how long the lines are and ask them why they don't do something about it."
2. Here's a refreshing case of common sense and reason transcending partisanship: An open letter and warning from a former tea party movement adherent to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Naturally, the author is anonymous (as far as I can tell). By Reverend Vas Littlecrow Wojtanowicz.
3. By all means, leave a comment if you think I'm wrong, but it's a myth that big corporations are anti-government, right? They don't want to have to compete in a free market, they want to "compete" in an artificially restricted market.
Your footnote #3 is spot on. As economist Steve Horwitz has said, nobody hates capitalism as much as capitalists. It forces them to compete.
ReplyDeleteYou are really speaking from my soul here. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI think I may have just found a new favorite blog. Great post!
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post! One of the most thoughtful pieces on OWS
ReplyDeleteBrilliant Venn diagram !
ReplyDeleteI am going to pose a question that is fallacious in nature, as it is an either / or proposition. While both movements seek change, the primary difference is the effectiveness of their demands. Whose movement would prove to correct or better stabilize the economy: The OWS, who would bring down the corporations, and spread their wealth to heal the world's ills; or the tea partiers, who seek to weaken the role of government, and hence open up the markets to more competition?
ReplyDeleteSpot on! Great post!
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I appreciate the perspective
ReplyDeleteThere are significant distinctions to be made between the two, and they're important ones. Pointing them out isn't just cobbling together empty rhetoric for present-day propaganda purposes; it's essential for any analysis of where things are heading.
ReplyDeleteAs has been noted by some of the liberals, the "Tea Party" was not a "popular uprising"; it was an effort, by certain huge-money interests, to misdirect the very sentiment presently being expressed by Occupy Wall Street, and throw it against taxing and regulating same huge-money interests. The sentiment is real. OWS is an expression of it. The Tea Party is merely people with money and power using their money and power to exploit it, and this is the underlying truth of everything that travels under the Tea Party banner.
From its origin, the Tea Party was entirely--and that word can't be stressed strongly enough--the creation of a handful of corporate front-groups (astroturfers) and Fox News (a huge media corporation). It came to be perceived as a force merely because some very powerful people shoveled an incredible amount of money into making it appear that way. The "movement" itself--the rank-and-file--has never demonstrated it has any power. It can't dictate election results. The big, comprehensive Washington Post canvass of Tea Party groups found that most of them had fewer than 50 members, no money, and were aligned with the big astroturf orgs. Under the Tea Party banner, it does not constitute a "coalition of angry citizens." It's a coalition of citizens whose anger is being misused. As Fox News has cut back on so relentlessly promoting it (as part of a more general effort to appear less insane with the 2012 elections looming), it has all but disappeared (because that was the only thing holding it together).
Occupy Wall Street is a popular uprising, and has grown organically. It has no big-money benefactors, no billionaires spending a fortune sending buses to every corner of the U.S. to haul in "spontaneous" demonstrators, no 24-hour national cable network pimping it every three minutes; for the first two weeks, it couldn't even get any press coverage at all. I'm more skeptical than some about it leading to a larger movement, but it has undeniably grown by leaps and bounds without any of the generous support the Tea Party was given from the day it launched.
If OWS becomes a significant movement--and that's a big "if," as I see it--the most likely outcome is that it will obliterate what is left of the Tea Party "movement," because it's a genuine and, more importantly, far more sensible expression of the frustration the inventors of the Tea Party have exploited, and, as the Tea Parties' sponsors--the only thing that kept it going--abandon it, OWS will drain it dry.
Unfortunately for the previous poster, most of us who would consider ourselves tea party sympathizers are utterly and totally opposed to socialism and state power. Weaken the state; cut its funding; cut its power; cut its credibility.
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent post! I'll be linking it here and there.
ReplyDeleteI think classicliberal2 has it exactly backwards, though. The Tea Party had its origins in 2008 (that's right, before Obama was elected) with blogger Karl Denninger and a woman named Stephanie (I don't know her last name). They were protesting the bank bailouts and Denninger suggested that people mail tea bags to their representatives. It didn't get much attention at the time.
The movement really caught fire with Rick Santelli's famous rant on CNBC in early 2009. So it had a genuine grassroots beginning, but since then national organizations like Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Express have tried to claim leadership. The Republican Party establishment has been trying to co-opt and/or neuter the grassroots efforts. I obviously can't speak for anyone but myself, but I believe that many people on the ground see what is going on and are deeply suspicious of it.
On the other hand, Occupy Wall Street seems to have been organized from the top. There is a video of former Obama czar (and admitted Communist) Van Jones predicting exactly what is going on now six months ago. So my guess is that OWS was instigated by Organizing For America and some offshoot of ACORN, probably with the assistance of unions. Many of the actual participants on the ground are probably unaware of this and found out via Facebook, Twitter, or their friends.
Another difference I've noticed: The TP seems to comprise mostly older people, while the OWS people seem to be younger. That's just my personal observation, not a scientific survey. But that's another interesting dynamic going on.
ReplyDeleteThe Tea Party folks generally have opposed bailouts and subsidies and support free market capitalism. They distrust government and don't believe it is capable of running the economy. Many of the Occupy Wall St. crowd want more restrictions or the elimination of free market capitalism and the establishment of what they consider a more equal and just society determined by governmental rules. Occupy Wall St. people have great faith in the integrity and ability of the government to run the economy for the common good.
ReplyDeleteGreat post and I agree with you to a point. I think both movements have a point, but I the solutions they advocate are so diametrically opposed that it becomes the central focus. I don't think strengthening the gov and just redistributing wealth is the right idea. That has communist workers party written all over it. At the same time, I don't think just neutering the gov will work either, because the corps already have enough power to rebuild the power of the fed and again legislate in their favor.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'd like to see is a combination. We take back the bailouts, give taxpayers a bonus check, repeal all the corp helping laws out there, if not simply dissolve the institution of corporations altogether and go back to having regular companies. Then take fed gov out of the market entirely. The only role the fed should play is in disputes between the states. The rest is up to the states. Let each state decide it's own environmental law and tax rates and regulations. Then companies couldn't lobby themselves back into power.
Just my two cents.
Regarding footnote #2: It might be the author is Reverend Vas Littlecrow Wojtanowicz, as the open letter has a link to that web site referencing it as their work.
ReplyDeleteclassicliberal2, sorry, but you aren't even close to right about the origins of what went on to become "the Tea Party", which was and remains highly decentralized and still has no connections to any of the MSM or "rich" people. You're referring to what the MSM and other elites present as the Tea Party.
@rickl re: the origin of the Tea Party: there were multiple uses of "Tea Party" imagery going back at least as far as 2006 (and the idea of mailing teabags to congressmen goes back to at least the '70s). Connection to what became the Tea Party: None.
ReplyDeleteThat the professional astroturfers of FreedomWorks and Americans For Prosperity were behind the initial propaganda and events of what we came to know as the Tea Party is a matter of public record, just as is the fact that Fox News was promoting the hell out of it. The Tea Party Patriots didn't have to show up after the fact and try to claim leadership--FreedomWorks, which created the TPP, had also invented the Tea Party "movement" in the first place.
(The Club For Growth has also been a major financier of teabagger causes, and that helps to draw a particularly sharp contrast with OWS, as CFG it's nothing more than a Wall Street front-group.)
As for the conspiracy stuff regarding OWS, I do hope you'll let us know when the shuttle lands.
Some of these responses have helped demonstrate my original point, why it was important (as I said), and why it wouldn't be wise to put much into that Venn diagram. For the teabagger, democracy equals socialism. The teabagger has no real understanding of either concept, or of how government works in the first place, because what passes for his "understanding" of these things has been dictated by the very powers who have a vested interest in his not understanding them.
(A clue to Anon, Stephen, and Dale: Government doesn't dish out favors to the wealthy and Big Business because some evil liberal socialist in the Big Government wants it to do so. It does it because those interests desire and have the power to purchase that influence. That influence is a negation of democracy, and one can either try to use democracy to try to alleviate it, or one, by default, surrenders to it entirely.)
Kid you not, I was just thinking about Venn diagramming this today, but mine was more complicated. I like your simplicity better..
ReplyDeleteGary Johnson for President for the 99% of us.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
The Peoples President
they're not even close to being the same. tea party salutes the founding fathers and patriotism, ows spits on all of that. the moral values are opposites, tea party against abortion, ows for unlimited killing of the unborn and paid for by the gov't. see they're not the same.
ReplyDeleteclassicliberal2:
ReplyDeleteActually, democracy does indeed lead inevitably to socialism, which is why the Founders created a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch."
I don't watch Fox News. I quit watching TV on Election Night 2008, except for baseball.
No, rickl, Benjamin Franklin, a forceful advocate of democracy who constructed the most democratic state government of the Revolutionary era, did NOT say that, but thanks for so prominently displaying your complete ignorance of the subject, thus saving me the trouble of drawing you out on it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, for anyone with any knowledge of this history, you'd already buried yourself with that tired democracy-vs.-republic saw before you ever got to Franklin.
Your "understanding" of these matters is typical of teabaggers in exactly the way I described above, which, yet again, explains why drawing these distinctions matter. Stick to what you actually know, and you'll have nothing further to write on this subject.
The Venn diagram is a stroke of brilliance. Will reblog liberally.
ReplyDelete@classicliberal2 - it doesn't matter who said something if it is true...bill clinton said "2+2=4". wait, no that wasn't him. but i love the wolf quote, and by extension: "democracy is two wolves deciding on what to have for dinner. liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote." OWS is a joke, but they agree with the TP on one thing: no corporate bailouts, and no crony capitalism. stick to that message and stop defecating on police cars.
ReplyDeleteRight on the mark! As a former Tea Party leader (our group was coopted by a bunch of GOP stooges) your analysis shows the nature of our problem. As soon as we engage in labels or candidates, we lose. To paraphrase Edward Longshanks in Braveheart, "The problem with politics is... politics".
ReplyDeleteWe need to focus on specific issues, define the problem and work together as citizens to fix them. Politicians will not. Electing a few more of the "right" politicians will not. We MUST.
"it doesn't matter who said something if it is true"
ReplyDeleteWhen some half-wit suggests I'm ignorant of the history, then, as his evidence, uses a Ben Franklin quote that is not, in fact, a Ben Franklin quote, or even representative of Franklin's views, it matters.
I've visited our local "occupy" forces here in Allentown Pa and I'd have to agree with much of the analysis here. The Venn diagram illustrates the discussion I had with them, only that the wealthy and corporations are not the only ones looking for a piece of the pie. Take away the overbearing gov't (whether it's lib/con or dem/rep) and there is nothing to corrupt.
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------
Anon wrote - "Right on the mark! As a former Tea Party leader (our group was coopted by a bunch of GOP stooges)"
Dear Anonymous, I think I know who you are. Why do you continue to perpetuate and live out that fantasy? Paranoia will annoy ya...
I and many others have subscribed to libertarian views long before you stumbled upon it, but now we're Republican stooges?
I haven't had much time to respond to these comments, unfortunately, but I just wanted to say thanks for all the compliments, and thanks to everyone who has helped spread the word about my blog. I imagine most of you had never seen it before this week, and I hope you'll stick around. I try to post a new article once a week or so, and feedback is always appreciated.
ReplyDeleteRather than argue endlessly over who's a genuine Teapartier or whether OWS is part of a Kenyan Marxist Sharia conspiracy ... which would be kinda fun but pointless ... let's try to have a productive discussion of what actual problems we face today. Left vs. Right or Government vs. Free Market is a useless way to analyze things because any idiot with the smallest understanding of American history understands that we need a balance of each to work. Look instead at the Corporatist/Populist Axis ... we as a nation are tilted WAAAAAAAY too far over towards rule by corporations, which aren't even actual people: merely fantastically powerful, utterly ruthless, and now equipped with legal rights superior to yours (...since YOU can go to jail and they cannot.)
ReplyDeletePopulists understand that corporations are power tools: great servants, terrible masters. They must be brought under control. Tea Partiers blame government for empowering corporate control of their lives but, blinded by the Left/Right distraction, can't offer any remedy except giving those corporations even MORE control ... which is self-defeating.
Populists of the Left and Right should unite to fix the problems we agree on; we'll have time to work on the other stuff later.
Or we can let the corporatists divide us.
Definitely a step in the right direction, rewinn.
ReplyDelete"Tea Partiers blame government for empowering corporate control of their lives but, blinded by the Left/Right distraction, can't offer any remedy except giving those corporations even MORE control ... which is self-defeating."
This is basically what I was pointing out earlier, but I would quibble with something--wouldn't be me, if I didn't. The Tea Partiers don't see "corporate control of their lives" as a problem; they see government as the problem. The reason their solution is to give those interests even more power is because their message is programmed into them by those very interests (and the apologists for same), with that as the goal.
When, in the wake of the economic crash, the congress took up the matter of financial reform aimed at preventing it from happening again, the affected Big Money interests slathered their big money around the capitol, purchasing enough congressmen to gut the bill (what was passed essentially reinstated the previous state of affairs that had led to the crisis). Even though the legend is that the bailouts were the spark that lit the Tea Party, there were no teabagger rallies in support of financial reform. Instead, the teabagger, reflecting his Master's programming, reacted in two ways: by ignoring the issue, or by looking upon reform as just a government power-grab, and railing against it.
Turning the teabaggers into anything remotely useful isn't just a matter of counteracting left/right division as a distraction; it's a matter of some pretty comprehensive deprogramming. They have to stop allowing Dick Armey, the Koch brothers, Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, etc. to do their "thinking" for them.
rewinn,
ReplyDeleteI would gladly stop arguing endlessly! But when gems like this are thrown out:
---------------------------------
You said,
"Tea Partiers blame government for empowering corporate control of their lives but, blinded by the Left/Right distraction, can't offer any remedy except giving those corporations even MORE control ... which is self-defeating."
---------------------------------
I have to tell you I don't know what the hell you are talking about! I know of no Tea Party member that embraced the corporate bailouts or subsidies. Ending an argument means ending the false perceptions. The Venn diagram has it right on the overlap area but... with us (I am a Tea Party member) it just doesn't stop at the corporation's undue influence. Government shouldn't be available for any individual or group to rig the rules in their favor.
It's not left/right, false distinctions. It's tyranny in any form vs individual liberty.
ReplyDeleteBingo, waynefromnaz.
ReplyDeleteI checked out your blog, classicliberal2. You're defending Paul Krugman?
ReplyDeleteWow. Just...wow.
You got me. I'm speechless.
@waynefromnaz: "I have to tell you I don't know what the hell you are talking about!... Ending an argument means ending the false perceptions."
ReplyDeleteThen perhaps you should stop spreading them yourself. The Tea Party and its favored elected officials consistently advocate deregulation--in short, giving those powerful interests even more power. After American financial institutions crashed the economy, the original financial reform bill should have been a cause celebre with them. Instead, they either ignored it or railed against it as some sort of socialist power-grab, while creating outlandish myths about how the crisis had actually been caused by the government, rather than these institutions and their insufficient regulation (Barney Frank, Fanny Mae, anti-redlining regulations in place for decades--anything to tie it to government and not the actual perpetrators). Even the pathetic act that was eventually passed and that, for all intents and purposes, merely reinstated the same state of affairs that had led to the collapse was deemed to be too much, and teabagger-worshipped clowns like Michelle Bachmann have consistently tried to repeal even it. And that, of course, is just one example. It's one of the most telling ones, though, because, as I said before, it's a part of the Tea Parties' self-mythology that it came into being as a consequence of the bailouts.
"Government shouldn't be available for any individual or group to rig the rules in their favor."
Government doesn't do those things out of the kindness of its heart. That's an organ it doesn't possess. It does those things because people with money and power want it to do those things, and have enough money and power to buy it. That government is the only reason these people and institutions can accumulate that kind of money and power, and, as it accumulates, those with it work to rig the rules even more in their own favor, in an escalating cycle. We, the people, have to be able to democratically organize to resist that. The teabagger, though, has been programmed to characterizes any effort at resistance as Bolshevism and to stand against it, thus allowing the cycle to continue. They throw their electoral weight behind the very officials who do everything in their power to perpetuate the cycle, and excoriate those who even suggest resisting it as not only wrong but evil.
classicaliberal2,
ReplyDeleteYes, it's much easier to call me a programmed teabagger and place words in my mouth than to engage in any rational thought, isn't it?
You offer no proof - you say that rigging gov't is the only way that "these people" can accumulate that kind of money or wealth. Nobody has every invented or marketed a product that everyone wants?
I remember when the Clinton administration began to enforce the red-line regs and it was predicted that it would end in a mountain of bad loans.
But enough of the fingerpointing of the past.
OK, look at the venn diagram and think through the possible solutions.
Restrict the corporations ability to lobby and influence the government and will all be rosey and bright? There will not be other ways found to influence? How about other groups, will they not be free to lobby the government for favorable laws & regulations, bailouts & subsidies? You don't want the Chambers of Commerce weilding too much influence, right? How about churches? How about unions, should they be able to dictate their wages via government power? Should enviromental groups dictate what cars we drive and shut down coal fired power plants? Do we only restrict the groups we approve and allow the rest?
Attack the problem from the other end. Restrict government to it's constitutional boundries and take away the ability to pick and chose the market winners through subsidies, bailouts, excessive regulation, and laws. There is nothing to lobby for, it's gone - the government is not there to wield it's power in favor of the highest bidder. This does NOT mean no regulation or no government. It means sensible regulation that does not destroy unfavored industries.
It's not the path to Utopia, because there is no Utopia. But the former solution will lead to an overbearing police state forever enforcing the free speech restrictions needed to be put in place to police politics and it will end in tyranny. Government will still be powerful and a magnet for corruption. The later will greatly reduce what is at stake, what the government can provide through corruption or the concentration of political power.
classicaliberal2:
ReplyDeleteYour ad hominems do your arguments a disservice.
The reduction of political debate to an exchange of slurs is precisely what the author of the original post is warning us against.
Or do you want to keep us little people fighting amongst ourselves? If so, why? If not, please stop behaving as though you do, or else be seen as a provocateur.
I like the diagram but I think Tea Party members would want Unions included with Large Corporations. I think the point being that when the government does anything that protects one group over another (as opposed to "from" another) they misappropriate power. But let's face it, Congress maintains power by giving advantages in either the tax code or legislation to one "inside" group against the ignorant.
ReplyDelete"The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together."
ReplyDeleteThere's a word for that: facism
And when spelled correctly, that word is: fascism
ReplyDelete"The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. While corporations alone have extremely limited capacity to damage an economy, and while the wrong kinds of governments can damage economies quite nicely all by themselves, those same governments possesses unlimited capacity to destroy the economy of an entire planet simply by working hand in hand with the wrong kinds of corporations.
Have a nice day! xo
Classliberal2 Provide evidence on what you state about the Teat Party because you are DEAD WRONG.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the diagram.
ReplyDeleteNow with the new "53'ers" forming, you can add a third circle to the mix. They're upset about the same thing.
I think people are not listening to each other for some reason.
I could go on and on but no one's listening. LOL.
Hey, I think OWS totally gets the collusion of corporations and government and that that collusion is killing democracy. I don't think that the TP gets even close to that understanding. Government has become run by corporate sponsors.
ReplyDeletejanjammm, you can think falsely about the TP all you want but a small constitutionally restrained gov't would not be there to enable this crony capitalism. Or any other special interest, including the ones that you or I would favor. American government was instituted to protect the individual, not empower favored groups.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the OWS apparently *only* understands the corporate/gov't collusion.
I truly hope that Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson (or the two on the same ticket) run as a third party candidate in 2012.
ReplyDeleteI think they could defeat Obama and whatever stooge the Repub's eventually select. As the writer of this article pointed out, there is alot of common ground between the two groups, and they both embody the type of frustration everyone feels. There is enough anger boiling in this country that I believe a third party candidate could take the election.
Now, all the remains is to discover magic, so one can wish into existence the teabagger's utopian notion of "a small constitutionally restrained government," and place a permanent spell on it so it can never be anything other than that. It does require magic. No one--not even the teabaggers themselves--actually hold to the the Tea Party notion of "constitutional boundaries," particularly not the inventors of the Tea Party, who programmed the idea into their followers to act as a premise for certain policies that benefit themselves. It's a notion with no depth because it was never meant to have any--it was just a catchy, pseudo-Libertarian slogan one could use as an excuse to do things like deregulate finance and industry. Huge swathes of the government that would be killed in the process are extremely popular; often things people went to a great deal of trouble to see enacted; sometimes, even things people died to get. These changes have to be imposed on them--the overwhelming majority of the population--North Korea style. That permanent spell must then be cast to prevent them from changing it back. At the same time, those with wealth and power, magically removed from control of the state by the initial spell but with their wealth and power still intact, would, without the permanent spell in place, simply buy back the government the next day, because the waynefromnazes of the world have made it very clear they have absolutely no interest in even attempting reforms aimed at limiting their influence--doing so would be complicated, and there's no solution that will fit on a bumper-sticker.
ReplyDeleteOh, and the whole of the U.S., of which government is an integral part, would collapse the same day the spell was cast.
So there's that.
I suppose I should correct one further bit of idiocy:
"You offer no proof - you say that rigging gov't is the only way that 'these people' can accumulate that kind of money or wealth."
No, I didn't. I said the government was the only reason they can accumulate wealth and power, and that's a basic fact, not some theoretical proposition that requires "proof." Government creates the currency; it gives the currency value; it creates the infrastructure by which currency can be used; it provides for laws and law enforcement that prevents others from stealing your money, and on and on. In this way, wealth becomes a source of great power, power that tries to expand by forever trying to rig the rules even more in its favor. The current wealth concentration in the U.S.--the greatest since the Gilded Age--is a sign of a ailing society in precipitous decline.
@janjamm: "Hey, I think OWS totally gets the collusion of corporations and government and that that collusion is killing democracy. I don't think that the TP gets even close to that understanding. Government has become run by corporate sponsors."
ReplyDeleteBingo. And the reason the hardest-core teabaggers don't get that is because they've been programmed with a narrative designed to direct their anger and frustration against government, without any understanding of how government actually works. They're entirely unconcerned with either corporate influence or with democracy, because part of their programming is to look upon democratic reform efforts aimed at limiting influence by the Big Money interests that created them as socialist power-grabs.
To the extent that they swallow this Kool-Aid and continue allowing the Armeys, Kochs, Limbaughs, Foxes, and the rest to do their "thinking" for them (and this thread has already seen multiple examples of teabag supporters regurgitating memes that were programmed into them, that they accepted without any thought or questions, and that have absolutely no basis in reality), they are useless.
Fortunately, the "movement," which was always tiny, has been disintegrating for some time, and, as Fox News--one of the only things holding it together--has become far less aggressive in pimping it (in a bid to appear more sane on the verge of 2012), its likely to disappear altogether. A movement like OWS, which is a legitimate grassroots movement that offers a rational outlet for the anger and frustration the Tea Party masters only sought to exploit for their own ends is likely to siphon off its talent and intellectual capital and leave only the hardcore cretins. There will be no question of the two "working together," by that point; one will simply absorb the salvageable elements of the other. The recent polling is telling, on this point. OWS, which was blacked out by the press for weeks and has gotten minimal coverage since that blackout theoretically ended, already has 38% public support, only a few weeks after it came into existence. The best numbers the Tea Parties ever managed--a year-and-a-half into their existence--was 30% (in a single poll).
I'm more skeptical than some on the matter of whether OWS will become a major political force, but if it does, what I've just described is not only possible but the most likely outcome.
@classicliberal2 Re:idiocy
ReplyDeleteSo gov't creates currency, laws, & law enforcement and that is put up as a reason for concentration of wealth? Gov't does all those things EQUALLY for all - that doesn't explain why one person becomes a skid row bum and the other an innovative millionaire. And once this wealth is created, yea even "concentrated" from success - it could be put to use to "rigging" a government predisposed to this abuse. Why do you pretend that the problem is not with the government that is willing to be bought?
And as for magic spells --- that's a hoot. You simply want to change human nature and make greed illegal. Of course it'll only be certain people's greed because in this world of your's there'll always be those who are more equal than others. How come I don't hear how government is being bought by unions, lawyers, and other special interests? They are "more equal"...
Don't outlaw wealth, outlaw a government that can hand out favors. Sure it'll never be perfect or Utopian, nothing ever is. But the protests should be in Washington, not Wall Street.
Anonymous @7:21:
ReplyDeleteThere is enough anger boiling in this country that I believe a third party candidate could take the election.
Yes, I've been thinking that too. But Paul or Johnson don't have what it takes to light that spark.
I can only think of one person who might be able to pull it off.
But it's a very tall order, and extremely risky, and I don't think she's inclined to try it. I could be wrong about that, though. Hell, I hope I am.
@waynefromnaz: "that doesn't explain why one person becomes a skid row bum and the other an innovative millionaire."
ReplyDeleteNor was it meant to, and what, earlier, looked like merely a severe reading comprehension problem on your part now begins to look like a phenomenon with a much less charitable explanation.
A few further words, then, for those stuck on the short bus: For the past 15 years (and probably longer), over half of the 100 largest economies in the world have been corporations, rather than nations. These entities are a legal fiction--entirely the creation of government--and the power accumulated by them is almost unimaginable.
When it comes to slavishly doing the bidding of these entities, you have refused to address why this is the case, acting, instead, as though it's just something that happens for no reason at all, other than government apparently has a big heart that needs a stake driven through it. The actual why, of course, is blindingly obvious to all but the most obtuse observer. Its obvious to you, as well. You're simply dancing around it so you can continue to cling to your comfortable, pre-programmed fiction, rather than deal with reality.
Even if you had magic, if you don't curtail the influence of these entities, they will simply buy it all back.
I am neither a TPer nor an OWSer- I am pretty much in the middle and find things that I like on both sides of the aisle. Then again, I find some things on both sides of the aisle to be deplorable. The problem, as I see it, is that much of America is the same as me. Lemme explain:
ReplyDeleteIn the last three or four presidential elections, the actual positions of the candidates were shockingly similar, and we all (American voting public) had a hard time deciding. Hell, one time, we even had to triple-count one state's ballots and even then, most of America didn't get what they wanted.
America [unfortunately] needs the Tea Party AND Occupy Wall Street to represent the extremes on either end, and then we need intelligent people to communicate to the rest of the country the drops of truth in the oceans of their rhetoric. Neither Fox News nor the Huffington Post are doing that, and likely never will. Ratings rule, after all.
As I see it, both groups are attacking the same problem: big corporations with huge amounts of money are buying government influence, which screws the middle class, who make up most of the country. The difference is, one group wants to destroy the corporations [well, some of them, anyway], while the other wants to destroy the government [well, some of it, anyway].
There needs to be a middle ground policy that reduces this nefarious symbiosis. Separate the lobbyists and PACs and anonymous donors from the political process and have true, well-meaning lawmakers in power. Yes, it is Utopian, and yes, it is unlikely, but that should be our goal and we should create policies and legislation toward that idealistic end.
Is there a candidate that does this for 2012? Not that I can see... And even if he/she existed, he/she would not be able to scare the bases on the left or right into voting as much as this polarization will. Cynical, but true.
So, @classicliberal2:
It would be helpful to your position on the argument [and to this intelligent discussion] to stop being so hyper-dramatic and antagonistic in your criticism of the Tea Party. It serves only to polarize these issues that I see as really two sides of the same coin. Calling those who have a different opinion from you names [teabagger] is childish and undermines you and really only perpetuates the Fox News vs. Liberal MSM fight that is killing America.
classicliberal2 said, " because the waynefromnazes of the world have made it very clear they have absolutely no interest in even attempting reforms aimed at limiting their influence"
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------
Please do not put your words into my mouth, I don't know where you had them last...
I've made it quite clear that I do not want *anyone* having undue influence. The current system, perpetuated by this administration but by no means invented by it, continues to favor the largest corporations (donors)to the detriment of smaller competitors. "Too big too fail" is just the latest most blatant feature of this corrupt government.
It is the establishment Republicans that favors that status quo along with the establishment Dems. You would like to confuse us (TP) with the R's just like I assume you're a Dem lover since you refuse place any of the blame at the feet of the government.
PS - all the bilge about the Koch Bros. etc... just why would anyone believe it takes billionaire to have a Tea Party. We are a registered non profit at ours and our funds are raised either internally or through fund raisers. It doesn't take billionaire money any more than the OWS needs it to camp on street corners. I'll point that out to any conservative that says OWS is billionaire funded. But I'll never expect that sort of fair minded clarity from the classicliberal2's of the world.
This is one of the very few balanced analyses that I have read. Good to focus on the point, which is that we should unite on the mostly common ground instead of standard party hackery. The venn diagram implies that there is an equal partnership between corporations and government, symbiotic. It would be more accurate to say corporations have the upper hand in a manipulative and abusive relationship that government stays in because it can't get the gumption to leave. But the end result is the same, so I can accept this broad strokes analysis.
ReplyDeleteclassicliberal2 said, "When it comes to slavishly doing the bidding of these entities, you have refused to address why this is the case, acting, instead, as though it's just something that happens for no reason at all, other than government apparently has a big heart that needs a stake driven through it. The actual why, of course, is blindingly obvious to all but the most obtuse observer. Its obvious to you, as well. You're simply dancing around it so you can continue to cling to your comfortable, pre-programmed fiction, rather than deal with reality."
ReplyDelete------------------------------------
Dancing around? Then why don't you say what this thing is that is so obvious? All I read from you is blather about how I'm brainwashed and stupid. It's seem to be the only song you know. I've been called worse by better than you ;-)
Put some meat on your diatribes and tell me what the cure is. Redo "Citizen's United"? Publicly funded elections? More campaign finance reform? All three and more? Come on now, don't make me carry both sides of the argument - jump right in anytime you're ready.
Great blog entry, Mr Sinclair.
ReplyDeleteNow for that post from classicliberal2: Where are the smilies because I need that one with the guy who looks like he has a headache and the caption reads: NOT THE SHIT AGAIN. Here we have a blogger who is pointing out what people have in common and then classicliberal2 can't resist playing divide and conquer, as well being FULL OF SHIT.
The tea party movement was infiltrated and hijacked, of that there is no doubt. Not all of them, but some were reverse astro-turfed (after the fact). The movement started out 100% grass roots. I know this because I was present when the idea was first floated. One Ron Paul supporter, at the Ron Paul Forums, came up with the idea to create a website (Tea Party '07) and take pledges for a 24 hr online fundraiser to be held on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. On that same day, in 2007, Ron Paul rallies were held all over the US AND abroad. The turnout was huge. 6.2 million dollars was raised in that 24 hr online "money bomb", breaking all records for campaign fund raising, and every cent came from individual donors. This got a lot of attention from both neocons and establishment GOP who not only hated Ron Paul, but wanted to find a way to co-opt that energy for the pathetic Republican party. Democrats and progressives saw and were afraid - afraid because Ron Paul actually DOES support ending the wars, closing down foreign US bases, repealing the PATRIOT Act, restoring habeas corpus corpus, and correcting these abuses of power that threaten our freedom - all things the Democrats and progressives have never done anything other than pay lip service to (save for Kucinich who is marginalized by his party as Ron Paul is by his). It was the tea party enthusiasm that brought thousands to town hall meetings in opposition to the "health care" monstrosity. Nancy Pelosi and the other establishment thugs had no choice but to cry "astro turf" to try and discredit a genuine uprising of pissed off Americans. The only big $$$ in the initial year of the tea party movement was the money we all contributed to Ron Paul. classiccliberal2 is either woefully ignorant or just another garden variety, partisan liar with an agenda.
Now, we see the tables being turned on those who spread lies about the tea parties, as the neocon right accuses OWS of being a Soros astro turf production. I know that that the Democratic Party, various leftist/socialist/communist groups, and the big money that backs them, all want in on this new grass roots movement and to try to take control just as neocons have partially done with the tea parties. Well, I have news for classicliberal2 and the other minions like him: There are tea party people all over OWS and guess what? There is COMMON GROUND, just as James Sinclair has pointed out. Next time you see and END THE FED sign at OWS, remember where that sentiment came from - the man who wrote the book by the same name - Ron Paul.
I'll close with a final blow to all who wish to see us remain divided:
Ralph Nader Hearts Ron Paul, Hails Potential Left-Libertarian Alliance
http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/28/ralph-nader-hearts-ron-paul-ha
Thanks again, James Sinclair, for a wonderful and positive piece!
Ladies and gentlemen, we must either all hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately.
ReplyDeleteIf OWS and TP get together, THIS is our future:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly111012.htm
"it's a myth that big corporations are anti-government, right? They don't want to have to compete in a free market, they want to "compete" in an artificially restricted market."
ReplyDeleteSure. This is true by definition if corporations' number one responsibility is to make a profit. Competition drives profits down because there are many actors pushing down prices. Lack of competition allows you to set the price at whatever you want. Therefore you can sell less stuff at a higher price but make higher profits on each sale.
Note that the government is supposed to enforce rules that either prevent such monopolistic abuses or turn monopolies into utilities that are freed from the profit motive in order to serve the public above all else (the electric company, for instance).
Far too many private companies want to be "too big to fail", perpetrate monopolistic abuses, and neuter the regulation that is supposed to prevent this. This is socialization of losses and privatization of profits. It is indeed one of the things that the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street should share. But a significant part of the Tea Party believes that all government is bad, which means they are enablers of rent-seeking behaviour. Go figure.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this exact issue, and talking to Mises.org type libertarians about it, and I've decided that the Tea Party will never see eye to eye with OWS.
ReplyDeleteYes, we all agree that Big Business and Big Government are now the same thing, and that that's not a good thing.
But we totally disagree on who ate who, and what to do about it. We're pulling in opposite directions.
In the Tea Party narrative, elitist, Ivy League public-sector officials work in cahoots with an underclass eager to "vote itself benefits with other people's money" in order to choke the life out of the productive middle class. The solution is tax cuts and deregulation and drowning government.
In the OWS narrative, malefactors of wealth take control of government via lobbying and campaign contributions in order to institute "socialism for the rich". The solution is tax hikes and more and better government.
What I think is the bottom line for many, not all, TP"ers and associated groups (libertarians, objectivists, etc)is this:
ReplyDeleteWho has the guns?
Who has the power to confiscate?
Who has the power to jail?
It's the government.
And despite the "reductio absurdum" of people saying the TP wants to drown or destroy gov't (show me the anarchist TP!) the point is that the answer is certainly not MORE power residing in gov't. That is the power that is enforcing the current inequality.
Better gov't - of course everyone wants better. But you just can't install "better". Human nature (and corporate nature) will corrupt. That's why we have limited government with separated powers. That is the better government.
The Tea Parties were not "reverse astroturfed." That Ron Paul event happened in 2007; there was also an event in 2006, and pols and activists had been using "Tea Party" imagery for years before that. Connection to the Tea Party "movement" that appeared in early 2009: None.
ReplyDelete(And, contrary to a popular narrative, Ron Paul is NOT beloved of the Tea Party--in his bid for reelection last year, in fact, he faced no fewer than 4 Tea Party challengers in the primary.)
The last two Anons have it pretty much right, and it's why drawing these distinctions isn't some mean trick that pees on everyone's unity parade, but is, instead, essential to any sort of sound analysis. Under the spell of the teabagger narrative, one views any genuine reform effort with outright hostility; reformers are seen as Bolsheviks; democracy itself is held in open contempt. To the extent that teabaggers continue to hold to that narrative, they are absolutely worthless as dance-partners in any reform effort. It pretty much renders them worthless in any public policy discussion (as parts of this discussion have vividly illustrated).
Fortunately, while the hardest-core of teabaggers are virtually certain to remain as worthless as they've always been, it's not at all clear that most of those who have said they support the Tea Party (note that distinction) are so irrevocably gone. The Tea Party has had an INCREDIBLY powerful propaganda apparatus, but all it shovels is unrefined bullshit. That will, it's true, sometimes get you far. With conservatives, it will often get you very far, indeed. But most people are much more sensible; feed them b.s. long enough, they'll start to see it for what it is, and they'll sign on with something like OWS, instead. Support for OWS, after only a few weeks, is already polling at numbers far in excess of the best the Tea Party ever managed (and the Tea Party had been around for a year-and-a-half before hitting its high). This is likely to continue, because OWS, being, unlike the Tea Party, a genuine grassroots movement, is born of people's concerns and frustrations, rather than just being some astroturf project that tried to exploit those things to negative ends.
Left bubble not quite right. Replace "large corporations" with "the wealthy". They're essentially the same.
ReplyDeleteI love the comments--talk about missing the point. "My side is grassroots. The other side is clearly top down." "They're wrong because of X, but we're right". Build on commonality, people!!! Even if one side is "top down", the masses that make it up aren't. Talk to those people and find common ground.
ReplyDelete@Franklin Adams:
ReplyDeleteWell said. I'm not convinced either group is substantially more "grassroots" than the other, and, more importantly, I don't see why it matters. They're both filled with people who have things to say, and a lot of those things are worth listening to. Nothing about either movement's origin or relative popularity is going to change that.
Thank you Franklin Adams & James Sinclair.
ReplyDeleteEven if you assume that all the TP events were orchestrated by billionaires how were thousands of people coerced to go to them? It's ridiculous. The answer is that everybody is brainwashed - what an awesome argument point!
Quite frankly if I simply wanted to win an argument and not did not care to exchange ideas, Mr. Classicliberal2 is the perfect opponent! He seems to be incapable of getting past the grassroots/popularity jag. And anyone who believes as I is simply brainwashed so in his (non brainwashed) mind he is always the winner! Congrats to him!
Well, enough of that sillyness - Thank you Mr Sinclair for your thought provoking Venn.
The question of who is more "grassroots" isn't really debatable--OWS sprang from nothing and grew into something without Big Money help or even any press coverage, much less boosterism, whereas the Tea Party sprang from a coalition of corporate lobbyists, right-wing media shills, and professional astroturfers. That's no more in question than is gravity. The time spent on the nature of these two groups isn't important as some sort of pissing contest, though, James; that isn't the point at all. It's important--indeed, essential--to understanding the character of the two. You can't find any common ground without that.
ReplyDeleteYour blog begged this question. I would say this long thread that has sprang up in reply to it makes it plain why it matters. I've tried to outline this at some length. Because they follow Masters, teabaggers are sold a certain narrative, and that's all too often all they "know." That narrative intentionally negates any cooperation with something like OWS. It negates cooperation with any reform effort. To the degree that this narrative is accepted, it precludes their participation in anything constructive. This thread also offers an indication of how deeply this narrative has been accepted by some--there hasn't been a single 'bagger or pro-'bagger who has offered up anything, here, that wasn't directly fed to him by one of his Masters. That's creepy, in itself, but what makes it particularly telling (and problematic) is that these are things that have little or no basis in reality. Anti-democratic sentiments buttressed by a made-up Ben Franklin quote. Anti-redlining legislation of the Carter administration attributed to Clinton then blamed for the Bush Jr.-era financial crisis. The idea that any campaign finance or lobby reform leads to a totalitarian police state. This nonsense--all of which came from Armey, the Kochs, Beck, Limbaugh, and the other clowns who hand out the marching-orders--fills this thread.
Their origin is what makes you wrong about the Tea Party having things to say that are worth listening to. The Tea Party, as the Tea Party, has nothing of any value to offer, except, perhaps, by accident (in the sense that even a stopped clock is right twice a day). I always use as my stock example of this the health care debate. There were a million reasons to be opposed to the health care "reform" bill. I railed against it from the beginning. My objections, though, were based on what the bill actually was and what it did. The Tea Party objections were based on fantasies that it provided government funding for abortion, government funded health care to brown people with funny accents and without the right papers, established death panels to kill your granny, was socialist in nature, and so on. In short, they didn't have any legitimate objection to it at all. All they added was noise that helped preclude any real debate from breaking out.
I've also tried to outline where I think there is a chance--even a likelihood--of unity. Most people who are teabagger supporters (as opposed to teabaggers--not an insubstantial distinction) are NOT going to be as sold on this narrative as are the hardcore, nor are they going to be likely to hold on to it and keep eating the b.s. when a genuine movement born out of their genuine concerns and frustrations is out there. I think it possible and even likely they would jump on something like OWS. But not as part of the Tea Party.
Adbusters subscribers have been making demands on kickitover.org and that has led to #ows In the wider strategy, this demonstration is an early step.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, the demands are
- a 1% tax on all financial flows.
- total transparency in government affairs
- a true cost global market regime
-less corporate influence in our lives
It will grow because the power of the web to unite and educate the 99% is not yet recognised by those that share the majority of the wealth.
We shall overcome, and in time we will achieve an equality of health, education and opportunity for all souls on the planet. Corporate powers that have been abused shall be effectively police.
The only question is how many more of us will suffer and die before those in the 'developed world' recognise the injustices and act together.
classicliberal2 said:
ReplyDelete"Anti-redlining legislation of the Carter administration attributed to Clinton"
Presumably because I said:
"I remember when the Clinton administration began to enforce the red-line regs and it was predicted that it would end in a mountain of bad loans."
Notice I used the word *enforce* - now go back and look-up when these Carter era regulations were first *enforced*.
classicliberal2 ---> "ploink"
I believe that your analysis is correct. I was an active Ron Paul supporter in the last presidential election. After the election I sensed that something had gone wrong and withdrew my support for the Tea Party.
ReplyDeleteLast week I wrote a letter-to-the-editor of my local paper supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement and we the 99 percent. The editor chose not to mention OWS explicitly. On the same day a regular columnist, who regularly expresses conservative viewpoints, wrote a column saying that the issues were essentially correct, but the location of the protests were wrong. He wrote that protests should have been located in Washington, D.C.
As long as we remain divided the politicians and the corporations will remain in control. We must "come together, right now..."
Looks like Slate decided this was a good heuristic. Can't help but wish they would have mentioned you.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/features/2011/occupy_wall_street/what_is_ows_a_guide_to_the_anti_corporate_protests.html
The common demoninator between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street is opposition to bigness-and too much control by big institutions, whether it is big government or big businesses. One of the things I find most upsetting about Obama and the Democrats is that their solutions support more bigness and less freedom. Take the banks, for example, all the regulatory requirements can be handled by the big banks, but will hurt the small banks, who can't afford to compete because of all the regulations. So what will we end up with after all that regulation? Bigger corporations, less smaller innovative ones and less individual control--the exact opposite of what I think most people want.
ReplyDeleteI've been advocating this all along. In fact, I emailed a Tea Party associate (I lean liberal) to discuss why we can't move forward where we agree. Here was his response to me;
ReplyDelete"Why on earth would they come together when they are such opposites? One group calls for economic and social justice, the other calls for freedom. One asks for smaller government and more personal responsibilty, the other demands government interference and redistribution of wealth. One blames Wall Street, Jews, conservatives, global warming, corporations, the wealthy, corporations, capitalism, empire, greed, corporations, Zionists, entrepreneurs, the successful, drug companies, the richest one percent, and corporations for all the world's ills. The other doesn't.
One leads peaceful demonstrations and leaves behind no trace. The other is an unruly mob, arrested in the hundreds, crapping on police cars, and leaving garbage and the smell of weed everywhere.
Capitalism may not be flawless, but we'll probably never know here in America since the free market is not really free. Government interference has created most of our nation's problems - from rising health care costs to the housing collapse and subsequent economic crisis."
I tried, but they're determined to see us in a negative light, and vice versa. For what it's worth, I advocated a similar view when the Tea Party movement began. We're all just so easily manipulated by media and bias.
http://www.breakingbrown.com
The reason this accurate analysis cannot be usefully acted upon is that most supporters of Occupy Wall Street want to use the government - use its power differently - to diminish the power of Wall Street. The anti-federalist Tea Parties want to address the problem by diminishing the power of government. There will never be any significant overlap in the solutions they support: http://sadredearth.com/the-differences-between-occupy-wall-street-the-tea-parties-made-easy/
ReplyDelete"The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together".
ReplyDeleteI believe that is what's known as Fascism.
"The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together"
ReplyDeleteThe phrase you're reaching for is 'corporate fascism.'
Excellent comment, thanks.
ReplyDeleteMost of Tea Party has the very similar purpose as the OccupyWS even though some are intentionally divide the two groups.
The 2009 Washington Tea Party had the similar purpose as the OccupyWS -- THE VERY BASIC NEEDS OF AMERICANS AND LOVE FOR OUR COUNTRY.
Your diagram is perfect.
The major difference, so far, seems to be that Tea Party is manipulated by "Political funds" and has ties to "Lobbying" while "OccupyWS" claims that they don't want to be tied to any political group.
We ALL need to join our forces and should not be falling into the "Division" -- which is the main tactic of the Greed of 1% -- the 1913 Fed Corp.
Thanks for your comment.
Exactly, that is what has happened since 1913 in this country. The Fed Corporation ( The Fed Reserve) started to bribe our government officials who have deceived Americans.
ReplyDeleteThat is how the few now has 10000 trillions using financial markets.
Compared to the astonishing amount, the corporate Exc salary is still peanuts; however, it is becoming harder on people because a few is getting billions and trillions out of the people -- tax free -- more people falling into Poverty.
~~~
The phrase you're reaching for is 'corporate fascism.'
~~~
Also,
ReplyDeleteTEA PARTY + "END THE FED"
Reading the thread for the better part of an hour until my eyes grew weary, not to mention a grinding pain developing within the upper-right quadrant of my head, has been something of a lesson in contemporary American eco-political history. And it is infinitely better for me to be more fully informed about these issues than it is to simply have a knee-jerk reaction of pure emotionalism to what I see and read in the editorially filtered media that obscures any possible clear horizon that actually may lie ahead for all of us. Therefore, if it is not already plainly obvious, I speak plainly as a layman, neither a representative of OWS, nor of the Tea Party. I don' speak for Joe the Plumber, but just for myself, Joe Schmoe.
ReplyDeleteWhat is confusing me most about so much of the gist, in general, of Tea Party rhetoric -- one of the latest posts here I can quote is from the sad red earth: "The anti-federalist Tea Parties want to address the problem by diminishing the power of government" -- is the central focus of high-profile TP spokespeople (whether they be "genuine" TP or GOP hijackers capitalizing on mass media's fascination with the movement) on attaining the power of government. In other words, they're politicians. They're not idealists. They're not visionaries. They're just politicians: meet the new boss, same as the old boss. They're probably not even very good community leaders, especially on a national level, and the reason for that is their very rejection of "Big Government" itself. By oversimplifying the vast complexity of what it takes to provide a country populated by hundreds of millions with what it needs to function in the 21st Century -- locally, nationally, and globally -- they reduce our vitality to that of a microscope's view of a hugely diverse economy and culture. Does the reach of government need to be pulled back in? Is there a crucial need for greater fiscal management with an enormous reduction in spending? Absolutely! But to adopt a blanket philosophical policy maintaining government as being something that is inherently evil (for lack of a better or more accurate way of expressing it that actually represents the Tea Party's party line) results in fear, mass hysteria, and utter hypocrisy on the part of those who do so while seeking elected office.
If it were not for the fact -- yes, FACT -- that politicians and mouthpieces at-large that claim to be speaking on behalf of the Tea Party condemn those of who constitute the progressive (read: The L Word-LIBERAL) faction of the socio-political landscape, I would, in the interest of truly being "fair and balanced," submit some kind of intellectual argument to deconstruct at least part of what OWS is, does, or otherwise represents. But I don't want to. I love OWS. And if you don't grasp what it is that we who support it see as being incontrovertibly, 100 per cent right about its intent, there is not a single word I could post here that would make you get behind it, too, hence the constant he-said/she-said from both sides about The Movement. I'm sure that it isn't beyond reproach, and for those who want to criticize it, reject it, and/or rip it a new one, be my guest. You're quite free to do so, but I will say this: the freedom to speak about all of these issues is at stake here as much as anything. And now maybe I'm the one who's doing the oversimplifying. But then again, what do I know? I'm just Joe Schmoe.
The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible for both sides to agree that a government bought and paid for by the corporations is hardly the best entity to provide oversight of those same corporations?
Two things are immediately obvious: The first is that corporations are incapable of self-regulation and the second is that politicians are incapable of working toward the common good when their financial interests are involved, which is most of the time. The power each one possesses on its own is immense, but when combined the financial sector clearly has the edge, as we witnessed when the government caved so easily on the bailouts. This essentially leaves us with a government that is helpless to protect anyone's rights and a financial sector that's free to walk all over everyone's rights.
Arguing over this regulation or that law, or this politician over that politician is self-defeating and won't solve the problem. As long as the government is held captive to the financial sector, anything that we the people demand will be ignored, no matter how many times we hold elections and replace the politicians.
Money, like religion, should have no place in the public sector as it is incapable of acting neutrally when it is involved.
I never heard of this blog till I saw it today in the Atlantic...For some reason, we are on the same wavelength. This is the article I wrote yesterday.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.letstalkaboutit.info/2011/10/its-not-liberal-tea-party.html
Thanks for your writing...
I agree w/ Franklin Adams and all those here who call for us to find common ground.
ReplyDeleteNow, what can we do with that common ground? What kind of policy changes could both OWS and the Tea Party get behind?
Very well said! Bravo, sir! It's unfortunate to read the comments of the folks who read your post but didn't understand your message - those who are obviously stuck in the political polarity paradigm.
ReplyDelete1) classicliberal2 -- If you're outside of the Tea Party, how can you know who was there, when it started, and what the true drive of the group is? (not that anyone who claims there is only one driver for the Tea Party could ever be correct) The Tea Party is amorphous, difficult to define, and many of the people there are present for different reasons.
ReplyDelete2) Anonymous about contacting a Tea Party associate:
When I was investigating OccupyWallStreet, I went to their web site. They have stated very clearly that an increase in Government power for the purpose of redistributing the wealth of the 1% is what they seek. If that is an inaccurate representation of the aims of OWS, then maybe there can be common ground, but unfortunately that's a pretty significant divide.
The good news is that James' post is evidence that there is hope.
Suggested reading for everyone:
From a modern American liberal perspective -- The Wrecking Crew
http://www.amazon.com/Wrecking-Crew-How-Conservatives-Rule/dp/0805079882/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318705623&sr=8-1
From an Austrian Economics perspective -- The Road to Serfdom
http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents---Definitive-Collected/dp/0226320553/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318705695&sr=1-1
These two pieces of work I think can help people connect the dots on what happens when well intentioned people increase the power of the central government. When there is a concentration of power, it is inevitable that evil people will come and usurp that power for their own gain.
There are evil people in both major parties, so you can't just tell the good guys from what letter is next to their name on the ballot.
Fight for your freedoms, fight for the freedom of your neighbors, and always seek to increase your understanding of the situation.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs, is to be ruled by evil men." -- Plato
As Herman Cain says, you gotta make sure you're working on the "right problem". The question is, do the OWS even understand what they are protesting? Notice:
ReplyDeleteProblem With Wall Street, Not Capitalism
Quick point; note that every single example of corporate malfeasance James cited are examples of how they manipulate *governmemt* to get what they want. Without a "bribable" government, corporations lose the biggest tool by far that they have. More government power, for whatever purpose, *will* be manipulated just like it always has. Look at history before suggesting solutions
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the OWS movement is their demands. Forgiveness of debt, living wages, and more big government to cure big government. The movement is sloppy intellectually.
ReplyDeleteThey also are being organized by the far left. The far left remedy for our problems slants to totalitarianism.
The Tea Party was a grass roots movement. And you rightfully point out that the Tea Party has some elements of OWS, which is why they haven't run into the streets to oppose them.
@Doug: "Without a 'bribable' government, corporations lose the biggest tool by far that they have. More government power, for whatever purpose, *will* be manipulated just like it always has."
ReplyDelete...so all you have to do is find a magic spell that will prevent government from being bribable, now or ever again, and the problem will be solved.
Aren't teabagger analyses and solutions just SO useful in the real world?
Spot on. I hope those who agree take time to read this:
ReplyDeleteIt is with these acknowledgments of the core values of democracy and of the love of the ideal of the United States of America that it must be proposed that the only step to restoring the full liberties of the individual is to declare via Constitutional Amendment:
1. A natural person is a living human, and the Constitution only provides protection of rights for natural persons.
2. Corporations are prohibited from participating in the political process, including via campaign contribution or attempting to influence any legislative body outside of direct communication between corporate officers and political bodies.
“….this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”
http://www.the99amendment.com/
@Jeremy D. Young
ReplyDeleteRead Bruce Bartlett's Forbes column, The Europeanization Of America which discusses that while the Hayek of 1944 made sense it no longer does so today:
If Hayek were even remotely correct, all of Europe would be one huge gulag by this time. At the very least, Europe would be mired in poverty, growth nonexistent and freedom hanging on by the thinnest of threads.
Of course, that is not the case at all. According to Freedom House, virtually every country in Europe has just as much political freedom as we do. Even organizations like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, which seem to think that the tax burden is the single most important measure of freedom, concede that many European countries with tax burdens that would be considered confiscatory by all conservatives and probably most Americans are in fact just about as free as we are.
Actually, "An open letter and warning from a former tea party movement adherent to the Occupy Wall Street movement." is not anonymous. I wrote it.
ReplyDeleteI thank you for the kind words.
Hi James,
ReplyDeleteI came across your post via "The Atlantic" (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/a-very-simple-venn-diagram-of-where-the-tea-party-and-occupy-wall-street-agree/246687/). I liked it a lot and I shared it via my Facebook profile and some of my friends commented that they enjoyed it. A bit later, I was on Quora.com and someone asked exactly the question you were answering: http://www.quora.com/What-grievances-do-the-Tea-Party-and-the-Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters-have-in-common
Having just shared your great Venn diagram via Facebook, and via the Atlantic article, I decided to do the same on Quora. I included a link to the Atlantic article so that Quora users could work their way back to your blog. People have really liked the Venn diagram there too. My feeling was that this was sufficient attribution and wouldn't violate copyright via fair use.
However, another Quora user has complained that I violated your copyright by doing this. http://www.quora.com/What-grievances-do-the-Tea-Party-and-the-Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters-have-in-common/answer/Stephen-Larson/comment/570282
I wanted to get your comment. Would you like me to a) take down your image, b) change the attribution in some way, c) its OK as it is now. Thanks again for the great post and I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way here!
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
ReplyDeleteP. J. O'Rourke
@Reverend Vas Littlecrow Wojtanowicz:
ReplyDeleteAh, thanks. (I see an earlier commenter also suggested you were the author, and somehow I missed it.) I'll add your name and (unless you object) a link to your site.
@Stephen D. Larson:
Since you asked, my preference is for your Quora post to link to my blog (then again, my preference would be for everything on the Internet to link to my blog, so of course that's going to be my answer). But if I had come across your post on my own, I wouldn't have complained about it, nor will I complain if you decide to leave it as it is. As you said, it's easy enough for people to find the source if they care to.
That said, I'm not an expert in copyright law, so I won't even try to speculate on whether I could make a claim if I wanted to. But thanks for asking, and thanks for sharing the diagram.
wow, these comments are entertaining.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a participant in tea party activity, but I generally support their perspective.
Please remember that the constitution was designed to limit federal power. Not all government, just federal power. I'd say 90% of what the federal government does today is not assigned to them in the constitution. Anything not specifically assigned in the constitution is to be handled by the individual states.
So, let's stop both parties from using the tax code and legislation to promote their social agendas. After years of forcing banks to make loans to poor people, did we think it would end well?
We should be teaching everyone to be debt free. Individuals and government need to be debt free. Instead, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have created a new class of slaves. That's bad whether it was done by business or by government.
@classicliberal2: It's no mystery. A smaller federal government, with less power to give over to corporations, would do more than any new package of laws that would a) give the government *more* power and b) allow corporations to continue to bribe their way to unequal application of those new laws.
ReplyDeleteThat's the irony of the OWS folks. Corporations wield power with government as their cudgel, and their solution is to make the cudgel bigger. Really?
@ Anonymous OCTOBER 17, 2011 12:03 PM - Please remember that the constitution was designed to limit federal power. Not all government, just federal power.
ReplyDeleteActually, it was the Constitution before the current one, known as the Articles of Confederation, that restricted the powers of the Federal government. Had that been a useful Constitution, it would probably still be in use today. The current Constitution was designed precisely to give the central government more power.
@Doug - The cudgel is campaign money - lots of it.
Great post and it does point up the dangers that big business in cahoots with big government has brought us all, right and left, young and old. Except, that if the less government argument of the Tea party were to prevail we will all be better off. Business is a very simple organism, like the way Richard Dreyfuss described a shark in the movie Jaws. Business just wants to gain the best possible advantage, fairly or unfairly, sell lots of stuff, make profits. Btw when they do many of us benefit as employees and shareholders. If we were to truly stem the role of government, business would be "cut off" and have to fend for themselves. I would posit that big business has just adapted to their surroundings over the past thirty years. If government is going to play such a huge role in commerce, then only a fool stays away on principle.
ReplyDelete@Carole: Campaign money, sitting in the bank, does absolutely nothing. Having money does not influence much. Giving that money to people in power does.
ReplyDeleteThe more we centralize that power, the more DC is a one-stop-shop for political and economic favors. It is DC that wields the power; the corporations just buy it. Reduce the power, spread out much of it to the 50 states, and corporations have a tougher time bribing.
I'm not saying it'll eliminate the problem; humans are still humans, after all. But it's a better solution that giving more power to DC, which is, in turn, bought by campaign money.
The money buys influence, but if there is no influence, the money buys nothing. If the influence is lessened, the money buys little. The money is most certainly not the problem. Governmental power is
Both factions are observing the different effects of the same root cause: fiat money.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx16a72j__8
Somebody else said,
ReplyDelete“The protesters”, he said, “are protesting because Wall Street was bailed out. The Tea party protests because Washington bailed out Wall Street.” It’s the difference between understanding and not understanding the source of the problem.
Here's a great article by Erick Erickson, big Tea Party guy and co-founder of Redstate.com, about how he want to find common ground with OWS.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. And sort of true. Except to me there's the irreconcilable "all citizens should hold some responsibility for the well-being of all citizens" vs "all citizens should be free from responsibility for anyone but themselves."
ReplyDelete@Doug: "The more we centralize that power, the more DC is a one-stop-shop for political and economic favors. It is DC that wields the power; the corporations just buy it."
ReplyDeleteThe same utterly useless, totally ass-backwards, Alice-In-Wonderland "analysis" as before. In the real world, of course, government ends up dishing out "political and economic favors" because those with all the money want it that way, and can purchase it. If Big Oil doesn't want to pay taxes and has the money and power to buy the government, Big Oil will not pay taxes, and abstract philosophical discussions about "centralizing power" will not enter into that process. There's no "we" in the equation, either, and to put the matter bluntly, you and everyone else who have bought this line of manure you're trying to sell are nothing more than tools of those who want to keep that corrupt system running. The public has available as a counter to that system only democracy, and it will either use democracy to proactively resist the influence of those wealthy interests or those interests WILL run the show.
@classicliberal2: You quoted me...
ReplyDelete@Doug: "The more we centralize that power, the more DC is a one-stop-shop for political and economic favors. It is DC that wields the power; the corporations just buy it."
And then replied:
"The same utterly useless, totally ass-backwards, Alice-In-Wonderland "analysis" as before. In the real world, of course, government ends up dishing out "political and economic favors" because those with all the money want it that way, and can purchase it."
What's amazing to me is that, in a blog post about agreement, you can't even understand that you just agreed with me. You insulted what I said, and then said exactly the same thing.
Dishing out political and economic favors is the power in question. Government owns it, just like you said. Corporations just buy it, just like you said. If it's not there to buy, it won't be.
Glad we can agree on something.
"Powerful-but-nebulous entities?" Really? I think the US government (Congress in particular) ISN'T a "nebulous entity".
ReplyDeleteThe difference between Occupy and the Tea Party is vast. And to quote Keith Olbermann or Think Progress? Is that objective? Occupy is funded by George Soros, and supported by CPUSA, but yet the useful idiots on the street believe they are protesting Wall Street and "corporations"? How naive.
Your Venn diagram is an oversimplification of each "movement's" agenda. The real problem is greater than Republicans versus Democrats, and doesn't have to do with large corporations per se. It's a game about power and influence, for sure, but on a much more complex scale than most realize.
The Occupy movement chants about some Marxist version of "fairness", and is funded and supported by the same people who want more government control - you know, those "community organizers" who have a better handle on how to do things than we (the unwashed masses) do. The Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility, liberty and limited government ala the Founding Fathers. There is a VAST difference between the two points of view.
If you (an attorney) can't see there is a distinct difference between the agendas of each respective group, then certainly the nation our Founders envisioned is doomed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom earlier;
ReplyDeletewaynefromnaz said...
Somebody else said,
[“The protesters”, he said, “are protesting because Wall Street was bailed out. The Tea party protests because Washington bailed out Wall Street.” It’s the difference between understanding and not understanding the source of the problem.]
Actually, no. Wall St. got bailed out because they are a protected group. And they're protected because they bankroll our elected officials at a rate higher than nearly any other sector. So, I think those at OWS are pretty keen on the problem.
@Doug: The best one can say for your last is that at least you confirmed that what I wrote went so far over your head that it achieved orbit. That was sort of my point in the first place, so I'll leave it at that.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant, brilliant, brilliant. You said what was elegantly what has been bouncing around in my head for a while now. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteGreat. Stuff.
ReplyDelete@spatter:
ReplyDelete"Actually, no. Wall St. got bailed out because they are a protected group. And they're protected because they bankroll our elected officials at a rate higher than nearly any other sector. So, I think those at OWS are pretty keen on the problem. "
So let's clarify this statement, additional bold text mine.
"Actually, no. Wall St. got bailed out by the government because they are a protected group , protected by the government. And they're protected by the government because they bankroll our elected officials (i.e. the government) at a rate higher than nearly any other sector. So, I think those at OWS are pretty keen on the problem, Wall Street."
Do you see the disconnect here? Government has the power (to protect a group and do it favors). Wall St buys it. Since humans are susceptible to bribery, is the problem the money, or is it the power being bought?
If the drug weren't available, the junkies couldn't buy it.
Other things the movements have in common: 1)Neither movement offers much in the way of workable policies that would actually address the problems they complain about 2) Both movements are actually a hodge-podge of groups with dissimilar interests who just share disdain with a particular power structure. 3) Both movements seem to have moved away from their original purpose and are funded by wealthy power players themselves.
ReplyDelete@Doug, again, no. (But this is what happens when folk oversimplify arguments).
ReplyDeleteYou said;
"Do you see the disconnect here? Government has the power (to protect a group and do it favors). Wall St buys it. Since humans are susceptible to bribery, is the problem the money, or is it the power being bought?
If the drug weren't available, the junkies couldn't buy it."
Here's what you don't understand; A politician's power is determined by his ability to get re-elected (not his title). No fat campaign fund? No re-election.
The bus boycott worked so well during the Civil Rights movement because activists went after the money. If you don't go after the money, you're just shadowboxing. You can "throw the bumbs" out every two, four, or six years but they'll only be replaced by new bumbs until you go to the source.
@ spatter - You can "throw the bumbs" out every two, four, or six years but they'll only be replaced by new bumbs until you go to the source.
ReplyDeleteWell said. A smaller government that can be bought is just a smaller bought government. Even if the power is decentralized to the states, the money will follow the power to the states. See below.
@Doug - Look at the top 5 recipients of corporate federal tax breaks, Chevron, Bank of America, ExxonMobil, GE and Boeing. Collectively, they give $78.7M to the states and only $45.3M to the feds.
Money and power are like air. They're always going to be a part of any political system. It's more a question of separating them as much as possible, rather than trying to reduce just one of them.
Spatter:
"If you don't go after the money, you're just shadowboxing."
What do you mean by "go after the money"? Tax it away from them at confiscatory rates? That throws both those who use their money responsibly in with those who don't, giving the federal government even more money to misuse on their donors or spend on pork barrel projects. Limit campaign contributions? Been there, done that, people get around it.
The solution is to limit the damage the government can do while keeping essential protections, and distribut