Bringing America Together, One Venn Diagram at a Time

Last Monday I posted an article expressing my view that Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are, in many ways, “raging against different halves of the same machine,” and I threw in a crude Venn diagram to illustrate my point. By Friday, the article had brought more traffic to this blog than my entire previous output combined, and the diagram had appeared on sites as prominent and ideologically disparate as The Cato Institute, Reason, The American Conservative, ThinkProgress, JoeMyGod, The Daily Beast, Time, and The Atlantic.^[1]

Needless to say, this was a somewhat stronger response than I expected.^[2] Almost as surprising is how overwhelmingly positive the reaction has been. I thought I was saying something controversial—something many would consider downright heretical—but instead I was met with near-universal agreement.^[3] And the criticism hasn’t even been all that critical. Many have pointed out that the diagram fails to account for some key point or another, which is perfectly fair, and I acknowledged as much in the article, but few have objected to its underlying premise.

What, then, can be taken away from all this feel-goodery? Whatever you want to take away from it, I suppose (and I’m interested to hear some other opinions), but I think it’s safe to assume the diagram resonated so well because of its simplicity, not in spite of it—and with simplicity comes a certain toothlessness. In this case, the message could be expressed in simple terms because it dealt only with identifying problems, but once you start talking about solutions, ideological differences come into play and things get complicated.

If that sounds cynical, it’s…well, because it is, but it actually represents a step up for me. I started this blog, in part, because I feel like the ubiquitous left/right, liberal/conservative dichotomy has just about destroyed our ability to even agree on problems, much less solutions. There’s this tendency to associate every viewpoint with one side or the other, which is tolerable enough if it’s something like “we should reduce taxes on high-income earners” or “the financial industry should be more heavily regulated”, but it's distracting and counter-productive when the dispute is centered around contrasting interpretations of reality.

I watched this happen with the Tea Party. The Tea Party has, in many ways, become a conservative movement (and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party), but there’s no good reason for the cause of rebelling against government excess and inefficiency not to appeal to everyone—libertarian, conservative, liberal, or miscellaneous. The frustration I expressed last week arose from the seeming inevitability of OWS lapsing into a similar affiliation with liberalism and the Democratic Party, and from my sense that I couldn't declare my support for and identification with the OWS movement without being branded a socialist (which I’m not—no offense, socialists).

But what I saw instead was a refudiation ^[4] of the idea that there’s something inherently “liberal” about acknowledging the role of the private sector in our current troubles, because of course there isn’t—no more than there’s anything inherently “conservative” about acknowledging the role of the government. And now I’m at least hopeful that the OWS/liberalism/Democratic Party alignment is not as inevitable as I thought—and hey, maybe there’s still hope for the Tea Party to turn it around, too.

So that’s what I’m taking away from the popularity of the Venn diagram. We’ll always have trouble agreeing on the best solution, but the crucial first step is agreeing on what the problem is, which at least gets us to the point where we can meaningfully and constructively disagree. Looks like I'm not the only one who's tired of bypassing that step.

1. I don’t want this to sound like an awards show speech, but seriously, thanks to Jeffrey Ellis and Steve Horwitz for getting the ball rolling. Thanks to everyone who commented on my article, everyone who shared the link or the diagram on Facebook or Twitter or wherever else… [“wrap it up” music starts playing] …my long-time readers for all the support and encouragement, um…thanks to JoeMyGod for showing me there's nothing wrong with having a blog with an awkward name and “blogspot” in the URL. [music getting louder] Ok, they're telling me to wrap it up. If I forgot anyone, sorry!

2. And, as the title of this post indicates, I've already let it go to my head. This is a good thing, because bitterness makes me funny, so I should be in rare form after I fall back down to Earth, which I assume will be any day now.

3. As the week went on the story sort of morphed from “OWS and the Tea Party have too many similarities to be so antagonistic” to “Could Occupy Wall St. and the Tea Party Unite?”, which is the title of this post on Time's Curious Capitalist blog. I might come up with more to say about that in the near future, but, for now, I just want to say that for all the enjoyment I've gotten out of watching the media overreact to things over the years, it makes me proud that, just this once, I was one of the causes of the overreaction.

4. What? It’s a perfectly cromulent word.

Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party

If I may dig up one of my all-time favorite Onion articles:

79 Percent Of Americans Missing The Point Entirely
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. . . .

I'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.

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".

So it goes. It's hard to be honest and fair. It's easy to cobble together some empty rhetoric and lob it in the direction of those most inclined to assume the best about their friends and the worst about their enemies.^[2]

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.

Obama Voters

I love this Neal Boortz rant, posted shortly after healthcare reform passed. An excerpt:

People knew what they were getting themselves into. The fact is that they really didn't give a flying flip. All they cared about what that [Obama] was "cool" and had a "hot bod" and, for some, because of the color of his skin. If you asked the average Obama supporter what his position was on healthcare, I bet you dollars to doughnuts that they could not tell you.

I'm not sure how the voters "knew what they were getting themselves into" while simultaneously being unaware of Obama's positions, but whatever. Boortz also throws out the always popular:

You wanted "change" but you couldn't tell me what he wanted to "change."

I don't want to discount the possibility that he's being (somewhat) facetious here,^[1] but there's a pretty strong sense that Boortz is unwilling to even entertain the idea that some people who vote Democrat do, in fact, know what they're getting into. Well, of course they do. I know a lot of them. In the latte-sipping, hybrid-driving, elitist circles I associate with, Obama's positions on healthcare reform were, and still are, a common subject of discussion among supporters and opponents alike.

If that was a surprise, then this will require a firm grasp on one's socks, lest they be knocked right off one's feet. Virtually all of the Obama supporters I know are happy that healthcare reform passed. Granted, there are probably a handful who returned to their caves shortly after Election Day and will not find out about it until sometime in the future when they're hauled in front of a death panel, but shockingly few—zero, even—reacted to the news by taking to the streets, screaming "Oh God, what have we done? This monster of our own creation will surely destroy us all!"

So, to the extent Boortz intends this to be taken seriously, one of two inferences can be drawn:

1. He thinks Obama voters are too dumb to process information and reach rational, informed decisions.
2. He thinks voting for Obama, in and of itself, is proof of an inability to process information and reach rational, informed decisions.

Either way, as far as Boortz is concerned, Obama voters bring nothing to the table. No worthwhile ideas, interesting perspectives, or even a basic level of political engagement. This despite the fact that it is not uncommon for Boortz to concede that Obama is right about some issue or another (typically accompanied by something condescending like "guess what? I actually agree with him!," "Holy cow! I agree with Obama on this one!," or "Well said, Mr. President. Wait! Did I just say 'Mr. President?'").

Boortz is hardly alone. Way too many opinionated people—conservative, libertarian, liberal, or miscellaneous—have no respect for the opposition. But what's the point of having an opinion if you don't challenge it on a regular basis?^[2]

1. Boortz makes no secret of the fact that he enjoys offending people, and I have no complaint with that. Well, one complaint. He keeps the line between intentionally offensive content and earnest statements of opinion as blurred as possible, in an attempt to have it both ways. If someone takes offense, he ridicules the metaphorical thinness of their skin; if someone agrees with the sentiment, he's happy to have them on board. It's a lazy, dishonest tactic, and I fully intend to use it as well, should the situation arise.

2. Does that make me weak-minded and indecisive? I don't know. I don't think I am, but I suppose it's possible.

Defending the Opponent

This project is meant to raise a number of questions. Among the more obvious: Why do I feel compelled to defend supporters of political views with which I disagree? I'm sure part of it is that I'm a contrarian by nature, but here are some better reasons:

They aren't always wrong.
Call me idealistic, but I choose not to live in a reality where one of the two major political movements consists entirely of people who are insane and/or deluded. And call me cynical (or, you know, moderately observant), but I can't get behind the inverse—that the other movement consists entirely of the righteous and rational—either.

Even if they are wrong, there sure are a lot of them.
Seriously. 69.5 million people voted for Obama in 2008. If they were to all lie down end to end along the equator they would circle the Earth almost three full times,^[1] though millions would surely drown.

It's a thousand times easier to change someone's mind if you respect their point of view.
Consider this exchange that just happened in my head:
Liberal: Corporations are destroying the environment and wiping out endangered species! They must be stopped!
Conservative: You fool, corporations are the backbone of our economy. Besides, nobody's going to miss some stupid fly.
Liberal: How can you say that? Tons of plant and animal species make important contributions to the planet, from playing vital roles in maintaining stable ecosystems to helping us fight and cure diseases. Every time we let a species go extinct, we hurt ourselves as well.
Conservative: Yeah, yeah, let me know when that fly cures cancer. Meanwhile, I'll be driving around in my Hummer eating Big Macs and tossing the wrappers out the window.

Now, here's a similar conversation from the part of my head that exists in some bizarro universe where people respect opposing points of view:
Liberal: Corporations are destroying the environment and wiping out endangered species! They must be stopped!
Conservative: Hm...protection of endangered species is certainly an important objective, but I'm not sure that government regulation is the best way to achieve it.
Liberal: That's intriguingly counter-intuitive. What do you mean?
Conservative: Well, I'm sure you'd agree that even the most well-intentioned regulations are never perfect. Since the government can't just enact a law that says "don't harm endangered species" and leave it at that, it has to create a black-and-white set of rules supposedly designed with that goal in mind. But there's hardly a scientific consensus on how best to protect endangered species, and even if there was, no two sets of circumstances are the same.
Liberal: Ok, that makes sense. But imperfect regulation is still better than no regulation at all.
Conservative: Not necessarily. There are a number of ways regulation could have a detrimental effect...

And so on. You get the point.

They identify legitimate problems that need to be addressed.
Above all else, this is what I want whoever stumbles across the blog to come away convinced of. As an illustration, take the following opinions:
-The government should provide a public option for those who cannot afford health insurance.
-Additional regulation is needed to combat fraud in the financial industry.
-Federal legislation is necessary to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I think it's safe to say most conservatives would not agree with any of those statements. It's also safe to say most conservatives wouldn't go to the trouble of breaking the statements down and constructing a table, but that's just one of many ways I'm unlike most conservatives.

Problem	Proposed solution
Millions of Americans do not have health insurance	Government intervention
Legally- and ethically-questionable practices in the financial industry have had wide-ranging harmful effects on the economy	Government intervention
Many gay people believe they are susceptible to discrimination due to their sexual orientation	Government intervention

HTML Tables

Now, place a strip of non-transparent tape on your computer screen (or use your hand—whatever), covering up the right half of the table. Just like that, the Marxist liberal nonsense has disappeared. What remains is a short list of things some unknown amount of Americans—myself very much included—find worrisome, untainted by rhetoric about how the problems should be addressed, if at all.

If nothing else, this is what liberals contribute. Since they take a more egalitarian approach to distribution of wealth, they are the first to identify whichever basic needs the lower classes can't afford. Since they feel no deep-seated allegiance to free market economics, they are the first to complain when the market shows signs of criminal activity. And since they have no ideological objection to group-based classifications, they are the first to notice that certain people are being mistreated by society for reasons beyond their control. Sure, they'll get upset about non-issues on occasion (as if conservatives don't), but only the most close-minded, spiteful conservative (I'm looking at you, Hannity) could have the audacity to insist that liberals never identify a genuine problem.

Moving on, once a problem has been asserted, the opposition has several possible responses:
1. Acknowledge the problem and agree with the proposed solution.
2. Acknowledge the problem, but argue that a different approach (and not necessarily one that involves any governmental use of force) would have more short-term effectiveness, or would be better for the long-term interests of society, or both.
3. Concede that the underlying presumptions are valid, but argue that there is not actually a problem, and therefore no action should be taken.
4. Refuse to discuss the issue altogether, instead ridiculing those who raised it.

I'm sure #1 happens from time to time, but only if the problem and proposed solution are along the lines of "men who beat up pregnant women should be removed from society and harshly punished" (oh, wait—maybe not). Of course, #2 is what I'd like to see more of. As an avid observer of popular political discourse, however, all I see are #3 and #4, playing out over and over.^[2]

This is what I want to say to conservatives when they get on their soapbox to complain about the government intruding in their lives: You were told about the problem and you were given plenty of time to discuss alternate solutions, but you chose instead to deny it and ridicule those who brought it up. It is baffling to me that you would then expect lawmakers, whose jobs depend on keeping the people happy, to take your side. Lawmakers are going to take the side of the people who want them to do something, so your best chance is to convince those people that enacting a law is not in their best interests. Shockingly enough, "screw you, I don't care about your problem" doesn't seem to be all that persuasive.

1. I had to do the math myself because I couldn't find a website that does the conversions for you, but I also didn't try very hard. Is there such a site? If not, there should be.

2. To be clear, this is an issue, like most of what I intend to cover on this site, that goes both ways. But I'm sure there's a would-be liberal out there somewhere with a blog about everything liberals are doing wrong, so I'll leave it to him or her to cover the other side. That said, I do think that the nature of liberals and conservatives is such that the former is more likely to voice a complaint and the latter is more likely to dismiss it as baseless.