Wall Street Protestors: Do they lack a clear message?

[JohnB]

Is it just the view from afar or do the "Occupy" people and the "Tea Party" seem to have a fair few things in common? (Ignoring the extremists of course)

 

Both seem to be against large bailouts, too large government, lack of response to the people by the political partys. They both appear to see the same things wrong with the system but are simply describing the problems in the appropriate left or right wing vernacular.

 

Could be interesting if the two groups decide to fight side by side on the things they agree on.

[Phi for All]

Is it just the view from afar or do the "Occupy" people and the "Tea Party" seem to have a fair few things in common? (Ignoring the extremists of course)

 

Both seem to be against large bailouts, too large government, lack of response to the people by the political partys. They both appear to see the same things wrong with the system but are simply describing the problems in the appropriate left or right wing vernacular.

 

Could be interesting if the two groups decide to fight side by side on the things they agree on.

I was struck by that early on, and thought it was a hopeful sign, but I think the Tea Party has been compromised on the tax issue by corporations looking to save a few percent anywhere they can find it. I think they do agree on many areas, but their priorities tend to conflict.

 

The OWS objects heavily to relaxed regulations that have allowed corporations to become too involved in the political process that mandates those regulations. They feel this "corporate personhood" has caused the lack of response to the people by the political parties. The Tea Party, on the other hand, feels the people are best served when the markets are allowed to do as they wish:

 

From the Tea Party Movement Platform:

 

8. Believe in the People - The American people, given their guaranteed freedoms, will thrive in a democratic, capitalist environment which allows individuals to strive toward ever greater achievements, innovations and the efficient production of needed and valued goods and services.

 

Really?! You can't mention "Believing in the People" without making it known you're referring to their work? It seems clear they think the people are only valuable as part of the production of goods and services.

 

The one point where the Tea Party and OWS seem to agree is on lobbying:

 

9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics - American politics is burdened by big money from lobbyists and special interests with an undue influence on the peoples’ representatives. The Tea Party movement is seen as a threat to the entrenched political parties and thus is the continual target of smear campaigns and misrepresentation of its ideals. We choose not to respond to these attacks except to strongly and explicitly disavow any and all hate speech, any and all violence as well as insinuations of violence, and any and all extreme and fringe elements that bring discredit to the Tea Party Movement. We are a peaceful movement and respect other's opinions and views even though they do not agree with our own. We stand by the Tea Party beliefs and goals and choose to focus our energies on ensuring that our government representatives do the same.

This is their longest platform point. The rest are short, concise statements. This one states in the first sentence that politicians are burdened with undue influence from lobbyists, then proceeds to ramble on about how the Tea Party is attacked by both parties and isn't a hate group and how focused they are on their goals. I don't see them being attacked by the Republicans (in fact, many Republican candidates are contorting their own stances to agree with the movement); I do see them being funded by lobbyist groups like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.

[JohnB]

I see point 8 differently. Rather than referring to their work, it refers to their opportunities. Both sides strike me as basically saying "The rules are slanted to favour the big corps and this is stifling the little guy who wants to get ahead." They're just saying it in their own different ways.

 

To the OWS guys it's "oppression" of the majority, whereas to the TP the rules hold the little guy down and support the big guys. They might see some of the answers somewhat differently but they both see the initial problem as the same. "The rules are set up to favour the big corps and not the majority of people."

 

Similarly it seems both sides see a problem in the lack of corporate responsibility, it's their answer that differs. OWS would increase corp responsibility by increasing the legal framework and make companies responsible to the Law. TP would do it by dumping bailouts and making companies responsible to the market. One answer is "If you stuff up you go to jail" while the other is "If you stuff up you're on your own. (And might go to jail as well.)

 

Like I said, the two movements see the same problems, if they could agree on the solution life would get very interesting for some people very quickly.

 

The moderates from both camps combined would almost certainly have the numbers to form a very viable third party.

[iNow]

The moderates from both camps combined would almost certainly have the numbers to form a very viable third party.

While there is overlap and commonality in their feelings of frustration, the attributed cause is not the same. Ideologically, these groups tend to be very diametrically opposed. The tea party blames government for the ills of society, wherein the occupy crowd blames banks and corporations. The moderates are the ones who realize there is room for improvement in both, but that both simultaneously have some very positive attributes worth protecting.

[JohnB]

the occupy crowd blames banks and corporations.

 

Just the banks and corporations? Or the government that enabled them as well? Banks etc couldn't have done what they have without the inplicit and explicit consent of Washington.

 

Even if they worked together on the TP point 9 about lobbyists, the effects would be widespread.

[Phi for All]

Just the banks and corporations? Or the government that enabled them as well? Banks etc couldn't have done what they have without the inplicit and explicit consent of Washington.

OWS is calling for the repeal of legislation that has given corporations and banks an unfair advantage, such as the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which creates some very dangerous conflicts of interest in banking. I think they realize that the banks and corporations have unfairly manipulated the government, and are interested in using the government system to level the playing field, in addition to changing some key policies regarding profiteering in general.

 

Even if they worked together on the TP point 9 about lobbyists, the effects would be widespread.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the Tea Party and the OWS movements uniting their efforts. If they would each give up their most radical and conflicting ideals and focus on curbing the political influence of big business, I think they could gain even more widespread endorsements. There are lots of businesses in the US that aren't interested in sacrificing their integrity and personnel for growth by any means possible.

[matty]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the Tea Party and the OWS movements uniting their efforts. If they would each give up their most radical and conflicting ideals and focus on curbing the political influence of big business, I think they could gain even more widespread endorsements. There are lots of businesses in the US that aren't interested in sacrificing their integrity and personnel for growth by any means possible.

 

Yeah, beats me why it hasn't come up more often.