The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements should merge

I told some friends last week that the first person to see through the ideological panoply present in both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements, and grab hold of their essentially identical core issues – that of government corruption in the form of taxpayer money being diverted to both government and corporate special interests (which are increasingly becoming one and the same), that person wins. And by “win,” I mean that “collaborative seeker of common ground” can lead a real movement against the establishment powers that are diverting monies to corporations that should have gone under in a truly capitalist system, and to government programs that need to be revamped or eliminated, but are not reformed out of fear of losing the support of a particular block of voters.

The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements should merge. Could you imagine the change that could bring?

Whoever can say to the Tea Party and the Occupy crowds, “Look, we know you have many complaints and diverse ideological interests from opposite ends of the spectrum, but your core concerns are the same. Let’s unite together on this one issue – government corruption – and make a real change.” – that person will lead the revolution.

Perhaps Lawrence Lessig is that person. Because if the people of these two parties can see past their vast differences and come together to address the central issue of corruption, then there’s no reason why the representatives they elected can’t do the same.

For more, read the open culture blog. (Joseph Stiglitz teaches at the Columbia Business School and Columbia’s Department of Economics and, of course, won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001. Lawrence Lessig founded Creative Commons and recently moved from Stanford (where he worked in digital copyright law) to Harvard, where he now focuses on government corruption.)

9 Responses

  1. What they should, or shouldn’t do has little bearing on what they actually will do, thinks I.

  2. Very good analysis. In theory, I agree.

    However, asking the people that are the benificiaries of the corruption (i.e.: the “welfare class” on the Left, and the “business leaders” on the Right) to fight against corruption is kinda like asking someone to sell you their parachute while you’re both in freefall.

    “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. However, in practice, there is.” — Jan de VanDer Shnepshut, as quoted by Prof. Jack Brokaw (former Blue Beret)

  3. You assume that the Tea Party is a real movement, led by real people with no ulterior motives, when in reality it is an astroturf movement that is paid for by the Koch brothers and the usual list of shadowy GOP front organizations.

    I’m not saying that every Tea Party advocate is on someone’s payroll, nor am I saying that every idea they have is bad. But by-and-large the movement is controlled and paid for by lobbyists and business interests.

    That said, there is very little that the two groups would agree on even if they were inclined to.

  4. TEA PARTY are right wing nut jobs who want to limit everything and still keep their tax dollars so right there you have an intellectual conundrum or is it an oxymoron? LOL As Bonboy said above, the TEA BAGGERS have never been anything but a ploy by the rich pretending they’re pissed about something that no one can really pinpoint. At the OCCUPY WALL STREET crowd knows the enemy and is actually making some headway.

  5. Insults, leaps of logic, and conclusory allegations are not the way to build bridges to constructive dialogue.

    The crowd at OWS has one common enemy: “The Rich”. The problem is that, to a person making $6 per hour, a person making $9 per hour is “rich”. Pretty soon, the whole thing melts down into a massive case of The Lobster Syndrome.

    The B-rated 1968 movie “Wild in the Streets” was actually quite prescient. A movement based upon an enemy, instead of a goal, must continually expand its definition of “The Enemy” in order to sustain itself. Lenin and Stalin succeeded at this by taking the “useful idiots” out to the remote “strawberry fields” to get their official state “reward” for selling out the Romanov dynasty. (For those that don’t know their history, the “reward” for those that helped the Communist into power was a barage of machinegun bullets. The fields turned red from blood, hence Stalin started calling them his “strawberry fields”.)

    It is a lot easier to be against something that it is to be for something.

  6. Good call. When I look at each group, the demographics are inescapable. Significant

  7. Tom, your mind has been addled by too many Jack Chick tracts.

  8. See above comment about insults and conclusory allegations.

    a. Stick to the facts. Can you disput any facts in my assertion??

    b. I don’t even know what a Jack Chick tract is.

  9. […] Party wanted most is what the Occupy movement wants most: government-corporate reform. I commented earlier that the first one to see past the oceans of ideological diversity on these polar opposite ends and […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: