Forum Post: Spooked By Occupy Wall Street, WSJ's Peggy Noonan Rewrites Tea Party Past
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 13, 2011, 12:05 p.m. EST by groobiecat2
(746)
from Brattleboro, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
According to Media Matters...
"As the Occupy Wall Street protests continue to multiply and spread nationwide (http://tinyurl.com/5tocvyh) conservative commentators are doing their best (worst?) to undercut, and even demonize, the grassroots movement. How? One way is by comparing Occupy Wall Street unfavorably to the far-right Tea Party movement, and to suggest the New York protesters aren't serious and thoughtful the way Tea Partiers were when they crashed the political scene.
The heavy-handed revisionism underway is significant and represents a key way conservatives want to simultaneously ding Occupy Wall Street, as well as a maintain a false narrative about what the anti-Obama Tea Party rallies were really like. (The spin may have something to do with the fact Republicans are increasingly concerned about the anti-Wall Street movement.) (http://tinyurl.com/67uhram)
For instance, appearing on ABC's This Week, Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal insisted the key differences between Occupy Wall Street activists and their Tea Party counterparts is that the Obama critics were politically "mature," but that activists camped out at the southern tip of Manhattan are not. (See the 3:00 mark)
The Tea Party movement, when it erupted in early 2009, almost before Obama had finished filling out his cabinet, was "mature"? Where to even begin? It's not just that Tea Party rallies were famously dotted with swastikas posters, or that an Iowa Tea Party group erected a billboard comparing Obama to Hitler, or that former Tea Party boss Mark Williams denounced America's first black president as as a "half white, racist president." (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909150020 || http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007130056 || http://tinyurl.com/y963xek)
For video and more: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110110008
sigh Stuff like this is why you guys will fail miserably.
MediaMatters' very slanted view of the Tea Party is about as accurate as you guys complaining about people thinking that you're a bunch of Marxists/Socialists intent on turning the country into one big reefer-smoking vegan collective.
In fact, the "Tea Party" (in quotes because there is no single "Tea Party" and it extends to many more people with similar views beyond those groups in particular), was much more politically mature in its approach. They focused on a very few major, clearly defined issues. They, largely, stayed away from issues that were internally divisive so as to keep focus and maintain the broadest possible base. They worked the system in a way that their impact was quick and significant. You're, for the most part, going in entirely the opposite direction as is typical for the left in this country and making fundamental mistakes along such lines as has been noted from your own side by people like Van Jones.
If you'd pull your heads out of your collective butts, you'd realize that you have more in common with the "Tea Party" and other "conservative" groups than you might think, and on that basis you'd have a greatly better chance of actually making some progress toward your primary goals. Most of the main things that you're complaining about are only new to you. They're exactly the same issues that they've been bitching about for years now.
First, what's the real Tea Party? Very hard to figure out. Second, there were lots and lots of racist signs conflating Obama with Hitler, which is patently insane. Third, the Tea Party's first rally took place 1 week after Obama was elected--where were they while Bush destroyed the country and doubled the national debt over 8 years?
You say the goals are the same? Only at the very highest level, where corporations and government are distrusted overall, and Democrats and Republicans are largely similar.
But once you start deconstructing them, you see very very deep philosophical divisions. Tea Party people generally believe that government is bad, that individual initiative is all that's needed and if you don't succeed you must be lazy or otherwise flawed, and that the "free market" is all that the country needs to succeed. The Tea Party also apparently believes that any increase in taxes on the wealthiest is "class warfare."
The #OWS focuses much more on the collective, common wealth and distrusts an unfettered free market. The #OWS believes that the system unjustly rewards the most wealthy in this country with lower taxes than the middle class. The #OWS believes that social programs for the most vulnerable in society does not equate to socialism, but to human decency.
Oh, and the #OWS tends to be friendlier than Tea Party members. Tea Party members like to use puerile epithets to attack those they disagree with by impugning the way they look, assuming they're all reefer smoking marxist hippies, etc. rather than use the power of ideas and specific facts to make their points.
Lastly, dude, if you represent the Tea Party--who gives a shit whether there's common ground? You're just a mean-spirited, unfriendly sonofabitch. You talk about common ground and then you make constantly offensive remarks? Sadly, this is not uncommon, especially on this board. Why would anyone want to open a dialogue with people who are constantly yelling and criticizing the movement? Nothing personal, but fuck the Tea Party and their anger. Terribly sorry.
Peace.
Groobiecat
[ There's an #OWS election process here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/come-to-the-nyc-general-assembly-on-10-15-12-to-st/ ]
[ There's a draft Declaration here: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ ]
And your post perfectly illustrates exactly what I was saying.
Beyond that, I never said that I represented the "Tea Party." I'm about as independent as anyone could be and I'm generally sympathetic to the concerns of OWS. Your own blinders and inability to look beyond your own limited view of the world show very clearly
Where exactly was I a "mean-spitited, unfriendly sonofabitch?" Where did I make "constantly offensive remarks?" You talk about how friendly and welcoming you are and then you go on to make false accusations and insult me! Hypocrite much? lmao
Like I said, if you don't like hearing if from me, then go look up Van Jones' speech at the recent progessive conference in DC, which nobody anywhere could associate with anything remotely conservative, and you can hear him tell you exactly the same things.
The fact that I even have to explain this to you is just sad, man:
In fact, the "Tea Party" (in quotes because there is no single "Tea Party" and it extends to many more people with similar views beyond those groups in particular), was much more politically mature in its approach. Where did I make "constantly offensive remarks?""
--The Tea Party was more mature? How so? Specifics? That's offensive, sorry. Also, was the Tea Party politically mature enough to be bought and sold at the infant stage of the movement to the far right wing of the republican party and allow people to tote around racist signs conflating Obama with Hitler? No. Also, see links below--this movement is more organized than you think. As far as I know, not a single Tea Partier protested people who hurled racial slurs and epithets at the idiots who carried those signs. That's vile.
"If you'd pull your heads out of your collective butts..."
--Gee, that's encouraging and not at all offensive, right? All the people in the #OWS have their heads up their asses--but you understand. Got it.
Most of the people attacking the #OWS are really really not nice. And they tend to use personal attacks and innuendo and insinuation as the means to do this--in the MSM and on this board.
Instead of the old saw "The beatings will continue until morale improves," it's like "The verbal abuse will continue until you see the error of your ways." --why would anyone respond to that positively?
Also, major Tea Party members have continuously and consistently slighted, insulted, and otherwise attacked the #OWS (Bachmann, Cain, Cantor, etc.). Why would anyone want to integrate them is beyond me. But many in the #OWS at least want to try, and I've made an effort to do so as well.
But my patience with putting up with playground-level ad hominem attacks and inane abuse is wearing thin. 95% of the people who disagree with me ignore my points. They just make self-serving inane--and not terribly funny--jokes.
Your response was an excellent example of what I'm talking about. You didn't mention my points. At all. You ignored my points about philosophical differences. Your focus was my blinders.
Bottom Line: We can't even have a civilized polemic, let alone integrate. If you wanna try to address my points, that's fine--disagree, or don't--but don't attack me because you're too lazy or indifferent to provide a response. I at least explained--specifically--my response.
Peace.
Groobiecat
[ There's an #OWS election process here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/come-to-the-nyc-general-assembly-on-10-15-12-to-st/ ]
[ There's a draft Declaration here: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ ]
I gave you specific examples of how they were more mature. And I also gave you a direct comparison of selective media stereotyping of an entire group by some small fringe elements is equally inaccurate. But apparently, you've bought it since it fits your own affinity-group limited views.
No, actually what I was saying about pulling your heads out of your butts wasn't particularly offensive, rather it's called constructive advice. And, again, there are plenty on "your side" who are saying the same thing. So, you don't like hearing it, cool, keep your hands over your ears. That always works out well.
Likewise your attempt to group everyone who doesn't just lap up whatever KoolAide you happen to be drinking into one single group of haters. Again, that's on you not me. If you'd actually read what I'd written about the stereotyping of you guys above, then you should have appreciated that I understood that's not the case. Yet you then go on to equally stereotype and pigeon-hole others. lol
Hate to break it to you but Bachmann, et. al., aren't all or even most of the "Tea Party." That, again, reflects your own limited view. The most recent mid-term elections and others with similar results demonstrate quite clearly that the "movement" on that side extends far beyond that limited group. But you can't see that because you choose to focus on the us-versus-them BS game versus the broader more significant context.
I didn't ingore your points. I just didn't want to bother with a discussion of specific differences that you chose to highlight, when what's more important for actually accomplishing anything that you want to will require finding common ground. Again, whether you like it or want it, that's the fact of the matter. Otherwise, you're not talking to the 99%, your talking more to a sub-set of the 30% only on the left and your results will reflect that.
Last, just the fact that you'd consider pulling something from MediaMatters (or, conversely, from a similar right site), is telling in itself. Maybe you need to get out more and expand your horizons a little.
Okay, i re-read your original post. I still disagree that they were more mature, politically, but I grant that you address some of the issues--if only at a high level. You didn't mention specific areas where this was the case. --and have you even read the draft documents of the #OWS? They're damn well constructed, even at a draft level. And one even includes a balanced budget amendment demand. Ugh.
"No, actually what I was saying about pulling your heads out of your butts wasn't particularly offensive, rather it's called constructive advice."
According to whom? See, it's not constructive to use playground-level attacks to get people to listen to you. It's just not. Repeating that it's okay ignores the fact that it isn't okay. And ironically, it's anything but mature...
"And, again, there are plenty on "your side" who are saying the same thing. So, you don't like hearing it, cool, keep your hands over your ears. That always works out well."
The aggressive attacks on the movement are ridiculous, both on this board and in the MSM. I've listened. I've read. And pretty have done nothing else for a couple of weeks now. I'm used to be verbally abused by "your side."
"Likewise your attempt to group everyone who doesn't just lap up whatever KoolAide you happen to be drinking into one single group of haters."
Again, seriously. It's not cute. It's not clever. It's just snarky bullshit attacks. We're not drinking koolaid. You don't know how to engage "our side," because you can't stop the fucking snark for a few minutes. Why take you seriously?
"I didn't ingore your points. I just didn't want to bother with a discussion of specific differences that you chose to highlight, when what's more important for actually accomplishing anything that you want to will require finding common ground."
Yeah, see, that's what I'm talking about: you don't want to address the specific differences because--why? These aren't going away. They're actually really valid points. Discuss common areas, absolutely--I mentioned one above. There are others. But deciding not to address areas of disagreement is just putting one's head in...the sand. ;)
"gain, whether you like it or want it, that's the fact of the matter."
Whether or not I like it? LOL. Wow. Talk about arrogant nonsense. This is a conversation? Look, you really have no idea what a discussion is. It's not a monologue or pronouncements about how the other side "just doesn't get it" or statements that "this is just how it is, live with it." That's just bullshit arrogance. And this is why people who aren't willing to discuss--and acknowledge the other with respect--honestly have no business in this movement.
Here's the fact of the matter, as you put it: #OWS doesn't need you. It doesn't. It doesn't need Ron Paul or Herman Cain. It doesn't need mainstream media. What it needs is people who are willing--regardless of party--to converse and acknowledge the other side without coming across like a condescending asshole.
"Last, just the fact that you'd consider pulling something from MediaMatters (or, conversely, from a similar right site), is telling in itself. Maybe you need to get out more and expand your horizons a little."
Actually, Media Matters isn't a site I frequent, but i happen to agree with that piece, because I think Noonan is and always has been a revisionist shill for the right. But that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary. Also, you don't know me. Or what I do or don't read. And attacking me--again, because dude, you haven't mentioned a single specific issue or area of common ground, and simply restate over and over that I and other people "dont' get it"--is a waste of time for both of us.
I've read everything you've written--not a single specific, just snarky criticism. What's the point of that?
Peace.
Groobiecat
[ There's an #OWS election process here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/come-to-the-nyc-general-assembly-on-10-15-12-to-st/ ]
[ There's a draft Declaration here: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ ]
As much as I could argue who's been more "snarky" here and who immediately jumped to conclusions, why don't we both try to dispense with all of the forum BS and stick to a more constuctive discussion of the issues. I'm not going to try to address every point largely because the format of this board is limiting and a pain to do that well and, to be frank, at a practical level I've got other stuff that I need to do and we could go around and around forever on some of it, even points of agreement.
So, that said...
Yes, I have looked at the document. Going back to the top of this thread and the position stated in the article regarding relative "maturity" and the points that I was making regarding focus, as much as I agree with many aspects of it, it's:
(a) way too long and way too broad, (b) very idealistic and to the point of being unrealistic in some areas, (c) calls out some decidedly divisive issues even internally on "your side," and, generally, (d) appears to reflect the inexperience and naivety of the people involved likely due to the generally young age of the majority involved in putting it together.
Again, my opinion offered as constructive criticism not intended as an "attack." And, yes, I do realize that it's a starting- and not an end-point.
Without going through each element on a point-by-point basis, as specific examples (and not even a comprehensively address of each):
and 19. While I understand and agree with the intent, this isn't anything new. There have been many efforts in the past to do similar in various ways and to varying degrees. Restricting lobbying in any form will be viewed by some ,and likely legally as well, as a restriction on their "free speech," raises issues with respect to the "tyranny of the majority," immediately fragments and limits support from key groups on your side like, for example, unions and environmental groups who lobby for specific interests. Also, campaign contributions and lobbying are two entirely different things and the latter isn't addressed at all by public campaign financing. Public campaign finance reform likewise isn't new and is rife with various issues of it's own. It goes far beyond simply basing it on who can get more signatures on a petition to include how those signatures are obtained and how the messaging is done to get those signatures. Free air time further imposes other complications in terms of the media included, rights of private businesses, etc., etc. The point being that, yeah, it seems that simple but in practice it's not really. Was anyone who actually has long-term background in campaign finace reform involved? I'd be surprised.
and 4. again are nothing new and there are plenty of various restrictions in place now whether enforced or not. The larger issue is that such restrictions mean that you effectively eliminate anyone who actually knows WTF they're doing in particular required areas and are good at it or have any future prospects from ever participating in government.
eliminates the ability to address socially desirable purposes as well as those you seek to eliminate and directly contradicts some other areas of the document (e.g., 14).
again raises "tyranny of the majority"-type issues and eliminates many of the checks and balances in place to prevent abuses. Everyone wants line item veto when they're in power. Not so much when they are not. And for many good reasons. i.e., Do you really want a future "Dick Cheney Jr." with that pen in his hand?
is completely unrealistic to anyone who can operate a calculator. Beyond that, it's also extraordinarly unfair and will very clearly not be supported by the vast majority of people who are not underwater or foreclosure. For example, why should I who purchased a home well within my means and didn't use my house as an ATM like most of my friends did to by expensive cars, put in pools and home theaters go on vacations and other extravagances, and as collateral to get in far over their heads on further property speculation, pay for that whether directly or through monetary effects? Not like you couldn't see it coming at some point. Granted, we need to do something to help people in trouble, but that ain't it. You want a revolution? Well, that would do it but not in the way you want. lol
The paragraph toward the end regarding dissolving the goverment is completely unrealistic.
Going back to the Tea Party comparison, the primary message was short and sweet - stop spending money that we don't have particularly in ineffective ways. Yes, there were documents similar to yours done by various groups within the broad umbrella of the "Tea Party" but that largely amounted to more division, bad reception on the part of other groups inside and out over specific points (as yours will also), and weren't at the heart of the "movement" as far as motivating people in a practical way to actually get something done. The Tea in Tea Party really should be written as "TEA" an abbreviation for "Taxed Enough Already." Simple and focused. The rest is mostly BS that gets lumped in and distorted by various groups inside and outside (which you'll face as well).
As source documents, they also were smart to rely on those that exist versus losing time trying to come up with their own which, largely, amounts to a circle jerk among like-minded people with the resulting limitations that comes along with. The founding documents of this country admittedly are not perfect but they've had the benefit of being put together by what were arguably some of our best thinkers of the time, with much thought and argument over a long period of time and have been very well fleshed out over a couple hundred years. So they grabbed those and ran with them and worked within the system to their beneficial end.
Actually, the fact is that you do need me. Not who you've jumped to the conclusion as far as who I am. I represent the 80% in the middle. If you think that you're going to do much without us, good luck with that.
Anyway, too long, but there ya go. Hope you take it in the way intended.
Edit to add: The forum F'ed up the numbering above. Should be able to figure out which I'm talking about from the context.
If the protests do not result in military internet formations of our purchasing and investment power, as the tea party exhibits power, then they will be fruitless, which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive strategy, and related candidate, that implements all our demands at the same time, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to be 1 of 100,000 people needed to support a Presidential Candidate – such as myself or another you'd like to draft – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.