Forum Post: What I have learned from the Tea Party
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 9:30 p.m. EST by MegMcG
(8)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I've been engaging conservatives and Tea Partiers in an online forum to figure out where our interests intersect. Below is a copy of one of the posts where I think I start to get it: "After communicating over here I have some ideas. I don’t think politicians should be allowed to serve indefinitely. I don’t think politicians should be allowed to pass laws they don’t have to follow. If it’s not the government’s job to provide health care to the people then it’s not the people’s job to provide health care to the government. If a politician has to sign a bill it should be no longer than x number of words or include x number of clauses. Our politicians are voting on bills they don’t have the time or interest to read because they are filled with dense legalese written by lobbyists and they are being told how to vote with dollar signs. The demonstrators don’t have the answers but they are putting their bodies on the ground and commanding attention that we are aware we are being lied to and manipulated and it has to stop. The aim for an honest government and a free market are not left wing or right wing. The movement isn’t political, it’s ethical."
Quantum mechanics is too complicated also. Lets make sure that that gets simplified and appeals to our common sense.
1) Your analogy is flawed: we're not talking about quantum mechanics, we're talking about legislation that will become laws that govern our country. They are not the same, and dense, complexity doesn't have the same negative impacts on society.
2) Have you ever read a piece of legislation? Language doesn't come any more turgid than that. Her point is a good one: Legislation is dense legalese written by lobbyists and intentionally confuses its reader. Bills should be simplified, just as complex financial terms and conditions should be simplified for folks who are CPAs or CFAs.
But hey, nice snarky comment that added nothing to the discussion! 3 points for you!
I'm with you all and the tea party if that's what you are all about for sure. It's time we take our country back from the corporatists in government. Crony capitalism is not capitalism it's enslavement of the poor and middle class.
I totally agree with those statements.
That is great! Please get as many of those Tea Partiers to input their voices!!
Occupation.freeforums.org
The next step of the movement.
Occupy Wall Street has much more in common with the original Boston Tea Party than the Tea Partiers. Good commentary at http://foolocracy.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-is-the-real-tea-party/
I agree with the health care argument but considering the Tea Party's response to any health reform, I doubt if they feel the same.
This article discusses the intersection of the two populist movements:
http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-manchester/occupy-wall-street-tea-party-protest
Here is what I have learned form the Tea party.
The leaders, fund raisers, and instigators of the Tea party are heavily tied to the corporate sector and to the establishment in general. They just saw a general frustration with the population and tried to create a venting valve for it in a manner that doesn't cause meaningful change. This was a sort of preemptive strike against possible dissatisfaction and real revolution. However this is not to say that all member of the Tea Party were not genuine. The members were perhaps real conservatives easily misled and bamboozled by establishment crooks and corporate financed demagogic leaders.
The Tea Party did not capture the soul of the America people and the people are realizing the pretentious sell out nature of this movement.
The Tea party's economic and political plan is incoherent with current realities and needs. For example most sane economists suggest a stimulus package to increase economic activity and employment, while Tea Partyers suggest the opposite, which is budget cutting. Most economists agree budge cutting will reduce employment and will further depress the economy. In addition most economist agree that budget cuts will not save future generations from debt, as most Tea party members like to think. Instead budget butts underwrite lower opportunities for future generations.
Final verdict on the Tea Party is that they are a fake venting valve created by the 1% in order to blow some steam off of the 99% in hopes of further delaying the inevitable, the real revolution of the people.
Agreed.
This I believe is the root .
I think that we can all agree that money needs to come out of politics and Washington needs to start representing the people and not the lobbyists and big donors. Let's just start there. This will be hard enough to accomplish. Let's all get together TEA party and 99%ers and start calling our Congress people and tell them we have had enough of money in politics.
Corporations are not people because they have no moral or ethical code. By law, a corporation's only goal is to be maximize shareholder profits. And, CEO salaries are tied to that sole goal. By law, corporations, unlike governments, have no duties to society or their employees.
Because corporations have no duties to their employees, they realize that they can maximize shareholder profits in the easiest way, by squeezing their employees. Studies show that most corporate profits today are not because they have innovated or created a new better product, it is because they have cut costs by laying off workers and making their existing employees work harder and harder. They also have increased profits by pushing more and more of their healthcare and retirement costs onto the workers backs and have not given their workers a raise in 30 years -- middle class salaries have stagnated for 30 years.
This is not a partisan issue -- no party represents the people anymore.
This
I believe there is definitely some common ground between OWS and the Tea Party...however if we allow politicians to take ownership in both movements it will become harder to join forces.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I urge you, to read me thoughts on our culture, it IS TIME, that we reinvest in national introversion, it has LONG since past for this countries CULTURE, and this countries foreign policy, it IS NOT, the duty of ANY STATE to infringe on the intrinsic sovereignty of another nation for the purposes of nation building, see: south america. Our culture has become hedonistic and apathetic. This culture aspect, MUST NOT BE IGNORED, and it's time we... reflect on the past 200 years and ask ourselves... with our best reason... WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
I dont agree to term limits for representatives or senators. If they are limited in terms then after the term limit the people with the most experience in dealing with congress will be the people who dont have term limits, like congressional lobbyists. It seems to me that if the people here are motivated enough to check and comment on these forums, then websites like these:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billsearch.xpd
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300082
might be useful to seperate congressmen who have served too long from the others.
Finding good replacements may still be an issue...
Maybe the focus should be on the bets against the markets and economic growth. The CDO securities setup our problems and the short sellers tried to end it all by borrowing shares from our accounts (these are the bets against us and economic growth).
I agree on the term limits thing. Nobody said being a politician was supposed to be a career. Politicians are like dirty diapers folks, they're all full of shit and need to be changed often!
Yeah, we get it. But that doesn't mean we have to buy it.
Why shouldn't politicians be allowed to serve indefinitely? Doesn't it make sense to have experienced representatives heading congressional committees? Is there any reason to believe that term limits would make it harder to buy a politician's vote?
Since when are politicians immune from the laws they pass? This objection is just a red herring.
We here believe that it is the government's job to ensure that the people have access to health care; we don't believe that this follows from an obligation on the part of the people to provide health care to government officials.
Why should a law be short? Short laws would only be capable of effectively regulating the most simple matters; they would be ineffective at regulating complex matters. Complex problems require subtle solutions, and subtlety often comes with lots of details. Laws ought to be written in legalese. Most politicians and staffers are very highly educated, and many of them have law degrees, so this too is a red herring. If some politician isn't able to understand a bill and doesn't have the time or interest to come to understand it, then he ought to be voted out of office.
We here are not interested in abstract claims like "we are being lied to and manipulated." We are interested in specific -- particularly, criminal -- acts of deceit and manipulation.
While we believe in the virtues of a free market, we believe that free markets are vicious when they are unregulated. Therefore, we support a regulated free market.
And we believe that we need a political movement, not an ethical one, to solve our problems. We know what's wrong; now we need to organize the political will to set things right.
The only thing we can accept about this whole program is that we need honest government. But who would object to that?
The Tea Party program is a faith-based work of ideological foolishness. The OWS community is the reality-based community. We believe in real solutions to real problems. And that's why our just demands will be realized.
You obviously don't represent the "reality-based" members of society if you think the status quo in Washington is worth preserving.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the status quo": I think a lot must be changed (that's why I'm involved in OWS), but I don't think everything has to be changed if we are to make our society more just. (Tuesdays can still be called Tuesdays after we change the status quo; indeed, Mondays can still come before, Wednesdays can still come afterwards.)
The question is just what needs to change and in which way. The Tea Party's proposals misdiagnose the problems and I believe their main proposals, if adopted, would make our problems even worse.
We can work together with the Tea Party on the few goals we have in common (they should find common ground with us on the lobbying and campaign finance issues). But if they want to pursue their other goals which are contrary to ours (e.g. less regulation, less taxation, less government oversight and litigation, and less compromise with whatever can be called 'socialist'), they should not count on our support. Instead, OWS will continue our fight to hold Wall Street accountable in the way we know is right. Regulate markets; allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire; prosecute white-collar crime; regulate lobbying and campaign finance. These are real solutions to real problems, and there is tremendous support for them across America. We will continue fighting for these goals until they are realized.
"Why shouldn't politicians be allowed to serve indefinitely? Doesn't it make sense to have experienced representatives heading congressional committees? Is there any reason to believe that term limits would make it harder to buy a politician's vote?"
This wasn't the intention of the founding fathers. The point is to have "citizen legislators" who serve for a while and then leave. This ensures that they don't be come too entrenched and beholden to the interests and trappings of the office.
"Since when are politicians immune from the laws they pass? This objection is just a red herring."
Well, it's slightly off: Members of Congress have extremely high-end healthcare. That's how it's always been.
"Laws ought to be written in legalese."
Why? What's the purpose of making text impenetrable and inaccessible to the public, when you can say the same thing in simple English! Why disable the public's ability to understand what's being voted on and abdicate responsibility to those who "understand how to read it."?
"Most politicians and staffers are very highly educated, and many of them have law degrees, so this too is a red herring. If some politician isn't able to understand a bill and doesn't have the time or interest to come to understand it, then he ought to be voted out of office."
Really. And you know this--how? First, the point is to make government--including Congress--more transparent and responsive to the people. Not to "trust that staffers know what they're doing." They don't always, and it's not just members of congress that get wined and dined, either, it's the same folks who put together the language of the bills. I was a staffer on Capitol Hill for 10 years; I've drafted legislation (which goes to a special legislative entity that takes common language and converts it into ancient, impenetrable Queen's English). Legislative jargon is complete bullshit, and not required--if anything, the lobbyists hope that we'll keep legislative verbiage confusing and hard to understand. What should happen is that a "real-world, plain English" "version of every bill needs to be made available.
That would make it a lot easier to understand--for everyone.
Ironically, experts in the process are needed to fix the broken process. People who have been there and done that can help identify which processes are broken should be recruited to come up with specific ways to do this. I came up with one above.
"While we believe in the virtues of a free market, we believe that free markets are vicious when they are unregulated. Therefore, we support a regulated free market."
Agreed, and well stated. This is dead-on accurate, and it's what led to the meltdown, but also know that the right will fight this tooth and nail.
"And we believe that we need a political movement, not an ethical one, to solve our problems. We know what's wrong; now we need to organize the political will to set things right."
This is the biggest challenge: a definition of what setting things "right" means. While there is common ground on this definition at a very high level, when you come down to earth, the differences about what "right" means become very clear. The conservative movement generally focuses on individual need whereas #OWS focuses much more on "common need.*
The intention of the founding fathers was no term limits and no direct election of senators.
It was also "citizen" politicians, not professional politicians. But I'm split on the subject, and frankly, don't care all that much about it.
Well, all politicians come from somwhere. They all come from the private sector and often leave to the private sector. Thats why they have to be elected.
You raise an interesting point: All the people against the government? They're not from the private sector anymore. Here's something you can look at to see what I mean:
http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/09/who-hates-government-spending-why.html
I know it. The worst thing about it though is they rail against the government! I am not for term limits but I AM against hypocrisy.
Term limits: If the concern is accordance with the intent of our founding fathers, then there's no case to be made here. Had the founding fathers wanted to restrict the number of times someone could run for office, they would have done so. Instead, they entrusted the voting public to determine who could represent them most effectively for the next term. So conformity to original intent would dictate that we shouldn't have term limits.
If, however, the concern is corruption, then a case has to be made for why term limits would solve that problem. I think a stronger case can be made in the opposite direction: candidates coming out of the business world are more likely to be beholden to their business interests than to the public good, candidates raising money for a first-time campaign are more likely to reach out to whoever can fund getting their campaign off the ground, elected officials who know they won't have to face the voters again are less accountable to the public and therefore more likely to act in ways they couldn't defend before the public, and freshman politicians have less respect for the culture of our political institutions and are thus more likely to use cheap procedural moves to get what they want instead of compromising and consensus-building.
Laws:
Laws are written in legal language, i.e. "legalese", in the same way that mathematical proofs are written in mathematical language, medical research is written in medical language, poetry is written in poetical language, etc. As anyone who has studied any of these fields knows, these things cannot be said in "simple English". Sure, laws ought to be explained to the public in language laypeople can understand, but they ought to be written with the requisite level of precision, and that means it cannot be expressed in "simple English." If you want to learn how to read the laws themselves, study the law. As you surely know from your time on Capitol Hill, most of the people working there have done so.
I am a strong supporter of increasing transparency and accountability in government. But it is ludicrous to suggest that this requires that all government business take place at a level that a 4th grader could understand.
Term Limits: you mistake my point--representatives were intended not to be professional politicians, but citizen politicians. And when you say "business world," that's a pretty broad brush stroke. In fact, most "businesses" are small businesses, not large corporations--the conclusion doesn't hold up as well once you define your terms.
Laws: No, they are not written in the same way as mathematical proofs. The analogy is incorrect, because they have completely different goals. One is to govern people's laws and policies, the other is to prove theorems.
"As anyone who has studied any of these fields knows, these things cannot be said in "simple English".
Really. You've "studied these fields"? How so? What's your experience? You worked in Congress have you? Have you ever translated technical concepts into easily understood text--is that your profession? Because that's what can be done with "legalese" as you call it. Legal language has long been used to confuse the issues and complicate understanding of issues that could be much more simply be conveyed. It's not some mysterious black box. And there's no proof that simplicity = lack of precision; you can most definitely have both precision and simplicity. Perhaps the common ground is have them be "translated" into easily understood prose--as I suggested.
"As you surely know from your time on Capitol Hill, most of the people working there have done so."
This is simply not true. There are about 20,000 staffers and members of congress; vast majority of them have not worked in the legal field. The laws, as written, are not the same as the legal field--they are very different animals altogether.
"I am a strong supporter of increasing transparency and accountability in government. But it is ludicrous to suggest that this requires that all government business take place at a level that a 4th grader could understand."
What's ludicrous is that you think I suggested that "all government business take place at a level that a 4th grader could understand." I didn't even remotely suggest that, but considering the lack of importance that this country places on education and the ability to read (or understand complex concepts), it's not a half bad idea.
Also, thanks for the condescending tone, but have you ever worked with "the business of government"? Do you know how a bill becomes law or what a regulation is? Are you even familiar with the daily workings of "the business of government"? Because what happens on Capitol Hill and what happens after a bill becomes law are pretty much night and day. Al Gore, when he was vice president, attempted to make all regulations and official policy documentation easy to understand, Plain English. It was the right idea, but the government is so ponderous that it couldn't be done.
Next time you hurl epithets at someone, please educate yourself--and try not to be so condescending. We're on the same side, and it wouldn't hurt to be a little bit humble--especially in a field that you're not familiar with...
Since you don't have anything substantial to add to the term limits issue, I'll take that point as conceded. The whole issue of term limits is just a big non sequitur.
As for the issue about laws, I'm just befuddled. Sure, simple laws could be expressed in simple English. But, as I said before, simple laws would only be capable of effectively regulating the most simple matters; they would be ineffective at regulating complex matters. Complex problems require subtle solutions, and subtlety often comes with lots of details. And that means lots of text, with lots of clauses, use of technical language, and all the other things that make laws hard to understand for the layperson. I support the government tackling complex issues and adopting subtle approaches, and that's why I support the use of legal language in writing legislation. That doesn't strike me as a controversial position.
And I'm really at a loss for why you were so insulted by my reply. I've reread what I wrote and I can assure you that there is not a single epithet in the entire post, let alone one intended to insult you.
I disagree with you on term limits, you didn't actually address my point about temporary citizen politicians, which is fine, so I decided not to pursue the matter. it's not a priority and it won't be passed anyway, so it doesn't matter.
"But, as I said before, simple laws would only be capable of effectively regulating the most simple matters; they would be ineffective at regulating complex matters."
Again, you're misconstruing my words and meaning: I didn't say that laws should be simplified, only that the language used to describe laws should be simplified. Laws are complex. We have a complex society. There's lots of gray area. But the language used to build them doesn't have to be complex, it really doesn't. The use of clauses, ancient, tortured phrasing, all of that should probably change. But it won't, so, my final suggestion was this: Perhaps the common ground is have them be "translated" into easily understood prose--as I suggested.
Doesn't matter. I've been fighting this battle most of my adult life; you're entitled to your opinion, and that's fine. Your premise is based on an assumption that a bunch of legal jargon is necessary, somehow, because the complexity of the issues require it. It doesn't. But the lawyers really want you to think that it does.
You need to re-read: You suggested that I was saying that "it is ludicrous to suggest that this requires that all government business take place at a level that a 4th grader could understand." I took offense because a) most of my comments don't tend to be ludicrous, and b) I actually know a little about this subject, and probably more than most, since I actually worked with the material being discussed.
You seem more interested in verbal jousting and sports and "conceding" points than in common ground.
Peace.
On the contrary: it seems we have found much common ground.
We agree that there is very little in the Tea Party program that we should accept.
Their proposal of the applicability of the law to legislators is just a red herring.
Their proposal of term limits is just a non sequitur.
Their rejection of political organizing and their dealing with abstractions instead of concrete problems that admit of real solutions is ineffectual.
And their proposals of imposing artificial constraints on legal language and of further deregulation of the markets -- including health care and the insurance industry -- are just misguided.
Instead, we Occupiers of Wall Street must articulate our own proposals for holding Wall Street accountable. Regulate markets; allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire; prosecute white-collar crime; regulate lobbying and campaign finance. These are real solutions to real problems, and there is tremendous support for them across America.
If the Tea Party wants to join in getting any of these goals realized (and they should find common ground with us on the lobbying and campaign finance issues), we should be happy to work with them. But if they want to pursue their other goals which are contrary to ours (e.g. less regulation, less taxation, less government oversight and litigation, and less compromise with whatever can be called 'socialist'), they should not count on our support.
Wow. Sorry, but simply restated your original conclusions to things that I did not concur with, and called it "common ground." Just this comment alone:
"And their proposals of imposing artificial constraints on legal language and of further deregulation of the markets -- including health care and the insurance industry -- are just misguided."
I mentioned, repeatedly, what a solution might be. You never addressed that, really, or the validity of my arguments. You just concluded what you originally stated without any thought whatsoever to my response. And frank, "It's not just misguided." It's actually a good idea. Making complex legislation and regulation easier to understand is an obvious, clearly intuitive need for all democracies. That would lead to more transparency in government, and it shouldn't be left up to "people to educate themselves in the fine points of the law" before they can figure out what's in the laws that govern them. Sheesh. I'll give you credit for one thing, you're are focused.
I agree w/ the bottom half of your comments, but seriously, SisterRay, it's give and take in an ongoing polemic, not just repeating your original points and steam ahead.
I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph--that's spot on.
I'm surprised by your objection here.
Earlier you granted that legal language won't change ("all that should probably change. But it won't..."). This led you to give up on the proposal (attributed by MegMcG to the Tea Party) that: "If a politician has to sign a bill it should be no longer than x number of words or include x number of clauses." Instead, you propose as a "final suggestion" that we pursue a "common ground" approach: laws continue to be written in legal language, but they should be "'translated' into easily understood prose."
This is why I thought we were in agreement that it's misguided for our movement to demand an imposition of artificial constraints on language, i.e. limiting the number of words or clauses that may be contained in a piece of legislation.
Furthermore, it seemed to me that we had reached an agreement on what ought to be done instead. As I had said earlier: "Sure, laws ought to be explained to the public in language laypeople can understand, but they ought to be written with the requisite level of precision."
While we continue to disagree on whether complex legislation can be written without the use of lots of text, with lots of clauses and technical language and all the other things that make laws hard to understand for the layperson, it really does seem to me that we've reached agreement on the main point at issue: it is misguided for the movement to focus on limiting the number of words or clauses that may be contained in a piece of legislation; instead laws should continue to be written in legal language, but they should be translated into easily understood prose.
What am I missing?
No, i said that legislative language probably won't change, but there should be a plain English explanation. it really should be modified, within actual bills, to be clearer, because there's no additional "utility" or "accuracy" provided by the King's Engilsh and the nonsense clauses used. It's much much worse. That said, it won't happen. But there should be a "translated" version made available to the public. That's all.
Anyway, it doesn't matter; it's all good. These aren't the key points, and I'd rather move forward. You're focused and intelligent and engaged--and that's what we need. Keep up the good fight...
Peace.
Cool. Sorry again if I misrepresented or insulted you at any point in this conversation. No harm intended.
All the best.
Experienced is one thing, powerful is another. That power is corrupted.
It is not the government's job to provide health care to the public. But it is the responsibility of the tax payers to provide health care to the government.
Laws don't have to be short, they have to be clear, readable, understandable, explainable. They need to outline their exceptions instead of hiding loopholes. They should be WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF ELECTED OFFICE.
Blaming an individual is not going to get us anywhere - this is why no one is in jail for the bailout mess. Its the entire system that has broken. The 1% of the world's wealthiest can hide indefinitely.
We agree on the rest, except the slam on the Tea Party. The solution they try is voting.
If the problem is power, then I don't see why term limits are the solution. Our founding fathers came up with an ingenious solution to the problem of power: checks and balances. That's what keeps any individual from having absolute power, and thus keeps the system from corrupting absolutely. However, the constitutional system of checks and balances has been weakened by the influence of corporate money in all branches of government. That's why we need strong new regulations on lobbying and campaign finance. But the suggestion of term limits just seems like a non sequitur.
I'm not sure what your belief about health care is, but I can tell you that the OWS movement believes that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that people have access to health care. There are over 50 million Americans today without health insurance. That's not a personal problem; that's a political problem. Thankfully, that number will come down as the recently passed health care law comes into effect. Regulating the health care market is a vital governmental responsibility, and I'm happy that the government has started to do its job here.
I don't see why laws must be authored by elected representatives. Why can't their staffs help write laws? Why can't they borrow ideas from academics and think tanks and policy wonks who have studied the issue?
I don't understand why you think it's a good thing for criminals to be immune from prosecution for their crimes. If someone acted illegally, they ought to be prosecuted. If someone acted in a fraudulent manner that was technically legal at the time, then there ought to be a law passed prohibiting people from doing it again. That doesn't strike me as controversial.
I do support voting.
The current administration is subverting the system of checks and balances, especially when it comes to war. If the congress is not going to enforce that system and impeach when it is violated, the whole thing falls apart.
Term limits might be a solution, I don't know. I don't have solutions, just ideas to chew on. I don't think lobbyists should be allowed to write legislation, that seems pretty concrete but that's not to say I know exactly how that should be addressed. Really happy for the opportunity to participate in the discussion though.
Yeah, I really believe OWS has already achieved a major success in providing a forum in which to discuss these issues (and in exercising our freedom of assembly, which has been under attack for far too long, esp. in NYC).
Hopefully, by coming together and discussing these issues, we will be able to achieve our ultimate goal of reducing corporate influence in government so that government can get back to working for the people and holding Wall Street accountable.
sounds like a bunch of racist baggers who only get their info from fox news, if you ask me
This sort of comment is just as ignorant as stereotyping the OWS movement as socialist. It isn't and the Tea Party isn't inherently racist. Stop trying to divide people.
If you want to see a racist institution, take a look at the KKK.
"End private money's presence and influence in our political and electoral systems!" Government for the people, by the people! Separation of business and state!
no really i am surprised they didn't ask for obama's birth certificate again
I don't agree with most of what the Tea Party is about. I doubt I ever will, but that doesn't matter. The sports team Us vs. Them rhetoric has divided and distracted us into packs of squabbling children.
I'm trying to bring people together. We have common goals that everyone can agree on. Why not work together for those goals before we tear each other apart for disagreeing?
wait, so tea party isnt republican and ows isn't democrat
That would be correct. I think it would be safe to say that the Tea Party is a right leaning group, but you'll need to talk to the Tea Party about that. They can speak for themselves.
And no, OWS is NOT a democratic movement. It isn't even a left leaning movement. Occupy is a NON-PARTISAN movement. Occupy is not pro-left, pro-right, pro-socialism or pro-capitalism.
NON-PARTISAN.
ok so why don't the two team up, kick ass and take names
that sounds like the most logical conclusion
You have just underlined EXACTLY why I am here and EXACTLY why I am in the street with my local Occupy group.
We have common goals that barely require any compromise, people just need to pull together and work together.
Do your part!
I don't see what we have in common with the Tea Party's goals other than the same things that everyone wants (more honest government! more good! less evil!).
We support more regulation of the markets; they oppose all regulation as 'socialism'.
We support allowing the Bush tax cuts on the rich to expire; they oppose all taxes as 'socialism'.
We support a strong federal government that could hold Wall Street accountable; they oppose the federal government as 'socialist'.
We support dialogue and mutual understanding; they decry people as 'socialist'.
There's really very little that we have in common with the Tea Party.
Woah, woah, woah, woah! Hold on there. I don't remember any of this being voted on. Sorry, but I don't agree with all of that. You speak for you, not me and not everyone else, let alone the entire movement.
I have yet to meet a Tea Partier who disagrees with campaign finance reform and pulling the influence of big business off our governmental representatives. If you know of one, steer me towards them. I'm interested what their counter argument is.
How about we stop trying to divide each other up into categories? How about we stop trying to fight with each other? We can make a difference if we work together.
Well, here's an update from NY:
You won't meet anyone at OWS who supports the deregulation of the markets.
You won't meet anyone at OWS who supports extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
You won't meet anyone at OWS who opposes more vigorous prosecution of white-collar criminals.
And you won't meet anyone at OWS who opposes dialogue and mutual understanding.
I'm not sure why you think this is controversial.
I'm not sure why you think I need to be convinced that the Tea Party favors campaign finance reform and the regulation of lobbying.
And I'm really not sure who you think is dividing us up into categories. The Tea Party has a very clear political program: less regulation, less taxation, less government oversight and litigation, and less compromise with whatever can be called 'socialist'. OWS has no interest in working together with the Tea Party to achieve those goals.
Really. What are you talking about? Are you even involved in the OWS movement? Or are you just a Tea Partier trolling here?
Okay, I think I see our disconnect. I'm not trying to convince you that the Tea Party is in favor of anything. I'm trying to point out that we (the Occupy movement and the Tea Party) have common ground in the area of campaign finance reform. I.e. both agree.
I think YOU are dividing people up. "No! The Tea Party disagrees with some of my beliefs, so we [sic] have no interest in working with them."
MY POINT- If this is truly a non-partisan movement, why on Earth are we not working together for an aim we BOTH agree on? How do we not BOTH benefit from working together? This movement is in it's infancy. This movement NEEDS legitimacy. It is gaining momentum, but we need to keep aiming for more. Rallying around campaign finance reform is the only logical next step.
Till then they're all right when they say the Occupy movement is impotent.
That's right. If the Tea Party wants to work with OWS on a narrow set of issues, such as regulation of lobbying and campaign financing, that would be great. We should be happy to work with anyone that agrees with those goals.
But that doesn't mean that OWS and the Tea Party have much in common with the Tea Party. That means that we have something in common with the Tea Party. But on most of the issues that MegMcG mentions in her post, we strongly disagree with the Tea Party's position.
I don't see how acknowledging our differences constitutes dividing people up. Those divisions are already there; they are real and they run deep. And I never said we shouldn't work with the Tea Party on the few issues we do agree on; I just called attention to the fact that we won't be working together on very much, since our goals are completely opposed to theirs on issues of central importance to the both of us: regulation, taxation, the role of government, and democratic process.
I strongly reject your implication that OWS needs the Tea Party to bestow its 'legitimacy' on us. Our legitimacy stems from the justice of our demands -- real solutions to real problems. That's why they ought to be realized.
Pardon if that seems like what I said. The TP working with us does NOT in and of itself bestow legitimacy on the Occupy movement. That's skipping a key step.
What I'm trying to communicate is that the Occupy movement needs to move on actually accomplishing something. As in actually accomplishing something we can definitively point to and say "There! We did that!" bestows legitimacy on the movement. Something to show the naysayers who are decrying this movement as useless. Till that happens, OWS is exactly as the main stream media circus has been playing. (Yes, I'm aware that is starting to change)
It's my opinion campaign finance reform can easily and effectively be that one, first thing. And we can achieve that by working with those who are behind that cause, no matter who they claim to be.
It ought to, but an awful lot that ought to happen doesn't so far as I'm concerned. Just because it should happen in our minds, doesn't mean it will. It's time to start playing to win.
OK, so your position is just the following:
You agree that the Tea Party has very little in common with OWS, contrary to the hypothesis behind this thread.
But you think that OWS can achieve one of its goals -- regulating lobbying and campaign finance -- faster if the Tea Party joins in the effort to make that happen.
And as for OWS's other goals -- regulating the markets, allowing the Bush tax cuts on the rich to expire, prosecuting white-collar crime, and holding Wall Street accountable -- you recognize that we're only going to achieve them by growing our movement and not by depending on established interests or other movements, particularly the Tea Party.
If that's all you're trying to say here, then I wholeheartedly agree.
As a favorite fictional character of mine says "Close enough for government work."
Hey, I just want to say thanks for this discussion. It may seem to have been a little circular, but I enjoyed having it none the less.
With regard to the second to last paragraph, here's what I really think. I think the Tea Party represent a very vocal and committed minority. Whether you like them or not, they've accomplished things. I think OWS needs to accomplish things and re-energize the every day citizen's faith in our political system. We have to get this movement to critical mass, i.e. the point where we can not be ignored, laughed at or purposefully misunderstood. At that point, the majority, whatever than majority may be, will help shape our government's future.
From what I read from SisterRay, sounds like either OWS has been co-opted by leftists, or their views of the tea party are as emotional and distorted as the ones I have seen about OWS coming from the right.
While I do identify as left of center, I don't believe I have co-opted the movement.
But I'm more interested in your claim that I have an "emotional and distorted" view of the Tea Party. I don't believe that I've misrepresented any of their views, and I believe that my rejection of their views as I understand them is rationally grounded -- I've tried to share my reasons in these posts. If you think I'm mistaken in my perception of or judgment about the Tea Party's proposals, please explain why.
OWS is made up of individuals, some of whom are leftists, but co-opted? Hardly. One person with leftist ideas is hardly proof.
True. The so called T-party is really an arm of the Oligarchs that created and fund it.
beardy and HowardRoark are infiltrators designed to divide us.
Be careful.
Hardly, nothing but garden variety trolls.
egads you discovered my plan!
Like 'em or not, they got results. There are lessons to be learned from them.
I would find the OWS movement much easier to support if it weren't so socialist. I am more of a libertarian myself. Capitalism is not the problem. It's how the system has been corrupted that is the problem. That and 30 plus years of Keynesian economics run amok. Here is my prescription to what ails this country. Term limits are good. Prosecuting the banksters is a must. Stop the incest between the regulators and the regulated. End the FED. Reinstate Glass-Steagall. Cut taxes. Cut spending. End the wars. Repeal the Patriot Act. End fractional reserve banking. Reinstate mark to market and force all insolvent banks into receivership now (which is just about all of the major ones). Legalize pot. More freedom. More liberty. Do all that and this country will be booming inside of 18 months.
Edit: I almost forgot, to big too fail is too big to exist. Any bank or corp. that becomes so big that it's failure will put the whole system at risk must be broken up. No more bail outs. The government can not be in the business of picking winners and losers.
I am "on the left" and don't support the free-market-cures-all tropes that the right endorse. There are clearly differences and areas where we cannot work together. However, I have no problem working together with the right on issues that we agree on, including, and perhaps especially, getting money out of politics. If we can work together to restore our democracy, great, then we can go our separate ways and duke it out politically on a level playing field.
You probably say that because this country has not had anything close to a free market for over 100 years and you don't know how it supposed to work. The system we use now is some kind of mish mash of liberal do gooder + crony capitalism. Oh, other than Ron Paul the republicans don't want a "true" free market system either.
I oppose Ron Paul and Libertarians. They have juvenile and naive understandings of economics, history, and philosophy. They mistake the coherency of an ideology--which is what Libertarianism offers them--for genuine intelligence and knowledge.
Oh, I guess your soooo much smarter than any of those childish Libertarians. I'll just throw out all those books I have by Hayek, Mises and Rothbard and go out and buy copies of your books. It will be so much fun to be schooled by a real grownup intellectual.
I think so, yes.
I guess that says it all. See ya.
I don't know why more people can't be like this. We should always find allies to work with in the areas in which we agree. Creating the false dilemma that some people who disagree on how to get to a better world means that we can't work with them at all is what has helped get us in this mess.
Besides we can always convince the others while we work on shared goals :)
Well said. The Tea Party and OWS are joined by their despise towards corporate influence in politics. If we could join forces with each other on only this one issue, man, the results would be HUGE.
Yes...Mark to Market. So glad you brought that up. Most of the big banks are already insolvent, but there are kept afloat by shady accounting practices. Well done.
I don't think social issues have a place at the table this early on in the movement. We have to address the economy and the problem with economy is that we are not a capitalistic economy, we are under the power of a cartel! A few major producers control the entire market.
Its called crony capitalism.