Tea Party on Wall Street? OWS vs. the TP

The recent Occupy Wall Street protests have created an interesting counterpoint to the more established Tea Party protest movement. The rhetoric of left-right conflict seems to be infused with partisanship, but, given the populist, anti-establishment tenor of both groups, it’s ironic that their aims appear to have more in common than not. The real reason they are opposed in action is probably due more to perceived ideological differences, rather than party identity.

Partisanship is a win or lose proposition decided by electoral victory or defeat. Our national elections are more like the Superbowl of politics that have hardened over time into a permanent rivalry. Like the Yankees vs. the Red Sox, it’s always the blue team vs. the red team and to the victor go all the spoils. (Well, not really. Read on.)

Political ideology is a different beast that articulates and guides our philosophical principles of government. Political ideology has a long and violent history, especially in the 20th century. We had monarchy challenged by market capitalism and democracy, which, in turn, was buffeted by communism and socialism. With the failures of the extreme, non-democratic ideologies, modern democratic politics has been largely distilled down to a tug-of-war between pro-government and pro-business ideological factions, with the left being pro-government and the right pro-business. The point of confusion in our modern politics is that we have conflated political partisanship with ideology.

As populist movements, OWS and the TP are not really partisan driven, though they still are strongly ideological. But there is an inherent contradiction. As opposed to the dominant two party factions of pro-government and pro-business, populist movements are divided along class lines of establishment elites vs. the democratic public. The financial elites that both OWS and TP protestors oppose are in collusion with the political establishment of both parties, so choosing up sides according to party is counter-productive to the success of any anti-establishment movement. The Tea Party seems to have understood this better than the OWS protestors, but let’s give them a little time.

Naturally, any popular movement in a democracy is going to attract the interest of organized parties because there is power in numbers that can help neutralize money and influence. So, the Republicans court the Tea Party and the Democrats court the OWS protest. But populists should not be fooled. Party elites, with the aid of media elites, have every incentive to co-opt a populist movement to serve their own purposes, which is to reinforce the establishment’s status-quo, aka the Powers That Be.

So, what about the ideological divide? Populist movements really have no vested interest in pro-government or pro-business ideologies because these mostly serve the party elites. Rather one would expect a populist convergence on the ideological principles of individual freedom and democracy. These are the same governing principles that the designers of the US Constitution arrived at more than 200 years ago and they have served us well ever since. When you think about it, a pure pro-government or pro-business ideology has more in common with Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin or Mao than Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, MLK Jr. or Gandhi.

For the populists among us, the Superbowl analogy may make this more clear. It’s an orchestrated battle on the field. While the fans pay for the tickets, the advertising rights, and all the concessions, the two teams on the field, with their owners and media promoters, always walk off with all the money, no matter who wins or loses.

Not bad for a day’s work.


One thought on “Tea Party on Wall Street? OWS vs. the TP

  1. If OWS populism is about expanding the welfare state instead of getting their share of the capitalist pie, it’s a dead letter.

    Journalist Charles Gasparino writing in the New York Post, Oct. 12:

    Here’s an important irony lost on those zany and sometimes violent Wall Street protesters: On the day that they extended their near riots from the financial district to the swanky uptown neighborhoods where many of the Wall Street millionaires live, we got proof positive that the ranks of the wealthiest Wall Streeters are shrinking.

    Which is rotten news for the massive New York City welfare state that the protesters say they want to protect.

    The proof comes from a new report by state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli. . . . The number of Wall Street fat cats is shrinking fairly dramatically, and will continue to shrink in the years ahead—meaning even less money coming from one of New York’s most important sources of tax revenue.

    Wrong address: Posturing protesters rallied against the rich yesterday—even as Wall Street’s woes are killing city tax collections.

    It also confirms something else reported recently. . . . Rather than heading uptown to the homes of people like JP Morgan chief executive Jamie Dimon, the protesters should be marching south—way south—to protest the Washington lawmakers who gave us the jobs-killing Dodd-Frank financial reform.

    By squeezing Wall Street, Washington’s “reform” is squeezing New York City and the state—and so helping force cutbacks in public-sector jobs here.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s