OWS? Tea Party? What's in a name?

Over the past few years there has been a couple of political movements that seem, on the face of it, to have caught on. So much so, it seems that Establishment powerbrokers want to try to control them.

On one hand, you have the Occupy Wall Street movement. They want to put paid to the evil bankers/corporations, and return power to the "people". This is a good thing. Nothing but.

On the other hand, you have the Tea Party. They want to put paid to big govt. and the regulation of our lives that comes with big govt. Again, this is a good thing. Nothing but.

So, both these groups want good things. Why then are their supporters seemingly so diametrically opposed?

I've heard the arguments. Each says the other is controlled by the Evil One(s).

George Soros. Rothchilds. Sarah Palin. The list is virtually endless. Seemingly a new Evil One(s) is added daily... If it wasn't so tragically short sighted it'd be funny.

There is a reason the Establishment wants to attempt to control you lot... They're scared of you. They're scared of what you could become if you'd just let loose of your hate. Keep your anger. Keep your passion. Get rid of the Establishmentarians that are attempting to keep you diametrically opposed.

Why are you opposed anyway?

Aren't you after the same thing? Reclaiming what is rightfully ours? You may differ on the means, but the end is the same.



EXACTLY THE *BLEEPING* SAME!!



Until you all realize this, your movements will not succeed. It's time, and past, that you join hands and heads, and realize that together you are much more than the sum of your parts.

Again, that's why the Establishment fears you, and is attempting to take over. But it's up to you to do something about it. Until you do? Many people, including me, will respect the thought behind the movements, but will stay firmly astride that fence.

You all are looking squarely at a chance to change the world, or at least our part of it. Don't blow it.

Taxed
Enough
Already

Pretty Clear message - not to be confused with the multi messages from OWS - the (2) groups are hardly the same - nice try but a big FAIL

Both big government and Wallstreet need to loosen their grasp on our lives.

EDIT: In my posts, I know I sound pro-OWS, but actually I'm anti-government and anti-Wallstreet. And I agree, these people need to stop bickering about the difference in how they want change to come about, we all want it! If they don't, I'm afraid change will come that will be a far cry from what both groups wanted. The big difference between the two are that the OWS is proactive and the anti-government people are vegging out in front of their TVs, conservative radio, and computers.

WORK TOGETHER!

reply to post by NorthStreet1


Have a look at those multiple messages. They're all about taking back control from those who are abusing their power.

If you can't figure that out, then the failure isn't, and won't be mine...

Fail? Hardly.

Originally posted by seagull
On one hand, you have the Occupy Wall Street movement. They want to put paid to the evil bankers/corporations, and return power to the "people". This is a good thing. Nothing but.

You can't return power to the people by occupying the consequences of corruption, you have to address the root of it.
Most of these OWS guys will probably be voting for Obama all while they are trying to occupy his major donors to his campaign, so how in the world can I support that?

Originally posted by seagull
On the other hand, you have the Tea Party. They want to put paid to big govt. and the regulation of our lives that comes with big govt. Again, this is a good thing. Nothing but.

Sure, Tea Party is definately better, it could be even better though

Originally posted by seagull
So, both these groups want good things. Why then are their supporters seemingly so diametrically opposed?
.

Because they are completely different that's why
Put it this way
The Tea Party wants small government while OWS wants free this and free that and therefore would prefer socialism.
Small Govt. vs. Socialism is most definately at opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of both views and logic.

reply to post by seagull


Good comparison and food for thought. I think what is also similar with both movements is that there are those who seek to use the movements to their own advantage, to exploit them and try to suck their energy into their own causes.

I don't see Palin or Bachman as tea partiers. I think they've both tried to use what was otherwise a well-thought-out movement and in the process painted the Tea Party with their own odiferous agendas.

Likewise, with the Occupy movement, the basic concept seems honorable to me. Why the conflict between the two? Some entities have been fairly successful at painting Occupy as "left-wing" and by cubbyholing it into that tiny little box, they have been successful via propaganda to further divide those that basically want the same thing.

Good thread. These two movements are not so far apart. I think the NY Occupy "manifesto" gave far too much fodder to those who sought to minimalize it, and I found myself falling into that same trap. ($20 minimum wage?? Insane! That CAN'T work, silly). As with religions, I think that in the final analysis, there are far more similarities than differences.

It has become clearer to me recently that the main issue with talking about these "activities" ... "movements" ... is the inability to characterize them to everyone's satisfaction.

Even "notional" representatives of the Tea Party movement (which may be a different thing than the actual "TEA Party" in the estimation of some) and the Occupy Wall Street Movement; seem dissatisfied with any representation of their ideals given by any who consider themselves separate from the body of the movement.

If you say one thing.... they will attest to your failure to mention another; claim you have missed the point, and generally imply that you are likely to be unwilling to, or incapable of, "getting it."

It is a sad testament to the chaos of the time. The reasons of, and elements that contribute to, the exacerbation of the problem are the stuff of volumes of text. I do not wish to derail the concise and poignant question the OP poses.

What is in a name; when the outcome is generalized into a "better world for us all" so to speak?

Is it the objective both envision a common one? Doubtful.

They are however, compatible.

The means to those ends both groups envision, on the other hand, are not.

I believe, and this is where unabashed opinion comes in, that it was the failure of the TEA Party movement to resist the vainglorious glamour of political celebrity that essentially disenfranchised those who dared believe that the solution to our problems does not lie within the control of the corporate-political machinery so deeply entrenched within the reigning commercial paradigm of governance.

These words will chafe cruelly against those who insist that certain "personalities" can effect change within the systemic construct of government. They have a certain faith in the good-will and honor of those they accept as people whose judgement and influence are well-received. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But when the TEA party message began to prove malleable to the politically expedience paradigm of the legislature and the Senate; many lost faith. Others did not.

I would not be surprised if you polled the self-declared OWS 'members" you would find that the majority did hold the TEA Party movement in high regard.... until recently. I wouldn't be surprised if many still do.

However, the OWS represents, in my opinion (again), the impatience of those sensitive to the fact that change can be said to come slowly, and that it can also hardly occur at all and still masquerade as change - so when the answer to their disaffection is "it will take time" the rejoinder is "You ALWAYS say that! And then NOTHING changes!"

The very strength the Tea Party shows in it's cohesive adherence to specific agendas, was the reason it had to compromise with the existing political paradigm in order to even hope to change things for the better. This including inducting some eager politicians who look for any populist opportunity to continue their careers. While some are true to it's cause, others are just in the club.

The passionate rejection of that paradigm, without a well-defined set of goals to present as a solution, made the OWS movement capable of only presenting itself as a 'Christmas wish-list" of goals with no clear strategy to effect the change other than vilifying the corporate substrate that has usurped our status as "the people" in "We the People."

Were the two movement to court one another, the offspring might be exactly what we need. Problem is the main method of communicating in the environment is via the media, the single least reliable medium for the exclusion of thespian malarkey.

Those of both parties who rail at each other are... ironically... doing each other a great favor. Opposition engenders vitality. If the ideals are compatible, as I think they are, their can be a reconciliation of agendas. This must be of course opposed by the status quo.....

I echo your advice OP, when you are carrying anger, fear, and hatred... travel light, drop the hatred.... anger and fear can be dealt with.... hate is ultimately, mutually destructive, and barren.

The map is not the territory, the word is not the thing defined

~Alfred Korzybski~

When Shakespeare, through his character Juliet, asks this same question, he gives a different answer: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet."

Whatever we call a rose, both its sweet smell and its thorns remain the same. Shakespeare, through the mouth of young woman madly in love does not concern himself with the thorns of the rose, only its sweetness, and my point is that this wide eyed exuberance for the magnificence of beauty is always underscored by the malignancy of ugliness. Sometimes painful dreadful ugliness. Juliet, in the end, discovers this and tragically so. Rome and Juliet, after all, is not one of Shakespeare's comedies.

Both the Tea Party and the OWS movements had their comedy of errors and there was much ado about nothing much of the time coming from both movements, and always the underlying form was "Change". Simply just demanding change is never enough, particularly when it is a demand made of those quite clearly unwilling to change. To abandon the Shakespeare nods and give a quick shout out to Gandhi; "You must be the change you want to see in the world".

How can I, or anyone else give such advise to "movements" such as the Tea Party, OWS, or any other movement that wants to assert its noise? This most sound advise that Gandhi offered, that I do my best to follow, that I now share with whomever will accept it, can only be valid on an individual basis. If you want change, then affect change, but more importantly than this, if you want change, know clearly what that change is so when you affect this change you have successfully predicted the outcome.

What's in a name? What difference does it make, in the end, that the user by the name of seagull chose seagull as a user name, or that Maxmar chose that? Maxmar is not significant because of a user name, nor is seagull significant because of a user name, nor is Jean Paul Zodeaux significant because of that name. It is what we have done as individuals that has mattered, and if it hasn't mattered then this is responsibility we have to accept and if we want to matter figure out how to do so.

No pressure, really, just be that change in the world you want to see, then you will, with a group or without, do what needs to be done so that you can ultimately have the world you want to have. All of which begins with the individual.

There's nothing in a name, but to those who disagree with OWS I don't think the name means anything to them
it's the details, views, and demands

I think to really understand why these two camps are viewed as so different it would be important to know that nobody cares about the names

You mentioned celebrity support, that's one major problem right there
A celebrity supports OWS like Lupe Fiasco is adamantly doing and newcomers join the party only because it's the cool thing to do
Perhaps this was a good point of the Tea Party to not have celebrity support and without such people just joining the party just because it's cool because their favorite artist supports it then perhaps you would have less wilding out and having disrespect for both public and private property.

If OWS and the Tea Party are so alike how come the Tea Party has had so many more rallies then OWS but never caused any damage whatsoever yet OWS has?

Though even members from both sides of the camp join just to be part of something I would still wager that Tea Partiers would have a larger majority of people that could debate with you on the purpose of their rallies, what their demands are and what they want. And it would be a fairly consistent message all accross the board.

The Artist Lupe Fiasco who constantly posts pro-OWS messages on his twitter said this:
"LupeFiasco - And where else can u see a USMC Flag and an Anarcho-Syndicalist Flag flying side by side HAHA"

See that's great and all but at the same time it's chaotic
Maybe they aren't side by side, maybe they are competing with each other for support of either group.
Anyone who has no list of demands or a consistent message is a group that can be hijacked by any political party

So in my opinion the real question is What Is OWS Really?
I don't think anyone knows the answer and I would also guess that those who know the least about OWS would think they know the most and those that know the most and can think critically would know that nobody knows.

reply to post by seagull
The similarities between the two "camps" begins and ends with the identification of a problem.

We can all agree that there is a problem.

It's the solutions that differ. That define each camp.

In order for this to even be considered The Tea Party would have to rid, shed and purge itself from it's GOP clothes and don new apparel. This intense and insistence on having every last piece of legislation go their way is not governance as it is destructive to the operation of Govt as it is not wise to destroy or bring it to a grinding halt because they are not getting their way.on every possible thing. Both need to be re-examined by them.

"OWS? Tea Party? What's in a name?"



The Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party .... the same? ..... & ...






Teamwork. What a concept. But what possible good could come from it?





Incidently, how does one incorporate a picture with changing the size of it? How can make a picture smaller?

Someone on staff mentioned this, almost seemingly is passing, but it struck a chord with me.

Common ground is what I'm seeking in an attempt to convince people that the two groups, despite some obvious superficial differences in political policy, should work together to change what they both believe, with great passion, should be changed.

I think I may have, at least at first glance, found some of that common ground.

Ethics. Or maybe lack of same amongst those we've entrusted with the safety and well being of not only this nation, but the world in general.

Ethics defined.

eth·ics   [eth-iks]
plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

So, it comes down to this. Both sides want business leaders, and their political lap dogs held to a higher standard.

Start there, people. That's where your ideologies no longer clash. Here is where the rubber meets the road. Both sides working together to help ensure that the behaviour of our "leaders" matches the rhetorical flourishes.

So... Are any of you willing to put aside the petty differences that the "dark shadow masters" want us to fight about? Or are you going to continue to bicker and fight while they laugh at you? Actually, they hold you, us, in such contempt that I'm fairly sure they don't even bother to laugh.

Up to you. I've said my piece.

Just one more thing to add: They hold you in contempt, so too will history if you aren't willing to at least try. ...and I'll help write the books.

reply to post by beezzer

We can all agree that there is a problem.

Then let that be the place to start, damn it. Every worthwhile journey begins with that first step. Your first step is in agreeing that there are problems.

Look, none of you are idiots. You've already proven that you see there is a problem. Now exercise that brain and begin working to solve them. Pick one problem. Ethics is the one I'd use. Get together with some less reactionary people from both sides and come up with something to help fix the ethical dilemma.

I think people are starting to wake up to the false dichotomy of Left/Right, Red/Blue, Republican/Democrat... and the Elite are seeing an opportunity to create a new false dichotomy out of two groups that are both addressing the same root problems and probably could be on the same side if they weren't pitted against each other in a false narrative.

That's my two cents. Good thread. Look forward to hearing others' thoughts on this.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by beezzer

 

We can all agree that there is a problem.

Then let that be the place to start, damn it. Every worthwhile journey begins with that first step. Your first step is in agreeing that there are problems.

Look, none of you are idiots. You've already proven that you see there is a problem. Now exercise that brain and begin working to solve them. Pick one problem. Ethics is the one I'd use. Get together with some less reactionary people from both sides and come up with something to help fix the ethical dilemma.

It's interesting that you bring up ethics. Because, in order to exact a solution, someone, some group(s) is/are going to have to compromise their ethics, their principles.
And when you use principles as poker chips, then it stops becoming principles and it becomes bargaining chips.

So, who goes first?

Who sacrifices their principles first?

reply to post by beezzer


Which principles do you feel need to be compromised? Ultimately the principles are the thing.

Do both groups agree on the problems they see, or are they disagreeing with each other on different problems altogether?

Ethics is a fair starting point; however, ethics requires clarifications that will bring it down to earth.

Too bad most people are conditioned to assume they are unqualified and ill-suited to discuss such things.

The nature of our society is at a crossroads.... soon it will not be "our" society at all... it will be a control construct with invisible hands pulling the strings.... or are we there yet?

reply to post by beezzer


Your ethics? Theirs? Both sides yammer on and on about the atrocious behaviour going on both in Washington DC, and on Madison Ave. That's the ethics that I'm referring to. Looking for common ground in order to work together for a common good, how does that in any way compromise anyone's ethical standard? No illegality is occurring...no one is being harmed.

With all due respect, are you attempting to find reasons not to work together? Because I'm sure you won't be the only one to say exactly the same thing.

...and you'll all be wrong.

This is what is keeping both movements from really taking the world by storm. That attitude of "my way is the only way!"

Compromise. If you are willing to, and they aren't, you can always go back to the status quo. But if you don't try, nothing will change. What've you got to lose?

You are asking cats and dogs to live in peace with each other.

It's not about identification of the problems, it's how they want to solve the problem that they don't agree with.

You aren't going to get either side to give on that...it's what they believe and what they stand for. And there is no middle or common ground on this...they are so far apart that it just isn't possible.

So you are basically asking one side to give in and support the others solution...so who should do that? The Tea Pary or OWS? Which side should go against everything they stand for just for the cause of "coming together"???

I see no problem with the current system...Tea Party is the extreme right, OWS is the extreme left, Dems are moderate left, Repubs are moderate right...and then you have a few that are truly in the middle.

Why would you want everyone to agree with each other...it's good that we disagree.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


...and never the twain shall meet?

Someday, I hope you all realize just how self defeating that attitude is.