"Occupy" Vs Tea Party

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

The Tea Party movement has shown themselves pretty adept at learning and using the political process to influence government.

 

By contrast, the political purpose and method of the "occupy" movement seems to revolve around getting into fights with the police.

 

May 1st in Seattle, that turned into deliberately planned attacks by thugs armed with clubs, who broke out hundreds of thousand of dollars of picture windows in businesses along the downtown streets of Seattle in deliberate and entirely unprovoked attacks.

 

It was a despicable thing. It was VERY reminiscent of the Nazi Brown shirts, the only difference was that these people were wearing black.

 

The tolerance policy of Seattle's mayor was rewarded when the windows of his home were stoned while his wife and children were home alone later that night. That was a little taste of justice for HIM, anyway.

 

 

 

[BS-87]

Sounds like the difference between an adult and a child managing a problem.

 

The Tea Party identified a problem, advocated the cause, identified a workable solution, and now they're implementing their plan to affect change by utilizing an existing structure that functions in the way they want to function.

 

Occupy identified a complaint, tried to assess blame, rioted for the cause, made unrealistic demands, and is now having trouble regaining traction because nobody takes them seriously.

 

I guess that's probably the difference.

[Beavah]

Wow. Violation of Godwin's law on the very first post. That has to be a record. A bit like takin' careful aim at your own foot and pullin' the trigger to start an argument.

 

SeattlePioneer loses.

 

I think if you're a student of history, yeh know that generally speakin' those who do not have access to the mechanisms of power will hit a boiling point that typically results in riots, and occasionally in revolutions. It is da natural reaction when those in power don't live up to their Christian duties of justice and compassion. And it's not altogether irrational, eh? Looting is very inefficient, but it is nonetheless a mildly effective means of wealth redistribution.

 

It is, after all, not very likely that the average day laborer is goin' to have the background of Ron Paul's enthusiastic college-educated internet generation to be able to manipulate da arcane rules of state political parties. I doubt most folks on these forums could manage it.

 

That having been said, I reckon it's probably not reasonable to lump the May Day folks in with the Occupy Movement, as they're comin' from two very different communities. The occupy folks are a different crowd. No different than lumping all the Tea Party folks in with some of its more stupid and racist members.

 

It's also not completely reasonable to compare the tactics of the two, since from the beginnin' the Tea Party movement was organized and financed by fairly savvy media and political folks.

 

Now, all qualifiers and careful statements of fairness aside, I think we can all agree that such mindless violence is not somethin' we should tolerate. It merits both an appropriate police response and a careful look at what we can do to assist our fellow Americans who feel driven to such desperation.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Stosh]

One has to also take into consideration that the Tea Party tends to draw the attention of an older, more conservative following. The Occupy Party tends to draw the attention of young, more liberal following. Couple that with a more mature way of reacting to things and one can see an obvious and almost predictable reaction from each group.

 

I don't see a whole lot of difference today than the political environment back in the late 60's and early 70's with the Vietnam War. However, the more subdued reaction of the younger crowed actually was more effective in bringing the war to a close than the tactics of today's Occupy Party being successful. Interestingly if it worked for those people back then, they are the ones today that make up the bulk of the Tea Party. Their tactics haven't changed and they know how to work the system, they've been doing it for 50 years.

 

When there was political conflict based less on age and more on other issues, the reaction was totally unpredictable, i.e. the race issue of the mid-60's. Race involved persons of all ages and thus the reactions were often times way off the chart. The only positive thing that came out of the race riots was urban renewal. Equal rights have continued to fester for 50 years so that issue is still on the table for a few.

 

Stosh

 

 

[BS-87]

It's also not completely reasonable to compare the tactics of the two, since from the beginnin' the Tea Party movement was organized and financed by fairly savvy media and political folks.

 

So you don't consider the SEIU or the Tides Foundation to be politically savvy?

 

You don't consider the media that was fawning over Occupy (TIME Magazine anyone?) to be savvy?

 

I can accept that the many local and national leaders that sprouted up in the Tea Party were experienced in the political arena, but I won't accept that Occupy wasn't well funded and organized by politically savvy organizations.

[SeattlePioneer]

I'm disappointed to see Beavah making the moral equivalence line of argument to compare a bunch of violent thugs with the Tea Party.

 

I also reject his claim that it's unreasonable to compare a group of violent thugs that deliberately trashes a downtown area according to a plan obviously devised ahead of time with the Nazis.

The only excuse is that he hasn't read the newspaper coverage of these incidents, which is, of course, entirely possible.

 

It's very sad when educated people fail to recognize a violent bunch of politically motivated thugs for what they are, and offer excuses for their violence.

 

 

I wonder if Beavah's attitude would be as charitable if HIS house had had it's windows broken out late at night while his wife and young children were home? That's what happened to Seattle Mayor after he connived to avoid taking any action which could have provoked the downtown attacks, or any actions which might have protected businesses from a lot of damage.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

See, the problem is, its real easy to see some action we disagree with and label it Nazis like, throw around terms like "Brown Shirt" or Gestapo Tactics and the youth hear them and before you know it, kids are changing Nazi Nazi at recess or anyone they dislike is a Nazi and the words lose their meaning.

 

And the absolute horrors perpertrated by the Nazis are not something we should forget or make light of. Until a political organization mobilizes its own "security force" which acts in impunity with the law calling them Nazis is inaacurate. Until a political force accomplishes a national prescence and develops concentration camps, its a little premature to call them Nazis

 

Throwing around terms such as Nazis, Gestapo, SS and Hitler-like demean totally their victims experience. A group of people may be dumb, stupid, ignorant, mean and immoral but that doesnt make them Nazis, it makes them dumb, stupid, ignorant, mean and immoral

[SeattlePioneer]

Why yes --- an organized, planned and deliberate attack on the city of Seattle by a good sized group of thugs dressed in black uniforms all wearing masks to hide their identity armed with 3" thick poles used to punch in windows DOES sound like Brown shirt tactics to me.

 

The moral equivalence is with the Nazis, not the Tea Party.

 

However, if you'd feel better comparing it with Mussolini's Black shirt thugs doing similar things in Italy, I'd be willing to accept that if it makes you feel better about it.

[Twocubdad]

The leaders of the local occupy group are a couple of 50-something guys with long, grey ponytails who seem disappointed they couldn't get down with the people in Chicago in '68 because they were only 10 years old at the time. Their sense of moral outrage at the One Percenters has now drifted to suing each other for rights to produce Occupy logo t-shirts.

 

Kinda makes you miss Abbie Hoffman, huh?

[Basementdweller]

Tea party......White upper middle class....My parents at 70 years old are proud tea party members....why because their friends are....Very anti Obama....

 

 

Occupy....bored folks who aren't sure what the issues are..

 

 

Beavah...Godwins didn't work in the cake in the face post either.

[whitepine]

The way I see it, the Tea Party appears to be elderly couples and housewives who advocate for change in government through peaceful rallies and changes in voting. On the other hand, the Occupy movement has a large amount of complaining freeloaders who like to camp out and protest against the inequalities of capitalism instead of getting a job and helping themselves.

[CalicoPenn]

The Tea Party protestors were peaceful, except when they were screaming at Congressfolks and otherwise disrupting town hall meetings that other folks had come to participate in. They're all a bunch of old folks chanting keep government out of Medicare (apparently not understanding that Medicare is a government program - oops), except when they are a bunch of middle age white folks yelling at and threatening disabled veterans when a veteran dares to hold up a sign in opposition to their beliefs. The Tea Party is a grassroots group, even when it's been co-opted by a major media outlet and a lot of big money behind it.

 

Occupy is a group of younger folks inspired by a magazine out of Canada (Asbusters) to peacefully protest that capitalism has gone too far that would have faded into obscurity until a particular incident of violence perpetrated against a couple of peaceful female protestors by a New York City Police Officer made the national news and spawned additional occupy protests throughout the country. While there were some internicine squabbles, the violence at these rallys were instigated by outsiders, mostly the police, acting on orders by local governmental authorities worried that as they continued, it made their cities look weak to a certain segment of society, namely the folks that backed the tea parties. Some big money folks on the left side of the political spectrum attempted to co-opt Occupy in much the same way as the Tea Party was co-opted, but that never took off.

 

The May Day protestors in Seattle are Anarchists - they've been around and active for many years (surely folks remember the WTO battles in Seattle - which happened loooong before Occupy was even a glimmer in Adbuster's eyes. While it's quite likely that there might be some overlap in participants between these two movements, that doesn't make them equivalent movements, just as an overlap between the Libertarians and the Tea Party doesn't make them the same movement either. Attempting to lump the Anarchists and Occupy together is really just a shallow and disingenuous ploy by people without any honor.

 

As for Godwin's law? This illustrates exactly why Godwin's law exists - because it's too easy (or too lazy) to try to equate thinsg like the may day destruction with an event that took place in the mid-20th century. Do people really believe that these kinds of tactics were first used by the Nazi Party? Apparently folks have forgotten their history. Might want to check out the French revolution to start with.

 

 

 

 

[Eamonn]

Let me see..

 

No I don't think the idea of breaking " hundreds of thousand of dollars of picture windows in businesses along the downtown streets of Seattle in deliberate and entirely unprovoked attacks" Is a good idea.

 

But then again I also think that dragging down the good name and credit rating of this country is a bad idea.

At the end of the day who did the most harm to the greatest number of people?

 

Ea.

[SeattlePioneer]

Organized political violence is organized political violence, and that's what happened May 1st --- and during the WTO protests as well.

 

We ought to have a bright line that excludes organized political violence as an acceptable or excusable political tactic.

 

I'm sorry to see some people offering excuses for that.

[CalicoPenn]

"We ought to have a bright line that excludes organized political violence as an acceptable or excusable political tactic."

 

Maybe - but then again, I don't know of many Americans who would condemn the Sons of Liberty for crossing that bright line and creating the Boston Tea Party.