More than a few commentators and reporters have
tried to brand the Occupy Movement as a Tea
Party of the Left. On its
surface, the analogy has some compelling aspects:
both movement emphasize rage over a rational,
forward-looking policy agenda. Both claim to speak
for the “little guy” but are actually populated by
people with above average levels of education and
(at least in the case of the Tea Party–there are no
surveys I know of that related to the Occupy
Movement) income. Both are also, best as I can tell,
authentic grass-roots movements without any sinister
puppet-master behind them. As opposing political
forces, the two groups may well be a good pairing.
But, already, some real differences are apparent.
Three stand out:
Tea Party
Supporters are self-interested in the macro-sense,
Occupy supporters are self-interested in the
micro-sense: All people involved in all
political movements believe they are acting at least
partly in self-interest. The Tea Party rallies and
meetings I’ve attended have focused on “macro
self-interest.” There’s lots of talk (much of it
ill-informed) about the future, the national debt,
the fate of individuals’ children, and the direction
of the country. Personal concerns–everything from
I-can-barely-resist-laughing “keep the government’s
hands off of my Medicare” rants to well-informed
complaints about small business regulation–are
present but secondary in my experience. Nearly all
Occupy Supporters I’ve seen interviewed, on the
other hand, exalt personal testimony over any macro
concerns about the economy: “I am afraid I won’t
have a job when I graduate,” “my classmates don’t
have jobs,” “I, personally, don’t feel secure right
now,” “the bank is foreclosing on my house,” “I am
afraid my unemployment insurance will run out.” ...
The Tea Party Movement has been peaceful,
the Occupy Movement appears to be turning violent:
In the last two weeks, Occupy Movement efforts to
close bridges leading to Manhattan and The Air and
Space Museum have already caused more distraction
and annoyance to people not involved in politics
than the Tea Party has the last three years. If
things escalate this quickly, there’s a good chance
that Left-wing violence of a kind the United States
hasn’t seen in 40 years–could well evolve out of the
Occupy Movement.
Tea Partiers work, Occupy Movement
protesters choose not to: Protesting,
particularly if it’s the full-time job many Occupy
protesters seem to want it to be, requires both
resources to survive without a job, a lack of family
members to support, and a degree of political
concern. People from the bottom levels of society
can almost never protest full time. (This isn’t
necessarily an attack on the Occupy movement; just a
statement of fact. Reasonably well-educated
working-class urban dwellers like Rosa Parks, not
impoverished sharecroppers from rural areas, made up
the core of the American Civil Rights Movement.) Tea
Party events, almost always, have taken place on
weekends, after work, and on national holidays
because the overwhelming majority of non-retired Tea
Party members work full time. If, as appears to be
the case, many Occupy protesters are college
students or recent graduates, then their
unemployment is, to some extent, voluntary. True, it
may be hard to find the types of jobs that college
grads think they deserve, but hardly anyone with a
college degree is going to be unable to find any
type of job particularly if they are willing to
move. The presence of a large Occupy movement in the
Washington, D.C. area is more proof of this: the
recession has largely ended in the region and the
two biggest suburban jurisdictions (both of them
more than twice the size of the District)–Fairfax
County, Virginia (4.3 unemployment) and Montgomery
County, Maryland (5.5 percent unemployment)–are both
actually pretty close to full employment.
The Occupy Movement is, in may ways, an left-wing
answer to the Tea Party. But it’s not the same
thing.
