The question I've been asked to address is what are the similarities and differences between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movement and which group should an American in debt support.
I'm hoping this isn't a trick question because the answer seems so incontrovertible to me. The Tea Party's agenda, at least as seen through the policy prescriptions of its elected leaders, is one of austerity and budget-cutting. That doesn't help poor Americans and that's why it's not popular, even among Republican voters. Look at the GOP's presidential primary. The two main Tea Party candidates, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry, can't even convince the GOP's most loyal electorate to support the Tea Party agenda, and if right-wing voters in red states aren't buying the Tea Party's faux-populist line, why should any of the rest of us?
Meanwhile, despite the disorder associated with all emerging grassroots movements and the repeated efforts to smear OWS's message as being incoherent, the movement's goals are crystal clear to anyone paying even cursory attention: higher taxes on the "one percent," the closing of corporate tax loopholes, some form of student debt forgiveness, a more regulated financial services industry and a forthright, well-funded effort to put people back to work. These are all clear goals of the movement, and would help the aforementioned American in debt far more than Eric Cantor's austerity agenda.
Another big difference is the respective groups' popularity: About half of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Occupy Wall Street protests, making the movement about twice as popular as the Tea Party, according to a Time magazine poll released on October 13.
That said, I do think there are some important similarities that should not be ignored and that could, conceivably, be the basis for a future trans-partisan populist movement. Adherents from both groups are deeply alienated from the institutions that seek to speak for them and are scared and angered about the diminishing expectations of our current age.
Moreover, many Tea Partiers share the Occupy Wall Street crowd's criticism of Wall Street. Similarly, the vast majority of the Occupy crowd share at least some of the Tea Party's disdain for what passes as business as usual in Washington, DC. Both groups also exhibit a deep (and in my view, healthy) animus to the role of the Federal Reserve in managing the U.S. economy.
The differences are more relevant and instructive however: OWS is a lot younger than the Tea Party, both demographically and historically. But the defining difference is the Occupy movement's independence. There are no institutional ties between the group and establishment elements, no backdoor funding streams, no sponsorship by right-wing billionaires looking to use the group as a front for their own corrupt agenda. It's a fact that the Tea Party receives major money, support, and advice from the one percent whereas Occupy Wall Street does not.
The Tea Party feigns indignation at Washington while finding itself and its funders well-served by DC's corruption, while OWS is a genuine protest against the status quo.
Another big difference is the respective groups' popularity: About half of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Occupy Wall Street protests, making the movement about twice as popular as the Tea Party, according to a Time magazine poll released on October 13.
In the poll, 54% of respondents rated the Wall Street protests positively, with 25% saying they had a "very favorable" opinion of them. In contrast, only 27% of respondents viewed the Tea Party favorably. Thirty-three percent of respondents expressed an unfavorable opinion including 24% who said they had a "very unfavorable" opinion of the Tea Party.
I'm happy here to leave the last word to our fellow Americans.
