I don’t know what to think about Occupy Wall Street protests that began in New York’s financial district and have spread to a number of cities, including Philadelphia. I have no quibble with the movement’s right to peacefully protest.
The Philadelphia Daily News reported the protest outside of City Hall costs more than $32,000 a day in police overtime. Nobody said freedom comes cheap. I know friends and media columnists that I respect are strongly supporting Occupy. I need to know more before I jump aboard the bandwagon.
Occupy claims to represent the 99 percent of Americans who are getting screwed by the big banks and corporations. So far, so good. But once you get beyond the rather obvious message, the question is, where do we go from here? Occupy hasn’t yet gotten beyond the sloganeering.
Some on the left see Occupy as the antidote to the conservative Tea Party movement that is now playing a significant role in today’s Republican Party. If so, Occupy has a long way to go. What fueled the Tea Party’s success is its ability to go beyond street protests and become a full fledged political movement, fielding and electing some of its own candidates and supporting legislation favorable to its cause. More importantly, instead of becoming a third political party, the Tea Party became an arm of the Republicans and is now driving its anti-government agenda. I don’t agree it would necessarily be a good thing if Occupy became the Tea Party of liberals.
The Tea Party created a bogeyman out of the federal government. I don’t need a political movement on the left if it becomes intent on making a bogeyman of our business and banking institutions. Both positions are dangerously simplistic. In the Tea Party’s case, it has led to its being a strong impediment to reasonable compromise in Washington. Its radical anti-Washington credo led to the debt crisis. Any Republican in Congress caught compromising with the administration is targeted for defeat. Is there reason to fear Occupy could morph into a negative for the left?
Understand that some on the left are as adamantly opposed to compromise as the Tea Party, but for the opposite ideological reasons. They believe the president has been too willing to compromise. Like ultra-conservatives, they rail against bailing out banks and big corporations. They were against any health care bill that did not include a public option, even though the votes were not there to pass it. Some on the left believed the Affordable Health Care Act did not get passed without a public option. Admittedly there were flaws in the bailout and the Affordable Health Care Act , but in both cases, action was preferable to inaction. In both cases, the president and Congress have been given an opportunity to make improvements. Social Security was not perfect when it was originally passed either. If Occupy becomes a liberal Tea Party movement, I fear it could become another voice shouting “my way or the highway.”
The Tea Party has co-opted the Republican Party. It has been on display during the GOP presidential debates. Even moderates such as Mitt Romney and John Huntsman are being forced to take radical positions. In order to have a chance to win the nomination, Romney has even been forced to turn his back on his greatest single political achievement as governor of Massachusetts — health care. Massachusetts has the smallest percentage of uninsured citizens of any state in the Union. Romney’s health-care plan served as the model for the president’s own Affordable Health Care Act. But the strength of the Tea Party within the GOP has forced Romney to repudiate his own accomplishment. Whoever becomes the Republican nominee for president will emerge almost certainly carrying radical baggage that will make him or her less attractive in the general election. It is not far-fetched to peer into the future and see Occupy invoking liberal litmus tests for Democrats.
I believe the Tea Party labors are under the fantasy that America can return to the days of Jeffersonian small government. We are the most powerful nation on earth, not an agrarian society. I don’t want to see Occupy become a movement that operates under the left-wing fantasy that big business and corporations are inherently evil. We need an America where government as well as business and labor unions can come together for the common good. We need all of these elements working out their problems together to be competitive on the world stage. We need to be free from rigid ideology to be able do what works.
I wrote the Aug. 18 column, “ I hate Wall Street,” but I want reform not revolution. We need strong regulations because we shouldn’t expect our financial institutions to be altruistic. They are in the business of making money. Our government should be in the business of setting the rules to protect us from their abuses.
If Occupy is for reform, I am with them. But otherwise as The Beatles sang in “Revolution,” “we’d all love to see the plan.” SPR
Contact the South Philly Review at editor@southphillyreview.com.
Article:
The night Izzie died
Article:
Just sayin’
Article:
Complaints
Article:
The night I saw DiMaggio
Article:
Ozzie and Fidel
Article:
Good Friday
Article:
Florida dress code
Article:
This and that
1. Pliny the Elder said... on Oct 20, 2011 at 08:19PM
“Why aren’t they screaming about Obama and the Dems accepting all the millions of dollars the bankers of Wall Street send to them? The TEA party is not funded by Socialist, Marxist and anarchist who want to destroy America. The TEA party is not anti-government it’s for smaller and less intrusive government. It does not support anti-American values. It loves America and wants it to be the greatest, freest and most productive place on earth. The TEA party is not racist. It doesn’t hate Jews, blacks or other minorities. The TEA party wants legal immigration not open borders. It endorses individual liberty, balanced budgets, reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, free enterprise, checks and balances, loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution. *The Tea Party movement has no central leadership, but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity. The Tea Party movement is not, as of 2011, a national political party. Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters. The vast majority of them -- 89 percent are white. Just one percent is black. (A new Gallup Poll out this morning of 1,033 finds nothing fringe about self-proclaimed Tea Party adherents; they are slightly more likely to be employed, male and definitely more conservative. But otherwise Gallup's Lydia Saad writes, "their age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.") Three in four are 45 years old or older, including 29 percent who are 65 plus. They are also more likely to be men (59%) than women (41 %). More than one in three, (36%) hails from the South, far more than any other region. Twenty-five percent come from the West, 22 percent from the Midwest, and 18% from the northeast. They are better educated than most Americans: 37 percent are college graduates, compared to 25 percent of Americans overall. They also have a higher-than-average household income, with 56 percent making more than $50,000 per year. More than half (54%) identify as Republicans, and another 41% say they are independents. Just five percent call themselves Democrats, compared to 31 percent of adults nationwide. (*Credit: CBS) TEA party members also bathe, wash their clothing, go to work and they don’t think they deserve to live off the fruits of anybody else’s labors. All of these are values that every American should embrace.”
2. Tom Cardella said... on Oct 21, 2011 at 08:54AM
“In reply--a couple of points--The Tea Party gets money from the Koch Brothers, the conservative version of George Sorors...OWS ten point program on their web site, does not endorse either party, and in fact does not propose to submit demands until AFTER the 2012 elections (which I think is a mistake)...it is downright wrong for you to imply that OWS does not bathe, go to work, etc, and they are not asking for welfare, but justice, in among other things, the tax code. That being said, I remain skeptical of OWS.”
3. kim alsbrooks said... on Oct 21, 2011 at 09:41AM
“Tom, i get the feeling that you haven't actually been to the protest. Please check it out. i went recently and it was such an interesting, eye opening and compelling experience. Just in the brief time i was there, I was engaged in a fascinating conversation with several very intelligent people of diverse backgrounds. One fellow disliked Obama after having voted for him enthusiastically. Another was an older fellow, a historian and a socialist. Another kind man simply told of other extremely knowledgable campers and their conversations and posed some very pertinent question regarding what was going on. Such a speciaI event for our times, I am waiting to have time to go again. Would love to hear your reflections after actually having spent a little time there. Thanks for your column. I really enjoy it.”
4. Anonymous said... on Oct 21, 2011 at 12:36PM
“Come join Obama and the Fleabaggers.”
5. Steve Churchill said... on Oct 21, 2011 at 08:20PM
“Tom, you SHOULD remain skeptical of OWS, because they will ruin your party. I haven't been to a rally and won't claim everyone there is a socialist or worse, but the ease with which an amateur journalist can find a protester to promote a raft of incoherent, but decidedly anti-democratic proposals should make a sane political observer shudder. It is far easier to rail against something than to promote a course of action going forward, but the OWS crowd is having difficulty doing even that.
Steve”
6. Someone who supports the racist agesist classist curfew said... on Oct 24, 2011 at 02:26PM
“When this protest first started, I was one of the first people to lend vocal support and defend the occupiers. I supported what I thought was their "cause"- fair wages, no bail-outs, keeping jobs on American soil, corporate criminals being held legally accountable. However, since the initial week it seems like the list of demands grows longer and more ridiculous everyday as the movement becomes hijacked by radicals. You can follow their official facebook to see how this protest against corporate greed has now evolved into protesting the "racist ageist classist curfew law", the MOVE bombing almost 30 years ago, demands that the PPD apologize for some guy from Oklahoma getting arrested in Iraq for giving information to wikileaks, the PPD being somehow responsible for how transgender people are treated in the prison system, and more. The ? now isn't really "what are they protesting?" but "what are they NOT protesting?" I'm done defending these people.”