Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 16803
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:05 pm
 


Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Who's afraid of the party system? (click to view)
Date: October 19, 2011
As the Occupy Wall Street movement continues to march on, around the world, but particularly in the United States, Tea Party analogies are becoming steadily more mainstream. Right-wing pundits now routinely compare-and-negatively-contrast the two groups; I particularly enjoyed this recent cartoon by Eric Allie, which wonderfully summarizes the double-standard in press coverage — at least in conservative eyes. But then you also have Jon Stewart on TV every night concluding the exact opposite, with his damning clips of Republican politicians praising the "grassroots activism" of the Tea Party in one breath while denouncing the frightening "mob mentality" of OWS the next.

At least one major difference between the two movements is undeniable, however: unlike the Tea Party's eager embrace of the Republican Party, OWS has shown no real interest in becoming a force in Democratic politics. If anything, it's just as opposed to them as any. Listening to the Slate culture podcast today, host Stephen Metcalf compared the group to the American radicals of the 1960s, in the sense that a great deal of both subcultures' momentum was spawned from disillusionment with a supposedly activist, liberal president (originally Kennedy, now Obama) who proved to be far more moderate and establishment-friendly in office than he seemed on the campaign trial. And just as the 1960s saw a significant withdrawal of left-wing Americans from mainstream politics in favor of street protests, sit-ins, and underground newspapers, so too may the 2010s see a left that is highly visible and loud, but also located mostly on the fringes. And the results may be just as predictable. The post-Kennedy era of left-wing disillusionment, alienation, and protest did not beget a more liberal administration in the White House, after all, but rather Richard Nixon.

Why the American far-left possesses such aggressive distain for working within the party system, while the American far-right seems to have few qualms about embracing it, has never been entirely clear to me. I know leftists like to play the victim card and argue the self-interested political establishment hates their radical ideas too much to "allow" their entry into the halls of power, but the Tea Party folks are hardly elite favorites either. No matter how much Chomsky you've read, it's hard to deny that Tea Party opinions on, say, the Gold Standard or 17th Amendment, are every bit as heretical to the close-minded Washington consensus as some of OWS' views on Citizens United or whatever. If anything, judging from recent polls, the fringy OWS may actually be the movement more in tune with mainstream public opinion, giving them more impetus than ever to start voting in primaries and fielding candidates. But as it stands now, apparently upwards of 70% of the folks on the street are not members of any party.

The most plausible explanation, I guess, is that the American far-left tends to be avante garde and post-modern in a way even the most radical right-winger rarely is. Which is to say, while a hard-right conservative may be inclined to view electoral democracy as corrupt and flawed and wicked and decadent, he'll usually lack the intellectual creativity or interest to dream up something better. The far-left, in contrast, does little else. Even OWS itself, with its daily general assemblies, consensus-based decision-making, gender-balanced speakers lists, and non-judgemental finger-wiggling, seems to be busily training its supporters for participation in some utopian political system that doesn't yet exist, rather than the dreary parliamentary Congressional model they already have. Spend enough time in this idealized world, and the New Hampshire primary must start to look like a Nuremberg rally.

The left, in short, doesn't seem to tolerate imperfection very well, unlike the right, who seem somewhat oblivious to it. A nominally conservative politician — like say, some sort of theoretical Texas governor-cum-president — can ratchet up spending, create expensive new entitlement programs, promote amnesty for illegal aliens, and involve America's armies in multiple open-ended nation-building adventures, and still be regarded as too sacred to criticize openly. Perhaps it says something about the conservative's basic affinity for leaders and authority, but for all the right's dislike of government and politicians, they sure seem willing to make heroes of an awful lot of very flawed rulers, from Ronald Reagan to Sarah Palin. Meanwhile, even the mainstream of the Democratic Party can't seem to agree if Bill Clinton was good or bad.

I don't support a lot of the causes that the far-left peddles, but this haughty tone of self-righteous indignation for the flaws of everyone but themselves has always irritated me far more than any of their ideas. The Tea Party has obviously begun to embrace some of this themselves, of course, destroying the careers of decent politicians for various real or imagined crimes of RINOism, but even then, they're at least willing to concede that change had to start somewhere within the existing political machine. As someone who lives in a country without open primaries or the right to party self-identification enshrined in law, it's similarly more than a little fatiguing to listen to young, college-educated intellectuals rant endlessly about how undemocratic the United States is, and how changing the face of Congress is too impossible to even bother trying. Even Tea Party victories have to be explained away with elaborate conspiracy theories about how the whole populist phenomenon is really just an astroturf sham being puppeteered by shadowy plutocrats behind the scenes.

For any democratic system to be legitimate, it must effectively represent the broad spectrum of ideological opinion that exists within the society it seeks to govern. For that reason, even those who consider their cause odious should find at least something inspiring in the rise of the Tea Party. By continuing to denounce and opt-out of mainstream politics, however, the Occupy Wall Street crowd are proving themselves to be the anti-Tea Party in more ways than one.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3266
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:03 pm
 


Re: the origins of the Occupation.
Thomas Ryan, of Andrew Breitbart's Big Government.com, wrote:
In addition to the involvement of socialists, anarchists, and other radicals, the emails also reveal heavy union involvement from the beginning of the “Occupy” movement
Sounds like the Democratic Party's base to me. =D


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8876
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:52 am
 


I disagree. IMO, the left never gets in bed with the Democratic Party mainly because they realise that they're just as beholden to the same system of dysfunctional government as the GOP is. The Democrats get money from Goldman-Sachs just like the GOP does which means they're just as unlikely to actually do anything to change the status quo.

Sure, they'll hem and haw, and there will be a colourful speech or two on the Senate floor, but ultimately the result will be the same. Wall St. will gets what it wants and the rest of America gets forcibly bent over evermore.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6138
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:56 am
 


Psudo wrote:
Re: the origins of the Occupation.
Thomas Ryan, of Andrew Breitbart's Big Government.com, wrote:
In addition to the involvement of socialists, anarchists, and other radicals, the emails also reveal heavy union involvement from the beginning of the “Occupy” movement
Sounds like the Democratic Party's base to me. =D


Yeah I'm not sure where this whole "OWS is not interested in the DNC" when unions are a pretty huge part of their movement. As much as they might be disillusioned with Obama and the DNC at the moment, good chance they are still going to vote for the Democrats once 2012 rolls around.

The Tea Party probably had a number of fringey groups of the right, extreme libertarians being a key example, but also other groups, but a large portion probably consisted of conservatives who were unhappy with the GOP. In the end, they probably saw working within the current system over some actual revolution or radical change to how the United States work. Conservatives aren't exactly going to push for some radical change of the underlying system. They might have issues with the system, but they still want it to work. The Tea Party wants the US government to return to a more strict viewing of the United States Constitution, not create a new one.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3351
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:43 am
 


Yeah - I'd say there are a number of common threads to the Tea Party and OWS, one of which is extreme displeasure with how the government is currently functioning. The Tea Party is pushing for a return to founding principles, whereas OWS pushes for a more radical shift away from the current system.

All of these are very broad generalizations though. I understand that a number of libertarians are actually a part of OWS as a means to protest crony capitalism, the Federal Reserve, the bailouts, and the banks. My brother (a Ron Paul supporter) is helping organize one of these protests.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2962
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:46 am
 


I still see hysteria about the deficit as a core issue. People won't pony up the money required to cover the government costs. The political management to get this done will have to be very skillful and determined. In the meantime there's flaming about the corruption in the banking system and the high cost of government but these are like side shows to management of the budget. I talked to lots of people about the economy and they are short on ideas on just what to do about the deficit. They'll resort to hypocrisy and denial. The Budget Chief is pretty much on his own on this and it will require some heroism to resolve.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3266
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:17 am
 


xerxes wrote:
IMO, the left never gets in bed with the Democratic Party mainly because they realise that they're just as beholden to the same system of dysfunctional government as the GOP is. The Democrats get money from Goldman-Sachs just like the GOP does which means they're just as unlikely to actually do anything to change the status quo.
That sounds like a mirror of the rhetoric from the Tea Party circa 2009.

xerxes wrote:
Sure, they'll hem and haw, and there will be a colourful speech or two on the Senate floor, but ultimately the result will be the same. Wall St. will gets what it wants and the rest of America gets forcibly bent over evermore.
And that sounds like a direct quote.

When the Tea Party movement started, I thought it was unprecedented -- a third ideology, a populist libertarian revolution. It wasn't. I've returned to believing that protests are just a mix of showmanship, networking for activists, and something to do for the night. They don't change the world.

Pseudonym wrote:
I understand that a number of libertarians are actually a part of OWS as a means to protest crony capitalism, the Federal Reserve, the bailouts, and the banks.
Hard to disagree with any of that. The only thing I disagree with in the core OWS beliefs, I think, is the theory that economic justice is about creating economic equality rather than establishing a just system and letting outcomes work themselves out.

I'm counting the anti-Jewish stuff and general bashing of famous people as "fringe."

Bruce_the_vii wrote:
I talked to lots of people about the economy and they are short on ideas on just what to do about the deficit.
That's because the only possible solutions suck: cut spending, raise taxes, and hold on. That goes against both sides' economic growth plans.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6972
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:54 am
 


commanderkai wrote:
The Tea Party wants the US government to return to a more strict viewing of the United States Constitution, not create a new one.

Great. Dogmatists. We need more of them like an extra hole in the ass.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6138
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:36 am
 


Lemmy wrote:
commanderkai wrote:
The Tea Party wants the US government to return to a more strict viewing of the United States Constitution, not create a new one.

Great. Dogmatists. We need more of them like an extra hole in the ass.


Maybe so, but the fact that it's an already established institution highlights the difference between the approaches of the Tea Party and OWS groups. OWS, like leftist protests of the past, has called for grand changes to the entire system.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6972
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:55 am
 


commanderkai wrote:
Maybe so, but the fact that it's an already established institution highlights the difference between the approaches of the Tea Party and OWS groups. OWS, like leftist protests of the past, has called for grand changes to the entire system.

No question. I agree.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8545
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:30 pm
 


The 2 movements certainly are an interesting contrast, as is the reaction to them. Especially amongst "News" media. Both motivated by the same Event, yet having very different complaints regarding that Event.

Although being unbiased is next to impossible, I can't help but think that OWS will eventually be considered the more genuine Grass-Roots movement. Mainly because the TP sprang up the instant Obama took Office and was exceedingly critical of him even before he did anything. It had all the earmarks of being Politically motivated by the Republicans from the start.

OTOH, OWS took 3ish years to form and their criticisms are based upon inaction regarding what many had said needs to be done immediately following said Event. IOW, they gave Obama/Senate/House time to act before rising up as a force against them.

That said, given the rigid Political landscape in the US, including the predictable 4 year Presidential Election cycle, it is entirely understandable that one would conclude that the Democratic Party is behind OWS. Is that really a criticism of the Movement though? Is 1 Party allowed to and the other not?

This really is the biggest problem with the US System, IMO. It's not about Governance, it's just Theatre and little else.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:10 pm
 


Lemmy wrote:
commanderkai wrote:
The Tea Party wants the US government to return to a more strict viewing of the United States Constitution, not create a new one.

Great. Dogmatists. We need more of them like an extra hole in the ass.


Freaking radicals with their idiotic ideas that laws should mean what they say! :|


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:17 pm
 


Newsbot wrote:
OWS has shown no real interest in becoming a force in Democratic politics. If anything, it's just as opposed to them as any.


Hard core leftists oppose party systems because these people only want one party.

Image


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3266
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:03 am
 


Sandorski, how does the Coffee Party fit into your analysis?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11539
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:14 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Newsbot wrote:
OWS has shown no real interest in becoming a force in Democratic politics. If anything, it's just as opposed to them as any.


Hard core leftists oppose party systems because these people only want one party.

Image

Ahahahahaha

No!

We want no party.

We oppose the party systems because they don't truly represent the proletariat, merely the bourgeoisie... Which holds true for the Democrats just as much as the parties of virtually every country on our planet, even the ones that sometimes call themselves 'communist'. It would be replaced with decentralized self-governing democratic communities where absolutely every member of a community has a vote and say in the affairs affecting their labour and their community, as well as whatever else gets discussed.

End what we consider 'government' completely!


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.