* Via Sully. Click the pic for a larger image…

* James Sinclair explains his graphic…

The problem, and I suppose this was inevitable, is that Occupy Wall Street is being portrayed as some kind of anti-Tea Party. Left vs. right, blue vs. red, rock vs. country, et cetera—it’s the only way we know how to draw battle lines anymore. But how are the two movements meaningfully different? I sure as hell can’t figure it out. There are plenty of minor differences, mostly concerning priorities and demographics, but the similarities are much more substantial. Both are popular uprisings against powerful-but-nebulous entities believed to be responsible for America’s economic struggles. Both are defined not by easily-identified leaders, but by the sum total of countless unique viewpoints, and thus are not capable of articulating their goals with any cohesiveness or specificity (nor should they be expected to). And both movements, to borrow the classification scheme created by Bill O’Reilly, are teeming with both pinheads and patriots. […]

We should pay less attention to the individual lunatics, and more attention to what a movement is really about. Occupy Wall Street, at its core, is a reaction to the increasing power and influence of large corporations. The Tea Party, at its core, is a reaction to the government’s constant interference with private enterprise. But wait a minute—aren’t those things connected?

Discuss.

       

35 Comments - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:03 pm: When our citizens are forced to live in garbage cans, it’s time to speak out. http://motherjones.com/mixed-media/2011/10/best-occupysesamestreet - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:03 pm: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/funniest-venn-diagrams-th_n_347552.html - John Galt - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:06 pm: I 100% agree with the graphic, but I’m sympathetic more to the Tea Partiers. Ultimately I think crony capitalism is a symptom of the problem of government sticking it’s nose too much into the free markets. Some point along there were two key tipping points: 1) The government was regulating industry too much and industry therefore started lobbying government heavily to just get the government off their backs. Call this “Government shouldn’t be eating anybody for dinner” approach. Then it tipped so that interests were lobbying government simply to not be on the menu. This is the “If you’re not at the table you’re probaby on the menu” approach. 2) Tipping point #2 comes along when interests realize that not only is paying money to be “at the table” a necessary evil, it can actually be quite an advantage. Call it the “As long as we’re at the table, let’s make sure our competitors are on the menu” tipping point. Hence, crony capitalism. Tea Partiers think that limiting the size of government & advocating free markets will tip corporate energies back where it belongs: sinking their considerable time & energy into creating more products or services to compete against their competitors for customers rather than competing against them for a better seat at the government table. The Occupy Wall Street folks think that the answer is to make the regulatory apparatus of the government even bigger, which I think would only exacerbate the problem. Just one guy’s opinion, of course… But the two definitely have the anti crony-capitalism thing in common. Their suggested remedies are what’s radically different. - Secret Square - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:10 pm: The Venn diagram says it all. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are looking at two different aspects of one very big problem — the squeezing of the middle class — but without seeing the big picture. - Jaded - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:11 pm: I say let them all protest whatever the heck they want. They’ll get bored (or find jobs) and give up soon. - Jaded - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:13 pm: By the way, I agree with both sides. I’m for smaller government, and I think Wall Street has too much power, but what do I know. - whetstone - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:17 pm: “But wait a minute—aren’t those things connected?” Sure, but think about checks and balances. The left (not necessarily OWS) thinks you check the power of large corporations with the government, and doesn’t trust the marketplace to do it. The right thinks you check the power of corporations through the marketplace, and doesn’t trust the government to do it. That’s why I’m ok with OWS remaining resolutely nonpartisan and holding off on making specific demands. But once you start making specific demands, you have to deal with this fundamental ideological gap. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:27 pm: “….sinking their considerable time & energy into creating more products or services to compete against their competitors for customers rather than competing against them for a better seat at the government table.” Just out of curiosity and to set a context, how are you defining “corporations” and “competitors”, John Galt? There used to be a fairly simple definition for both, which has changed dramatically over the last few decades–wouldn’t you say? - whetstone - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:29 pm: Re John Galt above, this is where it gets tricky: “Tipping point #2 comes along when interests realize that not only is paying money to be “at the table” a necessary evil, it can actually be quite an advantage.” I think even Tea Partiers and OWS agree that interests, in some form, have to pay *some* taxes. And if you pay taxes, you’re at the table. Some people have bigger seats at the table: Sears can get the ear of the governor, even if it seems like a bad, failing bet, to get a break on its taxes; it’s very hard for a small business even if it’s run well. Even with a radical, seemingly corporate-friendly approach to taxes–say, just a flat national sales tax–you *know* corporations will want breaks on the stuff they sell. In short, I don’t know how far you have to limit the reach of government to rid yourself of crony capitalism. - A Springfield Veteran - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:38 pm: The two are not necessarily connected. The tea party folks argue for less government, the free market, individualism, less collectivism and less regulation. Yet the conditions they advocate produced the very problems they cite in their frustrations; the influence of large corporations not to mention the unregulated financial sector functions that gave us the economic conditions of the last few years. The tea party advocates, many dressed in Revolutionary War garb, wish to go back to a simpler time, a time when the federal government was weak, state governments predominated and, they believe, America realized its ‘exceptionalism.’ Unfortunately; they refuse to acknowledge the world has changed and they are unable to offer any viable solutions but to revert to past, inappropriate paradigms. Adam Smith wrote in the late 18th century. The Wall Street protesters also offer no meaningful solutions but express frustration with ill conceived military action and the lack of meaningful regulation. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:39 pm: –Sure, but think about checks and balances. The left (not necessarily OWS) thinks you check the power of large corporations with the government, and doesn’t trust the marketplace to do it. The right thinks you check the power of corporations through the marketplace, and doesn’t trust the government to do it.– I doubt if the right thinks that, but corporations manipulate the government pretty good to do their bidding. It’s true the New Dealers saw efficiencies in large corporations but believed government had to be equally strong to protect citizens from their power. Prior to that, groups across the spectrum saw the rise of the large multinationals as a danger to democracy, and used anti-trust measures to bust them up. - jake - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:42 pm: What I am upset about is not either corporations in general or government in general having too much power. I am concerned about the financial industry that has turned the markets into a casino where wealthy people gamble with other people’s money, and the government’s failure to stamp out those practices and return the markets to instruments where people invest in productive enterprises. It is just this corruption of the markets that caused the collapse and near-depression, and that is not being addressed today by anybody, either the financial industry nor its government overseer, nor the tea partiers, nor in focused way by the Occupy Wall Street movement (although it is included in their agenda). - walkinfool - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:43 pm: The simple truth is that real-world free markets can only work with boundaries, laws, and regulations. Even Adam Smith agreed that his “perfect competition” model, which would be self-regulating, could never exist in the real world. We’ve tried a less-regulation model for thirty years now, and it has demonstrably harmed our country and economy. Smaller government perhaps, but less-regulated financial markets will continue to prove disastrous. - JBilla - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:58 pm: All for the Occupy Wall street Protests. It’s calling it like it is. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:58 pm: The concept of “less regulation” sounds great until you actually repeal something like Glass Steagel and let banks place large bets on risky investments. Adam Smith’s perfect competition concept would presumably include letting banks fail when those bets came up snake eyes. But no, we bailed out the banks so there wouldn’t be a run on deposits and a wider panic. Newt Gingrich said Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should go to jail for…Dodd-Frank, legislation designed to prohibit banks like Goldman from betting against their customers. If you want to run a bank, fine. If you want to run an investment house, fine. But you can’t do both. The newly formulated Volcker rule was just approved by the FDIC and others for public comment. Let’s all sit back and watch the leading lights of conservatism decry this horrible job killing regulation. A lot of the anger on both sides comes from feeling powerless against these forces. The anger is real, despite the fact that there is no easy target to aim for. Government and multinational corporations are highly complex organizations. the average American can’t pull away from Dancing with the Stars long enough to try to understand how the policies decided by the people we elect have enormous consequences. Maybe everybody ought to pay a little more attention to what’s going on. If the Tea Party and the Occupy groups succeed in nothing else, at least they have some people paying attention. - John Galt - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 4:01 pm: === Just out of curiosity and to set a context, how are you defining “corporations” and “competitors”, John Galt? There used to be a fairly simple definition for both, which has changed dramatically over the last few decades–wouldn’t you say? === Not particularly. One individual can file and become an S Corp in most states. Sole proprietorships are common too, but they’re out there competing for consumer dollars just like everybody else. Basically anybody who is trying to provide a service or product (legally) for a profit is a competitor in the marketplace. Whether they use fancy incorporation methods to take advantage of an absurbly complicated tax code is beside the point. Ostensibly they’re offering some useful service or good to somebody, otherwise people wouldn’t be willing to give them money for it. But the more one discovers one can use the government to tilt the playing field against one’s competitors, what you’re basically doing is expanding the playing field beyond the marketplace and into the halls of government. And a larger percentage of manpower & dollars will be used not to compete against the other teams on the field of play, but to just buy off the refs, etc. It decreases the quality of play on the field & the spectators (i.e. consumers) become poorer for it. == *some* taxes. And if you pay taxes, you’re at the table. == True. But I think there’s a big difference between kicking in some tax revenue to help build the stadium, the locker rooms & pay the base salary for the refs to show up. It’s another thing entirely to then feel entitled to start bribing the refs to ignore your penalties or to call false penalties for the other team. === I don’t know how far you have to limit the reach of government to rid yourself of crony capitalism. === Agreed. But it’s ALWAYS going to be a temptation. That doesn’t mean one has to succumb to it. In addition, sure there are bad actors int he free market. But people are people. At least in the free market people can vote with their dollars and go to a better service provider. Or better yet, actually start one up that offers the services in a way that you think they ought to be offered. If people are truly upset that ‘the entire XYZ industry is geedy & terrible’ then perhaps they should start up a consumer friendly company in the XYZ industry and steal all of the existing customers. It does happen all the time. Disgruntled junior executives have different business models they want to execute & set up shop across the street all the time. With the government it’s much different. People aren’t going to suddenly become virtuous if they’re operating in a bureaucracy. They’re carve out special favors, “waivers” & deals for their friends. Or make life a living hell for people they don’t like. If anything, there’s very little to provide checks on bad behavior–particularly at the unelected lower or middle levels of bureaucracy. You don’t like how the DMV works, who are you going to go to get your driver’s license? Don’t like the Social Security Administration? Tough. Extend that authority to get all sorts of permits & permissions to start up a business, expand a business, or get professionally licensed and you set up all sorts of opportunity for graft & corruption. Toss in a parasitic patronage system and you get a system of government & “free markets” that end up collapsing on it’s own weight. Chicago & Illinois should be Exhibit A of this process. Both are losing populations relative to the rest of the country. People vote with their feet ultimately, and Chicago, Cook County & Illinois aren’t winning that electtion. - John Galt - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 4:08 pm: === The concept of “less regulation” sounds great until you actually repeal something like Glass Steagel and let banks place large bets on risky investments. Adam Smith’s perfect competition concept would presumably include letting banks fail when those bets came up snake eyes. But no, we bailed out the banks so there wouldn’t be a run on deposits and a wider panic. === See, this is where I am sympathetic to certain types of regulation. I think the repeal of Glass-Steagel was fine. Companies should be allowed to do whatever they want to do short of theft or fraud. BTW, one rationale for Glass-Steagel originally was that allowing banks to do both investment grade & commercial grade activities was actually safer to individual banks because it allowed them to hedge their financial activities. Of course, if you have a particularly virulent problem like the bubbles w/ real estate credit default swaps, it allows the entire system to get contaminated too due to lack of firewalls. I think the real key is to use that antitrust monopoly power to make sure things don’t get “too big to fail.” Basically do whatever you want under your own roof, but your roof can’t get too big so that if it collapses, it takes down an unacceptable swath of the American people. The problem with that is how do you define it? Simply making huge profits isn’t a good measure. What if the high dollar amounts are really small net profits percentage wise? Or what if the market for that good or service is totally massive–so that even huge profits won’t impact the marketplace too much? Or what if a company is a small player at the national or global level, but it’s the entire ballgame in a particular metro region? No easy answers obviously. But I don’t think “greed” is responsible here. That’d be like blaming plane crashes on “gravity.” Gravity was always present, yet something went wrong for the plane to go down. I think that these bubbles & bizarre incentives are largely created by government regulations putting their thumbs on the scales of the marketplace to pick winners & losers. Without that behavior, you’d still get bubbles, but they’d pop under their own power much sooner before too many people get swept up into it. - chuddery - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 4:09 pm: ==1) The government was regulating industry too much and industry therefore started lobbying government heavily to just get the government off their backs.== I’m curious as to how this stands up when you consider what happened during the Gilded Age. That was a period of almost non-existent federal government regulation (especially compared to now) and yet there was intense lobbying by corporations to the federal government. I don’t think the Bosses of the Senate cartoon was about corporations lobbying government to get off its back. http://www.senate.gov/art andhistory/art/arti fact/Ga_Cartoon/Ga_cartoon_38_00392.htm - Boondocks - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 4:28 pm: I personally don’t think the two movements are connected in any way. The OWS argument seems to be centered around the idea of social injustice. They believe in Robin Hood economics. The Tea Party is the polar opposite, believing in self reliance and self responsibility. It is the classic capitalist versus socialist, big govt verus limited govt, and conservative versus liberal arguments. - John Galt - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 4:29 pm: === Newt Gingrich said Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should go to jail for…Dodd-Frank, legislation designed to === FWIW, I don’t think he said they should go to jail for that bill. I think he said they should go to jail for their role in creating the real estate bubble with Frank’s backing of Fannie Freddie despite the warnings, the Community Reinvestment Act back in 1977, and for Dodd’s crony dealings and being a “Friend of Angelo” at Countrywide when the whole thing was crashing down. Not to mention our esteemed mayor being on the board of Freddie Mac in the lead-up to the bubble bursting. But to be fair, the pumping of that bubble was a bipartisan problem. A pox on all our houses. The issue now is to how to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Asking government to simply slap on more regulations where before regulations caused a bunch of market distortions in the first place strikes me as a tad daffy. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 4:41 pm: I’ll concede the point John, but still believe Newt was blowing a dog whistle to those opposed to Dodd-Frank, including its provision that created the Consumer Financial Protection office, which the Senate GOP refuses to budge on confirming anyone to run. - Responsa - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 4:48 pm: It’s the tactics that define them. In some cases overshadowing the message. OWS is occupying property and camping out for days and weeks. Requiring already stretched police and sanitation/refuse collection resources. In New York OWS is actually disrupting a residential neighborhood with chanting and drumming, and blocking shortcuts and sidewalks which regular people need to get to work. 700 protesters were arrested for blocking the Brooklyn Bridge. They have trashed the restrooms of several establishments which initially had allowed the early protesters to use their facilities to wash up and potty. They shout slogans many of which use profanity and hold signs which imply they think they represent and are surrogates for, the views of 99% of Americans, which of course is preposterous. Some of the protesters have been filmed being overtly anti-Semitic against wall street workers. Some protesters in DC stormed the Hart Senate ofc. building and had to be stopped by Capitol Police. Regardless of the merits of their complaints, and there are many, OWS methods and affects are not useful to the cause and are likely to lead to further civil disobedience if not violence. The Tea partier’s rallies and protests were/are one day events where they are known to pick up and cart away their trash when finished. They were never in one spot long enough in any town or city to significantly interfere with the comings and goings of residents and workers. Their signs and slogans represented their own views and did not ever appear to pretend to speak for others beyond the tea party. Charges of racial slurs were never backed up by event videos or recordings. Arrests at tea party rallies have been non-existent. I have not and will not be participating in either a tea party or an OWS protest because I think there are better ways of effecting change. As Rich points out, there are crazies in both movements and yet they may be, at heart, just a left or right version of the same frustrated cry and yearning from Americans. But beyond the “heart” the OWS tactics should be of some concern, I think. - Responsa - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 5:43 pm: The repeal of Glass Steagall is a very interesting topic to me. It was covered extensively in the new book written about the financial apocalypse by Gretchen Morgansen, “Reckless Endangerment” (which everyone should read, BTW). Many people are surprised at how very bi-partisan the repeal was when it passed in the senate 90-8 and was signed into law by President Clinton. Here is the vote count: REPUBLICANS FOR (52): Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Bennett, Brownback, Bond, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Chafee, Cochran, Collins, Coverdell, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Gorton, Gramm (Tex.), Grams (Minn.), Grassley, Gregg, Hegel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Jeffords, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Mack, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Roth, Santorum, Sessions, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner. DEMOCRATS FOR (38): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, BIDEN, Bingaman, Breaux, Byrd, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Edwards, Feinstein, Graham (Fla.), Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey (Neb.), Kerry (Mass.), Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Moynihan, Murray, Reed (R.L), Reid (Nev.), Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Torricelli and Wyden. REPUBLICANS AGAINST(1): Shelby. DEMOCRATS AGAINST(7): Boxer, Bryan, Dorgan, Feingold, Harkin, Mikulski and Wellstone. NOT VOTING: 2 REPUBLICANS (2): Fitzgerald (voted present) and MCCAIN. - Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 6:17 pm: I haven’t picked “sides” in any movement…always try to listen to the arguments and analyze what I like and what I don’t like. I do know that the one participant in the Chicago OWS activities I know is one of my oldest son’s friends. He is the guy who is always coming over to the house, helping himself to whatever is in our refrigerator, always bumming a ride to somewhere, drifting from job to job and girlfriend to girlfriend, and always on facebook. I will not try to judge the whole “movement” from this one person, but just sayin’. - amalia - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 6:54 pm: anyone following the OWS folks in Chicago? do they have a facebook page? (that’s how I found out when the big day of protest was in Egypt.) anyone on this site gone down there, besides Jan….I’m not a JanFan…..? even Eric Cantor is making nice comments about the OWS folks now…. - amalia - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 7:02 pm: ok, found it, http://occupychi.org they have a similar schedule every day, 1:30 general assembly, 5 march around the loop, 7 general assembly. interesting set of things they support, voted upon by an assembly. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 7:06 pm: amalia, send me an email when you get a chance about that poll you talked about last night. Thanks. - nino brown - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 7:24 pm: dig it. deep thinking is good. - Responsa - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 7:32 pm: An interesting perspective on the OWS movement from the editors of The New Republic. “But, to draw on the old cliché, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Just because liberals are frustrated with Wall Street does not mean that we should automatically find common cause with a group of people who are protesting Wall Street. Indeed, one of the first obligations of liberalism is skepticism—of governments, of arguments, and of movements. And so it is important to look at what Occupy Wall Street actually believes and then to ask two, related questions: Is their rhetoric liberal, or at least a close cousin of liberalism? And is this movement helpful to the achievement of liberal aims?” …. “One of the core differences between liberals and radicals is that liberals are capitalists. They believe in a capitalism that is democratically regulated—that seeks to level an unfair economic playing field so that all citizens have the freedom to make what they want of their lives. But these are not the principles we are hearing from the protesters. Instead, we are hearing calls for the upending of capitalism entirely. American capitalism may be flawed, but it is not, as Slavoj Zizek implied in a speech to the protesters, the equivalent of Chinese suppression.” The whole thing is worth a read regardless of your politics– http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/96062/occupy-wall-street-zizek-lewis - Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 7:42 pm: I am thinking a lot of Green Party elements when I read the Occupy Chicago blog at the above link. - hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 8:31 pm: The Tea Party groups are incensed about government taxation. The Occupy Wall Street groups are incensed they are without government representation. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 8:38 pm: Both groups seem to be personified by scenes from a movie not that long ago, something about being mad as Hell and not taking it anymore. Do remember though, he was insane. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 11:48 pm: Indifferent to suffering. Insensitive to joy. Great movie about teevee incarnates, Steve. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 11:56 pm: …And I might add, rip-roaring insane. - A Modest Proposal - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 2:32 am: Wow, this graphic hits the nail on the head. Too bad the “lame”stream media hasn’t picked up on it. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.