Since 2008 we’ve seen the emergence of two highly visible political insurgencies outside, and to some extent against, the two main parties’ organizations and mainstreams – and, clearly, diametrically opposed to each other, despite each being arguably a populist movement of its kind. The Tea Party has already proven its power to affect elections (perhaps not always the way it intends). The OWSers are a political movement, certainly, but were not started as a “political” insurgency in the electoral/partisan sense, and they have announced no electoral agendas or strategies as yet, AFAIK; but they’re bound to start thinking about it as the election nears, assuming the movement remains coherent that long, which I expect it will. How will all that play out at the polls?
The “Occupy Wall Street” people will soon realize their efforts amounted to a fart in a hurricane. There are not enough of them to be statistically relevant even if they had any cohesive platform to rally around, and the money to back candidates. They are outliers, a fringe element, and may be safely ignored by mainstream candidates.
And the Tea Party?
As for OWS:
Not bad for the first two months.
The Tea Party had substantial corporate funding and Fox News for major promotional activities. The OWS has … ? It may be receiving coverage, but it pales in comparison to the figures Fox was able to move.
This has absolutely no bearing on the validity or resonance of either group’s message, just that one is aligned with–and therefore paid for–business interests, while the other is non-astroturfed grass-roots.
I can’t find it now, but I recently saw a chart showing the significant increase in mainstream media references to inequality since OWS began. I think the more people think about income inequality in America, the more they press for politicians to discuss it, the more the Republicans get the chance to embarrass themselves trying to discuss it. They are either going to nominate a buffoon or a plutocrat for President. Their economic plans all seem to involve large tax breaks for the rich and gutting of regulations. Sometimes coupled with various forms of slashing the social safety net that Americans rely on, or perhaps tax increases on the poor. If the Republican response to the rhetoric of “the 99%” is to shift the discussion to “the 53%” I don’t see that as a winning strategy, even if plenty of that other 47% see themselves as overburdened taxpayers.
Also, labor unions seem to be experiencing a bit of a resurgence. They’ve been holding marches in support of various occupations, and occupiers have been joining union marches. The more radical politics of the occupiers seems to be edging into the mainstream dialogue. Not much, granted, but it’s still early. And there’s a lot of people that aren’t planning on letting the needs of the 99% stop getting the attention they deserve. I have no idea what the future of OWS holds, but I don’t see the issues they raised being swept back under the rug before the elections.
Ah, here’s the chart I mentioned of “inequality” mentions in the press. Somehow, I Google sent me to Mickey Kaus’s blog on the Daily Caller to find that. I feel dirty now.
The tea baggers are fading. The occupy movement has changed the discussion. Last year all we heard about was cuts. No mention of income inequality and the damage it has done. Now even the righties can not ignore it. The vast majority of American favor raising taxes on the rich. Another new trend.
Of course there are 1000 occupations around the world. It is not a small group at all. There are plenty of people who come to occupations with money and support but don’t stay. They are not counted but certainly back the ideas. Rightys will disparage the movement but they are wrong.
Are they really? How can we tell? We would expect them to be less active in an odd-numbered year anyway.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66669.html They are spinning their wheels as the message has lost traction. The organization is not doing much at all.
The Dems screwed up by taking a break in 2010. I see the baggers are doing the same thing.
Examiner is back - Examiner.com This article suggests the occupy movement could breathe life into the Democratic Party. I don’t see it. The Occupiers are pissed off at all politicians and the one percenters who love to loot the taxpayers. Talk to the campers and they voice a disgust for both parties.
There is political opportunity here . It would take a few pols coming down to the occupations and check out the operation. They would have to voice a sympathetic view and propose changes.
I know a few politicians and they are worried about showing any positive feelings for the occupations, even though some agree with most of their complaints.
No they’re not. There’s still a black man in the White house, isn’t there?
If anything, they’re holding their collective breaths until the run-up to the presidential election.
Yep, it’s all about a black man in the White House. Can you believe it… a fucking black man… I repeat black !!!
I’ll bet its the blacks doing all the raping in those Occupy encampments too.
If he’d been white, would the Tea Party protests even have got off the ground? Maybe, maybe not.
Is that a strong enough peg to hang your hat on?
Odd that Romney already changed his position, then, huh?
If they had no power, he wouldn’t be courting them by using their own rhetoric.
Why does he care? Somehow I don’t expect a lot of OWSers will be voting in the Republican primaries.
I’m thinking that the Tea Party loses this comparison, not because the OWS is going to have any much of an effect on the election but because the Tea Party’s effect has been so divisive. Look at the GOP primary “race” thus far: before we’ve even reached the first caucus, the Tea Party has thrown their support behind Palin, Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and now maybe Gingrich. All it’s meant is that a whole lot of GOP runners who aren’t going to be the GOP candidate have spent a whole lot of GOP donor money for nothing. Meanwhile Obama and the Dems have just sat back and lined their war chest.
If it was a strategy, one would say it was a terrible strategy–but there’s no real thought behind it, simply a number of ultra-conservatives who can’t seem to make their mind up, or who drop a candidate like a hot potato at the merest sign of trouble or of deviation from the Tea Party’s ideology. I keep hearing that OWS has to get their act together, but if “getting your act together” means driving your ideological allies off a cliff, maybe being directionless isn’t such a bad idea.
I think the OWS movement is hoping to change the political discussion and influence Obama’s priorities during his second term. They’re helping to bring attention to the increasing wealth disparity that many Americans might not have even realized was happening. If they influence the election, it will probably be to the detriment of Republicans.
ETA: There’s not much comparison to the Tea Party here. There will be no Occupy Wall Street candidates challenging mainstream Democrat candidates, for example.
I think this is key. There has been a lot of discussion about how the OWS crowd doesn’t seem to have any coherent demands, but that may have missed the point. Despite the lack of coherent demands, there is (for lack of a better word) an aggregate message: Trickle-down isn’t working.
That message is potentially huge, if it can pull the rug out from under all this worshipful talk of “job creators” we’ve heard lately.