[JOKE]
It broke up when too many businesses started putting up “RESTROOMS FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY” signs.
[/JOKE]
Seriously, I think what happened was, most of them broke up when it became too cold, and they didn’t bother getting back together when it warmed up again.
It really smacked of “give us stuff we didn’t earn.”
They set up on a future construction site here, then were broken up and faded into obscurity.
The occupy movement and the Tea Party movement were pretty much the same thing.
Both started because they were fed up with the politicians in charge.
Both started because they felt an inherent problem with the economic situation in this country and wanted to fix it.
Both had multiple camps throughout the country in what felt like a true grassroots uprising from the masses.
Neither had a concrete political agenda other than “things have to change!”
The main differences between them:
Bottom line: If the occupy speakers had corporate backing and dynamic leaders they’d be a powerful force today. What they’d be fighting for is anyone’s guess, but it would have been more effective than what actually occurred.
Would that the Republican Party had done the same with the Tea Party. Now they’re stuck with them.
The Occupy folks made a lot of noise around here, but never clearly stated any goals. They were big on being critical of banks, etc., and rightly so, and they generally behaved themselves, other than blocking up traffic and making large messes in the parks. But without clear objectives, and with the operating mode of complete consensus on all issues, inertia finally set in. I applauded the idea of civil disobedience, but with no clear agenda on their part, my mood changed to one of annoyance and impatience.
Also, it seemed to be turning on itself.
Right after I wrote my post, I went to check the email and there was a message from the Occupy Portland group about an event they’re hosting. I guess rumors of their death were exaggerated.
Tea Party: Lower taxes, less government.
Occupy: Punish the Wall Street fat cats, “We are the 99 percent” (a transparent lie), etc., etc. ad nauseam.
Because you stated it about Occupy in the negative, in this case I expect you to prove that negative. I also expect you to PROVE the corresponding positive about the Tea Party.
3 more differences.
The media HUNTED for connections. For example, Brian Ross of ABC Googled the name of the Colorado shooter, James Holmes, and picked from the many “James Holmes” the one who was associated with the Tea Party. Needless to say, this was not true, and it exposed this Tea Partier to death threats and other harrassment. George Stephanopolous said this was “a mistake made in good faith”, showing that he can excuse an intentional smear and utter a complete lie with a straight face.
Occupy had high-profile supporters. Nancy Pelosi: “God bless them for their spontaneity. It’s independent … it’s young, it’s spontaneous, and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.” Elizabeth Warren: “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. I support what they do.”
Occupy left garbage and vermin in its wake. Tea Partiers leave the sites of its rallies almost as clean as before.
You seriously think that’s all it takes? In my opinion, that’s a very cynical view. And an anti-capitalist movement with corporate backing? Can you say that idea is hypocritical, self-contradictory and self-defeating? I knew you could.
They still exist, but seem to be in the process of re-inventing themselves.
I’ll just address these two points. First, the Tea Party was funded by Americans for Prosperity, which was funded by the billionaire Koch brothers.
Who’s Raising Money For Tea Party Movement?
As for #4…you seriously think the media ignored the Tea Party? You seriously think Fox News ignored the Tea Party? You think they didn’t plan and sponsor Tea Party events?
As my cite, I’ll present the entirety of Fox News to you.
Well, there’s the rub. A movement which is primarily anti-capitalist is going to have a hard time attracting the support of people with money. OWS got lip service from left-leaning piloticians, but you’ll notice that their support never went even one step beyond that.
True, but I don’t think that the Occupy movement as a whole was anti-capitalist. It was more about accountability for the financial disaster and trying to implement policies that would avert it in the future. It was also the first time I had seriously heard the idea of putting a small tax on stock trades, which I think is a good idea.
The problem, as I stated above, is that there were 20,000 people with 200,000 ideas on how to reform Wall Street. Sure, no one wants to sponsor the “let’s play Guy Fawkes and blow up the financial district!” but there’s no reason why leaders couldn’t have risen from the Occupy Movement or money from outside couldn’t have come in, and shaped what specific parts of financial reform were worth fighting the good fight over.
I think Barney Frank put it best back in 2011 when he effectively said that the Occupy Movement wouldn’t do anything unless they organized around candidates and put them on the ballot. That’s the only way there will really be change. He was right. That wasn’t done. And the Occupy Movement fizzled.
Bumping this thread because I came across this recent article that goes into detail why the whole movement just fizzled out.
One quote from that article captured what I had been thinking:
The whole pushback of the 99% against the class war that the 0.1% has been waging on everyone else was enabled by the Occupy Movement.
Occupy failed because we let the government come up with unconstitutional ways to stop them. We let the narrative descend into how much they personally inconvenienced you rather than their message.
What they did would be proper in a just world, but they don’t live in one. That was their mistake.