The Tea Party of the Left? Sort Of.
More than a few commentators and reporters have tried to brand the Occupy Movement as a Tea Party of the Left. On its surface, the analogy has some compelling aspects: both movement emphasize rage over a rational, forward-looking policy agenda. Both claim to speak for the “little guy” but are actually populated by people with above average levels of education and (at least in the case of the Tea Party–there are no surveys I know of that related to the Occupy Movement) income. Both are also, best as I can tell, authentic grass-roots movements without any sinister puppet-master behind them.
As opposing political forces, the two groups may well be a good pairing. But, already, some real differences are apparent. Three stand out:
Tea Party Supporters are self-interested in the macro-sense, Occupy supporters are self-interested in the micro-sense: All people involved in all political movements believe they are acting at least partly in self-interest. The Tea Party rallies and meetings I’ve attended have focused on “macro self-interest.” There’s lots of talk (much of it ill-informed) about the future, the national debt, the fate of individuals’ children, and the direction of the country. Personal concerns–everything from I-can-barely-resist-laughing “keep the government’s hands off of my Medicare” rants to well-informed complaints about small business regulation–are present but secondary in my experience. Nearly all Occupy Supporters I’ve seen interviewed, on the other hand, exalt personal testimony over any macro concerns about the economy: “I am afraid I won’t have a job when I gradute,” “my classmates don’t have jobs,” “I, personally, don’t feel secure right now,” “the bank is foreclosing on my house,” “I am afraid my unemployment insurance will run out.” And, of course, there’s this young woman.
The Tea Party Movement has been peaceful, the Occupy Movement appears to be turning violent: In the last two weeks, Occupy Movement efforts to close bridges leading to Manhattan and The Air and Space Museum have already caused more distraction and annoyance to people not involved in politics than the Tea Party has the last three years. If things escalate this quickly, there’s a good chance that Left-wing violence of a kind the United States hasn’t seen in 40 years–could well evolve out of the Occupy Movement.
Tea Partiers work, Occupy Movement protesters choose not to: Protesting, particularly if it’s the full-time job many Occupy protesters seem to want it to be, requires both resources to survive without a job, a lack of family members to support, and a degree of political concern. People from the bottom levels of society can almost never protest full time. (This isn’t necessarily an attack on the Occupy movement; just a statement of fact. Reasonably well-educated working-class urban dwellers like Rosa Parks, not impoverished sharecroppers from rural areas, made up the core of the American Civil Rights Movement.)
Tea Party events, almost always, have taken place on weekends, after work, and on national holidays because the overwhelming majority of non-retired Tea Party members work full time. If, as appears to be the case, many Occupy protesters are college students or recent graduates, then their unemployment is, to some extent, voluntary. True, it may be hard to find the types of jobs that college grads think they deserve, but hardly anyone with a college degree is going to be unable to find any type of job particularly if they are willing to move.
The presence of a large Occupy movement in the Washington, D.C. area is more proof of this: the recession has largely ended in the region and the two biggest suburban jurisdictions (both of them more than twice the size of the District)–Fairfax County, Virginia (4.3 unemployment) and Montgomery County, Maryland (5.5 percent unemployment)–are both actually pretty close to full employment.
The Occupy Movement is, in may ways, an left-wing answer to the Tea Party. But it’s not the same thing.
