Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement an Answer to The Tea Party Movement?

[Gaspar]

I still maintain that's what's most interesting about Occupy is the extent to which it's resisting 1) creating more than a rudimentary leadership structure and 2) allying with anyone at all that might be simpatico.  Aside from all the hippy-punching in this thread (ahem, Guido), I think it's clear that Occupy is a compelling idea for good segment of the country.  It's interesting but imperfect but still interesting.  And it has succeeded in doing what the Democratic Party hasn't in years -- come up with excellent marketing.  That 99% thing is as good a piece of propaganda as I've seen in a long time -- certainly as good as anything dreamed up in the basement of the Heritage Foundation, and it's succeeded in reframing the economic debate to a huge degree.  Again, this is something the Dems have been congenitally unable to do, and so in some ways it's very interesting to see the power structure on the left get punk'd by grassroots, crowdsourced ideas. 

But crowdsourcing takes you only so far.  Your strength -- reliance on the power of the crowd for ideas and execution -- also means that a traditional leadership structure will stifle innovation.  And OWS, by all accounts, is completely allergic to being led.  And that's going to keep them from participating in the political realm more than they have to date.  The Tea Party did some early selling out and got money and organization from some old GOP hands; that allowed a wave of Tea Partiers to actually get into office in 2010.  OWS is explicitly NOT taking that route and unless they stumble across money, connections, and an election organization lying under a tree somewhere, they're going to be kept out of electoral politics, and most of their specific demands are also going to remain on the sidelines. 

Good analysis.

That structure or lack thereof also allows them to be infiltrated and "led" by a multitude of forces.  It's amebic.

One of their chants "This is what Democracy Looks Like" is absolutely true.

"Democracy – A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy." – U.S. Army Training Manual

Our founders cherished liberty, not democracy. -Thomas Jefferson

OWS may be the best experiment in Democracy we have ever seen.

[Conan71]

What's the moderate's jargon?

“We are family"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYLk34GCXbo[/youtube]

[we vs us]

Great marketing?  Serious?  The “99%" and “1%" are nothing but new jargon in the far left’s class warfare.

Great marketing would dispel the image that the Occutards are a bunch of poo-flinging slackers.

I think you misunderstand me.  I'm not commenting on the truth of the statement, I'm commenting on how it's permeated national politics.  And obviously ("poo-flinging slackers," is it?) you're not gonna be one of the guys the marketing is speaking to.  

The Dems have been messaging failures since Clinton left, and arguably even while he was in office.  They don't have a fifth of the marketing savvy the right does.  That a grassroots group could brainstorm, articulate (yes, articulate), and successfully publicize an idea like 99% to a degree that the GOP has to occasionally name-check it and has had to switch gears from focusing on deficit reduction to defending income inequality -- that's an unqualified success.  And one that the Dems rarely get.  

Obviously you and I are gonna disagree about the far left's class warfare, but I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that they've succeeded in making an idea very popular.

[Conan71]

The Dems have been messaging failures since Clinton left,

How on earth then did they re-take the House, Senate, and White House?

[we vs us]

How on earth then did they re-take the House, Senate, and White House?

George Bush kinda helped. 

But you have a point. Hope and Change was strong marketing, too.  Sadly, since the actual 2008 election season, getting ideas into the mainstream -- again, as conservatives do so well -- hasn't been easy.

[nathanm]

Great marketing?  Serious?  The “99%" and “1%" are nothing but new jargon in the far left’s class warfare.

The irony is that you say that it's the far left's class warfare when in fact it's the enacted policies of the far right that have been quietly prosecuting their own class war since the 80s, while using the ongoing culture war as cover. There must have been some amount of genius involved, as nobody really talked about it until OWS.

[Gaspar]

I think you misunderstand me.  I'm not commenting on the truth of the statement, I'm commenting on how it's permeated national politics.  And obviously ("poo-flinging slackers," is it?) you're not gonna be one of the guys the marketing is speaking to.  

The Dems have been messaging failures since Clinton left, and arguably even while he was in office.  They don't have a fifth of the marketing savvy the right does.  That a grassroots group could brainstorm, articulate (yes, articulate), and successfully publicize an idea like 99% to a degree that the GOP has to occasionally name-check it and has had to switch gears from focusing on deficit reduction to defending income inequality -- that's an unqualified success.  And one that the Dems rarely get.  

Obviously you and I are gonna disagree about the far left's class warfare, but I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that they've succeeded in making an idea very popular.

Now you are speaking my language.  I agree.  Marketing is a problem, but for both sides.

For marketing to work, there has to be a value proposition.  A product has to be offered that a person values more than what they must give in order to acquire it.

Political products change over time based on the "issues of the day."

For many years the product that Republicans offered was PROSPERITY.
REPUBLICAN=PROSPERITY

Also for as long and I can remember Democrats offer the product of SECURITY.
DEMOCRAT=SECURITY

Both of those products can be sold on the same shelf, and make a well rounded product offering.

Something started to happen in 2004-2008. In Bush's second term we saw such an increase in government that the values of Republicans started to change.  The product they wanted was still PROSPERITY, but they saw that product threatened, so many sought a return to a more fundamental offering that their elected officials were not providing.  The expansion of government was a threat, and with the promise of a new president (Obama or McCain) they envisioned this trend continuing.

In 2009 this came to a head with the Tea Party and the Republican party was effectively re-tooled (with a Tea Party gun to their heads). 
The new product was LIBERTY.

REPUBLICAN=LIBERTY
DEMOCRAT=SECURITY

The problem with the new product offering is two-fold.  LIBERTY and SECURITY do not play well together.  Typically people seek one or the other.  This is why we are more polarized politically.  The second problem is one of track-record.  Republicans have little track record of delivering LIBERTY, and Democrats have a dismal record of delivering SECURITY.

So I think we may now be seeing a push to re-tool the Democrat product by forces such as OWS.  Perhaps with better organization they could be successful, but I think President Obama already understands this, and that is why he is attempting to re-brand the product as FAIRNESS.

REPUBLICAN=LIBERTY
DEMOCRAT=FAIRNESS

These two products are even more at odds with each other.  If he succeeds in this redefinition of the Democrat product, I would expect a rocky road for both parties.  Will you choose to be a person who embraces liberty or fairness. How do you define each, and where are the boundaries? What's the pitch? What's the cost?

[Conan71]

George Bush kinda helped. 

But you have a point. Hope and Change was strong marketing, too.  Sadly, since the actual 2008 election season, getting ideas into the mainstream -- again, as conservatives do so well -- hasn't been easy.

The Tea Party appealed to a lot of fiscal conservatives.  Consider where the acronym T.E.A. came from in the first place (yes, many don’t realize it’s an acronym) “Taxed Enough Already”.

It was largely a push-back on Obamacare which polls show close to 1/2 of Americans opposed which would explain those registered as independents and Democrats who also identified with the movement.  I think the arrival take over by theocrats like Santorum and Bachmann will eventually  cause the Tea Party to become less relevant in the overall scheme of things.  I believe most old line Republicans are very wary of the evangelicals trying to co-opt the party.  They are a large reason why I jumped ship.  That and the supposed fiscal conservatives who never met an expenditure they didn’t like.

[Gaspar]

The Tea Party appealed to a lot of fiscal conservatives.  Consider where the acronym T.E.A. came from in the first place (yes, many don’t realize it’s an acronym) “Taxed Enough Already”.

It was largely a push-back on Obamacare which polls show close to 1/2 of Americans opposed which would explain those registered as independents and Democrats who also identified with the movement.  I think the arrival take over by theocrats like Santorum and Bachmann will eventually  cause the Tea Party to become less relevant in the overall scheme of things.  I believe most old line Republicans are very wary of the evangelicals trying to co-opt the party.  They are a large reason why I jumped ship.  That and the supposed fiscal conservatives who never met an expenditure they didn’t like.

I thought it was when one man dragged his sac. . .

Never mind!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4b3sELZYUo[/youtube]

[patric]

"Democracy – A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

– U.S. Army Training Manual

So that makes me wonder, who is the military training soldiers to go to war with these days?

[nathanm]

The Republicans must be using a radical redefinition of the word liberty if that's the branding they're going with. The word I would use is "authoritarian."

[Gaspar]

So that makes me wonder, who is the military training soldiers to go to war with these days?

You do understand that we are not a Democracy right?

[we vs us]

Now you are speaking my language.  I agree.  Marketing is a problem, but for both sides.

For marketing to work, there has to be a value proposition.  A product has to be offered that a person values more than what they must give in order to acquire it.

Political products change over time based on the "issues of the day."

For many years the product that Republicans offered was PROSPERITY.
REPUBLICAN=PROSPERITY

Also for as long and I can remember Democrats offer the product of SECURITY.
DEMOCRAT=SECURITY

Both of those products can be sold on the same shelf, and make a well rounded product offering.

Something started to happen in 2004-2008. In Bush's second term we saw such an increase in government that the values of Republicans started to change.  The product they wanted was still PROSPERITY, but they saw that product threatened, so many sought a return to a more fundamental offering that their elected officials were not providing.  The expansion of government was a threat, and with the promise of a new president (Obama or McCain) they envisioned this trend continuing.

In 2009 this came to a head with the Tea Party and the Republican party was effectively re-tooled (with a Tea Party gun to their heads). 
The new product was LIBERTY.

REPUBLICAN=LIBERTY
DEMOCRAT=SECURITY

The problem with the new product offering is two-fold.  LIBERTY and SECURITY do not play well together.  Typically people seek one or the other.  This is why we are more polarized politically.  The second problem is one of track-record.  Republicans have little track record of delivering LIBERTY, and Democrats have a dismal record of delivering SECURITY.

So I think we may now be seeing a push to re-tool the Democrat product by forces such as OWS.  Perhaps with better organization they could be successful, but I think President Obama already understands this, and that is why he is attempting to re-brand the product as FAIRNESS.

REPUBLICAN=LIBERTY
DEMOCRAT=FAIRNESS

These two products are even more at odds with each other.  If he succeeds in this redefinition of the Democrat product, I would expect a rocky road for both parties.  Will you choose to be a person who embraces liberty or fairness. How do you define each, and where are the boundaries? What's the pitch? What's the cost?

Will wonders never cease.  I agree with pretty much all of that.

[patric]

The Tea Party appealed to a lot of fiscal conservatives.  Consider where the acronym T.E.A. came from in the first place (yes, many don’t realize it’s an acronym) “Taxed Enough Already”.

I'm pretty sure that's an after-the-fact acronym that just served as some politician's absolution once they realized their catchy moniker had little or nothing to do with the historical Boston Tea Party event who's name they misappropriated.

Before DSL and Cable Modems, everyone was waiting for a technology called ISDN that never really matured.
In time, disappointed geeks began to refer to it's broken promise of internet speed as "It Still Does Nothing"

[patric]

You do understand that we are not a Democracy right?

I understand our government was based on democracy.