The Tea Party was supposed to be full of a bunch of violent gun toting rednecks. OWS proves you don't have to own a gun in order to be dangerous, And the Tea Party proves you can own a gun, carry a gun, and talk about how bad your government sucks and still be completely peaceful, even if you are surrounded by thousands just like you, and even though your huge group frightens a LOT of people.
And the simplest thing you can do is look at the arrest record of each movement. I can't vouch for these numbers but based on the news, and I've been reading and watching voraciously, it seems accurate:
Imagine if these headlines really existed during the Tea Party Days: The Foundry: Over 2,400 Tea Partiers Arrested
Finally, there's this image, which shows the deeper, ideological divide, and only a few things in common (Click to enlarge):
It's interesting that, back in September and October, there were a lot of people drawing comparisons between these two things. OWS seemed to be the left's answer to the Tea Party, and that made them so cool (to some people). I knew better, but I didn't say anything. Now, it's a different story. I don't really read about people making the comparison in the greater medeia outlets. They don't want to draw the comparison because it's not even fair.
3 comments:
I would really like to see this same diagram done by someone that was neutral and unbiased. It was really interesting to me until I read the left side. It was just full of the unreasonable gobbledigooke that conservatives always put out as being the liberal view. That's not to say there wasn't a lot of unreasonable inane gobbledigooke being spewed by the OWS. It is really sad that they were the group representing the liberals. I have some very well spoken, educated, coherent and intelligent friends that are liberal and have some very good arguments. But you will never hear them quoted on a Conservative site.
Why is it Laura, that only those who agree with you are "unbiased?" Have you listened to the OWS's? The info on the left arrow very accurately represents what they said, what their signs said, except that the foul language has been edited out.
Laura: The point of the graph is not to represent the liberal view, as you say it is. It is to illustrate the views of the Occupy movement. This is an important distinction, and your observation proves that the graph is useful. So as usual, there is a thread of agreement between us: it IS sad that the OWS crowd was sold as a mainstream liberal movement. Indeed, that's one of the things they were trying so hard to sell (The whole 99% thing), but the hippies doth protest too much. They failed to show, even to those who they had a hope of reaching out to, that they were even sane. The Tea Party, on the other hand, has successfully shown that its broad message is very palatable to a large portion of America. Agreeable to all? No, but to most. Are all Tea Partiers sane? No, most are, but it's easy to over generalize, right?
And finally: sane, rational, and RIGHT does not equal neutral, mainstream, or common. I wish it did. I am not neutral. I am not unbiased. I am a RADICAL. I represent the radical view that capitalism should be espoused and implemented untainted by government intrusion. We have separation of church and state. We need separation of economy and state. And we need to be radicals for those viewpoints.
Post a Comment