October 25, 2011A Wall Street tea party?
Finally, somebody gets it. (Or seems very close.)
That this someone is Craig Shirley, a major Republican operative who has worked for George Herbert Walker Bush and Bob Dole, is sweeter still.
Here’s what Shirley understands:
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) crowd and the tea party movement really have a lot in common. They might not realize this yet—the most “respected” and “responsible” political observers certainly do not—but they are really allies.
Both groups are responding, in their different ways, to the same problems. They not might agree totally on the solutions, but if they only gave each other half a chance, they could work together. And if they did, there’s no telling what effect they might have on American politics.
Shirley seems to realize this, which is encouraging. Writing on Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller website, he urges his fellow Republicans not to dismiss the OWS protestors (as status-quo politicians and pundits do) “as a bunch of unwashed bums.” They should not be
ignored and certainly not attacked across the board. The crass and vulgar street-theater antics of some of the Wall Street protestors should not be confused with the greater numbers who are legitimately questioning the corruption of Corporate America.
The Wall Street protestors should be taken seriously, just as the tea party activists should be taken seriously—and these groups, as different as they might seem, should take each other seriously, too. That’s because on the biggest questions of the day, they are mirror images of one another. These anti-establishment uprisings of the right and the left agree with each other, even if they don’t yet realize it.
1. They are appalled by the corrupt alliance of the federal government with “too big to fail” financial institutions.
2. They have lost faith in the political establishment and its ability to clean up the mess it has caused.
3. They represent spontaneous, decentralized, virtually leaderless grassroots uprisings of ordinary citizens, many of whom have never been politically active.
4. They have scant respect for established authority, in politics, big business and the media.
Finally, they don’t much care what the “Washington Week in Review” crowd thinks of them. That’s why some will wear outlandish clothes, why they will carry poorly made signs with outrageous sayings on them and why—most refreshing of all—they have the courage to tell the truth.
These groups will not be “ignored,” in Shirley’s words. And they just might be the future.
This kind of blog post unnecessarily downplays or glosses over the rabidly something-for-nothing, socialistic and anti-capitalist mentality of much of the squat-on-Wall-Street movement, features that have been well documented.
Yes, activists who value freedom, capitalism and profit-making, on the one hand, and activists who want to destroy these, on the other, have much in common. They’re human beings. They may adopt some of the same message-spreading techniques (although one side seems a lot more prone to window-smashing, setting up indefinite residency in property than does not belong to them and which they are not renting, and other manifestations of contempt for property rights). Many on both sides may oppose bank bailouts. They may like coffee, iPads, sex. Etc.
But it does a disservice to the cause of freedom to treat real and stark differences in ideology, temperament and goals as if they were subsidiary matters or readily resolvable with a little stress on commonalities and communication. Capitalists can’t win battles against adamant socialists and looters by pretending that war against capitalism, economic success and individual rights is not being waged. Defenders of freedom, capitalism and civilization can’t “work together” with those bent on destroying these. Certainly ad hoc, temporary and narrow cooperatoin with political adversaries is possible on specific political questions where there happens to be agreement (bailouts, draft, drug legalization) and where such cooperation does not imply a relinquishing of fundamental princples. But no such ad-hoc alliances should be allowed to blur the reality of the fundamental clash, what Sowell called the “conflict of visions”; the basic values that are at stake. You can’t “work with” someone toward goals the opposite of those with whom you would supposedly be working.
It’s in the interests of the destroyers of civilization to hide their true goals. It’s not in the interests of the defenders of civilization. Not even for the sake of a superficial comity. We can persuade some of the more open-minded denizens of the left to come over to the side of freedom, but not by disguising the depth of our disagreements with them.
This kind of blog post unnecessarily downplays or glosses over the rabidly something-for-nothing, socialistic and anti-capitalist mentality of much of the squat-on-Wall-Street movement, features that have been well documented. Of course there are many involved who are simply ignorant or confused. That has always been true of anti-capitalist movements.
Yes, activists who value freedom, capitalism and profit-making, on the one hand, and activists who want to destroy these, on the other, have much in common. They’re human beings. They may adopt some of the same message-spreading techniques (although one side seems a lot more prone to window-smashing, setting up indefinite residency in property than does not belong to them and which they are not renting, and other manifestations of contempt for property rights). Many on both sides may oppose bank bailouts. They may like coffee, iPads, sex. Etc.
But it does a disservice to the cause of freedom to treat real and stark differences in ideology, temperament and goals as if they were subsidiary matters or readily resolvable with a little stress on commonalities and communication. Capitalists can’t win battles against adamant socialists and looters by pretending that war against capitalism, economic success and individual rights is not being waged. Defenders of freedom, capitalism and civilization can’t “work together” with those bent on destroying these. Certainly ad hoc, temporary and narrow cooperation with political adversaries is possible on specific political questions where there happens to be agreement (bailouts, draft, drug legalization) and where such cooperation does not imply a relinquishing of fundamental princples. But no such ad-hoc alliances should be allowed to blur the reality of the fundamental clash, what Sowell called the “conflict of visions”; the conflict between the basic values that are at stake. You can’t “work with” someone toward goals the opposite of those with whom you would supposedly be working.
In a society with any substantial classical liberal heritage, in the interests of the destroyers of civilization to hide their true goals, both from foes and from ignorant collaborators. It’s not in the interests of the defenders of civilization, not even for the sake of a superficial comity. We can persuade some of the more open-minded denizens of the left to come over to the side of freedom, but not by disguising the depth of our disagreements with them.
Pingback: Contra Sam Adams’s uber-alliancing, pretending the commies aren’t attacking won’t make them go away « David M. Brown's Blog