Wall Street Journal writer Peggy Noonan says it best:
[Referring to OWS] "It is not a tea party. The tea party was a middle-class uprising that was only too happy to funnel its energy into the democratic process. They took their central concerns--spending, taxes and regulation--and followed the prescription of Joe Hill: Don't mourn, organize. They did. They entered politics and helped win elections."A list of characteristics of the Tea Party group could also include polite, respectful, clean, and non-violent. Perhaps some of those adjectives did come to mind, early on, with the OWS group. But now that we are one month into it, it is the opposites of those words that greet us everyday in the headlines.
"Occupy Wall Street is completely different. They mean to gain power and sway by going outside the political system. They are a critique of the political system. They went to the streets and stayed there.
They are not funneling their energy into the democratic process because there is no market for what they are selling: Capitalism should be overturned, I am angry that my college loan bills are so big, the government is bad, and the answer is more government. You can't win elections in America with that kind of message. So they will stay in the streets, where they can have an impact by stopping traffic, inconveniencing people going to and coming from work, and appearing to be an amorphous force that must be bowed to.
The difference between the occupiers and the tea party is the difference between acting out and taking part." [Emphasis added is mine.]
So, the next time you hear these two groups mentioned in the same sentence, understand that the speaker has not mastered a fundamental early childhood education concept, but is accomplished in the art of misdirection and deception.
