On October 19, 2011 by orlok
Recently, Vas Littlecrow Wojtanowicz wrote a thoughtful piece about the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and the danger of movements being co-opted. Much has already been made of the superficial similarities between the two groups, but I felt this piece caught something many of the other ones lacked: that despite the otherwise disparate philosophies, organization and backgrounds of the original core membership, the “big tent” mentalities that both movements court as they’ve grown leaves them open to forces that would infiltrate and ruin them by careful design or clumsy absorption, or through hyperbole and manipulation of facts.
While I have my own opinions about the state of both movements’ corresponding motivations and philosophies, what I wish to address is much of what I feel leaves them open to such targeting to begin with.
Someone once compared a movement I support to planting mustard seeds in how cultivating something can eventually produce a large yield. It is a good analogy, but downplays how we get from seed to constructive change, how to build something intelligent instead of something reactionary. In short, we start off understanding what we are against, but have not thought through what we are for. We don’t distill the process of what we want to build in place of what we are tearing down until after the damage has occurred, and that leads us to the worst of co-options: the shortsighted and self- congratulatory sense of having done something without thought or regard to consequence.
Take the healthcare issue, for instance. Politics aside, one has to wonder at the toll; it’s safe to say it was a major factor in the Democrat defeat in 2010, crippling that party’s agenda, and for what? A fortune in time and money fighting various court challenges and building the infrastructure such a system needs, tying up much of a session of Congress where super-majorities existed, giving the Tea Party legs, and ultimately letting it hinge on the Supreme Court potentially revisiting a seventy year old ruling on Great Depression era crop quotas and the reach of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. All for a program no one was truly satisfied with and has virtually no chance to be amended before it’s implementation, just to have won some kind of moral victory by “doing something”. It all could have been avoided with just some simple planning and strategy.
I hear OWS elements talking about ending the Fed, and people like Ron Paul (R- TX) happily embracing the sentiment. Neither side cares to note the original architect of the Fed, Senator Nelson Aldrich (R- RI, 1841-1915), was also an author of the federal income tax (via introducing what would become the 16th Amendment), as well as being cited as a prime example for the need for direct election of US senators (the 17th Amendment) due to what was felt to be the vastly disproportionate power-base he wielded while representing such a “small state” and the apparent unchecked length of his service allowing him to build it. Effectively, while it may be tempting to dog-pile on the Aldrich legacy for the sake of “doing something”, it is a minefield due to the acts of one man’s record of having “done something” since that legacy is so hardwired into our current system and unless one is careful, they will damage much of their own cause if they go after it wholesale.
We can be impatient people. It is understandable why action is so much more attractive to inaction. But the concept of “doing something” denotes desperation, signals no plan past the moment and as such can’t be the product of intelligence and a demonstration of forethought by it’s effective definition. It is what feeds regulation and, by extension, overextended and overbearing bureaucracy. Instead of eliminating aspects that never deliver on their initial promise, we simply build on them, conceding failure while often compounding it.
Both movements should write manifestos detailing their goals and how they intend to get there. The simple convergence of individuals on a few issues is damaging and unsustainable to their shared cause if they do not begin guiding themselves with a cohesive plan they can present and follow. Yes, “manifesto” conjures some dangerous word associations, but just as Vas pointed out, they will probably call you dangerous at some point anyway.
The United Something of America.
Recently, Vas Littlecrow Wojtanowicz wrote a thoughtful piece about the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and the danger of movements being co-opted. Much has already been made of the superficial similarities between the two groups, but I felt this piece caught something many of the other ones lacked: that despite the otherwise disparate philosophies, organization and backgrounds of the original core membership, the “big tent” mentalities that both movements court as they’ve grown leaves them open to forces that would infiltrate and ruin them by careful design or clumsy absorption, or through hyperbole and manipulation of facts.
While I have my own opinions about the state of both movements’ corresponding motivations and philosophies, what I wish to address is much of what I feel leaves them open to such targeting to begin with.
Someone once compared a movement I support to planting mustard seeds in how cultivating something can eventually produce a large yield. It is a good analogy, but downplays how we get from seed to constructive change, how to build something intelligent instead of something reactionary. In short, we start off understanding what we are against, but have not thought through what we are for. We don’t distill the process of what we want to build in place of what we are tearing down until after the damage has occurred, and that leads us to the worst of co-options: the shortsighted and self- congratulatory sense of having done something without thought or regard to consequence.
Take the healthcare issue, for instance. Politics aside, one has to wonder at the toll; it’s safe to say it was a major factor in the Democrat defeat in 2010, crippling that party’s agenda, and for what? A fortune in time and money fighting various court challenges and building the infrastructure such a system needs, tying up much of a session of Congress where super-majorities existed, giving the Tea Party legs, and ultimately letting it hinge on the Supreme Court potentially revisiting a seventy year old ruling on Great Depression era crop quotas and the reach of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. All for a program no one was truly satisfied with and has virtually no chance to be amended before it’s implementation, just to have won some kind of moral victory by “doing something”. It all could have been avoided with just some simple planning and strategy.
I hear OWS elements talking about ending the Fed, and people like Ron Paul (R- TX) happily embracing the sentiment. Neither side cares to note the original architect of the Fed, Senator Nelson Aldrich (R- RI, 1841-1915), was also an author of the federal income tax (via introducing what would become the 16th Amendment), as well as being cited as a prime example for the need for direct election of US senators (the 17th Amendment) due to what was felt to be the vastly disproportionate power-base he wielded while representing such a “small state” and the apparent unchecked length of his service allowing him to build it. Effectively, while it may be tempting to dog-pile on the Aldrich legacy for the sake of “doing something”, it is a minefield due to the acts of one man’s record of having “done something” since that legacy is so hardwired into our current system and unless one is careful, they will damage much of their own cause if they go after it wholesale.
We can be impatient people. It is understandable why action is so much more attractive to inaction. But the concept of “doing something” denotes desperation, signals no plan past the moment and as such can’t be the product of intelligence and a demonstration of forethought by it’s effective definition. It is what feeds regulation and, by extension, overextended and overbearing bureaucracy. Instead of eliminating aspects that never deliver on their initial promise, we simply build on them, conceding failure while often compounding it.
Both movements should write manifestos detailing their goals and how they intend to get there. The simple convergence of individuals on a few issues is damaging and unsustainable to their shared cause if they do not begin guiding themselves with a cohesive plan they can present and follow. Yes, “manifesto” conjures some dangerous word associations, but just as Vas pointed out, they will probably call you dangerous at some point anyway.