My thanks, to the non-candidate:
I think if you look at the Occupy Wall Street folks and the Tea Party folks, that they come from the same perspective, they just have different solutions.
Especially because for this attempt to build some common ground, the Governor caught no small amount of flak. Per Beltway Confidential:
But in reality, the two movements offer different solutions precisely because they come from different philosophical perspectives.
The general thrust of the Tea Party movement is a belief in individual liberty and personal responsibility. Tea Partiers want government to take as little of their money as possible and provide as few handouts and subsidies as possible.
By contrast, Wall Street protesters are more focused on income inequality, and they believe that government should play an active role alleviating this problem by imposing a bigger burden on wealthier Americans and offering more services to the poor.
Yes, but no. This isn’t a debate between frontier independence and “gimme!” — though both are fundamentally economic movements. If one sets aside the Marxist minority (as we should), I suspect most individual protestors at Occupy Wall Street would agree with the tea party that capitalism works, and everyone can and should stand on their own, but for two caveats. First, Occupy Wall Street acknowledges (and the tea party ignores) that unrestrained capitalism can actually create impediments to individual wealth creation. Monopolies, securities fraud, reckless speculation, etcetera, are all externalities that can’t be fought by individuals, nor overcome by the individuals they victimize. Second, Occupy Wall Street acknowledges (and the tea party ignores) that in a complicated modern society, some may be left behind by no fault of their own. OWS would answer both problems with government action; the tea parties, with silence.
We should all agree that capitalism works. It’s worked, on the whole, for more than two hundred years. We simply disagree about whether laissez faire, unregulated capitalism adequately provides for the entirety of society, and especially for those on the margins.