Academia, via government, has become so aggrandized that it assumes the right to direct all human arguments. Citizens are to become the obedient students of a more knowing and politically correct class of elites. Washington's adversarial lawyer-politicians, like neo-monarchists of a new American Royal Academy, have been deployed as warring vassals to seize power and wealth with legislative, judicial, and now presidential authority. ~ John Kelly
As is so often the case these days, common sense, average Americans have proven to be much more astute at analyzing facts and applying them than are the high priests of academia and other political hacks posing as historians. The Tea Party movement, made up of primarily middle-class Americans fed up with Washington's bloated, over-spending, over-reaching nannyism rose to prominence soon after Rick Santelli spontaneously went off on national television with a rant about the bail outs and the government's first "stimulus." Santelli's spontaneous reference to a Tea Party was the spark that lit the fuze. Now comes the left's AstroTurf response to the Tea Party (TP) - Occupy Wall Street (OWS).
Let's contrast the two movements. Both movements are angry--and rightfully so--at the current state of affairs (brought about by politicians and ruling class elites in academia) in the United States. But that is where the similarities end. The TP, generally well-behaved, working-class, flag-waving, patriotic Americans, were protesting the government. Their goals and list of grievances are supported by a majority of Americans. Yet they were condemned by most academic historians, history bloggers, leftists, and elitists who made all kinds of unsubstantiated and false charges of potential violence and racism against them. The mainstream media also coined the "tea-bagger" phrase (a crude, juvenile, gutter-level reference to a sexual act) in an attempt to disparage the movement. The media, along with their pals in academia and their masters in government, tried to paint the TP as "out of the mainstream", blah, blah, blah. Actually, they were simply projecting for it is they who are actually out of the mainstream.
The OWS crowd, in contrast, has focused most of their anger and protests on corporations and financial institutions. Moreover, as a recent article at the American Thinker noted, the OWS folks, for the most part, are the ones who seem to be motivated by "greed and hatred": "Pay my bills" and "Eat the rich." Greed and hatred - precisely what the left constantly accuses the TP of. Again, they're projecting.
Furthermore, unlike the TP, there is a mountain of substantiated evidence that the OWS is anything but mainstream, despite what a recent blogger said here in some comments. This same blogger was hyper-critical of the TP. No need to name him, he's just following the lead of other non-thinking, agenda-driven "historians."
A recent USA Today poll showed that 64% of Americans blame the federal government for the poor economy while only 30% blame financial institutions. This is further evidence that the "mainstream" supports the goals and philosophy of the TP, not OWS.
As I've already pointed out, the OWS is supported by the American Nazi Party and the Communist USA Party. The movement is also rife with anti-semitism and there have been numerous incidents of crime and violence including drug use and dealing, throwing Molotov cocktails, murders, rapes and increased crime rates wherever the OWS crowd happens to congregate. You can follow their ever-growing rap sheet here which includes, by the way, defecating on a police car. (Funny, no such rap sheet for the TP exists.) Ah yes, gotta love pooping on the cop cars - certainly a mainstream activity if I ever heard of one. Yet hardly a peep from academia and the TP critics. Frauds.
Now what you'll also hear from the pseudo-historians is that the TP ostensibly used bad history to support their cause and the OWS folks aren't doing that. That's nothing more than a cover for academia's hatred of the TP's politics. For example, you have some of the protestors (including communists) claiming America's founding principles for support. We also have historians suggesting that the OWS crowd is "channeling Thomas Jefferson." And we have former Clintonista, John Podesta claiming that the "Constitution is inherently progressive" and claims the founders were "radicals." Yes, they were certainly radical - radically anti-abusive government; not radically pro big government as modern progressives are. Talk about twisting history! We have others evidently channeling the Founding Fathers and suggesting that they would "be standing on the front lines of the Occupy Wall Street movement." Perhaps the funniest perversion is the OWS folks comparing their winter vagrancy to Valley Forge. More twisting of history and getting the facts wrong by the OWS soul-mates. But isn't it quite instructive that the "objective historians" who were so critical of the Tea Party ONLY because they were using history to promote their agenda, obediently zip their lips over the OWS vagrants and their history fantasies. Once again, institutional academia's actions reveals the truth.
Tim Slagle over at BigGovernment.com further distinguishes the two movements and their base political philosophies. He very succinctly puts it all into a historical context:
This explains why there is such a vast difference between the two. The Occupy movement is not only mostly Democrat; it is also democratic. Likewise, the Tea Parties are both a republic and Republican. They are microcosms of the political philosophies they each represent. Tea parties are controlled by the rule of law and are planned in advance. They acquire proper permits, rent PA systems, Porti-Potties, and Tents. When they’re over, people pick up the trash and go home. Occupy is famous for creepy chanting after every speaker finishes a sentence and a guy relieving himself against the side of a police car. Some of the Occupy residents have, ironically, used the facilities of McDonalds and Starbucks and even took ironic shelter from the rain in a Bank of America ATM kiosk (I’m sure the irony is lost on them, though). They loudly proclaim that “this is what Democracy looks like!” Constitutional author James Madison would agree. In Federalist # 10 he wrote: “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.“
Slagle concludes: "We are certainly in trouble if these people [the OWS crowd] get hold of a guillotine." Indeed.
But again, I ask: Where, pray tell, is the objective criticism from academia in regards to the OWS-related history twisting? No where. Why? They're complicit at best, supportive at worst. Not that they don't have a right to support the movement, just that they're less than honest in hiding behind their "objectivity" in doing so. Of course, they're also proven themselves wrong on most of the issues being discussed.
But the majority of the American people, in this case, happens to be right. They agree with the basic goals of the TP. Academia and the rest of the ruling class is wrong - as usual. As former Clinton pollster, Douglas Shoen recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
The Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people . . . The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies . . . it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda. [You can read the rest of Shoen's piece here.]
Moreover, if the OWS folks want to "eat the rich", they should move the best feeding would be: The beltway and areas surrounding DC - where most federal employees work and live.
Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation’s greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out San Jose as the wealthiest U.S. metropolitan area, government data show . . . “There’s a gap that’s isolating Washington from the reality of the rest of the country . . . They just get more and more out of touch.” [Source.]
This proves that all the Marxist influenced talk about the disparity of wealth is actually being directed at the wrong crowd. Again, the TP is right, institutional academia is wrong. There is so much more that could be said about the OWS movement and its philosophical footsie playing with the extreme, out of touch ideas that are entrenched in institutional academia. Suffice it to say that the facts surrounding these two distinct movements and how academia has responded to each them--rejecting the traditional Americanism viewpoint while embracing the extremist, lawless one--are simply more evidence that institutional academia is on the wrong side of history and is not to be trusted. The masks are off and the mainstream knows it.