Thanks Lenny- Appreciate the comments.
Ezra- with all due respect, and I mean that, you are confusing populist with leftist. They are far different from each other. Follow me for a bit here...
The country is divided, we are left vs right, red vs blue. This is a trick, because it says that I am the problem, or you are the problem, or Muslims, or Mormons, or blacks, or Mexicans, or gays or whoever. It means that we blame each other for America's problems. YOU are the problem because YOU are left/right, black/brown, gay/straight, etc.
Now, in the past, generally, when one side wins there is progress made, change happens, and one side is more satisfied than the other. But that is not the case now. WE are not winning, WE are not succeeding.
Ahh, there's an interesting issue...WE. Who is WE? WE is the middle class, left and right, gay and straight, black and white. There is an entire economic class that is losing regardless of their stance on issues. This is not about gun rights, abortion, and gay rights, this is about the entire middle class suffering at a degree greater than any point since the Great Depression. This is NOT a left/right issue, this is a middle class/upper class issue. As long as we fight with each other, and blame each other we shall not have a voice as the middle class.
Now, stick with me some more. There is one successful populist movement in the country right now, it is called the Tea Party. What are the aims of the Tea Party? Well, the Tea Party wants to reduce the size of government, eliminate the national debt, and...eliminate the power of money and lobbyists from government. They talk of empowerment, and local reprehensibility, and making government accountable to the people it represents...US, the middle class. And that is also the main thrust of OWS. Yes, that's right...the objectives of both movements are generally the same. No, the plan is not the same, but the objectives are.
"The Rush Limbaughs of the world are very comfortable with a narrative that has Noam Chomsky, MoveOn and Barack Obama on one side, and the Tea Party and Republican leaders on the other. The rest of the traditional media won't mind that narrative either, if it can get enough "facts" to back it up. They know how to do that story and most of our political media is based upon that Crossfire paradigm of left-vs-right commentary shows and NFL Today-style team-vs-team campaign reporting.
What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle." Matt Taibi, Rollong Stone, 10/17/11
And that, my dear ezra, is the definition of populist movement. The middle class uniting for middle class priorities at the expense of the elites. And if you look at the re-distribution of wealth in the US it has not been from the middle class to the poor. It has been from the middle class and poor to the elites. The entire middle and poor class is suffering, and it's not YOUR fault, and it is not MY fault. It is the fault of governmental policies that allowed banks to become too big to fail and when they failed YOU and I (middle class) paid for it! This is not a left/right problem as you define it, this is a class problem.
To wrap this up...my point has been that there is only one current successful populist movement in the US, and it is the Tea Party. It is a conservative movement, and is represented by the two most populist figures we have...Michelle Bachman and Sara Palin. Unfortunately, due to their ultra conservative social stance they are not connecting with the more moderate and liberal voters. But these moderate and liberal voters have the same issues when it comes to economics. There is, then a space for a more liberal/moderate populist movement. Obama and all that list of people you wrote of are LIBERAL, not POPULIST.
I want a populist moderate slate of candidates who feel exactly the same about government, taxes, and US (middle class) as the the Tea Party, but I want them to represent my views on social issues. Those candidates are born from a movement, like Bachmann was born from the Tea PArty. I don't want your Bachman, or your Palin, I want my own. This movement might (probably won't) do that.
But if it does, and if the two ever unite on the economic issues there will be change.
But as long as you believe it is left vs. right there will be no change.
Ezra- with all due respect, and I mean that, you are confusing populist with leftist. They are far different from each other. Follow me for a bit here...
The country is divided, we are left vs right, red vs blue. This is a trick, because it says that I am the problem, or you are the problem, or Muslims, or Mormons, or blacks, or Mexicans, or gays or whoever. It means that we blame each other for America's problems. YOU are the problem because YOU are left/right, black/brown, gay/straight, etc.
Now, in the past, generally, when one side wins there is progress made, change happens, and one side is more satisfied than the other. But that is not the case now. WE are not winning, WE are not succeeding.
Ahh, there's an interesting issue...WE. Who is WE? WE is the middle class, left and right, gay and straight, black and white. There is an entire economic class that is losing regardless of their stance on issues. This is not about gun rights, abortion, and gay rights, this is about the entire middle class suffering at a degree greater than any point since the Great Depression. This is NOT a left/right issue, this is a middle class/upper class issue. As long as we fight with each other, and blame each other we shall not have a voice as the middle class.
Now, stick with me some more. There is one successful populist movement in the country right now, it is called the Tea Party. What are the aims of the Tea Party? Well, the Tea Party wants to reduce the size of government, eliminate the national debt, and...eliminate the power of money and lobbyists from government. They talk of empowerment, and local reprehensibility, and making government accountable to the people it represents...US, the middle class. And that is also the main thrust of OWS. Yes, that's right...the objectives of both movements are generally the same. No, the plan is not the same, but the objectives are.
"The Rush Limbaughs of the world are very comfortable with a narrative that has Noam Chomsky, MoveOn and Barack Obama on one side, and the Tea Party and Republican leaders on the other. The rest of the traditional media won't mind that narrative either, if it can get enough "facts" to back it up. They know how to do that story and most of our political media is based upon that Crossfire paradigm of left-vs-right commentary shows and NFL Today-style team-vs-team campaign reporting.
What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle." Matt Taibi, Rollong Stone, 10/17/11
And that, my dear ezra, is the definition of populist movement. The middle class uniting for middle class priorities at the expense of the elites. And if you look at the re-distribution of wealth in the US it has not been from the middle class to the poor. It has been from the middle class and poor to the elites. The entire middle and poor class is suffering, and it's not YOUR fault, and it is not MY fault. It is the fault of governmental policies that allowed banks to become too big to fail and when they failed YOU and I (middle class) paid for it! This is not a left/right problem as you define it, this is a class problem.
To wrap this up...my point has been that there is only one current successful populist movement in the US, and it is the Tea Party. It is a conservative movement, and is represented by the two most populist figures we have...Michelle Bachman and Sara Palin. Unfortunately, due to their ultra conservative social stance they are not connecting with the more moderate and liberal voters. But these moderate and liberal voters have the same issues when it comes to economics. There is, then a space for a more liberal/moderate populist movement. Obama and all that list of people you wrote of are LIBERAL, not POPULIST.
I want a populist moderate slate of candidates who feel exactly the same about government, taxes, and US (middle class) as the the Tea Party, but I want them to represent my views on social issues. Those candidates are born from a movement, like Bachmann was born from the Tea PArty. I don't want your Bachman, or your Palin, I want my own. This movement might (probably won't) do that.
But if it does, and if the two ever unite on the economic issues there will be change.
But as long as you believe it is left vs. right there will be no change.
Last edited:
