An interesting take on the similarities and differences between the Occupiers and the Teapartiers .
“In truth, money is not the problem. Restricting the flow of money into politics only redirects cronyism. It doesn’t stop it. The real problem is what is for sale.
Government is force. That is its essential and exclusive quality. Government has the unique capacity to lawfully coerce behavior. When that capacity is unmoored from justice, it becomes
available to the highest bidder. That is what has happened in America. Lobbyists and donors are
lined up to purchase the initiation of force against their economic and political competitors. Winners get to wield a club with which to
bludgeon others into submission. Losers are S.O.L.
That is why constitutionally limited government is so important, and why Tea Partiers are so
enamored with the Founding and all its historical trappings. Limiting the state’s power to strictly
defined roles prevents regulatory capture and other forms of cronyism. “
I’m not sure that I share the author’s notion that the brighter Occupiers may well evolve into and come to see the wisdom of the Teapartier’s view of power/authority . It seems to me that the fundamental difference separating the two factions is one of personal responsibility .
Whereas personal responsibility is , to my mind , the driving force for the right/teaparty/libertarian faction as manifested in our founding principles , the Occupiers seem to feel that everything is someone else’s fault ala Obama . Obama is the perfect example of the left’s facination with collective blame/shirking of personal responsibility . The under-carriage of his bus is mighty cramped right about now .
This divide would seem to be an unbridgable chasm given the Occupiers desire for entitlements for all and the Teaparty’s goal of entitlements for none . We shall see .