Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements hurt independents
In the midst of the past four years of political turmoil and partisan politics, we all have witnessed the rise of two particular movements that, while initially offering populist messages, have grotesquely transformed into influential and divisive partisan movements, corrupted by our two-party system just as every other political movement of recent times. What I'm referring to, of course, are the Tea Party and Occupy movements.
The Tea Party initially was a response to the bank bailouts of 2008-2009. The people of the Tea Party wanted our massive federal government to stop spending so much money and balance the budget. They wanted a strict interpretation of the Constitution. They wanted lower taxes. This later ended up being primarily about lower taxes, in many cases seemingly under the guise of following the Constitution (although it appears rare that the true Tea Party figureheads, e.g., Michele Bachmann, have any real idea of how to interpret such a document). The main rationale for this change was that the Republican Party co-opted the Tea Party movement, mainstreaming its populist message to fit large government designs.
So it shouldn't have been any surprise that when the Occupy movement first arrived on Wall Street, the Democratic Party wanted its own piece of the populist pie. Although initially promoting accountability on Wall Street for the bailouts and bonuses from TARP like the Tea Party, the movement was not only rapidly consumed by (primarily) anti-capitalists, but supported hastily by Democratic leaders.
It should be clear that the intent of the Democratic Party is the same as that of the GOP of '09: the populist movement is, well, popular. The Republican base was energized by the assimilation of the Tea Party; the Democrats' reason similarly that co-opting (or appearing to attempt to co-opt) the Occupy movement is a calculated political move to bring populists to the party and energize the base for Obama's re-election campaign and beyond.
Nice play, Democrats. The only problem with this whole idea is the whole idea. Politically, it's suicidal. The Republican Party has already been burned by the Tea Party in a number of different ways; I wouldn't expect any differently from Occupy. The whole concept is basically this flawed idea that extremism is countered best by … extremism! So when the primaries necessarily occur in 2016 or 2020 for both parties, they're going to have the problem of dealing with this "energized" base that is so extreme it threatens to throw the respective party off the cliff.
The coveted independent vote is the one that seems to be ignored here. Independents are being increasingly forced to choose between the perceived lesser of two evils, especially as the contenders drift further and further apart on the political spectrum. It's almost enough to make one worry that one day we'll have a fascist Republican running against a communist Democrat (I really don't anticipate that problem but the principle is there!)
Independents are unlikely to get their real world concerns met, as parties must bow further and further to ideological pressures and political goals. This means that politics as usual will become meaningless to the common American who only wants to make a living for him or herself.
This problem I largely perceive to be a direct result of the "benevolent" two-party system. By offering two diametrically-opposed parties that become orders of magnitude further apart each election cycle, there is no compromise. A completely viable solution would be to bring the Libertarian Party into prominence, but I won't hold my breath. Right now, the package problem exists: take social and economic conservatism, take social and economic liberalism, or just hope that the divisive elements within the two parties can stay quiet long enough to accept a moderate candidate to represent them.
This country isn't about having a government that you hate the least; it's about voting for a candidate that has most of your interests at heart. With so many voters being increasingly alienated from the two parties, is it possible that we could see the two-party system fall apart?
Matt Kindy is a Baker College sophomore.
More from The Rice Thresher
Comments like “What’s with the suit? What’s the occasion? Who’s getting married?” surrounded me as I strolled into my college commons one day last fall. It caught me off guard; why am I the only one dressed up on career fair day? My bioengineering friend quickly answered my question. “Why should I bother going to the career fair?” he said. “There’s no bioengineering companies there.” He’s absolutely right. But the problem extends beyond just bioengineering.
In the 18th Century, Immanuel Kant (often considered the central figure in modern philosophy) used the phrase Spaere aude in a 1784 essay titled “Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment.” Translated from Latin, it means “dare to know,” or in some cases, “dare to be wise.” Kant argued our inability to think for ourselves was due to fear, not due to a lack of intellect. In the opening paragraph of his essay, Kant states “Have the courage to use your own reason—that is the motto of enlightenment.”
The Oscars may be so white, but Houston art isn’t — as long as you’re looking in the right places. It is all too true that arts organizations still fall short of creating accessible spaces with equitable representation of artists. For instance, white men still make up the majority of artists represented in prominent museums across the United States. Even with increased attention to elevating the work of women artists and an uptick in women-only art shows and exhibitions focused on the work of underrepresented artists, only 11% of permanent acquisitions by major American art museums from 2008 to 2019 were by women; of that 11%, only 3.3.% were by Black women artists.