Plan B Forum

Todd Essig, Contributor
My beat is mental health, mental wealth, and making the most of living


Leadership|10/16/2011 @ 1:46PM |52,243 views


The Contrasting Psychologies of 'Occupy Wall Street' and the 'Tea Party'

What to make of Occupy Wall Street: ignore it as silly excess or embrace the movement? celebrate the energy or ridicule the process? fear the consequences or welcome the possibilities? No easy answers, except for the wrong ones. What can be said is that how you respond at this still early stage depends on how your psychology fits, or doesn’t, with the psychology of this emerging movement, and how that fit contrasts with the very different psychology of the Tea Party.

One is primarily a psychology of exclusion, the other inclusion. But both start with deep similarities: anger, fear, frustration, resentment, and an enduring faith in democratic ideals (why else participate?). No one likes what’s been going on since the Bush-era housing bubble burst and we woke up to the fact that buying and selling houses to each other with money borrowed from China was no way to run an economy.

A majority then bought into a message of hope and change without fully realizing hope is so very fragile (“a thing with feathers, That perches in the soul”) and change is scary-messy. Many who didn’t buy in have then gone on to reject anything Obama proposes, even when they themselves have previously expressed agreement with the very same idea.

In other words, we’re in a real mess with lots of reasons to be upset. No differences there. The differences between the Tea Party position and that of Occupy Wall Street emerge in how that upset is expressed, in how solutions are sought. If we think of the Tea Party starting with a rebel’s yell of “get your f-in hands off my f-in stuff” then OWS begins with a naive complaint about being hungry while others unfairly have too much, “how much stuff do you really need, really, to have a good life?”

<snip>

(follow the URL to a most illuminating article)

liberty1 wrote:1) Don't spend money you don't have.

liberty1 wrote:2) Follow the Constitution.

liberty1 wrote:
1) Don't spend money you don't have.
Except on things that the Tea Party approves of.

liberty1 wrote:
2) Follow the Constitution.
Except where it should be changed to things the Tea Party approves of.

liberty1 wrote:The guy obviously doesn't have a clue about the Tea Party. It is made up of people who believe in 2 basic things.

1) Don't spend money you don't have.
2) Follow the Constitution.

It's really that simple.

Or Ron Paul specifically

He wants to end funding on quite a few things that he doesn't like and wants

1. Except on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were funded by deficit spending.

2. Except to follow said document would inconvenience those whose chance at making piles of money would be diminished. (see example no. 1)

Preamble: The Tea Party Movement is an all-inclusiveAmerican grassroots movement with the belief that everyone is created equal and deserves an equal opportunity to thrive in these United States where they may “pursue life, liberty and happiness” as stated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

No one is excluded from participation in the Tea Party Movement. Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:

D@mn pinko FORBES magazine does it again

There the fact that 55% of Tea Partiers oppose any cuts to defense spending in order to balance the budget (as opposed to only 34% in favour).

And then there's the fact that constitutional amendments proposed in the Tea Party Platform include a balanced budget amendment, an amendment limiting the ways in which Congress may levy taxes, an amendment protecting the right of states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, and an amendment denying citizenship to those born in the U.S. of undocumented parents, among others

liberty1 wrote:And where exactly is that in their platform?

Grim Reaper wrote:

liberty1 wrote:1) Don't spend money you don't have.

Except on things that the Tea Party approves of.

How exactly is ammending the Constitution, unconstitutional?

Grim Reaper wrote:

liberty1 wrote:2) Follow the Constitution.

Except where it should be changed to things the Tea Party approves of.

he was absolutely correct. Tea Partiers want a balanced budget, but a strong majority of them refuse to countenance any cuts to defense spending in order to make it happen.

It is clear that Tea Partiers want to amend the Constitution to fit their own ideology.

You asked for examples with evidence of the statements Grim made, and now you have them.

liberty1 wrote:

he was absolutely correct. Tea Partiers want a balanced budget, but a strong majority of them refuse to countenance any cuts to defense spending in order to make it happen.

Still no evidence, only opinions?

It is clear that Tea Partiers want to amend the Constitution to fit their own ideology.

OK, So.

You asked for examples with evidence of the statements Grim made, and now you have them.

I asked for evidence to support his opinion that the Tea Party is against 1) Don't spend money you don't have. 2) Follow the Constitution.

I've seen no evidence, just his opinion. Fail X3.

liberty1 wrote:I've seen no evidence, just his opinion. Fail X3.

There the fact that 55% of Tea Partiers oppose any cuts to defense spending in order to balance the budget (as opposed to only 34% in favour).