It's OK, they're not using dog whistles
Posted by aogWednesday, 08 February 2012 at 15:08 TrackBack Ping URL

The Occupationists plan actual violence against CPAC. But somehow, I am sure this is former Governor Sarah Palin’s fault, not to mention an example of how those conservatives at CPAC are fomenting a climate of violence. It’s certainly not evidence of the Occupationists being thugs from the beginning.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming... Monday, 13 February 2012 at 20:31

I was stoked to see that the CPAC activists decided not to shoot themselves in the foot this year, opting (uncharacteristically) for elect-ability over ideological purity. The less right Romney has to tack pre-election, the more viable he remains to the general electorate, and CPAC did him a solid.

Although I was sad that Paul couldn’t get ‘er done in Maine; it would’ve been sweet to see the panic from certain quarters…

Since the Occupationists are exactly as centrally-organized and directed as are the Tea Party groups, which is to say not at all, it’s evidence only that SOME Occupationists are thugs, just as some Tea Partiers are creepy nutcases that you’d never turn your back on.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 07:54

I would think it’s better to be a creep than a thug. The former can be ignored and aren’t criminals.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 16:27

I guess it’s time for the left’s whitewash [of the Occupiers’ record] to being in earnest. It’s a nice bookend to their demagoguery over the Tucson shooting: In that case, tea partiers were blamed for a crime that no tea partier committed whereas here no Occupiers are blamed for a crime that quite a few Occupiers allegedly committed.

Hot Air

AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming... Thursday, 16 February 2012 at 16:58

My problem with that framing is that crimes of individual Occupiers are being used to indict an entire group, people who Occupy. But as stated earlier, the Occupy movement isn’t an organization, it’s an activity that individuals choose to participate in.

It can truthfully be said that some people who visit Las Vegas rob and rape others, but that doesn’t mean that going to Vegas to gamble (or gambol) is an inherently thuggish activity, although thugs enjoy doing it.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 17 February 2012 at 00:08

I don’t see that as responsive to my most recent comment. Is your view that it is OK to tar the Tea Partiers with crimes not actually committed by any Tea Partier, but wrong to tar the Occupiers with crimes actually committed by Occupiers? Do you consider some Tea Partiers “creepy nutcases that you’d never turn your back on” because of things done by Tea Partiers?

I think it is reasonable to consider the Occupier crimes as a taint for several reasons, some real and one as payback.

  1. Payback - as noted above, the MAL and Old Media have validated this through their attacks on the Tea Party. I am just very tired of letting such people get away with such flagrant double standards — so let’s apply them universally.
  2. The attempted cover ups of the crimes, to persuade people to not report the crimes to police while doing little or nothing to prevent recurrence. This invalidates the claim of the Occupiers to be better at governing than the existing system.
  3. The lack of blowback from the rest of the Occupiers when this kind of thing is done in their name.
  4. That kind of violence comes directly out of the philosophy espoused by the Occupiers, such as the kind of thing cited in the original post, and more generally about how you deserve to get stuff from other people. It is, IMHO, the violence inherent in their system.

Do I think this makes every Occupier a thug? No. But I do think it indicative of how the movement as a whole is thuggish and to be disdained.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming... Friday, 17 February 2012 at 06:37

Do you consider some Tea Partiers “creepy nutcases that you’d never turn your back on” because of things done by Tea Partiers?

Yes.

Is your view that it is OK to tar the Tea Partiers with crimes not actually committed by any Tea Partier?

No. The Tea Parties also lack central leadership, organization and control. Anyone can claim to be a Tea Partier, and nobody can definitively gainsay them. Thus, the movement cannot directly be held accountable for the criminal or immoral actions of any person.

OF COURSE the Occupiers aren’t better at governing - they’re essentially rebels, although weak-sauce ones.

In the end I certainly hope that the New Order is more toward the Tea Party end of the spectrum, (although most Tea Partiers will hate it anyway, as even Tea Partiers have cherished entitlements, that are gonna go “poof!”), as the choices are a much smaller and more limited government for realz, or else something only slightly smaller than now but surely authoritarian, and I’m guessing that you’d say that the latter is philosophically very much in the Occupy wheelhouse.

I ain’t lookin’ forward to the next few decades, that’s for sure.

Hey Skipper Friday, 17 February 2012 at 14:32
That kind of violence comes directly out of the philosophy espoused by the Occupiers …

That philosophy being roughly: we are right and we must prevail; everyone else must be re-educated. BTW, nice city you have; shame if anything was to happen to it.

The Tea Party actually stands for a fairly specific set of principles, has conducted itself entirely within civil discourse, and has sought approval for its goals at the ballot box.

Pretty much exactly the opposite of the Occupiers.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming... Saturday, 18 February 2012 at 04:11

The Tea Party actually stands for a fairly specific set of principles, has conducted itself entirely within civil discourse, and has sought approval for its goals at the ballot box.

All of which has accomplished exactly NOTHING of lasting significance. If the problem is structural, tinkering within the system cannot cure.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 18 February 2012 at 12:56

I strongly disagree. I think the Tea Parties has already shifted the terms of the debate strongly and prevented quite a bit of additional fail by the Democratic Party. We didn’t get in to the mess over a single election cycle and we won’t get out of it as rapidly. The reason you don’t see a lot of coverage of the Tea Parties is twofold —

  1. The activists are working on getting involved at the local and state level, both win elections and to gain influence in the GOP. I know several activists who have gone from running protests to becoming delegates to state conventions.
  2. Old Media loves the Occupiers and hate the Tea Parties but has realized that comparisons make the Occupiers come off badly, and so have reduced coverage of the Tea Parties.

For various results, consider Wisconsin, or Indiana. There’s also a new crop of good candidates coming up. Candidates I can actually support rather than fund because their opponent is worse. This is the kind of thing that could fix our problems, far more than street protests or splashy political campaigns.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming... Saturday, 18 February 2012 at 14:29

Candidates I can actually support rather than fund because their opponent is worse.

That’s always a good feeling. More intensely felt due to its rarity, I suppose.

Post a comment