libertarianism essay
Post on 13-Apr-2017
369 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Stephen F Austin State University
LIBERTARIAN GRASSROOTS POLITICS
The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Evaluated
Mark Irey
PSC 490.001
Dr. Stephen Galatas
Spring 2015
ABSTRACT
This article explores the ideologies surrounding the Tea Party and Occupy protests that
begun in the late 2000s. What are the similarities and differences between these two grassroots
protests? I argue that libertarianism is the common political ideology between the two
movements. Through a context analysis of speeches from both movements, I determine that the
Tea Party exhibits a form of right-libertarianism whereas the Occupy protests are left-libertarian.
INTRO
The grassroots political movements that erupted in the United States in the late 2000s
were a reaction to various political and economic entities, policies and practices that facilitated
the 2008 global financial crisis. There were two distinct grassroots movements that emerged
between 2007 and 2011: the Tea Party movement, which was a culmination of many right-wing
grievances directed at a perception of an overpowered government, and the Occupy Wall Street
movement, which targeted corporations and the weighted political influence they amass through
campaign contributions and lobbying. Both of the movements exhibit very similar-but-different
ideological positions, and their combined grievances bring to light some fundamental issues
facing the contemporary American political system.
Rhetorically, the fundamental similarity between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street is
the animosity directed at the most influential within American society; elites that have influence
over the economy and the American democratic political process. The Tea Party’s protests are
against the overarching government influence over individuals; Occupy’s anger is directed
towards large corporations that have overwhelming legal freedom to act irresponsibly and
commit financial fraud with little legal backlash. Both movements’ grievances can be
synthesized into an argument against the lobbying power that corporations exert on government
which enacts policy in favor of corporate interests; both political protests bring to light the near-
oligarchical nature of the American political system. In this article I argue that both movements
exhibit some form of libertarianism, with Tea Partiers on the right of the political spectrum and
Occupiers to the left. The focus of this research is to pinpoint the ideological underpinnings of
both movements by examining speeches conducted throughout the height of each movement.
My goal is to understand if the Tea Party and Occupy movements exhibit similar notions of
libertarian ideology, and what this may potentially mean for the future of democratic protests. I
argue that the individualist notions of both political protests can be synthesized into a libertarian
argument against corporatism and authoritarian governance.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Libertarianism
“The aim of ancients was the sharing of social power among citizens of the same
fatherland: this is what they call liberty… the aim of the moderns is the enjoyment of security in
private pleasures” (Constant 110, 1819). The concept of liberty is the idea that there are certain
rights that individuals possess that guarantee broader freedoms within human society; this is the
concept in which libertarianism is based upon. Natural rights are inherent in every individual,
which, in theory, guarantees them the freedom to enjoy civil liberties without unwarranted
coercion from any individual, group or institution. Libertarianism is about the individual liberty
to do whatever is peaceful or non-aggressive within society (Machan 1982). Individuals have
rights, and must respect the rights of others in order for civil society to operate; for this to work,
individuals must share a common set of ‘natural moral principles’ that allow for individual
freedom.
Libertarianism is based on the assumption that the state has a monopoly on the use of
force, and that states impede on the will of individuals to preserve society as a whole. “The state
is bound to the same moral requirements of individuals: that is the state is neutral with respect to
how different individuals understand and pursue what is good” (Schlueter 49, 2014). Schlueter
argues that individuals are given liberty and freedom from the state, and that the only legitimate
function of the state is to protect individual rights (2014). Berlin, in contrast, asserts that people
have liberties and rights inherently because they are human, and have the capacity to use reason
and logic in order to achieve their goals. One side of the argument says that the state gives rights
to individuals, whereas the other side says that rights are inherently human. “These are not two
different interpretations of a single concept, but two profoundly divergent and irreconcilable
attitudes to the ends of life” (Berlin 115, 2012). To understand the concept of natural rights, one
must be able to understand positive and negative rights, and how political institutions are formed
based upon these ideas.
There are fierce debates within political science between what is and is not considered a
‘natural’ right. A dichotomy exists in the theories describing human rights: positive rights
include public goods like national security, public education, and healthcare, negative rights
include the freedom of speech, private property, among others. ‘Positive’ rights are instances
where the state can intrude on an individual’s authority to provide assistance; ‘negative’ rights
are instances where the state cannot infringe on the autonomous individual. According to
libertarianism, an individual’s will is inalienable, and all people have the right to life, and the
right to protect that life. According to these theories, there are many rights that individuals may
possess, but the basic political rights advocated by classic liberal theorists include self-ownership
and self-development without coercion from an external entity; in classic liberalism, there is a
sphere of human action and thought that is considered private, and all individuals have the right
to make choices for themselves within that privacy (Sobel 2012).
The divide between left and right libertarianism is coherent with the divide in support for
positive and negative rights; or, the degree to which an institution can enforce itself onto an
individual. Right libertarians allow small government, whereas left libertarians allow no
government. The concept of liberty and natural rights are consistently debated within libertarian
scholarship; right libertarians assert that man owns property in order to sustain his life and may
voluntarily interact with others and trade, as long as he does not interfere with the rights of others
(Touchstone 2010). Left libertarians argue that individuals have a right to control and use one’s
mind and body as one sees fit and has the right to all of the gains that one incurs using one’s
mind and body (Risse 2004). Clearly the divergent libertarian viewpoints contrast each other in
very similar ways, they center on the degree to which a centralized state structure may be
necessary or desirable to sustain the laws that govern engagement and interaction between
individuals in society (Ostrowski 2013).
Dividing libertarianism into a left and right dichotomy is troublesome. “The attempt to
fuse the Left and the Right within libertarianism produces confusion…using the Left and Right
paradigm to explain libertarianism fails to distinguish or differentiate anything of significance in
political theory” (Machan 7, 2010). Libertarianism is more than a Left or Right political theory;
it is a concept that incorporates many aspects of the Left and Right, and utilizes arguments from
both sides of the political spectrum. Left and Right libertarians agree with the political goal of
maximizing individual liberty, but disagree in their predictions of what individuals will do with
liberty (Murray 1997). In this article, I will split libertarianism into a Left and Right dichotomy
for the sake of explaining how one side contrasts the other, and to better explain how
libertarianism is evident in the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements.
Right Libertarianism – ‘Don’t Tread On Me’
“Who are a free people? Not those over whom government is exercised, but those who live under
a government so constitutionally checked and controlled that proper provision is made against
its being otherwise exercised.” -John Dickinson, Letters from a Farmer (1767)
Libertarians that fall to the ‘right’ side of the political spectrum tend to favor limited
government that operates with the sole purpose of protecting natural rights and providing
security. ‘Anarcho-capitalist’ is an ideological label for individuals who want the smallest
government possible to sustain society, but not the complete absence of government. Right-
libertarians define their position as ‘pro-capitalist’, but by this they mean they support economic
liberty and opposition to government favoritism and protectionism of specific businesses. Some
prominent right libertarian scholars include Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman; to quote
Friedman: “in an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any
other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not
participate. There are no values, no ‘social’ responsibilities in any sense other than the shared
values and responsibilities of individuals” (Friedman 1970). To right libertarians, having a civic
political system is necessary for to maintain society and for natural rights and liberties to be
guaranteed; civil society is sustained by the state, which protects the property and lives of its
citizens. To right libertarians, the state is necessary due to the fact that a stateless system allows
for the exclusion of the rights of those with diminished capacity; children, the elderly and the
impaired have a better chance at life under government than in the state of nature (Touchstone
2010).
Before delving deeper into right libertarianism, it is imperative to differentiate between
conservatives and libertarians. Both are advocates of individual freedom and limited
government, but diverge on the notions of law and order. “It was conservatives…who ceded to
the state the power to produce not simply order in the community, but a certain kind of order.
[Conservatives] seem to think that the state is an institution divinely ordained to make man moral
– in a Judeo-Christian sense” (Tuccille 1970). Tuccille argues that “the traditionalist
conservatives [have] erected a house of cards in attempting to defend capitalism in terms of
Christian ethics,” but fail to realize that capitalism is a “fundamentally egoist concept and
consequently demands social ethics based on self-interest rather than altruism” (Tuccille 1970).
Conservatives and libertarians have very similar political ideals, but diverge on the basis of
religious authority. Libertarians would argue that religious institutions should not have authority
over political institutions; many conservatives would argue that religion is necessary to keep
society and politics morally sound.
Right libertarians are characterized by their focus on negative rights and private property;
they are suspicious of the authority given to the state, and argue that unchecked state power is a
danger to individuals and what they claim ownership over. Government-provided protection is
coercion, so individuals must have the means to check state power; negative rights are vital in
order to curb the authority of the state. “It is immaterial whether individuals have agreed to live
under a code of laws, so long as agencies that enforce the laws protect rights” (Touchstone
2010). Where anarchy allows for the total exclusion of rights, life under the state is preferred
even though libertarians distrust state power. The American Bill of Rights, arguably, is a
material coalescence of the idea of negative rights.
The natural right to life, right libertarians assert, results in individuals having the right to
ownership of private property in order to sustain their life. “Man owns property (that which he
produces) in order to sustain his life…and may voluntarily interact with others and trade, as long
as he does not interfere with the rights of others” (Touchstone 2010). One of the key principles in
libertarianism is the ‘non-interference principle’ which means that “man should not interfere
with the rights of others” (Touchstone 2010). Aggression or use of force to infringe on the
natural rights of individuals is illegitimate because the interaction is not voluntary. “A person
who is making an honest living and minding his own business isn’t hurting me. He isn’t forcing
me to do anything. I as an individual don’t have the right to force him to do anything; A hundred
of his neighbors acting as a mob don’t have that right. The government shouldn’t have that right
either, except for limited functions, imposed under stringently limited conditions” (Murray
1997).
Voluntary exchange between two consenting parties is the core of libertarianism, and if a
person defaults on an exchange, the victim has the right to retaliate for just compensation
(Touchstone 2010). In a free society, individuals may not initiate the use of force against any
other individual or group and may not be impeded from engaging in voluntary and informed
transactions (Murray 1997). Because the use of force to achieve ends is considered illegitimate
due to the involuntary consent of the victim, right libertarians assert that the state monopoly over
the use of force is legitimate because the state is indifferent in civil matters. “The main problem
for those who desire ‘negative’ individual freedom is not who wields the authority, but how
much authority should be placed in any set of hands” (Berlin 114, 2012).
Left Libertarianism – ‘Don’t Tread On Us’
“Basic property necessary for man to live should be left alone. All property superfluous to such
purposes is the property of the Publik, who, by their laws, have created it, and who may
therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the Publik shall demand such
disposition.” -Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Robert Morris (1783)
‘Left’ libertarians differ from right libertarians in the assumption that any institution with
a large degree of political power cannot be trusted to fulfill democratic obligations to individuals;
corporate business and big government have the potential of creating widespread political
inequality in a democratic society. Left libertarianism rests on the classic liberal tradition of self-
ownership and “thus places specific limits on what others may do to one’s person without one’s
permission” (Risse 338, 2004). Right libertarians advocate for a night-watchman state to protect
the private property of individuals; left libertarians back away from this idea in favor of a state-
less free market of individuals that collectively own or disown external resources in common.
‘Market anarchist’ is the political label given to those who wish to abolish the state as well as
corporate business ownership (Risse 2004).
Left libertarianism is in many ways similar to Marxism, described as “Green ends with
Libertarian means” (Long 417, 2012). Left libertarianism relies on the tenants of ‘libertarian
class theory’ or ‘market-anarchist class theory’ which identifies socio-economic classes “in
terms of their possession of economic resources” (Long 417, 2012). There are two classes: the
industrial class “who earn their living through production and voluntary exchange,” and the
militant class “who earn their living through the plundering of the producers” (Long 418, 2012).
Both classes seek the satisfaction of their needs, but in wholly different ways. The industrial
class looks to economic means to satisfy their needs, through voluntary and peaceful transactions
with other individuals; the militant class satisfies their needs through appropriation through
coercive means. Market anarchism is a theory advocating the complete decentralization of
society to allow individuals the capacity to decide how to sustain themselves and the
environment they exist within.
Like the alliance of Church and State in the Middle Ages, “the ruling parties have a
unified interest…maintaining power takes precedence over their commitment to divisive issues”
(Long 418, 2012). The Church appointed the Crown, which maintained total control over the
political, social and economic systems within its territory. Left libertarians are skeptical of the
power given to bureaucratic institutions that can exacerbate inequality by influencing political
outcomes in favor of special interests. In contemporary terms, left libertarians are critical of the
wealth inequalities perpetrated by corporatism and plutocracy in global governance. Left
libertarians believe there is no true Left and Right divide in government, “the establishment Left
disguises its government intervention on behalf of the rich as government intervention on behalf
of the poor; the establishment Right disguises its government intervention on behalf of the rich
as an opposition to government intervention per se” (Long 419, 2012). Each political party has
an interest in maintaining the illusion publicized by the ‘opposition’ party in order to maintain
the status quo power distribution among elites. Societal, economic and political inequalities are
perpetuated by rational individuals in elite positions that seek to increase their individual
authority and power through the workings of authoritative political and economic institutions
Left libertarians may be described as "anti-capitalist", but this means they oppose an
authoritarian system in which business and government are fundamentally entangled; they
believe in full self-ownership and the egalitarian ownership of external, natural resources.
“Natural resources may be privately appropriated only with the permission of, or with a
significant payment to, the members of society” (Risse 339, 2004). “Since, theoretically,
[resources] are originally held in common, private ownership must derive either from contract or
in a way that renders a contract unnecessary” (Risse 339, 2004). According to left libertarianism,
individuals who appropriate natural resources have a moral obligation to society to distribute the
commonly-owned natural resources to every individual. Left libertarians believe that individuals
in a condition of liberty will form cooperative and communitarian forms of organization, which
is contrast to competitive capitalism.
Political Uprising
The 2008 global financial crisis was a product of unethical economic and political
processes that led to a slump in the global economy. The negative effects of the recession were
felt most by the lower and middle classes, mainly homeowners and those with outstanding debt.
The global recession caused two very distinct American grassroots reactions to the economic
crisis and perceived corruption of the United States government. On the political right, the Tea
Party movement emerged under the guise of American nationalism (McKenna 2010). Tea
Partiers claim that the financial crisis was perpetrated by elite individuals in the federal
government who instilled too much regulation on businesses; the overregulation of business
resulted in lower profits and higher prices which, Tea Partiers argue, was the main culprit of the
recession. On the political left, Occupy Wall Street blamed the recession on the overwhelming
economic inequality between the uber-wealthy and non-wealthy, perceived corruption between
political and financial sectors, as well as the oligarchical nature that the American government
has exhibited since the 1970s (Squibb 2015).
In order to better understand the political ideologies behind the Tea Party and Occupy
Wall Street movements, one must look to the most basic political tendencies of the protests. At
the core, individuals in both political movements perceive that the government has lost touch and
is no longer accountable to ‘the people.’ In order for the American system to improve, and
broader civil liberties enjoyed, political change must be implemented (Hammond 2015). Where
the Tea Party brings focus to the government trampling on the individual rights of American
citizens, Occupy brings to light the damage that corporate interests have wrought on the political
and economic system (Sinclair 2011). Both argue of a failure within the American system, but
place the blame on two different entities.
It is clear that both the Tea Party and Occupy are influenced by classic liberal political
thought, which include the ideas of individualism, liberty and natural rights; ideas that are,
arguably, inherently American. Individuals within each movement are utilizing their civil rights
to bring light to a particular message or ideology, both of which are rooted in classic liberal
doctrine. Arguably, ‘libertarian’ is a modern label for those who advocate classic liberal political
thought, because libertarian theories are very similar to the theories constructed by Hobbes,
Locke and Rousseau. The American founders utilized and expanded upon classic liberal ideas
when forming the new American political system. The concept of liberty and individual rights is
the ideological connection between the political movements, and why I describe their common
political ideology as libertarian.
It is readily apparent that both movements have their own distinct grievances, but it
should be noted that the arguments have some commonalities. “Both are popular uprisings
against powerful-but-nebulous entities believed to be responsible for America’s economic
struggles” (Sinclair 2011). To explain the commonalities between the two movements, I must
first explain how both protests exhibit forms of libertarianism, how the movements are different
in these terms of libertarian left and right, and how these arguments can ultimately be
synthesized under libertarian scholarship.
The Tea Party – The ‘Me’ Movement
The Tea Party is a right-wing, conservative political movement that protests against
government oversight and control over economic transactions, as well as perceived corruption in
politics. The philosophical founder of the Tea Party, Ron Paul, has declared himself a libertarian
on many occasions and advocates limited government; ‘End The Fed’ is the former Senator’s
slogan (Paul 2010). Many Tea Partiers, including Ron Paul, have run for public office as
Republicans in order to have some input in the two-party political process. Some Republicans
are libertarian, but not all libertarians are Republican. Republicans and libertarians diverge on
many social issues including prohibition, gay rights and abortion.
Tea Party political ideology would fall under the label of right libertarian; Tea Partiers
are critical of political authority, and distrust any government policy that does not deal with
security or the promotion of moral ‘American’ values (Lundskow 2012). The Tea Party
movement can be characterized as a combination of religious fundamentalism and radical
individualism; this is an ideology that is reflective of a near-fictitious conception of America,
which may have existed at some point in the past. “The protest against government is really a
protest against the broadly representative government that is led by allegedly illegitimate
usurpers” (Lundskow 543, 2012). Most Tea Partiers believe in returning to the basics of the
American political system, back to the constitutional structure erected by the founding fathers.
The demographics of the Tea Party are relatively homogenous; overwhelmingly white
and conservative, usually small-business owners, independent contractors and non-union
workers (Saad 2010). Exclusive to the Tea Party, compared to Occupy, is the overwhelming
support of moral ‘American’ values, connected to Christian doctrine. Tea Partiers assert that
America is overrun by “lazy, immoral, criminal immigrants who work for lazy and immoral
intellectuals” that perpetuate near-heretical activity in both public and private life in America
(Lundskow 2012). Tea Partiers are protesting against perceived corruption within the American
political system.
Tea Party rhetoric harkens back to the Revolutionary period, when the founders forged a
new state under the concepts of individual liberty and freedom. “Tea Party rhetoric is intended to
convey images and emotions that inspire a particular constituency” that believe in a very specific
idea of what it is to be ‘American.’ What is conceived out of these ideas are nativist sentiments
that are aggressive towards anything that is considered morally wrong or un-American; it is very
close to xenophobic, but this term would only apply to the less-rational of the movement. This
type of nativist ideology is nothing new, nativism can be found at any point in American history
be it against the Irish, Hispanics, Blacks or Asians; “resentment is what unifies dispossessed
whites and super-wealthy elites…unity depends on not what they support, but what they oppose”
(Lundskow 539, 2012).
The Tea Party is not necessarily a libertarian political movement, but many libertarians
do consider themselves Tea Partiers and will advocate many libertarian ideas under the banner of
the Tea Party. The Tea Party movement cannot afford to take sides on social issues like abortion,
gay marriage and prohibition because it would divide the ranks and drive off members; social
issues are where libertarian scholarship and Tea Party rhetoric come into conflict (McKenna
2010). The Tea Party movement is a contemporary example of how libertarianism and
conservativism have similar-but-different concepts of liberty and natural rights. Tea Party
conservatives believe in the notion of ‘One Nation, Under God;’ that religious authority trumps
political authority. “Tea Partiers embrace clear hierarchies and enforcing normalcy,” which is
contrast to libertarian thought (Lundskow 2012).
In order to understand the Tea Party, one must study the rallies and speeches of the
individuals involved in the movement. To analyze the Tea Party protests I use a speech given by
Republican representative Ron Paul, who is argued to be the philosophical founder of the Tea
Party. With his slogan ‘End the Fed,’ Paul argues that “the Federal Reserve is the culprit that
finances big government” (Paul 2010). The speech I analyzed was given to a Tea Party rally held
on ‘Tax Day’ in Washington D.C. In his speech, Ron Paul asserts that the best way to fix the
problem of big government is to give more power to “Congress to reign in the executive branch
and the [federal] courts in order to return to constitutional government” (Paul 2010). Ron Paul
wants the most minimal government possible to maintain American society; this is clearly a
right-libertarian idea that he advocates. Paul demonstrates the basic grievances of the Tea Party
movement in his speech; unaccountable government is the main culprit of American economic
downturn (Paul 2010).
I performed a content analysis of the speech delivered by Paul, coding for six different
words: government, corporation, tax, welfare, liberty, freedom, and inequality. I chose these
words because they should be included in the phrases spoken by Tea Partiers and Occupiers
alike, but in differing context. The amount of coded words spoken by Ron Paul is as follows:
Government – 18 Corporation – 0 Tax – 13 Welfare – 0 Liberty – 4 Freedom – 1 Inequality – 0
The two most spoken words, government and tax, were spoken in a negative connotation; Ron
Paul is fearful of what he perceives as overpowered government and its unwarranted taxation
habits. It was surprising that he did not mention welfare once, since government welfare
programs are highly demonized by Tea Partiers. Ron Paul’s speech to the Tea Party is reflective
of Tea Party rhetoric; his speech also showcases his right-libertarian ideology which is fearful of
a powerful state.
Occupy Wall Street – The ‘We’ Movement
The Occupy movement erupted in September of 2011, spurred by an article in the
Canadian anti-consumer magazine ‘Adbusters.’ The article called on political activists to flood
lower Manhattan and set up camp, barricades, and to ‘occupy’ Wall Street (Hammond 2015).
The Occupy protests were against a number of issues; most resentment was directed at
corporations who have acquired extensive lobbying powers with the 2010 Citizens United
decision. Many young people protested the extreme inequality of wealth that consigned many
middle and lower-class individuals to dead-end jobs, requiring long working hours for stagnating
wages. The bank bailouts facilitated by President Obama were central to the movement’s
message arguing that the political system was rigged in favor of financial interests (Pickerill
2012). At its height, the Occupy movement spread to over 900 cities in 82 countries around the
world. Occupy may have been inspired by the Arab Spring protests in the Middle East, but any
direct links are unknown (Sinclair 2011).
Economist Paul Krugman stated in an op-ed piece to the New York Times that Occupy
“is a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people” (Krugman 2011).
Occupy Wall Street argues that the American political system has turned into something
resembling a plutocracy; similar to the political system of the Gilded Age. Since the Citizens
United decision of 2010, corporate lobbyists have been given the power to donate an unlimited
amount of funds to congressional members. Most Americans cannot afford to match the amount
of contributions made by corporate lobbyists, which means that the average American now has a
diminished role in the political system (Chomsky 2011). Contrary to the Tea Party, Occupy is a
movement against both government and corporations working together to maintain political
power in the hands of few financial interests (Pickerill 2012).
Occupy Wall Street has been described as leftist, communist and anarchist; it is difficult
to label due to the demographical and ideological diversity of individuals within the protests
(Squibb 2015). “By focusing on differences according to wealth, it [is] perhaps assumed that
other differences such as race, gender, class…could be subsumed and to some extent ignored”
(Pickerill 282, 2012). Because the Occupy protests were centered in urban environments, the
movement was able to take on a multicultural nature, incorporating individuals from all walks of
life. This is one aspect that Occupy differentiates itself from the Tea Party, which is dominated
by mostly nationalist, conservative whites. With the slogan ‘We Are The 99%,’ it would only
make sense that the movement would attempt to be inclusive of any ethnicity, gender or socio-
economic status (Tracy 2011).
Is Occupy Wall Street a libertarian political movement? In some aspects yes, in others
no; it is difficult to describe the movement in one phrase. Occupy is a movement against state
and corporate influence, which is concurrent with some libertarian notions but also could be
considered an anarchist movement. ‘Libertarian’ would not describe the movement as a whole,
but can describe many of the activists involved. The movement operated on the basis of
horizontalism, meaning there was no formal leadership; this may be why many label the
movement as anarchist (Hammond 2015). Occupy is a political movement against a plutocratic
state, and defies state authority in the attempt to maintain a degree of autonomy from other
political movements (Pickerill 2012). Occupy “is not a simple movement, not a single issue, but
instead embodies the frustration and energy that many of us have with the way society is
organized” (Pickerill 286, 2012).
In order to analyze the libertarian aspects of Occupy, I performed a context analysis of a
speech of one of the most prominent individuals who spoke at an Occupy protest. Professor
Noam Chomsky, who spoke to Occupy Boston in October of 2011, described Occupy as “the
first real, major reaction” to the inequality exacerbated by the American financial and political
systems (Chomsky 2011). Chomsky gives a brief history of the events that led to the Occupy
movement: “in the 1970s what was set off was a vicious cycle that led to concentration of wealth
increasingly in the hands of the financial sector, which doesn’t benefit the economy” (Chomsky
2011). Chomsky argues that the global recession has been a product of faulty governance that
has played in the interests of financial institutions instead of the citizenry.
I performed a content analysis of the speech delivered by Chomsky, coding for six
different words: government, corporation, tax, welfare, liberty, freedom, and inequality. I used
the same code words used in the Ron Paul analysis in order to remain consistent in my analysis.
The amount of code words spoken by Noam Chomsky is as follows:
Government – 16 Corporation – 12 Tax – 2 Welfare – 0 Liberty – 0 Freedom – 1 Inequality – 1
The two most spoken words, government and corporation, were spoken in a negative
connotation; Chomsky, similar to Paul, is fearful of overpowered government but also over
corporate influence on government. The biggest difference to Ron Paul’s speech is the amount of
times corporations were mentioned; Paul mentioned government and taxes more than
government and corporations.
Grassroots Libertarianism
The differences between the Tea Party and Occupy movements are starkly apparent in
their rhetoric, but I argue that both movements exhibit similar-but-different forms of
libertarianism in their political philosophy. The Tea Party is a right-libertarian movement
because the protesters want minimal state interference but not the absence of the state. Tea
Partiers are holistically American, and believe that the American lifestyle and political system is
under siege by an authoritarian government that claims to be ‘for the people.’ The Tea Party
exhibits a desire to deconstruct the American political system into its original intended form,
with more power to the states than the national government. Tea Partiers do not want to get rid of
the American political system, only curb the amount of power that the federal government has
attained over the last century; this is what makes the Tea Party a right-libertarian political
movement. Tea Partiers value liberty at the expense of equality perpetuated by government
oversight.
Occupy takes a different approach to countering authoritarian government. I describe
Occupy as a left-libertarian political movement because of the alternative governing structure
used at Occupy protests; Occupy Wall Street refused to use traditional methods of affecting
political change. Occupiers see the American political system as a failure of democracy and
instead choose to come to consensus through the use of democratic forums. ‘Market anarchists’
oppose any authoritarian political system as well as corporate financial interests on the basis that
both limit the influence that individuals have in contemporary American politics.
The similarities of these grassroots political movements are embedded in the ideas of
individualism, liberty, and equality; ideas advocated by the individuals who created the
American government. Both movements express disdain for what the American political system
has been shaped into: an authoritarian state that is no longer accountable to the citizenry.
Individuals no longer have an equal voice in the American government; moneyed and elite
interests now have a much louder voice than a majority of American citizens. The Tea Party
argues that individual liberties should be expanded in order to create a more ‘equal’ political
system; Occupy argues that individual liberty itself has created a state of political inequality.
These grassroots political movements erupted at the height of the 2008 financial crisis, with both
placing the blame on what they perceive as corrupted American government. The Tea Party
places the blame solely on the government whereas Occupy places blame on corporations and
government. If these two political movements consolidated their libertarian ideologies and
formed a hybrid grassroots protest, it would become one of the largest protests in American
history.
“Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”
-James Madison, Federalist No. 63 (1788)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berlin, Isaiah. “Two Concepts of Liberty.” Democracy: A Reader (2012) 113-116
Berlin, Isaiah. “Libertry.” Oxford University Press (2002)
Boaz, David. “The Libertarian Reader.” The Free Press (1997)
Constant, Benjamin. “The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns.”
Democracy: A Reader (2012): 110-112
Friedman, Milton. "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits." New York
Times (1970). Web
Hammond, John L. "The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street." Science & Society 79.2 (2015):
288-313.
Jammers, Culture. "#OCCUPYWALLSTREET." Adbusters., 13 July 2011. Web. 08 May 2015.
Krugman, Paul. "Confronting the Malefactors." The New York Times, (2011). Web. 08 May
2015.
Long, Roderick T. "Left-libertarianism, Market Anarchism, Class Conflict and Historical
Theories of Distributive Justice." Griffith Law Review 21.1 (2012): 413-431.
Lundskow, George. "Authoritarianism and Destructiveness in the Tea Party Movement." Critical
Sociology 38.4 (2012): 529-547.
Machan, Tibor R. "Left-Libertarianism: an Oxymoron?" Reason Papers 32 (2010): 137-140.
Machan, Tibor R. “The Libertarian Reader.” Rowman and Littlefield (1982)
McKenna, George. "Thinking About Tea Parties." The Human Life Review 36.3 (2010): 41-51.
Murray, Charles A. “What It Means to Be a Libertarian: A Personal Interpretation.” New York:
Broadway Books (1997)
Ostrowski, Marius S. "Towards Libertarian Welfarism: Protecting Agency in the Night-
watchman State." Journal of Political Ideologies 18.1 (2013): 107
Pickerill, Jenny. “Why Does Occupy Matter?” Social Movement Studies, 11.3; 279-287.
Risse, Mathias. "Does Left-libertarianism Have Coherent Foundations?" Politics, Philosophy &
Economics 3.3 (2004): 337-364.
Rothbard, Murray. “The Ethics of Liberty.” Humanities Press (1982).
Saad, Lydia. "Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics." Gallup Politics.
Gallup, 5 Apr. 2010. Web. 08 May 2015.
Schlueter, Nathan. "Libertarian Delusions" First Things 245 (2014): 45
Sinclair, James. "Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party." How Conservatives Drove Me Away.
10 Oct. 2011. Web. 08 May 2015.
Sobel, David. "Backing Away From Libertarian Self-Ownership." Ethics 123.1 (2012): 32-60.
Squibb, Stephen. "What Was Occupy?" Monthly Review 66.9 (2015): 39-46.
Touchstone, Kathleen. "Rand, Rothbard, and Rights Reconsidered” Libertarian Papers 2 (2010):
18
Tracy, Michael. "Occupy Wall Street: Beyond the Caricatures." Reason.com. 07 Oct. 2011. Web.
08 May 2015.
Tuccille, Jerome. “Radical Libertarianism.” Sams and Co Inc. (1970)
top related