Well I know that the Tea Party members strongly dislike OWS, calling them “fleabaggers” and releasing various statements as to why OWS is a bunch of deadbeats, but I haven’t heard any press releases from OWS deliberately antagonising the Tea Party movement. So I think “too busy insulting each other” might not be quite correct.

I mean, it’s obvious, ain’t it?

Here’s Matt Taibi:

…Take, for instance, the matter of the Too-Big-To-Fail banks, which people like me and Barry Ritholz have focused on as something that could be a key issue for OWS. These gigantic institutions have put millions of ordinary people out of their homes thanks to a massive fraud scheme for which they were not punished, owing to their enormous influence with government and their capture of the regulators.

The only way the Goldmans and Citis and Bank of Americas can survive is if they can suck up popular political support indirectly, either by latching onto such vague right-populist concepts as “limited government” and “free-market capitalism” (ironic, because none of them would survive ten minutes without the federal government’s bailouts and other protections) or, alternatively, by presenting themselves as society’s bulwark against communism, lefty extremism, Noam Chomsky, etc.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-occupy-wall-street-is-bigger-than-left-vs-right-20111017

@ 1 Cylux

“fleabaggers”

Trust the Tea Party to come up with an insult that’s far less insulting than the related name they used to call themselves…

I’d question the Tea Party’s anti-lobbying stance. Many of its leading figures are also closely involved with ALEC and Koch funds both to a considerable degree. For those who don’t know, ALEC lobbies on behalf of tobacco, pharma and energy corporate interests. (ALEC recruited Liam Fox to front the Atlantic Bridge, which I exposed in 2009, as its first overseas venture.)

I’d also question whether we would recognise a blogger who’s for ‘smaller government, lower taxes, less spending’ as being left-wing in the UK. Perhaps he’d be an Orange book Lib Dem and coalition enthusiast?

I think this gives a false impression, since the sort of government power that enables the enactment of laws and regulations favouring large corporations is not the sort of government power teabaggers object to. They’d probably see such laws and regulations as being about defending a free market from distorting influences (minimum wage legislation, unionisation, emissions targets, etc. etc.), and so accept a role for government in those areas much as they might accept a role for government in, say, defending the freedom of citizens by maintaining secure borders.

G.O.

I’m not sure you understand the Tea Party there – the Tea Party do indeed want rules for a free market, but that means removing government support for particular industries or the like which limit competition (I am not sure how far the Tea Party extend this to opposing international tarrifs or the like, as they are a domestic US movement). To support the free market is quite simply to oppose the close, almost partisitic, relationship some businesses have with government. The people you describe sound like the traditional conservatives of the Bush and Rumsfield ilk, who believe government still is the answer if used properly and if it works together with business – the people that have suffered most from the Tea Party in all honesty.

It should also be remembered that Tea Party demands are not totally anti-government, but better desrcibed as anti-federal-government – they are demanding that the federal government stops doing so much, but may be less antogantistic to county or state (or city) governments doing similiar things. The US has different dialogues concerning local and federal government than we do remember. This does open up another cross over with the occupy movement, or aspects of it, in promoting localism.

Sunny,

From the other side of the fence, this is a good point – there is a lot to work on there against corporationism (the domination of government by large companies and their interests). It does however run the risk of splitting the occupy movement into those who see government as the answer and those more concerned with the problem of corporationism – because any alliance with the Tea Party, Libertarians, or any brand of radical (or traditional) right-wing thought cannot work if the answer is to be more state control. The almost universal right-wing response from anyone but the supporters of the status quo would be that replacing the corporations with state bureaucracies would be no improvement.

So ultimately, this is the issue – if there is common ground, can it be exploited if the perceived solution is perhaps so different?

And also, considering one or two comments above, can common ground be achieved despite the tendencies of idiots on both sides to fit into tribal hatreds perscribed for them by media and academic narratives?

4. Chaise Guevara

Trust the Tea Party to come up with an insult that’s far less insulting than the related name they used to call themselves…

Being polite is a bad thing now is it? Also as I understand it, Tea Bagger was the invention of Anderson Cooper and refers to a mildly unpleasant sexual practice I would assume was common only in the Gay community. Not even all that common there. It certainly was not their own term for themselves, but an obscene insult foisted on them by the supposedly impartial media.

@So Much For Subtelty
Since when was oral enjoyed only by gay people? There’s more to life than the missionary position.

I like to see this debate going on. I must say, though, when the Tea Party was in its early phase, I spent a fair amount of time here arguing against the most rabid characterisations of the Tea Party people, and pointing out the legitimacy of protesting against the power of Washington, which has masively over-run the limitations placed on it (e.g. federal agents busting LEGAL marihuana dispensaries in states where it is permitted).

The initial Tea Party movement was not controlled by the Kochs or anyone, and was anti- both party machines, but this didn’t last, partly due to the self-fulfilling prophesy of the liberal media portraying it as an extreme rightwing thing, and partly due to Koch etc money buying it up.

Nevertheless, both movements are made up of ordinary people, who recognise something is very wrong with the status quo, and it is very much better for such people to talk to each other and find common ground, where possible, rather than be dragooned into rival political camps.

The real problem is as the article states: “The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together.”

@9

Being polite is a bad thing now is it?

The other mainstream insult used interchangeably with fleabaggers for those at OWS is “filthy dirty commie hippies”, so I’m not sure polite is really the correct word.

And as someone who followed the tea-party protests from before they were completely captured by the Koch brothers and other vested interests they did indeed start off with calling themselves teabaggers. Course all such evidence has now been thoroughly scoured from their websites (including pictures from their first few marches where the phrases ‘teabagging’ or ‘teabagged’ were abundant on their placards) and have since stuck to the line that Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow made it all up. If they were to admit to the error it would indicate that they were completely out of touch with ordinary Americans, who knew full well what teabagging was, and given their positioning as the voice of downtrodden ordinary America, that would never do.

@SMFS Hell, here’s one that answers all your concerns:
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/A/g/2/sodomy-teabagging.jpg

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/j/L/3/teabagging-jesus-democracy.jpg
And another.

@13 well this proves beyond doubt that even the most aggressively straight people enjoying being teabagged.

How’s this for an offer not to be refused:
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/teabaggers_1.jpg

10. Stephen Newton

Since when was oral enjoyed only by gay people? There’s more to life than the missionary position.

Well tea bagging is a rare and unusual subset of the world of oral sex I would have thought. So it is not really all that relevant is it?

12. Cylux

The other mainstream insult used interchangeably with fleabaggers for those at OWS is “filthy dirty commie hippies”, so I’m not sure polite is really the correct word.

Well in fairness filthy and dirty are literal descriptions of their physical state by and large. Commie is also a fairly literal description of their politics. As for hippies, well, it is at least arguable. But in any event, this is a figment of your imagination so it hardly matters.

And as someone who followed the tea-party protests from before they were completely captured by the Koch brothers and other vested interests they did indeed start off with calling themselves teabaggers. Course all such evidence has now been thoroughly scoured from their websites (including pictures from their first few marches where the phrases ‘teabagging’ or ‘teabagged’ were abundant on their placards)

Evidence? As far as I know there is one alleged photo of dubious origin that used tea bag as a verb. That’s it. But by all means, bring on the evidence.

If they were to admit to the error it would indicate that they were completely out of touch with ordinary Americans, who knew full well what teabagging was, and given their positioning as the voice of downtrodden ordinary America, that would never do.

I kind of doubt that ordinary Americans had a clue tea bag had another meaning until these protests. I don’t know. Maybe more people watch porn than I think, but I would be surprised if it was common until the Leftist media mainstreamed it.

I have just looked at Wikipedia – they claim the term originates in a 1998 John Waters’ film. Which, even by the standards of John Waters’ work, no one seems to have seen. It then turned up on Sex and the City which must mark its break out from the Gay world to the mainstream. Given the Wikipedia page dates from 2005 originally, it must have been used by the distinctly non-hetero writers of SatC around then. So the term among, and I use the term loosely for SatC’s viewers, the heterosexual world is about six years old. So it probably entered the mainstream with the smearing of the Tea Party. Which is, after all, a lot more popular than the horrendous women of SatC.

@So Much for Subtlety
When you find yourself is a hole, you should stop digging.

I don’t know how many people you think watch porn, but by a quick Google search I found Christian anti-porn campaigners TechMission who quote a ComScore (well respected research agency) survey that found 70 percent of men aged 18-34 use internet pornography. And a survey by Today’s Christian Woman found 34% of their female readers intentionally access internet porn. (So next time you find yourself in church take a look around; one in three of the women use porn.)
http://www.safefamilies.org/sfStats.php

Wikipedia says there are no reliable stats on oral sex, which is a shame. However, I imagine it is very popular also. That means that we don’t know how many people (gay or straight) enjoy having their testicles sucked, or how many of those adopt the teabag position to facilitate this.

I assume you do not access porn, but if you did you would discover that teabagging is actually among the least unusual of sexual activities.

The point is that most Americans almost certainly do have some idea of what consenting adults get up to behind closed doors.

@5 Stephen Newton: I’d also question whether we would recognise a blogger who’s for ‘smaller government, lower taxes, less spending’ as being left-wing in the UK.

I fint that description, and I’ve been called a lefty from time to time.

Most of the spending I’d cut is corporate welfare (I’d make the banks pay back their bailouts), PFI schemes that aren’t value for money, drug patents, licenses for proporietary software. And most of the taxes I’d cut would be one’s that hit the poor such as the 100% marginal tax rates for people coming off benefits.

There are certainly those on the left who can and do argue that – many mutualists, for example. It’s why I’m not entirely one myself; I’m far more of the mindset of the Nordic Nations, I believe very strongly that their stability has come from the degree of transfer in their system, which has stopped the wealthy from re-accumulating wealth as they have in other countries.

It’s a family squabble over economics, though, rather than the fundamental difference many on the right would make it out to be. And there are certainly many areas where the government has no business! (example: Marriage).

@19 Phil Hunt
Fair enough. But the left is generally associated with making society a fairer place for the more vulnerable people in society and a belief that the state can and should intervene to encourage and enable people to fulfil their potential.

In turn that leads to a tendency to support higher spending on welfare and redistributive taxation. This tendency allows opponents to characterise left wingers as supporters of big government, higher taxes and higher spending. However, this is inaccurate as many on the left support civil liberties and so smaller government and nobody wants to pay tax for the sake of paying tax or spend public money for sake of spending public money.

People on the left are generally less interest in debates over how large the state should be; they want the state to be big enough to do what they think it should do. The right wingers we discuss here, on the other hand, are obsessed by a debate they’ve manufactured on how large the state should be. So if you use the slogan ‘smaller government, less taxes and lower spending’ to define your politics, you should expect people to think of you as right wing.

@21: So if you use the slogan ‘smaller government, less taxes and lower spending’ to define your politics

I wouldn’t, I’d probably use things like: “capitalism that works for the 99%, not just the 1%”, or “make the internet the greatest tool for privacy and personal empowerment, not the greatest tool for totalitarian surveillance” (need to make that catchier!), or “separation of corporation and state”.

@17

But in any event, this is a figment of your imagination so it hardly matters.

Without trying too hard , “I’m sorry I’m posting so many of these videos, but these filthy dirty commie hippies are just too entertaining.”
As Stephen says above, stop bleeding digging man.

Furthermore teabagging is an activity engaged with by the online gaming community, in FPS games like COD, Halo plus many more I can’t be arsed listing all of which have shifted millions of copies, whereby you stand over the head of the player you just killed and repeatedly crouch over their head, simulating that you’re teabagging their corpse while they wait to respawn.
Here’s a comic strip to help paint a picture for ya:- http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=151

So to try and pretend that mainstream America has no idea what teabagging is, is merely to reveal what a clueless, out-of-touch twat you actually are.

@22 Phil Hunt
You wouldn’t use that slogan. Okay, but it’s still the slogan of the blogger discussed in the post above.

@24 Cylux
You let the side down calling the guy a twat.

18. Stephen Newton

When you find yourself is a hole, you should stop digging.

Sorry but is that a porn reference? I am not sure I recognise them any more.

I don’t know how many people you think watch porn, but by a quick Google search I found Christian anti-porn campaigners TechMission who quote a ComScore (well respected research agency) survey that found 70 percent of men aged 18-34 use internet pornography.

Cool. But that is not what you have to prove. You have to show they watch porn with teabagging not only in it, but commonly used in it. From way back when as well. Not since SatC mentioned it. Porn with dialog that goes something like “Hey Baby, come and tea bag me”. I am not sure you are going to manage that.

The fact remains, the term is new, it is niche, spreading from the Gay community to SatC (so the semi-Gay community I guess) within the last six years. That is not mainstream.

Wikipedia says there are no reliable stats on oral sex, which is a shame. However, I imagine it is very popular also. That means that we don’t know how many people (gay or straight) enjoy having their testicles sucked, or how many of those adopt the teabag position to facilitate this.

I imagine it is. It is irrelevant. We can have a rough guess because while references to oral sex turn up everywhere and have done since, Oh at a rough guess, Caligula was a young ‘un, if not earlier, we can conclude it is popular. Even, dare I say it, mainstream. Even though the Herpes virus would disagree about the pre-WW2 period. Tea bagging is not common and dates to roughly yesterday in sexual terms.

I assume you do not access porn, but if you did you would discover that teabagging is actually among the least unusual of sexual activities.

Porn made since when? Find it in some 1970s porn for me.

The point is that most Americans almost certainly do have some idea of what consenting adults get up to behind closed doors.

Sure but that does not mean they have much of a clue about every single minor, niche act that comes out of the Gay community. You would be on stronger grounds claiming rimming is mainstream.

21. Stephen Newton

But the left is generally associated with making society a fairer place for the more vulnerable people in society and a belief that the state can and should intervene to encourage and enable people to fulfil their potential.

I am not sure this is a fair description of the Left of the last 50 years. I am sure it is part of their self image, but given many of their policies actively discriminate against the vulnerable, it is hard to see how that works. Take, for instance, higher heating costs. Which kills the old and the poor. The Left has consistently supported higher fuel costs since they backed NUM and now that they have embraced the Greens.

However, this is inaccurate as many on the left support civil liberties and so smaller government and nobody wants to pay tax for the sake of paying tax or spend public money for sake of spending public money.

Except the modern Left was long ago captured by its producer interests. It exists for and on behalf of the Union movement. Which is certainly interested in paying tax for the sake of paying tax. The whole debate about how much money the rich pay is conducted in two ways. The Right argues the Laffer curve to get the most money. The Left does not care. The point is not how much revenue is generated, the point is that rich people must pay tax as an end in and of itself. In almost any debate you care to mention, the Left will take the side of spending public money for the sake of spending public money – Schools or the NHS or pretty much anything. Spending is what counts for the Left while results is what the Right always goes on about.

23. Cylux

Without trying too hard , “I’m sorry I’m posting so many of these videos, but these filthy dirty commie hippies are just too entertaining.” As Stephen says above, stop bleeding digging man.

I am sorry but to illustrate what the Tea Party says, you have picked the web site of a Gay former Hillary Clinton supporter? A site established specifically to campaign for Ms. Clinton? Oh, how excellent.

24. Cylux

Furthermore teabagging is an activity engaged with by the online gaming community, in FPS games like COD, Halo plus many more I can’t be arsed listing all of which have shifted millions of copies, whereby you stand over the head of the player you just killed and repeatedly crouch over their head, simulating that you’re teabagging their corpse while they wait to respawn.

Starting with, I believe, Halo 3. Which came out when? Again, even if the slightly older Halo 2 allowed it as well, how mainstream do you think Halo is? Millions of copies? All three versions of Halo claim sales of 40 million. So one in fifteen of the world’s population, on average, has bought one. That is not exactly all that mainstream is it?

So to try and pretend that mainstream America has no idea what teabagging is, is merely to reveal what a clueless, out-of-touch twat you actually are.

I expect they know now. But because it has broken out of its former niche due to the Tea Party and the efforts of the Leftist MSM to smear them.

@25 To be honest most of the regulars are getting quite sick of So much for subtlety/Move any Mountain’s sub-par fisking and deliberate obtuseness. Plus the man said

Evidence? As far as I know there is one alleged photo of dubious origin that used tea bag as a verb. That’s it. But by all means, bring on the evidence.

Shortly after three bleeding pics were linked to. How long do we need to go before we can call a bellend a bellend?

@26 It’s been going on in multiplayer vidjea games since the Half-Life Counter Strike mod from the late 90′s, it doesn’t even need to be ‘allowed’ either, if a fps has a crouch function and multiplayer – you can tea bag ure opponents. The practice is ubiquitous, and as such, very well known. Though presumably not among Randriods or Ron Paul supporters circa late 2008…

@So Much for Subtlety
It is not for me to prove anything and I’ll decline to search out some 1970s porn for you; if that’s your preference, I’m sure you’ve worked out where to find it by now.

You have asserted, without any evidence at all, that teabagging is a predominately gay activity, as if only gay people are capable of sexual innovation. You also claim teabagging is a particularly distasteful activity, but that is just your personal preference. There is a well documented trend towards anal sex in heterosexual porn, which turns me off and I would argue is far more distasteful than teabagging (it may even be illegal).

On your views on definitions of left wing politics. You try to distinguish between left wingers self image, which I take to mean their aspirations, and the policy options they promote. This leads you to assert that while the left wish to help vulnerable people, they end up supporting policies that hurt them.

Sadly you are unable to support this assertion. Your example is higher heating costs brought on by a need to reduce carbon emissions. However, you fail to recognise the need to take a long term global perspective and understand that the world’s poorest people suffer most from climate change. I understand that you may be a climate change sceptic. But this is irrelevant as if you were able to convert left wingers to scepticism, you would at the same time have persuaded them to stop work to reduce carbon emissions.

Your view of the role of unions is bizarre. Unions exist to represent people who work for a living and founded the Labour Party to obtain political representation for those people. There is no conflict between the Labour Movement and the left. You make a silly assertion that unions want taxes for the sake of taxes, with no explanation of how this might benefit their members (or why the unions think it would benefit their members).

You assert that people on the right are more interested in outcomes, implying they are more pragmatic. However, given that they do not share the left’s aspirations that is no reason to support them. In any case, people on the right are increasingly interested in ideology and political theory, as evidenced by their obsession with the size of the state.