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)