Once again, a Canadian blogger inspired me.
In a recent post, he suggested that “Wallbaggers” would be an apt label for the movement, to rival the negative connotations with the term “Teabagger.”
For those not in the “know”, tea-bagging is a reference to a horribly lewd sexual act; suffice it to say, it is an insultingly crass label for an entire movement of people.
Since my favorite Canadian blogger has brought this issue to my attention, I think I have arrived at the perfect label for this nascent movement. This term simultaneously captures its amorphous demands and entitlement attitude, and also has a similarly lewd connotation to “Teabaggers”:
Occupussies
At first glance, this term seems rather crass and childish, but I assure you, it is a carefully chosen and apt moniker.
Here’s why:
First, the movement resembles a vast octopus, consuming all the ocean’s delights, and then spilling its waste into the very ocean that nurtures and supports it. Similarly, the Occupussies don all capitalism’s trappings and luxuries like iPhones, laptops, and other consumer products. Yet they blame corporate interests for finding more efficient ways to feed their ever-gluttonous consumption.
Second, like an octopus, the Occupussy movement has no purpose. It simply flails its tentacles in every direction, with no apparent goals or aims.
Third, many of the group’s diverse demands seem more like a whining rather than a winning platform, which is the behavior one might expect from a wuss.
Yes, I believe you were expecting me to use a different word than wuss. It is precisely that reason that makes Occupussy rival the beauty, symmetry, and grace of the “Teabagger” label.
Update: While I came up with the “Occupussy” moniker independently, a casual Google search after I published this post showed that several others arrived at the idea days before I did. Kudos to The Peoples Cube, among others, for their creativity.
Reflections of a Rational Republican 
I really don’t see why you feel compelled to ridicule this. I know the left did the same thing to the tea party, but both movements had people with serious concerns and when each side cherry picks the few who are extreme and ignore the rest, it prevents one from seeing the real issues that drive both movements. Ultimately, I think what you see in the youth is the future of the country – and there are more positives there than negatives if you really listen.
Scott,
Again, a fair point. What I was trying to show with this post is how both sides use language to dismiss and sideline popular movements. The left did this to the Tea Party movement early on by labeling them with a moniker derived from a lewd sexual act, and accusing the entire movement of racism. And the Tea Party started as a movement that simply wanted smaller government. That same process is inevitable for this movement as well.
The bottom line is that these sorts of actions by both sides unfortunately ends the discussion before it begins. My primary point for this post was first and foremost to be humorous. However, my second point in doing it was not to diminish the things the protestors are upset about – I’m upset about them too. Rather, it was to show that unless they find a way to translate their grievances in political power, people will continue to deride and dismiss them. In the end, there are only two ways to do this – by working with the system or by tearing it down. These protesters don’t seem interested in the former, and I doubt they are capable of the latter. Camping in tents without a coherent mission or platform will get them nowhere, especially when winter is coming.
“I know the left did the same thing to the tea party”
The left STILL does this to the Tea Party.
The Occupussies (I’ve decided to use that term until the left stops referring to them as TeaBaggers) seem to have a message, and I say “seem” because they have yet to unify their message, that the system is rigged. Speaking for myself, I’ve heard a lot of people on the right convey frustration with this, although it’s more directed at Government I think than major corporations.
But there’s two components needed in propaganda, Agreement and Credibility, and while OWS may have agreement, they have yet to establish any real credibility and you simply don’t get it by yelling, marching, or “occupying” anymore, and I think right now the world’s waiting to see if and how violent they get.
If OWS has to go through the same gauntlet of ridicule that the Tea Party Movement went through to finally be taken seriously, then so be it. Why should they get any more sympathy or special treatment from the media or anyone else? Their entitlement issues to “free passes” are bad enough as it is, so they’re not getting one from me.
I didn’t finish the middle paragraph! I meant that until we see how violent OWS is going to get, I don’t think anyone’s going to truly throw their full support behind them, so right now between they’re message and level of support, they’re in limbo and therefore subject to scrutiny at best, ridicule at worst. but this is no different than what the Tea Partiers had to go through early on in their formation.
Socialism / Communism is great for the people…but not for the leaders of the Socialist / Communist movement.
A very bold statement. Please, tell me more.
For those not in the “know”, tea-bagging is a reference to a horribly lewd sexual act; suffice it to say, it is an insultingly crass label for an entire movement of people.
I find it fascinating that the tolerant Left uses a word, which when applied to a man, is an accusation of a gay-sex act in a inflammatory and derogatory manner. The Left is supposed to be the champion of both tolerance and Gay rights.
Anyway.
My favorite to date is “fleabagger”.
I really don’t see why you feel compelled to ridicule this.
I can’t speak for Sean, but I do it because they are ridiculous.
These kids, full of college education and stuff? They can’t even make a coherent “mission statement”. If they would be able to build a reasonable 1-page power point that lists their:
A: Grievances
B: Solutions
I would be more inclined to listen. But they don’t. Rather, they’re spending their most valuable life-wealth days not working. If instead of camping out in someone elses property, they would go get a job, they would begin the journey up the ladder that leads to wealth late in life. The myth that money just rains on some people and doesn’t on others is crazy. In almost every single case, the wealthy are wealthy due to sacrifice and an amazing amount of work, drive and risk.
The sooner these kids embark on that journey, the sooner they’ll be part of the 53%.
One of my college fraternity brothers is making a name for himself by theorizing that these new social media movements are a major paradigm shift. On his Facebook page, he posted a picture of himself with Cornel West at OWS. The most illuminating piece of the photo is the golden cufflinks that Cornel West is wearing along with his impeccably tailored suit. I wanted to post the photo so much, but I don’t think my friend would permit me to use his photo if he knew how I was going to use it. Sigh.
An interesting take comes from a U. of Chicago professor:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/occupy-wall-streets-political-disobedience/
I’ve had students ask if they can make up assignments if they go spend a few days in New York. I’ve said yes — I also have given students extra time for going to the conservative conference held yearly, so it’s not a partisan thing: I just like students to be active. I’ll be curious to hear what they report when they return. I really don’t think they’re so much into class war (thus they probably don’t mind rich people), I think they’re more about democracy and the power of the big financial institutions. As the article above notes, they may be embracing a post-ideological view of politics.
Good for you, Scott, for allowing students to express their political views on both sides of the aisle. We definitely need more of that.
I’m still not convinced that the OWS movement is anything different than anything we’ve seen before. And, as I’ve mentioned before, people are people. At some point, the movement needs to clarify its views and come up with a mission. Otherwise it will inevitably fail. I disagree with the U. of C. professor, and think OWS is closest to the protest movement of the 1960s, only with less clarity. We’ll see how things develop.
I still cannot believe people comparing this OWS to the Tea Partyers . The left had nothing but contempt for the Tea Party , yet it wants reflected glory for it’s Occupation Mob by making comparisons between the two. Like they constantly compare Obama to Reagan, when they hated every single thing Ronald Reagan stood for . A little intellectual honesty goes a very long way .
I agree, Alan. I find the media in this country to be so unabashedly biased that I sort of take it for granted now. Although, Erin Burnett‘s reporting of the movement was awesome. Not surprisingly she is getting nothing but flack from everyone else.
Here is the original report.
I’m looking at the Tea Party and OWS as two aspects of a new political trend. The tea party used social media, created a grass roots movement, and impacted politics (and still does, even though they’ve declined in popularity). I’m fascinated by their ability to organize rapidly, mostly out of anger at the Obama Administration. OWS reflects a similar anger and surprising organization against “big money” and the financial institutions blamed for much of what’s happening. So to me the comparison goes beyond what they stand for politically, but what they say about changing politics.
Ronald Reagan was pretty popular when he was President, and got a lot of Democratic support. He also was adept at working with Democrats to build compromises. In fact, he had higher tax rates than even what Obama proposes, he had an immigration policy that would make the tea party furious, and he was pragmatic — he stopped the defense build up in real terms after 1985 when he decided he could trust Gorbachev. I think if one looks at the substance of Reagan’s Presidency one would have to conclude that he’d be anathema to the tea party, he’d be far too centrist and pragmatic. So intellectual honesty cuts both ways here.
Scott ,
A little wishful thinking goes a lot farther than that . Reagan dealt with Tip O’neil, who was a left wing big government anti Reagan. Plus Tip had real power . Reagan had to do things to get his agenda enacted , that you are now using to call him anti Tea Party..
This is especially where the comparison to our current leadership is faulty. Obama had two years where the GOP could not stop him with out Democratic help. The current economy is the result of what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have wrought. Now that Republicans control one house, Obama is totally paralyzed on getting any economic agenda passed. Reagan knew how to deal with the enemy. And do not tell me that today’s Tea Party Republicans are worse than Tip’s Democrats in reaching across the aisle, because it is not true .
These little false compromises Obama pretends to give Republicans are total insults to everyone’s intelligence. Obama’s lack of being a mayor or governor before being elected President , shows he has no idea how to deal with opposition. Even Clinton built relationships with Republicans during the lulls between battles. Obama has no people skills at all in that department . He crapped all over Republicans in those first 2 years and pretended he didn’t .
You just keep rewriting the history of the Obama Presidency.
Scott,
Obama invites people to meet with him and pretends, pretends to listen to them . His actions then show that he heard nothing. Every single thing the man does is phony. Like independent economists who said his jobs plan will produce jobs. Nobody in the universe believes his economists are independent . He has lied continuously. Not even his own people believe him . They continue to act like they believe him because they have no choice.
The President has done to his word the same thing he has done to our dollar. He has inflated it to be worth nothing.
Pingback: Occupy Wall Street: Understanding the Movement | Reflections of a Rational Republican