You bring up something which I have been noticing and I think I might understand it and be able to clearly describe and analyze it.
Unfortunately the 99-1% protesters are not well organized nor do they have common goals unlike the Tea Party. The Tea Party was actually able to get people elected to office.
The Occupy movements, the 99-1% protesters as you call them here, have specifically stated that they are trying to avoid a top down organization and trying to lock into 'common goals'. This is what I see as a contrast between the 'left' and the 'right' in politics. One could readily see that the left is aligned with individual free will, in agreement with MBT
. The right talks a lot about individual free will in terms of having the right to make money however they wish without government interference, taxes, social restrictions, etc. with libertarianism as a sort of ideal. This implies that they are all seriously locked into expressing their free will. However just a cursory examination of how they operate, as you mention the tea partiers actually got people they liked elected to office, raises a lot of questions about this presumed devotion to free will. If you look at the Republicans as they operate, as the party of the 'right', what you find is that they function in locked step. When you get information out of their caucus meetings, what is said is that the leadership tells the rank and file what to do, what is the plan and how they are to vote and there is no permission given for the general membership to even speak. There is no caucus of the membership as in terms of finding out what the membership thinks and wants. There is instead a statement from on high by the leaders as to what the party membership is going to vote as their position. Look at the definition of the word caucus from the Merriam-Webster dictionary
Definition of CAUCUS
: a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy;
also : a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause
The function of their caucus is not to 'decide upon policy'. That policy is already set in stone by the leadership, not to be questioned or commented upon in the caucus. The Republican caucus is strictly out of the second meaning given. It would appear to me that once they join, they give up free will to the leadership's control and this can be effective as a way to function. This was exhibited by the tea partiers I would say. You have to adhere to their group think, you have to maintain the 'purity' of your adherence to the party line, to become a member and remain a member in good standing. Would you say that this represents free will as Tom talks about, using the metaphor of the 'rats' or would you say that this represents the control espoused by the 'anti-rats' of Tom's metaphor? As an example, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, just passed approval on so called Obamacare joining the more left leaning members to approve. John Roberts was immediately jumped on and castigated as a "traitor" and an immediate plan was hatched, so is said in the news, to impeach him. Is that an example of thinking for yourself, expressing free will, or is that an example of group think control?
In the past, Will Rogers, the 'folk' philosopher joked about how he was not a member of a political party but rather he was a Democrat. Making joking reference that Democrats could not be counted upon to vote or adhere to a party line. This has been a long standing situation. I seriously think that those inclined to thinking in line with the politics of the right should seriously reconsider and rethink their positions and allegiance to their chosen party. This on the basis that while the right rants on about free will and their right to this and their right for that, what they really are expressing is the giving up of their right to think individually for the security of collective membership and group think. I think that it will be very difficult to argue against my analysis based upon what you constantly see occurring within American, and world, politics. Always the party of the left approaches things on the basis of cooperation, sharing in the results, making compromises. The party on the right always, and especially in the last year, if you have not already forgotten last year in Congress, goes into enforced lock step, no compromise, take no prisoners and bayonet the wounded, total war. Could you seriously argue that that is in alignment with the principles expressed in MBT