This is an interesting point of view:
Should the Tea Partiers and the Occupiers get together before we get much older? Sure, why not? I'm all for alliances that undermine the Red Team/Blue Team permanent pissing match, and if protesters can find common ground in the territory where opposition to expanding government meets opposition to Wall Street misbehavior, I'll be delighted.
A year ago I wrote this about the Tea Party movement:
The Tea Party isn't an actual party; it's an extremely decentralized movement with room for several different points of view. It is not libertarian in itself, but it has opened a space for libertarian ideas; it includes good guys like the Campaign for Liberty, and it includes its share of scamsters and authoritarians as well. And it includes a lot of people who are not pure libertarians but are motivated by a libertarian take on one or more pressing issues.
The typical Occupation probably has fewer scamsters and more authoritarians -- right-wing movements attract entrepreneurs selling snake oil, left-wing movements attract sectarians selling Leninist newspapers -- but the basic point is the same. It's an open movement. It has a lot of anti-authoritarian impulses. You can join it, engage the people there, and help make a space for libertarian ideas. To judge from the number of Ron Paul supporters who have been showing up at the marches, many people are already doing just that. At a time when MoveOn and other usual suspects are trying to transform the movement into a rally cum fundraiser for the Democratic Party, you can be one of the countervailing forces.
I suspect the Tea Party movement is too libertarian and the Occupiers not libertarian enough for this great melding to be anything but a wild fantasy. Thought-provoking, though.
