Lucius Flatley announced a somewhat different topic at this week’s coffee-shop seminar, one that was both topical and of lasting political interest. He proposed to discuss the word “inchoate” as it applies to the protest movements occupying public areas in several Maine communities.
Pronounced with a “k” (hard “ch”) – inchoate is a word of some historical interest to Maineiacs. Its origin is rural – a farm term meaning “to hitch up, to harness.” As a noun, it meant, “the strap from the plow beam to the yoke.” Today, Funk and Wagnall defines it as an adjective: “just begun, in the early stages” or, “not yet clearly or completely formed nor organized.” In law, “not yet complete or made effective, pending.”
While the new gatherings, which can be called OWS (Occupy Wall Street), are similar to the Tea Party in the sense of a national challenge, they are exceedingly dissimilar in style and character. Where the Tea Party group was generally neat of costume, well scrubbed and often overweight, the occupiers tend to have little affection for either garb or soap (in some instances there may be a wafting of body odor) and are generally lean, if not actually undernourished. Where Tea Party faces were frequently engorged with anger and flecked with spittle, these new folks are often good-humored – even amiable. Where the Tea people are known for carrying guns and in-your-face screaming, these new folks are unarmed and rely on handwritten signs to convey their frustration. They neither cheer nor do they jeer. They express approval or disapproval by the silent waggling of fingers – downward for no, upward for approval. Tea protesters characteristically congregate indoors or, if outdoors, during benign weather. OWS people are not in thrall to creature comforts – they “camp out” on city pavement, rain or shine. Hair shirts are welcome.
These quiet, gentle folks are much more “Jesus-like” in character and mood than the more senior group. They remind observers of Red Sox fans.
There is one large similarity – they both resent something about America – but another striking difference, this time in practical effect. Through exercise of the political process, the Tea folks have captured the Republican Party and, with a campaign to “starve the beast,” have been able to effectively bring government to the brink of bankruptcy by forcing a no vote on everything that requires taxes (or that bears the hated name Obama). Tea Party folks detest not only Mr. Obama, but also government that, in their view, interferes excessively with such personal freedoms as allowing the sick to suffer, the hungry to lose weight and the poor to experience want.
On the other hand, OWS is inchoate. It is not yet “completely formed or organized.” It blames the “financial industry” – banks, investment and stock markets – for a growing inequality in America and the influence of money in Washington, but seems to have no concrete plans for doing anything about it. Despite the fact that moneyed interests nearly sank the economy in 2008, the same operators are still managing to prevent reform. A case can easily be made that the financial service sector owns Washington. From 2009 to early last year, at least 2,500 lobbyists from the financial industry swarmed over the town, spending $1.3 billion to fight reform more than $2 million for every member of Congress.
It will take much more than demonstrations to effect any change. Politics is the method of deciding who gets what, and it takes action, such as the Tea Party has demonstrated, to get a share of the goodies.
The Tea people have clear goals and a strategy; the OWS people are inchoate. The Tea movement has been successful. The OWS is ineffectual. Whether it will gradually erode remains to be seen. Perhaps, like croci or parsnips, it will bloom again in spring. But bloom or fade, if it doesn’t develop and form a choate political movement, it is doomed to join the English Luddites, who unsuccessfully attempted to halt the Industrial Revolution by destroying machinery, as historical curiosities.
Thought for the week: In themselves, the rich and the privileged, the haters, and the single-issue zealots are not enough to elect a president. It requires large numbers of easily misled people. How else to explain the election of George Bush – not once, but twice?
Rodney Quinn, a former Maine secretary of state and university history and government instructor, lives in Westbrook. He can be reached at rquinn@maine.rr.com.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
