None of us are strangers to the recent Occupy movements that have been going on in our country. I've heard several different takes on the movement and whether it was a positive or a negative force, whether or not it was justified, etc. I maintained relative silence on the issue for a period of time, but am breaking it now. Time to take a look at this movement that claims to represent the "lower 99%" of the country.

     One thing I noticed during my studies of American History that was always amazing to me was how strikingly similar the dissenting parties were during the Constitutional debates. The two camps, known as the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, were trying to establish a new Constitution for America, and do away with the inefficient, ineffectual Articles of Confederation that the country had been operating under up till that point. The Federalists argued for a stronger central government, whereas the Anti-Federalists feared that notion and argued for stronger state sovereignty.

     Even though the two camps starkly disagreed on this issue, the root values of why they were arguing were the same. All of them had, from the bottom of their hearts, the same end in mind: A nation where the people could live in liberty with minimal interference from a government that was just powerful enough to operate efficiently and protect them, but infused with checks and balances and granted limited powers that would prevent it from becoming tyrannical. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists both had the same end in mind, with different means to reach it. This helped them reach a compromise because they had the same goals in mind.

     The reason i use this historical example is because there is a principle in the events that took place between the Fed/Anti-Fed groups that we can relate to the current political climate. It is much, MUCH easier to reach a compromise or have intelligent debate when we are arguing over means, not ends. The founders were able to debate effectively and reach their goals because they both wanted liberty. To use an analogy, they viewed government as a mad dog, and they were arguing over how tight they wanted the collar and how short they wanted the leash. But they both agreed that the mad dog had to be kept on a leash.

     In today's political climate, the general feeling that is more prevalent then ever is that of stagnancy. Nothing is going anywhere. We've got two warring political parties deadlocked in a power struggle that won't change for another year. We have two warring ideologies in culture that are regularly fighting each other and disagree wholeheartedly with each other's principles. Nothing is getting done. This stagnancy and constant, predictable, party-line bickering is precisely what turns many people off to politics.

     The reason nothing is getting done (for now, but I'm counting the days till election season) is this: During the constitutional convention, the debate was regarding how short the leash should be on the junkyard dog. But the whole convention agreed that the dog needed a short leash. Nowadays, the debate that the two sides are having isn't about how short the leash should be. We have one side arguing that the leash shouldn't exist! We have one side still fighting over how short the leash should be when the other side is not only trying to let the dog off the leash, but they're trying to put the dog in charge of the junkyard!

     It's one thing to debate when we are arguing means to achieve a common end, but it's a whole 'nother thing to argue different means to achieve radically different ends. Arguing the means to secure our God-Given rights is a tough enough debate to have, but arguing whether or not people even HAVE rights, and then, whether they come from "god" or the government, is much harder and poses a far greater threat to America.

     We cannot pretend, therefore, that compromise will achieve ANYTHING anymore. We're not arguing for compromise for liberty's sake. We're pitting two ideologies that are totally contradictory up against each other in a fight and hoping we get a result we're happy with. I used to believe in political compromise. But in today's day and age, I believe that all compromise will do is temporarily slow our nation's steady descent off the edge of the cliff, rather than fixing any problems. I don't want compromise with socialists. I don't want compromise with fools who think they can play God and dictate people's rights. I want to win.

     When we want to make a change in the political system, we get involved. We campaign for the candidates of our choice, we doorknock, we vote, and perhaps we even create a site on the internet to promote our views.

     This honorable and perfectly constitutional right to free speech was exemplified on a very large scale with the arrival of the Tea Party movement starting in 2008. Hundreds of thousands of people nationwide peacefully protested the wasteful spending and increasingly liberal policies of the federal government. There was no violence from the protestors, and those with vulgar signs or hateful language that didn't gel with the movement's intentions, were expelled from the movement or had their behavior corrected. I, a frequent attendee of Tea Party rallies, honestly and truly cannot think of an instance in my memory where a Tea Party protestor commited an act of blatant racism, violence, bigotry, sexism, or disregard for the law, and in the instances where inappropriate acts of any kind were committed, they were swiftly dealt with.

     This is how protest is supposed to work. Make your voice heard and your views clear, but do not resort to violence and always show dissent respectfully.

     But recently, another movement has sprouted up across the country. I'm hearing many things about it... and they're not so dignified or respectful. I think this movement is worth a look. So now that we know about why we're politically and culturally gridlocked, let's take a look at the protest movement of one of the warring ideologies: The Occupy Movement, and how it compares to my ideology's protest movement: The Tea Party Movement.