Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Empirically Testable?

FLG remembers the breathless reporting on the Occupy Movement with reporters hoping that it would become the Left's Tea Party.  A grassroots movement that animates political action.   And then, well, it fizzled.

FLG's hypothesis:  It fizzled as soon as they published their agenda because, well, their agenda.   The upper-middle class, center left mainstream media types were projecting their concerns onto the protestors, but when demands like this are part of the program, they realized it wasn't what they were bargaining for, but instead a political platform rooted in Marxism that was far more radical than they hoped.

Similarly, Black Lives Matter got a ton of press, then in August of last year, they announced their demands and priorities. FLG believes the mainstream press again realized they were projecting (and FLG has to admit he was as well for a while) what they considered legitimate concerns as the priorities of the movement, but again saw a political platform rooted in Marxism.   In this case, even more so than Occupy, for example:
We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, and especially “our” children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.

FLG's perception is that there has been far less press since August 2016.    Is there a way to empirically test this hypothesis, both for Occupy and BLM, that the publishing of a list of demands led to a drop off in media reporting and support?

Another question -- how was the Tea Party more successful in avoiding the fizzle and translating its priorities into political action by, you know, politicians?   That it was never reliant on the media, as the media was going to be critical of their priorities and was never going to be a cheerleader?   Did the Tea Party make a definitive list of demands?   FLG doesn't think he ever saw one.

No comments:

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.