Image Credit: Getty Images

The video still exists. Rick Santelli, a market commentator for CNBC, went on a rant about the level of government spending and borrowing in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008. He promoted a “tea party” as a popular way for ordinary people to rally around the single political issue of government fiscal restraint.  The rest is history.

The Tea Party had as big an impact on the 2010 midterm elections as any political movement since Ross Perot’s failed attempt at a White House bid in 1992. Early on in the tea party movement, though, there was some friction. Although the tea party was initially energized around economic issues, social conservatives(of which I count myself a most ardent supporter) wanted a seat at this new table of political energy.  So, too, did the third leg of the conservative stool, the Neo conservative movement most energetic about the role of the United States in foreign affairs. While there was no central meeting to decide direction, the tea party successfully and collectively (sshhh) pushed back these other activists and resolved to make the movement singularly focused around domestic economics – lower government spending and lower government debt.

The “Occupy Wall Street” or OWS movement is facing a similar turning point in their short existence. With colder Manhattan mornings ( a recent OWS blog post mentioned winter donation needs) are coming more and more traditionally liberal causes to the barely definable group. Certainly, the initial emphasis is around the disparity in income and wealth between the so-called 1% vs. and the so-called 99% remains.  But, the movement has quickly broadened to make room for the unions, the environmentalists and other groups that threaten to divide the OWS from within.  Today, Occupy Philadelphia is facing a crisis as it is being told to move from their current location to allow for a union project to move forward.  This is splitting the group.

The movement has turned to violence on its margins, and one has to wonder how long a serious and original OWS demonstrator will stay with the movement as it becomes more and more diluted from its original message, and yet defined by its own wackos.

The Tea Party stuck to a conservative economics message. Then, unlike the populist messengers of Ross Perot’s candidacy, chose to pursue their ends within one of the two established political parties. This point is absolutely critical for the OWS movement, or any political movement in the United States for that matter, to understand.  Ross Perot, running as a third party candidate, gained 19% of the popular vote in 1992(more importantly ZERO electoral votes), which split fiscal conservatives for the Republicans and gave a White House victory to Bill Clinton. In 1996, Ross Perot’s Reform party gained less than 1% of the popular vote after a fractious primary process. The OWS movement stands at the precipice of, quite simply, fizzling out. Both message coherence and New York temperatures are waning day by day. The two key lessons that should be taken from the success of the Tea Party movement is its becoming a force within an established party and remaining single-issue focused. If OWS wants to even be taken seriously, it would do well to heed these Tea Party lessons.