PJ Media has just published a long and thought-provoking article, 8 Reasons Why Today Occupiers Are Tomorrow's Tea Partiers Something creepy is happening in Minnesota. A dialogue has begun between the Tea Party and Occupy movements. Stranger still, it may be leading somewhere. Facilitating the discussion is an organization called the Caux Round Table. Global Executive Director Steve Young seems hell-bent on bridging the divide between the two movements. ADVERTISEMENTYoung is the author of Moral Capitalism, a tome outlining the Caux Round Table’s vision for “reconciling private interest with the public good.” In speaking to Young and perusing his book, it is apparent that he is adept at speaking any political language, in sounding conservative to conservatives and progressive to progressives. This is not deception or pandering. Young simply aspires to operate above the political fray, and genuinely believes in consensus between perceived extremes. Although he has never said it, Young and his organization appear to be communitarian, evangelists of “the third way” once evoked by President Bill Clinton. Communitarians seek a synthesis of capitalism and communism, an imagined happy middle ground where people can pursue their dreams in a market smartly regulated to ensure that the poor and under-privileged don’t slip through the cracks. Young’s book synopsis explains: Author Stephen Young argues that “brute capitalism” — profit-seeking regardless of effects — must give way to moral capitalism to attain widespread monetary and moral well-being.You get the idea. Seeing the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street as two sides of the same coin, Young and the Caux Round Table have reached out to activists from each movement to debate the role of government and deliberate a proposed “joint statement of common principles.” This author is among those representing the Tea Party in that process, and has been afforded the opportunity to engage Occupiers in moderated forums. .... Here are eight reasons why today’s Occupiers may become tomorrow’s Tea Partiers. 8 ) The Futility of Protest Without Power 7 ) The Futility of a Movement Without Focus 6 ) Revolution Is a Poor Alternative to Participation 4 ) No One Will Ever Care About You More Than You 3 ) Ownership Has Its Privileges 2 ) There’s a Legitimate Case for Not Trusting Anybody Over 30 Just figuring that out, are you? 1 ) The Wisdom of Age Conclusion: The perception that Occupiers are committed socialists is not entirely accurate. Certainly, when socialist concepts are concretized, many object to the results. Where Occupiers and Tea Partiers see eye-to-eye is in protest of cronyism. The difference is that Occupiers tend to see cronyism as a product of capitalism, while Tea Partiers tend to recognize it as an abandonment of capitalism. An Occupy blogger offers a glimmer of hope: I have some reservations about whether the maldistribution of wealth and power can be attributed to capitalism as such. It also appears that not all participants in the Occupy movements are against capitalism. And finally, I’m not sure that replacing capitalism with some other form of economic organization is either possible, or necessary to address the problems raised by the movement.That’s halfway to an epiphany. The only way to maldistribute wealth is to maldistribute power. And the only entity capable of that is government. Once Occupiers come to that realization, they’ll find compatriots among the Tea Party.