A Leaderless Revolution?
I think it’s clear that what we’re seeing is something new in politics with the tea party movement, and especially with what took place last night in Massachusetts. It’s not about people choosing this party or that party, nor is it just about the anger of independents. It’s people looking for leadership that will actually do what it says, and that will look out for their interests, not the interests of the politicians or big business. They want government that is responsible, not invasive. People don’t like the fact that the absurd spending and bailouts are all taking place on their backs, out of their pockets. As a friend said, “People know the fix is in with big government and big business and they’re not going to take it anymore.”
But after last night, I want to throw something out as a topic of conversation: does the tea party movement need a central leader/and or leadership? I have been quoted as saying I believe local tea party and 9.12 organizers should stay independent, while remaining on the same page with like-minded leaders from across the country. Quite frankly, I’m not convinced about some of these so-called “national” tea party organizations. I either question the leaders’ motives, or their strategy (which is to suppose they even have a long term strategy beyond the next protest). If those reading find those words provocative, so be it. Regardless, the question remains: is leadership needed for the movement to be sustainable in the long term? And I’m not talking about an election cycle or two, but fifteen, twenty, even thirty years or more.
The tea party movement began as an organic movement, literally exploding from the grassroots and taking the political stage by storm in 2009. However, the problem with organic movements is that they are highly de-centralized. There are positives to be gleaned thus far from the movement. For example, demonstrating the true grassroots nature, thousands of tea parties and 9.12 groups are in existence today, with many flourishing despite having existed for only a year’s time (stop and think about the amazing nature of that: January, 2009. No tea parties. No 9.12 groups. January, 2010. Thousands of local tea party and 9.12 groups). And despite being de-centralized, the local tea parties are working well together, for the time being. In Massachusetts, tea parties from New Hampshire, Connecticut, and New York City were working jointly with the Massachusetts’ tea parties to get grassroots workers to help Brown.
The negative, however, is that history tells us that highly de-centralized movements do not succeed in the long run unless they give way to some sort of unified, and dare I say, centralized leadership. Before you write the idea off, think about the newly independent United States in the 1780s. Every one of the 13 states thought and acted like a sovereign nation. They’d all played nice with each other during the war with Great Britain (well, sort of). But once the threat of Great Britain was gone, and they were independent, things started to sour with the United States. Within a matter of years following the Treaty of Paris, the United States actually stood on the brink of total collapse, with fierce internal dissension and bickering, from thirteen different currencies to repressive trade policies between the states. And we shouldn’t forget, the states were also dealing with continuous external threats from the European superpowers: Britain, Spain and France, each circling like wolves, waiting to strike.
The miracle in Philadelphia saved the United States from disaster. The Constitutional Convention took the thirteen states, each like a thin reed, and bound them together, increasing the strength and stability of all. There was give and take, with compromises struck, deals reached, with ultimately a new national government put in place. Each of course remained its own independent state, but they were now in union with the others. It is my opinion that without this, the states would never have survived, ultimately falling prey to petty in-fighting and greed, and eventually to one of the European powers.
Now, in 2010, we are again faced with a pivotal moment to ‘Unite or Die.’ What if the thousands of tea parties and 9.12 groups around the country decided to come together? What if they really formed a legitimate, national structure, not something arbitrarily attempted by those seeking personal glory, and certainly not by one individual, but rather a circle of principled leadership. I’m becoming more and more convinced that if we do not begin working together strategically, the movement will melt away; people will not continue to protest ad nauseam.
What the election in Massachusetts last night showed is that if the tea party movement works together, amazing things can happen. But the serious problems facing this country will not be solved, and the country fundamentally, changed unless the tea party movement becomes better organized and more long term in its vision.
I’m not entirely sure what that would look like, but that is why I am asking the question. It seems that I am constantly seeing new “characters” emerge as self-proclaimed leaders of an organic, de-centralized movement – which I find odd. Each appears more inclined to profit from the movement than the one before. Now is the time we invest in the movement, instead of profiting from it.
My hope is that this year, and in the years to come, the tea party movement evolves into a legitimate, sustainable political force; not a party, but a force, that dictates the direction this country takes. How this happens or what this will look like remains to be determined and so I ask again: Is it time to start thinking about leadership within the movement?