There are only a few movies I really, really enjoy watching.  Among them is Amistad.  After all, I’m a history buff (particularly of antiquity and of the American founding era) as well as a political junky.  So it comes as no surprise that I see all sorts of political metaphors on the silver screen.  And Amistad does not disappoint.

In case you missed the epic story circa 1997, it tells of the struggle of a group of mutinous slaves who steer their way to the coast of New England to find themselves embroiled in a legal battle for their very lives.  The 1841 Supreme Court case quickly becomes the catalyst for the brewing fisticuff between the northern and southern states that eventually erupted into full scale Civil War, costing more than 600,000 American lives.

We tend to look upon that tragic chapter in our nation’s history as a necessary evil, one that resulted in the end to slavery in America.  Never again would a class of people have absolute control over the labor and fruits thereto of another class.  Or so we’ve thought…

The panoply of costly legislative dicta currently on parade in Washington — replete with promises of reform, justice, and equity — obscure the fundamental question at hand, to which more than a few members of our elite Senate have failed miserably to muster a cogent answer.  The question is presupposed, after all, in one of James Madison’s better-known declarations: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Not unlike the taxation without representation that sparked the Revolution, we are besieged by a political class in Washington hell-bent on taxing us despite our representation.  It is a class beholden to anything but the Constitution.  And when this class lays claim, a priori, both to the means and fruit of the American people’s labor for its own redistributionary schemes, what else shall we call it but slavery?

And so we find ourselves once again embroiled in a civil war.  Though not on the battlefield and without weapons, we are faced with the same struggle.  Will we throw off the chains of our oppressors with the very constitutional means which our Framers afforded us, or will we rest idly bye whilst our chains get heavier still?

For his portrayal of John Quincy Adams in Amistad, Anthony Hopkins received an Academy Award nomination.  To be sure, one of his greatest movie lines is one we must heed now more than ever: “James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington… John Adams. We’ve long resisted asking you for guidance. Perhaps we have feared in doing so we might acknowledge that our individuality which we so, so revere is not entirely our own. Perhaps we’ve feared an appeal to you might be taken for weakness. But, we’ve come to understand, finally, that this is not so. We understand now, we’ve been made to understand, and to embrace the understanding… that who we are IS who we were.”

Ralph Benko, Washington Examiner Op-Ed Contributor and author of the book The Websters’ Dictionary: How to Use the Web to Transform the World, talked about his efforts to increase on-line activism with conservatives.

He makes some very interesting points about changing Rule 20 and returning representation to the states. What do you think? Is this a good idea?

Newly elected school board member Joe Nolen of McLoud, OK, had never run for public office.  He had never directed a campaign.  He had never even volunteered for someone else’s campaign.   The term “political newcomer” would not even begin to describe him.

But Joe Nolen was tired of the school board in his town constantly spending more money than they had on hand and running up budget deficits.  So he decided to do something about it.  Joe Nolen decided to run for school board.

I met with Joe Nolan in the middle of January – a little over a month from election day.  I sat down in his living room with him and his wife, and we talked about what it meant to run for public office, the effort it was going to take, and the uphill climb it was going to be for him to be victorious.  Joe understood this because he confessed his fear in going against a 3 term, 15 year incumbent – one who had never been challenged before and who also had more money and more name recognition than Joe.  He told me this entire scenario made him quite nervous.

But that night we discussed various campaign strategies, practical and simple ideas to overcome his multiple deficiencies, and a clear path that he believed would win him his election.

In the end Joe was going to run on three ideas: transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility.  These were the elements he believed were missing from the McLoud School Board, and these are the words he would use with every single person he spoke with during the campaign.

By the end of that night, Joe was determined and motivated to out-work his opponent by running a smarter and more organized campaign.  He was also excited to use the tools and resources American Majority had provided him to help in his effort.  But he was on his own until election day, and I was curious about what the result would be.

Yesterday, after a month of putting out yard signs, developing and implementing a micro-targeting goal, walking his entire city, and in the end even employing a small army for his GOTV effort, Joe Nolen defeated his incumbent opponent by a margin of 65% to 35%.  Due in large part to Joe’s efforts, the voter turnout was higher than he, or anyone else, had expected.

In talking to Joe after his victory, he confessed he knew he had won his election the weekend before the vote because of the work he had done and the organized campaign he had put together.  He also told me that he was surprised that the margin of victory wasn’t higher.

As our conversation wound down Joe expressed his appreciation for me driving out to his house that night and helping him achieve his goal.  He sincerely and honestly thanked American Majority for the resources, ideas, and encouragement we offered him as a newcomer in the world of local politics.

But best of all, he was excited, motivated, and ready to get started as the newest member of the McLoud School Board.

The Heritage Foundation today has a good good piece on the attempt for a second stimulus and the extreme growth of government taking place. Rather than recreate a similar article, I thought I would share some highlights:

Anticipating this bleak job news, the President announced in his State of the Union address last week: “That is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.” It is understandable why the President wants to call this new legislation a “jobs bill” instead of what it really is: his second stimulus. But that would mean admitting that his first stimulus completely failed, which both the objective evidence and the opinion of the American people show it has. …

There is one sector of the economy that is thriving under President Barack Obama: government. This week, the Obama administration announced that the number of government employees will grow to 2.15 million this year, topping two million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over.” And today, USA Today reports “the lobbying industry is humming along in the nation’s capital” as the top 20 trade associations and companies increased their lobbying expenses by 20% in 2009. ConocoPhillips spent $18.1 million dollars lobbying Congress in 2009, up from $8.5 million the year before, while it also laid off 1,300 people.

This is a perfect example of what happens to an economy when government becomes “the focus” of job creation. Jonathan Rauch explains: “Economic thinkers have recognized for generations that every person has two ways to become wealthier. One is to produce more, the other is to capture more of what others produce. … Washington looks increasingly like a public-works jobs program for lawyers and lobbyists, a profit center for professionals who are in business for themselves.”

As Washington flourishes on the backs of the little man, I have to ask, “Where are the tea parties? Where are the 912 groups and the individuals outraged at both the lobbying increase and government expansion?” I have yet to hear a grassroots response to open floodgates in Washington, but I hold out hope that the people are listening, discussing, and preparing for 2010.

Organizing for America was advertised as the nucleus of the progressive wave supposedly sweeping America. OFA was to have the capacity to organize, motivate, and deploy liberal drones throughout the country. They would utilize the passion stirred up from the 2008 presidential election, mobilizing campaign volunteers into policy advocates. Yet, everything we have seen is telling us that OFA is fading fast. When you build a system of spoils, there will always be those upset about not receiving their just reward. Support has not turned in to favors.

Obama put together an organizational structure built on the illusion that those at the bottom have the power. Yet, in his book “The Audacity to Win,” David Plouffe makes it very clear that power and decision making ultimately remained with a small group at the top. They worked to build a list, not a movement. This was their achilles heel. Once Plouffe, Axelrod, Obama and others transitioned from campaign mode to White House elitism, they forgot and abandoned those that put them in office: the progressive base promised a new America and  the swing voters promised a new DC. The reality has set in that the people who voted for change were not organized in a new or powerful way. In fact, despite the extraordinary illusion that this campaign embodied the people from the ground up, it appears it was politics as usual:

In the end, the special interests sat first at the table and wrote the playbook, expecting OFA to follow. The top-down structure remained, yet the passion had flamed out. David Plouffe announced back in December of 2008 that more than half a million supporters had responded to an online survey of OFA’s future, with 86% saying they felt it was important to help the Obama administration pass legislation through grassroots support; 68% agreeing that it was important to help elect state and local candidates who share Obama’s vision; and a surprising 10% indicating that they would be interested in running for elected office. The desire to support the movement at a local level was there. People yearned for change in their communities, not just in Washington (sound familiar?). Yet, no actions was taken. Those at the top failed to realize this, focusing instead on demanding grassroots support for policy created behind closed doors and benefiting big corporations and bigger government. Now, after an historic loss in Massachusetts the myth is meeting reality and the American people on both sides of the political spectrum are getting restless. Organizing for America is seeing their passionate base shrink rapidly, interior structure deteriorate, and effectiveness diminish. This is undeniable proof of what architects already know: the world’s tallest buildings were built ground-up.

In a move that resembles MoveOn.org, OFA recently sent out an email asking its members to plan the course for 2010. While the strategy has worked in the past, this appears to fall under “too little too late:”

While progressives scramble to recreate the magic of the 2008 presidential election, a truly organic movement has been brewing in the union. A movement that I argue has done things right.

The tea party movement has been repeatedly attacked by those most afraid of its success, but this snake has no head. There is nobody calling the shots, no Plouffe controlling the message, no list to be bought and sold. This movement has no title, no political affiliation. This is about principle over party, the individual over the state. In this movement, the power rests with the people, and the people are growing restless.

Read a single post from CNN, Washington Post, or Fox News and it becomes clear that the tea party movement is becoming a legitimate force in American politics. Obama’s campaign has shown the people how to organize, what we as individuals can accomplish when passion and inspiration meet opportunity. Poll after poll has shown us that more Americans self-identify as conservative than any other political ideology. So when Obama and his campaign elite MovedOn (pun intended), it set the stage for a dramatic shift. Unlike the progressive nanny structure, our movement is based on the individual, on personal freedom and equality. The tea parties and 912 groups are evidence of this, of individuals banding together and self-organizing in their communities. We represent a true, grassroots movement in America. There are no campaign managers, no Axelrods to lead us and leave us. Because of this, we will be stronger, last longer, and bring more change to the political landscape. An opportunity like this comes along only once in a generation. For years we have chose the lesser of two evils, but for the first time in my lifetime, we as a nation are saying we don’t want whats on the menu, we demand more.

Ironically, both OFA and the new conservative movement can be said to embody the political style for which they fight. OFA shines light on the faulty premise that the state knows best, that an enlightened few knew best for their supporters. When they abandoned the wheel, the ship ran ashore. In contrast, our movement has no leader, at least not one in control of information and strategy. We have all decided the strategy, we have all shared power, and we will all share victory. 2010 will be a record year for the political organizations. We have written on this site before about leaderless organizations and the conservative surge in online media, but history has yet to be written.

We now have two very different political forces on the ground in America. A force from the liberal left of the country struggling to find focus in the shadow of an abandoned leader and a rising force from the conservative right struggling to find cohesion among the pull of individualism. Who will win? What is in store? Only time will tell.

It has become increasingly clear to most Americans that the mainstream media is courting the current White House with the intensity of a 17-year-old boy. As I flip through the major networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC, it becomes painfully clear that there is an agenda they want to see pushed. When the president does this– elation. When the president does not– criticism. That is not news, that is a drama filled episode of HBO’s Big Love.

Coming from a traditional communications background, I am disappointed and deeply saddened at the loss of objectivity and standards within the news today. As an amateur historian, I am embarassed that the memory of men like Franklin and Jefferson are made a mockery by people like Matthews and Olbermann. Benjamin Franklin, who owned and published a newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, once said that “a newspaper in every home” was the “principle support of…morality” in civic life. Unfortunately, the current news structure has become less about education and knowledge and more about persuasion and opinion. In today’s era of big media, there unfortunately is another quote from Franklin that comes to mind, “When truth and error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter.” 50 years ago the media was there to tell the nation what the people thought. Today, the media exists to tell the nation what to think.

Any sane individual can clearly delineate the lines drawn in the sand. Victor Davis Hanson has done an excellent job recapping the media’s treatment of both Bush and Obama in a piece for The Corner. Specifically, Hanson noted the lack of “substantive criticism of Obama’s flips on renditions, military tribunals, wiretaps, intercepts, Iraq..” and the “Obama plan to run up more red ink in a year than Bush did in eight.” Apparently, an objective stance on the growth and over-reach of government is less important than ensuring the masses accept their fate and relinquish decision making in an appropriately jovial fashion.

In addition, Pew Research notes that this Administration has received an extraordinary amount of positive press, almost double that of Bill Clinton and George Bush. Their study has found that positive stories about this Administration have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.

It seems objectivity is not only lost by those who produce the news, subjectivity is quickly overtaking those who consume it: According to the new poll out by Gallup, nearly half of Democrats (45%) say the media have done an excellent or good job as a watchdog of the Democratic Obama administration, compared with 29% of independents and 30% of Republicans. You can read the whole article here: Click to Read the Full Article

There are many speculating on why the mainstream media favors this Administration and why limited government never gets a fair shake, leave your thoughts in the comments and let me know what your take is. Me: I believe the news is there to inform, not influence. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.” This country was built on the ingenuity of free men and will continue to remain so only with the input of an educated, informed populace.

Regardless of our political affiliation, for now the writing remains on the wall; or in this case, the heart shaped eyes and dropping jaw remain on Chris Matthews:

You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.

WATCH THE FULL CLIP HERE

Times, they are a changing. With the rise of blogs and social media, I hope we will fulfill the wishes of both Franklin and Jefferson in creating an educated, informed populace with the knowledge and know-how to steer this country from the bottom-up. Until then, I’ll take my news with a grain of salt…and a margarita.

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?

By now, most of you know the news: Scott Brown has won Massachusetts’s special election for Ted Kennedy’s seat. Although his platform was one of transcendence and accountability, the fact still remains that Brown is a Republican. A Republican in a seat that had been a liberal shade of blue for over three decades. One can also argue that Massachusetts remains one of the most liberal states in the Union. So what does this all mean?

I would argue that Washington has a lot to fear. Not just Democrats, but Republicans alike. Remember that Brown’s campaign was built largely around an anti-establishment platform. Like him or hate him, Brown represents the “every man.” As we saw in Sarah Palin, and will continue to see in 2010, the people have seen the path taken by liberal elitism, choosing to support the honest, relatable candidate instead. The American majority has discovered that the power does indeed lie with them and they have only just begun to exercise it.

Given the recent elections and the growing fear among the Left, it appears that history does indeed repeat itself. The contemporary tea party movement was sparked by the same government reach and growing bureaucratic policy that initiated the original act on December 16 of 1773. Originating in the harbors of Boston, the American people once again stand defiantly in the belief that the individual deserves the freedom to choose what is best for their family, unobstructed from a disconnected government. The tea party movement has returned home, to its roots, to secure a powerful electoral victory in Massachusetts. If there was any doubt on that cold December day about what the colonists were fighting for, they have now been laid to rest on this cold January morning…

The tea party’s rallying cry is clear, “We will support principle over party. We will support candidates that stand for fiscal discipline, Constitutional restraint, and a government accountable to the American people. If you do not stand for these things, you better stand aside.”

This year, American Majority will be launching its Patriot 2.0 training program, Gulp…..

As we trained around the country last year, the same questions and comments were being made, “Can the government track me through Facebook?” (“Ma’am, your life is not that interesting.”) and “I don’t use social media because it’s for Liberals!” (“Sir, with that reasoning, I could be a liberal, and you should leave now before brainwashing begins.”) There was even a few, “How does the CIA’s facial recognition software work?” (“Once I get my top secret clearance, I’ll let you know.”) Needless to say, these statements left most of us bewildered and shaking our heads wearily. This also got me thinking – why are Conservatives so far behind the technology curve? Why did we not embrace social media sooner?

After months of talking about it with trainees and asking others in the field, here is what I have come up with…

Politically, Liberals Believe Social Platforms Can Affect National Change
At the core of liberal philosophy…or progressivism, or whatever the title is they give themselves to avoid the inevitable term of ‘Socialist,’ is the belief that freedom did not come from nature or God, but instead is a product of the state. Essentially, the state is a reflection of the people and the people a reflection of the state. So when a communication platform comes along that embraces the many-to-many model, it would seem a natural fit for groups looking to mold society by either influencing enough people to mimic national support or coordinating mass pressure on public officials to influence the people. For these reasons, the Left was an early adopter of such technology.

Politically, Conservatives Will Not Embrace Social Platforms for Individual Decisions
My mother and father are good examples of why new media has not been adopted readily by the conservative base. As my father has said many times before, “If I know someone, they are in my cell phone.” As he would argue, “I have so much to do locally, why do I need to talk to someone half way around the world?” and to some extent, he would be right. Conservatives tend to believe that individuals are capable of making personal decisions best suited for themselves and their families. Creating a massive, online movement via Facebook to change the local sewer standards in one’s town doesn’t make much sense under conservative philosophy. As the mindset goes, “If conservative politics is local, where is the political advantage in starting a Facebook Page?” For these reasons, the Right is a late adopter to such technology.

Now What?
But, where does this leave us? I would argue that the time for excuses and debating over the issue has passed. The decision has been made for us. Understandably, emerging technology and dramatic change can be scary, but with increased communication comes increased influence; over 80% of those under 30 find the majority of their information online. Don’t you want to engage the next generation of leaders on issues? I equate conservative involvement in national politics to the old saying, “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?” I am here to tell you that yes, yes it does make a sound, a very loud, crashing ‘boom.’ The same goes for bloated, over-reaching government. Because you do not participate does not mean it will not grow and it will not find you; you either do politics, or politics will do you. And if you are doing the politicking, you’re on the offense. If politics is doing you, you’re on the defensive, and you can only play defense for so long before losing.

It is time to understand what the Left is doing and rise to the occasion, if not for you, then for your children. Conservatives maintain the majority status in America and unless our voices are echoed online, we will fail to influence, mobilize and win in coming years. To me, this is unacceptable. It is time to leave our comfort zones and take our Sunday conversations online, helping win the battle for hearts and minds in communities unknown and with allies yet to be realized.

The Telegraph, a British newspaper, is running a series this week on the top 100 conservatives and liberals in America.  The paper ranks the individuals according to their accomplishments and present-day influence.  This is a follow-up article to their rankings in 2007.

The article defines conservatives and liberals in a more European style than many Americans would define them.  Conservatives are defined as “people identifiably – though not always self-described – as right of centre,” while liberals are “are those identifiably left of centre.”  The article also points out that the rankings are not based upon ideological purity, i.e. Jimmy Carter is not ranked above Jesse Jackson because the former President is more liberal.

The top 20 of each will be announced on Friday.  American Majority is asking if you did the rankings, who would be on your top five list of conservatives and liberals in America in terms of accomplishments and present-day influence?