Blog
A Leaderless Revolution?
January 20, 2010
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?
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by AmericaMajority: #majority A Leaderless Revolution? – .
In Virginia, we have many Tea Party and Patriot groups that act independently, but we have also formed the Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation which is a sort of clearing house for all of the organizations. We work together to support each group and bring our resources. From what I understand, we are the first state to form a leadership structure like this. I hope that we never see such a group nationally as each state and locality has issues specific they need to address. There really is no need for a federal level of Tea Party “leadership”. The site for the Virginia Federation is https://virginiateapartypatriots.com
The true leaders of a unified movement will most likely be “reluctant” leaders, men and women who have the ability to lead, yet also possess the humility to resist those overtures at first.
I personally believe that if these groups are really about change, then there needs to be some national organization and that the question should be loose or strict coupling of these groups.
The inherent problem with the extreme loose coupling that we have now, is that we are still reliant on the existing political parties and the infighting as to what is a Republican or what is a Democrat. Neither of these groups are truly worried about representing our interests.
There is currently a sports game and we the fans are expected to pay for admission and hopefully be entertained, but heaven forbid we should be allowed to play or moderate the game.
If this movement does adopt a national structure, it must look nothing like that of structured organizations in the past. This is different, the people are different. Too much bureaucracy will shut it down faster than none at all.
So long as the Sarah Palin-esque brand of anti-intellectualism doesn’t run rampant through the leadership, I think that’s a fine idea. The problem I’ve found with the Tea Party movement (and I’m an ardent libertarian) is two-fold: the anti-intellectual sentiment forged by the lack of understanding of the system as it exists, and a feeling that while the anger represented by these groups is passionate and very real, it is also entirely unfocused, outside of the fact that Tea Party supporters are fed up with the status quo. A centralized leadership may lend some direction to the movement and make it not only politically viable, but formidable.
On Jan. 16th, representatives from Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse / Central NY, Watertown / Northern NY, and Albany gathered in Syracuse for our first NY912 leadership conference. We agreed to a similar structure that Dana outlined: a group of independent 9.12 / Tea Party organizations, working together to support each other’s efforts, share information and resources and to create a website (NY912.com – under development) with information of statewide interest. Each group will retain it’s autonomy to deal with local issues, but can work with one or more other groups on larger issues and events.
I think limited state level organization is the best course for now. It’s premature to try and organize at a national level. There are no national leaders; it will take time for them to rise to the top and gain the trust and respect of the local and state organizations.
This allows the movement to remain somewhat fluid and able to react with lightning speed, as in the Massachusetts race, yet reap the benefits of working as a larger group when the situation calls.
Being of a group that’s foundation is the 9 principles and 12 values, we have been trying to unite groups across New York State. We do not want someone from a national status to take our reigns and lead us. The leaders of this movement should come up from within, like the cream rising to the top. Things will sort themselves out. We are just getting started!
The “tea party movement” claims to not want leaders, yet is quietly forming a “Patriot Caucus” with de facto leaders in a lame attempt to legitimize the involvement of a herd of wanna-bees who lack any substantive experience. I think your observations are accurate, Ned. You can only organize rallies before so long, to a point where you have to adopt real leadership by bringing in bigger guns. So far, the movement shows little signs of growing up and into something larger, so the fringe, disorganized, half-ass nature of it will be with us for a while.
I should also add, they’ve banned me from posting on the web site because they do not like public criticism or dissent, another sign of amateurs behind the wheel.
You are correct in every accumption you make in your blog. Space limits me to explain, but the Tea Party movement is without an strategic vision, or a means to achieve it. They also do not like folks who challenge their reality. If you do, they simply shut you off. (My spouse said in innocent comment today, “Isn’t that like …?)Issue focused efforts pay short-term dividends, quantum shifts require strategic vision, and the grunt work of operational planning, and results management. Respectfully.
You are correct in every respect about your observations of the Tea Party. Every movement requires strategic vision, supporting operational planning, results management and subsequent adjustment.
Sometimes a man has to do what a man has to do.
All In Liberty My Brothers,
Pilgrim
Here’s some other thoughts: the movement should have some, dare I say, “intellectualism” to it. I don’t like the term, but the ability to make rational arguments about why free enterprise, why individual freedom, why limited government, and then why these things lead to a free and prosperous country. Many in the movement instinctively know some of these things, but can’t articulate them. That’s why AM is going to roll out the Fundamentals of a Freedom this year. The other thought is, yes, the cream will rise to the top in regards to leadership. That’s what the Founders believed in; a hierarchy of talent and ideas. More later, time permitting.
It needs to be kept local with close networking done to keep neighboring local communities abreast of how they choose to get together concerning state elections. We should run away from tea party express, Dick Armey and anything that is funded by GOP fat cats if we are to be successful and keep this truly revolutionary. Just my opinion.
Attention TEA Party Republican Loyalists:
Last Weekend, I asked a Republican State Senator via email to ask the Republican Leadership if I could meet with them to discuss the principles, values and issues of the TEA Party. I told them I was going to write an article expressing my opinion as to whether the Conservatives in the TEA Party Movement should join the Republican Party, try to take over the Republican Party or start a third party.
You can find a list of the tea party issues I feel are important and non-negotiable in this article: https://twurl.cc/23fy (Please let me know if you think any of the principles, values and issues I identified are not consistent with our common beliefs. Also advise me of any I may have omitted.)
When I called Tuesday, I was told by this Republican Senator’s Staff that she would be too busy to meet with me probably until after the end of the Month. As of 930a today, I have not heard back from either the Senator nor the Republican Party of Minnesota.
Caucuses in Minnesota are February 2nd.
Do you understand what you are facing now? Do you understand the Republican Leadership will look at you with the same smiling expression on their faces as John Edwards did in denying his affair and fatherhood of his illegitimate child and tell you, “Of Course we will adopt your principles” and stick the shim in your back when elections are over when they no longer need your vote?
Those were my thoughts.
Respectfully Submitted,
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot https://twurl.cc/23g2
To take an example, one national organization had to be hounded a long time into putting together a statement of principles or a mission statement. It’s nice to be all in the same boat, but not very effective if everyone is rowing in twenty directions. Or better put, being in the same fleet requires every vessel is in good repair AND that they all move in the same direction.
It’s the details that make it messy. Grand themes and guiding principles are very clear, but it’s their application that seems to be hanging some of us up.
No absolutely not!
What compels people to be”‘LED”?
Being a free thinker I never quite understood that…go figure. The minute you have a leader, or even a group of leaders, the opposition has a direct target. As it is now there is no target to dis-credit. That is what drives them insane. That is what make us successful.
Isn’t it clear, and I quote, “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”.
People prove it over and over. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”…Lord Acton
We are on a good path. We have become the most powerful lobbyist in Washington. We have influenced major races…we are actively seeking trustworthy individuals to represent us…as it should be, WE the PEOPLE are taking our country back one day at a time.
Only those who seek POWER seek leadership.
Oh, please tell Publius that the group behind the “Patriot Caucus” consists of 3,000 members. It in no way represents the entire Patriot movement. Each group is more than welcome to designate leaders but they DO NOT represent the movement.
Ned,
You need to further explain the “intellectualism” comment. I guess I don’t like it much either. I’m guessing few Patriots will like it.
Speaking of “intellectualism”, I just completed your activist training a couple of weeks ago. It would have been great had I gone a year ago. Maybe you should let people know how basic it is.
Your intellectualism comment surprises me frankly. Maybe you should re-think that post.
@Ned, on the issue of “intellectualism” I think this effort may address those concerns:
https://patriotcaucus.pbworks.com/draft_Judge-Andrew-Napolitano
https://patriotcaucus.pbworks.com/Grover-Norquist
The settlers that came to the “New World” tried a leaderless style or organization. They starved. Glen Beck wrote in the forward to the 5000 Year Leap (W. Cleon Skousen), “The …reason the colony wan’t working was that the LEADERSHIP (MY EMPHASIS) didn’t update the way they ran the place.” By the way, The Tea Party does have several de facto national leaders, at least that is what they calm on interviews on television.?
To Ned’s Comment: Word have meaning, and often evolkes emotional responses. “Intellectualism” is one of those words. In some circles is shorthand for libel, and progressive thinking, people, teachers and organizations. It don’t think that was the “intellectualism” Ned was talking about.
He was referring to people who fully understand the principles and values of the Founders; what led them to write the Constitution and the Bill or Rights; understanding how our Federal, specific state and local government works, and being able to articulate same clearly. It also includes the ability of LEADERS to creatively think “outside the box”-to dream-about the future of the organization, and then help translate that into meaningful, measurable milestones that promotes the achievement of the ultimate goals.
The Tea Party and 912’s have the power to drastically change the game, if they only will. We do not need to form another third political party. But we do need to form something along the lines of a New Tea Party 527 organization through which we can raise money and seize control of the RNC.
If the Tea Party 912 members consolidated their power in a real way, raising a lousy $100 from each of the 2 million patriots who attended the Washington 9/12 event, that is $200 MILLION bucks. A two hundred million dollar war chest is enough to put American patriots in the drivers seat of the GOP and RNC.
What could Tea Partiers do with a billion dollar war chest? How fast could we raise $100 from 10 million patriots or more?
We could Seize Control of the RNC!
With money in the bank, we can begin to set RNC policy.We don’t even have to wait for the 2010 mid-term election cycle to do so. But we can control the outcome of future elections, if we are smart with our money!
The dozens of patriot efforts scattered and divided across the political right all have the same problem. They are all grossly under-funded and therefore, powerless! Remaining fractured will keep all of them unable to raise significant funds. But united…
Before we patriots can gain control of our nation, we need to regain control of our party!
The one thing leftists know how to do is consolidate power and move as one in a single direction.
The 527 organization was established by the left to circumvent all campaign finance laws, including McCain-Feingold which was supposed to get all funny-money out of national politics, and the 527 was up and running before the ink was dry on that legislation, rendering all efforts to rein in illegal campaign donations moot, at least for the left.
But these same opportunities exist for the right, and if the pro-American, pro-Constitution “right” wants to take back control of their country, here’s the easiest and most peaceful legal means to do it.
Want your country back? Take your party back first!
Ned,
The Tea Party movement has the power to change the game, but they do not have the moral or ethical fiber to lead, and they’re demonstrating that right now.
Effective leadership is much more than merely organizing a rally or protest, its also about realizing when you’re in over your head, and are willing to bring in bigger guns to take things to the next level. Any clown can organize a protest, it’s a one-off challenge and that’s it. Planning and implementing an effective marketing and PR strategy in order to create leverage against the status quo takes (1) prior knowledge, and (2) strategic and analytical prowess, and (3) conceptual talent. NONE of the people who are leading the various groups have that capacity, AND none of them want people who can show them the way. I know this because I’ve tried it and made countless overtures. They want it all to themselves, no help needed. They’re very average in their mindset, and in my opinion are just as cowardly as the status quo of the RNC.
A year from now, they will be in the same place or worse, and start blaming the rest of us for not doing more.
I do not feel that leadership has to be top down. You need to identify the memberships passions and have them work on issues they are passionate about. For now, I direct to Group Nominal Process, https://web1.msue.msu.edu/msue/imp/modii/iii00005.html Using this strategy, I took a fraternity full of slovenly drunk skirt chasers with no redeeming social qualities and made them the number 1 fraternity on the U of MN campus in 5 years. Perhaps in the near future I will write an article on 5-10 simple, simple things you can do to provide a group with directions and obtain goals. But right now I have to work to pay my mortgage
Don Mashak
The cynical patriot
@Don, the movement certainly does not have to be top-down as a requirement, but you have to admit that there’s only so much organizing and rallying you can do before people start asking questions about how to take it to the next level. And, I would also add, that for those within the movement who claim we do not need leaders are the same people who are quietly trying to capture that position, so I’ll be the first to call bullshit on those small-minded efforts to dispel the belief that leaders are needed. And, let’s face it, when you don’t have effective leadership, the media won’t turn to you when the time comes to weigh in on critical topics. They’ll pick someone else who is perceived to know more. That central issue indicates that the tea party movement is not the bonafide leader or even Challenger to the status quo, they are, in fact, the Underdog. The difference, as you may ask, is that Challengers are missed when they leave the scene, Underdogs are not.
To go one step further, as a seasoned brand marketing pro, I have some real problems with the field of political consultants, given that we have so many in a sea of know-it-alls producing mediocre results.
I cannot tell you the number of political campaigns and causes I’ve seen head down the Bunny trail, led by arrogant, self-gratifying clowns who pursue ego-driven and idealistic goals while being completely unaware of the political landscape, or chasing ideas that are completely off-strategy and end as a flash in the pan–killing off energy and motivation from eager supporters who thought they were supporting a viable campaign.
In addition to the problems on the ground with the tea party movement, we also have some very big problems within the status quo. Namely, consultants taking money from people who should never be running for pubic office to begin with, and those who equate theory and strategy as one in the same.
On your mention re- group nominal process, I lead new, a peer-focused initiative called OnStrategy Forum, that includes a new Self-directed Workgroup focus,
Anyone who is serious about learning more about the ins and outs of effective strategy should join.
Ned, I would partially agree and disagree. First, the flaw here, as alluded to earlier, is that a sound theory is synonymous with sound strategy. It’s like saying if we just be good girls and boys, everything will work out just fine. The world doesn’t work that way, at least not from my perspective, and that is why the republicans got clobbered in 2006 and 2008, in addition to failing to deliver what they promised.
Being able to communicate in a rational way the great principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, etc., should be par for the course for any good candidate, but, is NOT a strategy. At least not one that will resonate with voters today. If it were 1776, yes. But in 2010 and beyond, what we’re talking about solving is a complex marketing and PR challenge that requires a much broader understanding and skill. And that’s where I take issue with both the tea party movement and the status quo of the GOP.
The issue of why we fight is part of a PR milestone, which could be solved through a public awareness campaign that the GOP should undertake to help educate voters, so that when good candidates do run for public office, they get it, and the work that candidates do is much easier to accomplish with an educated electorate.
Agree on points re- serving and leadership.
Let us not debate the need for leadership or its form. There is a way to lead and have people follow and a way to lead through force, coercion and peer pressure. I prefer the former to the latter. If a leader gets his mandate from his followers, the followers will not feel led or forced, they will feel empowered by guidance.
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
I wish I could engage more in this conversation, but have been bombed with work. First, by intellectualism, I mean the ability to communicate, in a rational, reasonable way, the great principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, public virtue; the ideals the Founders believed in and that have been shown to work. But for the tea party movement, and the 9.12 movement, to become even better, I would hope many would become even more knowledgeable about why we fight, what we’re facing, etc. So we need to know our Founding documents. We need to know how the free market works, and the benefits of it. We need to know the proper role of government, and the sphere and scope it should have. So with some more reading and studying, we can become even better communicators of these principles. I’m not advocating Ph.Ds here, folks. 🙂 Second, I’m all about serving; one of the points that I hope to make with local leaders is that they do not lead an organization. They serve it, and should be working on how to make their members even better. That’s what I’m hoping to do in the role I have with AM. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. And last point: someone told me a leader who no one follows is just a person out for a nice walk. A leader has to be able to engage people and transmit to them a compelling vision that they feel they are part of, even vital to; if it’s all about a leader, no one will engage, and if people do, there won’t be enough to actually make a difference. So just some passing thoughts on what looks like a nice exchange going on.
May I suggest as the first lesson in leadership, that anyone that has not learned to play chess to at least a mid level of ability, learn to do so now. We need to be able to plan strategy more than one move ahead.
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
Very one has an opinion, which I respect. However, leadership and its application is an art. Leadership is required for the conduct of strategic and operation planning-both profit and non-profit. It is NOT done by processes like Group Nominal, or a blog on the subject on the Internet. In the real world of business, government, military, charitable, and educational organizations, such planning begins at the top and requires considerable effort. The planning process then flows to the bottom in a cascading manner via operational goals with associated measurable results at each level of the organization. (This is not Management by Objectives by the way!) Strategic and operational goals are the most critical few that will mean success for the organization. Results management provides feedback loops back up the organization for the purpose of decision-making. This monitoring and reporting of goals might also result in goal adjustment, or recourse application.
For what it’s worth, I had 31 years as planner at every level of the military, including in war, and in NATO. Following my military retirement, I served for 10 years as an organizational development and quality (ISO) consultant to a major branch of a Federal organization. While on active duty I was a Designate US Military Strategist. I have also served a consultant on planning to a graduate department of a major educational institution. I hold two advanced degrees in Psychology and Industrial Management (with honors in both I am also a graduate of the one year Army Command and General Staff College. I have published a wide variety of articles, primarily in psychology,
With due respect, I do believe that I really know of what I “speak.”
No, I’m not suggesting greater knowledge of the principles is the strategy at all. But it is part of it. Messaging, branding, defining before defined, best points of intervention, etc. are part of the bigger strategy, and I think you’re going to like some of the stuff I’ll be helping to roll out soon.
Looking forward to it.
[…] Full Article Here […]