Blog
Want to be an agent of change? Here’s How~ Part One
August 9, 2010
Traveling across the state of Arkansas we have come across some truly EFFECTIVE organizations and some that are really struggling. One of the most effective groups in the state is the Faulkner Co TEA Party with well over 400 members and a monthly general meeting attendance of over 200, they are fast becoming a change agent in their region.
One of the most exceptional aspects of this group is that they realized almost immediately the balance they would need to pull off their goals and found that – if they built it – people really would come. They began one year ago this month with just a handful of people in a restaurant and their determination to make a difference.
They now have members of the school board, city council and quorum court calling to ask for their input. They are building amazing credibility in their region and making a definite impact towards their goals.
What makes them so effective?
First and foremost, they had to decide what “purpose” had brought them together. Like any organization that forms, it is a common cause or interest. In this case it was simple: “To promote constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and conservative principles and values.”
They identified a mission, became passionate about defending their liberties, recognizing that the most effective way was keeping it as local as possible because that’s where they can bring the largest influence to bear.
Each person at their first meeting talked to their friends, neighbors and relatives within their sphere of influence. Because they believed in what they were doing, the people they contacted become interested, too.
Right off the bat the leaders of this organization realized that if they were going to implement change they were going to need friends and acquaintances to join their cause and to get organized.
The big focus wasn’t on special events and holding protests, or making speeches and “rallying” people to death. It was simply to really get engaged together with common purposes and goals. (THE PROTESTS ARE DONE: TIME TO IMPLEMENT )
How did they do it?
It certainly didn’t happen overnight, or without effort. Members of the Faulkner County Tea Party became vigilant. Throughout, they knew the pulse of what was going on nationally but they did not allow those events to co-op their vision of impacting change at home – in their community. Here is what they did that hopefully will help you in your efforts to bring people together.
Decide on specific goals. This will help you stay focused. Limit it to 2 or 3 broad goals and make them realistic. Here are a few of my favorites:
- Have representation at all public meetings such as city and county government meetings and school boards.
- Identify and help 3-4 local individuals who wish to run for local offices
- Meet, and begin to build relationships with, all local representatives regardless of party ideology.
- Grow membership- set goals that are realistic yet challenge your organization.
Building membership and credibility go hand in hand. People want to be a part of something that is not easily marginalized as a bunch of fruitcakes. This is avoidable if you stick to facts, be willing to work with others that don’t necessarily agree with you on every detail and stay away from fringy (and easily marginalized and misrepresented) topics like: 3rd party candidates and birthers and truthers
Stand-by for some other helpful hints in our next post~
Once again, you demonstrate how ignorant you are. A comment like that should get your fired from this organization. You put American Majority’s tax-exempt status in jeopardy by representing that they are only for the two party system. Your continued whackyness is why no one of serious nature will work with you in the tea-party or other community groups. I heard from some people in Harrision that the training that you provide is a joke. But hey a gal has to maje a buck, right?
Ms. Madera,
We appreciate you visiting our site and hope that our free resources are put to good use within your organization.
With that said, it must be noted that the only ignorance on display is your own:
Historically, features of the American system of elections, such as campaign finance rules, the electoral college and rules giving party candidates ballot access serve to solidify the two-party system in the United States. When third parties have emerged in American political history, their successes have been short-lived. In most cases, the issues or ideas championed by third parties have been “stolen” by the candidates of one of the two major parties. Sometimes the issue position taken by the third party is even incorporated into the platform of one of the existing parties. By doing so, the existing party generally wins the support of the voters that had been the support base of the third party. With no unique issues to stand on and depleted voter support, third parties generally fade away.
Third parties have NEVER made a significant bid for control of either the House of Representatives or the Senate. In fact, only a handful of individuals from outside one of the two major parties have served in the Congress.
As an obvious proponent of third parties, it is clear that your time will be wasted battling a system and not winning or changing policy. American Majority has and will continue to advocate our training and curriculum. We believe that parties are merely a reflection of those who show up. If you and everyone in your organization ran for every office, from precinct chairman to city council, would that party locally be a reflection of your values or not?
People can and people have made a difference within their communities by engaging in the political system we currently have. Our trainings are among the best in the country and the information we give away is on par with that of top consultants. We are a small non-profit doing our part to stand up for principles, understanding the system we are confronted with and helping others break that system down where appropriate. Name calling and snide remarks will do nothing but divide, in a time where we need everyone’s strength to win.
Austin James
American Majority
What I find fascinating is the fact that you, Mr. James, say name calling and snide remarks will do nothing but divide us. Did you read Laurie’s article? Here let me share this from her piece above:
Building membership and credibility go hand in hand. People want to be a part of something that is not easily marginalized as a bunch of fruitcakes. This is avoidable if you stick to facts, be willing to work with others that don’t necessarily agree with you on every detail and stay away from fringy (and easily marginalized and misrepresented) topics like: 3rd party candidates and birthers and truthers.
She calls people who choose to exercise their Constitutional rights to run independent of party fringy. What makes this fringy? You obviously don’t know your history. Your Republican Party at one time was a third party. Here’s another free history lesson for you, George Washington, in his Farewell Address warned us of the evils of forming parties. Look at where it has gotten us today. Laurie’s last paragraph is mostly directed at one particular candidate here in Arkansas because he chooses not to be a party hack. She has openly named called and labeled him several times on social media outlets. This does not keep with the Christian woman she espouses to be, not to mention the other skeletons in her closet that I will leave unnamed.
People who vote for a Republican out of fear a Democrat might win are the ones who are truly keeping things the same. There is no difference between a RINO and a Democrat. They are two sides of the same coin. I have and will continue to support conservative Republicans. However, if there is a true Constitutionally conservative independent on the ballot and the Republican has proven to increase the size of government, pass unconstitutional laws and usurp state’s rights, I will vote for the independent. I’m not loyal to a party. I’m loyal to principles, values and conscience. I will not compromise my integrity to vote for a Republican just so the Democrat doesn’t win. I’m done with holding my nose and choosing between the lesser of two evils. My choice will not be the one splitting the vote. Those who shame themselves and their families by compromising their integrity, principles and values by voting for the Republican out of fear the Democrat will win are truly the ones splitting the vote.
Mr. Reardon, Hank, “Henry,” or related character from Atlas Shrugged,
While I may not have used such descriptive words, I strongly support her core argument: gain credibility. As I am sure you are aware, many Americans are now engaging in the political system for the first time. With so many groups vying for membership, emails, and money from these people, it can be overwhelming. I believe Laurie is simply advising people to be weary of memes that tend to run hot and fast, yet ultimately lead to nowhere. “Easily marginalized and misrepresented” are hardly snide remarks, but I do believe that they appropriately characterize the ultimate futility of pursuing such tangents.
Where does she call people “fringy?” She does indeed call a pursued interest in creating a new political party “fringy.” Most people involved in support of third party candidates are principled Americans, frustrated with the divisive nature and ineffectiveness of both the Democrats and Republicans. This is precisely why we do what we do. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party, whatever! They are all a reflection of those involved. Why re-invent the wheel when the party structure exists to be filled by principled citizens such as yourself? Please go back and research how many members of Congress started at the local level. Labels only divide. The man/woman makes the party, not the other way around, especially at the local level. There are roughly 130 million people registered through the two major parties in this country. Under your “plan,” instead of making the system work, we should throw it out, a system I might add that has been in place for over 100 years, amassed a myriad of laws and financial barriers to entry, and a system that could be used for good if energy was focused in the right places. I’ll simply chalk that up to misguided good intentions. We have several trainings that I think you could benefit from: https://www.americanmajority.org/political-training
Don’t know my history? Sir, you clearly do not know me at all. Just about everyone here at AM is a history nut in some form or fashion. This is why I must take issue with your invocation of George Washington. If I read your comment correctly, and I believe that I do, your disdain for the parties stems from a belief that they only “water down” and moderate good policy and principles. To some extent, I will concede this. However, our first president decried the parties for their tendency to divide and polarize the country when their maxims are elevated above the common good of the American people. I think you and I can agree that this is true. However, Washington had the good sense and pragmatic foresight to call the partisan temptation “a fire not to be quenched.” While Washington cautioned us against the excesses and potential extremism of political parties, he knew that a partisan system, once in place, would never be dismantled. Instead, he urged Americans to maintain “uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame.” At AM, we strive to do just that by reshaping the parties from the bottom up, bringing them back into alignment with the will of the American people.
First of all, we do not support any political party. Our trainings are open to anyone and everyone looking to engage in a more meaningful way. The beliefs held by individuals, on their own free time is theirs alone. So, it is not our Democratic or Republican party. It is our United States, and let’s leave it at that.
Second, something you said really struck a chord with me, “..if there is a true Constitutionally conservative independent on the ballot and the Republican has proven to increase the size of government, pass unconstitutional laws and usurp state’s rights, I will vote for the independent. I’m not loyal to a party. I’m loyal to principles, values and conscience.” We stand for principle before party as well, always have and always will. It seems we have more in common than we do in contrast. There can be a limited government Democrats and there can be pro-statist Republicans. The parties are merely a reflection of the American population wishing to engage in them. Imagine if you will, a tea party that spends all its time, not on the sexy federal level, but on strategically placing constitutionally conservative candidates in key positions around the state. Can you imagine the impact that would have on the party nomination system within the state? The fundraising within the state? We can. Now apply that model to all the states and all the tea parties across the country….it would be a beautiful thing.
In closing, and in lieu of football season kicking back up, consider this: When a franchise continues to lose games, poorly representing both the fans and the storied heritage of the team, fans may protest, fans may boycott, but they don’t run to a nearby winning team, coaches don’t complain that the rules favor the other side, and they certainly don’t create a new team. When your team isn’t performing, you simply replace them.
Mr. Reardon,
While we appreciate your readership here at the blog, I encourage you to adhere to a higher standard of decency while commenting here. Your attack on Mrs. Masterson and your allusion to “skeletons” in her closet are out of line and reprehensible. Nothing constructive can possibly come from such unnecessary, ad hominem drivel. You are entitled to your opinion regarding partisanship, and I believe that Austin has handled your argument well. However, you have debased what reputation you may have had here by attacking Laurie’s character without provocation. Laurie has never publicly attacked the candidate you refer to, nor were any chance remarks she may have made in any way personal attacks. Thus, I urge you to acknowledge your own hypocrisy here, sir, in your personal attack on Laurie. Furthermore, the assertion that any remarks she may have made about a particular candidate somehow delegitimize her profession of the Christian faith is wrongheaded and imbecilic. Attacking a politician on principle, professional background, or voting record is in no way unloving or un-Christian. Had Laurie made personal attacks of a slanderous or malicious nature, you may have an argument. However, you will find no evidence of such statements, and therefore you are in no position to question the faith of a person you have never even met.
The AM blog is a place for the dissemination of useful information and the free discussion of ideas, and you have polluted it with your unsubstantiated, vitriolic claims. I appreciate your readership, but I strongly urge you to be considerate of what you post here in the future.