Does The Tea Party Movement Need A Federation?

Dana Loesch doesn't seem to think much of the concept behind the recently formed Tea Party federation. I see the actual movement as less a starfish, or a spider, and more amoeba-like. As I recently said to a political operative not involved with the Tea Party movement, or this attempt at federation, that scares the existing political and political consulting class, because a large number of angry amoebae are hard to control, organize, direct and fund raise from. But as Dana points out, they're also all but impossible to destroy. So, there are actually some trade-offs involved here. And not everyone looking to organize the movement into some unified force has bad intentions.

I’ve said it before, the strength of the tea party movement (really, again, it’s not even a movement anymore, it’s the general public when 52% of them say that the tea party has a better grasp of the issues than congress) lies in its lack of a formal structure. Starfish verses a spider: which is harder to kill? Which has a head?

In my opinion, the existing loosely-conglomerated, somewhat state-wide model that looks to have created itself is doing well and could easily lose more than it gains by forming into some federation. Freedom is a challenging concept. But as I've mostly felt the Tea Party movement is all about freedom - from statism, or organized state control, the notion of its forming into some kind of federation at this point seems almost antithetical to me.

Given the state of communications today, I'm not nearly as afraid as some seem to be of the group not having a significant political impact because it isn't somehow more organized. And given the potential pitfalls such an organization brings with it, no matter how well intentioned the effort, I'm simply not sold on the need for a federation.

Read more on Dana's thoughts here. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Comments

[JayJay]

Please no Federation! This is a grassroots movement and that is really what makes it different and so effective. They are independent and do what they feel is needed in their area and for them and not because of some directive that has come down from on high. A federation would make it just like any other party but also give the left a true point where they can focus the attack. Instead of spiders and star fish think of bees and yes we really are bees in their bonnet... you swat one bee and perhaps may injure or kill it but the hive survives, if you torch the hive, you have wiped out the entire colony. We do not need to be giving them a target(hive). Another thing that Dana said is that we are all leaders, this is true and the way it should stay. If you make a true framework then there will be a power structure and we all know how power in the hands of a few can corrupt. We cannot take that chance and hope for America to survive or for the Tea Party Movement to survive. Just say NO!

[Huey]

Either grow or die. It's the nature of all organizations.

There is NOTHING incompatible with a myriad of "grass roots" organizations which OWE NOTHING to an umbrella, national organization but are a PART of that overarching organization. An organization can be national and organized WITHOUT being "top down."

But, the individual "amoebaes" will, once their ire dies out, die out along with issues which birthed them. It's simply impossible to keep such a degree of intensity for any appreciable length of time. I'm pretty sure that we can keep the fires stoked through November. Much, much less sure that we can do so through 2012. And, almost certain that any longer is virtually impossible.

A national organization, staffed by professionals can keep the embers warm -- stoking them as needed -- where needed -- as needed.

The notion that thousands of individual amateur organizations will be able to out-compete -- over time -- professional, permanent, organized and national (even international) groups such as SEIU is not one I give much chance of success.

[Live Free Or Die]

The Tea Parties of one state, or region, do not necessarily have the same issues/needs of another state or region. Tea Parties are free to affect the outcomes of both Democrat, and Republican elections, which both parties fear/loath.Give the Tea Parties a 'head', or central organization, and then watch the attacks come fast and furious from the Left, and Establishment GOPers.

[Elmo]

We the people.

That's it, the everything, the all.

Was out running errands, and felt compelled to mention to everyone I bumped into: are you going to the Tea Party on Thursday?

Some were genuinely interested. Asking if I was going to carrry a sign ... and what it would say (darn fookin straight I'll be there).

Bring your girlfriend/wife/significant udder, your kids, your parents, aunts/uncles, friends, neighbors. Put one foot in front of the other ... and MARCH!

[Beck]

Consolidate, and you create a single target for opposition. It can be frozen, isolated, discredited, attacked, and scapegoated with ease. Disaggregation and decentralization present an amorphous, moving target, parts of which can be wounded without fatally harming the larger whole. This is, in effect guerrilla war, and make no mistake, guerrilla war is what we are fighting. We are the insurgents--given the new status quo, we are the radicals. And we need to act accordingly.

[gb_in_tx]

My biggest qualm with having an umbrella National Tea Party Federation is that it will tend to attract political professionals at the upper levels. Those professionals will then tend to do what political professionals do. They'll treat their position as an end in itself, something to be protected. In the process, they'll do what is in their best interests. They'll end up moving inside of the Beltway and cocoon themselves. They'll then slowly become poisoned by the inside of the Beltway environment and lose sight of what they were supposed to be supporting in the first place.

In short, they'll do just what the GOP establishment did. They'll "conveniently" sell out the base.

No Thanks. The Tea Parties are local, grassroots entities and should continue to be just that.

[tim maguire]

Given that the Tea Party Movement has no true leaders, who are these people who purport to federate it?

In this respect, ti reminds me of the national organization for women--who authorized them to speak for women? and who authorized these people to speak for the Tea Partiers?

[GaMongrel]

I'm inclined to agree - a small government movement doesn't need (and shouldn't want) its own big form of government.

[ha_wa]

Federation idea is terrible. Now its an indestructible meritocracy. If it has a leader that will be a point of attack and weakness. If it is a legal entity that is a point of attack and weakness. Keep the movement too slippery to grab onto for these purposes. The current organization allows the best ideas to percolate up naturally. Everything is in plain sight. No one is assembling personal power, nor should they. No "professionals" PLEASE! gb_in_tx is 100% right. Politicians are the problem, not the solution. All amateur, all the time. The organization is complete, there is no leader.

[BobN]

Nice to see Dan gets it. We don't need no stinkin' leades. We don't need central planning either. Just like a free-market economy, the best solutions will be found by voluntary networking among many independent actors. Encouraging networking and providing resources (web discussion groups, et al.) is good. Having someone pretend to the position of national leader of the movement is bad.

[bruno]

I think it all depends whether or not it is a good idea. Perhaps there can be sort of a Federalism at work in tea parties with a non-centralized larger organization to lead in some areas and provide some direction. All of the real power and decision making will remain at the local level.

[richard40]

It depends a lot on what the nature of the federation is. A centralized commitee, with centralized direction, centralized policy, and centralized funding, definitely not.

A loose confederation of state and local tea party leaders, to share lessons learned, provide voluntary mutual support, and develop policy ideas that can be voluntarily adopted by state and local orgs orgs as they see fit, perhaps. Possibly also, some campaign pros to identify phony tea parties or tea party members, formed by the dems, to make the real ones look bad. Also to share the latest dem and media attack strategy used against the tea party with the state organizations, so they can counter it, also possibly good.

[Duncan]

Some people just HAVE to organize. These are usually people who LIKE meetings...

[Hunt Johnsen]

The biggest functional anarchy on the planet is Alcoholics Anonymous. One of the traditions states "Alcoholics Anonymous, as such, ought never be organized but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve."

This would seem to bed a pretty good template for the tea party to follow.

[htom]

Join and die, these days. A national organization would be beaten up with lawsuits by other national organizations. Let there be fifty-whatever Tea Parties, or more! No reason that northern and southern California can't have their own, to pick on a populated state. My understanding is that the Tea Party is desiring to reduce government, not grab the reins.

[Horatius]

Stay loose. There are many reasons. One of the most serious is that everyone these days thinks he has a junior politico decoder ring, which gives him unique knowledge on *exactly* how to do it--talking points, etc. Which is how we got into this mess. The best way to avoid having top-down solutions that snuff energy is to not have a top to start with.

The other thing is that if you are attempting to reinvigorate a Jacksonian spirit in the land--which you are--then the last thing you want to do is have someone of talent at the local level get shouted down by someone else saying "why don't we wait and see what the national folks have to say"--often as a debating trick designed to prevent the locals from acting in a way contrary to what that person wants. The strength of the movement should be that each person is able to see his/her impact and leadership *directly*--the organization is local, and does not rely on "permission" from a larger group.

What you really want are "committees of correspondence", with each tea party group communicating with all the others, but in a loose fashion. This way, best ideas get passed but any danger of top-downism is reduced. The heart of the movement should be people being able to make decisions locally to the greatest extent possible. The time has simply not come for a unifying effort yet--more time needs to be spent on driving home the point that local citizens can rule in their local communities, instead of relying on guidance from national organizations.

[Horatius]

I cannot reiterate it enough--the more local you make it, the more someone will come in and immediately feel like more than a pawn or face in the crowd. They will have ownership, and nothing will make this more long lasting than that.

Keeping it local, allowing the "natives" to make their own mistakes, as well as figure out the best methods, is how you are going to get your future civic leaders as well as drive home the point that this movement should be about putting the popular in popular sovereignty. Naturally, best methods should be passed along, but the best way to learn how to make decisions is to make them, at whatever level you can. Having the movement basically be locally focuses right now is like sowing your seed corn--if you do it right, not only do you get a crop to harvest later, but more seed corn for the future. Let us not take the harvest now, but continue to fertilize the fields. Federate only to the extent that it does not disturb local groups from forming and deciding things for themselves.

[toad]

With the Internet a decentralized organization can survive an attack on specific individuals and at the same time it can "Swarm" an opposing organization that is concentrated too much in groups with leaders prominently visible. Carvile and company were trying to identify specific tea party leaders for a destruction campaign. So far they've pretty much failed. Also The RNC a centralized organization is being bypassed by new campaign finance organizations. What I'm seeing is multi connections amongts local groups, tea party intersecting with Club for Growth intersecting with individuals money bombing individual candidates. Centralized newspapers going down to dispersed news organizations like the Examiner. The left concentrated in the old control nodes, schools, entertainment, governments, and NGO's. With Obama they stuck there heads up and now they are facing opposition from dispersed but united groups. State governments, tea parties, and etc. It is matrix vs. hub time in politics. To sum up the Tea Party doesn't need to form a federation or anything that could generate leaders. It's feeding of new politicians into the local levels is it's strong point in my opinion.

[Huey]

A "federation" of groups isn't necessarily a single organization.

Picture: Each tea party group (sometimes several in a single city) has one or more leaders. They are the people who contribute their time (and frequently money) to compiling mailing lists, phone numbers, contacts -- getting permits, obtaining speakers -- etc. etc. etc. The vast, vast majority of the "tea party members" simply ... show up.

Now, does anyone think that the LOCAL leaders actually LEAD the individual, local tea party members? Nah. They merely, for the most part, give a FORUM and a VOICE to those individual members, individual members who would cease supporting that group, those "leaders" the MINUTE that those "leaders" stopped articulating ideas which the individual members supported.

The same is true, for the most part about the LEADERS of those loose, localized groups. THEY wouldn't follow or remain part of any group which didn't adhere to the ideals of those individual leaders (ideas which are reflective of the ideals of the members of the LOCAL members).

Now, the NATIONAL groups (whomever runs it) will have no more CONTROL over the local groups than the LOCAL LEADER has over the individual members. The individual members aren't looking to join a group. They're looking to BE HEARD.

Let's say that a local group is ramped up about what's going on. But, they're in a solid "red" area, a "safe" seat with a solidly "conservative" (or suitable tea party) representative. Those people want to affect the NATIONAL discourse, but, since their representative is okay with them, how do they go about that? In the larger scheme of things, re-electing their "safe" representative doesn't really affect much since he's almost certainly going to be re-elected ANYWAY. But, if the conservatives don't take the House, THAT doesn't matter all that much EITHER.

So, which candidate should they back out of their district? How do they know? Are they expected to spend all their time learning which candidates on the other side of the country should be supported...which ones NEED to be supported...which ones which, if supported, might MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

But, even if a few of the individuals succeed in learning enough about the state of affairs of the district races (both primary and general) so that their donations (of time and/or money) are EFFECTIVE, how will those efforts link up with similar efforts of OTHER local groups? One group sends money here...another there...sending troops, time, and money scatter-shot all over the country ... diluted and INEFFECTIVE.

Instead, if those contributions were directed by people who know where it should go to have the best chance at taking over the house and potentially the Senate, then the same amount of resources could have a much more MAGNIFIED effect and have a much greater chance of SUCCESS.

Shouting in the wind...

[OCBill]

No federation. Unless it has no budget and no employees. Before you know it, some Bozo like a Michael Steele starts speaking for the federation members, or the national federation starts passing standards that member organizations must meet. Then there's the required payments to the national organization so the national "leaders" can go to conventions, strip clubs, and the occasional research junket to Aruba.

[ATL]

Federation? What are we? The EU? Seriously we don't need a "Federation", conglomeration, cartel, or dinner party because we are united behind the basic tenets of the Constitution. The only reason why someone would want to wrangle in all us angry yokels is because they smell money or worse. I think we have learned that the most powerful word we can utter is "No." We said no to socialized healthcare, no to Cap and Tax, and we can surely say no to this. We don't need a federation; we are already one nation under God, and for us to be anything else is a pointless waste of time.

[Jeff Davis]

I think we need a Confederacy!

[Ritchie The Riveter]

gb_in_tx is dead-on-target.

Any permanent institution ... no matter their intent when founded ... naturally trends towards making its own care-and-feeding its primary objective. That is why the professional-political class in BOTH parties have gummed up the works, despite the best of intentions.

If anything, I would recommend Tea Partiers execute a "guerrilla" takeover of the GOP infrastructure wherever possible and exploit it to advance truly-conservative candidates ... but keep the local Tea Party groups themselves from any formal alliance or merger with the political professionals within the GOP ... or with each other, for that matter.

Do that, and you can move like fish through the muddy floodwaters of the opposition.

[Tcobb]

That's the ugly thing about political movements in the 20th Century--the model was a "centrally planned" top-down pyramid type structure, both for the Left and the Right. Do you see where that got us? Little tiny brains were controlling the big bodies of dinosaurs, with the clumsy, stupid results that were inevitable under such a system.

The TEA party movement doesn't need any third rate Messiahs to lead them. Those people can stay in the ranks of the present political parties where they belong.

[JorgXMcKie]

Doesn't anyone read "Parkinson's Law" or "Parkinson's Law Revisited" anymore? I have a great idea!!! We'll start just a small centralized bureaucracy. What could it possibly hurt.

Jeez.

[And, yes, some people don't feel fulfilled unless there are many, many organization meetings where every possible topic it talked to death. Avoid them like the plague. Also, these meetings tend to be dominated by those with the hardest butts, largest bladders, and smallest brains.]

[M. Report]

Ever hear of the L-5 Society ?
It was a Grass-roots Space-activist group,until
it got big enough to be worth taking over;
I was at the yearly meeting when the Founders
were voted out by the misled masses of members.
The outgoing Founder asked 'Why are you doing this ?'
Next week the new leadership did a 180, from critics
to supporters of NASA.
The stakes are far higher here, and the takeover
attempts will be far rougher; Unlike the snake on
the flag, Tea Party organizations must stay separate
or die.

[Tcobb]

Ever hear of the L-5 Society ?
It was a Grass-roots Space-activist group,until
it got big enough to be worth taking over

Yeah--exactly. Focus upon "until it got big enough to be worth taking over." That's the challenge the TEA party movement faces today--scum wants to take it over. Don't let them.

[anonymous]

WE DON'T NEED NO STEENKING FEDERATION!
A federation would make the movement too easy to decapitate or co-opt.

[Keith]

The whole tenor of this discussion proves somthing: even people who clearly detest the idea of collectivization will coalesce around a deeply shared belief. That deeply shared belief is that top-down authority structures are, at their best, a necessary evil. I don't think the long term survival of the Tea Party has been anyone's real goal-we all just needed a way to amplify our voices. The spirit of freedom is alive in our nation's core! Our voice is being heard. Our memory of nearly loosing our freedom will persist for a long time and we will pass that spirit on to our children and everyone we know. It's probably best if the Tea Party does fade eventually, once it's served it's purpose. Another movement will rise to replace it, should it be necessary, as long as we pass on that spirit of freedom as it has been passed on to us.