Leader of a Movement? Or a movement of leaders?

The title here is awkward for a reason. You notice the first question is capitalized while the second is not. In the United States, there is a common social desire to designate leader, someone that represents your beliefs and has the intelligence, skill, and power to make things happen. This is not a political split, both left and right have this among them. But there is also a second common social desire. On both left and right, there is a desire to be part of a movement, part of something big that has no "leader" or "authority". The question is: are you a person who seeks out a leader first and then join his movement? Or are you a person who seeks out the movement or perhaps starts the movement?

The Democratic Party has had a love affair with icons or the leader type. In the modern era it started with John F. Kennedy. He came about in an age of television, which gave greater emphasis to aesthetics. Combining this with gifted oration, you had an icon. JFK had substance. Democratic leaders after that did not.

Today it is clear Barack Obama replaced Hillary as the Democratic icon. The Party rallied around a cult of personality for one and then the other. Obama lacked substance, but that didn't matter, he was the chosen one. Hillary had some substance, but her image was not as compelling and so the Party switched horses so to speak. He won the Presidency on his cult of personality and the aesthetics, not substance. They should be regretting it. Few can argue otherwise today.

It is not just Presidents either. In Congress, the Democratic Party is top down. Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Reid rule each chamber from the top down. The centrist leaderless movements or factions within each are cast aside for challenging the Obama-Pelosi-Reid leadership. Whether it is Blue Dogs or Bart Stupak. The bottom of the party that was not behind the top's agenda was forced to march forward with it.

Republicans are guilty as well. Republicans worship Ronald Reagan. An iconic image with substance, the red JFK if you will. In 2008, twenty years after he left office, Republicans quickly wanted to find the next Reagan. Problem was none were available. McCain was the top choice because he was an independent "maverick" type. People thought he was a better icon then Romney, Huckabee, or Guiliani. they were right. He selected another potentially great icon as his running mate, Sarah Palin. In the end, Obama proved the better one however.

What has happened afterward has been sad. After McCain's defeat, mainstream republicans are constantly "searching for a new leader of the party". They have been closely following Palin, Romney, Pawlenty, Steele, Bachmann, and Gingrich. But none of them will be the leader of the party. Palin, to her credit, does not appear she wants to be the new leader of the party. She decided to forego the typical track of serving out her term and then running for federal office in 2010. Instead she has joined the media side on Fox News and has become a vocal voice for grassroots groups and is participating in speaking engagements for other organizations. Cynics can argue she is trying to become a populist leader and will run for President in 2012, and maybe that is true, but it is a very unconventional path. Some top republicans are thus wrongly pessimistic or nervous because they have yet to find a new leader.

The Tea Party is the opposite. Members are not looking for a leader. They don't have a chairman, a president, CEO, delegates, central committee, or anything of the sort. In fact, try and find the national tea party website, it does not exist. They are not interested in finding a leader or coalescing in any centralized structure. Those that are part of the Tea Party Movement want to be part of a headless movement, not the bottom-rung of a pyramid organization. The Tea Party has no hierarchy to speak of.

There are drawbacks. Without a leader, there is no coherent grand strategy. The Tea Party does not have specific electoral or political goals. There is the "Contract From America" and various groups making endorsements but it is not unified in any single strategy. This can result in tactical mistakes, such as running multiple candidates and splitting the vote, allowing the opponent to win. Another possibility is one regional group at odds with another. This has yet to happen however. Despite this drawback, the movement can still succeed.

Tea Partiers see politics differently. They see politicians as levers that they pull, not the other way around. They have their favorites, they choose candidates and vote for them, but now a days they are prepared to vote them out just as quickly should they fail. They dislike both parties, they are not partisans at all. In particular this will happen with the Republican Party. Incumbent Republicans are being challenged from within their party in Arizona, Utah, and Florida. The Republican Party itself is no longer supplying the leadership and the direction. It is the voters and supporters. That makes things unpredictable and incoherent in the long term, but not the short term. In the short term, this can dramatically strengthen the Republican Party and give it better direction. By 2012, the Tea Party and all other associated movements will have to select their choice as the next President. Clearly they don't want Obama back. It is then they will be forced to designate an actual leader.

The changes in the country over the last two years has shifted a major part of the country away from this "cult of personality" or search for a leader of a movement. It is instead trying to become a movement of leaders. It is difficult and chances of success are typically low. But I think in 2010, they might pull it off dramatically changing the composition of the House and the Senate. We could see a different Washington in 2011-2012 but if the movement is to succeed they must continue into 2012 in order to change another third of the Senate and the President.

More on the Tea Party: Not Radicals

This is from my Princeton Fox Blog, so it is more directed at Northeasterners. Here is what I have observed as contrasts between places like Illinois, North Carolina with New Jersey:

I am frankly surprised at the misconceptions and total lack of knowledge that New Jerseyans have of the Tea Party. It is clear the media, journalists, and others have successfully written them off as radicals, racists, and revolutionaries. And you have bought it.

The Tea Party Platform
The Tea Party is a loose confederation of conservatives, libertarians, concerned citizens, unaffiliated voters, conservative democrats, and independents. These groups may have their own top issues or most important agenda items but there are three main common themes:

1. Limited Government (in both power and dollars)
2. Individual Freedom (protections for religion, speech, right to bare arms, states' rights)
3. Free markets (strong rejection of socialism)

Gallup surveys showed the Tea Party's demographics are fairly mainstream. In other words, they are not All-White, All-rich, All-Christian, All-Republican, or All anything.

So really what makes them tick? The massive growth in government spending, the national debt, the increase in government power in areas of the banking sector, finance, healthcare, student loans, and automobiles. This political event alone is what awakened them. And I say awakened for a reason.

Gallup has also consistently shown this is a center-right country, 40% identify themselves as conservatives and other polls show that 50% or more have fiscally conservative views. Only about 26-29% of people identify themselves as liberal. And yet the Democrats won 255 of 435 seats in the House, and 60 of the 100 seats of the Senate. Obama won with 53% of the vote. How is this possible? Why is it that the Republicans don't dominate American politics???

The Awakening of the Right Wing
Like I said, this conservative side has only recently awakened. There is a segment of conservatives that don't vote because they regard both parties as essentially the same (and have a good case for it). However, the political battles and divergence of policies between the two parties in the last year and a half has changed that sentiment and "awakened" this segment. In other words, Obama's left-wing agenda awakened them. Had he practiced some moderation in his policy proposals, this movement might've remained asleep.

Another segment of the Tea Partiers simply don't vote because they don't feel their vote really makes a difference. Most of this type are not politically active at all. They have these beliefs but would rather keep to themselves and keep their beliefs to themselves. They have been convinced by televisions, movies, and other media that their beliefs are radical fringe right-wing ideas and that they would be ridiculed if they got more vocal of them.

Another segment is the far-right wing. They are a very small group, probably about 5-8% of the total population. They are militias, Christian Fundamentalists, most of them probably racist, and are in many respects anarchists. They may align themselves with the Tea Party, but a vast majority of the other groups in the Tea Party regard these people as crazy, just like the rest of the country.

The final segment, the largest, are disenchanted Republicans and fiscal conservatives that felt their party failed them and did not vote in 2008. This group is the most politically active in general, vote often, but this changed due to Republican failures in 2005-2007. They stopped identifying themselves as Republicans and expressed utter frustration with their party and the country as a whole. this segment was likely to awaken regardless of how leftist Obama's agenda was. It is the combination of this group with the others that give the Tea Party tremendous potential. They are reaching into populations of non-voters and even unregistered voters. Not to mention the fact that Independents are steadily realizing that the Tea Party reflects their ideas in regards to the deficit and government spending.

So, are they racist? Maybe 1 in 20 has white supremacist beliefs, AT THE MOST.
Are they anarchists? No, not even close.
Do they advocate overthrow of the government? No
Are they Christian Evangelicals or Fundamentalists? Many of them are, but none of the issues they are demonstrating for are related to religious or social issues. Sometimes yes, but like I said government power and spending are at the top of the list.

And it is important to note, the Tea Party is steadily growing. Gallup and other surveys show that more Americans consider themselves part of the movement in comparison to three months ago.

So what is their objective?
The slogan most often heard at Tea Parties is "Remember in November". A political protest and demonstration that wants to increase energy AND VOTE. What a bunch of psychos right? They are supporting candidates, donating money, hell they are voting in record numbers! MY GOD, they are going to tear this country down!!! They are critical of a Black President! Surely they are racists!!! By that logic, a Black President is infallible.

A Cautionary Note for Northeasterners
Most Americans do not live within 100 miles of New York or Washington. Most Americans do not get their news from the Big 3, or CNN, or MSNBC. Most Americans are not afraid of guns. Most Americans are not afraid of God or Christians. Whatever sophistication or education level you have achieved, remember you are in the minority and if you fail to take movements like the Tea Party seriously, you will remain in the minority in a sort of hyper-urbanized bubble of the East Coast from DC up to Boston. You are a minority and I think its time you do a MUCH better job understanding the rest of the country and their beliefs because in my experience in New Jersey there is a poor level of understanding.

Self-identified Republicans and moderate conservatives in the Northeast seem to be somewhat elitist and arrogant similar to liberal democrats. That must change. Not only Republicans but Northeasterners in general because last I checked the Census projects Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be losing electoral votes to Texas, Utah, and Georgia.

Its time to make a better effort to understand the rest of the country. Because there are more of them than you, and in November, more of them will win election to the House and Senate while Democrats will likely still dominate the Northeast.

The Polarity Strategy: Demagoguery

Politics is almost always saturated with the use of the polarity strategy. Polarity requires one designate an enemy, a wrong, or some sort of bad trend that compels people to act. In war, its the use of propaganda to get the people personally angry at the enemy such as the characterizations of the vicious bloodthirsty Japanese in World War 2, or even when the Nazis used constant propaganda techniques to demonize the Jews, then the Poles, then the Soviets. It stirs the people into anger and they demand action.



It does not need to be a specific enemy or person. It could be a crime. Groups have always used the traumatic imagery of tragedies to stir anger and mobilize the people to action. A little girl kidnapped from her parents, sexually assaulted and murdered successfully mobilized people into utilizing the new Amber Alert, increasing punishments on sex offenders, and creating the sex offender registry. Mothers of Drunk Drivers (MADD) would tell vivid stories of their family members lost in auto accidents involving a drunk driver. That raised the drinking age to 21 and strengthened enforcement against DUI and raised the penalties. It is important to note that a cause pushed through polarity strategy isn't necessarily without merit or substance. Drunk driving and pedophilia are two things that certainly warrant attention and action. But it is a strategy, that is all, it can be used for any cause.



Today both political wings use it a lot. The right-wing demonizes abortion doctors, gay marriage advocates, the atheists of the ACLU, elitist liberals, greedy labor unions, and criminal illegal immigrants. The left-wing demonizes health insurance corporations, Wall Street, dirty industry, greedy doctors, heavy-handed police officers, reckless soldiers, cruel and greedy white men, and sometimes churches.



The left wing has also done an excellent job of using the dormant polarity strategy. That is, demonizing opposition to their own cause. Those who oppose public education programs are anti-children, anti-teachers, and anti-education. Those who oppose Universal Healthcare are selfish greedy people who don't want to pay for basic healthcare for the poor, the needy, and others. Those who oppose their Immigration Policies are racist, intolerant, and anti-American because the history of America is one of immigrants. Those who oppose their foreign policy are warmongering, imperialists, and anti-Muslim.



This multi-directional use of the polarity strategy has not been successful in swelling the ranks of the left-wing but has successfully persuaded a majority of moderates of the virtue of their cause. In this case, it has worked very well for Democrats over the past five years.



What about merit? What about substance? There is substance to some of their positions but that is not how they persuade a center-right country to back their cause. They need to use the polarity strategy, demagoguery, at every turn. Look no further than the Healthcare Summit. While Republicans argued numbers, specific provisions in the bill, and the overreach of the bill, Democrats told stories of poor Jesus in Reno, and other poor minorities who could not afford insurance and are suffering.



In the United States, in an age of cable news, the internet, and instant communication, demagoguery is very effective. It will continue to be effective as long as people vote on what they see and hear on television, on the internet or otherwise. As long as the facts are shrouded in darkness or distorted in public discourse, the polarity strategy will reign.



What is the counter-strategy to the polarity strategy? Well, one that has developed over the past couple centuries has been the demagogic tendency toward paranoia. As a faction continues to label individuals and groups as enemies, the list grows and soon one cannot help but wonder if that faction has become paranoid, irrational, and delusional. How can everyone be the enemy? How can so many be the enemy? It is more than just playing the "blame game", a faction that uses polarity to excess begins to lose its grip on reality, if it cannot stop itself from creating enemies. Aggressive tyrants are especially prone to paranoia (Hitler, Stalin, Mao). Push them to perceive steadily more and more individuals and groups as enemies and soon the rational observer will begin to see the paranoia.



What about the people? Will we ever come to realize we are allowing ourselves to be persuaded by a parade of demagoguery and fear? Some are coming to their senses, to be sure. But the reaction seems to be the demagoguery in the reverse, the demonization of the Democratic Party, liberals, and socialists. That is hardly an improvement. It is also equally divisive as the Democratic polarity strategy.



Another is to focus on the performance of the Democratic Party. According to the raw numbers, they have governed poorly. This has been used well so far but can be improved. The Democratic Party has been in control of Congress for almost 4 years now. And yet, we seem to look at a record only 1 year long. Bush may have been President, but the Democrats were a key player in the government policies of 2007-2008, the period that preceded the recession. One can also blend fact with fiction. One can argue Democratic policies likely led to the banking and housing collapse, or that they had an opportunity to avert the disaster but decided not to.



This is done all the time on both sides. Republicans are not quite as effective in utilizing this strategy. They need to get better.



Not only has the economy, financial reform, unemployment, and other problems arisen under their watch, but the outlook for the country is poor. Experts do not expect unemployment to return to 5-6% for at least three years. Meaning, Democratic efforts to bring us to economic recovery have failed. Economic growth is very weak and will be weak for years, hence the Democrats have done nothing but prolong the crisis, just as they did in the 1930s. The myth of the New Deal and FDR can now be broken with our recent experiences with government stimulus and centralization of the economy. The New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression, World War 2 did.



There is also another effect of the polarity strategy. The people want action, but who will act to punish the offender, destroy the evil cause, or stop the evil from occurring again? The Democrats have always promoted central government solutions, central government action. They do not want individuals, groups, or even state and local governments solving these problems. To them there is only one solution. Nationalization, Centralization, and government authority.



It is important to point out: every action exerts power and authority. By calling for action, the Democrats are asking for more power and authority.



Who do Republicans want to give power and authority to? Well, taxpayers and businesses. Unfortunately that comprises barely half of the population (only half the country pays federal income taxes), and businesses are not visible people with families or dreams. What about state and local governments? Very few Republicans seem to want power or authority in these areas to solve these problems. They argue the negative but offer no compelling alternative. At least it is not compelling to the non-ideological moderate.



Do we want to call people to action? As stated above, a polarity strategy to counter a polarity strategy is a troublesome idea. It is short-term and does not allow Republicans to hold the moral high ground. Even now they are no more popular than the Democratic Party. The Republicans seem to arbitrarily use substance and merit as well. Attempts to portray Democrats as paranoid has also been seldom used.



In my mind the Republicans should consider the following:



(1) keep control of the reverse polarity strategy, don't just demonize the Democrats, liberals, and socialists. That will help you make short term gains but it lowers your potential growth and exposes you to potential problems later on if popular opinion swings again.



(2) Portray the Democrats as paranoid, seeing nearly everyone as the enemy: Wall Street, industry, corporations, health insurance companies, doctors, police officers, soldiers, CIA agents, veterans, gun-toting Bible-thumpers, people on television, and anyone else you can get them to blame. Make them appear as if they are pointing their finger at everyone around them.



(3) Finally, find a way to occupy the moral high ground with clear alternatives unrelated to demagoguery. Your call to action should be one of disarming those who act. Government solutions always fail. Solutions are better left with individuals, businesses, but particularly state and local governments. It is time to look elsewhere for solutions and it is time Republicans become clear and coherent in their offering of alternatives.