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.