“The answer is leaderless counter revolution.”
Which is what the TEA party really was. Keep in mind that having a leader is to draw a target on one person or a small group. That is what has proved so vexing for the opposition: there are few prominent individuals for them to target alinsky style.
I think the author, though, is going further. Not so much leaderless groups as leaderless individuals.
Leaderless revolution was the response to Alinsky tactics of asserting that Republicans should have no role in government if they ever failed to get 100% on a test (stupid), had any personal problems in their relationships (Reagan was divorced), survived cancer (McCain), or had a religion that could be mocked (Romney’s LDS faith).
With no leaders, there is less that the socialists can say.