The Organizational Secret of the Tea Parties

American Thinker ^ | September 24, 2010 | J.R. Dunn

[neverdem]

American politics has never seen anything quite like the Tea Parties, though few appreciate the revolutionary organizational principle powering the movement. A major reason why the Tea Parties have been so successful, why the political establishment has found them so difficult to combat (and one that explains, among other things, why I've chosen to use the plural in referring to them), lies in their organization.

The Tea Parties comprise a distributed network -- a non-hierarchical system of autonomous nodes with no central control point, and with all nodes possessing the same value and freedom to act independently. A distributed network can be compared to a beehive. All the bees know their particular task and complete it autonomously, without directions from a central authority. If a threat appears, the bees overwhelm it not by direct confrontation, but by swarming, driving it away with sheer force of numbers.

Readers with a background in computer tech will recognize the distributed network as the preferred method of organizing computer networks, including the internet itself. Distributed networks are far less vulnerable to breakdowns and intrusions than hierarchical networks. In a hierarchical network, once the control nodes are knocked out, the system is kaput until they are replaced. In a distributed network, the damage is absorbed by the entire system, with the disabled nodes shut down and operations rerouted to working nodes. As we've seen with the net, this makes the system nearly invulnerable. (No surprise there -- DarpaNet was designed to withstand full-scale nuclear strikes.) Since the net went public, the concept has been adapted in other sectors of society, resulting in similar social and educational networks. It would not be going too far to say that it has become the representative form of organization of the millennial world. As such, it has inevitably found its way into the nation's political life.

Unlike the internet, the organization of the Tea Parties was generated not by design, but spontaneously. The movement began with a television commentary by Rick Santelli on his Chicago-based CNBC business program. Santelli was extremely critical of Obama administration business policies, and he utilized the 1773 Boston Tea Party as a metaphor in calling for resistance against the administration. Although Santelli was ridiculed in the legacy media, something in his commentary touched a chord with the public. Word of it spread among concerned citizens across the country through the net, Twitter, and Facebook. A video of the show went viral. The political establishment ignored it as yet another empty internet fad.

But it was no such thing. The anxiety and anger exposed by Santelli's words found an outlet in that summer's town hall meetings. Long reduced to a method of Rockwellizing an unsavory political establishment, town hall meetings provided an opportunity for politicians to strut in front of constituents, boasting of how many earmarks they'd obtained, how many deals they'd made, how much money was flowing in. The public was expected to listen in quiet gratitude.

But it didn't work that way in 2009. For the first time in years -- decades, in some cases -- the voters had real questions, involving the run-amok policies of Obama and his tame Congress. They wanted to know about the TARP bailouts, the payoffs to the banks, the GM expropriation, and particularly about the pending health-care takeover, possibly the most loathed political action of the past fifty years. But the politicians had no answers. Such an onslaught was totally unprecedented, leaving most representatives nonplussed and overwhelmed. The majority fled from the meetings pursued by waves of voter contempt.

The town hall uprising at last attracted media interest. In customary fashion, media figures were less inclined to learn the facts than to wax frivolous. Members of the new movement were dismissed as "teabaggers," a gay slur introduced by Anderson Cooper. (And a puzzling one -- surely, a "teabagger" is the one who performs the act on a submissive partner. Cooper must have known this. Was he making an indirect reference to the status of politicians vis-à-vis the voters?) The legacy media also attempted to tar the movement with accusations of racism, classism, and xenophobia, portraying the members as snaggle-toothed trailer trash manipulated by clever reactionaries. Nancy Pelosi denounced them as astroturfers.

None of it stuck. The Tea Parties continued organizing through early 2010, utilizing innovative infotech methodology. (Thank you, Al Gore!) Conservative media, both traditional and online, offered full support (with a few not unexpected Northeastern exceptions). Astute politicians -- Sarah Palin above all -- laid down their markers. The passage of ObamaCare in March served to supercharge the movement. The Tea Parties responded with an effort to recruit and support citizen politicians, for the express purpose of turning the American political structure inside-out. As this is being written, the despised and dismissed Tea Parties have become the major factor in the 2010 midterms. They have wrecked the careers of at least five notable GOP figures and threaten perhaps ten times as many Democrats.

All this has come about with no explicit organization, no leadership, no central committees, no manifesto, no charter, no written plan whatsoever. Santelli played no active role after his original exhortation launched the movement. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and other media figures offered support and guidance but in no way acted as ringmasters. The same is true of Sarah Palin, who, while more than a simple figurehead, would likely be the first to admit that she did not act as a leader.

The organization of the Tea Parties, and the effects produced by that organization, are emergent properties, rising out of nowhere with no planning, forethought, or external input, coming into being solely as a result of the exploitation of the available technological substrate by individuals and small groups. And yet this movement has shaken American society and has gone a long way toward overthrowing the reigning political superstructure. This is an astonishing chain of events, one that deserves a lot more analysis than it has yet received.

Military strategists, particularly students of guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency, will recognize the similarities between the Tea Parties and guerrilla forces along with (to be forthright) terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. The concept of the guerrilla force as distributed network was formalized by Mao Tse-Tung in the 1930s, when he sent small units of his Eighth Route Army to live in villages alongside the peasantry to serve as protectors and propagandists for the Maoist version of Marxism. The resulting network acted as a formidable basis for resistance against Nationalist forces. The concept was later adapted and bungled by Che Guevara. The jihadis have attempted to construct an equivalent structure with limited success -- you can do only so much with misfits and losers.

The difference is, of course, that the Tea Parties represent democracy in action. Motivation and goals make all the difference. Modern technology allows almost pure democratic activity on an informal basis. The results have been beneficial up until now. We must work to see that they remain so.

I will merely mention that distributed networks have a number of weaknesses, and they can be defeated. I will not go into detail on these matters here.

How will such an informal network convert to a formal political system to replace the innately corrupt kleptocracy that we have today? This, it seems to me, is a necessary evolution to assure that upcoming reforms are not simply shoved aside or undermined once the national political situation returns to normal. This may well turn out to be one of the most profound political questions of our era. It's not one that's going to be answered in a single essay.

Or is it conceivable that the distributed network embodied by the Tea Parties could become a political system in and of itself? This is a tantalizing possibility. In ancient Athens, the citizenry met as a whole to decide critical questions. Could such a system return in our day, with the net and Twitter and Facebook replacing the Athenian agora? How would this function in relation to established constitutional principles? How, under such circumstances, do we preserve the safeguards of representative government?

In an insightful scene in The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, Victor Hugo has an archdeacon look up from a copy of a printed Bible to the cathedral and think, "This will kill that." And so it happened -- mass literacy, cheap books, and the vernacular wrecked, both for good and ill, the closed, hierarchical, yet secure medieval world. Today we look up from our Blackberries and iPods to the Capital, and think the same thing.

And what will come of that?

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and will edit the forthcoming Military Thinker.

[American Constitutionalist]

Unbeknownst to the liberals who think that they can figure this out, they will never figure out what the secret is because we get our inalienable rights from God.

[MNJohnnie]

will recognize the similarities between the Tea Parties and guerrilla forces

Good point.

[Texas Fossil]

The movement began with a television commentary by Rick Santelli on his Chicago-based CNBC business program.

Wrong. This is only the recent manifestation of this part of our culture and society. Years ago I was one of many who mailed tea bags to Congressmen. The web was not a part then, but it happened none the less.

This is not to knock down Rick Santelli's input, but it existed before him. FACT.

[jessduntno]

“Unbeknownst to the liberals who think that they can figure this out, they will never figure out what the secret is because we get our inalienable rights from God.”

President Barack Obama left out the words “by their Creator” when he directly quoted from our Declaration of Independence while speaking to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on 15 September.

Obama paused for 4 seconds, grimacing and scowling at his teleprompter, and continued to say,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

What Thomas Jefferson stated in our Declaration of Independence is,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Perhaps Obama’s teleprompter did not show the words “by their Creator” for Obama to read? It is possible that Obama purposefully left out these words. We could also suspect that Obama may not be all that familiar with our Declaration of Independence.

As a Progressive Socialist, Obama believes that the rights of the people come from him and the government Elite. Socialists cannot tolerate the people relying on the strength they receive from God, guns, and family. The omission of his primary competitor is probably why Obama omitted “Creator” from his speech.

http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2010-09-22/obama-takes-god-out-our-declaration-independence

[ComputerGuy]

Roger that.
Should the GOP be so stupid as to send me another request for $$$, guess what they'll get in return.

[GraceG]

Liberals LOVE the commie system of a “dear leader”. A distriduted network type model is an incomprehisible to them as the 3rd dimension to a flatlander.

[Mad Dawgg]

A goodly bit of the Tea Party success is due to they way they communicate. A lot of it is done on Twitter and Facebook and blogs.

Almost zero cost for a realtime communication network literally millions can partake of.

When Santelli spoke his famous Quote on CNBC I happened to be monitoring Twitter's Conservative hashtags (#TCOT and others)... you could literally see a digital tsunami building in those first few hours afterward.

The #TCOT monitoring page started lagging to the point it was almost an hour behind on updates and Twitter actually got overloaded not long after that.

But then once things settled down you could see the Conservative hashtag activity was up nearly triple and it was all about organizing Tea Parties all over America. And it stayed that way for months afterward...

[American Constitutionalist]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”...... many reasons why we can't say these words with a straight face as you clearly stated, he believes the state is supreme.
A person who believes in abortion can't say these words with a straight face either.

[Texas Fossil]

It is necessary for the GOP to have money to operate, but those in charge often don’t spend it on the appropriate agenda.

I am not in a position to help anyone financially, but the thrust of this movement is not about money or power, it is about freedom or slavery to the state.

[ntmxx]

“…the political establishment has found them so difficult to combat…”

Exactly what is the political establishment fighting? Uhmm, the citizenry voicing their opinions through no violent free speech without approval of the political class.

[pillut48]

Wait a minute!! I've been waiting for my check from the big lobbies and insurance companies since last year!! Does this mean my check ISN'T coming in the mail soon?!?!

Dang.

;-)

[jessduntno]

A person who believes in abortion can’t say these words with a straight face either.”

Yeah. I keep running into people who tell me they are atheists but conservative. I find it amusing, but kind of like Log Cabin Repuglicans, I just feel sorry for them.

[American Constitutionalist]

" When Santelli spoke his famous Quote on CNBC I happened to be monitoring Twitter's Conservative hashtags (#TCOT and others)... you could literally see a digital tsunami building in those first few hours afterward. "

Santelli's comment was more or less the shot that was heard around the world as in the official start of today's Tea Party movement, however, give credit were credit is due, there have been American patriots in the trenches fighting this battle long before Santelli made it official with his comments.

[American Constitutionalist]

SORRY ! typo mistake....

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”...... typo correction ( many reasons why HE ( Obama ) can't say these words with a straight face as you clearly stated, he believes the state is supreme. A person who believes in abortion can't say these words with a straight face either.

[The Duke]

For me the first modern Tea Party was Free Republic itself. Those who were here during the Clinton administration know exactly of what I speak. Freepers were active when it was American principles that were being violated. Now that it’s everybody’s wallet that’s being violated, suddenly it’s gotten popular.

[loveliberty2]

When speaking of the momentous happenings surrounding the founding of the Republic, the Founders referred to "the Governor of the universe," to "Divine Providence," to "nature's God," to "the Supreme Judge of the world," and to a "Creator" who endowed each person with life, liberty, inalienable rights.

Such references imply that such a force stirs within individuals to bring about collective action. The idea underlying the America Declaration and Constitution was for self government, where the written Constitution would be in agreement with the unwritten constitution in the hearts and minds of the individuals in the society.

Inasmuch as the essential ideas of liberty are enduring ideas, appropriate for all individuals in all ages, as a means for attaining ordered liberty, could one imagine that Divine Providence still wishes the light of liberty to shine from America wherever there are hearts ready to rediscover and promote those ideas?

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no court, can even do much to help it."

        Justice Learned Hand

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."

        Abraham Lincoln

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

        John Adams

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

        Patrick Henry

[bigbob]

Good as far as it goes but doesn’t focus on the key point - the core common sense conservative principles that lie at the heart of all Tea Party members/groups. You don’t need to send an email or tweet to rally Tea Party members around an issue or candidate - as long as the principles - limited government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, lower taxes, and a strong national defense to name a few - are represented by a candidate or issue, Tea Party members will rally to support it.

The Dems and Libs are always about dividing into categories and then forming coalitions between groups that really don’t have anyting in common other than the misguided theory that government can solve their problem. Tea Party members on the other hand are one big coalition - of individuals who share the same core beliefs.

That’s why it exhibits emergent behavior...the Tea Party doesn’t need a list of talking points or loud caucuses to hash out what it believes in or what “nuance” to spin on any given issue. It just keeps collecting members and support from those who come to share the core beliefs.

[Domandred]

To keep the organization of the Tea Party straight I created a Visio diagram of the organizational chart:

It's so confusing without it.

[loveliberty2]

By and large, Tea Partiers know about the "unique idea" underlying the Liberty Bell's "Proclaim liberty throughout the land." It is described in the following essay:

A return to founding principles implies a quality the founders called "virtue" among the people, whereby the written constitution conformed to the unwritten constitution in the hearts of the citizens--individual faith, individual responsibility and accountability, individual hope, and individual charity. Such virtue did not allow for citizens, as groups, to band together to demand that their representatives in government do that which would be a crime, should they do it individually.

Our Constitution embodied a UNIQUE IDEA. Nothing like it had ever been done before. The power of the idea was in the recognition that people's rights are granted directly by the Creator - not by the state - and that the people, then, and only then, grant rights to government. The concept is so simple, yet so very fundamental and far-reaching.

CREATOR

People

Government

America's founders embraced a previously unheard-of political philosophy which held that people are "...endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights.." This was the statement of guiding principle for the new nation, and, as such, had to be translated into a concrete charter for government. The Constitution of The United States of America became that charter.

Other forms of government, past and present, rely on the state as the grantor of human rights. America's founders, however, believed that a government made up of imperfect people exercising power over other people should possess limited powers. Through their Constitution, they wished to "secure the blessings of liberty" for themselves and for posterity by limiting the powers of government. Through it, they delegated to government only those rights they wanted it to have, holding to themselves all powers not delegated by the Constitution. They even provided the means for controlling those powers they had granted to government.

This was the unique American idea. Many problems we face today result from a departure from this basic con­cept. Gradually, other "ideas" have influenced legislation which has reversed the roles and given government greater and greater power over individuals. Early generations of Americans pledged their lives to the cause of in­dividual freedom and limited government and warned, over and over again, that eternal vigilance would be required to preserve that freedom for posterity.

---

Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III:  ISBN 0-937047-01-5