This is an odd moment in politics. We’re often told that THIS election is THE most important election…ever! Even when they’re not they sometimes still feel like it.
While it can be argued that 2010 and 2012 are two of the most important elections we’ll ever take part in, it’s certainly one of the more interesting ones.
In the 1980’s many people rallied around Ronald Reagan’s patriotism and his can-do attitude.
Nobody really rallied to George HW Bush. The country simply loved Reagan so much that we wanted to do what we could to continue it and we did so by electing his Vice President.
Bill Clinton then was seen as the resurrection of Camelot. Remember how much the media showed that picture of a young Clinton meeting John F. Kennedy. It was portrayed as a torch passing moment. Many wanted it to be true. But that quickly devolved into cheap scandals, political triangulation, and ill planned lies.
George W. Bush rallied the nation around himself after 9/11 but he never had a political philosophy other than doing whatever he had to do to protect the country.
A clear majority voted Obama into the presidency, almost with breathless anticipation of what this man could accomplish. While the Obama movement was wholly centered around one man with a Mad Libs political philosophy with everyone filling in their own rosy adjectives at will, the Tea Party movement is all philosophy and no leader.
As Obama’s star diminishes many Americans have rallied around a political philosophy in a way that I’ve never witnessed.
This movement is seemingly unique in recent political history in that it has no leader. There are those, mind you, who aspire to assume the mantle of leadership but many politicians still fear the burgeoning movement. They’re wary of it as if it were a young colt they think they might be able to break but fear they’d just as likely end up with their butt in the dirt and a mouth full of hoof.
Still without a spokesperson, the Tea Party movement continues to grow mainly through the internet. This movement is the bizarro Obama movement.
As of yet, there is no leader. My fear is that the movement will be unable to attract political leaders because of an unrealistic demand for perfect purity in its politicians. Because if there’s one thing that politicians don’t like is a mouth full of hoof.
But this will be interesting to see how far the movement can go without a leader. It may have to because in 2012 we’ll see a grand battle. It’ll be the cult of personality vs. We the People.
The teleprompter vs. the internet.
June 14, 2010 at 4:19 am
"cheap scandals, political triangulation, and ill planned lies" Wait, I can't tell, are you talking about Kennedy or Clinton here?
June 14, 2010 at 3:37 pm
That's a good point, Kenny. Is Reagan the political leader of the Tea Party movement? Certainly the majority of the Tea Partiers would point to him as the ideal president, right? Are they looking for and only accepting someone like him?
Undoubtedly they are setting the bar so high it seems nigh unreachable by anybody currently in the political system. I would love them to keep it high, though and put a little heat and pressure on some of those politicians that do hold those ideals somewhere below the moss that has collected in their political careers. I think with the right application of this ground roots political pressure we will see by 2012 someone emerge who will act on those ideals. Like you said, Matt, this will be interesting.
June 14, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Wait a second…I thought the Tea Party movement was bigger than presidential nominees. From what I gather they're fighting taxation without representation. The whole movement has been branded because that is the way of the liberal "vilify then identify". If there were a leader to this movement they would be crushed worse than Sarah Palin was. On the flip side, its probably better there's no identifiable leader, it gives more credence to the voice of "we the people"…imho.
June 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Find the leader at:
http://www.iamtheteapartyleader.com/
June 16, 2010 at 12:40 am
On the flip side, its probably better there's no identifiable leader, it gives more credence to the voice of "we the people"…imho.
Not to mention de-centralized movements are harder to break up. If one person (Palin, either Paul, Barr, Napolitano, Stossel) were the leader, if they were discredited, the movement would stop.
As it stands, the Tea Party is big enough for everyone but the people who like being dominated by the government.