Tom Kawczynski - Off the Record

I went to a tea party event today here in Pittsburgh.  It was scheduled for 2 pm on a day the Steelers weren't playing, and with beautiful sunny fall weather.  By my best estimate, there may have been a grand total of 200 people there, and that might be generous.  It leads me to wonder what has happened.  I've seen times where many hundreds or even thousands have gathered, but the steam seems to be burning elsewhere.

With the utmost of sympathies to the people who are conducting these events, many of whom I know and work with personally, I think they're making a few critical errors in presentation that is hurting the movement.  So, here are a few lumps of sugar that might help to sweeten their cups:

1) Clearly Describe One Thing You Are Against and Want to Change

Going to these various events, I've noticed that there are often three interlocking, sometimes contradictory appeals being made.  The first is ideological, against people who think government should have a larger role in our lives.  The second is partisan, as there are often attacks launched against the administration and the Democrats (and a critique of a Republican, when made, is that they're really acting like a Democrat).  The third is systemic, in that there are institutions that are structured in such a way to disempower the electorate.

While there is merit in each of these claims individually, I think that combining all three makes the tea parties more diffuse than they could be.  It is a relatively small group who believes these ideas in conjunction precisely (the libertarians know this all too well!), and it alienates people from what could be a powerful movement.  I look at what is the largest problem, and what is most likely to attract the fullest support when I say that I think the systemic appeal would be best.

There is a compelling argument to be made that the system is broken, that neither party represents the interests of the people, and that representatives are too far removed from their bases.  It is something that appeals to political and apolitical types, and sets up a situation where you can work to support policies that give authority to the people by limiting the various governmental authorities.  Functionally, I think it would also help reduce government because people would not be as likely to vote for any cost increases as their elected officials have been.

2) Have Achievable Goals and Ambitions

In Pennsylvania, the gold standard was the "Clean Sweep" campaign that was run as a response to the legislature which voted itself a pay increase in the middle of the night.  Many people lost their jobs because it sparked a common and popular outrage, had a clearly focused goal, and focused on a single point.  That's how you unite people, and why issue groups are generally more successful than movements.

The tea party is a strong protest movement, but it lacks either a political solution or any other clear direction for what it wants to achieve.  It would appear the most likely result is that those Republican politicians who have been agitating at the edges of these events will simply use this as a recruiting tool, with history writing a story that they concocted these movements from the beginning.  I know that isn't the truth, but it seems to be becoming political reality because no clear alternative is emerging as yet.

My hope is that the leadership in our area does not allow that to become the case.  The successful groups in this region are those that are rooted in principles, and they should figure out what it is they are asking from the people in political space, ask publicly for the changes they desire, and seek to influence the process by shifting the agenda.  Although difficult, this can be done, and taking an approach based upon the ideas and ideals spawned by these movements is the best way to demonstrate there is independence and integrity within the tea parties.