Something fascinating is happening from a communications standpoint in the U.S. political arena: the emergence of a third influence, the tea party.
Setting our political persuasions aside, let's look at the communications implications of the sudden-- very sudden -- power being wielded by an organization that really is not an organization at all -- and therein lies its power. More on that in a moment.
The tea party movement came on the seen so fast, no one is quite sure what to make of it. But anything that gives voters more choices is a good thing. Our two-party system is dysfunctional from a communications standpoint, because it removes all nuance from any argument. It is utterly polarizing -- you're wrong, I'm right -- leading to a general dumbness in our political messaging.
If you are a Democrat and I am a Republican, I must disagree with you. I am defined by your label, and you are defined by mine. Those definitions, those labels, lead most politicians to check their brains at the door. In a polarized two-party system, candidates don't provide the public with a reasoned argument on the issues of the day, i.e. "Well, heath care is complex, let's break it down into its individual components and see where we agree and disagree and identify where we have common ground and work on those issues."
Such discourse would, of course, better educate the public, and would lead to beneficial policies based on what's in the best interest of voters.
But it doesn't work that way. For a Democrat to raise funds, he or she must brand the Republican opponent as an enemy to mankind, to be stopped at all costs, and "please send your donation TODAY to the following address...." The Republican's message is basically the same in reverse. So the public is left with two candidates who identify each other as demons.
Setting our political persuasions aside, let's look at the communications implications of the sudden-- very sudden -- power being wielded by an organization that really is not an organization at all -- and therein lies its power. More on that in a moment.
The tea party movement came on the seen so fast, no one is quite sure what to make of it. But anything that gives voters more choices is a good thing. Our two-party system is dysfunctional from a communications standpoint, because it removes all nuance from any argument. It is utterly polarizing -- you're wrong, I'm right -- leading to a general dumbness in our political messaging.
If you are a Democrat and I am a Republican, I must disagree with you. I am defined by your label, and you are defined by mine. Those definitions, those labels, lead most politicians to check their brains at the door. In a polarized two-party system, candidates don't provide the public with a reasoned argument on the issues of the day, i.e. "Well, heath care is complex, let's break it down into its individual components and see where we agree and disagree and identify where we have common ground and work on those issues."
Such discourse would, of course, better educate the public, and would lead to beneficial policies based on what's in the best interest of voters.
But it doesn't work that way. For a Democrat to raise funds, he or she must brand the Republican opponent as an enemy to mankind, to be stopped at all costs, and "please send your donation TODAY to the following address...." The Republican's message is basically the same in reverse. So the public is left with two candidates who identify each other as demons.
Which demon shall I vote for?
This is what I mean when I say the two-party system is dysfunctional from a communications standpoint. All reason and nuance is lost, and with it the opportunity for real progress.
Now, back to the tea party. It emerged as a little blip on the radar a very short time ago, drawing its identity from a mob of vandalous radicals who raised hell at Boston Harbor in 1773. Since today's tea party movement first emerged in 2009, candidates associating themselves with the tea party have become a potent political force, and this is a good thing for all of us, whether we be independent, Democrat or Republican. Because it will broaden our national political debate.
What makes the tea party work right now from a communications standpoint is this: utter anarchy. It has no leader; no organizational structure; no central headquarters; no unifying cause, message or definition. Indeed, within the tent of people who associate themselves with the tea party you will find people whose ideas are diametrically opposed. The unifying force is the need for something different. A political argument other than "I'm right, and you are wrong."
Law professor and commentator Glenn Reynolds said in The New York Post that: "These aren't the usual semiprofessional protesters who attend antiwar and pro-union marches. These are people with real jobs; most have never attended a protest march before. They represent a kind of energy that our politics hasn't seen lately, and an influx of new activists."
Democrats and Republicans cannot dismiss the tea party force; some have, at their own peril at the polls.
Here's the interesting thing from a communications standpoint: As soon as the tea party tries to organize, to hold a convention, to identify a traditional political platform, and appoint leaders -- as soon as it becomes structured and defined -- I predict it will become politically feckless and impotent and irrelevant and will be buried by the overwhelming resources of the two dominant powers. If the tea party (lowercase) becomes The Tea Party (uppercase, proper noun), I predict Democrats and Republicans will finally agree on something -- that a third party would be their common enemy. They would crush it.
But how can you crush a nascent, undefined network of Americans of all stripes with differing agendas? Without a leader, there is no one for the two major parties to demonize. Without a platform, there is no way for the major-party candidates to easily label and dismiss their tea party opponents with traditional political communication tactics. Instead, they will have to run against tea party candidates as individuals, based on what those individuals think and say and propose. This means our two major-party candidates will have to really engage in meaningful debate instead of the simplified, polarizing, right vs. wrong, good vs. evil dynamic in our current system. Among the two major parties, this new dynamic will befuddle the stupid major-party candidates and bring out the very best in the smart ones. I like that.
But I predict that human beings, who crave structure and leadership, will soon put a shape to the tea party. They will hold a convention and appoint leaders and become The Tea Party, an "official" party. And then the tea party is doomed.
It's power lies is in its very lack of a clearly defined platform or leader. Anyone, with any message, can associate with the tea party to rail against the two-party system that has created such gridlock for so long. Once it trades in anarchy for structure, it is doomed.
I hope that doesn't happen; but I predict that it will.
Have a great day,
Steve Cebalt, Author
The Communications Handbook for Nonprofits and Foundations
---
