Making it Official: The Potential of the Tea Party

According to an article by Kathleen Hennessey of McClatchy News Service that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on April 9, 2010, the tea party movement (note: depending on the writer, I've seen the word "tea" capitalized and, in some cases, both words capitalized) is forming "...a new federation intended to help the decentralized small-government movement get[s] its message out. But don't call them organized. The National Tea Party Federation will issue news releases, respond to critics and help spread the word about tea party rallies and initiatives, organizers said. But they were careful to say it would not change the loose, grass-roots structure of the movement."

Why not formally organize?

George Washington was not a fan of formal, organized political parties. In fact, he despised partisanship and argued it would harm our republican (small-case) form of government.

In many, many ways, Washington was correct. His thoughts on the matter, it could be argued, have come to serve as a prophesy that has been proven time and time again.

On the contrary, though, the absence of organized political parties goes against the grain of human nature. It is natural for individual humans to want to associate with others who share their own beliefs and values, and to want to join forces in an effort to actualize them.

Additionally, political movements in electoral politics, no matter where they fall on the ideological spectrum, lack a certain but significant amount of credibility when they are not organized as a formal party. Outsiders tend to look on them with suspicion, asking themselves if these movements are serious and wondering if they plan on sticking around long enough to have any truly meaningful effect on policy or, on the flip side, just staying long enough to make some noise and maybe even affect an election outcome once or twice before fading into obscurity or, worse yet, oblivion.

With that said, the tea party movement does expressly aim to seriously transform policy in a significant way and/by return[ing] the federal government to what it sees as its originally-intended state of existence.

So again, why not make it official?

If tea party movement leaders are in fact truly serious about their convictions, ideas, and goals (as an outside observer, I believe they are), they should take the necessary steps to formalize the movement into a party and call it the Tea Party.

For years, many Americans have expressed interest in wanting to see one or more viable "third" parties on the scene to compete in general elections against the Democratic and Republican parties. In the mid-1990s and early 2000s, the Green Party and the Reform Party gained some national interest with big names like Ralph Nader, Phil Donahue, Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, and Pat Buchanan. However, these parties soon fell into obscurity and are barely hanging on today. The Libertarian Party, though billed as the country's third largest political party, never quite lifted off the ground, either, but has fared a lot better than the Green and Reform parties.

The tea party movement may be on to something here. With its countless followers, fiery passion, and many Americans longing to see a viable "third" party, formalizing the movement and recruiting general election candidates to represent the Tea Party, as opposed to merely trying to influence Republican primaries, should be a no-brainer.