THE TEA PARTY’S TWO KEY STRATEGIC CHOICES

The Tea Party’s success came down to two critical strategic elements:

1. They were locally focused. The Tea Party started as an organic movement built on small local groups of dedicated conservatives. Yes, they received some support/coordination from above, but fundamentally all the hubbub was caused by a relatively small number of conservatives working together.

• Groups started as disaffected conservatives talking to each other online. In response to the 2008 bank bailouts and President Obama’s election, groups began forming to discuss their anger and what could be done. They eventually realized that the locally based discussion groups themselves could be a powerful tool.
   
• Groups were small, local, and dedicated. Tea Party groups could be fewer than 10 people, but they were highly localized, and they dedicated significant personal time and resources. Members communicated with each other regularly, tracked developments in Washington, and coordinated advocacy efforts together.
   
• Groups were relatively few in number. The Tea Party was not hundreds of thousands of people spending every waking hour focused on advocacy. Rather, the efforts were somewhat modest. Only 1 in 5 self-identified Tea Partiers contributed money or attended events. On any given day in 2009 or 2010, only twenty local events — meetings, trainings, town halls, etc. — were scheduled nationwide. In short, a relatively small number of groups were having a big impact on the national debate.

2. They were almost purely defensive. The Tea Party focused on saying NO to Members of Congress (MoCs) on their home turf. While the Tea Party activists were united by a core set of shared beliefs, they actively avoided developing their own policy agenda. Instead, they had an extraordinary clarity of purpose, united in opposition to President Obama. They didn’t accept concessions and treated weak Republicans as traitors.

• Groups focused on defense, not policy development. In response to the 2008 bank bailouts and President Obama’s election, groups began forming to discuss their anger and what could be done. They eventually realized that the locally based discussion groups themselves could be a powerful tool.
   
• Groups rejected concessions to Democrats and targeted weak Republicans. Tea Partiers viewed concessions to Democrats as betrayal. This limited their ability to negotiate, but they didn’t care. Instead they focused on scaring congressional Democrats and keeping Republicans honest. As a result, few Republicans spoke against the Tea Party for fear of attracting blowback.
   
• Groups focused on local congressional representation. Tea Partiers primarily applied this defensive strategy by pressuring their own local MoCs. This meant demanding that their Representatives and Senators be their voice of opposition on Capitol Hill. At a tactical level, the Tea Party had several replicable practices, including:
   
  • Showing up to the MoC’s town hall meetings and demanding answers
  • Showing up to the MoC’s office and demanding a meeting
  • Coordinating blanket calling of congressional offices at key mome

Some of that we are doing and it seems like terrific strategy. Remember, these are congressional ex-staffers writing about what works from that perspective.

Take a look at this part, as well:

SHOULDN'T WE PUT FORWARD AN ALTERNATE, POSITIVE AGENDA?

A defensive strategy does not mean dropping your own policy priorities or staying silent on an alternate vision for our country over the next four years. What it means is that, when you’re trying to influence your MoC, you will have the most leverage when you are focused on the current legislative priority.

You may not like the idea of being purely defensive; we certainly don’t. As progressives, our natural inclination is to talk about the things we’re for—a clean climate, economic justice, health care for all, racial equality, gender and sexual equality, and peace and human rights. These are the things that move us. But the hard truth of the next four years is that we’re not going to set the agenda; Trump and congressional Republicans will, and we’ll have to respond. The best way to stand up for the progressive values and policies we cherish is to stand together, indivisible—to treat an attack on one as an attack on all.

Yet while this is good strategy for opposing policy between now and election time, come November 2018 it will be hard to beat something (Trump policy) with nothing (ours). So, in parallel we will also need to find common ground and shared values with voters.

For example, immigration, dear to us because of its applied unfairness and discrimination, is not as likely to be a rallying cry for everyone (the Russia story might be—it appeals to loyalty, patriotism, Rule of Law—but let’s set that aside for when it ripens).

Neither are premature calls for impeachment. This is not something that can happen until and unless Republicans are ready to act, or we replace them in 2018.

One area of policy we could probably work through is border security, different than immigration. Sane and rational policy here, be it enforcement of existing laws, a scaled down virtual wall but only where it makes sense, enforcement of policy for when visas expire, etc. would take a lot of the energy out of reactionary rhetoric. I suspect it will take some getting used to on our part, so we might as well work that out now.  

After, and only after, that’s done can we move to rational immigration policy, perhaps building on Gang of Eight policy work. Remember, it’s not likely to fly politically in this environment without preceding it with border security.

Another might be Voter ID that is not voter suppression. States like Virginia have decent policy, it need not be Wisconsin style, could be married to voter registration in a way that does not exclude or target people of color. Offer an alternative when the time comes, resistance to GOP policy now (see Moral Mondays in North Carolina as a model). 

Those are some ideas, but what are yours? With an eye to winning and not being right, where would you take us if you were a political strategist for the resistance?

Ideas welcome. Let’s talk about it.