By: David McCleary
The emerging groundswell of what Robert Reich recently referred to as the “mad-as-hell” political party reached a tipping point last week in its inaugural national convention in Nashville. Coalescing from a fractious and haphazard collection of right wing tax haters, the rapidly evolving Tea Party now includes big business hating Democrats and the increasingly powerful independents who are suffering from a significant case of buyer’s remorse. So far, leaders of this uprising have discounted the actual possibility of becoming a third national political party; but the potential is there. This quintessentially American development follows a fairly simple sociological formula: Spurious Leaders + Furious Followers = Power Redistribution.
The transfer of power from one chief executive to another in this country is a thing of beauty. It is a remarkable process and the envy of many governments around the world. However, while the country is adept at individual leader interchange, it is not nearly as accomplished with adjusting its supporting political infrastructure: the dual party system. The Tea Party’s emergence on a national level is significant because it signals drastic potential shifts in power within American society. Coming on the heels of what Gallup described as the most polarizing first year ever for an American presidency, the compelling question the Tea Party’s existence begs us to ask is: From what sociological ashes does this new organization arise?
Americans are opinionated about their leaders and about leadership. They expect leaders to honorably facilitate willingly convergent effort. Leadership is not the force of cosmetic compliance or a scarce resource to be hoarded; it is a social capacity that is only powerful when shared. The wish to govern purely from a majority position is a weak plea for domination that in turn sets the stage for exploitation. Collaborative leaders are expected to argue, disagree, debate, and thoroughly explore important issues. They are also expected to produce meaningful and tangible results. Restless Tea Party Americans have experienced enough discomfort with inept leadership to now demand significant change. The rapid evolution of their increasingly coordinated efforts warrants observation.
Valuing image over authenticity is not leadership; it is a preamble to monarchy and the ‘tea-partiers’ recognize this implicitly. Some members of the GOP thought the democrats’ super-majority in the Senate gave the liberals a political autocracy with the incumbent power to ram legislation down the collective throats of the citizenry. They were not completely wrong. Democrats did appear autocratic as they attempted to force a secretive health care package through congress. Their counterparts in the GOP appeared petulant with their new ‘no is our only response’ philosophy. It’s relatively simple. Spurious leaders infuriate followers. The Declaration of Independence made it very clear: “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another…” The actions of the original tea-partiers helped craft that language. Are their modern-day relatives crafting new and dramatic language of their own?
America’s previous answer to the troublesome aspects of the dual party political system has been the non-partisan “Independent” label. Independent voters often swing elections and encourage less polarizing, govern-from-the-center political leadership. The Tea Party’s recent rapid growth tells us that catering to the Independents and appearing to lead from the center is not enough.
The next ten years will put American leadership to the test in challenges that have never been faced before. China will probably surpass the US as the clearly dominant economic world power. Interest rates will rise. Droves of baby-boomers will flood the retirement market and strain a struggling health care system. The national debt as a percentage of GDP will almost certainly continue to rise thus endangering the country’s ability to borrow money. These issues foster appropriate anxieties and these anxieties are causing a sociological shift in American culture. The significance of the Tea Party’s emergence is this: The leadership of yesterday is unacceptable and the leadership of today is unapproachable. Change it. Make it better…make room for a new national political party.
David McCleary is the leadership author of Leaving Prisons: Release Your Trapped Value and CEO of www.FlawlessLeaders.com. His blog is www.David-McCleary.com
