Pols ignore tea party at their peril

Michael Dawidziak is a political consultant and pollster.

Defining the tea party has become a difficult task for elected officials and media commentators. Tea partyers defy definition and seem to like it that way. So, many officials and pundits have tried to take the easy way out by simply dismissing them as being ineffective and nonrepresentative of the majority.

Indeed, just this week, a CNN analyst stated that the tea party could have an effect in the Republican primaries -- clearly implying that this would be the extent of its influence. This kind of underestimating is not only shortsighted but potential electoral suicide.

For those who want to marginalize an opposing political faction, one of the oldest tricks in the book is to focus on its more extreme elements. That makes it seem as if the entire group is a lunatic fringe.

Look no further than the ongoing acrimonious debate about abortion. The pro-choice faction loves to personify its opponents as people who blow up clinics. The pro-life faction portrays its adversaries as people who promote late-term abortions. Neither side is being intellectually honest -- nor are they presenting an accurate picture of the majority of the opposing side.

These same tactics of distortion tried on the tea party have generally backfired. In some ways, the movement is very conventional. There have always been anti-tax elements in the American political landscape -- remember "no taxation without representation"? Opposition to the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767 fueled the colonists' desire for independence. And, of course, the British tax on tea in 1773 led to the famous historical incident from which the tea party partly took its name.

As government has grown and taxed and spent more, the anti-tax element has grown with it -- to the point that it's now probably more active, or at least vocal, than it has been since Revolutionary times. The Conservative Party and the Libertarians have devoted much of their ideology to fighting overtaxation. So in many ways, there's nothing new about the tea party.

In many other ways, though, the tea party is decidedly unconventional. And one of the major stumbling blocks to understanding it is the word "party" in its name. The word conjures up images of conventions, debates and symbols like elephants or donkeys.

Using this conventional definition, the tea party isn't a party at all -- it's a movement. And that makes it harder for those trying to understand it.

Political parties have a structure to them. They have town, county, state and national committees. There are chairs and spokespeople.

But the tea party has no structure. It's made up of dispersed and independent groups -- and that's the way its adherents want it. There's no national spokesperson who can speak for them as a whole.

Political parties want power. They want majorities in state houses. They want to control the governmental agenda. The tea party doesn't want power -- it wants influence. It's not looking to elect candidates with a (TP) after their name. Its followers want members of all parties to pay attention to its agenda.

Using that as the measure of success, it's dangerous to dismiss the tea party; it's already been remarkably successful.

Political leaders on all sides -- from the president on down -- are talking about cutting spending and taxes. The debate isn't centered on if we need to cut spending but where and how much.

In 1773, the British failed to fully comprehend the will and motives of the original tea partyers. There's a cautionary tale here for those who don't wish to repeat history.