You have to stand in awe and wonder at the rise of the TEA Party movement: ordinary people who have been leading perfectly ordinary lives; people whose only political involvement was a dutiful trip to the voting booth to cast a disinterested vote; and, once done, often complained of having to hold noses at the choices.

Then suddenly – though not unprovoked – and nationally, 10’s of thousands joined in a common cause expressing widespread disgust at completely detached governments hell bent on breaking our backs; breaking our will through policies bankrupting us economically while at the same time making intense encroachments on our liberties.

But, I ask, why a TEA Party movement? Why did 10’s of thousands of us take to the fields, capitols, and streets, take to forming coalition groups, take a begrudging but intense interest in politics with a renewed sense of the history of our founding and constitutional roots?

Just as interesting is that people known for actively shunning political activism have become intense political activists; only outside the political parties. If you agree that organizations reflect the philosophy of its members, and that to change that philosophy, you need to change the membership, why is it that we TEA Party participants didn’t come to the conclusion to overtake the party structures; to create necessary change from within existing structures; that, to change the political process, we need to change the political party?

Instead we are forming our own groups not only to stand in opposition to the party structures but to create a viable platform for our issues, the peoples’ issues, to be heard by party and politician alike. What does this say to, and about, party leaders? More importantly, might this say something about altering the future dynamics of politics? Or, will the movement, the TEA Party movement, ultimately fall into the “status quo ante”? Will we ultimately succumb to mimicking party politics and practices?

Without exception, organizations arise to fill a need not met by existing structures. Every charitable organization, every civic organization arises to fill a need. Every business, governmental, political organization arises to fill unmet needs. Looked at this way, the TEA Party movement can only be seen as fulfilling unmet needs; the need for responsive, sincere political representation plus the need for accurate, unbiased information no longer provided by a free press. Each of these institutions have failed miserably in performing their roles over the course of the last several decades.

Enter the TEA Party coalitions without form, structure, defined function, or coordinated purpose. Each with an eerily, commonly expressed philosophy of returning to our constitutional roots and limitations, a belief in free markets, a fear of lost personal liberties. The movement has captured the attention of precisely those failed institutions of press and party mentioned above. The attention has oftentimes been unflattering, even abusive.

But, where are we going? What road will the movement take?

As political novices, TEA Party groups debate among and between one another about future courses, direction, and activities. Some individuals attempt uniting far flung groups under one umbrella and assert their own personal vision for the movement; force their own personal leadership across the movement. Forming larger coalitions, like other large bureaucracies, results in failure. The larger the breadth and scope, the greater the probability of diffusion, loss of focus, blurring of goals. Failure.

Others argue over parts in scoring or approving candidates; assuming roles as budding kingmakers or power brokers. One major party refuses to participate in forums held by TEA Party groups, so, invitations to candidates of the other party, for the purposes of giving a “Seal of Approval” through some sort of endorsement, not only leads to charges of being one-sided but inevitably leads to divisions within the movement from those who support opposing candidates. Divisions will be exploited by established power structures.

Uniting across boundaries or becoming clearinghouses for candidates makes groups indistinguishable from hardened political PACS and other lobbying interests. And when seen from outsiders, others will conclude that nothing is changed. The groups become different faces of the same corrupt politics. Therefore, TEA Party groups must stay away from party politics, semblences of PACS, and all their traditional practices.

How does the TEA Party movement keep its basic beliefs intact? How does it not align itself with either party but still assert influence on outcomes? How does it stay viable?

TEA Party groups should make the discussion of politics socially acceptable. No longer abide the adage of not discussing politics and religion in polite company. Our founders believed it essential to have an informed and involved public. Not discussing politics cedes political power to those who will hide issues from us and corrupts the process.

A common TEA Party objective is to educate and inform (the traditional role of journalists who have become merely propagandists). TEA Party groups should fulfill that lost informational role. We should present facts relating to our local communities and champion community issues; become reliable outlets for reliable, local, information.

Consequently, TEA Party groups drive the agenda at the local level. Thinking globally and acting locally has given us the mess we’re in now. Our founders believed, ‘that governs best which governs least’. Thinking locally and acting locally reaffirms our founders’ principles. It redirects attention of the electorate to the local issues most affecting them. A global view invites hubris.

Research and address local issues. Communicate facts. Use whatever media and methods appeal to the local electorate. Actively engage the public. Eventually we demonstrate neutrality, attract others who wish a return to our constitutional republic, and make inroads to influence both major parties. This should become a model for others.

TEA Party groups must hold elected officials publicly accountable. Establish regularly scheduled meetings with elected officials. Invite public participation. Discuss the local issues most important to your respective communities. Keep in constant contact with elected officials. This will ensure our views are represented.

Elicit and publish officials’ responses to, and their stance on, the issues. Publicly call out any official who betrays his stance. Encourage your membership and community to call in support of your representative or to voice opposition to their activity. Replicate this process to party leaders of both major parties. By listening to us, we advance their political careers and our cause. By ignoring us, we shorten their careers.

Finally, TEA Party groups exhibit the naiveté all fledgling movements experience. The movement’s naiveté is a blessing and a curse. Naiveté is indispensible for creativity; seeing things from a fresh perspective; deriving fresh approaches. Naiveté may also lead to ruin and subversion. Attempts at creating larger entities even performing traditional political practices creates factionalism and encourages attacks from established power structures; subverting the groups.

I would argue that the TEA Party movement can establish itself as the vehicle for returning our country to its constitutional roots. I believe that that is the mission of each and every TEA Party group nationwide. I believe the TEA Party movement can sustain itself over the long run by predominantly keeping to local issues. I believe the TEA Party movement must stay completely neutral and avoid the appearance of one-sided affinities. Ultimately, I believe in the TEA Party movement.