The red shirt and tea party movements: sea change or nuisance blip?

As hard as it is to give a unified definition of the two movements, common threads are present and echoed. They comprise people from all walks of life. They have joined the movements for various reasons, but all share a high level of rage, alienation, anxiety, discontent, dissent, suspicion and hatred. Their creed is "us against them", "populism against elitism", "common people against the establishment". They represent rebellion that started small and grew larger, collecting along the way footloose elements. They are often dismissed by their own powers-that-be simply as a loud and motley tail of disaffection, and not a formerly silent majority that finally found its voice.

The messages espoused by both movements are usually simple. Sarah Palin, the keynote speaker at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, last week, was ridiculed endlessly for her "Palm-prompter", after cameras caught several words scribbled on her left palm as she gave her speech. However, her message captured the essence of both movements: "This is about the people."

Both the Thai and American governments underestimate the strength and the size of these movements, and the extent of the resentment that feed them. Many would describe them privately as wacky, paranoid, misinformed, misguided and abominably foolish fringe groups. They do not regard the expanded sense of purpose of the movements as a signal of the beginning of a realignment of political interests.

Both governments take too lightly the agility and ability of the driving forces behind some of the movements' factions to spread the wings of dissent, and the gradual consolidation of the messages through leaflets, bumper stickers, media channels and social networking technology. In the US they have called the movement "astroturfing" - referring to a synthetic, top-down structure with the outward appearance of grassroots independence. The message here is similar. This is probably the gravest mistake both the Thai and American governments have made.

Instead of spending time dismantling the misinformation messages that have spread widely and wildly, the two governments continue to espouse the virtue of their own programmes that are becoming less saleable. By so doing, they fail to see the ominous political writing on the wall.

Some factions of the Tea Party are aligned with militia groups and have started arming themselves and even some ordinary "Partyers". The red shirts are supposedly creating their own "people's army".

In September 2009, the Tea Party rally at the Washington Monument comprised tens of thousands of marchers, if not close to a million, as the organisers declared, to protest the federal stimulus bill, bank bail-outs and proposed healthcare legislation. The scene and its commonality of purpose resembled that of the civil rights rallies decades ago.

On February 20, the red-shirt leaders promise us a million-man march to protest government dictatorship, whatever that means. It could be an event that demonstrates that this motley crew can actually roar. On that day, we may feel tremors in the social bedrock and a shift in the power centre.

That's as far as one can go in drawing similarities between the red-shirt and Tea Party movements. Upon closer examination, differences are abundant and glaring.

The Tea Party refuses to be the political contrivance of established politicians, be they Republican or Democrat. Some Republican apparatus, in an attempt to court the emerging new political force, tried to claim that there was "no difference" between the GOP and Tea Party beliefs. They said both want less, or no, federal government involvement in people's lives; less government spending; lower taxes; and no bail-outs. But the Tea Partyers are suspicious of the political parties and refuse to be co-opted.

The Tea Party coalition defiantly has no clear leadership. The member groups are led by political neophytes who value independence above affiliation. They believe that governments, politicians and economies are controlled by networks of elites, not ordinary people like themselves. While it is true that some Tea Party groups have off-the-wall and boorish ideas, they fiercely guard their independence and core belief regarding the corrupting effects of power.

Be it a political fringe or force, the Tea Party movement is showing signs of maturity, morphing from noisy rallies to channelling anger into "Electioneering 101". The member groups are beginning to recruit like-minded candidates and members to fill local government seats, with an eye on winning in national elections some day. Some of them are realising that holding placards and shouting at rallies is not going to make a difference in the political arena. Nonetheless, the movement, by and large, remains inchoate and diverse.

The red shirts have proclaimed de facto leader(s). They are waging war to further their leaders' causes. Despite the various bona fide grievances of the movement's members, they collectively are part of the established political machinery.

History has shown us that slogans, placards and shouting down political opponents is poor preparation for governance. Most angry, rebellious movements share a common tendency to grasp for simple solutions to complex problems. That's why, when they won, they were at their wit's end and became part of the problem, not the solution. Many failed to bring real change at the ballot box.

It is always much easier to tear something down than build it up.

Do you like this story?