Saturday, December 12, 2009

Apaches at the Tea Party

Writing at the American Spectator:
A few weeks ago, I had a long conversation with a liberal journalist who asked me, "Who do you see as the leader of the conservative movement?" I didn't have an answer, but Richard Viguerie is onto something when he emphasizes the "leaderless" quality of the Tea Party grassroots, quoting a historical study of the Apaches: "You wanted to follow Geronimo? You followed Geronimo. You didn't want to follow him? Then you didn't. The power lay with each individual." . . .
Read the rest at the Spectator, and also read Viguerie's thought-provoking article at the American Thinker.


  1. There is a period of about 1,000 years in Irish history in which the emerald isle was literally stateless. The clan, or "tuath" was the primary instrument of social structure. Membership in a tuath was voluntary, not hereditary, and one could move to a different tuath if one wished. Enforcement of contract and other legal issues was handled by tuath elders. If the offense was intra-tuath, the guilty party either abided by the elder's pronouncement or left the tuath, but if the latter, he would be shunned and would be effectively "out of business."

    For most of that 1,000 years, the Irish were essentially unconquerable by outsiders. There was no there, there; i.e., no king to depose and replace with another; no government to topple. The place was amorphous, essentially ungovernable in the modern, top-down, command-and-control sense.

    While this structure ultimately proved vulnerable to the rapacious Brits, it kept individual freedom alive for a millenium.

    More power to the "leaderless" TEA partiers. The movement is much less likely to be co-opted by GOP hacks if there is no party structure that they can infiltrate and take over.

  2. Did the Apaches win?