In U.S. politics, the independents have it

Consider the difference between the tea party and its antecedent on the left — the antiwar movement that came from out of nowhere to rally around the initially obscure presidential campaign of Howard Dean in 2003-04. Both movements have used distributed networks and social media to remind a major party that it was flouting a respected tradition within its ranks. Just as antiwar liberals in the George McGovern tradition had been taken for granted by pro-war pols like Bill Clinton and John Kerry, limited-government conservatives in the Barry Goldwater tradition had been openly mocked by both George W. Bush and John McCain.

But where is the antiwar left today? Largely domesticated and neutered. Dean was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee, foreign policy activists put most of their chips on the "antiwar" candidate Barack Obama, and now we have a Democratic president using grotesque euphemisms such as "kinetic military action" to justify setting the bar for military intervention even lower than George W. Bush did.

The tea party has so far strategically avoided that fate. Being a bottom-up movement, there is no leader to co-opt. Rather than serving as shock troops for GOP incumbents against Democrats, tea party activists have demonstrated a willingness to unseat even electable Republicans in favor of candidates who take seriously their mostly single-issue concern of limited government. While commentators love mocking them for backing such not-ready-for-prime-time insurgents as Christine O'Donnell, even the Republican Party is smart enough to recognize the power of a growing bloc that refuses to be taken for granted.