The various controversies that swirled around the head of the first national Tea Party Convention like gnats this weekend didn’t disappear, but neither did they diminish the success of the convention.

That’s good, because the convention, which was criticized for its “for profit” status and  high ticket price was worth much more to the Tea Party movement than any profit the Tea Party Nation could have made, even if all of the proceeds were profit, which they weren’t.

The Tea Party movement gets its power to stop socialist legislation and win elections from two things: numbers and passion. It takes a lot of ordinary Americans pushing in one direction to stop bad policy and influence political decisions.

The first national Tea Party Convention, hosted by Tea Party Nation, a for-profit corporation owned by Nashville attorney Judson Phillips, attracted more national media attention than any Tea Party event in the past, including the massive march on Washington last September. The media coverage, while not all positive, was the most dominant national story over the weekend, with the possible exception of the record blizzard that rolled through the Northeast. Nearly all of the coverage acknowledged the convention goers and the movement as a major force in American politics.  The extensive coverage was recognition of the movement’s influence. The national political media doesn’t cover bit players, much to the chagrin of bit players who think they deserve more attention.

Democrat pollster Pat Caddell called the movement the “strongest grassroots movement since the anti-Vietnam war movement.” Some may cringe at the comparison based on the issue, but that’s not important. Movements get and deserve respect from the power they yield, not the issue they support or oppose.

Media acknowledgment of power, legitimacy and relevance is important to any political movement because it helps attract more people, who want to make a difference, but don’t want to waste their time with fringe groups that make a lot of noise, but not a lot of difference.  The coverage of this weekend’s convention gave more legitimacy to the Tea Party movement than all the combined publicity it has received since its first rallies one year ago.

It’s hard to put a value on the attention the movement got this weekend, but if you could, it would be a lot more than Phillips made on the convention, and more than keynote speaker Sarah Palin made too, regardless of what either does with the money, which is really none of our business.

What’s next?

Two multi-part unanswered questions seemed to fascinate the media. What exactly is the nature of the Tea Party Movement and what will it be. The other – should it and will it have a leader?

Those are questions that will likely not be answered by any formal deliberation, but the answers will simply materialize over time. I’ll tell what I think the answers should be.

The Tea Party movement should remain an independent force, exerting pressure on political parties, candidates and elected officials from the outside, not from the inside. A force of 10, 30 or 50 million reliable voters who loudly agree on a few important principles can force candidates, sitting politicians and political parties to move toward a smaller, less expensive, less intrusive, more constitutional government. Once you become a formal part of any organization, you can become corrupted by the power structure within the organization. Remaining on the outside will be critical to the life and energy of the movement, even though members (and I use that word loosely) will naturally tend to support many more Republican candidates than Democrat.

If Republican lawmakers and candidates want to be part of the Tea Party movement, they should be welcomed, but the Tea Party movement should never have a formal relationship with the Republican Party.

Neither should the Tea Party movement have one leader. We should resist the temptation to anoint anyone as either the leader or an icon of the movement. Once you hang your hat on one person, you take on the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of that individual. We don’t need a political star behind whom to coalesce. Our star is the purpose for which we stand, which brings me to the next point.

The purpose

Exactly what is the purpose of Tea Party movement? Mark Skoda, a leader of the Memphis Tea Party, who plans to start a Political Action Committee says his PAC will support candidates who advocate fiscal responsibility, less government, lower taxes, states' rights and strong national security.

You’ll notice that leaves out a lot of issues, including possibly some of your favorites, but no movement can support too many cousins without losing focus and power. The Tea Party movement started with opposition to just a couple of very large issues that threatened to rapidly expand the size, cost and influence of government: health care and cap and trade. Both of those issues were emblematic of the larger issue of government size, influence, responsibility and cost.  If the Tea Party movement stays in that channel, it will succeed in stopping and reversing the statist tide that threatens America. If not, it will fail, and America will drown in socialism and debt.