Does a group need a leader to be powerful?

Often whether it be politics, business, or most settings where multiple groups function; there is usually a leader-based structure. Businesses and corporations have CEOs. School groups elect presidents or chairs. Committees in Congress all have heads and both Democrats and Republican have chairs and leaders in Congress, at the national level, and at the state level.

That is why at times it is asked: Does the Tea Party need a leader to fulfill "their mission"? Do they need a leader to affective campaign for candidates and lobby amongst both parties especially the Republicans to get their issues and their voices heard?

That is where a recent Washington Post article comes into the equation.

Since its early days in late 2008, the Tea Party has largely been based on grassroots energy and the mobilizing energy allowed the group to build a voice that has injected itself in the political discourse and has been a growing x-factor in multiple primaries this year. However, as this group has grown; conservative-leaning interest groups have taken noticed and have provided extra energy and millions of dollars. Those dollars have provided pushes for multiple Tea Party-backed candidates and enabled several upset victories slating more conservative candidates in general election races this fall. But, through it all; they have embraced a regional system where there are multiple leaders of different state and region Tea Parties. Their desire for that structure is based in the belief of small government and allowing everyone to have a voice; or a protection of their freedom of speech.

Despite successes, many wonder what could be different if they had a main leader. Would they be able to generate better campaign strategies? Would they increase primary victories and subsequently, potentially general election victories.

A lack of a leader and a goal are weaknesses that can be contributed to counteracting much of the strength of the grass roots organization the Tea Party enjoys. The Tea Party was planning to hold its own convention, but changed its mind due to some disagreements with the Tennessee-based group planning the Las Vegas gathering.

Something also thrown in the shuffle is the way the group lobbies against what "the establishment" represents, but still needs to raise funds that often come through channels linked to "the establishment". They must "grin and bare it" almost if they truly want to be able to take the grass roots energy and back that up with the money needed to win large scale elections. Hence, they must question if their ideologies have to be put aside in order to take the next step.

Of the major national tea party groups, Tea Party Patriots most closely resembles a grass-roots organization. The nonprofit group does not run a political action committee and does not endorse candidates. At least 2,800 local groups are affiliated with it, but Tea Party Patriots does not tell them what to do or whom to vote for.

The movement is based more getting conservatives out to vote and not necessarily always advocated for a candidate. The Tea Party has been able to allow outside groups to do the damage to candidates they oppose while letting their preferred candidates try to file in the gaps.

The money that is raised will certainly be put towards a final push for candidates in November. But, there is a sense amongst many in the Tea Party that they must "pace" themselves in order to maintain their stability after November. They will have two more years before President Obama is up for reelection and if they truly want to "take their country back"; they will need to monitor resources in order to relevant in two years.

Thus, as the campaigns speed up as November nears; more than some wonder how effective the group is without a leader. So far, the Tea Party has succeeded under a fractional leadership style with multiple "patriots" guiding the way. Grassroots movements sometimes just need the right mix of energy. Plus, outsider groups' money does not hurt when it comes to negating the lack of a strong leader at the helm.