First in war, first in peace, last on the priority list of every political activist in America: Washington, so long accustomed to controlling much of the national political landscape, is playing a diminished role in midterm elections this year thanks to conscious efforts on both sides of the aisle to decentralize the decision-making processes.
Credit (or blame) a number of factors: An incensed Republican base still bent on changing the way its party does business. A dispirited Democratic activist class that doesn't view its party as liberal enough. Even President Obama himself shares responsibility for the reduced control Washington has over the grassroots, thanks to his groundbreaking 2008 campaign.
Perhaps Obama deserves most of the credit or blame. His 2008 campaign involved an unprecedented swath of the Democratic activist class, and the party has sought to keep that activist class engaged. But those in power often disappoint their followers; the energized Democratic activists, working with control of Washington for the first time since the 1994 elections, have expressed frustration with their party's slow and, in their minds, too conservative pace.
That frustration has been borne out in key primary races. Labor unions spent millions of dollars trying to defeat Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., survived a close fight against a former state legislator that sapped his campaign war chest of millions of dollars. And Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., lost his primary to Rep. Joe Sestak after switching parties. All three incumbents had Obama's support, and in all three cases the Democratic activist class turned out to impose its own will.
The diaspora of political power from Washington into the states has been all the more obvious in the Republican Party. Incumbents lost nominating contests in Alaska, Utah, South Carolina and Alabama. And establishment favorites couldn't win election in a half-dozen states this year after more conservative challengers seized the momentum.
While the Democratic unease has been a reaction to the agenda in Washington, efforts to topple the Republican establishment have come from the nascent Tea Party movement. The Tea Party Express has a better track record on endorsements than any group in D.C. this cycle, and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) have done their parts to encourage election of the most conservative candidates possible.
Palin has endorsed, and campaigned for, an eclectic mix of establishment and counter-establishment contenders, including party favorite Kelly Ayotte in the New Hampshire Senate race; Nikki Haley, the South Carolina gubernatorial contender who's a favorite of Washington strategists but a decided outsider in her home state; and Christine O'Donnell, an entirely outsider candidate whose nomination in Delaware puts a Senate pickup opportunity in jeopardy.
DeMint has taken the fight directly to his own Senate Republican Conference, engendering animus among fellow senators for his overt role in helping conservative insurgents. DeMint clearly relishes his role as a national conservative icon -- he has let rumors of a candidacy for Senate Republican leader percolate in the blogosphere, even though no serious Senate watchers believe he could cobble the votes together to mount a serious challenge to Mitch McConnell (Ky.).
DeMint and Palin are the closest thing the intentionally leaderless Tea Party movement has to national spokespeople. They are also the most obvious outlets for Republicans seeking to move beyond the Bush years, on which most activists look back with a mixture of disgust and depression. Palin's fresh face and DeMint's insistence on true conservatism are departures from an era that Republicans -- personified by the Tea Party movement -- regret.
The Tea Party movement itself represents for the right what President Obama's 2008 campaign did for the left -- it has given voice to a generation of voters often overlooked by each party. For Democrats, that population was younger voters, who turned out in droves to be a part of Obama's win. For Republicans, the Tea Party has energized older Americans newly fearful for their economic security, voters who, until the economic recession hit, had little reason to feel passionate about politics.
Both the Democratic resurgence and the Tea Party movement have been able to effectively organize through another new factor, social media. Conservative activists used Twitter to organize the first conference calls aimed at launching the Tea Party movement back in February 2009, according to a new book from the New York Times' Kate Zernike. And liberals, beginning with Howard Dean's 2004 campaign "Meet-Ups," have become expert at organizing online.
Finally, money has played a large role in the dissemination of power. Because of a fertile landscape and poor fundraising performances by key national party committees, outside Republican groups have taken over operations typically run by the Republican National Committee. American Crossroads and other organizations are stepping in to help fund turnout operations across the nation. Though many of those outside groups are run by top operatives, even some who held senior positions at the RNC, the fact is that turnout operations are being run outside the traditional structures. Even the Tea Party Express has spent more money on direct advocacy television ads than the national party committees.
In times of upheaval, voter sentiment shifts from one party to another rapidly. But for the better part of a decade, one thing has been clear: Voter and activist sentiment has been shifting away from Washington and back to the states. Even as the economy recovers, the advent of social media and the excitement of two national bases that can quickly organize will mean the balance of political power is shifting away from the hub, and toward the spokes. This will be remembered as the year control of politics finally left Washington.