A Sip of Tea, anyone?

In the past two years we have seen a lot of political "change." President Obama launched the first successful multimedia campaign, sending text alerts to voters, getting donations online, and using Facebook to build a legitimate party base. Obama started a "grassroots" movement among voters who wanted something different in Washington.

However, in this modern age, can any political movement really be "grassroots" anymore?

According to Princeton University's WordNet Search, grassroots is defined as "of or involving the common people as constituting a fundamental political and economic group."

But what we perceive as grassroots, may in fact just be a new type of PR.

Consider the 2008 Obama campaign. Behind each Facebook group, text message or tweet, there was someone carefully drafting the campaign message. By directly involving voters, the campaign was making it seem as if the movement was starting with the people.

The campaign even went so far as to select the top contributors, those most likely to comment or post on the campaign, and set them up with their own blogs about the campaign and Obama's message. By making the voters the political commentators, it seemed that Obama's support was really a "grassroots" movement, while in fact it was simply a carefully orchestrated use of modern technology.

The PR people probably recognized the number of people they could reach via the internet, and so took the campaign into previously uncharted waters to engage voters that might not have otherwise been reached.

The most recent "grassroots" movement in the news is the Tea Party Movement, a group that largely believes that with recent legislation, the government has overstepped its Constitutional boundaries.

While Tea Party organizers claim the movement to be strictly "grassroots," critics have called the group "Astroturf," driven largely by cable news and the political and financial support of key political figures. The group's Web site, TaxDayTeaParty.com, seems to be creating the same kind of campaign that Obama did in 2008, even down to the text alerts. The site also features recent news and endorsements of candidates for the 2010 elections.

But where did this Web site come from? Did someone create it and pay for the corporate text number out of their basement? Hardly.

The Web site was paid for by Liberty First, a PAC. Liberty First's principles are relatively clear: "Less government, less regulation and lower taxes." The group also does not believe that special interests have a place in politics:

"We support candidates who place liberty (the Constitution) first when casting a vote or making critical political decisions. Not special interests, not populist issues (smoking bans, government healthcare, etc) but LIBERTY FIRST."

The PAC is essentially a Tea Party organization committee, but this hardly seems grassroots. It seems like just another political action group organized by politicians, not a group of citizens. However, once again the interactive multimedia campaign makes it seem like all the political ideology of the Tea Party is coming directly from the people.

So back to the main question: In this modern age can we have a truly "grassroots" movement?

Probably not. But then again, maybe we never did. Maybe now we can just see the wizard behind the curtain pulling the levers and pushing the buttons to make things happen. With modern technology, we can be more civically engaged, but we need to pay attention to where what we read comes from. For example, the Tea Party Web site is not from the mind of Larry Jones in Arkansas, but probably from PR people who know what they're doing. Same with the Liberty First Web site. And the Obama campaign Web site.

Modern media and social networking tools make it easy to make our voices heard, but it still is completely our responsibility to make sure that our voices remain true to our beliefs.