The post on Activism and Anger spoke of the model in which activists agitate a population to create anger. Political groups harness that anger to rise to power.
Most activists use freedom centric rhetoric in their agitation; However, since the goal of the activism is a naked grab for power ... activism invariably leads to greater centralization and a redudction in freedom.
Interestingly, even when a disparate group of people wanting to maintain freedom (like the tea party) engages in the activist model, the result is usually a reduction of freedom. The freedom seekers agitate with no-one to harness the anger. Existing political groups, sitting on the side, will use the anger in the grub for power.
I suspect that the primary reason the left leaning press dwelled so long on the anger of the tea party and ignored the ideas of the tea party was a belief that they could capture the anger and use it to further their political causes.
Because inevitable result of the activist model is greater centralization, the activist model will ultimately fail those seeking greater freedom.
To actually succeed in preserving freedom, the tea party must move away from the activist model to a model that emphasizes the benefits of freedom.