The Tea Party's principles of a return to constitutional government are, in my opinion, the key to America's future. With respect to this election, and the results it eventually produces, I'd say that the Tea Party has had a minor but noticeable effect.

Which is about what I expected, because for me, its best analogue and promise is something we've seen before: the 1960s anti-war movement. Some are kooks. But some prove to be very savvy. And many have begun a long march through key institutions. Many of their ideas will be carried with them if they survive as a force, but even if this works, it's a long-fuse, big-bang phenomenon.

Their combination of movement fortune (and individual misfortune, for many) is that they are colliding with, and surfing on, an unfolding time and events that are right for them in very broad and deep ways. But there are going to be lots of points where reality and circumstances will test them, reveal some organizations' real agendas, and demand creative thinking about applying their principles effectively.

There will also be many, many teachable moments over the next few years, that illustrate why pinning hopes on individual representatives or parties is a necessary but insufficient exercise. And why the Constitution has to start meaning something more than "a judge's partisan political beliefs," or "whatever we can twist the commerce clause into today."

Sometimes, they'll get both of those things at once. And I think one of those very moments is coming on like a train.

The most interesting part of this election, for me, was the shift among independent voters. This "surprised" endorsement of Rand Paul by the Richmond Register is a really interesting barometer. And the first post-election teachable moments are likely to be provided by the Republican "leadership" of K-streeters. That combination is the opportunity.

Will the Tea Partiers vocally turn their guns on Republicans, who will be working to betray them with unpopular policies like continuing earmarks, and taking steps to protect the systemic architecture of corruption in Washington (as they have been for some time)? Or will the Tea Partiers simply become a party adjunct, captured by it rather than changing it?

The former approach offers deepened credibility with independents, and sharper/ raised media profile and inroads, while raising the pressure on K-street Republicans. That lays the groundwork for future movement victories. The adjunct approach will limit the movement's eventual reach, and represent individual Republicans' enrichment at the expense of party and country.

Which is not to say that broad education and organization efforts by the tea partiers, and engagement in the party process at all levels, should not continue. They must. If the Tea Partiers can maintain open bridges and deepen credibility with independents, while sticking to their long march strategy of steady grassroots organization, building and leveraging technological and organization infrastructure, and getting better at recruiting better candidates, they will eventually create much of the change they seek.

I say "much," knowing that nobody ever gets all, and that anything above "some" is a major accomplishment, even over a time frame of decades.

In many ways, however, what happens in the next 2 years will say a lot about how deep the amorphous "Tea Party's" penetration into America's political landscape - and hence their eventual success - will go. Early times are defining times.

That probably means some very public fights over the next little while. And not just with Democrats.