That is the name of the group the port side is trying to promote as an alternative to the Tea Party movement. As the Washington Post article notes, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the Tea Party movement must be flattered indeed.
Of course, “One Nation” faces some obstacles in its efforts to become consequential, not least of which is the fact that it is actually an amalgamation of 170 separate groups. Most groups would be glad to boast about strength in numbers, but the actual number of people associated with these 170 groups–and by extension, with “One Nation”–is not clear. To be sure, it is enough to cause silly arguments within the movement:
. . . the liberal groups have long had a kind of sibling rivalry, jostling over competing agendas and seeking to influence some of the same lawmakers. In forming the coalition, the groups struggled to settle on a name. Even now, two of the major players disagree about who came up with the idea of holding a march this fall.
We are assured in the next paragraph that the Tea Party is just as “fractious,” but if the Tea Party really were a house more divided than united, there would likely be no reason whatsoever to respond to it in the first place, nyet?