ety of Muslims, the Greek Orthodox Church, and the Jewish Theologi- cal Seminary. Concerned that a news conference to announce that we wouldn't even meet with this group would be worse than one to announce that we had met and couldn't agree, I convinced Armstrong that we should apologize for not responding to the group's first letter and agree to a meeting. On that basis, it called off its news conference. Armstrong and I met with the group twice, once in 2001 and again in 2002. The closest the alliance came to militant behavior was when its executive director was interviewed on Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family radio show, generating a flurry of letters. Otherwise, the members of the alliance proved to be thoughtful, sincere people whose message came down to this: Others may distribute pornography, but we expect more of AT&T. They had a better grasp of AT&T's values than some of the com- pany's leaders. Single-Issue Groups Back in 1989, management guru Peter Drucker identified a social phenomenon that he thought would change the political landscape. In his book The New Realities, he cautioned managers about "the tyranny of the small minority"+-single-issue groups that gain political influ- ence simply because they are very vocal and know how to capture media attention in a way that magnifies their presence. Such groups don't exist to win over public opinion or to create a consensus; they exist to defeat a candidate, block an action, or simply sustain their own Pay Attention to the Power of the Few existence. They exercise negative political power for causes on the left as well as on the right. And they have learned to harness the power of the Internet to increase their potency. The Religious Alliance Against Pornography had all the makings of a single-issue political group, but there was one essential difference: Its stated goal was the same as its real goal. The members of the alli- ance wanted AT&T to stop distributing pornography. Period. They were not willing to negotiate the terms, they couldn't be bou