Tweet
Last night, I reported on the birth of the Coffee Party movement, which seeks to be a civil counterpart to the combative Tea Party mentality and the obstructionism of Congress. Here’s a report from the Washington, DC chapter from Seminal reader "michaelkarpman":
Yesterday, I joined about 30-40 people at the first meeting of the Coffee Party Movement’s Washington, D.C., chapter at Potter’s House in Columbia Heights. Because these groups are still in their infancy, and not yet established in each neighborhood, folks from all over the metro area attended. There were participants from as far away as Baltimore and Annapolis. A diverse mix of white, African American, and Asian American residents, most were current or former Obama supporters, dismayed by the Tea Party movement, and leaned left of center. Everyone, organizers included, was there as a volunteer – no one was on any organization’s payroll or working for a specific political cause. In that sense, this was probably the most grassroots meeting I’ve ever been to.
Despite the crowd’s progressive inclinations, the meeting was not in any way ideological – unless commitment to participatory democracy and civil discourse is an ideology. The Coffee Party organizers – and Annabel Park, the “accidental” founder of the effort – emphasized a vision that is very much about changing our nation’s political culture and, in particular, the way we talk about politics. It is an alternative to the Tea Party in that it seeks to counteract the Tea Party’s discourse and tone. It also seeks to “get beyond sound bites” that have made the national political conversation stale and slowed our nation’s progress to a halt. Ms. Park’s description of the event as a “self-help meeting for sane people” seemed accurate – there was a noticeable absence of crazy people who are usually drawn to meetings where they may have a chance to complain.
The full report is worth the read, as is a glance at The Coffee Party’s website. So far on The Seminal, there has been mixed reaction to the movemnet. Some think it is a breath of fresh air that can advance our political process. Others feel it is too centrist and will water down the aims of progressivism. Still others think the efficacy of the movement will vary between local chapters.
Whichever of these descriptions is most accurate, The Coffee Party is light years ahead of the movement that tried to shout down civil discourse instead of promoting it.
What’s on your mind tonight?
5 Comments
The tea party supports the war, and doesn’t want to prosecute Cheney. It believes that even if the war is wrong the “rational decision” is to stay and clean up the mess.
http://coffeepartyusa.com/content/avoiding-common-pitfalls
I am sorry but anyone that doesn’t want to waste their time working on centrist corporate goals needs to become skeptical of astroturf ofa movements!
Many thanks to michaelkarpman for his reports. While I share dameocrat’s skepticism, note that the passage quoted @1 is not a “platform” position but the views of one commenter on the coffee party web site. Other commenters include more progressive voices, plus what seem to be Ron Paulists and straight-out teaparty trolls.
I fully expect “cognitive infiltration” from OFA types to dilute the messaging. The question for me is whether the veal pen will lose control of the core coffee party movement, the way the GOP is losing control of many of the tea partyers, or whether accommodationist mulch like the quote dameocrat highlights will become the rule.
If the latter, then all the coffee party will accomplish is further steal wind from the sails of true progressive organizations like PDA, as Moveon and OFA have done already.
How do you define which groups are “true progressive organizations” and which are not? This is a question I’ve been trying to answer for a couple of years without success.
If there in anyway for the Wars going on that’s one non-Prog. position. If they are for anything like the present Senate or Pres. Obama’s HCR thats another non-Prog. position. If they sing melodies about Corps. and Gov’t working together that’s a Corporatist tune not a Progressive tune and on and on. if they want lower taxes for rich people an obvious one but a flat tax is the same game isn’t it? So, my 3 pts. litmus tests are 1. anti-war /anti- big defense budgets 2. For progressive taxation / tax the rich / feed the poor 3. Separate Corps. from Gov’t /anti-regulatory capture / clean Gov’t./ public finance of political campaigns. After these three you could add Pro- Civil rights and anti- Rights for Corps. Pro-environmentalism and the list goes on.
Seaglass @4 makes a good start. I would add restoration of Glass-Steagall protections and open advocacy of profit-purged health care financing (Medicare for All or equivalent, not simply public option + exchanges as a supposed end in itself). Regarding HCR, that means I consider the exertions of HCAN and its affiliated organizations as anti-progressive. They no doubt disagree. Fine.