The Coffee Party: The Anti-Tea Party

The genesis of the idea for the Coffee Party Movement and its purpose is best explained by the video above. It all started with documentary filmmaker Annabel Park venting her frustrations on her Facebook page about media coverage that made it seem that the Tea Parties were representative of the “real America.” She vehemently disagreed and her comments on Facebook got a lot of feedback from people who similarly felt pent-up and frustrated.

Their name the “Coffee Party” directly references the Tea Party movement and presents itself as an alternative. Park argues elected officials who represent us should work towards positive solutions to the problems the country faces instead of adopting obstructionist political tactics that play on peoples’ fears and which are driven by deliberate misinformation.

The Coffee Party is currently organizing nationwide. It is stressing the message that its members are voters who intend to hold elected officials accountable to holding up progress. Its members will participate and be engaged in the political process.

In addition, the Coffee Party values diversity, is, itself, diverse and completely comfortable with the changing ethnic demographics of the US. Park argues that politicians are exploiting the anxieties people feel regarding these changing demographics for political gain and that it is wrong.

Cooperation is needed to solve problems and that no practical solutions can be reached when there is no cooperation in Congress. Dialogue is impossible when one side—a reference to the Republicans and the Tea Party movement in the healthcare town hall meetings over the summer of 2009—is engaged in tactics designed to shut down discussion.

Park says the Congress works for us – the American people – not corporations and not just a sliver of the total demographic. Congress should stop the endless fighting and get down to work on problem-solving and representing our interests as their constituents. The Coffee Party Movement is an open invitation to participate to anyone who believes that government should be part of problem-solving and representing our interests.

The Movement is Growing

I was able to speak with an organizer of the Coffee Party. He argued that many Americans are tired of the Tea Partiers portrayal in the media as the representation of the "Real America." Many Americans oppose the Tea Party and their tactics and rhetoric and need a vehicle to represent their side on the debates and issues of a country in crisis.

In addition, the Coffee Partiers want to give voice to real economic populism that is designed to address the concerns of middle and working class Americans. The Coffee Party organizers don't want the Right to have a monopoly of the populist side of the debate on economics and economic issues.

Their main struggle at this point is to come to a consensus on core principles and areas of focus. Their Facebook note on developing a platform for the movement reflects a desire to demonstrate, through practice and example, their commitment to (a) inclusivity and respect for a diversity of opinion and (b) a commitment to small "d" democracy and consensus-building.

We will try to show by example what a participatory democracy can and ought to look like. We need to show that we can come together as a community, despite our differences, and engage in a constructive dialogue that leads to solutions.

The movement is currently centered around social media networks. They have a website, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube pages.

• coffeepartyusa.com


• www.facebook.com/coffeeparty


• twitter.com/coffeepartyusa


• www.youtube.com/user/coffeepartyusa

Since they started the social media sites in early February, there are now over 40 chapters nationwide and growing everyday. Their Facebook group had over 20,000 fans as of the time I am writing this (late February) and growing rapidly.

Potential and Challenge for the Future

The Coffee Party Movement has the potential to really take off and spread like wildfire much the same way the Tea Parties started through social media and grassroots networks. I am very pleased that a citizen-centered, grassroots uprising other than a right-wing one is in the works which seeks to address the gridlock and polarization in Congress and the dysfunctional politics in general in Washington DC.

The very fact that within a month of launching that they have established nearly 40 chapters nationwide and have passed the 20,000 member mark in the Facebook page bodes well for their future.

The real test for the Coffee Party will come when they have reached critical mass, have established an organizational structure and then are in a position to DO something. Either support or oppose some political measure, or apply pressure on a politician by giving or withholding support. Once the Coffee Party Movement has passed the stage of conversations and meetings and are in a position to execute their ideas into practice will determine what type of organization and movement they will be.

Another big test would be how they are portrayed in the mass media and if the media portrayals create momentum that will allow the Coffee Party to control the narrative in the public consciousness regarding the issues it wishes to address. The American mass media is notorious for leaning towards sensationalism and soundbites instead of substantive, in-depth treatment of serious issues. And let us not forget the influence of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck in allowing the Right to set the stage, climate and control the debate and to derail the momentum of any fledgling movement that they oppose.

Their organizers told me that they are non-partisan and fully intend to reach out and appeal to Republicans and conservatives as well as independents. Reading their Facebook wall comments and general thrust of their communications, they appear to have a primarily left-leaning membership and leadership (so far) with a focus on supporting the aims of the more progressive policies of the Obama administration.

The question in my mind is this a grassroots movement that independents can participate in?

The Coffee Party would do well to heed the findings and statistics in this study:

• Independents Take Center Stage in Obama Era, Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2009

People who self-identify as independents now outnumber those who self-identify as either Republican or Democrat. They have found both major parties inadequate, and are cynical about the two major national parties for solutions or leadership. Independents like me are independent precisely because we reject that the frame and scope of political debate and discourse in the U.S. should be limited to the Republicans and Democrats. Like the Coffee Party, we want solutions and problem-solving, not gridlock and endless partisan bickering.

If the Coffee Party Movement will succeed in truly transcending narrow partisanship it would have to watch out about becoming subsumed into or being perceived by the public as an appendage of the Democratic Party. Being a primarily liberal or Democratic organization and one which seeks to apply pressure to politicians to adopt more progressive positions is fine. The danger for the Coffee Party in appealing to non-Democrats lies in being seen as just another vehicle to elect Democratic politicians into office.

I gather that the Coffee Party Movement intends to be independent of the major parties. It bodes well for them to keep that vision in mind as they grow and develop their organization.

• Washington Post Online Chat with Annabel Park


• Washington Post article on the Coffee Party

We Are Not a Movement?

Interesting article over at the Open Left blog which makes the observation that:

In their articles today on how "the left" is failing under the Obama administration John Judis and Glenn Greenwald decry the lack of a mass popular movement agitating all political actors, including President Obama, to enact a specific policy agenda. However, the decentralized, self-producing, public sphere multiplying reorganization of our society brought on by the self-publishing, network neutral Internet is in direct contradiction with the vision of a discrete, hierarchical organization working to enact specific policy agenda. That just isn't going to happen anymore...

As such, even mass membership institutions themselves will be variable in how, and why, they continue to operate. Their goals will be vague, and even those vague goals will not be fixed. This is less comment on the state of the American Left than it is a comment on broader changes in our largest cultural institutions. There is simply no way for the sort of left-wing movement implied by Judis and Greenwald to come into existing given our larger societal trends.

An interesting take on social movements in the Internet Age -- basically, the type of hierarachical, top-down organizations such as a political party or a membership organization (like the NAACP) will become less relevant for Progressive political action and a diffused, decentralized network will take (or has taken) its place.

I am taking the discussion out of Open Left and bringing it here to MOA to get a feel for how a more racially diverse and politically independent audience might see this argument. Do you agree? Is "movement" obsolete for Progressive politics and activism is best channeled via a decentralized, diffuse network? Can such a diffuse, amorphous network of people be effective in enacting policy changes and forcing political parties to take it seriously if it is not organized in a way traditional organizations are organized?

On (Real) Movement-Building

Excellent political commentary by political scientist and activist Adolph Reed, Jr. on what voting Democratic means for the prospects of a progressive, political movement. Particularly hard-hitting and illuminating are the following passages where he outlines the futility of relying on a program exclusively dependent on appealing to Democratic politicians to realize progressive political goals:

Despite a mountain range of evidence to the contrary, we—the labor, anti-war, women’s, environmental, and racial justice movements—all continue to craft political strategy based on the assumption that the problem is that the Democrats simply don’t understand what we want and how important those things are to us. They know; they just have different priorities.

That’s why the endless cycle of unofficial hearings and tribunals and rallies and demonstrations and Internet petitions never has any effect on anything. They’re all directed to bearing witness before an officialdom that doesn’t care and feels no compulsion to take our demands into account. To that extent, this form of activism has become little more than a combination of theater—a pageantry of protest—and therapy for the activists.

Then at the apex of every election cycle, after having marched around in the same pointless circle, chanting the same slogans in the interim, we look feverishly to one of the Democrats or some Quixote to do our organizing work for us, magically, all at once.

We need to think about politics in a different way, one that doesn’t assume that the task is to lobby the Democrats or give them good ideas, and correct their misconceptions.

It’s a mistake to focus so much on the election cycle; we didn’t vote ourselves into this mess, and we’re not going to vote ourselves out of it. Electoral politics is an arena for consolidating majorities that have been created on the plane of social movement organizing. It’s not an alternative or a shortcut to building those movements, and building them takes time and concerted effort. Not only can that process not be compressed to fit the election cycle; it also doesn’t happen through mass actions. It happens through cultivating one-on-one relationships with people who have standing and influence in their neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, families, and organizations. It happens through struggling with people over time for things they’re concerned about and linking those concerns to a broader political vision and program. This is how the populist movement grew in the late nineteenth century, the CIO in the 1930s and 1940s, and the civil rights movement after World War II. It is how we’ve won all our victories. And it is also how the right came to power.

Full article here from the Progressive Magazine

Cross-posted in An Ordinary Person