“Coffee Party” Accepts Invitation to Tea

March 3, 2010 at 5:21 pm | Posted in Political | 7 Comments
Tags: coffee party, tea party

by Walter Scott Hudson, contributing to the New Patriot Journal

MINNEAPOLIS, MN – A citizen activist group antagonistic to the political goals of the Tea Party movement has nonetheless indicated a willingness to converse. In what may be characterized as “the sincerest form of flattery,” video documentarian Annabel Park weeks ago created the “Coffee Party Movement.” Despite its relatively brief existence, it has already garnered significant media attention, most notably in recent articles by the New York Times and Washington Post. Over the weekend, an open letter was addressed to Park by a member of the Tea Party movement (this writer) welcoming “civility and inclusiveness in political discourse,” a nod to one of the Coffee Party’s stated goals. Alongside public replies from Coffee Partiers, Park responded privately, indicating a desire to bring tea and coffee drinkers together for debate and discussion.

The Coffee Party is a product of the new media. Park, in her own words, “kinda lost it” and “started ranting” in her Facebook profile regarding her frustration at the perception of the Tea Party as being representative of the majority of Americans. The Washington Post reported the status update which started it all:

let’s start a coffee party . . . smoothie party. red bull party. anything but tea. geez. ooh how about cappuccino party? that would really piss ‘em off bec it sounds elitist . . . let’s get together and drink cappuccino and have real political dialogue with substance and compassion.

The primary gripe emanating from Park is her perception of the Tea Party movement, and conservative legislators in Washington, as “obstructionist.” In a YouTube video introducing the Coffee Party to the world, Park says, “We want to see cooperation among people in Congress, in government. And we want to see people who are representing us move towards solutions to the problems, instead of strategically obstructing any form of progress.”

Park concurs with the sentiment expressed by liberal commentators like Stephanie Miller and Bill Press, who accuse Republicans of opposing President Obama’s progressive agenda only as an electoral strategy, excluding the possibility there may be fundamental principled disagreement. Park indicates a desire to “hold people accountable for obstructing progress in government.” She sees a dichotomy between “cooperation” and “obstruction,” holding the former to be necessary for government to work for the People. She calls for “everyone to be engaged in the political process” and makes reference to government as an instrument of the “collective will.” At the same time, she defiantly pleads for certain “people to get out of the way.”

In the open letter to Park, her perception of the Tea Party movement was challenged:

This idea that the Tea Party is against progress is untrue, if by “progress” we are referring to positive change in the conduct and quality of life. We simply disagree regarding the origin of progress. The Coffee Party seems to think it comes from government. The Tea Party believes progress can only derive from people, and too much government obstructs it.

…

We can negotiate. We are willing to achieve consensus. There is, however, a clear framework within which such consensus must be bound – the Constitution of the United States.

Response to the letter from self-identified members of the Coffee Party has been mostly gracious. “I’m a member of the Coffee Party and I appreciate your letter,” wrote a commenter identifying himself as Marvin. “If we could have more civil debate I think this country could move forward.” Jim Yost wrote, “I don’t agree with a lot of the [Tea Party]’s stances on many critical issues, but I do agree that Washington is broken, and I do think that we all can and should work together to change as much in our system as we can so that our differences can be worked out productively.”

To that end, tentative arrangements are being made for a meeting in the Twin Cities area between members of these disparate activist groups. Potential points of consensus include the imposition of term limits, a desire for citizen legislators as opposed to career politicians, and a general call for accountability among public officials.