The Coffee Party in the focus.

[SilverDNA]

I know, I know, I'm not a American, but I'm interested where the US.political wings and their groups are heading and if the coffee party movement is an alternative to the tea party movement, or if it is a hoax ,or what? So I'm asking myself a lot of questions about the Tea Party here. I tried to get more information and I accidentally stumbled across the not so well know Coffee Party movement. The counter movement to the right wing Tea Party. Now I'm asking this community to give their opinion on the coffee party in a respectful way, so we, that are not born Americans, can make up our minds and debate from the other point of view as well. I hope that this debate leads to an better understanding, for me, where the US left wing citizens are standing and their views in todays politics.

For those not knowing the coffee party movement I post here the Wikipedia link to the coffee party.

Edited August 17, 2010 by SilverDNA

[grannywils]

Thank you Silver for this post. I must first admit that until this post I knew nothing about the Coffee Party. I do not believe that it is a hoax, but I will do some more research and get back to you on that. It appears to be a group, as you have already indicated, that is attempting to do from a more left wing perspective something similar to what the Tea Party is attempting to do from the right. That is to effect some changes to government that will eventually get it up and running more smoothly, efficiently, honestly and economically. The very little that I read after following your initial link lead me to believe that this is a grass roots movement, and an attempt is being made to garner support all over the U.S. by the use of small gatherings (coffee parties, etc.) until the movement can grow sufficiently to get on its feet. I know this may not answer your question entirely, but for now it is the best I can do. I will look into it further at my earliest convenience and keep you posted. In the meantime, if anyone else has any info, please let us know.

[brokenergy]

There is really a coffee party? Sweet :woot:

[grannywils]

Silver, I've done a little more research, and found that The Coffee Party was originally founded by Annabel Park I believe in January of this year. She does have a co-founder. I believe his name is Eric Byler. Following is a copy of their Mission Statement:

 

COFFEE PARTY MISSION STATEMENT: The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

 

I have gleaned quite a bit more information. But that should be a good start. I cannot claim to be an expert, as I only just learned of the group today. It is totally grassroots, with no corporate backing or funding. I listened to an interview with Ms. Park which was done in March, and at that time they had over 183,000 supporters; so apparently it is growing quite quickly. The link you originally posted sent me to a number of other places; and I was also able to get quite a bit of information just by Googling the name.

 

Although they seem to have many goals in common with The Tea Party, they would seem to have a more liberal approach to achieving them from what I have been able to determine up to now. Naturally, therefore, given my particular leanings, it holds a certain appeal for me. But as I said, I would still like to do some further research.

[ginnyfizz]

Ah yes. "The expression of our collective will." Let us hope that this does not translate as "When a Government is elected they can then do what the hell they like without reference back to the Senate and The House of Representatives. It's the collective will, you see."

 

Think that couldn't happen? WRONG. Tony Bliar did a whole lot of things by executive order rather than a vote on the floor of the House of Commons. The excuse being a large mandate.

 

My point being, it is to be hoped that the Coffee Party is as keen on the idea of accountability as are the Tea Party. "Collective will" makes massive assumptions, that governments or representatives are elected and then supported in everything, without question, by the electorate. They aren't.

[grannywils]

I agree with you, Ginny. They aren't. My still limited but growing understanding of The Coffee Party is that they have no intention of just handing over a mandate to government. They want a government who listens to the people and works with the people in accomplishing the goals of the people. You know, "of the people, by the people and for the people". I get what you mean about Tony Blair's government though. I must admit, although not British I had hopes for Mr. Blair, and was somewhat disappointed in him.

[JimboUK]

removing corporate influence from politics

 

I don't think anyone could disagree with this, when you have corporations interfering in the democratic process or worse buying laws then something is very wrong. When our representatives are representing interests other than those of the people they shouldn't be surprised when people turn away and treat those representatives with the utter contempt they deserve.

 

we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

 

This however is plain silly. Not everyone agrees on solutions and to suggest people shouldn't try to obstruct a leader when they disagree with them is plain wrong, for a start it's the duty of the opposition to "obstruct" when they feel the government is doing something wrong, they can't be expected to sit back and do nothing. What this suggests is an elected dictatorship where you get to pick a new dictator every 4/5 years.

 

There's some good stuff there though and people taking an interest in how their country is run is never a bad thing, I think if more people did take an interest in these things then we'd have far better government on both sides on the pond.

[grannywils]

<BR>

removing corporate influence from politics

<BR><BR>I don't think anyone could disagree with this, when you have corporations interfering in the democratic process or worse buying laws then something is very wrong.  When our representatives are representing interests other than those of the people they shouldn't be surprised when people turn away and treat those representatives with the utter contempt they deserve. <BR><BR>

we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

<BR><BR>This however is plain silly. Not everyone agrees on solutions and to suggest people shouldn't try to obstruct a leader when they disagree with them is plain wrong, for a start it's the duty of the opposition to "obstruct" when they feel the government is doing something wrong, they can't be expected to sit back and do nothing. What this suggests is an elected dictatorship where you get to pick a new dictator every 4/5 years. <BR><BR>There's some good stuff there though and people taking an interest in how their country is run is never a bad thing, I think if more people did take an interest in these things then we'd have far better government on both sides on the pond.<BR>

<BR><BR><BR><B><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size=2><FONT color=#008080>As I have mentioned, I'm still learning about this group, so don't quote me just yet; but I believe what they mean by the hold accountable those who obstruct them line is that we will elect our government, and if we find ourselves dissatisfied, we have a due process for removing people from office just as we do now.  I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the "opposition" when you said it was their duty to "obstruct" when they feel the government is doing something wrong.  My understanding is that the government itself is still meant to run as set up in the Constitution.  It is tricameral.  The House and Senate and President would still be elected and get to fight with each other just as they do now.  The Judiciary is a little different, being appointed for life by the Executive branch and is meant to be "judicious" and "non-political".  Don't ask me to elaborate on my personal feelings on that one.  However, I digress, I think they may have been referring to obstruction from outside the government.<BR><BR>And, overall, I agree that there is some good stuff in there, and anytime the people can be encouraged to take an interest in and more importantly to take an active part in the politics of their Country it is a good thing.</FONT></FONT></FONT></B>

[evilneko]

The Coffee Party sounds to me like a reaction to the divisiveness and extremism in US politics which grew tremendously during the Bush years, ultimately culminating in the forming of the Tea Party. The Coffee Party is hardly a "Left" version of the Tea Party, or at least, they don't think of themselves that way. If you read their materials, they seem to be striving for the center.

 

In this political climate, this is a very appealing position, likely to attract the disgruntled and disillusioned of both sides.

 

On the other hand, it's not a very effective position to take. When your starting position is in or close to the center, you don't have much to bargain with before you lose everything.

 

If the Tea Party is dangerous, the Coffee Party is harmless. Actually, the Coffee Party should act as a moderating force against the Tea Party if nothing else.

[Surenas]

Evidently the Coffee Party is the to be expected pro-Democrat atomizer to the pro-Republican Tea Party.

Guess the consequence is a renewal of the public political paralysis - the Mexican standoff.

Here comes the Nuka Cola Party as the longed for white knight into play. Already soon, I think.