You can comment on this post at my blogspot page http://kaitelug.blogspot.comI've written about the Tea Party before, and by now most people
probably know what it is, but just in case, and to avoid redundancy,
here's a link: http://www.teapartypatriots.org/ and if you type "Tea
Party" into Google and click News at the top, you'll have a billion
more links to peruse.
But now there's another party named for
a caffeinated drink that's spurring chatter and controversy, though not
as much of the latter as the Tea Party did.
The Coffee Party. Again, groans. This is lame, right? It's just a liberal reaction to the Tea Party. Well, maybe not.
The
movement started recently with a woman named Annabel Park who has
apparently taken on this project in lieu of a paying job. She used to
be a documentary filmmaker and has worked in journalism for a while.
She was born in Korea. You can read more about her and the party in the
Washington Post or
New York Times articles.
The
ideals of both of these grassroots parties are similar - they're sick
of partisan bickering and nothing really being done. Their ranks are
full of some of the millions of Americans fed up with our government.
But while the Tea Party has quite a few, dare I say it?,
extremists...as of yet the Coffee Party seems more docile, despite what
its name and slogan may suggest. The Coffee Party says they're more
interested in citizen involvement in government, where the Tea Party is
pretty much anti-government.
So there's your comparison, but
here's my question: do either of these "parties" matter? Sure, the Tea
Party has a smidgen of historical significance and Sarah Palin as its
spokeswoman, but do any legislators take these people seriously? I
certainly don't think the president does. It just seems like an outlet
for people who want to feel like they're doing something important. It
reminds me of a war protest I attended in high school. If the fact that
I was in high school doesn't tell you enough, I'll add that I really
didn't know anything about the Iraq war except that it was happening.
And I was on a Quaker campus and by default decided the war was wrong.
So I joined a protest, partly to get out of class and partly to be a
part of something for a couple of hours - to feel like I was a
participatory citizen and might be making some kind of difference. I
don't necessarily think there was anything wrong with that, but I also
don't think it really mattered.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in
the power of protest and activism and campaigning, but only if the
people involved are fully educated and 100% invested in their cause. I
feel like most of the Tea Partiers are just kids wanting to get out of
class and downtrodden folks with nothing else in their lives that makes
them feel important. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with
wanting to feel important, but I don't think it's effective, and it can
be dangerous.
So I'm thinking the same thing is probably going
on with the Coffee Party. And there's been a little bit of a backlash
against Annabel Park by one of the party's followers that is
reminiscent of the Tea Party's most disgruntled. An anonymous Coffee
Party member forwarded me an email from another member, who listed off
a number of publications at which Park has been published and also a
number of organizations for which she's worked. According to the writer
of the email, Park had claimed she was new to grassroots organizing.
I'm not sure of the significance of this, but splinters beginning to
spread so early can't be encouraging.
Whether or not these
groups make any kind of difference, and the idealist in me really wants
them to (I'm favoring the Coffee Party actually), it is encouraging to
see people gathering for a political cause. That's what America is
supposed to be about after all, right? Well, I guess it depends on
which cup you're drinking out of...
