[CLICK HERE for a response to the second Politico blog on this subject.]
As a screenwriter and director of three narrative feature films with actors and scripted dialogue, I fully understand the role that conflict plays in effective storytelling. And, in the related field of journalism, the highlighting of a small disagreement in order to generate the appearance of conflict can be a shortcut to getting at a larger truth that would be too complex to approach in the amount of time, or the amount of words allowable.
So, I'm actually pleased with this article by Ben Smith of Politico, describing a "schism" between Coffee Party Progressives and Coffee Party USA.
Although the article quotes an email that Annabel Park wrote a year ago, and although neither she, nor I, nor anyone in Coffee Party USA has any bone to pick with Coffee Party Progressives today, the article does describe a larger truth, and the quote from Annabel's April 2010 email is still relevant today (even though we haven't visited their Facebook fan page in months).
Truly, we have only best wishes and highest hopes for concerned citizens who want to engage in the deliberative process while fully embracing the partisan framework that dominates political discourse. We certainly do value and appreciate an energetic, populist left as exemplified by Coffee Party Progressives and many more established organizations. Such efforts and such movements are crucial to balance the highly organized and incredibly well-funded corporate right. The last thing we want to do is discourage the left from participating, and, in this case, if sharing our name helps them to recruit new members and inspire their current members, more power to them.
Annabel and I learned some important lessons about the effectiveness of non-partisan or trans-partisan civic engagement during the making of the film 9500 Liberty, which was produced by Chris Rigopulos, who served on the Coffee Party Interim Board. And, since starting the Coffee Party, we have been approached by so many Independents, Republicans, and non-partisan Americans (who had NEVER participated in the political process before) who shared our concern that corporately-funded, hyper-partisan grassroots organizations and partisan think tanks were dominating our democracy.
So, we have come to realize that the Coffee Party has a tremendous opportunity to serve the long-term interest of the American people by welcoming and engaging the silent, alienated majority of Americans who are unhappy with partisan bickering and unfair characterizations presented as political participation or even as journalism. That majority includes progressives such as myself, but it also includes many who come from other political backgrounds, united by a common belief in fact-based, solutions-oriented dialogue as the first step toward effective action and impact.
The only part of the article that I didn't like was where it implied that our approach is "centrist." I don't agree with that. And, there was a quote that implied that we have been less active because we are trans-partisan.
It is true that our decision to be trans-partisan made it more difficult for mainstream media to plug us into a conflict-driven narrative. But action and impact simply cannot be measured by how often you're on TV, or, with all do respect, written about in Politico. To accept such a standard is to give our power away to those who already have too much of it.
If there is a schism in the Coffee Party, it is an on-going dialogue between those who quite legitimately feel it is more important to be "in the game," which means doing whatever it takes to attract the attention of the media, and those who feel, as Annabel and I do, that it is more important to change the game. To do this we need to look for answers, not in the "center" because this too cedes power to those who define the polar extremes, but by transcending partisanship and committing to being truth-seekers rather than scoring points in the falsely dualistic and divisive game we call partisan politics.
Yes, this is more difficult. Yes, it will take more time. But we are in this for the long haul. And, already this century there has been an explosion of new media and social media tools that have allowed ordinary people to create spheres of influence like the ones that Annabel and I have helped to create (in the case of the Coffee Party, using web tools that are free or nearly free, with zero start-up money and tens of thousands of small donations averaging about $25 each). One day soon, thousands of interlocking spheres of influence like Coffee Party USA and Coffee Party Progressives will rival the corporations who own the current means of mass communication, and rival the special interests who already have too much power. It's all but inevitable.
So yeah, I'm pleased with the Politico article, especially if helps more people find their way to the Coffee Party Progressives Facebook page. Also, I think the article might be useful in attracting more people from the silent, disengaged majority who, if they do decide to participate, might prefer to so by taking on issues and policies on their individual merits, rather than from already-divided, pre-packaged partisan perspectives.
Annabel and I are just two people with no money and a little bit of talent. If just 100 people in this nation of 330 million decided to use their time and their talent the way we have over the past four plus years, we can indeed change the game. And once we've changed the game, we can change a lot more than that. That's why we enjoy traveling the country, as we are doing now (we just landed in Boston and speak tonight at Curry College) to find those 100 people. We are well on our way.
________________
NOTE: To comment, please join our Facebook discussion. (Robot spam machines have forced us to close down comments on this blog.)
And, below are two videos from Coffee Party meetings in Denver and Houston in the summer of 2010. Both illustrate some of the points above.
Both videos are from the Coffee Party Video Time Line.
