I attended a Coffee Party kickoff meeting at SoulFood Books, Music and Organic Coffee House on Saturday. Approximately 40 people subdivided into smaller groups to discuss their hopes and fears about the state of the union. Amid the largely liberal perspectives voiced by several participants, I was delighted to discover an unanticipated diversity of opinions in our group. A number of common themes emerged, but I came away most hopeful about the prospect for preserving this diversity and promoting a resurgence of the middle way in American politics.
Among the issues raised by participants were ethics, elections, economics, employment, energy and the environment. At several points, I was reminded of Paul Hawken’s book, Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came Into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming, and a blog post I wrote about his systems view of the interrelationships between social, economic and environmental justice. At other points, I was reminded of Doug Rushkoff’s book, Life, Incorporated: How the World Became a Corporation and How To Take It Back – e.g., one person championing de-marginalization, another recommending the de-personalization of the corporation (referring to the 1844 U.S. Supreme Court decision designating a corporation as a natural person) and another suggesting a transformation from a me society to a we society.
During the course of the discussions, there were a number of references to the Tea Party movement – whose members tend to be male, rural, upscale, and overwhelmingly conservative – mostly in the context of expressing opposition to or at least distinction from that movement. I believe there are some important areas of agreement between values espoused by the Tea Party and the Coffee Party: an affinity for transparency, accountability and responsibility, and an aversion to abuses of power and other perceived injustices.
There do appear to be areas of differences between the Tea Party and the Coffee Party; among the most significant – to me – are the tactics employed. Based on what I’ve read and seen, the Tea Party seems to be rather ideological and confrontational whereas my first experience with the Coffee Party suggests a more idealistic and conversational approach to politics. Some members and groups within the Tea Party appear to be adopting the demonizing and spiteful rhetoric that was used so extensively during the McCain-Palin campaign of 2008. The tone and tenor of the discussions and debates within the Coffee Party meeting – in which some people articulated and advocated strong positions – was far more civil and respectful.
In a blog post about coffee, conversation, community and culture at Starbucks, I proposed the possibility of promoting civic engagement without sacrificing civil engagement, noting that others have articulated a tension between the two:
In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Coffeehouses: Bringing the Buzz Back, Michael Idov talks about some of the European coffeehouses I first read about in The Grand Literary Cafes of Europe, warning that Americans are “losing the coffeehouse … to our own politeness”. Idov claims that while coffeehouses were once “hotbed[s] of a proudly rootless culture”, “seminaries of sedition” with traditions of “intellectual sparring”, they have now become elitist bastions of “balkanization“. While these coffeehouses may have promoted civic engagement, it appears that they were not well known for civil engagement.
I [still] believe it is possible to have vigorous debate – in the best traditions of the coffee house – without stooping to the vilification of one’s opponent(s).
That said, one of my concerns about the Coffee Party is how effective a conversational approach can be at this juncture in American politics. We may come to understand and appreciate – if not agree with – one another better, but will this effect changes in policy and legislation? Especially if other, more ideologically unified parties and movements – and corporations – are more certain, focused and strident about their views. It’s hard to have a productive conversation if no one else is listening.
In an earlier post, on conservatism, liberalism and independence, I recounted a classic Doonesbury comic strip:
In the main portion of the strip, Chase [a conservative] sums up the differences between liberals and conservatives: “[Y]ou liberals are hung up on fairness! You actually try to respect all points of view! But conservatives feel no need whatsoever to consider other views. We know we’re right, so why bother? Because we have no tradition of tolerance, we’re unencumbered by doubt! So we roll you guys every time!” When Mark [a liberal] replies “Actually, you make a good point…”, Chase responds, “See! Only a loser would admit that!”
Listening to “The Science of Wisdom” on KUOW Weekday yesterday, I heard Stephen S. Hall, author of Wisdom: From Philosophy to Neuroscience, talk about the power of anger as a motivating emotion. While he said that anger and wisdom are not antithetical, the ability to regulate anger and other emotions effectively is one of the hallmarks of a wise person. However, he also observed that many famous wise people have been willing to run the risk of contradicting conventional wisdom and adopt adversarial stances.
The question, I suppose, is whether it is wiser – and/or more effective – to promote alternative perspectives through conversational or confrontational tactics, or to advocate adversarial positions with consideration or condescension. Personally, I tend to prefer coffee to tea.
Comments
11 responses to “The Coffee Party: Political Conversation vs. Confrontation”
The Tea Party is rather confrontational, and in some ways mirrors how the Senate and Congress work—or lack their of—together. In my opinion, the Coffee Party can best differentiate itself by providing an alternative model of communication. If hundreds of thousands, if not millions, can get together, discuss political matters and build some sort of consensus on issues, its symbolism may encourage those in power to follow in kind. If the people can do it, maybe those in DC can too.
Joe, are you familiar with the book “The Big Sort” and the ideas contained within? The basic thesis is that, since the 60’s, sociological & demographic forces have caused Americans to ever increasingly sort themselves into geographically homogeneous groups.
Increasingly, the average person is confronted less and less with viewpoints that are strongly divergent from their own because of this demographic sorting. Also, it’s actually the upper half of society who are experiencing this the most acutely since they have the economic & social mobility.
I wish I could recommend the book because, while the ideas contained within are intriguing, the writing is poor enough that I’m waiting for a more concise restatement that I can recommend.
Anyway, I think it’s difficult to have a meaningful discussion about the polarization of politics & society unless you first capable of grappling the demographic facts and the sociological forces that are driving this movement.
Cheers
Hang
@CoffeeShopChat: I like your idea about citizens being the change they want to see in their elected officials. I’m not sure about the scale though. And having re-read my notes on Paul Hawken’s book, I’m not even sure that a larger scale discussion would be a Good Thing – it may be better to have many small coffee party groups operating semi-autonomously. BTW, I also like the brief historical overview of coffee, tea and patriotism you posted in your notes on the Coffee Party meeting you attended on Saturday.
@Hang: I was not previously aware of The Big Sort, but I agree that geographically-based homogeneity may diminish the prospect of full circle civic engagement. But if, as Tip O’Neill once observed, “all politics is local”, then I’m not sure how best to counteract the potential narrowing of discourse. If / when you do come across a more concise restatement that you can recommend, please let me know.
@Joe McCarthy: great answers. Thanks 😀
Joe,
Like the blog. Your depth of thought and level of discourse are a welcome voice. Speaking specifically to this post I thought I would share the war I have been fighting with myself. Truly I am tired of our lack of political debate in this country. I know that nothing of substance will ever get accomplished within the current political climate. However, with that said, I am also pessimistic about our ability to have an honest dialogue anymore. Too many people already know what the right answer is (because that is what they heard on the radio or television) and therefore they are going to repeat the talking points, regardless of the evidence.
Let’s just look at our nation’s conversation (or lack there of) about health care. Both today and in 1994 an honest debate has been hijacked by those that have the most to lose. Our health care system is expensive, it limits coverage, and gives way too much power to corporations that are only seeking profits. Health care is not about wellness, it is about profit. These are inarguable facts. And the private sector will not fix the most important issues, because it will hurt their profit margins. Can a single payer system work? I don’t know, but I do know that it works elsewhere: Canada, Japan, Germany, France, and even in one of the last industrialized countries (besides the US) to use the market place to distribute health care, Switzerland. I would love to hear an open an honest debate about single payer health care. Maybe a combination of single payer and private enterprise will fix the problem. I don’t know, but I do know that the status quo is unacceptable. And it is looking more and more that the status quo (or worse) is what we will get.
But what my experience tells me is that the only way we can have an honest dialogue about the single payer system is to call a lie a lie, a liar a liar, and to call out those Senators and Congressmen that receive outrageous amounts of money from the health care industry. Talking nicely to each other in coffee houses (as much as I wish it were so) will not make good policy, because those voices are drowned out by those with the most money, the most power, and the loudest voices.
And so there is my dilemma: I want more honest debate, but I want to do it loudly and clearly!
Have a great day!
lph
Larry,
Thanks for sharing your own thoughts on these issues. I, too, feel conflicted about conflict.
One of the many insights I gleaned while watching a recent PBS series, This Emotional Life, was an observation made by social and organizational psychologist J. Richard Hackman about his studies of the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, which performs without any conductor. He said the key to its success – and to the success in other highly empowered team environments – is not to avoid conflict but to move toward the conflict.
So I agree that we can’t make good progress solely by engaging in civil conversations in coffee houses – although I think this can offer a good starting point. We have to be willing to move toward the conflict, and engage those that we perceive as adversaries.
However, I believe we become diminished in adopting tactics in which we demonize or vilify our adversaries. I think it is important to be honest and accountable and to demand honesty and accountability from our elected representatives and others with whom we have agreements. And when they do not live up to their agreements, we are all well served by calling attention to these violations.
So while I do believe in calling people out, I do not believe in calling people names. I’m in favor of unveiling untruths – loudly and clearly and repeated as necessary – but I am averse to labeling people liars (or losers, as was the case in the Doonesbury strip I referenced above).
Like you, I am increasingly frustrated by the spread of fundamentalism, in any of its flavors: religious, political, social or economic. It is hard to engage in honest, productive dialogue with someone who has already made up his or her mind and is not open to the possibility of a different perspective or course of action. But I am not willing to adopt tactics such as name calling as a means to achieving ends, as I believe the journey matters just as much as the destination … especially if the journey is long and the destination is far away … which increasingly seems to be the case with important issues like single payer health care, an issue among many on which I believe we are in close agreement.
Kia ora Joe,
With the recent going ons in my adopted country I am starting to feel that being a bit more confrontational is the only recourse available. We are reverting back to a sort of latent Reaganism I find dangerous and insulting, particularly in the arrogant tabling of opening up our conservation areas to mining. In regards to health care and America, to be a supposed leader of the world and provide basic health care to its citizenry does not seem unreasonable, but I can understand those that have not willing to share with the have nots. At least in theory. I can, and have debated, with my own family and not crossed any lines between converstaion and confrontation. I probably cannot write the same of “discussing” the issues of how we treat the planet and wild places. Some feel that way about health care, some about abortion, some about jobs, it is simply I feel that way about what we are leaving our children, and how we callously define “wealth”.
Sorry Joe, I am a bit disjointed and rambling here, but these same issues are greatly impacting upon the state forests and parks in America, attacked by big business when our eyes are off the ball elsewhere. When the scales are tipped too far in total disconnection to nature and wild places we are in real trouble. Kia kaha.
Rangimarie e hoa,
Robb
Robb: I continue to find your heartfelt revelations of the power of wild places and strident support for protecting them inspiring.
Your comment motivated me to look up the meaning of confront, and the definition refers to opposing or meeting face-to-face, actions that I consider worthy and worthwhile, especially when practiced with respect.
Wars are among the most confrontational theaters of interaction. Soldiers are often trained to adopt condescending views of their adversaries, and use pejorative names for them (krauts, nips, gooks). I personally believe it is more honorable for warriors to fight fiercely and yet do so while respecting their adversaries (the knife fight scene in the movie ‘Saving Private Ryan’ being a poignant example). I also believe that the most honorable hunters are those who respect the animals they kill – and I know you have personally encountered hunters who do not follow the most honorable practices in your travels through the Ruahines.
In any case, it now appears that I have not chosen my words wisely. I think that condescension would represent a more appropriate oppositional stance to conversation than confrontation. Thanks for helping me achieve greater clarity on this issue … I may revisit this in a followup blog post.
[Update: I have continued my reflection on this issue, invoking some wisdom from don Miguel Ruiz, in a new post on Be Impeccable with Your Word: Confrontation vs. Condescension and Intimidation]
Be Impeccable With Your Word: Confrontation vs. Condescension and Intimidation
I’ve had a number of opportunities recently to reflect on don Miguel Ruiz’ first agreement: be impeccable with your word. Amid public conversations at the recent Coffee Party kickoff meeting, private discussions about reviews of academic papers and pro…
I like how Joe continues to incorporate the civic/civil conversation and its ties to coffeehouse culture. I think an example of the ignorance that arises when people do not interact broadly occurred at one local Coffee Party meeting last month. The participants ended up carrying posters decrying “corporate governance.” One told me they meant that they don’t want corporations running government, but if they’d had a more diverse group, someone might have told them that the common use of “corporate governance” is almost the opposite of that. We all need to read and interact broadly enough that we’re not just talking to ourselves. This will appear self-serving, but it is defensible: Newspapers have played an important role in ensuring that people know what’s happening outside their demographics and most passionate interests. As newspapers have shrunk and disappeared, I think there’s been a frightening decline in that kind of information.
Melissa: one of my biggest concerns about the Coffee Party movement is that it will not attract / retain sufficient diversity to include the full range of voices I think are needed to make real progress on the problems facing us.
I, too, lament the decline of newspapers, and the broader devaluation of fact-based journalism … or fact-based anything. I cringe whenever I hear references to “the lamestream media”, or general skepticism about science, and suspect they are related.
It appears that there is an increase in attention – and even trust – in media channels that practice and promote violent communication: reporters, pundits and their guests using coercive, threatening or manipulative language to induce fear, guilt, shame and blame. I hope that the Coffee Party movement will renew appreciation for more moderate presentations of factual observations about the real needs of people … and for more attentive listening to alternate points of view.