I thought that an answer I posted to in a diary I started, called Coffee Party Hits 100,000 members, deserved it’s own diary. IMO, over-consumption of blogs actually prevents action. Also, most of the most important activism (such as peace activism) never seems to accomplish much of anything. So, even when action is attempted (in preference to endless arguments and opinionating on blogs), the actions tend to be a complete FAIL – except in the spiritual sense.
There needs to be more thinking about what I have called democratic efficiency (small ‘d’ democratic; nothing to do with the Democratic Party, per se). To that end, I am posting my tongue-in-cheek theory, hoping to expose superficial thinking which would obscure the sorts of analyses, research, and (frankly) democratic experimentation that we should be eagerly pursuing.
In reply to Edger, who wrote,
I don’t think anyone here (4.00 / 9)
at this point views the Coffee Party as a group that will build out a very important piece of democratic infrastructure but rather views it almost as a attempted coopting effort by OFA partisans.
Sort of like “Oh, you didn’t like the Coke? Well, here – have a Pepsi! It’s completely different.”
I answered (now edited):
That’s an interesting theory
Considering, though, that
1) I’ve been thinking of democratic infrastructure for quite a while (to the point of recently writing an unfinished draft largely about the subject), and that I’ve anticipated some aspects of the Coffee Party, especially the face-to-face aspect; also, see my now-mostly-abandoned website democracyabc.org, where, if you read everything there and grok the structure of the site, you will see that I was looking to create an online place where citizens of very different stripes could both cooperate across ideological lines, as well as purely within them, depending on their predilections; further, these two modes of operation (universally cooperative vs. competitive with other groups) were not designed as mutually exclusive
2) there’s only meager, circumstantial evidence to suggest an OFA facade (the ‘strongest’ evidence seems to be that Annabel Park worked for the Obama campaign, correct?)
3) the advertised ‘structure’ of the Coffee Party (which is not very well-defined) doesn’t seem to even permit co-option
this means that your theory, at present, is not a terribly convincing theory. In fact, if my observation #3 is valid, then your theory can’t be correct.
There’s good news, though: I can make an slightly more interesting theory to explain the real driving force behind the Coffee Party, which may be only mildly less plausible than your theory. Oh, yes, I can! And I will!! 🙂
My theory is that the Coffee Party is actually a stealth operation of the Republican Party, whose modus operandi will be to generate lots of Ralph Nader-like candidates who will split the progressive vote, throwing untold numbers of elections to ….. drumroll, please ……
the Big Bad REPUBLICANS!
Now, here’s the kicker: My “it’s really the BIG BAD Republicans” theory and your “it’s really the OFA” have a great deal in common: By staying away and making armchair judgements based on the flimsiest of ‘evidence’ and the shallowest of arguments, holders of EITHER theory have a wonderful excuse to “blog to the choir” and accomplish nothing, electorally.