---

I found another one! This one is very long and was meant to be a post for another website, but I thought it was a little too mean in tone, so I deemed it not fit to publish. Well, it’s fit enough for Citizen Sane, so this is its world-wide debut. This article is from some time in March 2010, shortly after the Coffee Party USA organization came out with their “civility pledge” which I thought was just beyond ridiculous. We’re talking about politics here, not Zen.

Dear Coffee Party, USA, there is no point in agreeing just for the sake of agreeing, especially in politics.

My philosophy is that people should fight for what they believe in, especially on the state and local levels, not what someone else tells them to believe in. That’s the reason why I don’t belong to a political party and very rarely join groups. Politics exist for debate and argument.

Sure, some people have to do it. The purpose of agreeing and finding common ground on the federal level is to reach agreements in the Senate and House only for the purpose of getting bills passed. Before that happens, they debate and argue strongly on many issues. (See Congressman Alan Grayson in the video — he is presenting an idea he believes in and wants others to support as is. He is not asking people to water it down and change it so it’s more right-wing). Congressmen and women don’t agree just for the sake of agreeing; they have to do it to get legislation passed, or the country would be at a standstill. That is the theory, at least. In fact, this misguided seeking out of bipartisanship is why the U.S. government has nearly been at a standstill for over a year.

I have heard tea baggers and now Coffee Party USA members complain that our government doesn’t listen to us. Yes, they do listen to us. They run their lives by poll numbers and focus groups. They are aware of protests and phone calls. Their staff tallies them. But it’s like that old saying about praying, (the idea that God always answers prayer, but sometimes he says “no”.) Our government does hear us, and they just often say “No”. That’s not the same as not hearing us. It’s unrealistic to believe that our government in a country with 300 million people should always do exactly what we want. There are 300 million different opinions on things, and that’s how it should be. We do not want to be a country of lemmings, we want to be individuals. That’s the only way political progress is ever made.

For five years, I have been asking people to get so mad they get out in the streets and protest an unjust war. We need millions of people to protest the killing in the Middle East still being done in our names. We still have an unjust war going on, but Americans would rather do this ———— >

Look at how watered down and nearly meaningless the final agreement was at the Coffee Party in San Francisco. What is that sign supposed to mean? That could be a Tea Party sign.

Where politics should really be passionate and full of argument and debate is on the state and local levels, yet this is what the Coffee Party USA seems to want to stop. They want people to reach consensus just to prove how civilized we all are. State and local political organizations are where politics should not be middle of the road, watered-down generalized nothingness. State and local politics should be passionate enough to move people to hold rallies and demonstrate.

Why would anyone want to identify and empathize with the Tea Baggers? Yet, that is exactly what the Coffee Party USA people want us to do. Listen to their Blog Talk Radio show where they point out what we all have in common with [racist homophobic] people who want limited government. It’s downright chilling to hear.

Polite, civil people with the aim of agreeing with everyone, would never have marched on Washington for civil rights or against the war without strong, passionate disagreements.

In order to protest and demonstrate and do anything political on the local and state levels you need passion and yes, you need some anger. You need a strong sense of purpose, not a generalized desire for everyone to “get along.” Political discussions are meaningless if people aren’t willing to stand up for their own beliefs. That goes for Tea Partiers who are given pre-printed signs and shout some GOP talking points at people, and it goes for those who are told to agree with those they might disagree with in the new Coffee Party movement.

What politics does not need is the goal of civility for its own sake, and a strong desire to agree with everyone. That misguided desire is exactly why we do not have health care reform in effect right now. It’s why we have no climate and energy bill in Congress. The Democrats seem to agree that trying to see every side of everything and let the people who are dead wrong have equal time, and we end up with nothing: no climate bill, no energy bill, no health care reform bill.

Nothing big is ever accomplished by watering down what is right to agree with those who are wrong. Hold on to your opinions. Defend them. Don’t give them up just because some group comes along and asks us all to “get along”. That does not mean we need to be abusive towards people. It means we need to hold on to ideas we feel are important and not let them go just for the sake of “group think”. (Remember that a writer named George Orwell warned us about that.) If there was ever anything to be afraid of as an American, it’s some group asking us all to agree. That’s right before they start rounding us all up and throwing us into FEMA camps. (Little joke there for the Alex Jones fans.)

A comment on Youtube clarifies that the Coffee Party USA movement is attempting to use the Delphi method of agreement. Look it up and tell me if you see anything there to admire when used in a public political forum like a new political action group. Shouldn’t a political action group be taking action?

Consider this — if Martin Luther King Jr. or Susan B. Anthony wanted to agree with everyone, women and people of color would still not have the right to vote. They might just have been happy to let their white male friends run the country. But no, they got angry, they specifically did not find agreements with their oppressors, and they did acts of civil disobedience. They certainly did not agree with people just to agree with them so everyone could smile for the camera.

A new political movement that calls for a civility pledge is calling for a pledge against the essence of politics itself. U.S. politics has a long and colorful history of bickering, debating, fighting and even duels done in the name of people sticking to their beliefs. I don’t recommend violence, but I am a big fan of civil disobedience when it’s called for. Yes, breaking the law can have a great deal of merit. The last thing that I consider valuable is a country full of passive, sheep-like followers politely sipping coffee and talking about how we can all get along.

I’m looking forward to a new billboard that will soon go up in my city. It’s being funded by the local peace groups who see no need to find common ground with people who love war, and it will say, “War is Terrorism“. It won’t go over well here in Tea Bagger country, but that is called standing up for your beliefs. (You can help fund it here).

Politics is nothing if it’s not dirty, messy, full of strong emotions and personal stories. You can’t mesh a person’s life or death need for health care for their dying child with polite civility towards a Tea Bagger. They just do not go together, and they should not.

Be wary of any political movement that asks you to sign a Pledge of Civility. What they are really asking you to do is sign away your right to get angry and protest ideas you strongly disagree with; like an unjust war, or health care obstructionism, or action on global warming, or demonstrating loudly against injustice, or speak out forcefully and without politeness against any wrong that is being done anywhere. A Pledge of Civility wants people to meekly respect those who don’t deserve respect. I reserve the right to insult people who have no respect for humanity. (I disagree with my local anti-war group on that point, but they never asked me to sign a civility pledge either.)

The goal of civility in local politics is not clear to me at all. Unless I know a person personally, why would I be asked to respect beliefs I find offensive and harmful? On the federal level, of course politicians have to do that, but we don’t.

Do we really want to find common ground with people like those who shout their heads off at Tea Party rallies? This is what is advised in their Blog Talk Radio show. Find common ground with those who want to destroy government and make it so small you could drown it in a bathtub. (quote from someone but I don’t remember who).

Not me. I will not sign a civility pledge to “respect” people whose ideas are harmful, racist, bigoted or harmful.

Comments are closed.