I gotta say, after reading this story about the Coffee Party, I’m kind of excited to see what happens with this movement–and I really hope it doesn’t flop.

What is the Coffee Party? From their Web site, Coffee Party USA:

…aims to reinvigorate the public sphere, drawing from diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives, with the goal of expanding the influence of the People in America’s political arena. We do not require nor adhere to any preexisting ideology.  We encourage deliberation guided by reason amongst the many viewpoints held by our members. We see our diversity as a strength, not a weakness, because we believe that faithful deliberation from multiple vantage points is the best way to achieve the common good.  It is in the responsible and reasonable practice of deliberation that we hope to contribute to society.

Their Web site attracted more than 170,000 fans in its first week. Its Facebook page has already surpassed the numbers of the Tea Party, despite its much shorter existence so far. This isn’t a fringe group–these are rational people.

The “Coffee Party movement” is about embracing differing opinions, without screaming and going crazy. It’s about embracing diversity and empowering everyone. It’s about utilizing our government and elected officials to enable the people to achieve and succeed, but also curbing that influence before it gets out of hand. It’s about using our country’s wealth to rescue us from economic collapse–done!–and now pulling back and forming a hard and fast plan for reigning in the ballooning deficit. It’s about basic human rights for everyone, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference.

This is mainstream America. I firmly believe we are no longer a center-right country. The right just so happens to be the loudest–because they will scream, shout, and sometimes even lie to get their beliefs (whether right or wrong) across. This movement is, I hope, something much stronger and more civil than that. It’s about using the facts, theory, ideas and innovation of the American people to make a difference. It’s about looking at our government and deciding who’s doing their job right, and who’s holding us back. Who is looking ahead to the future, and who is stuck in the 19th century.

That said, I think it’s a stupid name. As my friend Dan pointed out, it leaves itself easily open to attack–”stale,” “bitter,” etc. Ah well, we’ll see what happens. I’m not gonna sign up just yet, but I’ll be watching it closely.

I’m kind of excited. The national kick-off for the Coffee Party is tomorrow.

My latest column in my university’s newspaper is up today, here at The Eagle. This week, I’m focusing on the performance of Democrats in the media and how to handle (or not handle) their messaging alongside that coming from Republicans. With the way Republicans have handled their message–Tea Party and all–my advice is pretty simple. Let ‘em keep on talking, the only people they’re going to hurt is themselves.

The full column is below the cut. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Read more »

To begin, I’d like to direct your attention to this post from yesterday over at fivethirtyeight. As usual for them, it’s an excellent post, and Nate Silver makes some excellent points about how, if Democrats can hold on to at least 56 seats in the Senate this November, they might still be in good shape.

Hence, the title of this post: is 56 is the new 60? If the Democrats can keep 56 of their own seats in the new Senate — which will be a bit tough, but is far from out of the question — then they may frequently be able to cobble together a coalition between the 56 Democrats and the four moderate Republicans — Brown, Collins, Snowe and Castle. There are other Republican whose votes might be in play on particular issues — Linsday Graham on climate change, Dick Lugar on foreign policy stuff — but those the Snowe/Brown/Collins/Castle block should be up for grabs on almost every issue.

I have a couple points I want to make here.

First, it’s absolutely appalling that there are only four serious contenders to qualify as “moderates” for the 112th Congress. Two paragraphs down in his post, Silver even says, “That’s about it, though — most of the Republicans running for office are conservatives.” The radicals conservatives and the tea party are in control. We’re witnessing a literal coup d’état of the Republican party.

Despite the potential benefits this may have for Democrats–particularly in the long run–this just isn’t a good thing. Sure, if Obama’s initiatives succeed in the next two years, Democrats will come out looking like moderates as the country shifts to the left, while Republicans wither away as the radical group in American politics. That’s good for me and my views, but is it good for democracy? I don’t think so. The idea of a purity test for a political party, particularly one of the two parties in our strictly two-party system, is just sad.

Secondly, and more to the point of my title, why are we talking about 56 as the new 60? We should be talking 50 as the new 60.

The filibuster rule is in shambles. It’s been used and abused by both parties for two decades now–although much worse in the past year by Republicans than ever before–and it’s tearing away the very fabric of our democracy. Let’s remember how Congress used to work. To pass a bill, it was required to pass the House and earn a majority of votes from the Senate. Simple definition from google:

majority /mədʒ’ɒrɪti/ /-dʒ’ɔːr-/ US

1. The majority of people or things in a group is more than half of them.

So let me ask you this: how the hell is passing a bill with 51+ votes “undemocratic?” That’s the very definition of a majority-based system, and conservatives have flipped the messaging to make 51 votes seem like not enough people agree with it to be the “will of the people.”

Ezra Klein made an excellent point about the filibuster and it’s ridiculousness in a post from February 19th:

When 41 senators representing less than 20 percent of the population can block legislation, that’s not a democratic state of affairs, no matter the issues involved.

How can conservatives actually argue against eliminating the filibuster? Now let me be clear, I recognize that Democrats have done this in the past too, and, should they become the minority at any point in the future while the filibuster still exists, they’ll likely do it again. But I don’t agree with it. And, were I a Senator, I absolutely, positively would not take part in it.

Anyway, enjoy the links, let me know what you think. Is the filibuster guaranteeing the “rights of the minority?” Or is it holding back our democracy and tearing away the very system that used to keep our government running (at least semi-) smoothly?

I think it’s time for a change. I think we need more moderates. I think we need a system where 51 votes passes a bill, because that’s a majority of what the people elected. But hey, what do I know.