The tone of the political discourse both in the halls of congress and on the street corner has taken on a sharper edge in the last year.

The Tea Party movement “sprung up” from the ranks of those who were not happy with the outcome of the 2008 election and those who suddenly woke up to the fact of the indebtedness of the country. All these folks in unison pointed fingers at the new president, blaming him for the trillions of dollars spent from 2001 to 2009.

The health care debate added another layer of finger pointers concerned about the slow descent of the nation into a pit of godless socialism. A counter to the Tea Partiers, the Coffee Party USA movement, is a fast-growing collection of local groups of people who want a return to civil discourse about the role of government in our nation.

I attended the first meetings of a Coffee Party USA chapter in my locale, started by local people who had never done anything political in their lives. Participants were generally supportive of health care reform and other social programs and had been dramatically impacted by the collapse of the economy. They also wanted a reasoned discussion of the issues. The first two meetings involved attendees voicing their concerns.

A similarity between the two citizen groups is that they are composed of people who are frustrated with what is happening to our nation. Where they differ is in the approach.

The Tea Party wants to cut taxes even more, to, as former Bush official and current president of Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist put it, downsize government “to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” They want to militarize our borders and let the free market prevail unfettered in commerce of all kinds. The Tea Party folks use tactics that discourage reasoned discussion and promote a climate of fear as a critical part of their process. The Tea Party is supported by some very wealthy groups of people who will gain the most from this platform of eliminating taxation and drastically reducing government services and programs, and is a top-down organization with the national leaders issuing discussion points to the grassroots.

The Coffee Party USA recognizes government has a positive role to play in our daily lives and sees providing health care and affordable education and solving our growing transportation problems as part of government’s role. The Coffee Party folks see a civil and reasoned discussion on the costs of these programs (discussions such as who is going to pay and how much will they pay) as the only way we can move ahead as a nation. While the national Coffee Party USA has some wealthy benefactors, it has remained a bottom-up organization geared to the ideas from the grassroots.

I can identify with folks in both groups who feel shut out of the debate in this country and have ambivalent feelings on the idea of civil discourse. In the meeting of the Coffee Party group, there was discussion on inviting our elected representatives to a meeting, how to talk and what issues to ask them about.

Of course, the word “civil” came up time and time again. I understand the need for civility, but how can you be civil with politicians who put profit before a person’s health, before a student’s education and before an older person’s financial security? Civility is a two-way street and takes effort from both sides.

Last year, during spring break, I went to Columbus as part of a group of faculty members from the University. I was the only adjunct and non-tenured instructor in the group. A number of things bothered me about that trip. I was constantly reminded of my transient position. The use of adjuncts and rising class sizes in the BG Experience from 25 to 35 were held up as the boogeymen of reduced educational quality if the SSI was cut. These talks were beyond civil, almost bordering on begging, which struck me as ridiculous when you take into consideration that the elected representatives and senators are there to serve the citizenry, not the other way around.

A spirited discussion that addresses issues that may raise the discomfort level for our elected representatives is a civil discussion. We have many elected officials who either avoid these kinds of meetings or control the discussion by using teleconferences where his or her staff function as gatekeepers and can limit participation by those who have opposing points of view.

In the years after WWI, there was a series of debates across the country by W.E.B. DuBois, an African American scholar, author, social activist and founding member of the NAACP and Lothard Stoddard, a White Eastern Establishment scholar, lecturer and promoter of Nordicism. In these debates, they discussed their opposing views on society, racism and solutions to it.

DuBois, who advocated an open and egalitarian society where color would become a non-issue, debated Stoddard, who advocated the creation of separate communities based on the idea of whiteness and color. The remarkable thing about these debates was that both men respected each other, while disagreeing on the other’s beliefs. These debates were held at a time in our history where African Americans were being lynched almost daily, and yet there was no sense of acrimony in them.

If these two very different men from different parts of the community could have a rational discussion on the most difficult topic of those times, why can’t we do it now?

Respond to Pat at [email protected]