[Platform] the sunset proposal

Sun Jan 20 12:45:50 EST 2008

John,
I am not sure that framing the concern with policy statements as one of 
democratic means vs. anti-democratic means is all that useful, or even 
descriptive of the situation.

A careful and accurate general description of how decisions are made in 
legislative bodies with many instances of their actual substance, and 
outcome, would quickly cure the illusions about legislative 
decision-making held by the ideologues of parliamentary democracy.  The 
utter cynicism of "Democracy is the worst form of government, except 
all the others that have been tried" exhibits the underlying 
"engineering of consent," common to all government whether it has two 
branches, three or one.

It is not likely that any group of people making policy irresponsibly 
are going to come up with anything that will be subjected to the 
necessary scrutiny.  This makes it a favorite activity of neo-liberal 
and left discussion and protest groups.  But let us for one moment 
assume that I am sitting in Nepal, or Iran, and reading the latest 
policy statements from the Green-Rainbow Party in Massachusetts 
concerning the rights of indigenous peoples, I might well wonder about 
the how it is that the ideological main stream of U. S. politics, the 
'New American Century' idea, is  so pervasive that even the American 
Greens are more ready to decide what is or should be over here, than 
they are ready to do something about Massachusetts.

As long as we are ready to do battle with our local enemies over U. S. 
policy in Iraq, Sudan, Palestine, we provide a safety net for liberals 
who read the daily press, and little more.  The statements on foreign 
affairs were probably outdated by the time they were written because of 
the energies that were diverted from building our awareness of the 
atrocities under our noses, to insuring that our sympathies for the 
oppressed were correctly stated.  The commonality of the oppression is 
what needs the recognition, not the moral luxury of the guilt of the 
upper hand.  I see little need for yet for discussion of foreign policy 
by people motivated by a desire to assert the superiority of the morals 
of el Bashir to those of the Bushes, or vice versa.  I wonder very much 
about what makes you believe that we will develop the needed 
capabilities without negotiating foreign policy next door.  Let's try 
ourselves on the Mashpee, before we get on to Venezuela, China, or the 
Eastern Sahara.
Elie Yarden
MRGRA

On Sunday, January 20, 2008, at 10:15  AM, John Walsh wrote:

> PLEASE FORWARD.
> I think that Bill raises an extremely important point.
> Clearly one of the things that we wish to change is the domination of
> the executive over the legislative - that is, the domination of non-
> democratic means over democratic means.  Perhaps the greatest problem
> with the Democrat Party is that it is not democratic.  Here in MA the
> state convention routinely passes policy statements, for example for
> single-payer, and the leadership and pols simply ignore them.  Or
> shall we say the leaders "sunset" them.
> There can be no justification for the StateCom or Adcom or any other
> con to "sunset" a major policy statement by the State Convention.
> The only proper way is to have a vote at the state convention to get
> rid of a policy statement or to pass an alternative.
> At the last state convention I was impressed by the good sense of a
> large majority of our activist members.  Let us stick with that.
> At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I believe that we had a
> rewording of the Sudan policy which met with approval from all
> sides.   I would suggest we return to it.
> jw
> p.s. I believe the underlying question here is whether there can be a
> benevolent empire.  I would say no, because empire is always the
> domination of one people over another.  And if we believe in
> benevolent empire, we had better stop calling ourselves non-
> interventionists.  Empire takes every decent impulse and employs it
> for its own purposes.  Since we fought to make the world safe for
> democracy and before, it was always thus.
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2008, at 9:47 AM, BillCunningham wrote:
>
>> Dear friends in GRP,
>>
>> I would like to draw your attention to the "Sunset Proposal" which
>> the Cochairs have made to the January 27 StateCom meeting. I have
>> just posted the following response to that proposal.
>>
>> This proposal refers to "party statements of policy." But it does
>> not define that term. The GRP website contains a list of documents,
>> on the main page and the "read more" page. Not every document is
>> titled as "statement." Some documents are titled as "press
>> release," "endorsement," "letter," or "platform."
>>
>> The titles are not systematic but arbitrary. For example, the 2004
>> DNC "statement" is really more of a press release. Any reader can
>> see that it is not current. The Palestine "statement" is a party
>> position because it is current. Any reader can see that it refers
>> to an ongoing situation. (Any reader who has the code to open the
>> document, that is!)
>>
>> A party position is, in effect, an addition to the party platform.
>> The process for adopting a party position is completely different
>> from the process for issuing a press release or endorsement of
>> someone else's position.
>>
>> If StateCom has the power or right to sunset a position adopted by
>> Convention, does it also have the power or right to reinstate or
>> revise such a position? This proposal assumes that StateCom does
>> have that power and right. Is there any precedent or rule to
>> justify this?
>>
>> Does the sunset apply to every policy document on the page or only
>> those with the formal title "statement"?  If it applies to all,
>> that would sink the existing State platform, which is more than
>> three years old. If it applies only to formally titled "documents"
>> then it is as arbitrary as the titles themselves.
>>
>> It appears that there are only five policy documents on the GRP
>> website which are more than three years old. They are the
>> statements on Sudan, Palestine and Iraq (for some reason Iraq isn't
>> actually on the page), the DNC press release "statement" and the
>> party platform.
>>
>> I ask that the sponsors clarify their intent by clarifying the
>> language of their proposal.
>>
>> Bill Cunningham
>> _______________________________________________
>> Platform mailing list
>> Platform at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform
>>
>
> John V. Walsh, MD
> Professor of Physiology
> University of Massachusetts Medical School
> 508-856-3360 (Office)
> 508-868-1653 (Cell)
> john.walsh at umassmed.edu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Platform mailing list
> Platform at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform
>