[Procedures] Public criticism of party candidates (in this case on listservs)
Yarden
yen.yarden at verizon.net
Sun May 11 22:27:40 EDT 2008
Mike,
I regret that I am unable to respond to all of remarks, as thoroughly
as they deserve, in addressing the members of the Procedures and
Structures Committee, because I do not even know who the co-chairs
are. It is because of this that most of my comments are limited to
help indicate the direction that the discussion might take in the
absence of any desire of on the part of dissenters to assume
responsibility for things done. I joined this party with full
recognition that I would be assuming responsibility for the
consequences of actions of those who helped to create it. Thus;
On May 11, 2008, at 7:42 PM, Mike Heichman wrote:
> Hi Elie,
> 1. In terms of "equal treatment", the concrete (not abstract
> principle)
> is that Mr. Nader did not have to comply with all of the requirements
> that all of the other candidates, including Mr. Nader, were expected
> to
> follow in order to be eligible to be on the ballot. My understanding
> is
> that everyone who was placed on our ballot received the same letter
> asking for the same specific items. Mr. Nader never complied. There
> was
> no consequence for his non-compliance. While "equal treatment" is not
> listed as one of our values, I think that it is logical that it
> would be
> implicitly covered by the spirit of our 10 key values.
I dedicate much time to studying the 10 key values. I do so with a
knowledge of ecology, and a consciousness developed in a knowledge of
the histories that brought us to a worldwide ecological crisis. Your
last sentence does not examine the ideology of "equal treatment"
critically. This is used so frequently in American liberal legal
discourse. That every time I seek to analyze what is intended and how
it works, I understand that it is not present in the 10KV is because
the founders of the Green Party understood that it did not stand up
under critical scrutiny. Thus a discussion of equal treatment is
needed.
> 2. The judgement whether or not someone was a strong or weak candidate
> was never a requirement to be on our ballot. In 2004, I supported Kent
> Mesplay for President because I beleived that his candidacy was the
> vehicle that was closest to my beliefs in terms of what kind of
> campaign
> the Green Party should wage. It was never my judgment that Kent had
> much
> resources to add from outside of the party to a national campaign and
> never beleived that he would be a strong national candidate for our
> party. That was a concern, but not my most important consideration. I
> believe that my small participation in his campaign before and during
> the convention in Wisconsin helped make him a better candidate, and I
> was honored that he personally recognized my contribution during his
> speech to the convention. During this election cycle, I have decided
> to
> support another candidate. However, I beleive that he still deserves
> to
> be treated respectfully and equitably.
I agree that the terms 'weak candidate,' 'strong candidate' for the
GPUS nomination in the U. S. undefined could not have and never was
used by me as a criterion of any kind. Nor did I ever come across any
"requirement" in the sense that you have been using the word to mean
filters or tests that would suggest this. The contrary is true. I
did have something to say on the subject of ad hoc rule making. But
the evidence on this keeps coming in every day. There is no point in
recrimination. In time we will know much more about what actually
happened to bring about the split of the Minority Opinion
organization, and the effect that has had on our ability to utilize
the outcome of the primary for party building. Meanwhile all I mean
by a 'strong candidate' is someone whose vision of our agenda is
complete, and whose awareness of the thirst in the public of the U. S.
for a new politics, enables them to respond to it so fully as to put
us on the map of the electorate. We provide the other resources.
> 3. I apologize for not explaining what I meant by rewards. I was
> referrring to the delegates that will be awarded to the canddiates (I
> believe that we should come up with a formula where they would get
> more.) and to non-candidates (I believe that it was not the intent of
> the convention to give non-candidates any delegates.).
Why? How does this improve the choice of a candidate at the National
Convention?
> 4. I must confess that I find some of your questions too complicated
> for
> my simple mind to understand very deeply, so I apologie for not
> answering them directly. I have sought to have our party to encourage
> the largest possible field of canddiates to seek the Green Party's
> nomination; I supported your 2007 proposal to the State Committee and
> sought to expand it to include people who were Independents to seek
> our
> party's nomination. Once the convention added a few other requirements
> to your proposal, I have sought to implement that decision. I have
> sought to work with other membes of our party, including yourself,
> to do
> the best job that we could to educate our members and public about our
> party and our candidates for the Green Party's nomination. I have
> sought
> to treat all of our candidates equitably. Etc. As an individual member
> of our party, I decided to support (very modestly) Congresswoman
> McKinney because I believed and believe that she would be the best
> candidate for our party in this year's election.
No. This is inaccurate. Largely as a result of your suggestions, I
read and reread Hawkins' book on the 2004 Convention, and was
determined to help avoid a recurrence. To that end, I sought approval
of a resolution that no-one who was not a Green could be considered
for the nomination; thus tying our future to the idea of building
candidacies from within the party.
Neither Nader nor McKinney nor Johnson could meet this criterion. I
did not favor changing this. It was you who were responsible for the
opportunistic widening of choice, and as responsible for the outcome
as I or anyone else who participated for whatever motive.
> I hope my answers will bring some additional clarity.
>
> Two questions for you:
>
> 1. As someone who was vey active in the process which led to the
> candidates being placed on our ballot and as someone who has followed
> this controversy with much more attention than most since the
> beginning,
> do you believe that everyone was given "equal treatment"? Please
> explain
> your answer.
No, the weaker (unprepared) candidacies were given far more assistance
in getting on to our ballot than were the better organized ones. All
candidates met all criteria established, in two cases through their
campaigns
> 2. Do you think whether or not you believed someone was a strong or
> weak
> candidate effected your judgment or any other leader of our party when
> decisions have been made effecting potential candidates? Please
> explain
> your answer.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
I do not know whether or not people were thinking in those terms other
than a few, like yourself who has said that you were. The list of
leaders of the party is fairly long. You are among them. Therefore I
asked you for your vision of the party. What is the vision if any of
the signatories of A"Minority Opinion?" What is it building? and
where is it? That has created the mood of the party for you. I expect
of myself that I be able cope with that mood. It will be far more
work than I had anticipated. The best antidote for others is
consciousness, and literacy.
Elie Yarden
MRGRA
> Yarden wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>> I find it disheartening that you have so much difficulty in
>> understanding what it is that I am saying. But you are providing me
>> with an example that I might use to help you understand. If I come
>> to
>> you and ask to be treated equally with some who has no difficulty in
>> making themselves understood, would you then grant me 10 minutes to
>> express a new idea, the equivalent for me, with all the difficulty I
>> have in communicating clearly, of the 2 minutes that someone else
>> might need to express a generally accepted idea. I do not know where
>> in the 10KV to find "equal treatment" listed as an important value.
>>
>> Do you really believe that you are unable to deal with the questions
>> that I raised in my statements. If you are willing to use your
>> limited resources, or mine, to help make a weak candidacy for office
>> into a strong one, I am with you. But why would I ask you, within
>> the
>> party, to assist me in helping to make myself understood, and in
>> convincing people of like persuasion of the importance of selecting
>> me, when there is someone else far more equipped than I am, in
>> setting
>> forth to large numbers of people the principles that we all share.
>>
>> There are moments when I find it difficult to understand what you are
>> saying in phrases like; "provided with the most rewards"
>> What are the 'rewards?' What are these many rewards: recognition,
>> office, fame, fortune? "the conduct of of the presidential election
>> by
>> our party" Do _we_ conduct the presidential elections? Do 'we
>> believe in' presidential democracy? Do you really want a third party
>> where all the children can play safely whatever the level of moral
>> development to which they may have attained. Or do you want a party
>> that can raise the present level of consciousness to a point where
>> all
>> can participate justly in dealing with crises of 'our' (human'
>> making?
>>
>> May I have your vision of a party that can accomplish the tasks that
>> we assign ourselves.
>> Elie Yarden
>> MRGRA
>>
>> On May 11, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Mike Heichman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Elie,
>>>
>>> I find it disheartening to believe that many of the leaders of our
>>> party
>>> no longer believe that "equal treatment" is an important valueof our
>>> party. I had previously believed that most of the leaders of our
>>> party
>>> had believed in affirmative action-taking positive steps on behalf
>>> of
>>> those with less privileges and less resources. Instead, "inclusion"
>>> has
>>> come to mean the taking of positive steps to insure that the most
>>> privileged will be treated with special consideration and provided
>>> with
>>> the most rewards.
>>>
>>> In the conduct of the presidential election by our party, I cannot
>>> see
>>> how our party's behavior separates us from the duopoly.
>>>
>>> Mike Heichman
>>>
>>>
>>> Yarden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Grace,
>>>> I was addressing the "co-chairs of the Committee," because i do not
>>>> know their names. While I did not mean to address you,
>>>> you are free to interpret, and should feel free, to publicly
>>>> criticize
>>>> a candidate as being someone who ". . . to exercise their right
>>>> to
>>>> equal treatment." Though you do not complete the statement, you
>>>> call
>>>> attention to the assumption that someone doing this would of
>>>> necessity
>>>> go to the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of
>>>> Massachusetts
>>>> for such a purpose.
>>>> If this is your assumption, I do wonder at your political
>>>> wisdom. It
>>>> is the last place I would go. On the other hand you may believe
>>>> that
>>>> the Green-Rainbow Party is incapable of considering anyone's 'right
>>>> to
>>>> equal treatment' -- whatever that might imply in your vocabulary
>>>> other
>>>> than ressentiment. Just how would anybody go about establishing
>>>> 'equal treatment' in law.
>>>> I believe that it was Anatole France who said something like "The
>>>> law
>>>> in its magnanimous equality, prohibits the rich as well as the poor
>>>> from sleeping under bridges, and from stealing bread." Equal
>>>> treatment? For 'third parties,' equal treatment demands that we
>>>> provide the strongest candidacies we can.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise we are just a bunch of wannabes playing duopoly game
>>>> politics because the majors will not let us play on their teams.
>>>> If I
>>>> believe that 'equal treatment under the law has any meaning or
>>>> value'
>>>> independently of our ecological vision as expressed in the 10KV, it
>>>> would completely excuse my becoming a good progressive Democrat or
>>>> for
>>>> that matter a progressive Republican, both parties incapable to act
>>>> in
>>>> terms of ecological realities. Yes we disagree profoundly on the
>>>> nature of participation in electoral politics and the purposes of
>>>> doing so. It is certainly not emulative resssentiment.
>>>> Elie Yarden
>>>> MRGRA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 11, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This is a procedural issue - I am asking for procedural help on -
>>>>> this is the
>>>>> appropriate committee, Elie.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might assume that those who support a right to a "minority
>>>>> opinion"
>>>>> obviously would NOT be about stifling anything -
>>>>>
>>>>> Go re-read my concern - it has to do with public criticism of a
>>>>> candidate -
>>>>> a special case eveni our bylaws - and has to do with how issues
>>>>> are
>>>>> raised -
>>>>> like calling names and complaining because a candidate tried to
>>>>> exercise their
>>>>> right to equal treatment. Critical skills and strength
>>>>> required of
>>>>> third
>>>>> party candidates is we are ever to be anyhting but sidelined by
>>>>> the
>>>>> major
>>>>> parties and the media...
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks, Grace
>>>>> In a message dated 5/11/08 2:35:18 PM, yen.yarden at verizon.net
>>>>> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> To the co-chairs of the Procedures and Structures Committee:
>>>>>> I have no clear idea of why I am receiving this since, to my
>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>> I have never been a member of this committee.
>>>>>> Furthermore I had not been aware that the discuss list of this
>>>>>> particular committee was the proper place to address concerns
>>>>>> that party procedures are being violated by persons questioning
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> credibility of individuals claiming our support in running for
>>>>>> public
>>>>>> office, on the ground that such criticism becomes public
>>>>>> information.
>>>>>> About what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I presume that the objection is being made with regard to
>>>>>> e-
>>>>>> mails of John Andrews, and John Walsh, it might be equally made
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> regard to something that I might have written. One name for this
>>>>>> kind
>>>>>> of communication is 'shotgun approach.' But some people might
>>>>>> interpret this (HF) as an attempt to stifle dissent. And this
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> one of the 'inventors,' or was it merely 'signatory' of the
>>>>>> "Minority
>>>>>> Report" who also wished to have it on the Front Page of the GRP
>>>>>> website?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I await you reaponse.
>>>>>> Elie Yarden MRGRA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 11, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, - I am bringing to the attention of the PRocedures that
>>>>>>> thereis
>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>> public criticismo f Kat Swift on our listesrvs. Our bylaws
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> require statecom
>>>>>>> embers to refrian public criticism of our "nominees" but as we
>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>> our state
>>>>>>> Party does not nominate PResidential candidates, only the
>>>>>>> natinoal
>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I think we ened to deal withthe spirit here - of
>>>>>>> course,I
>>>>>>> wish we
>>>>>>> had some minimal level of expectations regarding character
>>>>>>> atacks on
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> listservs in general.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, all our presidential candidates should be stumps in
>>>>>>> Mass as
>>>>>>> much as
>>>>>>> possible - now - and it helps us build visibility of our race
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> our party -
>>>>>>> discouraging that role only hurts us as a party - and
>>>>>>> certainly is
>>>>>>> destructive
>>>>>>> of both those who dare to run and the role of our party's
>>>>>>> elected
>>>>>>> ladership
>>>>>>> in building a party where people are willing to run and can rely
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> even-handed
>>>>>>> support by party leadership-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, grace
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **************
>>>>>>> Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new
>>>>>>> twists on family favorites at AOL Food.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Procedures mailing list
>>>>>>> Procedures at green-rainbow.org
>>>>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> **************
>>>>> Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
>>>>> favorites at AOL Food.
>>>>>
>>>>> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Procedures mailing list
>>>>> Procedures at green-rainbow.org
>>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Procedures mailing list
>>>> Procedures at green-rainbow.org
>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Procedures mailing list
>>> Procedures at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Procedures mailing list
>> Procedures at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Procedures mailing list
> Procedures at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/procedures
More information about the Procedures
mailing list