[statecom-discuss] GRP strategy

[Melissa Harrell]

I have to absolutely agree with you.

There has been talk previously of having a strategy planning retreat and 
I want to take a minute to advocate that we get serious and not talk 
about it but actually do it.  I for one would be happy to help set that 
up if I had two or three people helping.  Any other volunteers?

To be honest, as important as the campaigns are, they are not the only 
thing we could be doing.  We should be looking how to strengthen 
existing locals, how to build new ones, and how to keep those people who 
aren't part of a local (for whatever reason) involved in the party.  All 
of these things should be happening simultaneously and happening in a 
way so that the build on each other and create that upward spiral.

I think it's important that those of us working on the party building 
through the campaigns also be part of the discussion of the party's 
strategy as a whole so that the connection between the two remains 
strong.  In Nov. the election will be over and the party must be ready 
with a plan to take that momentum and carry it to some place new and 
exciting.  Use that momentum to bolster existing locals, build new ones 
and otherwise connect people to the party rather than just the 
candidates themselves.

There's been a lot of discussion here by some pretty astute minds on and 
off in the months I've been on state comm and I hope we can turn that 
talk into some action to carry out whatever we collectively decide. 

Melissa

Eli Beckerman wrote:
> Dear Statecom,
> I am continuing a conversation that began on the statecom list here:
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2006-August/007037.html
>
> I tend to agree with John's point about the old-style
> politics of individual candidates (and by extension,
> personality politics). There are double-edged swords here,
> because the Greens would probably be smaller without ever
> having run Ralph Nader, yet we're also smaller because Nader
> is now effectively gone.
>
> There are 3 different types of campaigns -- one where the party
> serves the candidate, one where the candidate serves the party,
> and one where there is a synergy of these benefits.
>
> I think it is very important for us to work out a strategy for
> the Green-Rainbow Party, which is what I think John was getting at,
> and which will obviously include strategizing AROUND the statewide
> campaigns and our role. Individuals who choose to strategize WITHIN
> the campaigns may well be engaged in party-building, but in a less
> direct fashion. If the PARTY has no strategy for party-building, it
> can't sit around and expect it to come from the campaigns.
>
> As an example of this, I think Jill's campaign in 2002 was a terrific
> success as a campaign. I think that despite this, long-term party 
> building
> failed and instead we've seen a party decline (even with the RCP merger).
>
> And I think in addition to developing clear strategy, we need to 
> figure out
> how to evaluate our efforts and undertakings so that we do not hop 
> from one
> thing to the next without new COLLECTIVE wisdom. Campaigns by 
> necessity will
> have a tighter ship, and the party, by definition, will be more of a 
> democratic
> and collective effort. Each has their strengths and shortcomings so we 
> need
> to fuse these better!
>
> In hope,
> Eli
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>