[statecom-discuss] Think critically about Senate, Presidential
races
BillCunningham
etwee at earthlink.net
Mon Jul 23 09:42:02 EDT 2007
I have NEVER seen our party reflect critically on our experience before moving on to the next activity.
A LOT of energy is spent reflecting on the personal practice of OTHER individuals in the party.
Can we accept criticism of our personal practice as an aid to self-criticism? That ought to be part of a regular process of political reflection and deliberation.
Weeds of backbiting and recrimination grow among us. I have been just as involved in this as anyone. We should be cultivating political reflection. Instead we have a culture of blame and defensiveness.
Sometimes we talk and act as though we are not human, never make major mistakes. We forget why we are here in this party together.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com>
>Sent: Jul 23, 2007 12:01 AM
>To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Think critically about Senate, Presidential races
>
>Our analysis should always be changing and informed by new inputs.
>
>The Senate and Presidential situations are new and require a new line of thinking. The proposal is also new and so it is perfectly fine to make an argument responding to these new situations and proposals. To not respond and just assume that people could read my mind or other minds would be wishful thinking.
>
>The presence of the SPWG is also a new development.
>
>We need to get all ideas out there even ones that seem similar to past analyses; these are valid and should be encouraged.
>
>If people have different analyses then they should put them out there rather than try to stifle discussion.
>
>On the personalization of comments:
>
>One personalizes when one say things like "ron is still in the land of theory" ... or whatever it is that you said.
>
>There is just no need to be so personal in your comments. It's nonproductive.
>
>Try this next time:
>
>"I wonder if these ideas could actually come to fruition or if they are just theoretical". One can achieve the same effect without attaching a person to the commentary.
>
>Perhaps we need a training workshop on de-personalization of comments to make our email exchanges more comfortable, because they feel like attacks too oft.
>
>Ron
>
>Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote: Ron - I was not "personalizing - I mentioned your name because you keep
>saying this over an dover - which you did againin your response. Perhaps
>repeating is supposed to convince people and that's waht yo umean by not telling
>people but "making the argument".
>
>I hear the argument, and have heard it again and again. those who hav ebeen
>convinced presumably have been. Perhaps a new strategy might be appropriate
>at this point?
>
>I ran a campaign that is absolutely RIPE for the party to use for building -
>that is not our campaign's responsibility - we worked our buts off and there
>is still debt and many of things that need working on by our core group.
>
>My question is whether it is this campaign, another campaign, or another
>initiative, why those active in our party don't do much party building. That's
>not calling names, that is my assessment and a question coming out of that.
>
>And I think it is a question we (and much of hte movement) need to face and
>answer - by figuring out why we don't do it, perhaps we can figure out what
>needs to be done so we do do it - And then line up the trainings to get over
>those hurdles.
>
>s I don't know who think I was personalizing - I am saying we need to look at
>ourselves honestly - not to criticize but to learn where we need to change,
>what holds us back from building the party we can-
>
>Please don't reply with the same answer - I know what your analysis is - now
>we need to ask and listen to others - Thanks, grace
>In a message dated 7/22/07 9:35:55 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
>
>
>> No need to personalize this....
>>
>> Let's talk about ideas and not people. Referring to people by names so much
>> (not just this last email but all of us really) is the first step toward
>> bullying. Let's just stop it, please.
>>
>> Agreed that people don't do as they are told in the party. I personally
>> never "tell" anyone what to do mainly because I don't believe in that. As an
>> award-winning physics teacher I know that people have to believe and act on
>> things themselves if they are really to have a passion about it and TRULY learn
>> or engage. I only present an argument and then people can do as they wish.
>> Empowerment is the key.
>>
>> We don't have a lot of local organizing I would argue because we are in a
>> modality of always trying to run for office instead of trying to build local
>> bases (which can include running for office,.. if done correctly),.. but
>> basically I think our focus has not been on local base building and therefore we
>> wind up doing other things that don't necessarily lead to local base building.
>> SPWG may correct this.
>>
>> We need to figure out ways to turn candidate runs, if we are going to do
>> them, into base building ventures. I would have liked to see our last round
>> of statewide races focused on a few communities for example.
>>
>> Also, it is not just our gubernatorial runs which must be subjected to
>> scrutiny but also our other statewide runs and even State Senate runs. I think
>> that each high profile candidate campaign, done over the last 7 years, from
>> Nader forward, needs to evaluate itself in many areas including the extent to
>> which local bases were built.
>>
>> I have faith that our SPWG process will converge on local work as the
>> primary need for party development, and I think we could even use a training on how
>> best to do it (regardless of the varying modalities).
>>
>> It will be interesting to see what comes out of SPWG as well as other local
>> organizing initiatives including the Worcester effort which I think is
>> promising.
>>
>> Finally, it is not true that there has been no local organizing going on.
>> There has been in several areas. And also it does not necessarily have to go
>> through the "state" party apparatus in order to be legitimate local work;
>> witness the Local Organizing Initiative which is poised to build more locals
>> with the agreement of people in several communities to use the LOI model. It
>> will take time though.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
>> Ron continues to live in the world of theory- we need to recognize that
>> people (certainly in this party) don't just do what they are told.? We have had
>> more than half a year of no statewide campaigns.? Do we have local building
>> oging on through the party?? No.? Proposals for local building were not brought
>> through the party structure.? We have lost the the second membership
>> director due to her leadership being undermined.
>>
>> And, yeah, my ran used some energy - it generated hundred fold more energy -
>> but wihtout a strategy and action to draw that energy into party building -
>> it sits out there simmering relatively untouched -
>>
>> so, yeah, folks need to build hte party, lets figure out why those active
>> don't do outreach and why at least some of those committed to do outreach were
>> pushed out of leadership-
>>
>> Then let's train and get going.
>>
>> Running should compliment and reinforce this -Love, grace
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ron Francis
>> To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> Sent: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 3:09 pm
>> Subject: [statecom-discuss] Think critically about Senate, Presidential
>> races
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> High Profile Candidate campaigns tend to draw a lot of energy because they
>> just
>> tend to be very sexy, for lack of a better word, and sometimes draw
>> charismatic
>> candidates that make them even more sexy.
>>
>> There is no guarantee though that these campaigns actually leave us in a
>> stronger position; sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.
>>
>> We need to be very careful here.
>>
>> We should not just run because we have the ability to run.
>>
>> The real question is whether or not the person-hours used up in running for
>> high
>> offices can be better used somewhere else. Each person needs to evaluate
>> this.
>>
>>
>> The person hours used up in high profile races could be used to really build
>> our
>> party at the local levels - which is what many people have said in any
>> "strategy" discussions that I have been aware of.
>>
>> We need to walk the walk and not just talk the talk; can we have just one
>> year
>> where our main focus is building up local chapters ? Just one year !...
>> just to
>> see what would happen. If it doesn't work, then we can go back to the
>> strategy
>> of running for high office essentially every chance we get.
>>
>> We get caught up in these high profile candidate races and all of our energy
>> gets sapped and the number of our locals stays the same or decreases. Our
>> active membership can even DECLINE. At some point we have to learn from our
>> experiences.
>>
>> We could have 30 or 40 thriving local chapters in one year's time if we use
>> our
>> energy appropriately, but we choose not to. How long will this continue ?
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
>> AOL at AOL.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>**************************************
> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
>http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
Bill Cunningham
More information about the statecom-discuss
mailing list