[statecom-discuss] Re: [Locals] Green-Rainbow

Thu Mar 1 23:03:33 EST 2007

HI Elie,

I appreciate the thought that I could possibly write a strategy for the GRP !

I don't think any one person has the answers about the long-term direction for the GRP...  and even if she/he did, I don't think it is a healthy process.  I put out my thoughts for discussion and thus call my documents "discussion papers" on strategy and Eli has accepted them as the kind of input that he asked for.

Do I have ideas about things we should experiment with ? Definitely.  
Am I willing to continue old initiatives that were successful, and develop new ones that I think make sense ? Sure.

Do any particular initiatives such as shaping our new brochure, or focusing on Chuck Turner's race, or the Local Organizing Initiative represent a "strategy" for the party ?  No.  These are just ideas that subgroups of the GRP are free to experiment with in their belief that these are useful activities for the party to be engaging in.  

I prefer the attitude that John Andrews recently put forth in looking at all of this: support efforts to try different initiatives and incorporate all, some, or none of them into whatever strategy one wants to get involved in developing, depending if it makes sense or not.  He had other great suggestions too, as a lead member on the strategy working group: I hope you have read his email.

Ron

Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net> wrote: Ron, I am not clear about why you are posting to the statecom-discuss 
list.  I am assuming that you either wish to present your ideas on 
strategy for discussion, or that you have the strategy for building the 
GRP already worked out.   Assuming the first to be the case, I will try 
to limit myself to one or two things at a time:

> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 03:07:42 -0800 (PST)
> From: Ron Francis 
> Subject: [statecom-discuss] Last one ! Re: [Locals] Green-Rainbow
>  Party gets serious about strategy!
> To: Eli Beckerman , locals at green-rainbow.org,
>  statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> Message-ID: <851945.54161.qm at web32203.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

> Last one for you Eli....It would be good to post a schedule for the 
> strategic planning work so that people can participate in when they 
> want to.
Are you certain that the strategic planning work can be best done by a 
schedule of something or another before SPWG has determined what is on 
the ground?   Or has determined what information is needed?

> Title: Discussion Paper B1:
> Which way forward for the GRP in the next few years: what are the key 
> ideas ?
>
> Let me suggest 3 ideas that must inform all strategic thinking.
I am not sure that ideas pulled from someplace are the best way to 
initiate strategic planning, although I agree with you that we have to 
look at where we are.  Just take #1, for example.  I have had extensive 
contact with Progressive Democrats, both PDC and PDA, and cannot detect 
that we are in competition with them for anything.

> 1) Recognize that we are in competition with the "Progressive 
> Democrats" of Massachusetts.
If I begin with the 'recognition' that I am competing with PDA, I am 
already in the quicksand of defining myself competitively, and of 
course emulating them to the point where I have to shape distinctions 
vis-a-vis a 'competitor' rather than bring my own developed vision, 
tactics, and new people to the scene of political action.
> They have a fundamentally different strategy but politics that are 
> identical to ours in some cases (they favor single payer for example) 
> and in other cases their politics can be made to sound similar to us.
It is in our politics that we differ from them most.  They are 
issue-oriented.  They are constituency oriented.  They are 
"vote-for-me, and I'll get you what you want" politics.  The 
possibility that the GRP might agree with a proposal of the PDA enough 
to support it is as irrelevant, as an old offer from a PDA member to 
make the 10 values a part of the Democratic Party platform.  A liberal 
or a PDA member might believe that his politics is identical to ours, 
but I do not see how anyone who is familiar with the foundations of the 
Green Party can believe it.
> These folks are fairly well organized, have excellent models of 
> organizing on the ground, have been successful, and are poised to 
> build.
Emulating their methods of organizing requires money, rewards, and all 
the apparatus of attachments and supports from the main party in 
Massachusetts.  They are so unsuccessful that they are unable to throw 
their support to a candidate who is a GRP member, no matter how much 
they might wish to.  When Ken Reeves contributed money at an event for 
Chuck Turner, he was violating Party discipline.
> If we think we can ignore these efforts, especially with the misnamed 
> "spoiler" effect then we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
What are you referring to?  Paul Lachlier was considered a 'spoiler' 
when he ran as a Green against Timothy Toomey after the redistricting, 
and when the PDA could not find a candidate to run against him in the 
primary.  Having laid the groundwork, winning in several precincts, 
Paul showed that he could be defeated.  So Avi Green (PDA) ran against 
Toomey in the primary two years later, and lost.  The 'spoiler' effect 
lay in the fact that Toomey had to spend between twice and four times 
as much money as he had ever spent to get himself re-elected.  So he 
sees the GRP as spoilers.  Good!
> The "progressive Dems" will attract people and make it harder for GRP 
> to build with our social justice vision.
They will engender more of them than we will of us.  Yay! team.  Put 
that ball across the line!
> In order to counter this effect we need to carryout actions and plans 
> that distinguish us from the Progressive Dems in a way that is clear 
> and simple to the public, or else we will lose the competition.
I am happy to know that you have found a way to make it clear and 
simple to the public, us, that we might be better off eating less of 
whatever it is that will make it necessary for us to be dependent on 
the new pharmaceutical products that will treat us for the results.  
And how are you going to encourage the use of bicycles and walking, or 
do you believe that this should be a task left to the Green interest 
groups that spring up all over the place.
> This will necessitate root-cause discussion.
Again, what analysis led you to this conclusion.  How do you 
distinguish between the necessary and the contingent?

I have no idea of what you mean when you speak of strategic thinking.  
And I wish I did.  What are your plans about participating 
systematically in these discussions?
Peace,
Elie

> 2) Focus on local organizing with well thought out models
>
> To have actual power in a community means having a base of support 
> built up.  This can typically only be done locally for groups, like 
> ours, that do not have large resources because of our politics mainly. 
>  A healthy GRP will have chapters growing in each local district using 
> well tested models.  The bottom line is this:  If we don't execute 
> replicatable local models of local base-building then we aren't going 
> anywhere.  This is a cold but true reality.   Our growth rate must 
> exceed our loss rate.  As a side note I would say that the best models 
> are ones that involve DIRECT local organizing meaning activities that 
> put us in contact with new and ordinary people on a regular basis (and 
> this is whether one is trying a candidate approach, an issue approach, 
> a ballot approach, or a project approach)
>
> 3) Use the "foco" theory
>
> Che Guevara understood that with limited resources one needs to focus 
> efforts one community at a time and hope the focused effort creates a 
> stronghold that is solid.  Thus, regardless of what planning one has, 
> realize that it will probably need a kick-start that involves people 
> from a given regional area focusing together on a given local effort 
> to solidify that effort to the point where the effort is 
> selfsustaining.  As an example:  rather than run 3 state Rep 
> candidates in Briston county, instead pull together many Bristol 
> county GRP's and solidify one local area.  (And we shouldn't cheat !  
> Let's establish criteria for what it means for a local area to be 
> established and if we don't have it yet then keep concentrating the 
> forces until it truly is established).  This means making some choices 
> about with local area to choose; let' s not be afraid to do that.
>
> Let me know what you think...
>
>
> Eli Beckerman  wrote: Hi everyone,
>
> I've recently realized that this hasn't gone out as broadly as assumed.
> Please forward to your local GRP lists!
>
> The Green-Rainbow Party has embarked on a process to develop a
> strategic action plan for 2007-2009 that will enable us to focus our
> limited resources on projects and efforts that will increase our
> active membership and proactively position the party to be a
> recognizable and essential force in the Massachusetts movements for
> social and economic justice, sustainability, democracy, and peace.
>
> The strategic plan will help focus the  activities of the party to
> ensure its growth and vitality over the next two years. It will
> identify the key issues that we will address, the constituencies we
> will focus upon, and the  techniques we will use for outreach.
>
> GRP MEMBERS ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE WAYS
> LISTED BELOW.
>
> 1. BECOME A MEMBER OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN WORKING GROUP (SPWG)
>
> The SPWG will be made up of representatives of the Abolish Poverty,
> Platform, Membership and Diversity, Fundraising, Communications, and
> Candidate Development & Legal Committees.  Every active GRP local
> chapter or caucus may also have one representative each. The GRP
> co-chairs will appoint up to six additional members who express
> interest and are considered by the co-chairs to be most valuable to
> helping the SPWG complete its work and in adding diversity to the 
> group.
>
> The SPWG will analyze strategy options and write the plan.   Over the
> next four  months, SPWG members will be expected to devote about 3 or 4
> hours per week to working-group activities such as attending regular
> meetings, reading suggestions submitted by Party members,  helping
> with research into the issues, calling in to SPWG teleconferences,
> organizing a GRP strategic planning session, helping write or revise
> the plan, and organizing the plan's roll-out at the 2007 State 
> Convention.
>
> If you would like to represent a local chapter, caucus, or one of the
> 6 GRP working committees listed above, please try to secure the
> group's appointment by the end of February, and notify the party
> co-chairs of your status, .
>
> To apply for one of the 6 open positions, send your name, email
> address, and telephone number to party co-chairs: Luc Shuster and
> Wendy Van Horne, .  Please include a brief
> description of yourself including any background explaining how you
> could  contribute to writing a good strategic plan and any way in which
> you would add to the diversity of the group.  Applications must be
> received by February 26 to be considered.
>
> We  expect the first SPWG meeting to be in early March.
>
> 2. ATTEND COMMENT SESSIONS
>
> The second way to participate is to attend one of the comment
> sessions. An extended strategy session will be held at a meeting to
> be held in March.  Subsequent, shorter comment sessions will be held
> as part of SPWG meeting agendas. The date and location of such
> meetings will be posted on the GRP website. If you would prefer to
> receive a special meeting invitation by email or phone, send your name
> and email address or phone number to .
>
> 3. SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS
>
> The third way to participate is to submit written comments or
> suggestions to the SPWG. Although comments can be in any form, the
> SPWG expects to pose certain questions to solicit  more focused input.
> Comments can be sent to . If you wish to be
> notified when comments are requested to particular questions, send
> your name and email address to  this address. If you wish to submit
> comments by regular mail, send them to Strategic Plan Working Group,
> c/o John Andrews, 22 Kendall Road, Lexington, MA 02421.
>
> Visit http://green-rainbow.org/Committees/Strategic_Planning
> for more info, or contact Eli Beckerman at 617-821-1453 or  .
>
> Thank you for giving this your consideration.
> _______________________________________________
> Locals mailing list
> Locals at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/locals
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>
> End of statecom-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 87
> ************************************************
>

_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss