[statecom-discuss] Facing some hard truths about our party

[Eli Beckerman]

Thanks Ron.
It should be noted that written comments (which can be sent to me) will have
as much weight as comments presented in person today. The SPWG will continue
to solicit written comments, and will open up parts of its meetings for open
comments (hopefully in different parts of the state).

Thanks for trying to articulate "our fundamental problem", and I think it
would be helpful to everyone involved in the GRP if we actively think these
things through (part of the reflection/evaluation that Mike H. requests, and
the self-evaluation that Bill C. has been saying is missing).

I tend to disagree with your assessment... I think we have multiple
fundamental problems. Most fundamental among them is probably that our
actions are not part of a bigger strategy. Running for high office isn't a
strategy, it's a tactic. If our goal in 2006 was to provide MA voters an
alternative choice to the duopoly, then we succeeded, and we should run in
every election. If our goal was to grow the party -- as measured by our
working committees, active volunteers, etc. -- then we probably didn't
succeed.

I think it is hasty to say that we should abandon those tactics that have
not worked out for us. Without most of the Party on board with a clear,
collectively-developed strategy, I think we will continue to spin our
wheels. If, for example, the GRP decided that it was going to use 2006 to
push for Instant Run-off Voting, it could have chosen several tactics,
including our terrific candidates for statewide office, and non-electoral
tactics in harmony with that. Of course, it would have had to have had a
realistic assessment of our resources and our ability to make headway on
specific goals.

As it was, the statewide races for office were not part of a bigger GRP
strategy than our customary "let's run for the offices that we can/should
run for".

On 5/6/07, Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Betz,
>
> I don't want to suggest any plan for going forward since I prefer that the
> Strategic Planning Working Group use a collective process.
>
> I am simply suggesting that our current approach is not working; it has at
> best a zero growth rate and maybe even a negative growth rate.  Despite
> this, we tend to just keep on doing what we have already been doing, and
> what it is that we keep doing does not work.  Why we keep doing it is
> interesting to analyze from a psychological point of view, but not as
> important as the fact that we keep doing it.
>
> We would like to believe that our statewide Marches and statewide
> candidate campaigns will spontaneously produce active involvement and
> growth.  The cold truth is that neither will.
>
> While I won't suggest a plan, I will spell out our fundamental
> problem:  in a nutshell, we do not have a reproducible mechanism for
> mobilizing people in new or non-new areas, into local GRP entities, around
> issues that they have some passion about (that's what organizing IS... and
> either we don't know HOW to do it reproducibly or we don't WANT to).
>
> Chuck's work and Luc's work are our most successful efforts to date but
> neither is easily reproducible, and neither seems that connected to
> party-identified growth activity.
>
> on the gender issue that you mentioned....I sent my message to the entire
> statecom and addressed Eli and Mike only because they were two people who I
> knew were going to the meeting....perhaps however, I should have said
> "anyone going to the meeting" ....and so I accept your criticism.
>
> Ron
>
> "Betty H. Zisk" <zisk at bu.edu> wrote: Ron: Your message is important and
> visionary. I am sorry that you cant
> deliver it in person because it is exactly this kind of thinking that
> Strategic Planning Group was designed to catch. I would ask you, however,
> to
> finish your thoughts with a positive suggestion for action--which is also
> what we want. Are you implying that the answer lies in your sometimes
> preferred strategy of town referenda votes? If you are then please spell
> it
> out--which towns under what condiditions have used or are able to use this
> strategy and with what degree of success? (Please note that I dont ask
> idly.
> I have written a book on the state referenda process, now out of print
> alas;
> I am one of the few progressive scholars that believes in that process. I
> realize it has sometimes been used in the past for racist purposes as
> other
> (black) scholars have charged.That doesnt mean it is invalid for
> progressives.)
>
> If on the other hand you are implying a different sort of strategy, please
> spell it out as well. Your and my paths dont often cross and that is too
> bad
> as well. I wish you could take into acct that there is a strong minded
> female constituency out here as well. Of course Eli shares the statements
> he
> receives with other members of the Strategic Planning Group and is
> committed
> to diversity in our midst. I am not a militant feminist; in fact I have
> made
> a career even under John Silber of being gentle on that topic. But I cant
> help but noting your preference for addressing important topics to a male
> population. Greens since I have known them and joined in activism since
> 1986
> have an unusually high proportion of males--I am not sure why since our
> founding mothers included Petra Kelly and Charlene Spretnak, both of whom
> I
> number among my heroes. But sobeit. I am just asking you to note the
> presence of several active and bright women as well.  Betts Zisk--in
> solidarity with your courage.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
> [mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org ]On Behalf Of Ron
> Francis
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 6:17 PM
> To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> Subject: [statecom-discuss] Facing some hard truths about our party
>
>
> (Eli or Mike, if you read this please bring it to the Strategic Planning
> meeting as I will be hosting a potluck at my house during the SPWG
> meeting)
>
> On problem facing GRP:
>
> I agree with Mike that something is amiss with the GRP.  But I would say
> that it has less to do with process and more to do with approach.
>
> There are some basic facts that we need to face:
>
> Over the last 5 years or so:
>
> 1) We have spent an enormous amount of energy on candidate approaches at
> the
> statewide level and have little to show for it: we are not larger or
> stronger at the state or local level, we are not more vibrant, and there
> is
> nothing to suggest that any of our past statewide activities will
> springboard us into more relevance.
>
> 2) We have spent a lot of activity on the statewide abolish poverty theme,
> as a non-candidate approach, and  we have little to show for it:  we have
> zero or little growth in organization based around this idea and few
> people
> know about or identify the GRP with abolishing poverty.
>
> Basically, our two dominant venues for expending involvement have not
> worked.
>
> The minor spin-off effects of either the enticing statewide candidate
> approach or the dramatic abolish poverty theme, are too negligible to be
> considered fertile ground for party growth.
>
> If nothing else we need to seriously consider abandoning these two
> approaches; we now know for sure that these approaches do not mobilize
> people;.. to be blunt, they are a failure in terms of organizing people.
>
> The candidate campaigns have not led to any significant building of local
> entities around candidate approaches and they didn't 5 years ago either.
>
> The abolish poverty theme approach has not led to new local entities
> focusing on poverty issues and it didn't 4 years ago, or 3 years ago, or 2
> years ago.
>
> Bottom line is that we need a dramatic change in how we expend energy;
> statewide experiments are not working to build our party.
>
> Fool me once shame on you, ... fool me twice shame on me,....  fool me
> three
> times and I'm in denial.
>
> Instead of spending 80% of our energy on these approaches, let's be bold
> and
> change course.
>
> Ron Francis
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>