FACTIONALISM IN THE GPCA AND VISION FOR REFORM
A LETTER FROM BYRON DE LEAR TO MEMBERS OF GPCA, GPUS
SUBJECT: FACTIONALISM IN THE GREEN PARTY AND VISION FOR REFORM
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
DAMAGE DONE TO GPCA, GPUS
Locally, the Green Party is continuing to make strides in bringing innovative and environmentally friendly leadership to school boards, city councils and even mayor-ships across the country, however, our inability to successfully process conflicts in our state party apparatus in California has made state wide growth nearly impossible.
This in turn, has negatively impacted the entire Green Party nationally, as California represents the forefront of national green politics and the State with the most Green Party members in the US.
As there have been quite a few efforts to mediate between the actors, mitigate the damage done and then move on towards more productive activities for the party, we have failed in arriving at a conclusive settlement acceptable to the warring factions.
Unlike Washington gridlock, because the Green Party does not have the mechanisms in place to break the impasse, these factions have succeeded in shutting down the Green Party's ability to significantly grow, the Green Party's ability to politically capitalize on rising environmental awareness and ultimately, the Green Party's ability to work together as a team at the state and/or national level.
Most certainly, with the vote of 77% to press the eject button on the entire GPCA-CC says a lot about the frustration the delegates assembled feel.
I would like to report on some observations I've had after attending the plenary this past weekend in San Francisco; and I would like to share with you all what I consider to be some fatal flaws with our current party structure in the GPUS in general, with the Green Party of California (GPCA), and with the Green Party of Los Angeles, more specifically.
I bring these suggestions as my opinion of the kind of broad stroke reforms necessary to revive and resurrect the Green Party of Los Angeles and the Green Party of California.
If changes at a fundamental level DO NOT OCCUR, I cannot see the rationale in continuing to try to push a square peg into a round hole, nor can I continue to expect any different desire among the principal Green Party leaders currently embroiled to put party efficacy above personality conflicts and factionalism and begin to work as a team towards the common goals we are supposed to share.
With this sentiment of the need for immediate and emergency actions, these are the most life-threatening areas that I feel deserve a form of political triage and reform.
Failure to do things logistically in a drastically different way, I fear will only produce the kinds of results we have been seeing consistently in the CC for YEARS NOW.
FATAL FLAWS:
I. NO PARTY LEADER
II. 80% Voting Thresholds
III. Failure to Rise with Rapid Growth of Global Environmental Concerns
BROAD STROKE FIXES:
1) WE NEED A CHAIRPERSON and/or LEADER
2) 80% VOTING THRESHOLD IS UNREALISTIC; PARALYZING
3) GREEN PARTY MUST BE THE POLITICAL LEADER ON ENVIRONMENT
1) WE NEED A CHAIRPERSON and/or LEADER
GPCA, GPUS have no individual leader/s --
Political parties have leaders, like Elizabeth May in the Canadian Green Party or Jorge Emilio Gonzalez of Partido Verde Ecologista de Mexico. This can help resolve conflicts with a little top-down dynamic.
This leadership position for the GPCA would help guide the party, setting strategic priorities and providing executive accountability.
Currently, strategic priorities have been abandoned along with any sense of accountability as the impasse persists.
Grassroots and bottom-up democracy is one of the Green Party's ten key values, but not at the expense of making the party vulnerable to self-destruction due to factionalism, to unwieldy voting thresholds or to infiltration by newcomers bent on destruction or power-mongering.
The present inoperative state has reduced our ability to politically express our NINE other philosophical and political values: an unworthy ideological sacrifice.
Without a political leader or chairperson, we have no executive accountability to act as a check and balance among the warring factions on our various committees, etc.
I would like to see one of our elected leaders, like San Francisco Board of Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, become the chairperson of the GPCA, and in so doing follow the structural lead of many Green Parties around the world.
The reason for suggesting Ross Mirkarimi for our first chairperson is that he is the most prominent elected Green Party member in California with the most experienced sense of real world politics – the kind of perspective the GPCA leadership needs the most.
If we don't like the track record he or she begins to amass as our state party leader, we could vote him or her out.
The point is, an individual will be more naturally involved with developing a track record with specific and citable milestones as the chairperson of our party.
Having a party leader, like most Green Parties on the entire planet, is less idealist and more rooted is a results-oriented attitude, that is, getting things done.
I think it could be said that in the Green Party of California, we could use a little more realism and pragmatism and little less idealism.
Having a party chairperson will help us focus on getting things done.
2) 80% VOTING THRESHOLD IS UNREALISTIC; PARALYZING
It's a fairly basic argument. In the presence of warring factions, having to reach 80% to do anything politically significant becomes an act of futility, because only 21% is needed to block an action.
A "no" vote becomes FOUR TIMES THE POLITICAL POWER of a "yes" vote.
The path of least resistance becomes an act of negation.
Therefore, with the warring factions continuing to be worked up in a frenzy, the party becomes an "anti-party" as overzealous actors cast blocking votes with the misperception that something is being accomplished, when in reality NO THING was accomplished.
Most all of us have heard the presentations to attempt to bring our consensus idealism down into the real world by reducing the draconian 80% voting threshold to a more reasonable two-thirds (66%), three-fifths (60%) or even simple majority (50%+1) voting threshold.
If we want to be a party of action, we must loosen our thought police handcuffs and our ideological purity in favor of accomplishing things, moving our party forward.
How about 3/5? (60%) or, simple majority?
3) GREEN PARTY MUST BE THE POLITICAL LEADER ON ENVIRONMENT
This is vitally important to the survival of the Green Party, and is more of a call to action to save the party versus the suggestion of an actual reform per se.
In the last 18 months the environmental concerns of the general US population has increased exponentially via a multitude of media reports on Global Warming, lead by former Vice-President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth".
Issues such as, "addiction to oil", "alternative fuels", "carbon footprint" and "renewable energy" have risen to levels of popular familiarity never seen before in our nation's history.
A sea change in the popular perception of environmental concerns has occurred, although the Green Party in many instances has not been seen to be at the forefront of this shift in popular perception.
The reason I consider it to be an issue of survival, is naturally embedded in the party's name, that if we are withering on the vine politically in the midst of the single largest increase in the popularity of environmental concerns, this must say that we are doing something incredibly wrong.
I think that if much of the time and energy spent by many of our party's leaders into a battle of irrelevance, would have instead been focused on moving the party forward, we may not have missed the boat. All of a sudden we have mainstream politicians speaking sustainability as if they had been there all along.
Fatal flaw: the Green Party has failed to capitalize on the rise of the environmental stewardship portfolio.
I'll make the argument that if the real actions of the Green Party do not reflect this accelerating trend of green issues being discussed throughout our education system, green issues discussed in the media and consequently, green policies being negotiated in our corridors of power, the Green Party in the US will further isolate itself from mainstream acceptability, as our most salient issue "the environment", has been successfully expropriated from us by Enviro-Dems and Green-Repubs, like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
We must field our own experts working with Establishment environmental scientists and researchers, and feature media events demonstrating the necessity for a new political language spoken by the Green Party to solve the environmental challenges our nation is facing.
PLAYING LIKE A TEAM
If you think about the Green Party as an extremely over-powered underdog "team" taking on more powerful major party "teams", it becomes clear that playing together as a team will maximize the impact of what comparatively meager resources we have available to us.
To the different factions, the question then becomes what's more important:
Being right?
Or,
Making the Green Party win?
Are we willing to destroy the Green Party just to get our way?
We aren't playing as a team, we are playing out a cartoonish miniaturized version of Washington DC gridlock within our own ranks, increasing our isolation and diminishing our viability as a result.
I think I've heard hard working, Los Angeles Green Lisa Taylor refer to this as "navel gazing". I have previously talked about our over-exercised contrarian muscles as third political party members being wielded onto each other, creating a predilection for "insular bloodlust".
From just a short distance away, all the fighting just seems crazy.
It seems crazy -- not just from a rash and judgmental perspective, but also from a results oriented perspective.
So again as I see it,
FATAL FLAWS:
I. NO PARTY LEADER
II. 80% Voting Thresholds
III. Failure to Rise with Rapid Growth of Global Environmental Concerns
BROAD STROKE FIXES:
1) WE NEED A CHAIRPERSON and/or LEADER
2) 80% VOTING THRESHOLD IS UNREALISTIC; PARALYZING
3) GREEN PARTY MUST BE THE POLITICAL LEADER ON ENVIRONMENT
I would like us to discuss this with the possibility of crafting a unified statement as a petition. I have expressed these concerns with many Greens who support the idea of a unified statement.
The Green Party has been the hope and vessel for the dreams of many in the progressive community stateside and internationally, who see the present state of two-party politics in the United States as being intractable to the clarion call of sustainability and the necessity of beginning the construction of a sustainable socio-economic system: the vaunted New Economy, as many leading thinkers and authors like David Korten have expressed, moving from global empire to earth community.
Byron De Lear
Global Peace Solution
GPS... positioning the world in a different way
Technorati Tags: 
Hey Byron, I appreciate that you are taking the initiative to put forth ideas to resolve the GPCA factional fighting. I enjoyed seeing you again and I feel you bring some great qualities to the Green Parties. :-) I'm supportive of your other initiative for a Constitutional Convention to resolve the constitutional crisis this country is in.
And I also think you have many great ideas in your blog posting. However on the first point you put forward (you propose a chairperson or leader) I think you're not getting a Green perspective. We are purposely Decentralized. As a matter of a fact if anything the factional fanatics are trying to use domination techniques to centralize their power and this would only exacerbate the problem. No, we need to find a Green way (along the lines of building up our antibodies) to resist the factional fanatics engulfing the GPCA. I particularly like Kalmran Alavi's response to your post in Cal-Forum so I'm reposting it here:
"THE ONE" cracked me up because it gave me a visual of Highlander where all the swordsman immortals are trying to kill one another to become THE ONE. :-)
JamBoi
Technorati Profile
Drew,
Great seeing you again as well.
If you support the friends of the article v convention, please do join as a member at www.foavc.org , if anything just to keep abreast, k?
JamBoi said, "However on the first point you put forward (you propose a chairperson or leader) I think you're not getting a Green perspective."
You may think that having a party chairperson violates decentralization, but I disagree.
Establishing a party leader position may be opposite to the spirit of decentralization, BUT as a structural reform to our internal politics bringing stability and results, having a leader position may act to further the interests of political decentralization agenda.
JamBoi said, "I think you're not getting a Green perspective."
Many Green Parties around the world practice Green politics successfully with an elected leader.
Our party in California is in a state of practical inoperation due to a Green Party family feud.
This suggests we need an overhaul, yes?
Seeing everyone for many years continue to beat on each other, and last weekend 'keep on keepin' on' was tragic and sad to witness.
All the while the GPCA continues to miss growth opportunities and languish in a cult of self-defeatism.
This is unacceptable and kind of freaks me out a little, and I think we really need to consider some 'real world' reforms to the way we move forward as an effective political force statewide; nationally.
We are going to have to reconcile our idealism with the rigors of reality, as these are the kinds of gradient decisions and compromises that make up the fine art of political wisdom -- picking our fights, right?
The first step in fixing something is to know that its broke -- we are at that point, right?
The Party's ability to work together, to prioritize the expenditure of resources starting with time, to capitalize on opportunities, to have a strategic plan, to win elections -- all these are suffering considerably, right?
I think we could learn a little from the operative success of a great many Green Parties around the world, many of which have party leaders.
This is a normal thing, a party chairperson.
If the current crisis of party inaction doesn’t freak you out, then lets continue to parade our ideals and pretend things will work themselves out.
I think the crisis demands emergency steps to revive any of the viability that we still have left.
It's not just the reconciliation of the existing warring sides, we also must shore up and protect against the problem returning again.
Perhaps, the problems are NOT JUST PEOPLE but also STRUCTURAL....?
We must realize that growing bigger will only bring more perplexing problems; not less -- and that after witnessing the perpetual melee in the GPCA for YEARS, our current structural design with the flaws of the draconian 80% voting threshold and an easily stymied and leaderless CC, WILL NOT be effective in isolating internecine factionalism away from being threat to the success of the party.
JamBoi said, "Single Central Leader violates Key Value of Decentralization!"
Our 10 key values are not on & off switches to be flipped like a red card in a soccer match when the political quip requires -- having a party leader MAY BE a move in the direction opposite to decentralization,
BUT
If that reform succeeds in bearing fruit in the form of a renewed and effective Green Party of California, moving forward with concrete goals (like Canada or Mexico), then a "single central leader" does not "violate" decentralization, it realizes it, politically.
i.e., making the GPCA more effective acts as a catalyst to bring decentralization forward in a political setting relevant to the real world.
Also, JamBoi, what do you think about the voting threshold of 80%?
Please read below my response to Kalmran's dismissal of the party leader suggestion:
Kalmran,
Nice seeing your solar power demo at the plenary. Thanks for bringing that in and doing some heavy lifting.
It's clear that things aren't working in our Green Party in California.
So instead of keeping on doing the same things, we should do different things.
"Political parties have leaders, like Elizabeth May in the Canadian Green Party or Jorge Emilio Gonzalez of Partido Verde Ecologista de Mexico."
I suggested three different things we could do to move party business forward.
One was to create a chairperson position of the party, and Kalmran thinks that would be bad.
Kalmran said, "What we do not need is yet another scheme to concentrate power. We do not need ONE leader."
Kalmran, I am not scheming to concentrate power, what I am trying to do is to suggest some real world changes to get the party out of the rut it is stuck in.
Power somewhere would indeed need to shift to prevent the self-negating and self-destructive propensities we have seen for YEARS NOW in our conflicted impasse.
In other words, something somewhere WOULD NEED to actually change.
We can either shift power into a more decentralized, less coordinated college of locals, Marc S. has lobbied for this from time to time
OR
We can try to put some mechanisms in place that provide effective leadership, move party business forward, and act as a check and balance against warring factions.
Byron said, "If we don't like the track record he or she begins to amass as our state party leader, we could vote him or her out."
Byron said, "The point is, an individual will be more naturally involved with developing a track record with specific and citable milestones as the chairperson of our party."
I know it's nice to think that we could "just work things out" with things as they are, but I've reached the point of realization that because we have failed to grow in the most "growth friendly" climate for green issues and for the Green Party, something is desperately wrong with our sense of realpolitik.
I'm trying to "keep it real".
To "keep it real", I feel we must question NOT ONLY the particular players and their motives involved in the feuding political "dance of death",
BUT ALSO,
We must question the practicality and reasonableness of the party structures in place that perpetuate the conflict and act as barriers towards reaching a permanent solution.
To me two of those structural impediments to getting things done are the fact that we have a draconian and idealistic voting threshold of 80% that short circuits after smelling even a whiff of contention; and we depart from most political parties in the world, including most of our fellow Green Parties, by not having a party chairperson as an accountable executive.
Accountability is key here -- right now, we have none, so nothing gets done.
I think we would benefit from having a party chairperson, that would provide strategic guidance and yes, the power to deflect self-negating factionalism from substantively paralyzing the party's work.
With regard to a chairperson, I also think we should ask for advice from some of our neighboring Green Parties, namely Mexico and Canada, and see how their more successful parties operate with a party chairperson/ leader, while balancing the needs of Grassroots Democracy.
Byron said, "Having a party leader, like most Green Parties on the entire planet, is less idealist and more rooted is a results-oriented attitude, that is, getting things done."
We should try to emulate some of the structures that work in other Green Parties, cause our system of getting things done is totally broken.
Is there another example of a modern political party operating with significant success in a democracy that does not have a party leader, and only moves forward with 80% votes?
Byron De Lear
will help establish broad unity and with your help (since you've taken some Nonviolent Communication or NVC) Yes I fully agree that an overhaul is absolutely required, so let's begin at the beginning. We will probably get a LOT further by trying the NVC way first: by Needs Analysis instead of jumping too quickly to specific strategies. Any given specific strategy will always be highly debatable but unity comes from building bridges by expressing Needs first. Let's you and me try this and we'll be amazed how far NVC can carry the GPCA.
So everyone check out the Needs list at http://cnvc.org/needs.htm and express your Needs.
Technorati Profile
Its not very Green. It has an awful reputation as basically being a corrupt, one-family run nepotistic, oligarchic autocracy with 'greenwash' over the top. I would not be surprised if the Global Greens disaffiliate with them its so out of kilter. Hardly anything we'd want to imitate. For more info see Partido Verde Ecologista de México, known by the abbreviation PVEM).
Technorati Profile
They are anti-choice, as in do not support a woman's right to choice in reproductive health care.
Drew,
What I'm saying is that Partido Verde gets things done -- GPCA doesn't.
I'm didn't say copy their politics, I said copy their structure that works.
Byron
Byron De Lear Green Party California Global Peace Solution GPS... positioning the world in a different way www.globalpeacesolution.org byron@globalpeacesolution.org
and you weaken your argument by referring to them. What does it matter if a party is "getting things done" if the things they are getting done are taking bribes, nepotism and other corrupt behaviors as with the Mexican "Green" Party. They are noone we real Greens would EVER want to imitate. They are a prime example of why a central authority figure is a terrible idea and not at all Green. :-) Their structure does NOT work and that is why we should NOT imitate them.
Technorati Profile
As long as:
* the leader's term is finite,
* the leader has no power to perpetuate his/her own office, and
* the leader can be removed at any time by the body of members,
then the leader remains subservient to the membership and the goal of decentralization is preserved.
things really are in the GPCA. Any move that looks like a further centralization of power will be utterly rejected by the rank and file because of the intense factionalization by fanatical followers of two 'tribes'. It might as well be Repubs v Dems or even Shias v Sunnis! No, that will not work here.
Technorati Profile
How would the GPCA feel about a Moderator, whose purpose is solely to facilitate discussion and prepare the agenda? With no executive powers, per se, no 'vote' except as may occasionally be needed as a tiebreaker, and whose service is only at the pleasure of the Delegates?
Sort of a 'purist' definition of a president?
ah, therin lies the rub. It IS THE AGENDA that has become so politicized in GPCA, setting the agenda for plenaries results in an impasse, often with 2 agendas because regional rep seats are already disputed. So, no, sorry this suggestion would not help the GPCA.
The needs based analysis might help narrow what is actually needed and what 'title' to give that person. GGP used to have a political coordinator. This person was part time staff and reported to what we call the QDC, which is the officers elected by the state party coordinating council. The Coordinating Council is elected by the full state party annual meeting. Some of the political coordinator's tasks were defined by contract and some were directed in an ongoing way by the officers, i.e. the QDC. Finally, some would be brought before the coordinating council which met at least once a month on telephone conference.
The Political Coordinator did things like take the decisions of the CC and the QDC and 'make' them happen. Press releases got sent out. Fundraising letters got drafted and put before the QDC and sometimes even the CC. Public notices got drafted and filed on time.
Part of the Political Coordinator's job was to help with fundraising. Part of the Political Coordinator's job was to help with recruitment and nurturing of candidates. Ever since we lost our political coordinator, many things fell off the map here in Georgia. We lost our office space as we could not afford to keep it up. We have struggled to have a semblance of organization since then.
This person wasn't always popular. This person wasn't even always right. But it was their job to make sure things got done and done on time, and most of the time this person did that.
And this person did NOT make all the decisions. So there was never any THE ONE, as someone called it above. The ultimate responsibility for the state party's day to day activities still rested with the officers, who were accountable to the Coordinating Council. We also had ways to call for removal from office of the CC and the QDC, plus the contract was written in a way that it was clear that the Political Coordinator pretty much served at the pleasure of the Council, but removal had to be based on performance, lack thereof, or specifically defined prohibited or undesirable actions.
As an aside, I have always wondered how the heck y'all got anything done with an 80% threshold, but apparently this has become a stumbling block.
Best regards for sorting these things out. I know that most Greens across the nation wish GPCA well, no matter who they may or may not like from whichever faction. We have so much work to do that we have to find a way to rise above this type of strife.
it. No, the GPCA doesn't need any single leader. We need to live out within our processes respect towards one another, our party and our voters. Its primarily a cultural change. The cultural change can however be supported by structural changes that incentivize consensual decision making behavior instead of factionalism and obstructionism.
Technorati Profile
Drew, why are you holding on to stuctures that have failed us?
We have to get real about pressing forward with our politcal values and doctrine, we have to get our head out of the clouds, really.
We are going up against big money and we can't mess around anymore with an experiment -- we have to go for results oriented actions and reforms.
I think if you ran as a candidate like I have, you'd have a better sense of what we're up against.
As a candidate, the GP is a total impediment to electoral success for NO GOOD REASON.
Just preserving some sort of idealistic fantasy that things will just magically work themselves out.
We have to be less fearful of stepping on toes, and pick up the piano and move it, not just continue to caucus about it.
I am very serious about this, and will put my efforts elsewhere if we don't wake up to become the kind of political competitors that we need to be if we want to win.
I know this attitude of terseness and all this talk of 'winning' is so very cro-magnon, BUT this is what we have chosen if we want to compete in electoral politics.
If we just want to stay up in our tree house and pretend that our ideology alone will win the day, I'm sorry but from my experience that's a pipe dream.
Ideology DOES NOT drive -- it only guides.
Moving people en masse is the politcal prize that wins elections and forwards our progressive agenda.
Byron
Consensus-seeking and group leadership is the next evolutionary step. Greens are on the leading edge. Why would we want to "compete" with old-school, corrupt, retro parties that encourage cults of personality. We are principle-based, not personality-based, and that is not going to change.
If people want to sacrifice principles for short-term 'success' they are free to start other parties. As a matter of a fact I predict that is what is about to happen. I predict Cindy Sheehan and others who don't understand our leading-edge Green principles (hell they've never been a part of a party that is principled and its an entirely foreign concept to many of them), will start a new party that is not contrained by principles as we are. I say "Go for it!" It will give disaffected Dems who don't comprehend that we are not simply Dem-lite a place to go. Great! Let them experiment with what it takes to create a party. They will discover through much difficulty the lessons that we have been learning over time. And it will provide some competition for us, which I think will be good for us. Its all good in my opinion.
Technorati Profile
Everybody is so protective about an infinitesimal political turf, we should be risk takers to get us out of the malaise of navel gazing.
Even Bush is being called "Green" now -- we have to take braod strokes to fix our party to be able to compete in the very competative politcal arena.
Good evening all you lovely Green people.
About seven months ago, shortly before the 2006 elections, I suddenly realized what most of you have probably known for years: the so-called two-party "democracy" we live in, isn't. I came to this conclusion after reading a book by David Sirota (an apparently committed partisan - though Progressive - Democrat) called Hostile Takeover.
Since that time, I've been on a journey of discovery. Immediately upon finishing his book, I began to seek out an alternative political party that I could support: one that worked for electoral reform, social justice, peace, preservation of the ecology, and so on. I perused the websites of as many political parties as I could find, and came upon the beautiful GPCA Platform page (http://www.cagreens.org/platform). It seemed a perfect match for my vision of what our country (and the world) could and should be.
My only concern was whether the Green Party was for real. Was it really out there vigorously canvassing for voters? Was it really putting forward articulate, intelligent, strong candidates that would bring in more members and grow the party? Was it organized enough to actually stand a chance of making headway against the massive political false duopoly I had just discovered (right in front of my nose)?
In short, did the Greens have their shit together?
So, I've been observing. I attended a speaking event in San Francisco that featured Ralph Nader. I started reading the press releases posted on the Green Party of California website, and checking the items posted on my local Green Party website. I started lurking on this website. I (mostly) turned off my TV, and started reading books by independent authors. I read Peter Camejo's book, California Under Corporate Rule. It was in this book that I began to sense the schism that exists in the California Green Party, and which Byron's post has led me to believe still exists.
Frankly, I'm disappointed. I don't have a lot of extra time or money to spend on political in-fighting. I don't want to join "the good fight" in the company of "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." Life is short; my kids are growing up fast; sea-level is rising; the fascists are organized, have a plan, and are advancing rapidly. I want to get things done. NOW, godammit! Not in a few years or decades after this group of amoeboid navel-gazers finally get their shit together and decide to all start oozing in the same direction (Sorry. Sorry. I'm trying to be polite and nice - I'm just so fucking angry, I can't help it sometimes!)
Look, my point is this: the Green Party has a wonderful platform, but is hobbled by a CRAPPY political organization. If I thought it wouldn't be a waste of my time, I would join the Greens and work my heart out to help bring our shared vision to fruition.
And let me tell you: after the recent Democrat treacheries (no impeachment, secret "free" trade deal, and war funding) there are a LOT of Progressive Democrats out there looking for a new party just like I am. And you know what? They want change, and they want it NOW. They are looking to join an organization that will actually DO something, not one that will waste their time and dissipate their energy with needless internal bickering.
Byron, you are absolutely, 100% correct in your assessment. The Green Party needs a position whose occupant can break ties and adjudicate disputes within the party. You will never move beyond a fringe party with a (relatively) few members until you (as an organization) learn to do that. Also, to be successful, a third party will have to be able to DO something, and trying to get a large (hell, even a small) organization to agree at a level of 80% on all issues is a Sisyphean task that will result (and has resulted) in a do-nothing deadlock of a road-kill has-been gets-one-sentence-in-the-history-books party. (Ahem. Sorry. Sorry).
And finally, on Byron's third point: yeah, where the FUCK are you people on the environment? I mean, I think I know where you stand on the issues, but GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK! How is it that Hummer-driving Governor Schwarzenegger, of all people, is able to steal your thunder on this issue? How have you allowed that to happen? I mean, fucking COME ON! You need to get this message OUT THERE, people! It's unbelievable, really. (Sorry. Look, I know it's easier said than done: the electoral system here is badly tilted against small third parties, the media won't pick up your press releases, etc. etc., but... grrr!)
Please take this rant as constructive criticism; "feedback," if you will, on how your party appears to an outsider who wants very much to join the fight.
Sincerely,
The Angry Progressive
I would take strong issue with the premise of Byron's post. The GPCA is still really in its juvenile stage and at the moment with the internecine tribal factional fighting does not have the organizational maturity or bandwidth to do anything besides just sort out its own problems. First things first.
We are extremely strong on our environment stance - just study our platform and you'll see. Its just that we can't exert any pressure right now because we are so caught up in internal matters. This will pass and we will move forward. You could help be a part of that! Which county are you in? I can connect you with local leaders. Most of the real Green Party work happens at the county level anyway, so the state stuff is in a sense not that relevant.
If Byron really groked the political culture of the Green Party he would never have suggested a central leader. It will *never* fly. Anathema to our values. But there are other ways for us to be more effective that will work, so don't fret.
Anyway I'll forward your comments to where they'll be heard by state party leaders.
Technorati Profile
Drew, I appreciate you being positive, but really...
You said, "We are extremely strong on our environment stance - just study our platform and you'll see."
Having a stance is boring, we need to actually GET THINGS DONE.
Issues such as, "addiction to oil", "alternative fuels", "carbon footprint"
and "renewable energy" have risen to levels of popular familiarity never seen before in our nation's history.
A sea change in the popular perception of environmental concerns has occurred, although the Green Party in many instances has not been seen to be at the forefront of this shift in popular perception.
The reason I consider it to be an issue of survival, is naturally embedded in the party's name, that if we are withering on the vine politically in the midst of the single largest increase in the popularity of environmental concerns, this must say that we are doing something incredibly wrong.
Also you said, "If Byron really groked the political culture of the Green Party he would never have suggested a central leader. It will *never* fly. Anathema to our values. But there are other ways for us to be more effective that will work, so don't fret."
Why is it Drew, that not only MOST political parties on the planet in democracies HAVE a PARTY CHAIRPERSON, BUT MOST GREEN PARTIES on the planet have leaders... what gives?
Are we saying that the GPCA is so vastly superior to honoring a TRUE GREEN Politic THAT THE IMMUTABLE LAWS OF SPACE AND TIME CEASE TO EXIST in our STATE, and that we just know better, and should not follow successful politcal models RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES THAT WORK????
While ours doesn't?
If we can't see this VERY OBVIOUS FLAW in our midst, then we are blind; isolated.
Byron
Yes, amigo I'm completely serious. We Greens are solid, solid, solid conceptually on our environmental stand. We are even living that out as individuals. I can testify from the front lines that Green Party people are leading the way in using alternative transportation, alternative power (Kalmran Alavi, thanks for your awesome display of how to disconnect from the power grid at the SF Plenary this past weekend). So on one level we ARE getting things done.
Byron, I completely agree that we need to find ways to be effective. But we can not sacrifice Green 10 Key Values to get there. No! If we wanted to do something like that we could just go back to the Dems or create a Progressive Party that was not anchored on the 10KV. No!!! Thankfully there is no need to sacrifice our 10KV in for the idol of effectiveness since when we just start living out our 10KV we WILL be more effective.
We are blazing a new trail and it is not at all easy. We have a calling, a mission. It is essentially to create an "Intentional Community" mindset within our party and to make it robust enough to withstand any assault of domination-minded people who join our party. We must put aside the mechanisms of domination that are vestiges of the Duopoly which have snuck into our parties' culture.
Technorati Profile
...your opinion of the reforms I've suggested.
I never said to get rid of 10 KV, and people here reading these posts know that.
You wave 10 KV around like dogma.
It's not dogma, they're supposed to be guiding principles, BUT if your idea is to preserve YOUR individual and subjective understanding of what the 10 KV are, at the expense of our state party being viable, then I will say that you are wrong, that this is an unbalanced perspective that will topple our opportunity for success.
OVER emphasizing political philosophy at the expense of real world viability, is ill-conceived and shows that electoral success is not as important to you as preserving YOUR OWN subjective understanding of what is "Green" and what is "not Green".
We are a political party, NOT a religion nor a philosopher's revival or social compact, we are a POLITICAL PARTY.
BOTTOM LINE: Our political structures are BROKEN based on no party growth and the fact the many party leaders have been spending their Green Party time arguing between two factions.
You say the reforms I've suggested aren't "Green".
You say the reforms I've suggested will "sacrifice our ten key values"
Drew, you know what will sacrifice our 10 KV?
NOT GETTING ANYTHING DONE.
Also, don't you think it's about time we looked to some of the MORE SUCCESSFUL Green Party structures around the world, to HELP US GET OUT OF OUR POLITICAL STALEMATE?
Are those parties sacrificing their values as they work for Green issues and politics?
Well, honestly, yes, sometimes values do have to be weighed WITH ACTUALLY DOING THINGS.
And I think this is where yours and my thinking diverge.
I see the necessity of BALANCING our ideology with RESULTS oriented analysis of what is moving our politics forward or not.
Being a politcal party means being a body of political ACTION and MOVEMENT.
Of course we can codify the most brilliant ideals and concepts in the word and in our heads -- but if we can't MOVE FORWARD because our party structure in too IDEALISTIC and not based in the real world of politics (ie where we are now), then our IDEALISTIC Party becomes like a cool old book getting dusty and brittle in some mom & pop bookstore.
A romantic notion to be sure, but unworkable in regard to electoral success.
Our political aspirations clearly suggest that we don't want to be shoved off to the side on the fringe to be forgotten, rather, our aspirations would like us to win offices, to become the political force that changes our cultural landscape guided by our ten key values.
You still haven't answered why you reject out-of-hand MANY political party structures that REALLY WORK as "un-Green",
Does that mean to you that being "Green" is to persist, with no end in sight, with a strategy that's not working?
That sounds like Iraq.
on Cal forum. Ibviously I'm not the only one who believes your suggestions fly in the face of the 10KV. The 10KV are critical to understand if you want to persuade Greens. I'm not getting the impression that you understand their pivotal importance to Greens.
Its not really the structure that has not been working in the GPCA, although obviously that *does* need some adjustment. Its the political culture. We have been accepting unacceptable behavior where the factional fanatics are gaming the system in ways that break it. At least it shows us where we need to tweek, but the bigger point is that we can not allow people who are obviously disrespectful of the system to have leadership positions. And giving them a possible central leader position to fight for would just worsen the situation.
Technorati Profile
three or four people? is this a hailstorm?
-- there have been many more supportive comments I've received than negative ones -- FYI
Also, even here there are just as MANY supportive posters as not.
I agree on much of what you say, especially on the question regarding the lack of a Green Party stance on environmental issues.
Yesterday, the California State Department of Water Resources shut down the pumps that export water from the California Delta to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley and the residents in SoCal. I am not sure how long this will last. I do know that I have continued to discuss this issue on my Californa Greening blog and posted the notice of the shutdown on an email list for California Greens. After 2 comments, silence. Everyone went back to trying to fix democracy. After all, it does not require having actually done anything.
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente
Well done. There's absolutely no way to reform a party from within that's sank to taking money hand over fist from the same corporate interests as the other corporate party.
Really sad state of affairs. I've never seen a time when there were so many disaffected progressives without a home. We need our own party and I think the Green Party provides that opportunity; nevertheless, you're comment in regard to whether or not the Green Party will ever get its shit together is spot on. The fact that the Unity08 movement (which isn't even a party, currently doesn't have any candidates and has only been in existence a few months) has already gotten the drop on Greens for 2008 is a pretty telling sign that the party isn't quite ready for prime time.
Secondly, your point about the environment is equally correct. It continues to amaze me that Greens have been unable to exploit this issue. When this site was in its beginnings, my suggestion that it would be worth Greens' time to get Greens elected to the board of the Sierra Club, which has a mega-buck war chest budget, was greeted by chirpin' crickets. The fact that a strong environmental stance isn't even part of the Ten Key Values is a crime. Personally, I could bump almost any of the other ten key values in order to get this one added to the list near the top but that's just my humble opinion.
Of course, the current situation you so accurately describe is fluid and subject to change. I think this will happen as more like ourselves divorce themselves from the Democrats and begin the search for a new home. The Green Party provides a natural alternative; however, like yourself, I've never been completely convinced that the party's current leaders either want or would be receptive to the type of change that most progressive Democrat expatriots desire.
I defintely believe this is a fluid situation subject to change. To the party's credit, I think great strides have been made in terms of gaining ballot access in the various states. Greens have even managed to come close in recent years in states which possess the most stringent ballot access laws; consequently, I think the vehicle is there and those who started the party's movement deserve all of the credit for its creation.
If new Greens are as successful at providing the fuel to push the party over the top and transform our political system into a multi-party apparatus which provides voters with clear alternatives, the party's future should be bright. Of course, as I've stated repeatedly, I truly believe election reform is the primary tool which should be utilized to promote the party as well as expand its membership and that Greens would be well served to invest more political and intellectual capital into this movement than most of the current Ten Key Values.
I'm just one Green and those are my own personal thoughts. More Greens and ideas should greatly energize the party and it's my hope that the party's current leadership understands this as well as takes the necessary steps in the near future to capitalize on the fact that so many Democrats are presently alienated from the coporate dominated single-party oligarchy in which the Democrat Party is an equal partner - nothing more.
Not to be defensive or anything, but back when you posted that blog about the Sierra Club, this site was new and had almost no traffic to speak of -- it wasn't your suggestion that caused crickets, it was crickets for the while site.
[The site has grown a lot in the last 6 months or so, starting around the time I was about to abandon it [and save myself a lot of time, effort and a little money], and now I actually think it's going to be useful.]
You didn't link to the post you referenced (bad form!), so here it is:
http://www.greencommons.org/node/14
Yes, post #14 of the whole site -- and that includes the About page and the like! So don't sell current commoners short on that score.
And thanx for correcting my bad form commoner.
Glad you stuck with the site. I've noticed membership has picked up lately. Fasten your seat belt commoner because I really see things picking up next year. About a third of the country approves of the occupation in I-wreck but Democrats cave to BushCo and give him a blank check to continue. Call me crazy but that doesn't sound like a formula for drawing supporters to your banner.
Like I said, I've never seen a time when so many Democrats have had it with their corporate party. Bear in mind also this is happening when BushCo's approval is down in the low thirties - nothing but the wingnuts that are beyond saving on the bandwagon. One would think Democrats should be dancing in the streets but nothing could be further from the truth at this point.
Democrats haven't presented an alternative to the other corporate party since Roosevelt, have completely lost any identity separate from the Repugs and have co-owned the occupation of I-wreck with BushCo from day one. The Green Party stands to be a significant benefactor from this and green commons will play a significant role in the magnitude of the Green wave risin'.
Well done. There's absolutely no way to reform a party from within that's sank to taking money hand over fist from the same corporate interests as the other corporate party.
Really sad state of affairs. I've never seen a time when there were so many disaffected progressives without a home. We need our own party and I think the Green Party provides that opportunity; nevertheless, you're comment in regard to whether or not the Green Party will ever get its shit together is spot on. The fact that the Unity08 movement (which isn't even a party, currently doesn't have any candidates and has only been in existence a few months) has already gotten the drop on Greens for 2008 is a pretty telling sign that the party isn't quite ready for prime time.
Secondly, your point about the environment is equally correct. It continues to amaze me that Greens have been unable to exploit this issue. When this site was in its beginnings, my suggestion that it would be worth Greens' time to get Greens elected to the board of the Sierra Club, which has a mega-buck war chest budget, was greeted by chirpin' crickets. The fact that an even stronger more detailed environmental stance isn't part of the Ten Key Values is something which bears strong examination. I'd personally bump the ones above it to place it on top.
Without a sound ecosystem - what else is there?
Of course, the current situation you so accurately describe is fluid and subject to change. I think this will happen as more like ourselves divorce themselves from the Democrats and begin the search for a new home. The Green Party provides a natural alternative; however, like yourself, I've never been completely convinced that the party's current leaders either want or would be receptive to the type of change that most progressive Democrat expatriots desire.
To the party's credit, I think great strides have been made in terms of gaining ballot access in the various states. Greens have even managed to come close in recent years in states which possess the most stringent ballot access laws; consequently, I think the vehicle is there and those who started the party's movement deserve all of the credit for its creation.
If new Greens are as successful at providing the fuel to push the party over the top and transform our political system into a multi-party apparatus which provides voters with clear alternatives, the party's future should be bright. Of course, as I've stated repeatedly, I truly believe election reform is the primary tool which should be utilized to promote the party as well as expand its membership and that Greens would be well served to invest more political and intellectual capital into this movement than most of the current Ten Key Values.
I'm just one Green and those are my own personal thoughts. More Greens and ideas should greatly energize the party and it's my hope that the party's current leadership understands this as well as takes the necessary steps in the near future to capitalize on the fact that so many Democrats are presently alienated from the coporate dominated single-party oligarchy in which the Democrat Party is an equal partner - nothing more.
(sorry for moving this. I needed to edit it a little. Peace)
Dear Angry Progressive,
I share your anger. At least you made the parenthetical acknowledgment that it is much harder for the Green Party to get our message out than a Governor/movie star. Instead of blaming us, join us. How have we allowed this to happen? Let's see you try, and I'll let you know if you got more media attention than the Governator. I think I know how our Party appears to an outsider. We could use your help. Its called grassroots organizing.
Fellow Greens,
I am new to this site and discussion, but would like to share my thoughts on the issue of our failure of a party to grow. First let me say that I agree that it would be helpful if we had a recognizable spokesperson. What powers we would give that person should be limited, given our values. Second the 80% rule handcuffs the party. Any required majority vote percentage would be an improvement. I could go on with my opinions on this cordial debate, but I think there is a more basic discussion that we, as a party need to consider, and that is how we can best grow the party.
It is my opinion that the best way for the Green Party to attract new members and grow our influence is to shift our party focus from electorial politics to local civic action and community building. In short, go from talking to doing.
If we made this seed change, we would not have the need for "a leader", but would find that with community building projects we would create "leaders" and attract those disillusioned progressive Dems to our party. Example: instead of spending our resources raising money to run candidates that realistically have little chance of winning, we could be raising funds to install solar in our communities, perhaps with a focus on community centers,health clinics and poor neighborhoods. In this way we are taking the lead on the environment and social justice simultaneously. We would need local leaders to organize and recruit others to help, however action is the best attraction tool for those disaffected by our current sad state of affairs and community caring. My experience as a Vietnam War era protester to today is that the best way to influence others is to take action to build alternative infrastructure that offers people optional ways to solve their problems. We cannot grow if we are reduced to a war of words and electorial politics is a game of words and money.
We should not abandon electorial politics, but would stand a better chance to grow the party if we were known for what we do versus what we say every two or four years. I do not want to assume that Greens are not active at the grassroots level. In fact the opposite is most likely true. I am suggesting that we take inventory of those efforts and direct party attention and resources to support and create visibility for those projects. I believe in a short while we would see others attracted to our party and as we grow as a movement for change, our political future will brighten.
One reporter's opinion.
jeff
In my current governmental position, I do everything I can to encourage "LEED" builidng practices. Granted, it's a slow process due to the fact that most people have the misconception that it's expensive when nothing could be further from the truth. Granted, there's an initial investment required up front but it's one that will pay future dividends that far exceed the initial costs.
I would be willing to wager a hefty sum of money that I am the only individual in the entire commonwealth of Kentucky who possesses both a Master's Degree in Public Administration (MPA) as well as a valid Master Plumbing License. Solar is something that we need to take advantage of here in Kentucky; however, this isn't a great solar zone due to the hills, hollers and amount of cloudy days in the entire Ohio River Valley. For example, due to the 400 foot rise directly behind my house, a batch collector on my roof would only see approximately seven hours of sun on a goodday no matter where it is placed. Nevertheless, most people here are not aware of the fact that you can receive a $300 tax credit on your federal taxes for installing a tankless water heater that uses only forty percent of the energy required to heat fifty gallons of water 7/24. I have an energy efficient one bathroom home and endless hot water from the Titan heater I procured on Ebay for $189 including shipping.
Unfortunately, much of this good news about being green (little g) gets drowned out by the propaganda produced by the coal industry and the representatives of the corporate parties who tout their economic interests over ours.
As you suggest, I think there is a substantial vacuum for Greens to suck some oxygen out of the room in these areas; however, a primary problem for Greens in the socially repressed states of the South is finding a way to reach out in these areas while identifying ourselves as members of the Green Party without losing our jobs. Sad but true, as a state employee, it's a huge problem for me at this point. We have finally gained the right of registering as Greens here in the commonwealth but it's public record and a death knoll on your governmental career to do so; hence the reason I've thus far maintained my status as a registered Independent and a contributing member to the national Green Party.
In my case, that's also the answer to Byron's question about why people use aliases on this site. It's actually a fine tradition from the revolutionary days when people published broadsides under somewhat creative pen names as opposed to risking the wrath of the colonial governing forces of the Crown in place at the time.
I agree in principle with the basic underlying assumptions of your philosophy; however, for the reaosns I've stated above, it will be a much slower process in areas in which socially progressive thoughts and ideas are not so well received.
Hello Byron and Greens,
In my opinion, the 80% threshold is not the issue and what people in our Green Party do get around this 80% is the issue. For example, proposal A comes before the General Assembly and fails to get 80% or more of the vote. Instead of finding out what the reasons 21% of the Greens did not support the proposal, the presenters change a word and bring it back to the next plenary and again it fails. Then, the presenters wait until Sunday afternoon or late Sunday morning at a plenary site where most of the delegates who voted against the proposal had to leave to get back home and prepare for their place of employment. Then, the proposal passes. Meanwhile, those who were opposed feel completely left out and wonder why we continue to put on these phony shows.
We read the proposals in Riverside County and vote on them and instruct our delegates to cast our votes and most of the time we reach 100% agreement. We have many other issues with the structure of the GPCA and yet we continue to stay with our Green Party with the hope we all can get along and make positive moves toward developing our Green Party of Riverside County.
greenchuckr
Exactamundo greenchuckr! We need to incorporate measures that satisfy the blocking concerns, thereby embracing those concerns. Otherwise we are losing out on the wisdom of the minority. Instead lets work harder to understand concerns and address them! Concept!!!
Technorati Profile
but a 4/5 majority requirement does sound somewhat oppressive. I would think a super-majority of sixty percent (60%) would be more than sufficient and that the losing side should be able to live with the results and perhaps fight another day.
I completely agree that backroom tactics are completely uncalled for no matter what the circumstances. Perhaps lowering the threshold to 60% would be a way to solve both problems?
Glad to have both of y'all aboard and greatly look forward to your future comments.
Combine face to face General Assemblies with electronic input/format. The State CC is symbolic without any power. An individual is named and is a spokesperson only. The goals and agenda's should be submitted/established and voted upon at the county level to create an action oriented electoral party. Based on the vote of counties, we back 3-4 projects aligned with our 10-key values such as non-violence (end the war), social justice (immigration reform), IRV and environmental (global warming). CC reps elected at the county level. General Assemblies are video taped and have live webcast where the rank and file can vote on the pre-established agenda and issues. During election years we put all our efforts into electing Greens.
The Coordinating Committee never was designed to be an executive. The CC was always designed to be a service group - to coordinate - not to rule.
Just as Byron's suggestion of a central authority is completely unGreen, an executive centralized Green authoritative Committee also would be unGreen. Fortunately Greens can see it obviously does not match the 10KV so it will never go anywhere.
The Standing General Assembly will address much of the problem of lack of ongoing authority. It works extremely well at the national level and we can implement it effectively here.
And in reality the lack of an ongoing authority is really a very minor problem at the state level - we have very few things that we need to 'decide' at the state level!
As for leaders, we have plenty of them. Green leaders are as lead they do. If anyone serves Green 10KV they organically become a leader, no title required! Titles are completely unimportant. Substance of leadership is what makes the difference. We must reward those that live out the 10KV, not Factional Fanatics, power mongers or personality cult leaders.
Technorati Profile
I agree that a standing general assembly will be an improvement. One, it will allow us to spend time on the platform, allowing for lots of negotiations to craft a final version everyone can live with. Second, it will take some items off the agenda, so that when we do meet in person, we will have a little less time pressure.
Folks,
My suggested reforms are not a philosophical argument about what's "Green"/evolved and what's "not Green"/cro-magnon -- my suggested triage reforms are focused on stopping the hemorrhaging political paralysis that WE ARE EXPERIENCING in the GPCA now and also to mitigate damage spilling over into the GPUS.
FACT: The reforms I've suggested ARE "GREEN"
The reforms I've suggested are "GREEN" because they are used by larger Green Parties around the world that wield considerably more political power and influence, and also maintain budgets and legislative action that DWARF our United States version of Green politics.
These parties pass laws, share power and move Green ideals forward in the real world.
We're taking on some of the worst unilateral characteristics of Americans saying that "ours is the only way" --
Let's not be SO xenophobic, please.
Should we be BLIND to the structural mechanisms sported by other Green Parties that succeed?
Why?
We're like the clichéd dude in a car headed nowhere who refuses to ask for directions, much to the chagrin of his "imprisoned" female co-pilot.
The GPCA is lost -- we should ask for directions.
The only good reason to ignore extra-American Green successes born from differing party structures is that we're maintaining some sort of political lab experiment that never was intended to see the light of day with statewide or national electoral success.
As a candidate, I wouldn't want to be a part of an experiment, unless we were experimenting with finding a unique approach that hastens electoral victory and moves party business forward.
If this is the case, the experiment has failed.
The answer to our party's dilemma is not to persist with what hasn't been working -- "consense more we need to consense more, then we won't have to take any votes" -- the answer lies with putting down our preconceived notions of how things SHOULD work, and opening our hearts and minds to what REALLY works.
The utopian expectations of how our hundreds of thousands strong Green Party will successfully compete the way a familial commune operates is not based on the reality of WHAT WE HAVE SEEN for over three years now in unending factionalism making our collective efforts easily dismissed as laughable by many activists and politicos looking in from the outside.
These expectations have only become our plans for disappointment.
Like I've said before, and I'm sure many of us realize, from a short distance away, all the fighting -- in the midst of paralysis -- just seems crazy.
We should try to emulate some of the structures that work in other Green Parties, cause our system of getting things done is totally broken.
Is there another example of a modern political party operating with significant success in a democracy that does not have a party leader, and only moves forward with 80% votes?
Byron De Lear
Byron, thank you for this well thought out plan. I agree with your assessment that if the Green Party doesn't start making some internal compromises for the sake of unity and progress that it will continue to disintegrate into obscurity if not just irrelevance.
I was all about the Green Party back in 1999/2000. I had heard Ralph Nader on the radio and the hope and vision that he offered struck a chord in me. Then I had the bubble-bursting experience of attending a Green Party event. Not having attended many SoCal gatherings of the left at that time, I had not experienced people rudely shouting out comments from the audience. And I was also shocked that Medea Benjamin was publicly insulted from the stage and audience when Nader seemed to have nothing but praise for her. Were all these people part of the same party? It didn't seem like it...
Nevertheless, I cast my vote for Nader in 2000, but with all the fall-out and Nader-bashing that transpired after that, I went crawling back to the Democratic party thinking at least my votes would count for something. My attraction to the Green Party was completely soured when I experienced the group dynamics first-hand. I still believe in the theoretical platform and ideals of the Green Party, more than any other political party. But the comments on this post don't offer me much hope that things will change unless Byron and some others can inspire some vision and unity.
Yea the 80% voting threshhold seems completely ridiculous. Even the French, who are among the most politically informed and active populations on the planet only turn out 85% total voters to an election - which is great! I'm just saying that to expect 80% of people in any group to ever agree on anything is pretty unrealistic. Thank God the congress hasn't worked that way or I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have a Bill of Rights.
Active Greens seem to think that to lower the threshold for a passing vote would be to abandon our principles. This is the comment when I suggested the state Coordinating Committee (CC) adopt a simple majority threshold. Hey, at least they could get an agenda set, even if there are factions dead set against whatever the other side wants. But the reaction was negative. So "we" want our 80% threshold. We will have to find some other way of dealing with internal factions.
...party operating with significant success in a democracy that does not have a party leader, and only moves forward with 80% votes?
We should try to emulate some of the more practical political structures that work in other Green Parties, cause our system of getting things done is totally broken.
That things are broken is without debate -- we now have an opportunity to enact positive reforms because everyone KNOWS things are broken.
Please Greens lets not miss this chance, if we don't reform and set up the kind of political shop that can compete in the real world of politics, the party will constantly bump into a ceiling, because other political mechanisms sported by competitors will be more successful at capitalizing on changing conditions, while we wallow in ideology, concepts that make us feel warm and fuzzy -- a nice feeling to be sure -- but this strategy "all up in our head" reduces our progress to the pace of a snail, no knock on snails, but progress that slow won't win, won't politically realize 10 KV and won't raise realo hopes and popular expectations that the Green Party is the answer to the needs of disenfranchised progressives.
Greens, yes, I know we "know the way" -- what I'm trying to address is our understanding of "how to get there".
Could it be, just possibly, that our problems do not solely lie with PEOPLE, but also with STRUCTURE?
There are two reasons why we haven't been able to move forward and are effectively paralyzed.
1) PEOPLE who want to fight and continue to invest their time and energy in a childish feud, and
2) the political party STRUCTURE that breaks down and perpetuates the conflict
We can't pass reforms that control what people do or think, but there are things we can PASS that will prevent this conflict of immobility from repeating itself.
We can fix the STRUCTURE so as to prevent paralysis, and make our party more deft, agile and more viable.
Byron De Lear
We don't need to change any bylaws for that, we just need to make it clear that agenda setting is a business item.
Part of the problem is there is not a clear definition of "business", "procedural" and "policy" within the bylaws. That's easy to fix!
"Voting shall be on the basis of a two-third majority for business and procedural questions, and an 80% majority to amend, repeal, or replace bylaws and to make policy decisions.
e) If there is a question as to which voting count to use, the higher percentage shall"
That last line is WAY overused and the reason IMO is because the terms are not well defined and people who want to make it overly hard fall back on claiming the 80% rule. Easy to repair.
The factional fanatics are attacking the integrity of our system. One positive is that they are demonstrating vividly that we need to make some adjustments to deal with hostile factions. We can not allow them to grind our system to a halt. Fortunately the structural system tweaks are mostly quite simple. The tougher thing will be maturing our internal poltical culture to the point where we do not accept unacceptable behavior. At the SF plenary the factional fanatics were behaving in some obvious system-corrosive ways (ie. one delegate - i believe knowingly - voting twice in a vote where only one vote was allowed, or the case of one of the factional leaders calling for quorum checks before each and every item Sunday afternoon was an obvious method to burn up time and to try to run out the clock). Our system depends on the participants operating in good faith. When they cease to as with some of the behavior at the SF Plenary we need to call them on it.
More broadly we need to strongly incentivize consensus-seeking behavior. Right now there is too much incentive for a minority group to try to defend their position by attempting to run out the clock or just dig in their heels. What are things we can do to incentivize them to stay engaged until consensus is reached? Remember that consensus is not 100% agreement. Rather it means adequately satisfying concerns to the point that people can feel okay about either affirming or standing aside. This is eminately doable and simple system tweeks can make it the norm I believe.
The minority in any given situation needs to give their input as to what friendly amendments will satisfy their blocking concerns. If we put stronger emphasis on negotiation for consensus we won't need to take nearly as many votes and the ones that we do will succeed more often and when they don't we need to right then and there continue the negotiation to get the "No" voter's concerns addressed so that they can feel good about voting "Yes" or "Stand Aside".
Technorati Profile
Good ideas, JamBoi, however, our party needs to do more than just setting an agenda.
Yes, if we are successful at lowering the voting threshold to 2/3s for setting the agenda that would be an improvement.
But votes on the politically substantive agenda items would still be at 80%!!!
So we are back to square one, not getting anything done.
JamBoi, I do appreciate your shift though, from arguing that the structural reforms I've suggested abandon our 10 KV -- because I'm sure you realize that our 10 KV in terms of the impact our politcal efforts show right now, is a 10 KV hill o' beans.
Our party paralyzed is way more offensive to politically realizing the 10 KV than adopting a party chair or lowering voting thresholds to 3/5s.
You also mentioned, "Our system depends on the participants operating in good faith."
This won't happen, because one person's good faith is another person's obstructionism. It's as simple as a matter of opinion.
We need to make our system accept the fact that in politics people conflict and wrangle, and that that's okay -- because with our reforms we will still move the party forward, after resolving conflicts and the negative effects of distracting factions, with decisive mechanisms that balance ideals with the nitty gritty realities of real world politics.
Yours, Byron
To say that the reason we're in the state we're in is because certain people are holding us up is to point the finger and not take personal responsibility for our own part. If we expect to grow, and I assume we all do or else why would we waste our time, then we will always have people coming in from different backgrounds with differing opinions on how to best run something--and that can be a good thing just as much as it can hinder us, as we've seen.
There needs to be a checks and balences established so that we move past the issues that are holding us up. Why not look to successful models in other countries to solve our dilema? If I want to go into business for myself, am I going to take advice from someone who went bankrupt? Only to learn what not to do, but if I want to be successful, I need to look to those who have succeeded by the means that I ethically agree with and do what they did.
You folks are so talented, so intelligent, I know that with discussion like this going that we can put our heads together and find a solution, then onward to victory! Huzzah!!
I could not help but notice the contrast between the 44 comments on this post about Green factionalism and the zero comments on my post about the special election in California's 37th congressional district:
CA-37 - "Bipartisan" Meltdown in Compton.
Please understand: if none of the 17 candidates in the special election at the end of June wins more than 50% of the vote, the top vote-getters of each party will compete in a runoff election in August.
Thus, the extreme bitterness Democrats Richardson and Oropeza have generated with their reckless behavior means half the Dems are going to be pissed-off big time in August. The folks in Compton, Watts, and Long Beach will never vote for a Bush Republican, Therefore, it is possible that Daniel Abraham Brezenoff by combining the independent vote with the disgruntled Democrat vote could be elected the first Green member of the U.S. Congress.
This is big. I do hope y'all will save some of that Green v Green passion for Danny's campaign.