[Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments

[Steve Greenfield]

I think this was unusually combative for replying to something called
"introductory comments." But this is the Green Party, and I know what to
expect. I don't particularly find your writing in dialect to be amusing or
leading me to expect a spirit of cooperation in this WG. It should be
possible to disagree agreeably. But again, this is the Green Party.

I didn't say we couldn't BE nuanced. I just said I didn't want to hear the
word. It's been beaten to death. It's a word the ossified left media elites,
in the ABB deferment led by Norman Solomon, assigned to us by mid-year and
quickly became institutionalized vernacular to spin the Green Party
abandoment of political independence and national aspirations (whether it
was temporary or not) into a kinder, gentler capitulation, something warm,
fuzzy, introspective, subtle, delicate, sophisticated, intellectually
refined, even brilliant. It is a word so intellectually positive yet
accomplishment-neutral that its repetition will weigh upon our capacity to
freely examine the pre & post Milwaukee timeline we have been offered. Just
because "nuanced" was the big media buzzword doesn't mean we need to keep
using it. Please bear in mind that nobody in the Green Party who was unhappy
about the Milwaukee process, results, and consequences has ever used the
word "nuanced" to describe them. If an overwhelming majority of Greens had
been thrilled by Milwaukee, this Working Group wouldn't even exist. This
group is supposed to be looking at fundamentals of democracy. We can let the
membership consider the "nuances" when they decide which candidates they
want to support. In the meantime, let's do whatever we can to assist the
process of learning to work cooperatively with each other.

> Well said but I prefer the "candidates decide strategy" approach.

Yep, me too. That's why I want the nominating process to be completely free
of strategic considerations. The candidates' strategies will then be a)
theirs to decide and b) ours to consider when we collectively decide which
one to select as the national candidate.

> How is this group or the GPUS gonna enforce such a thing?

Credentialling rules. No delegate should be seated without documentation
that some democratic process was used to select them, and that some
democratic process was used to bring them to an awareness of what the
preferences of the Green membership they claim to be representing at the
convention are.

> This seemingly
> elitist response to a seemingly sexist response is really kinda scary for
a
> national Green source.

You misunderstood what I was saying. The point is that this guy went to
Milwaukee stating right up front that he had made no effort whatsoever to
discover the preferences of his constituents. He was going in as an
independent kingmaker. This is undemocratic and he should not have been
seated at the convention on those terms.

> States are autonomous. Telling them how to
> assign/choose/bind their delegations is a no-no. Some had no binding. Mine
> had a two-round binding (which some are still whining about).

States are not 100% autonomous. If they were, we wouldn't need a convention
at all, and we wouldn't need this working group. We could just have all the
candidates go to all 51 parties and let the states pick independently. We
are trying to create one common national candidacy, and that cannot be done
without an agreement from the participants to share a common framework in
which that candidacy will be decided.

> Or else.

Don't be cute. We're the Green Party and Grassroots Democracy is one of our
Four Pillars. Agreement with and working to advance the 4 Pillars and Ten
Key Values are accreditation requirements. If a state can't (or won't) show
they are operating under some semblance of grassroots democracy, then they
are violating basic accreditation requirements and their delegates must not
be seated.

> You are suggesting this WG should recommend altering the Accreditation
> agreement unilaterally for the member states to include all these demands?

There is nothing unilateral about it. It would take a 2/3 vote of the CC,
the representatives of the entire GPUS. And the short answer is yes. While
states may be accorded as much autonomy as possible within the context of
accepting the basic set of articles of agreement that constitute
affiliation, no state may under any circumstances adopt bylaws that burden
another state. The Texas bylaws burden other states. Do you want to read
them?

Steve Greenfield
New York


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charlie" <oldbogus@ris.net>
Cc: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments


> My comments interspersed.
>
> Charlie "What am I doing here?" Green
> BRPP liaison and GPCO rep
>
> Steve Greenfield wrote:
> >>From Steve Greenfield, representing New York State
> >
> > A few things I've been thinking about:
> >
> > 1) I don't ever want to hear the word "nuanced" again in connection with
the
> > Green Party, and probably not elsewhere either.
> >
>
> Either yer fer us or agin us. No Nuancing.
>
> > 2) This group should not be thinking at all about what we want or don't
want
> > out of a presidential campaign. Our job is to try to come up with a
fair,
> > open, and productive nomination and election process. Period. My state
> > didn't send me here to have discussions about the role of the national
> > candidate in overall Green Party strategy. Any determination of what we
may
> > or may not want out of a campaign will inevitably inform the process we
end
> > up recommending. This in turn will bias the process towards candidates
who
> > conform to the rules best (again) rather than being open to a pure
selection
> > by the grassroots of the Party. There is another working group dealing
with
> > strategy, and the work of the two committees should not even be known to
> > each other for either to do its assignment properly.
> >
>
> Well said but I prefer the "candidates decide strategy" approach. Unless
> our candidates are droids. Or fully funded by the GPUS. Neither of which
> has happened yet.
>
> > 3) I know a delegate to Milwaukee last year (ain't gonna say from where)
> > who, when asked just prior to departure whom he planned to support, said
> > "well, Cobb doesn't inspire me, and I'm not too pleased with the way
Nader
> > has been handling all this, and somehow I just think I'm leaning towards
> > voting for a woman." If there is one thing that this working group needs
to
> > do, it's to make sure that a delegate like this should never be
credentialed
> > to vote unless he or she can prove they were bound by a primary vote or
> > similar democratic process to vote NOTA or otherwise simply exercise
> > indiviual judgment on the spot.
>
> How is this group or the GPUS gonna enforce such a thing? This seemingly
> elitist response to a seemingly sexist response is really kinda scary for
a
> national Green source. States are autonomous. Telling them how to
> assign/choose/bind their delegations is a no-no. Some had no binding. Mine
> had a two-round binding (which some are still whining about).
>
> Ideological screening was enforced in no states I have heard of. [further
> comments deleted]
>
>
> We're supposed to be proponents of
> > grassroots democracy. The Party's own processes must always reflect a
> > commitment to that. We must transfer as much of a delegate's voting
power to
> > the electorate as possible.
> >
>
> Or else.
>
> > 4) There are bylaws in Texas that place restrictions on what candidates
GPUS
> > may select if Texas is to allow the candidate onto the Texas Green Party
> > line. They place prior restraint on candidates requiring that they take
an
> > oath to turn over both donor lists and names and addresses of all
campaign
> > volunteers. They also actually place burdens on other states' right to
> > determine party membership status in their own state. I don't know if
Texas
> > is alone in having such bylaws, but we should check. Part of this
> > committee's work should be to establish that all states must share the
> > national standard for candidate qualification. Such acceptance must be a
> > requirement for affiliation. That is not the same thing as requiring
that
> > any state must accept the nominee once the nominee is selected. It just
> > means that no state should be able to rule out certain candidates in
> > advance, since to do so would unfairly influence the other states'
> > primary/delegate selection process.
>
> You are suggesting this WG should recommend altering the Accreditation
> agreement unilaterally for the member states to include all these demands?
> How grassroots.
>
> >
> > Steve Greenfield
> > New Paltz, New York
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>