[GPSCC-chat] Critique of an agenda item

Thu Apr 25 11:51:51 PDT 2013

My understanding from previous discussion was that these two local campaign 
issues were going to primarily be how we chose our speakers.  If we are 
talking about using significant amounts of General Business Meeting 
time, then I would have similar concerns as Warner.  I don't wish to spend my time working on either of those issues, though I know that they are extremely valuable and that many in our group want and I would say need to have that opportunity to do practical local activism.  I had thought a group that was specifically interested in running these campaigns were going to get together to talk about them not in the General Business Meeting.  However I have suggested a number of times that we provide time during our meetings to break out into such focus groups and THAT I would support.  

Thinking further on this discussion, I'm thinking that at the bottom Warner and Sandy have similar aims -- that is for our party to focus on local issues, be effective and spend our time effectively.  Warner I see that Sandy's initiative that we approved really provides a channeling of our efforts down to only two global issues that we will focus on locally.  Without this limitation we have a tendency to try to cover all the bases and end up being effective at none.  I understood that the 

As to theuse of the term "Green Party" I took it as obviously meaning the GPSCC.  We only have direct steering ability over ourselves and since we promote the 10 Key Value of "Decentralization" and local control, even if Sandy didn't specify that in his proposal, I believe we all understood it that way and I'm confident he would be willing to stipulate that and update the already-consented upon text accordingly.

Several times in the GPSCC I have heard objections when I or others use the term of art "The Movement".  Within The Movement (ie. the progressive movement in the U.S.) this term is widely accepted, used and understood, so I stand pat on the use of that term and assert it is meaningful.  The point is that the Green Party (as an international phenomenon) has always functioned as a bridge between the broader social justice movement (The Movement) and electoral politics.  There is and always will be a tension between whether we put our energies more towards electoral politics per se, or connecting back to our base (The Movement).  If we do not connect to our base, who are we representing?  And if we are only representing ourselves (Green Party members per se) and not The Movement, what good are we doing?  After all its not as if we have had wild success (yet) so if all we are doing is representing ourselves I say that has no inspirational value and we
 are therefore wasting our time.  If however we are about representing The Movement which, after all has next to zero real representation in the Democratic Party then we are fullfilling a valuable function despite our lack of outward success (so far).  

Green is GO!

Drew

~*~*~*~
Jill Stein for President -- A Green New Deal for America
Campaign website:  http://www.jillstein.org/
Climate Voter Power Pledge: http://www.jillstein.org/dc_climate_protests
     First TV Ad http://tinyurl.com/JillStein1stAd

>________________________________
> From: "perrysandy at aol.com" <perrysandy at aol.com>
>To: WB4D23 at aol.com; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org 
>Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Critique of an agenda item
> 
>
>
>Hi Warner,
> 
>At our March 28 meeting we agreed to the following proposal, which directs us to organize our agendas around the movement for single payer health care and the movement against climate change. It did not direct us to form committees, although that might be a good idea that might arise out of the discussion. Since this proposal was adopted by the meeting, I believe we should do what it says.
> 
>Sandy
> 
> 
> 
>PROPOSAL ADOPTED:  
>I propose that our local GPSCC adopt two issue campaigns in
order to concentrate our local work, increase our impact, and grow: climate
change and single payer heath care.  
>This does not mean we would drop other issues or refrain
from endorsing other causes. Above all, it does not mean any member has to stop
doing work he or she as an individual feels called to do.  
>It means we would devote more collective thought,
discussion, planning, and meeting time to two campaigns with the idea of making
a breakthrough in expanding our ranks and influence. We would build our monthly
meeting agenda around planning how to advance our work around these issues.
This would help to keep us grounded in life and death questions facing our
people, and make us more accessible for new members who want to get involved in
concrete activity.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: WB4D23 <WB4D23 at aol.com>
>To: perrysandy <perrysandy at aol.com>; sosfbay-discuss <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
>Sent: Wed, Apr 24, 2013 9:17 pm
>Subject: Critique of an agenda item
>
>
>The following are just my opinions -- FWIW -- 
Warner
> 
>In a message dated 4/24/2013 1:53:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, perrysandy at aol.com writes:
>a discussion of the next steps for the single payer health care movement,  upcoming activities, role of the Green Party in building the movement and how  we can work in the movement more effectively to build the Green Party. 
>>TIME: 30 MINUTES.
>To my thinking this is an excessively broadly framed 
discussion.  I don't believe that the GPSCC has agreed to take on or other 
wise be responsible for the entire "single payer health care movement".  To 
do so would seem to be hugely arrogant and cosmically beyond the relatively 
meager GPSCC participants' time/energies -- notwithstanding members who are 
already involved in the local county health care for all chapter.  
> 
>The term "Green Party" likewise is overly broad.  Is a 
member of the California Delegation to the GPUS or some other GPUS officer or 
committee member expected to attend our meeting to represent and discuss 
the activities of the national Green Party?  Is there someone from the GPCA 
Coordinating Committee or Green Issues Working Group expected to attend?  
Isn't our self-acknowledged role as a progressive political party to be 
supportive rather than directive?
> 
>Again, use of the word "movement" without qualification seems 
overly broad and poorly framed.  How are we expecting ourselves to have 
responsibility for the whole "movement" -- whatever that means.
> 
>30 MINUTES...  30 MINUTES!!!!????  There 
is no concrete proposal; just an invitation for more meandering undirected 
conversation.  Isn't this something a committee can be created for 
people who want to have an extended conversation to develop a clear proposal for 
action(s) that GPSCC participants could practically accomplish and 
bring to a meeting as a clear and doable proposal?.  
> 
>-- Warner
>  
>_______________________________________________
>sosfbay-discuss mailing list
>sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
>http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20130425/ef15bfb7/attachment.html>