Small National Assembly. Bottom-Up Government.
I said that people don't take well to offers of being led by a party.
Exception: People are more than willing to be led-by-the-nose by the
Democrat Party.
You seem to feel that parties are a bad thing.
If there were legitimate, honest elections, parties serve a useful purpose
by writing platforms and conveniently identifying & classify candidates
according to what they offer.
Parties & their platforms clarify and summarize the offerings.
Read the platforms of the various progressive parties, and you'll see what
I mean.
I like those platforms and their proposals. If we had honest elections,
with Approval voting, I'd approve the candidates of all of those parties.
But, as you suggested, a new Bottom-Up government (if things ever reach
that stage) will be spontaneous instead of party-led.
Michael Ossipoff
Good Morning, Michael
We express ourselves differently, but there is similarity in our views.
If I can do so without seeming argumentative, I'd like to describe my
attitude about parties.
You mention that I "feel that parties are a bad thing". It's true, I
do, but this is a complicated topic because partisanship is an important
part of society. It is a natural part of human interaction that gives
breadth, depth and volume to our voice. It is not only inevitable, it
is healthy. Parties provide the path for change. Our efforts here, in
discussing a bottom-up political system, will be futile if we cannot
attract others to join us - and that's partisanship.
Even so, parties are dangerous. As George Washington warned us in his
Farewell Address, political parties provide the means for cunning,
ambitious, and unprincipled men to subvert the power of the people and
usurp for themselves the reins of government. When parties control the
political infrastructure, the people are blocked from deciding the
issues and naming the candidates for public office.
That's why achieving a bottom-up structure is so important - it gives
non-partisans a voice in politics; a way to soften the excesses of party
politics.
While it is true that "Parties & their platforms clarify and summarize
the offerings", that is a top-down concept. when political action
starts at the neighborhood level, the people - including, but not
limited to party members - will decide the issues and select the
candidates they believe able to resolve them. Such an arrangement
encourages the absorption of diverse interests, reducing them to their
essential element: their effect on the participants in the process.
There are no platforms, there is no ideology, the divisiveness of party
politics is gone. The only question is, which participants are the most
attuned to the needs of the community and have the qualities required to
advocate the common good.
You wrote, "It will be natural if & when, by conversations everywhere,
there comes to be a largely unanimous feeling that democracy is never
going to be allowed under current rule. It's about conversation, not
leaders or organizers."
I don't disagree, but someone has to start the conversation - as we are
doing here. To that extent, we are leaders. However, in this case,
once thoughtful conversation starts, others may show themselves to have
better ideas than ours.
Fred Gohlke
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Fred Gohlke fredgohlke@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Michael
We express ourselves differently, but there is similarity in our views.
If I can do so without seeming argumentative, I'd like to describe my
attitude about parties.
You mention that I "feel that parties are a bad thing". It's true, I do,
but this is a complicated topic because partisanship is an important part
of society. It is a natural part of human interaction that gives breadth,
depth and volume to our voice. It is not only inevitable, it is healthy.
Parties provide the path for change. Our efforts here, in discussing a
bottom-up political system, will be futile if we cannot attract others to
join us - and that's partisanship.
I'm not advocating the formation of a Bottom-Up government. I'm
predicting it, for the hypothetical (maybe never will happen) time when
nearly everyone realizes that we have no democracy, and that the regime has
no intention of allowing any democracy. At that time (if that time ever
comes), the formation of a new government will be spontaneous.
The formation of a new government will happen spontaneously if & when that
realization becomes universal. That time hasn't arrived, and may not ever.
It won't happen because of organizers or leaders.
Then what have I advocated? In articles to Democracy Chronicles, I've
suggested that our most powerful "vote" would be to boycott our phony
elections. ...and demand verifiable vote-counting, in big pro-democracy
demonstrations all across the county. ...and make sure that all the foreign
tv news shows our poor, empty boycotted polling-places, and the big
pro-democracy demonstrations.
I've suggested that we demand open, honest, participatory & agenda-free
media.
But there won't be any elections to boycott until 2018 & 2020. And those
big pro-democracy elections won't happen this week, until the necessary
conversation has happened, on streetcorners, workplaces, schools, colleges,
families, get-togethers of relatives, etc., to the point where the
realization of no democracy is universal. And the consensus to boycott the
major tv networks' sponsors doesn't exist at this time--and won't until
that conversation has happened.
So what can be done right now, easily and powerfully? NPR propaganda uses
local FM NPR stations. Those small local FM stations are reachable &
isolate-able.
Tell your local FM NPR station that there will be no contributions from you
until they drop NPR. Tell that, until they do, you'll boycott their
sponsors. Tell them that you'll advise others to do the same.
Of course the effectiveness of this would depend on not being the only one
to say that (and then do it if called-for).
I told this to an FM show-host. He replied that if he ever said that on the
air, he'd be in a whole lot of trouble.And yet he asks people to contribute
to his station, to support influence-free, independent radio. :^)
So, if you, Fred, want to do something, start by calling a local FM NPR
station, and then talk to some progressives who might be willing to boycott
it and its sponsors, if the station continues to carry NPR, instead of
local-origin, honest, participatory news & commentary.
It's a small, easy, but powerful start.
Even so, parties are dangerous.
...as you no doubt will show.
As George Washington warned us in his Farewell Address, political parties
provide the means for cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men [no cunning,
ambitious and unprincipled woment?]
to subvert the power of the people
I don't know if it could be true, but I read that George Washington used
more brutal military force to put down the Whisky Rebellion than against
the British. It seems people a little to the west weren't paying their
taxes on the whiskey that they were making for themselves. And didn't
George Washington own slaves?
So Jill Stein and the cunning, ambitious Greens are trying to subvert the
power of the people, and usurp for themselves the reins of government.
and usurp for themselves the reins of government. When parties control
the political infrastructure, the people are blocked from deciding the
issues and naming the candidates for public office.
Ok, I apologize, because now I understand better: It's clear from the above
paragraph that you're referring to the Republocrats, not the Greens, etc.
...because what you said in that paragraph of course is a perfect
description of what the Democrats did, when they nominated Hillary. So I
apologize for the misunderstanding. I realize that what you're saying about
parties is referring to the corrdupt, bought Republocrats, and not to
parties in general.
.
That's why achieving a bottom-up structure is so important - it gives
non-partisans a voice in politics; a way to soften the excesses of party
politics.
Not unless you want to make it illegal for parties to form. Because,
otherwise, a group of same or similarly believing people can get together
and publish the policies that they advocate, and (democratically, with
public participation) choose candidates who agree with those policy
proposals. How would you stop them, Fred?
When speaking of the Bottom-Up government, I emphasized spontaneity, not
leadership by any organization or party. But, whenever there are elections,
there's nothing stopping a section of the population from publishing their
policy proposals, unless you make it illegal for them to assemble or
express their proposals.
While it is true that "Parties & their platforms clarify and summarize the
offerings", that is a top-down concept.
Joining to share their opinions is "top-down"?
when political action starts at the neighborhood level, the people -
including, but not limited to party members - will decide the issues and
select the candidates they believe able to resolve them.
No, the candidates' platform-proposals should influence people's choice
among them. And the fact that lots of people have expressed agreement on a
platform is a good thing.
But yes, of course independents,with platforms quite different from that of
any party can run for office too. If the public want to elect them, then
they will.
Such an arrangement encourages the absorption of diverse interests,
reducing them to their essential element: their effect on the participants
in the process. There are no platforms
Ok, we've resolved this discussion, because we've arrived at what we must
agree to disagree on. I wouldn't vote for anyone who refuses to divulge
what hir policy proposals are.
, there is no ideology
Dictionaries define ideology as a body of assertions & aims. So no
expression of assertions or aims should be allowed?
, the divisiveness of party politics is gone. The only question is, which
participants are the most attuned to the needs of the community and have
the qualities required to advocate the common good.
Not good enough. I wouldn't vote for someone who won't divulge what
policies s/he intends to implement.
You wrote, "It will be natural if & when, by conversations everywhere,
there comes to be a largely unanimous feeling that democracy is never going
to be allowed under current rule. It's about conversation, not leaders or
organizers."
I don't disagree, but someone has to start the conversation - as we are
doing here.
Of course. Things are at the conversation-beginning stage. The needed
widespread conversations of course might never start. But call your local
NPR station, and talk to some friends & acquaintances about boycotting it
and its sponsors. That's a start.
Michael Ossipoff
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
To usurp means to seize illegally or by force without right. So is that how
the Greens want to acquire the reins of government?
Everyone who runs for office offers hir representative-services at the
reins of government. That's true whether you're an independent or endorse a
party platform.
Subvert: To pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance or
faith.
So those are the things that Jill Stein and the Greens want to do?
Maybe the application of those words to all parties can't be justified.
Michael Ossipoff
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Fred Gohlke fredgohlke@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Michael
We express ourselves differently, but there is similarity in our views.
If I can do so without seeming argumentative, I'd like to describe my
attitude about parties.
You mention that I "feel that parties are a bad thing". It's true, I do,
but this is a complicated topic because partisanship is an important part
of society. It is a natural part of human interaction that gives breadth,
depth and volume to our voice. It is not only inevitable, it is healthy.
Parties provide the path for change. Our efforts here, in discussing a
bottom-up political system, will be futile if we cannot attract others to
join us - and that's partisanship.
Even so, parties are dangerous. As George Washington warned us in his
Farewell Address, political parties provide the means for cunning,
ambitious, and unprincipled men to subvert the power of the people and
usurp for themselves the reins of government. When parties control the
political infrastructure, the people are blocked from deciding the issues
and naming the candidates for public office.
That's why achieving a bottom-up structure is so important - it gives
non-partisans a voice in politics; a way to soften the excesses of party
politics.
While it is true that "Parties & their platforms clarify and summarize the
offerings", that is a top-down concept. when political action starts at
the neighborhood level, the people - including, but not limited to party
members - will decide the issues and select the candidates they believe
able to resolve them. Such an arrangement encourages the absorption of
diverse interests, reducing them to their essential element: their effect
on the participants in the process. There are no platforms, there is no
ideology, the divisiveness of party politics is gone. The only question
is, which participants are the most attuned to the needs of the community
and have the qualities required to advocate the common good.
You wrote, "It will be natural if & when, by conversations everywhere,
there comes to be a largely unanimous feeling that democracy is never going
to be allowed under current rule. It's about conversation, not leaders or
organizers."
I don't disagree, but someone has to start the conversation - as we are
doing here. To that extent, we are leaders. However, in this case, once
thoughtful conversation starts, others may show themselves to have better
ideas than ours.
Fred Gohlke
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Good Morning, Michael
re: "The formation of a new government will happen spontaneously
if & when that realization becomes universal."
How will that happen if people who recognize "that we have no democracy,
and that the regime has no intention of allowing any democracy" don't
write about it and talk about it? To imagine that those who do not
write and talk about it are not leaders is facile.
re: "... I read that George Washington used more brutal military
force to put down the Whisky Rebellion than against the
British. It seems people a little to the west weren't
paying their taxes on the whiskey that they were making for
themselves. And didn't George Washington own slaves?"
In what way are either of these two points relevant to the warning
Washington gave us in his Farewell Address?
re: "... the above paragraph that you're referring to the
Republocrats, not the Greens, etc."
I did not refer to any specific party. However, if you want party
references, think of National Socialism in Germany and Communism in
Russia. Both had features that attracted broad public support
throughout a national expanse and both degenerated into destructive
forces because their partisans gained control of their governments.
re: "Not unless you want to make it illegal for parties to form.
Because, otherwise, a group of same or similarly believing
people can get together and publish the policies that they
advocate, and (democratically, with public participation)
choose candidates who agree with those policy proposals.
How would you stop them, Fred?"
That's silly. I don't want to stop them, that is precisely the end I
seek. I want to encourage people to get together and agree on the
issues that need to be addressed and the people best able to address
them. I just want to be sure non-partisans are part of the process. As
to how I'd arrange for them to get together, I've described the method
on EM before. It's simple, straightforward, and works in any community
that's unhappy with the status quo.
re: "I wouldn't vote for anyone who refuses to divulge what
hir policy proposals are."
Perhaps not, but you might not have a problem making a choice from among
people who were discussing political issues with you and describing
their preferred course of action.
Fred Gohlke
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Fred Gohlke fredgohlke@verizon.net
wrote:
Good Morning, Michael
re: "The formation of a new government will happen spontaneously
if & when that realization becomes universal."
How will that happen if people who recognize "that we have no democracy,
and that the regime has no intention of allowing any democracy" don't write
about it and talk about it?
I emphasizsed that large-scale, population-wide conversation would be
essential.
The next step would be spontaneous demand for democracy. Boycotting the
phony elections, and spontaneous participation in big pro-democracy
demonstrations. If it eventually becomes clear that, in spite of those
things, democracy still won't be granted, that's when spontaneous formation
of a new government could happen. Not until then.
To imagine that those who do not write and talk about it are not leaders
is facile.
And the people who do talk about it aren't leaders either. I'm referring
to spontaneous talk on streetcorners, at campuses, family get-togethers,
etc. I've been emphasizing that spontaneity isn't about leaders or
organizers. So I don't agree with you about the need for leaders. Again,
that's just something on which we'll have to agree to disagree.
But we're talking about a stage of events that's a significant number of
big stages away, and may very well never happen. One should accept that. As
I said, there's no reason why anyone should worry about or count on results.
Remember that a famous person once said:
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"
That didn't just refer to taxes. It referred to the entire physical world.
Maybe there will never be improvement. That's ok, as long as you aren't
participating in harm to others.
Sure, we'd like to protect people from harm, and that's what the
conversations are about, but in the long run, people who harm are the main
recipients of their harm, and their own main victims.
Though I'm for trying to prevent harm, and it would be nice if improvement
is possible--People who harm are really only a problem to themselves.
re: "... I read that George Washington used more brutal military
force to put down the Whisky Rebellion than against the
British. It seems people a little to the west weren't
paying their taxes on the whiskey that they were making for
themselves. And didn't George Washington own slaves?"
In what way are either of these two points relevant to the warning
Washington gave us in his Farewell Address?
Sure, I'm not claiming that the statements were relevant to what you said.
But, relevant to Washngton's criticisms or warnings, wasn't there a saying
about living in a glass house and calling a kettle "black", or something?
re: "... the above paragraph that you're referring to the
Republocrats, not the Greens, etc."
I did not refer to any specific party. However, if you want party
references, think of National Socialism in Germany and Communism in
Russia. Both had features that attracted broad public support throughout a
national expanse and both degenerated into forces because their partisans
gained control of their governments.destructive
I wouldn't equate parties in general to the Nazi party.
No question about it, we all agree that the Nazis were at the extreme of
bad.
But citing one bad party doesn't support a general claim that all parties
are dangerous
re: "Not unless you want to make it illegal for parties to form.
Because, otherwise, a group of same or similarly believing
people can get together and publish the policies that they
advocate, and (democratically, with public participation)
choose candidates who agree with those policy proposals.
How would you stop them, Fred?"
That's silly. I don't want to stop them, that is precisely the end I
seek. I want to encourage people to get together and agree on the issues
that need to be addressed and the people best able to address them. I just
want to be sure non-partisans are part of the process.
Absolutely. I doubt that the Greens have advocated that independents not be
allowed to share their platforms and run for office.
As to how I'd arrange for them to get together, I've described the method
on EM before. It's simple, straightforward, and works in any community
that's unhappy with the status quo.
I'll take your word for that, because I didn't notice those discussions.
They might have been when I wasn't here.
re: "I wouldn't vote for anyone who refuses to divulge what
hir policy proposals are."
Perhaps not, but you might not have a problem making a choice from among
people who were discussing political issues with you and describing their
preferred course of action.
Of course. Independents might have good ideas too. Nader didn't get his
ideas from a party. I used to vote for him. Neither did Bernie, though he
seems seriously connected to the Democrat party.
Jill supports a party-platform. One advantage of a party platform is that
you know that there are already lots of people who support it and agree
with it. And, for voting purposes, it's desirable for voters to coalesce
and vote together, partly by sharing about what they're advocating.
This country has problems much worse than having parties. The Democrat and
Republican parties are a result, not the cause, of those problems.
I've already said that no party or organization is going to be what gets
people to reject phony democracy, or maybe eventually start an alternative
government.
That's in agreement with what you say.
Michael Ossipoff
Good Morning, Michael
re: "The next step would be spontaneous demand for democracy."
You've mentioned this several times, and emphasized that it would occur
without leaders or organizers. That's unrealistic. The realities of
life, particularly our economic needs, tend to distract us from serious
thought about public concerns. When, as in the United States, the
political infrastructure militates against public decision-making, the
people's political talents atrophy.
One of the difficulties in achieving democracy is that true democracy
offers no rewards for individuals or vested interests; it gives no
individual or group an advantage over others. Hence, it offers no
incentive for power-seeking individuals or groups to advocate its
adoption. We will only achieve democracy when those of us with an
interest in the topic take the time to create a framework in which
citizens are encouraged to discuss their political concerns with their
peers and elevate the best advocates of the common interest to public
office.
re: "I wouldn't equate parties in general to the Nazi party."
All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from National
Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose
their biases on the public. We may get a demonstration of that in the
U. S., in the next couple of years. One party has gained control of the
Executive and Legislative branches of our government. As a result, the
checks and balances provided by our Constitution will be ineffective.
Partisanship is a vital part of society, provided it is always a voice
and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing
partisans to control government.
re: "This country has problems much worse than having parties.
The Democrat and Republican parties are a result, not the
cause, of those problems."
In terms of our government, what could be worse than the parties telling
us who we can vote for? Voting for a party's candidates is not evidence
of free choice, it shows that we are slaves of the parties that deny us
the right to make our own decisions. The parties know, and thrive on
the simple fact that those who set the options control the outcome.
re: "... in the long run, people who harm are the main
recipients of their harm, and their own main victims."
I once thought there was a similarity in our views. I was wrong.
Fred Gohlke
On Nov 28, 2016 8:32 AM, "Fred Gohlke" fredgohlke@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Michael
re: "The next step would be spontaneous demand for democracy."
You've mentioned this several times, and emphasized that it would occur
without leaders or organizers. That's unrealistic. The realities of life,
particularly our economic needs, tend to distract us from serious thought
about public concerns. When, as in the United States, the political
infrastructure militates against public decision-making, the people's
political talents atrophy.
(endquote)
People aren't interested in leaders. Well, the Trump people are.
Progressives aren't.
But I encourage you to lead a movement for the things that you want, like
the abolition of parties.
(Replying farther down--I don't have a way to delete text.)
One of the difficulties in achieving democracy is that true democracy
offers no rewards for individuals or vested interests; it gives no
individual or group an advantage over others. Hence, it offers no
incentive for power-seeking individuals or groups to advocate its
adoption. We will only achieve democracy when those of us with an interest
in the topic take the time to create a framework in which citizens are
encouraged to discuss their political concerns with their peers and elevate
the best advocates of the common interest to public office.
re: "I wouldn't equate parties in general to the Nazi party."
All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from National
Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose
their biases on the public.
(endquote)
Well, maybe you can get rid of ideology, as well as parties.
Dictionaries define "ideology" as opinion, shared feelings, goals,
aspirations, proposed solutions, etc.
With sufficient leadership maybe the goal & aspiration of getting rid if
that is achievable.
(You continued) :
We may get a demonstration of that in the U. S., in the nextd couple of
years. One party has gained control of the Executive and Legislative
branches of our government.
(endquote)
One party with 2 right wings has been in office for a long time.
(You continued) :
As a result, the checks and balances provided by our Constitution will be
ineffective.
Partisanship is a vital part of society, provided it is always a voice
and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing
partisans to control government.
(endquote)
Then you'd better not allow the public to elect party candidates, or not
let government be controlled by people who are elected.
(I'd said) :
re: "This country has problems much worse than having parties.
The Democrat and Republican parties are a result, not the
cause, of those problems."
( You continued) :
In terms of our government, what could be worse than the parties telling
us who we can vote for?
(endquote) :
Most parties offer candidates for whom they invite you to vote. What could
be worse than that?
And no, the Democrats & Republicans don't tell you whom you can vote for.
They just nominate candidates.
But the media tell you whom you can vote for (Democrats & Republicans).
But we've covered the media.
(You continued) :
Voting for a party's candidates is not evidence of free choice
(endquote) :
Then I encourage you to vote only for independents.
(You continued) :
it shows that we are slaves of the parties that deny us the right to make
our own decisions.
(endquote) :
Then be sure to not let the Greens succeed in enslaving you with their
proposals.
(You continued) :
The parties know, and thrive on the simple fact that those who set the
options control the outcome.
(endquote)
Then let an independent set your options instead. Or run for office instead
of voting for anyone else's options.
(You continued) :
re: "... in the long run, people who harm are the main
recipients of their harm, and their own main victims."
I once thought there was a similarity in our views. I was wrong.
You think?
Michael Ossipoff
Don't worry, Michael. "It's OK if you don't agree with me. You don't
have to prove I'm right."*
Good Night
Fred Gohlke
- Courtesy of Woody Paige, Around The Horn, ESPN, 11/29/16