Jay,
Here's a piece of unsolicited advice from someone who has known some
very remarkable historians, and who has had the luxury to read and think
a lot about history and how it is written: Metaphors are useful, but be
wary of locking yourself into them. Too much focus on learning the
lessons of the past draws attention from the novel challenges of the
present. This is itself a lesson of history. People do indeed repeat the
mistakes of refighting the previous war and staking too much on
untenable compromises.
Craig Simon
Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> FYI:
>
> Yesterday, a group of Paris Draft supporters
> had a telecon with BMW Draft supporters. We
> were trying to find points of consensus, and
> ways to move forward.
>
> As before, the Paris Draft supporters are
> working hard to find consensus, yet we are
> not seeing much in return.
>
> Here is part of an exchange on this topic, with
> the names removed to preserve confidentiality:
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Jay.
>
> > Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:13:53 -0500
> > From: Jay Fenello
> > Subject: Lessons from History
> >
> >
> > I know people hate when I do this, but we *can*
> > learn from history. From Compton's Encyclopedia:
> >
> > >The convention faced two problems which loomed up above all
> > >others. If a strong federal government was established, how was
> > >it to be given authority? Was it to be permitted to coerce the
> > >different states? If so, just how? In the second place, how was
> > >power to be adjusted between the large states, like Pennsylvania,
> > >and the small states, like Delaware? The Constitution in its
> > >final form was a bundle of compromises, but the great compromise
> > >was that between the large and the small states.
> >
> > Replace states with constituencies, and we
> > have some interesting parallels.
> >
> > >Two important plans shortly came before the convention. One was
> > >the so-called Virginia plan. Largely the work of Madison, it was
> > >presented to the convention by Edmund Randolph. The other was the
> > >New Jersey plan, a series of seven resolutions submitted by William
> >
> > >Paterson of New Jersey. The Virginia plan represented the
> > standpoint
> > >of the large states and involved writing an entirely new
> > constitution;
> > >the New Jersey plan represented the ideas of the small states and
> > was
> > >simply a set of amendments to the old Articles of Confederation.
> >
> > Replace Virginia with BMW, and replace New
> > Jersey with Paris. Continuing:
> >
> > >The Great Compromise
> > >
> > >The debate on the Virginia and New Jersey plans revealed
> > >the dangerous jealousy between the large states, demanding
> > >representation according to population, and the small states,
> > >insisting upon equal representation. Men on each side repeatedly
> > >threatened to break up the convention and go home. The large
> > >states were the stronger and carried a resolution against equal
> > >representation in the lower house of Congress.
> > >
> > >Thereupon the Connecticut delegates brought forward a successful
> > >compromise. They proposed that the states be equally represented
> > >in the Senate and represented according to population in the lower
> > >chamber or House. After much grumbling the large states accepted
> > >this scheme.
> >
> > Now, all we need is a new version of a "Great Compromise"!
> >
> > Any suggestions?
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Jay Fenello
> > President, Iperdome, Inc.
> > 404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
> >
> >
> > >> >4 Executive NC or not.
> > >> >
> > >> >Seem to be split on this one according to party lines.
> > >> >It seems that this may be a second order problem since it cannot
> > be solved
> > >> >without understanding who are the members, how constituencies
> > are formed,
> > >> >how they select the NC. Let's work on those issues before we try
> > to
> > >> >resolve this one or it will a fruitless discussion.
> > >>
> > >> Regardless of where final decision-making rests, I think there is
> > value
> > >> in having a place (call it the "General Assembly" or something
> > else)
> > >> where the opinions/votes of the DNSO membership as a whole can be
> >
> > >> registered and measured. In the BMW draft, the only voting of any
> >
> > >> significance takes place in the balanced Names Council. If it
> > turns out
> > >> that 90% of the DNSO membership rests in one or two
> > "constituencies,"
> > >> overwhelming support for a proposal in those constituencies is
> > masked by
> > >> the artificially balanced Names Council.
> > >
> > >That is precisely the point of constituencies -- number of members
> > >in a constituency is *not* a measure of the importance of the
> > >constituency. That is precisely why the Paris draft special cases
> > >the Registry Constituency. The flaw in the Paris draft is that it
> >
> > >doesn't recognize that other constituencies have precisely the same
> >
> > >characteristics as the registry draft. In a bit more detail:
> > there
> > >is no way of knowing how many members there will be in the "public
> > >interest" constituency -- there might be 5 organizations -- but
> > >those 5 organizations might have hundreds of thousands of members
> > >who can't or won't join as individuals, but who still have great
> > >importance.
> > >
> > >The number of members in a constituency is not a good measure of
> > the
> > >importance of the constituency. Consequently, a vote of the total
> > >membership is not a good measure of support for a policy.
