>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 3:07 AM >>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Doug Henwood wrote: >> maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should >> take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in >> place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, use available >> funds to issue policy statements and press releases one after another, >> show up at public and government meetings, control of county dem >> mechanisms might lead to control of state dem parties... > > This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying. What's > the argument against it?
There are two basically: one, it's impossible, and two, you won't be able to do anything with it. The reason is that the incentives are all on the other side and that all state party machines are collusive. In New York City, where you and I live, nothing short of the governorship would allow us to accomplish anything in the state worth doing. Lower level success would allow you to make symbolic gestures which by and large have already been made in our home town, from domestic partnership to living wage law to declarations against the war and patriot act. I think if you really wanted to take over the state, you'd be better off with a state-wide IRV campaign. Probably equally doomed, but at least the interim incentives would make more sense: you'd build up an organization outside their grasp that could affect the media and politics independently. This is basically how people passed the term-limits laws. IRV would be more useful: it would really allow you to develop small principled parties that could grow until they won, and which would have an effect on the political discourse from the beginning. Michael <<<<<>>>>> another of michael pollak's well-reasoned posts, you've offered number of specific obstacles re. new york (factors relevant to other locales as well), in some ways, however, your example can be used in support of above suggestion which was assumed nation-wide effort (there are 3000 counties in us, most have dem/rep executive councils serving as 'structural' foundation of respective parties)... florida dems dominated state politics until last couple of decades, but there was really no party as such, ambitious individuals decided to run, put together their own campaign org, raised their own money, in number of ways, state was ahead of the curve re. 'candidate-centered' elections... neither of two major parties in u.s. are 'mass'' organizations, membershp in many places consists several 'activists' who function as local executive committee and who recruit 'activists' to help party candidate campaigns, self-selected candidates often don't care whether they get local party support or not (and sometimes prefer not), surely progressive/left folks can do better than this with whatever shell of an organization exists... michael hoover -------------------------------------------------------------- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
