|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 18, 2012 22:47:24 GMT -5
The original idea behind the Congress involved democratically electing one male and one female representative from every congressional district, plus representatives from DC and US protectorates. Part of the idea behind this was that it would give the document created legal standing that could be used to file a federal lawsuit should the grievances not be redressed, and in fact this was the key foundation of the legal theory. Unfortunately, numerous delegates have spoken to lawyers that have said this stood little to no chance of succeeding to begin with, and none at all considering the following:
At least 15% of the seats did not have anyone running for them at all. Approximately 80% of the seats were uncontested. A grand total of 1,386 votes were cast in the election. All candidates have been invited to participate as full voting delegates, thus nullifying the elections.
Given these facts, it is obvious that if our organization is really going to make a difference, we must win this in the court of public opinion.
Again, unfortunately organization currently has no support from outside organizations, even ones who should be our natural allies, and is experiencing outright hostility many Occupy groups, and perhaps most telling, from several people that once strongly supported our cause.
So, my proposal is basically this: we use the empty seats and invite outside organizations to send representatives to participate as voting delegates.
I would start by asking OWS/NYCGA, Occupy Philly, Occupy DC, and the NGA at large to send 3 men and 3 women each for a total of 24. Then I would send a letter to every political organization left right and center, inviting them to send 1 or 2 delegates on a first come, first serve basis. The idea behind this is to get as many people in the room as possible. Especially reasonable, respectful, pragmatic people, and most especially people with good ideas on what will have the largest resonance with the 99%, and who want to build a more equitable, sustainable, peaceful future.
We can build a coalition this way. If we remain closed, we may find ourselves alone. And if we remain alone, all of this will be for naught.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 19, 2012 5:00:57 GMT -5
There is a democracy theory, called Reflective Democracy, that says with as few as 12 people who with dialogue and deliberation and hearing all sides of an argument can come up with solutions the larger population will accept and embrace. See The MacLean's People's Verdict article, and the works of Tom Atlee and Jim Rough. We already have critical mass to do the work we came to do in Philly. But the process is broken. If we need more people at the event it is expert witness, policy wonks, activists in the areas of our chief concerns. There is a process called Citizen's Juries that is an excellent deliberative model. Since we arrive a week from Sunday I fear it is too late for this to happen, and the SC has banned non delegates anyway (except press I hear), so it is up to the delegates to assure that all sides are heard. It will be hard since the hugely neo-liberal biased marketing chased all the conservative reformers away and many right leaning moderates. But a biased group can still make good decisions for the whole of society if there is time to deliberate. This is why the SC committee's non debate format is so troubling and biased.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 19, 2012 12:07:52 GMT -5
Chief Concerns and I are good friends. I don't think he would be able to come to Philly though. He has a 6 month old baby. But he is pretty good at expressing his chief concerns in a way that leaves most people scratching their heads, if that helps any.
In any case, perhaps enough support from the delegates will help to reverse this, but you're largely right...it's really too late to invite anyone who isn't already planning to be in Philly and doesn't live relatively close to come. At this point I'm leaning toward not coming myself, though I'm still undecided and time is running out. Wondering if I'll still be able to help craft the language or even participate in some of the debate/discussion.
|
|
|
Post by elioth on Jun 19, 2012 14:32:42 GMT -5
While it is true that this whole process is suspect, both because we don't have "official" representation, and because even if we did, it's unlikely Congress will do more than pay lip service, we have to start somewhere.
I don't believe rallying less than interested folks to come at the last minute will help the process. Frankly, more voices do not necessarily lead to better choices.
My recommendation is, instead of using this process as a means to convince Congress or file a lawsuit, instead we should divide the grievances up between those that are amendments and those that are solely legislative.
Then, we rally the delegates and others to lobby their official Congresspeople directly for legislative issues, and do grass roots with the mentioned Occupy and 99% leaders and groups to get 33 states to call for an official Constitutional Convention, with those amendments as the targets for ratification. Then, the Convention would be empowered to ratify those amendments.
Thus, this action we are currently taking would only be the first of many steps to getting more voices heard.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 19, 2012 16:18:04 GMT -5
Frankly, you are correct, more voices do not necessarily lead to better choices.And I agree that this is the first of many steps.
However, I do think that having more policy experts in the room would lead to more informed and probably better choices, and I also think that having more diverse voices across the political spectrum will also lead to more informed and better choices.
My own personal thoughts are that if we can get groups at opposite ends of the spectrum like the Tea Party and Occupy to agree with us, then we really have something. I also think that the Congress as well as the document(s) it produces could be used as a tool to build support from other groups, because at the end of the day I don't think lobbying our legislators directly is enough. We need overwhelming support. We need to engage EVERYONE, and get them to sign on and demonstrate their support, and I'm just making suggestions on how we might do that.
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jun 19, 2012 18:52:15 GMT -5
I agree with the sentiment that "more voices" doesn't necessarily lead to "better voices", though I wouldn't want to exclude anyone who cares enough to be involved, particularly if that person has strong communication skills, strong public policy sentiments, and can succinctly build bridges across ideologies.
Messaging will be important, because the threads that can bind Occupiers and real Tea Partiers do exist, even if only in the thinnest quality. That's why certain topics like "campaign finance" can be such a home run to what we are aiming to do.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 20, 2012 1:40:46 GMT -5
Here is the letter Matt Forbes and I drafted as part of this plan:
To the NYCGA, Philadelphia GA, and all Occupy GA's and supporters,
On behalf of the Delegates to the Continental Congress 2.0, we would like to thank you for all you have accomplished in bringing attention to the corrupting influence of money in politics, the failure of our government to regulate the excesses of Wall Street and those who would gamble with our economy at the expense of the middle and lower income citizens, the home foreclosure and student loan crises, and the myriad of other complex issues plaguing our society.
We, the Delegates participating in this Continental Congress, understand that many within Occupy have taken issue or expressed concerns with the 99% Declaration and how the Board of Directors has handled the process of planning the Continental Congress over the last eight months. We also recognize and acknowledge the lack of transparency and democratic methods and are working our hardest to correct them, and create an organization that is as open, inclusive, and democratic as possible.
To that end, we would like to invite you to select representatives of your own to be sent to the Continental Congress 2.0. We share the same goals, the same purpose. It is time we clasped our proverbial hands together and began to rebuild the bridges that have been burned in this long process. We have let our inner turmoil distract us from the true enemy—those who would seek pervert our democracy and twist it for their own personal gain.
Let us heal this divide and come together in Philadelphia as brothers and sisters that share common values and common grievances, and let us work together to find common solutions to our common problems. Let this be a gathering of like minds and like hearts, coming together to rally the people and inspire a movement that will lead us toward a more equitable, sustainable, compassionate future.
We implore you to consider this invitation. It is meant with sincerity and a desire to return to the common ground upon which we all once stood, not so long ago.
Sincerely,
The 99% Delegates
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 20, 2012 4:20:30 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm not on board with opening up CC2 to selective invitees. We too do not speak for all the delegates. The invitation would have to come from a vote of all the delegates on the floor. As I've said before, we actually only need twelve people of diverse backgrounds to craft a document (consensus reform agenda) that the whole country would embrace. Conversely, if the attendees are biased, likewise, we can produce a similar document if all sides of an argument are presented, and the attendees have a chance to reflect and deliberate on what they heard (at least sleep on it). So to me, the makeup of the people in the room is moot. Expert witnesses would have been great, a reflective panel likewise. Let's play the hand we were dealt, and not try and change the game. And, why would we only invite OWS groups? The country is statistically speaking center slightly right leaning. So this letter also speaks to my original question is the CC2 an attempt at democracy of a liberal/progressive movement, or is the CC2 an attempt at better governance of a whole nation? As far as I'm concerned it's the latter, and now, it's all about the document.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 20, 2012 9:48:39 GMT -5
True, we don't, which is why I put it out there to see what sort of support it gets. I laid out the full strategy elsewhere, and said this was only PART of the strategy. We wouldn't invite just OWS, we'd invite politically motivated groups left right and center.
You may think we only need 12 people, but I say 1) then they better be the right 12 people and 2) You need a plan to get the whole country to embrace this thing, and I have not seen one.
And you are only statistically right about the country leaning center right if you are measuring with the skewed scale.
|
|
|
Post by rebeccalindsey on Jun 20, 2012 10:28:46 GMT -5
I tend to agree with elioth, I think it would be a good idea to divide the existing proposed grievances into amendments and legislative issues. That way we could accomplish more of what the people see as important and necessary changes.
Once again this will take prioritizing both categories so as to most efficiently utilize our efforts. If we don't attempt to organize ourselves in this way, I don't believe we'll have enough time in Philadelphia to make any significant difference. Additionally, when certain issues are addressed and corrected, some of the other issues will fall into place along with the correction.
However we became delegates, whether by popular vote or uncontested interest, it is now up to us to open lines of communication between each other and accomplish what the SC has failed to do.....which is organize and cooperate. We need to prove that we can do what the existing Congress has failed to do....cooperate and achieve mutually beneficial change.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 20, 2012 12:22:09 GMT -5
It was a recent Gallup poll about the country being center leaning right. Linda Killian's book puts independents as high as 41%. Remember George Bush was elected twice.
We can certainly invite other center and right groups, but C2 is perceived as a liberal/progressive event, that won't appeal to them, so they won't come. Battle won for the liberals, but we may lose the war because as Lincoln said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.
I hope the purpose of the CC2 is to find a plan the whole country will embrace, but the process now has a strong liberal bias, and confirmation bias by letting delegates only confirm for 2 minutes each what everyone already can read on the screen.
We need a dialogue and deliberation model, and the ability to edit and review iterations of the grievances.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 20, 2012 14:46:19 GMT -5
I don't think any of us think this is a war we can afford to lose.
It will take time to change the perception of our group, but I believe we need to be open and inclusive, and I'm pretty sure you do too.
here's to hoping we have a reflective debate at least.
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jun 20, 2012 15:29:31 GMT -5
While in Philly, perhaps we should have a group of delegates from our convention represent us at the Occupy Assembly, and have a group of delegates from Occupy be represented at our convention?
It might offer a bit of a bridge without fear of one group monopolizing the other. We do have shared grievances, and shared sacrifice that we can both agree on. It's always the little stuff that seems to separate our two groups.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 21, 2012 8:49:46 GMT -5
If you frame this as "diversity of tactics" instead of "political Occupy" then you have some chance of mending relations with the Occupy groups. The biggest difference between them and us is that we are taking a different tactic to achieve the same goals. We are demanding government to fix the system if possible, while Occupy is trying to create a new system to replace the current one. We have different tactics, but we're trying to accomplish the same goals in the end.
|
|
|
Post by christopherabrown on Jun 22, 2012 18:45:27 GMT -5
If you frame this as "diversity of tactics" instead of "political Occupy" then you have some chance of mending relations with the Occupy groups. The biggest difference between them and us is that we are taking a different tactic to achieve the same goals. We are demanding government to fix the system if possible, while Occupy is trying to create a new system to replace the current one. We have different tactics, but we're trying to accomplish the same goals in the end. I agree with this post. In fact, it is one of the most comprehensive yet simple descriptions of the differences in 2 movements I've seen. So opening up the congress to those who can accept the differences will help to mend, particuarly if there is an invitation. Their "demands" and our "grievances" are similar and can actually be met by something closer to our methods. This is particularly true when the opinions of Americans not participating in the movements are considered. They see Occupys efforts as unlawful revolution because they use no legal process. They consider the 99% Declaration to be inadequate legal process. Indeed, a law suit would have no standing if the elite decide to ignore the petition. What is most curious is that "while Occupy is trying to create a new system to replace the current one" without legal process, a fully legal and adequate method of creating a new system can be engaged with Article V.This movements petition can be a priliminary organizational step where grievances can be ordered. If the deprival of our first right for 100 years is considered to be something that led to most of the grievances being so severe and this movement places that fact as a grievance at the beginning, then the foundation has been laid for using Article V and our first right is named and claimed. And, it has been done properly. The only thing this movement hasn't done within that escalation to see grievances addressed is to specifically encourage movements in each state to apply pressure upon state legislators to prepare for Article V. Of course "delgates" apply to Article V and they are currently in many states. This is a real start if we can agree to lay the foundation for continued legal process IF the petition is ignored.
|
|