[EM] Small National Assembly. Bottom-Up Government.

Thu Nov 24 16:50:10 PST 2016

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161124/a597cf3d/attachment.htm>