Register Latest Topics

  Author   Comment  

Posts: 62
Reply with quote  #1 
Recently there has been a lot of emails being CC amoungst some party members. No doubt as we give birth to this new party, it will create heated debates, just as the founding fathers experienced. That's to be expected. What turns me off though is the tick-for-tack nature of the emails. It's like listening to Honey Boo Boo debate Lindsey Lohan. I don't mean to imply that the people are not clever; they are! I don't mean to imply that debate is evil; it's not and needed, just like it was in 1775. For me though, it is a waste of time. I'm focused on building the party, working on different projects everyday. I'd like to list the kind of party I am looking for. If I somehow stumbled into the wrong party, let me know so I can go build what I envision.

(1) Civility. Politicians yell out 'He Lies!'. Their commercials are made of 90% mud, 8% poop and 2% fact. I want to get away from, "I SHOUT THE LOUDEST SO I MUST BE RIGHT!" I want to present to Americans that the Justice Party is a new party that will act differently. I expect it from our LEADERS in the party and our members. Are there better ways for points to be made without Kung Fu fights to break out? Let's discuss ways to contribute that can be positive.

(2) Open. Some call this transparent. Take a break from this email for a second and watch "Beth Noveck: Demand a more open-source government"

Also watch: "Clay Shirky: How the Internet will (one day) transform government"

The videos are part of TED talks ( ... There are many excellent videos on a range of topics!) Establish parties have always done things behind doors. Decided points by small committees. I want us to be different. Yes, you need strong leaders and committed people to guide the ship. But there is no reason why our members can not be heard. I think this is what is going to excite our members and potential members... That they too can be part of the decision process. This concept might be easier for the younger generation to understand. I will give you an example. Old way: News website has layers and layers of editors who have to sign-off on published stories. New way: Members contribute news stories and members decide what stories go to the top and which ones get moderated down. This kind of power sharing is very scary to the old guard I think. To be honest, so far, the Justice Party has talked about ourselves as 'a new kind of political party', but not acted like one. We operate much like established parties. I hope this can be changed. We have great ideas. Suppose we get into power. Suppose we are then the majority party. If we function just like the Democrats and Republicans, won't we in turn eventually become corrupt and evil like them? Isn't it better for us to lay the foundation for our openness NOW? Starting with our bylaws and platform! (Do we have bylaws?)

(3) No Labels. Why do we have to decide that we are right or left? How about a different approach like "No Labels" ( Does it mean we stand for nothing? No, it means we are open minded that we are able to take in the best ideas from the entire political spectrum. I myself sometimes vote for Republicans, Democrats and Independents. I think some members of this party can not accept that we are not firmly in one camp or the another. It confuses them. It angers them. And thus we have yelling back in forth in emails. I think that more and more people are not associating with Democrats and Republicans. Not sure I explained my thoughts clearer on this. Bottom-line, I want to be open to all ideas. I'll use our 'values' statement to process each idea. If it fits, I will support it.

(4) Commitment. There are many organizations out there. Too many to count. With the rise of the internet and social media, there's more movements on every corner than Starbucks. That's great. Many of you belong to a wide range of movements. You all have the potential to bring in new members from those movements. So, I won't say give them up. I will ask that we make the Justice Party our priority movement. Especially our party leaders. At this point we are all volunteers. That's fine. But we need members who can devote their hearts and minds to the party as much as possible. If that's not possible, there's no shame, but you have to make space for someone else that can commit themselves. If that doesn't happen, we will hobble along.

(5) Contribute. I want to see more people contribute. Not simply, COPY and PASTE an article or link. We're all busy, so ideally, you'll summarize. That is helpful. From telling us (in YOUR words) why we should check out ABC movement or read about XYZ book. We need people to step forward to help in many other ways, like copywriters and so on. Simply lecturing on politics is not enough. A friend mentioned to me, 'The Justice Party is full of political theorist but lacks real-world political experience.' He means that we can be like a bunch of professors and sit in our leather chairs and discuss politics, or actually start rolling up our sleeve. Kudos to Justice Party of Texas for doing real world work. We need much more of this. And we need more talk about this kind of action.

(6) Salesmanship. I have seen some bright people come into our mists. And sadly, seen them leave. Their reasons are many. I too had days where I wanted to walk off. I think it is important for us all to sell the party. Every time I see a post about the need for us to run off with the elves I cringe. I panic and think, 'How many new members will be leaving us today?' We can't afford to lose talented new members! So not only am I always looking to sell us to new members, I try to support/encourage them and keep them engaged. Are we making new members feel engaged? Or are they sitting around waiting for 'something' to happen. Or just trying to keep from getting hit by all the mud? The flip side to this is that the Justice Party won't be all things to all people. So I try my best to sell the party but if the 'product' isn't right for them, then I accept that they weren't meant for us. I know that some people will come to us like moths to a flame. They might be the type of person that joins every single movement. They might be the type of person that believes in another movement and thinks they will be able to hijack our party for their own cause. Those members, we can try to save but if we can't, so be it.

(7) Professionalism. I want us to be professional. This point relates to some of the above. We may be young and small, but we can brand ourselves like a top tier political group. This relates to content we are making, to the way we converse. Before hitting the send button for your email, have a re-read of your text a few times. Does it include cuss words? Delete them. Does it include an attack? Keep it in your draft folder for a few weeks... look to see what develops. I don't want to be the party of 12 angry men sitting in a cabin in the woods.

(8) Flexibility. We need to be flexible. I have read the previous platform. Some points left me scratching my head. (As it related to point #9 below) Some made me nervous. But I am willing to see how it goes. I know in the end, that I won't agree 100% with the vision, values and platform. But if I can agree with 80% or more, I will be happy. At the end of the day, I consider EVERYONE here on my side. If we are all on the same side, let's work together to make it happen. After all, we are here because we all agree that the current system and its parties are not working. I think we can find more agreement than disagreement.

(9) Winning. This might not be everyone's cup of tea. Tied with being professional is the desire to win. I strongly believe in this. The reason is simple. If we can not win, we can not make change. We must create our foundation and go forward to win. From more focus on the local level to adopting the planks/issues that will draw attention and get our candidates in power. Once they are in power, they can proceed to make all of our issues into policy. But if we can't win, then we become JUST ANOTHER political movement or a 3rd-rate small party. So let me recap: There will be many policies we want to implement. All of them might be grand. But we will need to focus on the ones Americans clamor for NOW and ones that will get us into office NOW. Only then can we bring about justice for all. If we don't, we end up just 12 angry men in a cabin in the woods.

I hope some of the above makes sense. It may not considering I am a Brazilian immigrant that grew up in New England and spent 1/2 of his life in Japan. (Try studying Nemawashi for a better approach

-- Carlos Camacho
Connecticut Justice Party
Twitter: @justicepartyct

Posts: 89
Reply with quote  #2 
Thank you Carlos. Great post!
Ben Eastwood

Posts: 41
Reply with quote  #3 
Thanks Carlos, Great post, I had just finished watching Clay's excellent Ted talk.  I have a friend here in VT who ran as an independent for state senator representing the idea of direct representation, using the internet to allow folks to tell him how they'd like him to vote on issues, etc.  It is an interesting idea, I'd like to get him on the forums here to talk about it.  I don't know if it is where we want to head as a party, but his ideas are really forward thinking aout how to use this technology to make the system more transparent and democratic. 
  Robert Heinlein proposed something similar, in that he proposed that a declaration of war should be through public referendum, and a vote 'yes' is also a volunteer for the fight if it is ratified, which would insure that we would have the people necessary, but would mean that we would reduce significantly the standing armies we have in place today and help insure that congress and the pres don't march us off on wars we do not find necessary.  This was decades before the internet, when we have instant on air secure voting for American Idol, and interactive television programs.
  The system that Ernest Callenbach wrote about in Ecotoia, with a population able to have a government that functioned through interactive telepresence (through cable, again, written decades before the internet).
  I would like to see our party take better advantage of the technologies that we have today.  Throughout the RA campaign, I proposed that Rocky telecampaign, and, in fact, had him by skype at an event in Burlington.  While, due to a complete lack of logistics and the time/experience/manpower to promote the event on my end, it was sort of a bust, we did get one amazing gentleman who hd his son bust him out of the old folks home to come out and tell Rocky how on fire he was.  It turns out that this guy was one of the residents of the Koinonia (sp?) commune in Georgia, which later became habitat for humanity, but back in the late 40's and early 50s was a radical force towards integration.
  While the event was meh, it proved the technology.  I then proposed that Rocky and Gary set up a debate here in VT, where folks could attend the debates and participate through telepresence.  In fact, I figured it would even work if the the candidates debated through this medium.  They could play to their home crowd, and meanwhile, not contribute to global warming  or have the great expense of flying cross country.  This is based on the 3dmusion eyeliner technology, but I believe we could do something similar without the expense.
  Skype allows for video chatting, as does google.  Why don't we use these media more?  The age of dialing into echo-ey conference calls, and losing the huge part of communication which is nonverbal hurts us.  I think we could have a regularly scheduled series of meetings, and I think a skill/experience sharing brain trust, to help keep us on task, Build the skills needed to be better, more effective politicians, and to build the culture that this party will need to survive, and attract more and more people.

We came, we saw, we gathered signatures, we sued, we gathered signatures, we got Rocky on the Ballot in Vermont. That was the easy part, now we have to get this Justice Party Started!
No Difference

Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #4 
The terms Left and Right DO mean something, but only if they are used in their classical (original) definition.  The Right represents the plutocratic, monarchical, authoritarian governments of the elite who deny increasing democracy and participation; they tend to rule by force (death) and suffering.  That is about as best a definition I can sum up.  Basically, the people who oppose equality.

The Left is anyone who wants more democracy and equality.  The greater the tendency for equality, the farther Left that person is.  It is really very simple, once we dispose of personal favorite definitions.  I have never had a problem understanding these two terms except when highly-paid pundits and big mouths redefine and mangle them in order to confuse everyone.

Left and Right are more than labels.  In fact, I don't think you can compare them to labels.  They simply exist in reality.

Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!