Cliff LyonThe Untold Story of the August 30 Organizing Committee
Hatch’s “Nutcake†comment ignited a firestorm, which transformed into a seething, slow-burning resentment, earning institutionalized permanency as a badge of honor in the form of stickers and signs prominently displayed throughout Utah.
The clumsy, deliberately self-defeating, ineptitude of the August 30th Organizing Committee failed to seize and fully exploit that resentment given the opportunity provided by Bush’s recent visit to SLC to mobilize Utahns’ disappointed in this president. With the exception of the promise provided by Rocky, the local media, starved for something more, got nothing from this doomed mixture of well-intentioned and self-serving people.
Whether under the shear weight of incompetence, or as it appears, by design, instead of being able to boast a turnout at least marginally greater than the last time Bush was in town, we got media like this from The Nation:
“Most of the event itself was run-of-the-mill, a few thousand antiwar, anti-Bush protesters, a platform of entirely forgettable, sometimes embarrassingly inept, speakers, many of whom mouthed nothing but platitudes.â€
Most unfortunately, the rally to protest Bush in SLC drew no more than prior one.
The news of Bush’s impending visit to Salt Lake City caused an immediate inspiring groundswell of new and impassioned activists. It was clear from the numbers of new, fresh faces at the first organizing meeting, that this event could draw new people, more moderate people, and people who would not have been caught dead at the protests of the past.
It was also clear from the first meeting that a special interest group present, was not going to let that happen. Beginning with the first meeting, we witnessed the execution of well-orchestrated, pre-planned tactics designed to annoy, alienate and subvert the efforts of us “newbies†whose interest and patience and experience were insufficient to endure the pain and suffering required to participate in this process with a small number of highly organized people and their family members, with more narrow interests.
At the first meeting, over half of those present had walked out by the end of the first hour as the petty debate over procedure very purposefully dragged out well into the night.
To kick start the effort, a few of us “newbies†had spent days putting up a world class web site to leverage this unique opportunity to activate the broader community. At the second meeting, the “special interest†people came prepared with instructions to join a list-serv in an obvious effort to retain control over the organization by preventing broader public participation through the website www.UtahVoices.org.
As the weekly meetings proceeded and more new faces came and never returned, the commonly heard capitulation to the annoying tactics were comments like, â€life is too shortâ€.
To this day, the squabbling on the August-30 list-serv continues. So far today another 3 people have quit the group, which continues to dabble in a self-important struggle figure out how to perpetuate their “organization.â€
The wide appeal of creating an organized welcome party for Bush’s visit to Salt Lake City was to demonstrate to the world that the great majority of the citizens of Utah’s State Capitol have some serious issues with Bush and we are not “nutcakes.†(as described by Senator Hatch)
From the beginning I was joined by others advocating for the position that the August 30th event should have been guided by a singular goal; that its success should have been measured in terms of the public/national/media perception of us as a surprisingly huge number of status quo progressive people in a red state coming out to express our displeasure with the current administration AND that we not be dismissed as “nutcakesâ€. Accomplishing that required an intelligent, focused PR strategy beginning weeks before the event. That never happened.
Instead, in the end, we got weeks of bickering, re-voting, family packing, rejection of good ideas, and procedural inventions which in the end produced a bunch of speakers no one has ever heard of including a somnambulistic candidate for Congress supported by a group of people who managed to hijack the real Utah Party’s website and trademark (and who are unaffiliated with the International Green Party) and whose main operative was a registered Republican until last year.
At the fourth meeting, and the last one I attended, Bob Brister’s campaign manager, who knitted throughout every meeting and whose own daughter muscled her way into the role of “meeting facilitator†at the second meeting, commented, “I could care less if only three people show up at the protest.” These were the kinds of antics caused so many people to quit. One such “quitter†protested in a common refrain, “I feel that the people who are running this list have their own agenda and that I don’t fit into it”. (If I only had a dime…)
Such was the pattern with the self-annointed veteran leaders of the volunteer committee that took over the organizing of the August 30th anti-bush protest in Washington Square. The number of people who attempted to become involved at some point in the six-week process is easily seven to tens times the number that remained to the end.
Bush’s visit to SLC was an strategic opportunity to change the perception that we are a minority, to bring out more and new people, to INCREASE participation in the political process, but instead, THAT concept was reduced to a mere task, relegated, only in the last week before the event to a skeleton group of “go fers” who wasted time contacting NGO’s whose IRS declarations prevent them from participating in such events.
Just as there remain a few old vets who still believe that that Vietnam War was lost because of the 60’s protests, there remain in our activist community a few old hippies who also still believe the Vietnam War was ended by their singular efforts in public protest and acts of civil disobedience. Both are just angry, stubborn, and wrong. Real change happens through a combination of efforts through a series of complex dynamics properly guided by smart opportunistic people working through ever changing channels in an ever-changing world.
The overthrow of the August 30th Organizing Committee by far left operatives and nostalgic old hippies is a textbook example of “tyranny of the minority†as taught in POLYSCI 101. Tyranny of the minority happens when the agenda or goals of the minority, prevail over those of the majority.
It happens all the time at every level of life, from the tantrum-throwing little sister who forces the entire family to ride the merry-go-round instead of the roller coaster, to the motor-mouth on the annual church picnic planning committee who decides to challenge the Jello color ten o’clock at night.
Life is too short. Mediocrity prevails. Another opportunity lost. Vote Bob.
PS: Go see them in action. They will be meeting tomorrow, Tuesday Sept. 12 at 7pm in the downtown SLC Library. (psst. don’t tell’em the sixties are over)
September 11th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Ouch.
I was excited to see the energy and new ideas that the newbies brought. I was sad to see them shut down to do a kind of same old- same old rally, but after a point I got tired of fighting and decided to try to practice my diplomacy/stop splitting hairs skills. I’ve seen too much that could have (and should have) been good destroyed by clinging too stubbornly to principle — even the best principles.
In the end, I feel that the rally came together well and everyone really did work hard on it, especially two of the newbies who not only breezed past the old hostilities but worked really hard practically 24/7 to make it a success.
Could it have been more successful? I believe that doing something new and fresh could have generated a bigger and better response. We can only expect limited results from formula and preaching to the choir. But there were some good things that came out of this rally and I am proud to have done my teeny tiny little bit of it.
Added bonuses of working on the event include: meeting some great new people + some deep philosophical reflection on activism and politics that’s got me exploring some new and exciting mental/emotional territory. I also got to do some radical cheerleading at the rally which is my favorite thing to do . . .
September 11th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Cliff is quite an articulate guy. This comment, sent to him in response to his request for quotes and impressions of competing interests on the Aug. 30 planning committee, sums up, I think, what he has said so eloquently above:
“Working with a group of people as diverse in opinion and strong-willed as the August 30th committee, for me, has been an emotionally exhausting lesson in diplomacy. I felt compelled to see the project through, even if I didn’t always agree with the way things were planned. The greater good became more important than doing things my way, which is a lesson I wish Bush and his neo-con cohorts had learned earlier in their lives “
September 12th, 2006 at 12:59 am
Way to Go Cliff. Thanks for telling it like it is. I was so thoroughly disgusted by the manner in which speakers were selected at the meeting August 15th I left the planning committee. I did organize and outreach the event outside of committee channels. This along with Rocky’s charisma and eleoquence rescued the event. The greivance petition was also a positive but was wasted by failing to market it and have a cohesive follow up strategy to pressure Senators Hatch and Bennett to acknowledged the petition and it’s content publicly.
Many opportunities were indeed squandered needlessly. Sadly, this same couple of old time figures either bring activists under their ideologically and personal influence or as in your post, drive individuals away from any organizing or protest events. This rally was painfully formulaic. The selection of a long list of left leaning activists was also a pathetic blunder of choice by ignoring the reality of Utah political consciousness. I also said all these things to members of the committee and on this blog see my blog post: http://oneutah.org/2006/08/22/behold-inhabitants-of-the-land-of-zion/.
It actually makes September 24th, 2005 rally look incredibly creative and exciting by comparison. The fact the a group of young, street dwelling anarchists manipulated access to the microphone and shouted, “fuck” and that “a war was going on in our streets with the police” among other things.
Other this was unexpected the day was a powerful one and Rocky also offered a message that day on the false intelligence for the Iraq War.
As I recall, the M19 Mobilization Committee as named by leading members of “Wasatch Coalition for Peace and Justice” planned the September 24th demonstration and greatly contributed to the organizing effort for the August 22nd Bush visit. The meddling and micromanaging of self-important “leaders” of the peace movement in Utah caused a complete failure to hold the audiences attention for our keynote speakers on September 24th. Members of the committee who affiliate as a particular philosophy and prescription for socialist revolution packed meetings and fixed votes outside of meetings to get the agenda they wanted. They were able to force a list of other speakers on September 24th that included Union labor speakers, speakers from socialist youth, anti-imperialism, Palestinian rights and justice and several others.
I fought hard against these veterans of protest to only include Rocky and then our feature speaker, Joan Maymi, Gold Star Family Member for Peace and a member of Veterans for Peace as keynote speakers. The cabal conspired outside of meetings to overwhelm this focused objective. Several new people including myself worked hard all through Spring and Summer of 2005 to plan a September 24th event that focused on the key issue of the event. End the War in Iraq - Bring all of our Troops Home Now! This was the message of Military Families Speak Out http://www.mfso.org of which I became a member in April 2005.
The program was packed with speakers to represent other interests and issues that are not accessible in the mainstream political and social consciousness of Utah. For better or worse, I left my dear friend, Joan and the Veterans For Peace on as the keynote speakers at the end of the program. To avoid a mass exodus from the Rally as had happened times past I spent my own time and money to print several thousand color half page programs with the musicians, poets, performers and speakers listed in order. I rushed to get it done the night before the event because other people dropped their committments at the last minute.
I gave the boxes of printed programs to the march coordinators who were to be at Pioneer Park to help facilitate the march to Washington Square. The veteran orgnaizers were in charge of the march and handing out programs. These individuals (and they are the same ones who took command and control of the August 30th committee) actually left the printed programs sitting on the ground at Pioneer Park still in the damn boxes. They didn’t even open them up and make an effort.
To add insult to injury, this same cabal that unfortunately includes some Veterans for Peace after the rally was finished, attacked me behind my back. They conspired to blame the failure of the speakers on me as moderator. Claiming that I let the military families and veterans be last on the program and everyone had walked away by the time Joan and Dr. Littlehale spoke. This is a horrible misrepresentation of events. It is also a deliberate campaign to spread misinformation about me, accuse me of giving the military families of which I am one, short shrift thereby to discredit me amond other MFSO members. This veteran activist then contacted other members of MFSO and attempted to isolate them from me by labeling me a radical anarchist, perhaps a dangerous person. This is truly appalling.
Mr. Goodwin may subscribe to the theory and tactics of Leon Trotsky but his own behavoir in respect to organzing more closely resembles Joseph Stalin, desire for power and paranoia about maintaining control of others.
T
September 12th, 2006 at 1:39 am
Cliff, as one who helped organize the previous anti-Iraq protest, I experienced the same problems and infighting, the same type of counterproductive rhetoric . It was a most disturbing and exasperating experience.
Cliff, thanks for your post. It needed to be written.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:48 am
It was my belief, and I almost posted it before bushes visit, that the whole city would be one massive ‘free speach zone’, penetrated marginally and only for a short time by an ‘un-truth and lies strip’ that ran from the airport, willy-nillied about our fair city for a coupla hours and then retreated.
I wouldn’t have faulted anyones organizing. As it turned out, they ultimately has to counter with Rice and Rummy thrown in the mix and the expansion of thiers lies and propaganda didn’t help thier case at all. That crew is toast, if we show up at the polls in November and deliver thier accountability moment! Ya done well. Thanks.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:48 am
The best way to change things is to overwhelm the “movement” with fresh blood and new and creative ideas — sadly any newbies will have to be very determined and persistent in order to transform the old guard who do have a tight hold on the way things are done and are reluctant to change.
I don’t personally have the time or creativity to help lead such a transformation, but I will support and encourage one.
The meeting tonight at the library is in conference room A.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:11 am
not to suggest that the vote is all-important, try at every opportunity! but I don’t hafta tell you that. If there’s likely to be ‘an accountability moment,’ constructed over these many years by new people coming on board and sharing, who seem to me to be bright, determined Creatures, it might just be the Nov. election. Just sayin’.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Cliff,
You nailed it, buddy!
I am a registered Republican and ideaologically a libertarian. I have been saying this for WEEKS on KVNU that the anti-war movement, specifically the rally in SLC was way too myopic and exclusionary to be effective.
I didn’t attend the rally because I don’t disagree with everything on the long laundry list of objections offered by the protesters. I also don’t hate President Bush.
I do, however, very much oppose the war in Iraq. The evidence is overwhelming.
Unfortunately, we live in a society where paradigms are naturally binary. Extreme exclusionary positions tend to do more to bolster the opposition than anything else.
People looked at the “nutcakes” and said, “my hell (or heavens for the more pure among us), I certainly am not on board with THAT”. And so they buy into the “stay the course” BS and the new talking points of a broader war on terror.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Thanks for the inside story. It’s too bad that “mainstreaming” the antiwar movement seems so impossible, especially when the latest CNN poll indicates 58% of Americans oppose the war. I confess I’m one of those who wouldn’t be caught dead at a typical peace rally, listening to uninspired speeches about obscure far-left causes. That doesn’t seem like a good way to stop President Bush from taking this country to ruin. Wish I had a better idea, though. Did anyone watch the pro-Bush rally at the airport? That was well organized.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
I went to see a protest and instead saw some sort of festival with booths and everything! What the hell was that? It was supposed to be a PROTEST not a fucking festival.
I was also one of those who decided it was time to take a stand against Bush and I joined the planning committee on week one. My involvement ended half way through the second meeting; I was disgusted. The infighting was absolutely repellent. Those from the past were going to do it “their†way come hell or high water (or complete embarrassment). Their goal was to inculcate everyone with their ideals; however what resulted was anarchy and complete incompetence. In the last week before Bush’s visit I kept hearing and reading about “Rocky’s Protest†and I wondered if the August 30th Committee had blown itself up and Rocky had to pick up the pieces, but no, they were there, who knew? Saved again by Rocky.
Reality hit hard, we live in a demagogy. Nothing more. And always in Utah.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
What? No counter revolutinary rhetoric?
NOTE TO ALL GATEKEEPERS:
ATTACK! ATTACK!
None of these “old hippies” want to give up even a sliver of their power and admit they are all dying,
And the time has come to pass the torch on to the next generation, and more power be to them.
But it is a new day….
And the times they are a’changin.
poor richard
September 12th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
The “knitting lady” was quite scary! What’s up with that knitting thing, anyway?
September 12th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
I appreciate all the support for my saying something. The supportive emails far out number the comments.
I encourage you to post rather than email me.
As a relative newcomer to this little miniworld of power insider activists, I just call’em like I see’em. And from the numbers of people coming out of the wood work, this problem is neither new nor solved.
Based upon what I’ve read and heard today, it is also no secret who these people are and so I must assume THEY know who they are. And they have been silent today.
I respectfully ask these people to stand aside and take credit for what they have accomplished, but also recognize that they have become much like the stuborn-minded people they once fought against.
This is a new fight, and this is our fight, and we know how to fight it. So thank you for your hard work and leadership. Please go away, but do not go far. We will call upon you as needed.
Peace
Cliff
September 12th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
I say we form an SLC Activist Hall of Fame, and honor these people at the next rally. You cannot deny that they have worked hard and represent the kind of participation in the politcal process we should hope more people will emulate.
I say they submit their CV’s to http://www.utahvoices.org as a standard to which we can all aspire and to inspire us all to march onward with the same tenacity and courage to challenge authority and speak truth to power.
Peace
September 13th, 2006 at 5:58 am
“please go away”…bu, bu, but we only now, after all this struggle, think we’ve got it figured out. Surely there’s points to be given for longevity?
September 14th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
I must say I disagree with Cliff. Sure the rally didn’t include all of the creative program ideas that were initially proposed and were oddly shot down, by hmmmm…. Cliff! The highly creative evening proponent was also shot down, by hmmmmmmmmm…Cliff! But Rocky wanted it, so he got the evening Rock against Rumsfeld which probably nobody who has been”saying” that they wanted a different kind of rally even attended. I also don’t understand why Cliff is trying to say that he wanted more moderate speakers since his suggestions, at least from my knowledge of the public searchable archived emails of the August 30th committee, were Ed Firmage and Ron Yengich - not exactly known as moderates here in Utah. Maybe in other states.
As far as the number of people there - I spoke with several of my personal acquaintances within the media who all personally thought that the rally was two to three times larger than the previous one (which was numbered at 3,000 so they thought this one was 6-9) - but they all repored 4 to be on the conservative side. I myself was not there due to my job at Wells Fargo, so I cannot report how many were there, but I should think that if KSL’s John Dayley thought it was at least 6,000, he’s probably right. I only observed the process on the web and talked with a few people who I know were involved within the process.
As part of my observations of this process, I noticed your post on Greenjenny’s blog addressing the scores who have left the group due to frustration with the constant fighting. Sure the green party riff was a major part of that tension, but outside of that who was the major source? Hmmmmm…Cliff! So before you all believe Cliff’s account of the story written above, since according to my reports from those I know within the committee it is drastically wrong, perhaps you should find out a little more about Cliff by googling him (both via websites and google news), which I did since I have only observed the process, and google everyone I read about to see who they are. If you do so you’ll find out his history and track record with the local democratic party and understand why they won’t pay him much attention or employ him, so he is moving on to the activists now.
September 14th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Well, Cliff didn’t always get his way while he was hanging in the basement of the library, but I think he has a bright future as a political operative or as a journalist, nonetheless. The quality of his prose is evident from the writing above, and he’s already been commisioned, if I understand him aright, to expand the piece for a major local publication. Perhaps once they see it, a national media organ will pick it up. I hope he lets us know when it is published so we won’t miss it.
He’s mentioned some of his accomplishments as an operative in other places. Chief among them, apparently, was to convince Rocky Anderson to begin blogging, although he must have been disappointed when Rocky published his Aug. 30 speech elsewhere. I’m sure when he gets around to it, Cliff will put it up here on this blog along with the other original pieces Rocky has written for OneUtah. In all events, it’s a considerable accomplishment to get someone as constrained as Rocky to come out and publish, and Cliff can be justifiably proud. I’m sure Cliff has other accomplishments I’ve missed or that he’s too modest to mention.
As an operative, I’ve seen him in action. Cliff is a loyal Democrat, as I understand it. He did his level best to get the Aug. 30 committee to keep the 1960’s hippy types from calling the shots and to try to keep them and other unwashed riff-raff away from Washington Square, displacing them with neatly attired citizens. This may have redounded well to his credit with the Democrats, giving them a chance to approve the opposition to Bush without appearing to be too weird. (A rather ambitious project, I should think, Riff-raff generally being hard dogs to keep on the porch.)
He’s made up for it somewhat by his gallant attacks on the Aug. 30 organizers, on the rally itself, and particularly on the Brister branch of the divided Greens. Obviously the 2d Congressional District race will tighten up as November approaches, and every vote for Brister (Cliff often sarcastically spells it “Bristor”) might have been a vote for Matheson, assuming the voter checks anyone at all in that line. So inviting a response on this Blog and the Aug. 30 list at the level of the skilled invective Cliff has put forth could do much to discredit the entire “Bristor” bunch. To date, as Cliff notes, they have not responded, but it’s doubtful they can restrain themselves through the end of October. So, maybe I’ve been pointing to what is obvious to minds more subtle than mine, but you can see the skill Cliff has brought to this enterprise. It’s certainly not a matter of just letting small defeats go and moving on. It’s continuing the campaign, in spite of losing a battle. Let’s wish Cliff all the luck he deserves.
September 14th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
I can simply reply to that one Jim. H.
I helped organize the last protest before this event.
Were you there?
It all turned out to be an exercise in frustration and overall media incompetance on the part of the entrenched gatekeepepers and professional orgsnizers.
Cliff is right on (sorry to say to you sir).
Were you there Charlie?
Or is it your role to sit back and criticize or justify a process that was done by good people but done with incredible incompetance?
I have Googled Cliff, in fact I’ve met the man.
So he’s moving on to the activists now? Good move.
Heaven forbid!
I happen to agree with him and I know he is a dedicated person who has had a lot to do with changing this into an effective thing.
If you disagree with him please refrain from character assassation and confront him point by point.
I await your detailed response! (Or would you rather just call him names? aka Karl Rove)???????
poor richard
September 14th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
You entirely missed the point Jeff Beardall. Getting 10,000 people to show required a level of effort and sophistication that threatened the control by the Brister family.
To suggest I shot down anything contradicts the fact of my inability to get headliners to speak, like Ed Firmage and Ron Yengich.
All the creative ideas were great, especially if you are selling a product and looking for retention or return customers, but I don’t see how that’s relevant since you can’t promise Bush will come back ever. You didn’t do the work to exceed the status quo turnout for Rocky v Bush, because the concept was never even discussed. To repeat Diane Hirschi, “I don’t give a damn if 4 peoplet show up.”
I’ll make it really simple. You didn’t advertise or more importantly leverage an amazing opportunity to create buzz through creative PR. Tiffan (who quit you) got you the free display ad in the Catalyst and the press release we had finished by the second meeting never got released because the Brister controlled group couldn’t (or didn’t want to) agree on anything until a week before the event.
I guess I would ask you, what did you accomplish that the local high school prom committee couldn’t have?
It was THE PRESIDENT not the prom.
September 14th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Si Si,
are you diane?
September 14th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
No. Who’s diane?
September 14th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
I have only ever tried to offer my skills, mostly learned and honed over 12 years of helping to grow The Lyon Company from scratch to 26m in annual revenues in 9 years. We were Inc 500 twice in a row. We grew mostly by smart acquisitions and hard mergers.
I had to not only keep up with amazing growth, I had to plan intelligently for the future.
When you owe the bank $7m dollars on any given day, you have to make really good decisions you’ve never made before. Every decision is a new one. And you can’t make mistakes
Here’s how I did it. I found and asked people I trusted. I used really simple criteria to determine whom to trust. They had to be intellectually curious, successful, and be able to show me why. Then if they could make me understand why their decision was better than mine, I went by their decision.
If they could not make me understand, it was usually because it was an emotional decision. Often though, the emotional decision was the most exciting and hopeful. It was tough sometimes to say no. They rarely worked. But you have to hit certain goals, because you owe $7m. So you make safer decisions that were sure bets but more work., so hit your goal, so the bank would lend you $8m
I always had someone I could depend on to give me the optimistic advice, the pessimistic advice, and the deadly boring, usually proper advice.
It was work longer, make the shipper do it, make more phone calls, write it yourself and get a lawyer to sign off. Buy more of the Elvis cookie jars and forget about the singing snow globe, create a filing system rather than upgrading the software. Have a paid day off company-sponsored picnic instead implementing a shipping quota. Call back and beg for a discount. Be honest and transparent. You can’t mess up.
This is how successful things are built, always.
You can’t do that in a large group of people all with equal voices, an less the they are share a commitment to the common goal. That’s pretty much a dream. It almost never happens.
So in it place, you must employ a meritocracy.
WHO are the most qualified to make the set the goal, make the right decisions? That is how you get the right decision.
Many, many sociological studies have been done, small ad hoc equalitarian groups without any other binding relationship (village, family, prisoners) have a no better than 50/50 chance of doing a task properly.
Where on Earth did these (Bristor) people come up with this simplistic and oh so romantically pure democratic process. And why did they use it? How can you expect people who learn team work from highly structured successful organizations to sit through hours of people talking in the order they raise their hand…never asking questions, just arguing why they are right, and voting occasionally when someone manages to distil off-subject points into a yes or no?
That why you lost all the most qualified people. One guy who came to a meeting who told the group he had written the Habeas Plea for the Guantanimo detainees. Half the room couldn’t have been more intimidated and rude. Tribal/class dynamics. Then almost as if on cue, someone would look up from her knitting and shut you down while continuing to knit ending with a “I’ve been doing this for 40 years.†At $250/hr, it’s hard to spend hours over weeks listening to a bunch passive-aggressive special interest, professional, on-the-ground-activists.
I was not fully vested in this protest, I was too busy. I am saying something which has needed to be said on behalf of really good people who have much to offer, and so much talent that they threaten the little power structure of a small group of people who together, are simply, a “tyranny of the minority.â€
Just needs to be said.
September 14th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
(this is in response to a comment you left on my blog regarding the Aug. 30 planning committee)
Cliff,
I agree with most of your opinions on the planning process. I don’t mean to invalidate your experience, but I do differ on some aspects.
Having witnessed first hand the destruction of the Green Party here in Utah, I came to realize that both sides truly believed that they were doing what was right for the party. My husband (who was also a Green) and I had many discussions about the split and he was very good at getting me to see the other side’s point of view. I still didn’t agree with their conclusions or their tactics, but I came to see that they really believed that they were fighting for the life of their party. No less on the other side of the split that I originally identified with — and yet, while they fought this battle for the soul of the party, their actions destroyed it. While there are two functioning Green parties, both harbor animosities towards the other. Neither has any chance alone of changing politics for the better, and the actions from both sides will do more to chase people away from Green politics than get them interested in joining.
And this split from two years ago affects many other progressive and activist organizations in and around Salt Lake City, some of which you witnessed at the first Aug. 30th meeting. That’s because Greens tend to be activists already and hands-on political people. Also, Greens are principled AND stubborn, which means that as a general rule if they believe something is wrong, they will fight it with everything they’ve got. It’s too bad this got turned inward as all this energy could be so much better used against Bu$h & Co.
This all relates to the Aug. 30th committee, not only because several of the key players were members of that original Green Party, but because this type of splitting over relatively minor issues is very common amongst progressive organizations in general. My husband who was involved as an activist for 20 years has seen it over and over and over. Organizations that could have done much good becoming ineffective or defunct by infighting. While I don’t advocate marching lock-step in Republican/conservative fashion, I think we could learn to let go at least a little and learn how to compromise and see the bigger picture.
Working on the Aug. 30th committee was for me, a chance to learn how to work with people I disagreed toward a common goal. You and many others had great ideas and energy to contribute and I think it’s tragic that the group rejected those ideas. I appologize that you and others were shut down. I’m sad that many in the group are stuck in pattern of doing things the same way over and over.
What we had on Aug. 30th was not all it could have been, but it was still good.
As I said earlier, the way to make change is to flood the “movement” with new people with fresh perspectives and ideas. Some of the old timers are wiley and great at convincing people of the superiority of their views, but if the influx of newbies is big enough they’ll either start thinking in new ways or be outvoted by those seeking change.
The challenge of course, as you have pointed out, is being able to tollerate the tactics used by those afraid of change and the hostility to those who want to make the changes.
All this is not to say that leaving the process wasn’t the best choice for you and some of the others that left — it’s perfectly acceptable to leave a situation where you are being bullied, ignored or unappreciated. It’s the group’s loss, though many might not ever appreciate or understand it.
But for me, on a personal level, it’s been important for me to work through it. Not that I always did. I shrank from attending the big group meetings where I thought I’d experience the more intense hostility. I’ve been trying to convince myself that it’s all about baby steps rather than just digging in and taking the bull by the horns.
I plan on staying on the Aug. 30th committee. I mentioned before that I don’t have the time or energy to start the process of change, but I’ll be there to support it (if it’s good change, of course). I’ll also be there to express objections to the worst of the old ideas, but without support it’s likely that most of my objections will be ignored or invalidated by those with a better talent for rhetoric than I, and more experienced with group process.
-Jen
p.s.
In talking about the Green split above, I am refering to the majority of those involved. There may be one or two whose ideology is not so pure.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:44 am
[...] Statments in the article re-printed below are eerily similar to the statements in a recent comment on a previous post The Untold Story of the August 30 Organizing Committee, “I was excited to see the energy and new ideas that the newbies brought. I was sad to see them shut down to do a kind of same old- same old rally” [...]