About

Blog for Democracy is a group weblog, all about progressive politics in the peach state. The opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of any group(s) with which they may be affiliated.

To email an author, click on their name on the upper left sidebar of the main page.

« Family Day Update | Main | Please read this. »

February 01, 2007

Product v. Process

Sometimes I feel like a salmon here. I hear you talk about which policy should we be following...who should we include/exclude from the discussion...who our candidate should be...what laws should/shouldn't be introduced/enacted. I even take part joyfully in the discussion and revel in the diversity of views. We are, afterall, Democrats...many of us.

There is, for me, an overriding issue/principle. For us to truly have any sort of representative government, there has to be open discussion (including ALL sides and points of view). debate, compromise, and acceptance of outcome. All these things are required, or you don't have a democracy (representative or, for that matter, direct, though this applies more for representative).

What I search for, is a way to include all people in the party discussions. Yes, we elect people to make the decisions, but those decisions MUST be based on input from the people...sort of a "party town meeting"-type thing. But the emphasis is on opening up the process and accepting the product/outcome.

Posted by Peter at February 1, 2007 09:21 AM

Comments

I see two different groups involved in the political process, and it is difficult to keep the competing and/or contradictory aspects from colliding.

The ideology people are more like what you describe. There are principles, positions, issues, and involvement that need attention regardless of campaigns or candidates, geography or demographics. Much of this work is done by advocacy groups.

The other group is all about electing Democrats and wining elections. The strategy is different because it is more reactive: It is more about identifying existing conditions and finding ways to expoit those conditions.

Both groups ultimately have pretty much the same ultimate goal, but the path to get there differs. We need to be able to do both, and I think many people who read this blog move in both arenas. But sometimes it's hard to take off the "it's a woman's body" hat and put on the "we can't sell that in Colquitt County right now" hat, or vice versa. Both tracks operate constantly, and the ideologues have trouble accepting postponing their ultimate goals in order to (theoretically) get incrementally closer to those goals by electing Dems, and the campaign people sometimes have trouble recognizing that at times expediency might actually be a step backwards from the real goal. After all, the Dem Party's purpose may be to elect Dems, but we want to elect Dems for a reason; they are supposed to implement policies we like. We don't want to elect Dems who are really fascists.

All y'all probably already know all that, but hopefully it doesn't hurt to develop the rhetoric a little bit.

Posted by: JerryT [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2007 11:29 AM

Don't be so worried. A better Democratic party will assume leadership in GA as the arrogance of power that killed the Dems works at a greatly accelerated rate to insure that the next two years will be a crazy episode of Republicans Gone Wild.

Posted by: tribalecho [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2007 01:08 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)

(Just hit the Post button once and be patient. If you have problem commenting, email: mel[at]georgiafordemocracy.org.)


Remember me?