Reply #32: Addressing Misconceptions [View All]

[GuvWurld]

pat_k wrote:
When you say "ruthlessly honest," it triggers a concern for me. I fear that, like many absolutes, ruthless honesty makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

I do understand the enemy of the good point and based on what else you've written, I can see how the disconnects we've got could lead here. The top line is that ruthless honesty may not be an absolute in the sense that it seems you are taking it to be. I see ruthless honesty like a BS detector for lesser evils - we hate having to choose between them so let's learn to stop setting ourselves up with them. I know this is where you might be wanting to apply the label of good, and wondering why I'm holding out for perfect. I hope I can bridge this chasm down the page.

pat_k wrote:
Our effort is not aimed at challenging everything. We are not seeking to catalog everything wrong. We're saying simply that there are sufficient failures in the official results for us to take *action* and seek a remedy. To engage people in the fight we have outlined concrete goals that are aimed at addressing the failures in real time ("Fix it next time" is unacceptable).

I agree here completely. It is not necessary to catalog every wrong. There have been more than enough failures. I too have identified what I think are concrete goals, each addressing a relevant wrong by asking "what would be better?"

pat_k wrote:
Action is the key here. Taking an absolute position that rules out the possibility of restoring some legitimacy to THIS election, rules out useful action. I fear that when it is detached from useful action, an absolute position becomes an impotent complaint that saps energy and leads to disengagement. Just watch the body language next time you are in a group of people complaining about something. If you can shift the discussion to identifying doable actions that help to remedy the complaint, the energy completely changes.

As you may know, between April and July, the No Confidence Movement was covered heavily in the local press of Humboldt County, CA. An earlier version of the resolution was considered by the Arcata, CA City Council. They were unwilling to make the principled intellectual stand which now you and I are both doing (though they did pass a meaningless false alternative). Even though we came up short, we raised a lot of awareness and sowed a seed which is now making it easier to rally for another run at it. "Useful" is a judgment perhaps we should save for after the revolution. Still, I think it inaccurate to regard No Confidence as an "impotent complaint that saps energy and leads to disengagement." It is neither that nor an absolute position.

pat_k wrote:
People have a need to be effective. We engage them offering opportunities to satisfy that need and figuring out how to turn complaint to useful action.

Again, agreed. It has been my experience that among progressives the differences of opinion center around strategy - how best to accomplish something. It now seems a proxy debate over defining "useful."

pat_k wrote:
Although it may be necessary to engage in a degree of moral relativism to do it, I believe it is possible, and absolutely necessary, to seek a "real time" remedy to many of the problems identified in this election. The remedies we seek may not be perfect, but I believe that our efforts to "shift the burden of proof to the states" and "reject results of a blatantly discriminatory election, no matter what the margin of victory: can restore a measure of confidence help to create the context needed for future reform.

We are both working on "real time" remedies so again we agree. I am also for forcing transparent systems to display legitimacy rather than uphill battles to prove illegitimacy. Before we can say how perfect the remedies are, we have to be clear that we are correctly identifying the problem. Fascism has replaced democracy in America (and we as a people are willfully ignorant of Peak Oil). This transition is complete. Fraudulent elections are but one component of the situation; outcome notwithstanding, neither a recount nor a new set of standards for state reporting will change the fact that you no longer have rights and can be jailed without cause, without charges and without contact with anyone.

Also, think of an election as analogous to a poker game. One of the players has decided to bow out of the game. After he's gone, another player notices that all the rest of the money on the table belonging to all of the other players has been swapped for phony bills and the departed player has made off with their cash. Recounting a pack of lies to see if you get a different number would be like continuing to play cards with the counterfeit bills. Even if you win, you lose.

pat_k wrote:
I would argue that promoting an absolute "No Confidence" + "No Remedy" position is problematic. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but to me, it is effectively very similar to the "Move along. Nothing to see here. We'll fix it next time" position. (i.e., A complaint about the results is registered, but the results stand in absence of an alternative. The complaint could just as well be registered after the fact.).

I don't know where you get "No Remedy" from when I am telling you and everyone that I am directly calling for a peaceful popular revolt, based first on a concrete rhetorical platform of No Confidence, backed up by language and concepts from the Declaration of Independence, and guided by an eight point plan for meaningful electoral reform on an order large enough to reconstitute my BASIS for confidence.