Do we need to change the top down construction

[mmonk]

of our party of the last few decades to be better responsive to its membership and if so, how? How do we get some party leaders to see it's better to include the greatest range of its members than to create mini organizations for control or have some assigned to keep the "liberals" in check? I don't understand the concept of keeping those most unlike the opposition in check, so to speak. I don't see how it expands the appeal of the party. How long should people that make a great part of the party's heritage always be taken for granted? Or maybe the problem is in my mind? After awhile, some like to see their hard work for the party reciprocated. We have our platform committees each cycle in our states create platforms by its voting members who take great time and care and involvement in doing so only having the elected Democrat go against it as many times as voting in alignment with it. What is the point?

[patrice]

1. I just had ANOTHER disappointing experience with this. The answer is YES, but

I am still feeling sad, so I don't want to talk about it.

[mmonk]

2. It is hard to talk about but it is what is wrong.

At some point in my life, I need to shift priorities and quit wasting so much time.

[patrice]

3. Go find the young people. Be with them. They need our help.

I was in the streets yesterday, for May Day, young people are out there trying to figure out what to do. Let them lead as much as possible.

[mmonk]

4. Good point.

Giving them more input and responsibility surely wouldn't hurt.

[patrice]

5. They are fed up with the old games and are turning their attention to issues.

Some of their interests are more fundamental than others, but the Environment figures big for them and, HENCE, so will NEW economic models.

[mmonk]

6. As a former activist (being "former" not by choice but by being ignored)

I feel it is up to them now. I'm having to adjust to not mattering anymore.

[patrice]

7. Perhaps you're not an "activist", but everything you do, every word you speak Matters.

[mmonk]

8. Nice of you to say that but no,

not if those that can do something no longer hear. I don't get the access I used to and now, only if they see a direct correlation to their status as office holder in a calculated way.

[patrice]

9. It's not about "the top" anymore. It really is about us.

[mmonk]

10. The ballot is limited when the parties limit real choices

or empowerment from the bottom. Therefore, any remedy from us is limited in the short term. Any solution for us is to pass along our ideas and knowledge to those younger in hope that one day, representative government will mean something in their lifetime.

[patrice]

11. Nevermind, you are too fixed on repeating old mistakes and I am talking about something new. You're

waiting for permission and I'm talking about something that is as completely New as possible, in a process that continuously pushes it forward to adapt to conditions by means of further invention/creation, i.e.

You're either not interested or not capable of changing your perspective, ergo, end of "conversation".

[mmonk]

13. Sorry you're angry.

Yes, it requires all of us to implement change. I don't really care to argue. I'm not asking for permission for anything. I'm not shutting out any point of view. I'm just lamenting the change that has taken place. It's just a statement about that change. That change has put up a new wall of seperation that has limited me in my attempts to get over that obstacle or that which has limited my approach. Someone somewhere may be able to do much better and I'll happily back them in their endeavor and encourage their efforts.

[patrice]

14. I'm not angry, just frustrated that you should see the need for change but continue to think it is

someone else "them" who need to change. That's a mistake. Given the problems inherent in the way the status quo IS, you need to do something new and different.

[mmonk]

15. I'm up for suggestions.

[patrice]

12. P.S. Do you even notice how you say in effect "it doesn't work" but continue to phrase your response

to that fact exclusively in terms of the thing that you just said doesn't work?