From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 sojacobson@mmm.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Al,
> 
> As I reflect upon your comments and those of Stev Z., they remind me of 
> the challenge we have as an organization to maintain some degree of unity 
> with such a diverse membership.  In saying that, I am not saying that 
> your thoughts regarding increasing democracy are that unusual, rather it 
> is interesting how people who have a variety of viewpoints will see the 
> very same issues or events in different ways.  Those who say that voting 
> by affilliate allows for easier control by the leadership or the power 
> structure are probably correct.  However, one must note that we voted by 
> affilliate when we split, and I can think of a number of votes that were 
> very close.  Having said that, though, I won't argue that fewer voting 
> units are more predictable, and perhaps even manageable.
> 
> On the other hand, there are some real shortcomings in the one vote per 
> attending member, too.  The attendance at a convention is very much 
> skewed by geographic location, and by the size and walth of some 
> affilliates.   My point is not that a pure democracy could not work in 
> some way, but rather that moving toward a theoretical pure democracy is 
> not necessarily a move toward real democracy.  When one discusses the 
> control of the concentration of power, either here or in political 
> circles in general, I never hear both sides of the equasion discussed.  
> It goes without saying that we need checks on thos in power, but at the 
> same time we need to permit effective leaders to lead effectively.  I am 
> not saying that you opose that, but I don't see it getting due 
> consideration, generally speaking.  Particularly in our culture, the 
> culture with which I am most familiar, we solve problems by tearing down 
> and rebuilding instead of fixing.  We don't like alcohol so we bring in 
> prohibition.  When we find that doesn't work like we thought, we bring 
> back alcohol.
> I try to consider both sides of the matter carefully, though whether I'm
really careful enough in my thinking is likely debatable.  Among the
several of us who have commented here, I'd say two sides or maybe more
have been given a good deal of consideration.  I'm glad of that.
Of course, my views arise from what I see as problems in the way we now do
things, so my slant will be towards an alternative that I think--that I
certainly hope--would work better.  That alternative has its flaws (at
least one, as you note), but I still think it may be better.  
Concerning the particular flaw you mentioned, that attendance at a
convention is skewed greatly by where it is, I acknowledge it.  Perhaps by
itself it is enough to make individual voting a bad idea at national
conventions, but I doubt that at the moment.  (I say this even though my
own state is unlikely to be a convention site any time soon, and any
skewing is very unlikely to favor our affiliate.) Yet, we don't seem to
mind this at the state level, and there are some large or hard-to-travel
states (at least if you don't drive) where this problem is almost
certainly considerable.  Yet, over time, the state affiliates replaced
delegate systems with direct voting, and I believe this was with the
encouragement of our national leaders.  (I don't know if any affiliates
retain a delegate system.  I think that Massachusetts was among the last
to eliminate it.)
I remember a comment you made in a message some time ago that the good old
days of the sixties weren't that good.  This was in the context of how
much debate there should be, if memory serves.  I thought, "Actually, they
probably were better than the new days often are, windbags,
pseudotechnical parliamentary points, and long hours notwithstanding. " I
wasn't there, but I'm still inclined to think that.  Now, of course, my
aim is to work for improving on the imperfections of the past as well as
those of the present.  
I guess one simple (I hope not simplistic) statement of my views is this:
I want as much participation as possible in the process of making a
decision, and then I want our elected leaders and their designess--and the
rest of us, for that matter--to be able to carry out those decisions
effectively.  I feel free to debate policies I dislike for the purpose of
overturning them, both during and between conventions, but I have no
businesses hampering our people in carrying out policies democratically
adopted.  
Finally, I think this culture is not as prone to tearing down and
rebuilding as you suggest.  I think we're more likely to patch what should
be overhauled or replaced than to overhaul where a patch or a few repairs
would be wiser.  I think we, like others in the world, are prone far too
often to be simplistic in either our fixes or our overhauls, and that
indeed is a problem.  In our nation's politics, there's sometimes a lot of
noise about revolutionary change purporting to come from brave new
mandates, but mostly what results is some amount of tinkering or another.
Not that I'd want some of the so-called revolution a lot of firebreathers
have in mind, but I would like some other, arguably radical changes.  
Anyway, thanks for considering what I've said.
Al
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------