Meeting Minutes - Nov 5, 2011

[johnjaye]

Minutes for the Political Strategy Working Group
Nov 5, 2011 - 1pm - 3:15pm
Facilitated by John Jaye
Notes taken by Steve Sacco and Hezzie Johanson, compiled by John Jaye
14 people in attendance

• Discussion of strategy to accomplish political goals
  
• Concern expressed by some members re the lack of specific goals and demands of the group to date
  
• Discussed some of the arguments present in the movement against identifying specific goals and demands
  
• -----Concept of “we are the demands”
  
• -----Question - if demands are necessary how can the success of the movement in gaining momentum be accounted for
  
• Discussion of the idea that organizing around broad commonalities and forming demands can help to galvanize parts of the population that are on the sidelines now
  
• Election coming up – reference to Tea Party success in changing the political landscape – concern expressed that we need to figure out how to have an impact
  
• Specific political goals expressed by one member: Tax Reform – specifically, repeal the Bush tax cuts; Financial Industry Regulation, Glass Steagle Act; Meaningful Stimulus Program; End wars in iraq; Campaign Finance Reform
  
• Discussion of a call for constitutional amendment to revoke corporate personhood
  
• Discussion of the need to get monies influence out of the political system
  
• -----Reference to short term solution of “clean elections” – Maine used as an example.
  
• Concept that the movement is ‘backwards’ – past movements start with specific demand and branch out from there – concern expressed that this movement acts more like a non-violet “riot” in that the goals are more amorphous
  
• Concrete Plan for how to motivate the GA to articulate a demand
  
• Broader discussion of the debate between less specific and more specific (goals and demands)
  
• ----- How to convert the raw energy of the movement into change
  
• ----- Local politics offer a greater opportunity to experience change
  
• ----- A struggle between ambiguity and inclusion - ie If the movement loses 10 anarchists, do we gain 20 moderates? Are we alienating moderates by not dealing in any specificity?
  
• ----- The concept was brought up that the majority of the country is imposing a silent “consensus block” by not becoming involved or improving
  
• ----- Can a group within the consensus agree on a specific point – while the rest of the OA maintains the general protest?
  
• ----- We need to discuss this further and develop a specific strategy for how we will take ideas on how to improve and convert them into clear messages or actions that can pass consensus
  
• PROPOSAL - that we can have a forum specifically on whether or not the movement needs to articular specific, actionable demands/goals?
  
• CONSENSUS - voted by consensus to have another WG meeting to further articulate our ideas, and then plan a forum
  
• CONSENSUS - voted by consensus to change the name of the working group from "Political and Electoral Reform" to “Political Strategy”. There was concern that there should not be too many groups discussing parallel issues; concern that "reform" might be too limiting; and the idea that developing a strategy for change is part of the purview of the group. Hence the change in name.
  

Please reply to this post if you feel something is missing or not properly characterized!