A failed experiment? Bad advice from Joe Trippi?

Ronald, thank you for the taking the time to share with us your thoughts on the blogs.  It seems to me that this has been on your mind for some time now.  I value your point of view, but I have to disagree with it in the extreme.  So I'm going to take a moment to rally against this negative attack of yours.  Oh, I understand that the attack in your blog isn't the sort of "negative attack" that you were referring to, but nevertheless after reading your very intelligent post, I was seething.  I still am.  Not because you've attacked anyone personally, but instead because you've attacked what I consider to be a very noble idea.  And I can't stay silent.  Here's hoping that we reach a critical mass on this.

You write that "Democracy is messy", and that's absolutely something that we can agree on.  Your solution, in part, to assist with cleaning up the mess is to shut down some of the voices contributing to the mess.  While I also agree that this approach probably would lead to a cleaner, more streamlined public persona for our Party, I do not believe that's the ultimate goal for our Party.  Rather than an air-brushed model on display for public consumption, I'd much rather the public see that we're not afraid to get a little messy with one another, and that we in fact embrace it.

Instead of trying to clean up the mess, I, for one think we need to create an even bigger "mess", if by mess we mean hundreds of voices, sharing their points of view with one another.  To me, that's what political engagement is all about, and democracy just can't work well if too much is kept in the dark. 

We Greens need to become more engaged with one another, both in our real communities and our virtual communities.  In my opinion, we Greens need to be more involved with all of the decision making processes within our Party, be they at the EDA level or higher up.  As an example, we like to talk about the lack of voter turn out at election time, yet when we hold our own internal elections, only a small fraction of members decide to vote.

The answer to engagement, then, isn't to silence those of us participating in an open forum such as these blogsites.  It isn't to move the blogs behind a firewall so that the powers that be can better control the message.  It's not to have critical bloggers move off-site for whatever reason (even though we've seen more of that going on, and I'm also guilty of it).  No, instead, this site needs better promotion amongst Greens, so that it can be used for the sharing of knowledge and ideas...the very purpose which led to its creation.

If this site has failed to engage members, the answer isn't to shut it down.  The answer is to do a better job with the resource.  I believe that a year and a half ago, this site was thriving.  With the recent redesign and burial of the blogs, and with the loss of active contributing members of our Party, the site has begun to stagnate.  Let's see if we can turn things around, but we've all got to want to be pulling in the same direction.  Clearly, we won't be, as there is an obvious difference of opinion around this issue.

And that too is just fine.  That's democracy.  We can disagree with one another.  And here at the Green Party, we can do so cordially and out in the open.  Just as we wouldn't dream of shutting the media out of attending our 2010 General Metting this coming August in Toronto, nor should we be telling anyone that our conversations in this forum are not for public consumption. 

Yes, perhaps there are some of us who could share their thoughts in a manner which is a little more positive, a little less heavy on the personal attacks.  You know what, though?  Again, that's democracy in action.  We've got crass people in our Party.  That's our reality.  I think people understand that in every organization there are going to be some people who just don't communicate appropriately.  Addressing the issues created by those people is a better answer.  When people park their cars illegally on a side street, it's probably better to start handing out tickets than to shut down the street to vehicular traffic, no?  Instead of taking away something beneficial, why not just have better enforcement?  That's if the negative attacks are truly such a problem here in the first place.

My concern isn't so much about personal attacks, which are clearly out of line no matter who initiates them.  Rather, my concern has more to do with what is in and of itself considered to be a "negative attack"?  If someone voices harsh criticism of a policy of the Party, is that the sort of thing that many of us would want to hide behind closed doors?  I, for one, wouldn't.  Instead, I'd strongly suggest that we leave it out in the open, and address the issues.  If you take away a forum for people to be critical in, and replace it with, well, nothing, that leads to disengagement, which is absolutely the opposite of what this Party needs. 

Let's continue to do things differently, and let our mess be on display for all to see.  Better for the public to see a sincere mess than an air-brushed model in a virtual poster.  Yes, maybe air-brushing makes things look nicer, but since we're all pretty much agreed on the notion that Democracy is messy, well, here's our mess, welcome to it, feel free to come on in and get a little dirty.  When you leave, you'll probably feel like you've been a part of something a little bit special.  I know that I do, even if it takes a little while to get the grit out from beneath my fingernails.

I think that forums are great for fast paced threads. I also think that blogs are great for longer, more formal propositions. A one-two combination of member blogs and forums to discuss would probably engage a lot more people. If you kept them open for viewing, but members only commenting, you would undoubtedly entice people into joining the Party in order to be able to speak out.

That was a big part of Trippi's message. Let them come, let them speak, pay attention, and it will grow. As it is, these blogs have become boring, without enough varying viewpoints. They are approaching uselessness.