WE'RE GOING TO THE BEACH in February!!! Convention (Bylaws Discussion)

[Senator Cris]

Yes. Cassius vs. Dereich.

[Adam Griffin]

You guys can't see the forest for the trees. I've been trying to give you good advice for ages, but you just refuse to accept it because of a "different dynamic" that supposedly applies to one side and not the other. At any rate, the current problem with the Federalists is that you have a Chair that's not doing much of anything, that hasn't done anything for months, and that's likely going to lose historically what is considered the safest seat in the game (so much for rejecting "different dynamics", eh?).

Get a new Chair, and do it soon, before my party has no one left to rationally oppose.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yankee, I don't mean kicking the social conservatives out, because I agree that they're a necessary element. I just mean reaching an agreement that they remain 100% silent on those issues. And the party could likewise adopt a zero tolerance policy. Griffin is good at what he does, and... no offense, but I don't dispute his current suggestion... but he does miss the dynamic of this party. It needs to be a place where a very diverse group of people can all feel welcome. And when one segment of the group espouses the "devinely ordained" belief that another segment of the group is unclean sinners doomed to hell (and should subsequently have less rights as a result), "community" doesn't happen. When the numbers are such that bi-monthly bills to severely restrict a woman's right to choose undercut the compassionate message of the party, there's a problem too.

I realize the existence of TPP makes it more challenging, but extreme conservatism will always be scarier to the moderates like Polnut than extreme leftism. We've seen it before. There needs to be a change, and the social conservatives need to be in the headspace that understands why this sacrifice is necessary.

[Prince of Salem]

I was about to furiously refute you Hagrid, but now that you clarify yourself, I think I agree with you. I could even introduce a few amendments to our platform accordingly, without ever hurting this party's identity ^^

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, not hurting. But the overhaul would require more than a few amendments. It needs to be a change in culture for the party, along with fresh leadership, new branding, and an actual action plan. Plus, running JCL as a presidential candidate probably isn't the wisest thing.

Like... There's no easy fix.

[cinyc]

I would like to seek the Federalist Party's endorsement for Northeast Senate.  While I am not a Federalist, I think we have similar values and ideals in this game. I am a center right candidate who stands for regional rights. My opponents, while worthy individuals, are to the far left and out of touch with Federalist values.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You guys can't see the forest for the trees. I've been trying to give you good advice for ages, but you just refuse to accept it because of a "different dynamic" that supposedly applies to one side and not the other. At any rate, the current problem with the Federalists is that you have a Chair that's not doing much of anything, that hasn't done anything for months, and that's likely going to lose historically what is considered the safest seat in the game (so much for rejecting "different dynamics", eh?).

Get a new Chair, and do it soon, before my party has no one left to rationally oppose.

Actually, I have managed to do quite a lot in spite of immense obstacles obviously. Of course a lot of it was behind the scenes, and I cannot be on 24/7 to keep up with every shift and turn like I used to so the impression may be that I am asleep at the wheel but I am not as clueless as I may appear to be.

The problem with beating Hagrid is that he covers a lot of the same bases that I cover and thus it would be hard to be beat him in any circumstances.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I miss anything here?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, I don't mean kicking the social conservatives out, because I agree that they're a necessary element. I just mean reaching an agreement that they remain 100% silent on those issues. And the party could likewise adopt a zero tolerance policy. Griffin is good at what he does, and... no offense, but I don't dispute his current suggestion... but he does miss the dynamic of this party. It needs to be a place where a very diverse group of people can all feel welcome. And when one segment of the group espouses the "devinely ordained" belief that another segment of the group is unclean sinners doomed to hell (and should subsequently have less rights as a result), "community" doesn't happen. When the numbers are such that bi-monthly bills to severely restrict a woman's right to choose undercut the compassionate message of the party, there's a problem too.

I realize the existence of TPP makes it more challenging, but extreme conservatism will always be scarier to the moderates like Polnut than extreme leftism. We've seen it before. There needs to be a change, and the social conservatives need to be in the headspace that understands why this sacrifice is necessary.

If that is what you intended to say, then we would agree to a large extent. However, this is what you said yesterday and one can easily miscontrue it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ZuWo]

Perhaps I misunderstand some of the points that have been made but in general it strikes me as a bad idea to form a new party based on the premise that large segments of its base are supposed to keep their mouths shut about an issue that is important to them. Let's be frank, gay issues are settled so the most prominent topic is abortion. Obviously, there absolutely must be room for pro-life members in a center-right party; pro-life views aren't even limited to the "right" in the first place. You'll find pro-lifers all across the political spectrum and in every Atlasian party.

To me, the main problem appears to be that the Federalist Party is widely perceived as wishy washy. In the eyes of many the party has failed to present a coherent alternative to the far-left proposals dominating the political discourse in the Senate. As I already stated on numerous occasions during Duke's presidency the Federalists are going to render themselves irrelevant in the long run if they content themselves with the role of trying to moderate proposals that could have been taken right out of the communist manifesto. Instead, officeholders of the main center-right party in the game should vehemently oppose such ideas and passionately defend their own vision of a free-market based society.

(I thought this was an important point to be made. Sorry for interrupting.)

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I miss anything here?

[DKrol]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

President:
1. Maxwell/Dallasfan65
2. JCL/Devin

Midwest:
1. Dereich
2. Cassius

Should we endorse Cinyc for Northeast Regional Senate?
1. Yes
2. No

[Foucaulf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Goldwater]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

just wanted to say I hope you all are enjoying your stay in the Mideast and in my neck of the woods. Sorry if the weather isn't cooperating with your plan for a nice day at the beach.

Also, let me give my public endorsement here to reelecting Yankee for another term. He is a great treasure to the institution of the Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Perhaps I misunderstand some of the points that have been made but in general it strikes me as a bad idea to form a new party based on the premise that large segments of its base are supposed to keep their mouths shut about an issue that is important to them. Let's be frank, gay issues are settled so the most prominent topic is abortion. Obviously, there absolutely must be room for pro-life members in a center-right party; pro-life views aren't even limited to the "right" in the first place. You'll find pro-lifers all across the political spectrum and in every Atlasian party.

To me, the main problem appears to be that the Federalist Party is widely perceived as wishy washy. In the eyes of many the party has failed to present a coherent alternative to the far-left proposals dominating the political discourse in the Senate. As I already stated on numerous occasions during Duke's presidency the Federalists are going to render themselves irrelevant in the long run if they content themselves with the role of trying to moderate proposals that could have been taken right out of the communist manifesto. Instead, officeholders of the main center-right party in the game should vehemently oppose such ideas and passionately defend their own vision of a free-market based society.

(I thought this was an important point to be made. Sorry for interrupting.)

It is hard to exercise flexibility when the fear of losing the next election could lead to drastic changes that would be just as if not more devastating to the right then being rendered impotent slowly over time. The early part of last year presented us this dual trap of not only having the White House but also the desperate need to remain at parity lest we lose by default.

You are right, but we did get to move the needle significantly in some areas though. The biggest success was in the area of healthcare. I think what is lacking is a sense of purpose not because of any intentional act, but rather a concession on a large number of people that the situation is hopeless (which breads defeat, leading to more discouragement). It is a cycle and in order to advocate for a robust alternative, you need not only the willingness but the motivation to try in spite of long odds. It is far less painful to go indy, but doing so leaves newer and less connected Conservatives at a disadvantage.

[Adam Griffin]

Let me just clarify my initial remarks:

Hagrid initiated the fall by advocating for the same nonsense he is advocating for here: the suppression of socons (and arguably, the marginalizing of libertarians). He seems to want that community he mentioned to be a community of convenience, based on electability above all else. As has been debated by us in the past, he fails to realize that electability for the Right looks a lot like what it does for Labor. I disagree with the whole "centrists are going to vote for leftists over right-wingers any day", because I've personally seen plenty of elections where they (being Liberals, "Progressive" Unionists and even now, TPPers) have spat in Labor's face because they don't like us, they want a competitive election supposedly, etc etc. The Feds have marginalized their radical elements instead of embracing them; we did the opposite. This is why the Feds have no real base anymore. It's hilarious because he had built up a large enough of a base to actually stand for something, but was too afraid to do it.

Hagrid made the classic Napoleon (Bonaparte)/Hitler mistake of attacking/alienating two fronts at the same time (socons & libertarians), which paved the way for the D-Rs to actually become a thing. It also led to socons abandoning the party in key elections just enough to make a difference. While he may have not been formally at the helm then and even though he himself voted for the guy (and as much as many of you all love to bring it up), DemPGH wouldn't have been a thing had several socons alike not felt alienated by the "Hagrid approach" of picking a so-called "competitive" candidate over one that embodied some principle.

Maxwell was a paper tiger and was obviously propped up (whether he liked it or not) by Hagrid pulling the strings behind the scenes, so it's obvious that Max's tenure is obviously attributable to Hagrid and therefore he can effectively be foisted for the blame of the D-R/Fed split. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Max left because he was tired of not having any real influence over the power and/or direction of the party.

Yankee has put the final nail in the coffin, so to speak, by effectively disappearing (whether he admits it or not). This occurred almost from the onset of his tenure. Extenuating reasons aside, every single attribute - party recruitment, candidate cultivation, regional organization, all of it - has been neglected. I made a post not too long ago in Cris' thread about how not a single Federalist has posted in there, despite the fact that he has been very attentive to his job. It was a legitimate sentiment I expressed; I have seen several new Federalists join the game and show potential, only for no one in their own party to even publicly engage with them (maybe there's something going on in private, but I highly doubt it). So much new talent has been lost because of this, and it's why you guys only hold like 1 or 2 regional offices at the moment.

There's no point in dissolving, because there is a natural need for this party - maybe more so than any other. Labor is an anomaly that defied the status quo of Atlasia; it does not necessarily belong. TPP is in practice an ideologically-inconsistent amalgamation of people that functions more on personality than anything else; from a policy perspective, it does not necessarily belong, either. So get it together. Especially for my own party, we need you guys to not be a smoldering heap of dung in order to have a purpose. I've laid out the blueprint for y'all time and time again, but I just keep getting ignored. What do I know, after all: I'm only like the second-most successful player in the 12-year history of this game. I guess just keep ignoring me out of spite, and hurt the entire game in the process.

[Dereich]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee has put the final nail in the coffin, so to speak, by effectively disappearing (whether he admits it or not). This occurred almost from the onset of his tenure. Extenuating reasons aside, every single attribute - party recruitment, candidate cultivation, regional organization, all of it - has been neglected.

Regional Organization requires regional leaders, Candidate cultivation requires wins. I would get somebody to lead a region or lined up for an office (Secretary) only to have them slip away become inactive or jump ship after weeks of toil and labor (pun intended ). I would line up candidates  for winnable races only to watch in agony as they were screwed from within by someone deciding it was their turn to rage against the machine. I made over a dozen recruitment contacts in just in the Spring period alone. From February to August, I exerted every effort on each of those fronts only to find I was pumping air into blown tire. You are right though that from August until October, I was absent with no internet access from home and again over Christmas because of illness and most of January because I was moving. 

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So, obviously I have to draw myself into a long response to Griffin's comments...

Social conservatism, in many respects, is code for “bigot” to most people on this forum. That’s not necessarily how I feel, but it's true. Anyone with an ounce of observation skills knows how JCL is perceived here. TNF and your allies are certainly extremists, but no one here could call them bigots with any sort of legitimacy. If you put a bigot up against a Marxist, the bigot loses because at least the Marxist can dress up his arguments in the guise of logic or reason.

Could other social conservatives win in a head-to-head against someone like TNF? Sure—but it will have been because of two things: your organization shooting itself in the foot due to its belief that pushing the limits of ideological reason is an accomplishment, and the social conservative emphasizing less-controversial elements of his platform. TJ doesn’t have JCL’s baggage. That being said, a campaign that embraced the most controversial tenets of social conservatism, like you’re advocating, would surely pile on the baggage awfully fast. That’s why I believe many of the most socially-conservative members of the Federalist Party would agree that a campaign office with a big banner reading “traditional marriage!” or “abortion is murder!” wouldn’t do many favours. While I agree I failed in finding concrete policies to unite the party behind, I don’t agree that we should’ve shimmied far to the right. The party can stand for something without regaling itself in the aura of regression—I just didn’t know how to do it.

All that aside, though, I disagree with the premise that I fought some kind of war on two fronts within the party when I was chairman. The Hagrid of today isn’t the Hagrid of January 2013; that guy was actually palatable to most elements on the right. Did I do some damage control when I thought the least electable candidate looked poised to win a primary? You bet. But at the time there was no conscious effort to send people packing for their political beliefs. Ben Kenobi and Tmth had to go because it was nearing consensus that they were, at the time, toxic, but it was never because of what they believed. Moving on though, there actually were occasions where we were left with someone like JCL trying to win prominent elections, and we did what we could to help their campaigns. They tended to fail in spite of those efforts, precisely because my conclusions about their prospects in the electoral landscape were (and continue to be) accurate. As my beliefs changed (long after I left the chairmanship), my tolerance for appeasing this segment of the electorate waned—but for my six months at the helm, it was about maintaining a delicate balance that I think worked. You say it was the beginning of the fall, but show me a time when the party was as successful; I remember the big elections where we had virtually no defections, and I’m proud of them. You mention that social conservatives failed to turn out, but to my recollection, that wasn’t the case.

That being said, engaging with this maybe isn’t worthwhile, because the convoluted logic you invoke talking about DemPGH’s victory kind of reveals that you’re just stirring the pot. There was no Federalist ticket in that election—people had a choice to make between non-party members. I didn’t vote for SirNick because it was painfully transparent that he had no allegiance to the Federalist Party at all but expected everyone’s vote. I believe myself and others would have voted for the “competitive choice” had that person previously demonstrated loyalty to the party.

I’ve talked a lot about social conservatives, but let’s revisit your claim that I pushed away Libertarians. I’m not a Libertarian, and in many respects would probably fall into the category of a hawk. But if we look at the real picture of Libertarianism in this game… well, there weren’t many in the party for me to push away! When the Whigs and the Imperial Bloc merged, many of the Libertarians in the IB, if I recall, did not agree to join the Federalist Party out of fears that the Whigs were too neoconservative. That's not my fault. Some IB'ers found a home in the Liberal Party, like dallasfan, and made it a rule to consistently push back against my private pleas that they join us. Now, maybe my personal politics made them uneasy, but I can’t think of a single action I took, private or public, to cast the Libertarians aside. Any later controversies (I’m thinking of Maxwell’s departure) were more related to internal spats over organizational difficulties and consolidation. So I don’t really know what you’re getting at here. You presume to know a lot about the dynamics of the Federalist Party, but… you just don’t.

Because you’ve got it wrong on Maxwell’s leadership too. I quit the job in August '13 because I couldn’t handle it anymore. I mostly stayed away. I came back for the odd election and followed internal dynamics irregularly. Really, I only dropped in to have the odd hissy fit over our failure to do anything about consolidation. The dynamic in private was terrible. Yankee blamed me for not doing more about Operation Rim Job (perhaps rightfully so), and the two of us could never get past that squabbling to address consolidation as it was then unfolding. Our difficulties were compounded by the fact that our chairman and president both supported reducing the number of regions. I thought it was silly that we were paralyzed… and I wasn’t diplomatic about it. Also, while you make it sound like I was a complete failure, when I was chairman there were a lot of things I got right, and to be 100% honest, I was disappointed that Maxwell didn’t seem to be engaging the members the same way. Maxwell can speak for himself, but yeah—I made my feelings clear and he was pretty stressed. When a fiasco and misunderstanding occurred around the time that Duke ended up announcing his re-election bid, Maxwell snapped and left. But I was not pulling any strings, because I was mostly burned out and grumpy. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Maxwell’s tenure can just be attributed to me.

Anyway, I’ve gone on too long, but I’m not going to let you dictate the narrative here. I do think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature and potential of the Atlasian right, but we’ll never agree on that point. It would be interesting to see the Federalist Party try out your strategy of embracing the crazy, but I think the JCL trial runs pretty much tell you all you need to know about how it would go. By all means, they can prove me wrong… but I don’t think it’s going to happen. Stand for something, sure (maybe like the UK Conservatives)… but to argue that the extremist approach will work for the Feds is just silly. They need to refresh their image, unite behind some sort of consistent, palatable ideology, inspire a new generation of players, refresh their leadership, and be there for each other.

Being dopey fascists isn't on the list.

[Maxwell]

Engagement with other members was a problem with my tenure, yes, and I feel like I didn't do enough to get people in at the regional level. I was too focused on Senate elections and Presidential elections when it turned out to not matter that much if you don't have good people on the ground floor. That was a rookie mistake. And yes, I can attest that Hagrid's influence in the party by my chairmanship was minimal, though ZuWo and Yankee had a much stronger influence, which is where a lot of the power struggles came from.

I think I've always been better in offices than in the party organization.

It's so fun to dig up old corpses and find out what went wrong! (referring to my tenure)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, it doesn't seem like anyone's sparing any punches, so I figured I'd just be honest. I think that was my big problem at the time too: I bitched and complained almost in the shadows rather than trying to be productive and work with people. And I've always been very sorry for how things went down during that period of time. It was hard for me to detach myself even though it was so obvious I needed to. There was a lot of talent I didn't know how to make use of, and I think that's been an issue on the right for a while too.

Anyway, there's no question you're good at what you do, Maxwell, which is why you'll make a great president.

Also, I just want to be clear about my invoking JCL. I think JCL realizes what he's up against, and unfortunately it has reached the point where no matter what he does, the politicos here will never cut him any slack, because they're happy with the box they've put him in. He's a very nice and dedicated player who I think will admit proudly that he holds some controversial views (and yeah, I do think some are kinda cray-cray ). I'm using him as an example because his predicament is unfortunately what right-wing players are left in when they're extremely vocal about their social conservatism. Maybe it's partly my fault for trying to tone down those elements and creating a culture where they're unwelcome in the organized right, but... I don't think I've played a huge role in building the popular image of JCL. It's his opponents who've done that. I want the Federalist Party to stand for substance without having to endure the kind of obstacles that JCL endures. I think it's possible.