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

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I must confess that recently I have been weighing heavily my future. Considering whether or not Atlasia had a place for old Yankee beyond the coming season or two. I have felt fully brunt of having to juggle a physically demanding job whilst also remaining an active part on this site and though my expectation was for a repeat of when I was in school I must say I was in for a rude awakening in that regard. Needless to say I have made my decision. I am going to run for reelection to the Senate.

Best of luck! I know maybe you hate me for going at it, but I think the region will be in decent hands whatever happens.

Cheers.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Why don't you just call it the Regional Protection Party, then? Its core tenet would be something that everyone in the party could get behind and might actually serve to unify a group that is sometimes TOO ideologically diverse. Refocus and unify around something real. Makes sense to me.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I believe we amended the by-laws to remove automatic endorsements for president in the event that an embarrassing fringe candidate from the party decided to run. We agreed that the presidential election was too important not to have an endorsement vote.

Also, FTR, I'm not opposed to coming back to a re-imagined right-wing party, but I would need to see a number of changes. For me and others to join, I think the party would need to completely expunge any of its ties to social conservatism, firmly rally around an anti-consolidation platform, and rejuvenate itself aesthetically (I mean, the party reeks of failure, so something a little newer would be good for morale). If it means sending some people away, maybe that's how it has to happen. It's like rebuilding a hockey team.

Will this party be the butt of jokes that keeps talking about abortions and the elite, or will this party cast itself as something different. That's the question here.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

"This is not the RPP." I forgot a about that greatest hit!

I never understood the history of the consolidation movement, so I wasn't really able to recognize the threat when it materialized. I came around, but it was too late.

It's interesting that I never really went to you at the beginning, because I did have long, long conversations with Duke (and even Marokai). I think my real desire was to try and make the party something new. Although we didn't unite behind policy, I'm happy that we at least managed to come across (mostly) as the good guys. I should have spoken with you more at the beginning, but all I kept hearing was things about the past, and I wanted to move forward...

And now it's come full circle because I'm the guy who can't stop reminiscing.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Numbers do permit though, because any number of candidates running to be president will still trigger a vote, per the earlier section in the text with regard to the presidency. I am almost sure we put this in.

And Duke, you were our candidate the first time in spite of the fact that you were an Independent. I thought the only reason you joined was because you felt pressed to make some demonstration of goodwill to the party for the base.

Either way, I've said a million times that someone should really gut the by-laws I wrote. They proved to be cripplingly specific. But I guess it's a bed I don't have to sleep in anymore, so to speak. So best of luck.