View Full Version : Practical Political Information and Philosophy
(site isn't working so smoothly yet...)
Practical Political Information and Philosophy pulled from my files...
"I just got a book from the library called "The Initiative Cookbook:
Recipies & Stories from California's Ballot Wars" by Jim Shultz It looks like it may have some interesting info, ideas, etc. You guys might want to check your local libraries for it. Or buy it here:
[snip]"
OOOPS, the link doesn't work now...here's a good one...
http://www.democracyctr.org/publications/books.htm
.
"The California Legislature has known for some time, that they have a problem with CCW issuance. They commissioned a study June 1986....called; SMOKING GUN: THE CASE FOR CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT REFORM. The study was done by the Assembly Office of Research."
Anyone have this document??
Doheny
10-22-2008, 12:36 AM
"The California Legislature has known for some time, that they have a problem with CCW issuance. They commissioned a study June 1986, 21 years ago called; SMOKING GUN: THE CASE FOR CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT REFORM. The study was done by the Assembly Office of Research."
Anyone have this document??
You can get it here; http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=104228
(Plagiarized, of course – I steal my best ideas…)
It'd be great to add to it...
Concept 1: Politicians are sentient animals – they respond to pleasure and pain stimuli.
PAIN is:
bad publicity
withheld contributions
having to spend time and money running a primary campaign (incumbent in a "safe seat") especially against a political “nobody”
etc (what else? - be creative)
Pleasure is:
good publicity
campaign contributions
campaign volunteers
etc
Concept 2: Most grassroots groups have more resources on the PAIN side than the pleasure side.
Concept 3: Political Power
Power is NOT:
having a pol take / return your calls (that’s access)
having a pol actually consider your points (that’s influence)
having a pol say, “you don’t understand the situation this session”
Power IS:
the ability to cause change
having a pol vote your way (no ifs, ands, or buts)
Concept 4: Not every pol has to be the standard bearer….we just need a few to introduce the bills
Concept 5: Sometimes even failure pushes us forward.
A bill that doesn’t stand a chance still identifies which side a pol is really on.
Running a losing a primary campaign still causes the pol pain, and they WILL remember you…
Concept 6: Attack demands response
As Ed Koch, Mayor of NY City said about politics, "You punch me - I hit back".
.
Nothing earthshaking here....just verification of your instincts...pretty simple-minded, really....
Excerpted from Chapter 22. Creating Cover, "Politicking, How to get Elected, Take Action, and Make an Impact in your Community" by Bill Rauch, 2004, Published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, ISBN 0-374-27855-5 (obtained at the Escondido Public Library)
[Note: author Bill Rauch was a political aide to NY Mayor Ed Koch, and is now an experienced Mayor of Beaufort, North Carolina....his view of the art of politics is Machavellian, not principled...]
*****
"Creating political cover is the practice of finding someone else somewhere else who can be made primarily responsible for a decision that might be harmful or painful for some one or group you wish not to alienate. The skilled politician recognizes well in advance a situation that may adversely affect some group down the line. If such an adverse outcome is likely because one group can only be placated at the expense of another, then the politician may seek to find someone to blame for the controversial outcome - someone to hide behind. [Note to self: do not become that "someone"].
The city attorney is sometimes useful in this regard, generally in situations that involve the interpretation of a law. An unpopular decision can often be explained by saying, essentially, that the government has to do it this way or we'll be sued and we'll lose and then we'll have to pay precious tax dollars to cover the damage.
But when it comes to changing local laws and policies, the city attorney offers only limited cover. Here a more comprehensive insulation mechanism is needed - "the blue ribbon panel". Ed Koch never liked these panels, but they were a favorite of another three-term NY mayor, Robert F. Wagner, Jr. As his son Bobby once said to me, "My father had a committee for everything".
I'm with Mayor Wagner on this one. Here's how the blue ribbon panel works. There's an area of controversy in which something needs to be done. [....snip mundane examples...] You know something needs to be done, but it's complicated and one or more groups in town may have to endure more regulation [question: why is that always the government answer??]. So what needs doing may be unwelcome at least to those groups.
What to do? You can spent the money to hire a consultant whose report will probably get picked apart [shades of San Diego], or you can form what the federal government likes to call "a stakeholders committee". At the local level these are also called a "mayor's special committee".
These panels, working groups, committees, or some such generally come in two forms: those that run by Robert's Rules and those that run by consensus. After watching a few of these, I've come to prefer the consensus approach, although the other has its advantages. I like to say, "This committee is going to run like a church. The deacons argoing to have to sit together until they reach consensus." And just when you think they can't, they do, and when they do you can say, taking cover, "Council is being cognizant of the advice given it by a committee of local people, all of whom have an interest in the matter, and who've studied it for months."
These committees should be large enough to include representatives of all the affected groups, yet not so large that the committee becomes unwieldy. Determining who should be included is something that is effectively done in open session with councilmembers rattling off interest groups. If someone legitimately complains he or she got left out, add the person later. If you wish to help shape the result [duh!], name the chairman yourself and make sure she's strong and shares your point of view. If you need to appear more even-handed, let the group choose its own chair.
[cut more stuff about influencing the outcome via staff and city attorney]
What is gained by forming a blue ribbon panel? First, the heat's off for for at least 90 days, during which the government can legitimately say: "The status quo's in place as we await the findings of the Sullivan Commission". If the status quo isn't helpful to you in the short term, you can make temporary changes that, if they work, will become permanent changes by the time the committee renders its report.
[snip benefits of blue ribbon panel removing a hot potato from election period]
What else has been gained from creating the panel? Most of the steam will have been drawn out of the interest groups at the committee levels. Let them all harangue the committee. Better them than you. By the time they are back before you, their arguments will have been distilled and those that are angry with the committee's recommendations will be angry with the committee, not you. In fact, they will be appealing to you to redress the wrong perpetrated upon them by the committee. This is the typical post-committee dynamic: Those who came up short will will appeal to you to overrule the committee, while those whose interests were served appeal to you to implement the committee's recommendations fully and promptly.
[snip Best Case where process actually works to get a good result]
Of course, savvy representatives of interest groups know how the committee game is played, and the most experienced of them may try to sidestep your your process. If they try this trick, first, they'll try not to be named to the committee. If named, they won't go to the meetings. Or, they'll just send a junior person to do reconnaissance. This "lay in the grass" approach is designed to position them so that they can discredit the committee's work when the findings are released, saying the committee's deliberations didn't include them. Then they'll petition the council to disrefard the committee's work and fashion a "fair" policy or law, one that accomodates their interests in a way that is more to their liking.
[snip obvious countermeasures and other discussion...]
If you take the half the steps suggested here, it is unlikely the committee's recommendations will be substantially at odds with those you have privately favored, but if they are (and there are those occasional "runaway committees"), you can still just ditch the whole thing by putting it on the shelf. Or, if you don't like just a few of the committee's final recommendations, pick them apart at the council level until the interest groups are worn out. In the end all you have been given by the committee is the benefit of their collective advice. It is yours to take or reject."
There, don't you feel like volunteering for a government committee now??
"In discussing (specifically) the apparent incoherent nature of [a landuse] planning process, our.....planning groups/committees are participating in, a sage old group member asked if me was familiar with the decades-old "Delphi Technique???" Despite several masters degrees in largely technical fields, I understandably was not well versed in Delphi - more of a social science issue which I admittedly despise.
The damningly manipulative Delphi is of course a much larger issue than [the] planning process - I'd say it's huge. Read "Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus - How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation" below
If you are easily depressed or enraged best to stop reading now. If you want to read more about this unfortunately effective group manipulative technique (Delphi) read on.
Below descriptions of Delphi that were"Googled" off the 'net.
An excellent and concise discussion of the abuse of this technique (and how to combat it) can be found at this link http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html The more formal discussion text follows an irreverent anonymous discussion immediately below...
But please read on and become enraged... Don't want to get melodramatic about it - but our community's future depends upon your Delphi awareness and also sustained anger.
Think about this quote (possible should be the "Ranter's Creed" - then read on : "Never, ever compromise when it comes to "right and wrong." With the right attitude you shouldn't care what people think, as long as you are standing up for what is right. Accept persecution gracefully."
===========================================
Clipping #1
Annon. :
"The Rand Corporation in the early sixties developed the "Delphi Technique" for the purpose of maneuvering segments of the public into accepting pre-determined government policies. In the seventies and eighties, it was used to convince land owners of the merits of accepting general land use planning maps. Now it is being employed to persuade the public to accept Outcome Based Education and the licensing of all employees via endorsements in the Certificate of Initial Mastery ("CIM") and Certificate of Advanced Mastery ("CAM") programs, a/k/a "School to Work."
"The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input under the pretext of being accountable to the public. For Delphi to work, it is critical that the targeted group be kept away from knowledgeable people who could lead them away from the Delphier's pre-determined outcome.
"One variation of the Delphi technique is to use a series of meetings. The attendees are often given a number or a colored card when they enter the room, to determine at which table they are to sit. The purpose of this is to break up the groups of potentially knowledgeable people who arrive together so that they will be sitting with strangers and therefore be subdued.
"Typically, at each table is a facilitator, someone who will know which way to help "steer" the group. Usually, the people at each table are instructed to answer among themselves some of the questions and arrive at a table consensus. Someone is chosen to speak for the table, and most of the time it is the person who has been secretly pre-briefed about the desired Delphi outcome. The table spokesperson is the only one allowed to address the podium and the others have little opportunity to address the podium or the crowd directly.
"Anyone knowledgeable enough, or brave enough, to speak out in opposition will not be welcomed. Often they are told from the podium "we don't have time to discuss that now," or "we discussed that on another date," or "we can discuss that after the meeting." They will attempt to quiet, isolate and discredit dissenters. After attending the Delphi meeting, participants may feel that they are in disagreement with the apparent majority. The Delphi technique is often successful in bluffing people into submission. Don't let them succeed. Call their bluff.
"The Delphi technique often uses a series of surveys to bring about "consensus." The surveys are promoted as information gathering regarding the wishes of the targeted public, but in reality they are designed to manipulate the desired outcome. The survey will sometimes use gradings like: "agree all of the time; agree most of the time; agree some of the time; agree not much; agree never." Or the survey grading will ask the respondents to use ratings like "most important, moderately important, least important."
"The questions are typically "loaded" questions. An example is the question asked of Oregon teachers on a Delphi technique survey: "Do you agree or disagree that the following elements of H.B. 3565 [Oregon's Education Act for the 21st century] will lead to improved student learning if implemented?" The survey listed such items for the teachers to agree or disagree with: "site councils," "increased accountability for school sites and districts," "full funding for preschool programs to enable all students to enter school ready to learn," "extended school year," "Certificate of Initial Mastery," et cet. The questions are patently loaded. For example, site councils are not charged with improving student learning as their function is to implement the state law, dole out professional development courses and money to selected teachers, and apply for grants from foundations and the federal government. For the teachers to answer agree or disagree that the site councils will lead to improved student learning is misdirecting the respondent.
"The Delphi surveys "educate" the people taking the survey. After the first survey is taken, the respondents are given an analysis and told that most people agreed or somewhat agreed on the pre-determined outcome. Then usually they are given another survey and asked if they can be flexible and try to rethink the "few remaining" areas of disagreement. When the series of surveys are accomplished, the respondents are told that the majority of respondents achieved "consensus" with whatever direction the pollers wanted in the first place.
"These techniques were developed decades ago. The Rand Corporation has more recently been developing games that groups of business people, council members, organizations, et cet, can use to help "sell" people on collectivism, consensus vs. majority rule, et cet.
"Never, ever compromise when it comes to "right and wrong." With the right attitude you shouldn't care what people think, as long as you are standing up for what is right. Accept persecution gracefully."
.
Group Dynamics (continued)
Clipping #2
Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus
How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation
The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.
In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.
In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."
The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.
The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task forces," urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.
Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and "devil's advocates." Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.
The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.
How the Delphi Technique Works
Consistent use of this technique to control public participation in our political system is causing alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our Founding Fathers. Efforts in education and other areas have brought the emerging picture into focus.
In the not-too-distant past, the city of Spokane, in Washington state, hired a consultant to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city government. This development brought a hue and cry from the local population. The ensuing course of action holds an eerie similarity to what is happening in education reform. A newspaper editorial described how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to "discuss" what they felt needed to be changed at the local government level. A compilation of the outcomes of those "discussions" influenced the writing of the city/county charter.
That sounds innocuous. But what actually happened in Spokane is happening in communities and school districts all across the country. Let's review the process that occurs in these meetings.
First, a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting to a preset conclusion.
The facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the facilitator appearing as the good guy. To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a clear message to the rest of the audience that, if they don't want the same treatment, they must keep quiet. When the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting are established without the audience ever realizing what has happened.
Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight people. Each group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators steer participants to discuss preset issues, employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.
Participants are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask participants, you typically hear: "Those running the meeting compiled the results." Oh-h! The next question is: "How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?" The typical answer is: "Well, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in the minority."
That is the crux of the situation. If 50 people write down their ideas individually, to be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows what anyone else has written. That the final outcome of such a meeting reflects anyone's input at all is highly questionable, and the same holds true when the facilitator records the group's comments on paper. But participants in these types of meetings usually don't question the process.
Why hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established? The answer is because it is imperative for the acceptance of the School-to-Work agenda, or the environmental agenda, or whatever the agenda, that ordinary people assume ownership of the preset outcomes. If people believe an idea is theirs, they'll support it. If they believe an idea is being forced on them, they'll resist.
The Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our government from a representative form in which elected individuals represent the people, to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens selected at large are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes. These citizens believe that their input is important to the result, whereas the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the participants.
How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique
Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.
Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.
Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don't want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, "That is not what I asked. What I asked was . . ." and repeat your question.
Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then with polite persistence state: "But you didn't answer my question. My question was . . ." and repeat your question.
Never become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose. The goal of facilitators is to make the majority of the group members like them, and to alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. People with firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, are obvious threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why objections are written on paper rather than voiced aloud where they can be open to public discussion and debate. It's called crowd control."
Group Dynamics (conclusion)
"At a meeting, have two or three people who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they can stand up and politely say: "But you didn't answer that lady/gentleman's question." Even if the facilitator suspects certain group members are working together, he will not want to alienate the crowd by making accusations. Occasionally, it takes only one incident of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on.
Establish a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his part. Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time. Never strategize during a meeting.
A popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters (people who observe the crowd during the course of a meeting) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and join in the conversation, reporting what was said to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of the resistors. Do not congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or spotters are. Stay away from your team members.
This strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained to use the Delphi Technique."
You can get it here; http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=104228
Thank you - helpful response. Unfortunately, it's not _easily_ available there.
I have asked Assemblyman Martin Garrick's office (R-74) to help me get a copy.
.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.