Citizen Tom

This whole argument about who represents the grassroots is a sideshow. “Grassroots” is synonymous with “general membership” or even “rank-and-file.” It’s just an adjective, not a mantra.

The RPV is designed like any other representative body. People are chosen to fill positions to represent individual members. The Chairman is elected to lead. The State Central Committee members are, effectively, like a Congress of the people. They are elected by district, and districts that are more heavily Republican are give more members. It’s a fundamentally republican form of organization.

The State Central Committee represents the people, just like the Chairman does. They’re both elected by the people, and the SCC is arguably more democratic because there are fewer bars to participation at the local level than there are at the state-wide level. Getting to Richmond, the cost, and the time necessary are bars to participation. Local conventions on a Saturday morning are far more accessible.

So who represents the “grassroots?” All of them do. That nullifies the argument – an argument that has never been anything more than a smokescreen, designed to whip up righteous indignation where none is deserved.

As for transparency, there is no efficient way to communicate with the entire membership of the Republican party in Virginia in a secure manner. Anything sent out is readily seen by the entire country, Republican and Democrat. If there were, then I would, too, demand full transparency and disclosure. But I know that’s not possible. And the more dirt we dig on Frederick, the worse he looks, and the more ammunition we give the Democrats in November. That is bad for him, and it’s bad for the party as a whole. He is still a sitting delegate in a Democratic district, after all.

We elect people to bodies like the SCC to represent us. When we elect them, we give them our vote of confidence and we repose in them our belief that they have the judgment and the experience to do the job. That’s what I’m counting on with the SCC. I don’t need to know every little detail about what they’re accusing Frederick of. What I know is that if 75% of the membership believes the charges are sufficient to remove him, I am confident they are making the right decision.

If that’s not what the SCC is for, then we need to amend the party plan to make it impossible to remove a Chairman unless he or she has been convicted of a crime. Otherwise, there’s no point in allowing the SCC any discretion in determining what kind of behavior warrants removal.

As I have said before, many Frederick supporters are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. My question to them is simple: What has he done, other than getting elected, to deserve it?

Brian — We can impeach the president of the United States without keeping it a secret, but we have to keep the reason for removing the RPV Chairman a secret? The very idea is absurd. We elect the SCC to represent us, not to hide things from us. The RPV is a public organization engaged in the public’s business, not a private club for private purposes. If the Chair of the RPV needs to be removed, then EVERYONE has the right to know the reason why.

Consider your own words.

As I have said before, many Frederick supporters are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. My question to them is simple: What has he done, other than getting elected, to deserve it?

My question is just as simple: What have the members SCC done, other than getting elected, to earn the right to keep such things secret from us?

The President of the United States is an elected government official – elected by the entire country. Everyone is entitled to know. That being said, there are plenty of things the government does that we aren’t entitled to know.

But you’re ignoring the fundamental difference between a government an private organization. The RPV is not a public organization. It is a private organization – a political party. While the standards of admission are low, there are still standards. How Republicans manage our party is up to us, likewise with the Democrats. If we choose not to air our dirty laundry in public, that is our right.

Only Republicans are entitled to know why we are removing our chairman, and there are legitimate reasons why that information should not be widely disseminated – namely, that this is an election season and any damaging information about Frederick can be used against the party and our candidates in the fall. The more damaging, the more likely it will be used, and the more likely it will stick.

The SCC members haven’t had to do anything to “earn the right” to keep secrets. That’s an inherent right of any private organization.

Tom, you mention grassroots efforts as a method of attracting common people. The problem is, as you indicate, that common people often don’t have the socioeconomic status (i.e. time or resources) to be part of a grassroots movement. So who will help those who can’t participate in the political process?

Here’s one example. Those who advocate for the poor try to represent the poor by making petitions for them whether through government or private charity. (And let’s not have the argument over which is the better path to take )

Those who advocate for democratic participation attempt to educate people on the political process and inspire the common people to become involved often through voting or joining organizations.

These are worthy endeavors, for sure. But even with these efforts, if common people’s lives are not improved first or if the interest still isn’t there once their lives ARE improved, grassroots movements will stagnate and the elite will prevail. Education and advocacy can help, but these are not end-all solutions.

So how do you reach the common people? Well, I suppose you could bribe them or make them promises you can’t really keep (and leaders from both parties do this…I believe we call it campaigning). Or we can kidnap them duct-tape them to chairs and make them sit in party meetings.

I’m being ridiculous only to make the point that what we are doing obviously isn’t working as well as it should.

Abraham Maslow presented a hierarchy of needs. Before anyone can reach self-actualization (a state in which people can focus more on controlling their own destinies), they must have basic needs like food, water, shelter, security etc. met. Without helping people meet these basic needs, we are spinning our grassroots wheels.

Incidentally, as to the Thoreau quote, Thoreau was the consummate rebel living in a time when there were fewer people in the U.S. So I think his version of “less government” wouldn’t translate into the contemporary concept. If Thoreau were alive today, he might become an anarchist or a tax evader, either of which would land him in jail for longer than a night.

I believe GOOD government doesn’t have to over-govern or multiply. But we don’t have good government and have not had it for many years. Improve government and THEN we can decrease it. Until that time, if we decrease government, we will be left with only the elite who currently make the decisions.

Brian – What is our right to do and what is sensible to do are two entirely different things. If you want to buy a pig in a poke, I cannot stop you.

I don’t see anything sensible with Frederick remaining in office. It’s a no win situation. The least damaging option is his removal.

I’m willing to accept the decision of the SCC either way.

Brian – Let’s see how this works. Some folks attack a man’s reputation. Then because these folks attack that man’s reputation and force him to deal with the attacks, he is less effective. Then the same folks claim that because that man is less effective, he is suppose to be considerate and sensible and quit.

Please, OFL. You’re reducing this whole situation to an absurd level. You might as well describe World War II as a slight misunderstanding between Germany and the rest of Europe.

Frederick’s own actions have led to this situation. His campaign for Chairman was full of accusations, finger pointing and vitriol. His Chairmanship has been gaffe ridden and marked by apparent incompetence. He is, if anything, reaping what he has sown.

His effectiveness was damaged long before the SCC chose to move forward with his removal. Once they did so, it became clear that Frederick had lost the confidence of a vast majority of the elected officials of the party.

The Chairman of the party should put the good of the party before his own personal good. I would expect that of anyone who holds that position. He recognizes this fight is damaging to the party and yet he continues it. Is that the mark of a leader?

Brian – You compare Jeff Frederick to WW II, and then you accuse me of being absurd?

You have already admitted that the SCC is withholding whatever evidence they have. The “evidence” that has been provided does not amount to anything. There is certainly nothing criminal.

What we are dealing with is a bunch of immature griping. What we have is you and some others who don’t like Frederick. What we have is a severe case of sour grapes. Sour grapes does not constitute grounds for Frederick’s removal. What is does constitute is the inability of some people to accept Frederick’s election.

OFL, c’mon. Enough with the strawmen. I didn’t compare Jeff Frederick with WWII, and you know it.

I haven’t admitted anything because I don’t know anything more than you do. I don’t know if the SCC has more information that they aren’t releasing or not. All I am saying is that if they do, I am fine with that because I recognize that the more that is in the public domain, the more potential for long term damage there is. The evidence amounts to plenty – it amounts to bad judgment, an unwillingness to work with others, and an indifference to appearances of impropriety.

Like I said before, the state party plan doesn’t require evidence of a crime or a conviction to remove the Chairman. Just 75% of the SCC.

This has nothing to do with Frederick personally. I don’t know him well enough to like or dislike him. And “sour grapes” is just another strawman.

Was it sour grapes that caused Frederick to make Obama/Osama jokes in front of the national media? Was it sour grapes that made him use his own company for RPV business when he was specifically told not to? Was it sour grapes that made him twitter the possibility of the State Senate shifting before it happened? Was it sour grapes that Was it sour grapes that made his own transition chairman Anthony Bedell sign a letter calling for his ouster?

First you’re complaining that the SCC is keeping secrets from us. Then you complain that there’s no evidence of a crime. Then you complain that people attacked him and made him ineffective. Now you’re complaining that it’s all sour grapes? What’s next? We’re all racists?

Other than the fact that he was elected, has he done anything at all that makes you confident we can succeed with him as chairman? If so, what is it?

Brian – Judgment. That is the problem. Thousands elected Frederick, but the judgment of the SCC is different, perhaps. Does the SCC have sour grapes because the Chairman is not one the SCC would have elected? So far that seems to be the only substantive reason the SCC would overturn the vote of the convention, and that reason is not good enough.

Is Frederick perfect? No. I cannot make the case anybody is perfect. I don’t like everything Frederick has done, but I had no problem with Frederick’s jokes. If you look at the policies Obama is trying to implement, he is a menace. What is different is that we must deal with Obama via elections and ballots instead of bullets, but that does not make the threat he poses any less dangerous. A nation can vote for its own destruction. Ask Germany.

What has sour grapes you have expressed got to do with racism? Would you like to explain?

OFL, my point was that you keep changing the goalposts in your criticism of those who support Frederick’s removal. I was trying to guess where you were going to go after you’ve moved off the sour grapes claim, but it looks like you’re sticking with it.

As for judgment, the same thousands who elected Frederick elected the members of the SCC.

I don’t see how you can call the charges insubstantial. How is the undisputed charge that he used his own company to do RPV business not “substantive”? How are the multiple gaffes not substantive? Each time he makes a mistake publicly, he undermines confidence in himself and in the party – and that leads to poor fundraising. No one will give money to someone they think is incompetent. Fundraising is one of his primary jobs as Chairman.

You never answered my question. Other than his election, what has Frederick done that makes you confident he can succeed as Chairman? If he can’t, why support him?