Grassroots Leadership - Happening on this forum now

[Nate K]

I've seen this thread before. Many times.

Nate, if you want us to follow some sort of steering committee, give us a reason to do so. Create something worth supporting, and we will follow. Otherwise, it's just herding cats.

I've given my ideas on this forum countless times, nobody has followed me, don't expect them to do so and I especially don't expect anyone to suddenly follow me now. This isn't about me.

 

[yongrel]

I've given my ideas on this forum countless times, nobody has followed me, don't expect them to do so and I especially don't expect anyone to suddenly follow me now. This isn't about me.

Don't just give ideas. Plenty of people give ideas. Act. Produce something. Create something. Do something.

Don't just say something.

 

[TonySutton]

If you feel you have good ideas, put them into action. If they do well, others will copy them.

This is one of the great things about bottom up leadership. We have many plans out there working. In areas where their idea does not work, they can look to other areas and copy the plans which work.

Top down leadership often leads to one size fits all mentality which can lead to total failure without backup plans.

I prefer leadership to give general guidelines and let the grass roots work out the details. Ron Paul has given us our guidelines, it is up for us to make it happen locally.

Our local organizations will grow into a tsunami of support in 2010!

 

[Nate K]

If anyone wants an idea of what I'm talking about, I'm talking about a social network for starters. There's been countless attempts at it, in fact, there's a thread right next to this one about a new one up..

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=167039

There's Bureaucrash, campaignforlibertynetwork, campaignforliberty, on and on.

Why aren't any of them noteworthy? Hasn't much financial backing.

You guys can keep trying and trying to do everything on your own, and I'll keep watching and watching as they fail repeatedly.

 

[Nate K]

Don't just give ideas. Plenty of people give ideas. Act. Produce something. Create something. Do something.

Don't just say something.

Yeah, plenty of people do give ideas, why aren't we taking advantage of them? How many chip-ins have people given money to before, is there a reason this can't be done again with the purpose of getting the movement going?

 

[Kludge]

I've enjoyed extensive success with Slave Uprising, and my pet project, Slave Uprising Wristbands. With the extra money, I've been able to donate to some of the projects I find worthy.


There are many ChipIn opportunities given on this forum. I have been able to give to most of them. RPFs server fees, billboards, TV ads, local campaigns, and a couple PACs are just some of the projects I've been able to contribute to.


The smaller the project, the better the return. More ambitious projects tend to fail hard (blimp, C4L, and Ron Paul's entire presidential campaign come to mind). In contrast, the smaller and more conventional projects tend to enjoy wild success (Paul's congressional campaign, literature drops, and canvassing come to mind).


It takes money to make money, and it takes effort to receive effort. The more you put in something, the more you get back. Ideas mean nothing if you do not PROVE them successful BEFORE expecting others to invest.

 

[richiep]

This is a subject that I have thought about often over my many years of involvement with the LP. How do you structure an organization when the very members of that organization despise structure!?!?

As with so many other things I've seen in my life, it seems like our great asset, winds up being our greatest liability. Its like the nice guy who can't succeed because he's too nice. When it comes to our philosophy, often we've heard from the pundits that our ideas are nice in theory, but they are unworkable. It would seem when you look at it, that they are right, how do you heard cats?

Adding to our problems beyond the usual, "no man is an island" type of arguments, is the reality that the world is made up with only a small part of people who are like us. Most people do not want to think for themselves, they would rather be lead. Our refusal to play that leader means that the control freaks are left alone to play that roles, proving that as I said, our greatest asset becomes that liability.

I've heard so many times the complaints of people who were new to the LP when they are so immediately shot down when they say, "when is something going to be done" with the usual answer along the lines of, "why don't you do it then" that is not what an effective groups says. Its what we say, but we're not effective. We are as small a group as we've ever been, representing that small group of like minded people.

So is it possible that we can strike a balance somehow? As it pertains to this discussion and to the larger one (of how the fuck can we win us some liberty!) it seems that we will have to be able to find that balance. So how can we do it?

One thing we can't say is what we have always said, that we shouldn't even try. If so we will only have this exact same conversation in 4 years and again 8 years, and in 12 years and so on.

 

[Nate K]

This is a subject that I have thought about often over my many years of involvement with the LP. How do you structure an organization when the very members of that organization despise structure!?!?

As with so many other things I've seen in my life, it seems like our great asset, winds up being our greatest liability. Its like the nice guy who can't succeed because he's too nice. When it comes to our philosophy, often we've heard from the pundits that our ideas are nice in theory, but they are unworkable. It would seem when you look at it, that they are right, how do you heard cats?

Adding to our problems beyond the usual, "no man is an island" type of arguments, is the reality that the world is made up with only a small part of people who are like us. Most people do not want to think for themselves, they would rather be lead. Our refusal to play that leader means that the control freaks are left alone to play that roles, proving that as I said, our greatest asset becomes that liability.

I've heard so many times the complaints of people who were new to the LP when they are so immediately shot down when they say, "when is something going to be done" with the usual answer along the lines of, "why don't you do it then" that is not what an effective groups says. Its what we say, but we're not effective. We are as small a group as we've ever been, representing that small group of like minded people.

So is it possible that we can strike a balance somehow? As it pertains to this discussion and to the larger one (of how the fuck can we win us some liberty!) it seems that we will have to be able to find that balance. So how can we do it?

One thing we can't say is what we have always said, that we shouldn't even try. If so we will only have this exact same conversation in 4 years and again 8 years, and in 12 years and so on.

wow, you just said in one post everything i've wanted to say for awhile.

 

[Deborah K]

I probably should've elaborated further. The purpose of having a committee or whatever wouldn't be to shut everyone else's ideas out. They would simply be the driving force to rally around. In my own opinion, this is a necessity to get anywhere.

What was the purpose of the CFL? Not to rule over everyone else and stop having people think - it's an upgrade. What I'm talking about is having a group of people handle the tasks of further, publicly agreed upon upgrades.

For instance, if people were publicly brainstorming ideas for a website, which ALWAYS happens here, nobody ever follows through with it - but if we had what I was proposing, there would be a group to take initiative if the idea got big enough. We'd set a pitch-in so the project is "financially public" meaning it's not going to be funded by a few weeks lunch money - there'll actually be some backing to it.

The problem is with a pitch-in, nobody would really trust throwing it in to private hands they might not know of. But when there has already been a previously agreed upon group of people throughout the forum to volunteer to handle the task - it becomes a better decision.




This is my own opinion, you may disagree - but what I have noticed on this forum is that things will likely never ever change unless there is some unity on matters - teamwork.

The grassroots put together a march and rally on july 12th this year. It required leadership. It was a success due in part to members of this forum. This forum is a perfect place to put together another grassroots organization. Those who don't want to participate, don't have to. Those who do, can work together to put a list of projects on an agenda and implement them with the help and support of this forum.

 

[Nate K]

The grassroots put together a march and rally on july 12th this year. It required leadership. It was a success due in part to members of this forum. This forum is a perfect place to put together another grassroots organization. Those who don't want to participate, don't have to. Those who do, can work together to put a list of projects on an agenda and implement them with the help and support of this forum.

i agree. the problem is people don't want anything do with organizing because they fear it "goes against their philosophy of individualism". Most ridiculous thing ever.

Whatever you do in life, you DO at some point have to work with someone to get a desired result, i think some people here don't understand that. do you go to work or own a business, you have to work with others to get things done. are you suddenly a slave to "the system".. uh no. We are doing some things for all the wrong reasons.

But hey, i'm not out to change people's minds - it's just an idea I proposed. it obviously isn't to the liking of many here.

 

[speciallyblend]

ban nate k ,he is a elitist power hungry control freak just teasing u

 

[richiep]

wow, you just said in one post everything i've wanted to say for awhile.

I have a feeling there are more and more of us out there feeling this way. Its not to say we give up what makes us the way we are, but to strike a balance of individual action, vs a structured organization in order to achieve a common goal.

I'm not saying how to do it as I don't know, The only thing I do know is what we have done since I've been involved which was from the earlier 90's , is not working.

To those that just want to yell out --- RON PAUL --- as some sort of proof that total grass roots effort alone works, he was and is an anomaly that no can seem to duplicate. We need to be able to get 50 Ron Pauls elected, not just one.

 

[Nate K]

I have a feeling there are more and more of us out there feeling this way. Its not to say we give up what makes us the way we are, but to strike a balance of individual action, vs a structured organization in order to achieve a common goal.

I'm not saying how to do it as I don't know, The only thing I do know is what we have done since I've been involved which was from the earlier 90's , is not working.

To those that just want to yell out --- RON PAUL --- as some sort of proof that total grass roots effort alone works, he was and is an anomaly that no can seem to duplicate. We need to be able to get 50 Ron Pauls elected, not just one.

truth there. ron paul was a rallying point and when he finished his run, the movement faded away. now it is just individuals acting as individuals. no focal point or anything.

 

[richiep]

truth there. ron paul was a rallying point and when he finished his run, the movement faded away. now it is just individuals acting as individuals. no focal point or anything.

Exactly! What we are all now doing is saying something like, "when that central rallying point appears, I will follow it" But the question is, what do we do to build before then? We are all pulling and pushing in different directions, while waiting for that one person. Ironically, that makes us no better then the Obamamaniacs!

I think Ron thought that it could be done around an idea, but I think it has to be more definitive then that. We rallied around Ron to have him win, not just to promote his ideas. Anyone who has ever read even a basic book on setting goals will tell you, you have to have a completion date, you can't just say, "I want to be rich" you have to say something more like, "I want to make 10k more a year by the end of this year" What is/are our goal(s)? Sure, we want liberty, but what does that mean, and by when?

 

[Micah Dardar]

truth there. ron paul was a rallying point and when he finished his run, the movement faded away. now it is just individuals acting as individuals. no focal point or anything.

It seems to be a very difficult task to organize a group of people that are against organizations. Now since the election is over, I wonder if I should stop smudging Ron Paul in everyone's face, and just try to carry the message to the best of my abilities. Observe an audience, ease them in on points that they may like, and flourish into the concepts of individual liberty and monetary policy.

I have a hard time getting people to understand the Federal Reserve system. I believe that the biggest thing is that many people don't believe that we can get rid of something that has been around longer than we have been alive. People's eyes get cloudy when I talk about that stuff. I guess the best argument that I've expressed has been the one about a nice suit costing an ounce of gold in the ancient times, and a nice suit costing an ounce of gold today. I believe that was G. Edward Griffin. That seems to be effective.

 

[Micah Dardar]

My life would be so much easier if I were a sheep! All this thinking is stressful!

 

[Sheepdog11]

I don't understand it... we won't get anywhere without some kind of structure. Herding cats is the best analogy I've heard. Why are people so against a structure that the constitution itself is built around?

We need to come to a middle ground... it was said perfectly, our mindsets by definition don't strive for a position of power. THIS is why the scum end up in the white house in the first place.

We can't keep waiting FOR a leader... we have to BE the leader for once. We have to grow some balls and be the assertive force here... otherwise we'll always be the ones watching liberty erode from the sidelines after the fact.

Especially after this Obama election, we HAVE to be the ones offering REAL solutions to the problems as people start questioning what's going wrong. Otherwise the outspoken political and corporate powerhouses will get the attention time after time.

In these following months and years people will be more and more receptive to our ideas... and we will gain a LARGE amount of potential membership...

...but if we show ourselves as a bunch of cats, lacking unity and purpose, lacking leadership; we'll just end up another flash in the pan in the peripheral vision of a person who's hope we did not ignite.

 

[Nate K]

well said brother ^^

 

[Sheepdog11]

well said brother ^^

Thank you, I'm new

In basic terms, we have to look like we have our shit together so that we encourage hope in other people, who right now are less than optimistic (and rightly so).

It could even be a self-contained, ideological type of structure, only ruling over those who agree with it. If you don't like the idea of voting for leaders that would actually do shit, then do your own thing! Doesn't matter as long as enough people are still contained in the leadership idea... as long as the structure gets something rolling, the rest will latch onto it anyway as soon as it has direction.