This was originally posted in Atlas Shrugs in Brooklyn on October 10, 2009 by John Galt. I’m re-posting it here on UE because the article is still apropos, relevant and timely.

By John Galt

http://atlasshrugsinbrooklyn.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/an-atlas-platform-for-reform/

It should be clear by now that a war is brewing in the Brooklyn GOP. It is a war against those in the establishment that would accept the status quo, make backroom deals with our Democratic rivals, and stifle. It is a war between the forces of the reform and those that are content to reap the limited benefits of stagnancy.

We call upon all Brooklyn Republicans, Republican-leaning Independents and Democrats, Libertarians, Conservatives, and all government reformists to demand change and promote it through action and words.

What do we want? Atlas Shrugs in Brooklyn offers a platform for reform during this war of reform.

We, fellow Republicans and reformists, deserve and demand those things fundamental to the future of our party. Here are our primary points:

1. Respect for all Republicans regardless of personal ideological differences.
2. Promoting new candidates and young Republican voices through word and deed.
3. Accountability and openness from all of our party leaders.
4. Inter-district support of all principled Republican candidates.
5. An end to party in fighting and a move toward competitive, spirited primaries.
6. Absolutely no unchecked and unaccountable political consultants.
7. Diligent use of party funds to meet the ends of our just Republican goals.
8. Less centralized power in the Party Chair and checks and balances on party leaders.
9. Explicit and self-imposed conflict-of-interest rules on party leaders, political consultants, and candidates.
10. Fostered inclusion of Republicans from all areas of Brooklyn and of all ethnic, religious, and other diverse backgrounds.

The time has come to issue a formal call to arms for reform in Brooklyn. These ideas are just a beginning, but they are necessary.

The same old same old is not good enough.

The darkness of the present is not as strong as the daybreak we see in our party’s future.

Exit Night.  Enter Light.

May the dream become a reality.

We call on the party leadership and all Republicans to answer the call of Atlas to meet the goals of this platform immediately in our borough.

We have much more work to do after we reform the party. Before that, we must change course. Let all of our new ideas collectively be a starting point for a new direction in Brooklyn GOP politics and beyond.

Atlas Shrugs in Brooklyn will do its best to provide you, our reformist readers, with this promise of hope in our party.

Reform has arrived.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Jay Golub , March 20, 2010

CD, this is why I say that Atlas has offered nothing of substance to date. Let's go through this point by point...

#1 is exactly how we got into this mess. By accepting Republicans of all "personal ideologies," we ended up with a bunch of fiscal liberals running the federal, state and city governments. In doing so, we gave up the reason for voters to support Republicans leading to the complete takeover of our nation, state and city by Democrats/liberals...

#2 is a good idea on paper, but there also needs to be a signficant amount of reciprocation from the same young and new voices. Do you really think that the establishment should or could just accept anyone who shows up and says, "I'm here!" Like in any organization, private or political, one must prove to those above you that you are worthy of being given anything. To think so naively otherwise is a big reason for the failure in your so-called "effort for reform."

#3 - you'd have to define that more, but I find it contradictory that your site says that its found where all the financial bodies are buried in the Brooklyn GOP, you cite all the evil "dukes," "princes" and "merlins,' yet you say there's no "transparency." Where did you find all of these things out then? If by transparency you mean that the leadership should fill you in on their thought process and decision making process BEFORE they decide to do something, I'll refer you back to #2 where I talk about naivety...

#4 - again, contradictory. What is your definition of the word "principled" in this context? Doesn't that contradict with #1?

#5 - I have no problem with primaries, but one has the earn the right to get into one. Just because someone "wants" to run, doesn't mean they have the right...

#6 - "political consultants" are in the private sector and have nothing to do with Party Politics. How are you to "check" them?

#7 - semantics. Not sure what you're trying to say. How do you "know" what is "diligent use?" Who decides what that is defined as?

#8 - Again, propose the rule changes before making that statement because, as we've discussed well beyond anything I can read about the Queens organization and its structure, this is much easier said than done. In my view, people only complain about the "centralization of power" when they aren't included. As soon as they are, their idea of "fair" changes rather quickly.

#9 - Again, a naive and weak point. This is a subjective point that will always be argued about - no matter who is running the party. One person's or group of people's views about what is a "conflict of interest" will differ from anothers and there is little hope of regulating this activity. Besides, there already are laws in place that prohibit illegal activity and use of the party organization.

#10 - Again back to this diversity point you go. I would say that as long as all these "groups" or individuals within these groups support the core issues of the Republican Party, such as reducing taxes, limiting government and promoting individual liberty, they should be included in the mix. But to just include people just for the sake of having a wider range of supporters, when these supporters will be pushing for issues in direct conflict with the GOP's core beliefs, makes no sense whatsoever.

In all of this, you need to define things more clearly before anyone should take this seriously. And the funny part is that once you do, you'll see that you are setting your own group's priorities above the priorities of others - and when/if you take over the Party, people will line up, create blogs and start calling you "the Duke" as well.

This is not a discussion of "reform," but of naive sour-grapes. Get to work. Organize. Work within the system first to show your true ability. And then once in and defensible, make your move to "reform" the party. In the end, you'll just be another despot anyway....

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by DagnyT , March 20, 2010

Golub, you've spent so much time being hostile and critical, you can't even tip your hat to Jon Galt for a very reasonable outline for reform in the Brooklyn GOP. You apparently expected a manual when Jon Galt was only offering a short statement of principles. You always assume naiveté when you could be ADDING to the discussion. Rather than deconstruct every word, why don't you supplement the discussion with your thoughts and experiences. You continue to harp on the same issues, and you're beginning to sound whiny.

I hope you're a more constructive person than you come off as.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Robert Hornak , March 20, 2010

Seriously, Dagny, this is not a reasonable, or even very serious, outline for reform. It's a bunch of meaningless platitudes.

You seem to be under the illusion that acceptance is a one-way street. You have to be respectful of people if you want them to work with you. Regardless of their position or power they possess.

I, too, could easily deconstruct this agenda. But I won't bother, Jay did a fine job and you'll only insult me as well. And I certainly don't want to sound whiny.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Jay Golub , March 20, 2010

"Rather than deconstruct every word, why don't you supplement the discussion with your thoughts and experiences."

I did, DagnyT. I said to basically "do something." Yet, as long as you all hide behind alias' there's little chance you'll make any headway proving my point to be incorrect. But, again, that's my point.

Politics is about people who are willing to put their names, let alone their lives, on the line. If your bloggers are so cowardly as to avoid such a situation, why should any of us consider these points seriously.

In my view, they shouldn't...

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Jay Golub , March 21, 2010

"You apparently expected a manual when Jon Galt was only offering a short statement of principles."

BTW, DagnyT, I'm sure the Party leadership supports these same principles.

They want respect for Republicans of all views - including respect for those Republicans who choose to support a Democrat they believe is the best person to represent a district.

They want to support young Republican efforts.

They want "inter-district support" for all Republican candidates - especially the ones who are already in office or those who work with the consultants friendly to the organization.

They want the end to party in-fighting - I'm sure.

They support the diligent use of party of funds.

Etc, etc, etc...

Again, without defining these terms past, as Robert said, "meaningless platitudes," you're not really proposing anything. Everyone supports what is outlined above when there's no specificity given beyond these broad terms.

Come back to us with something more specific in a "reform platform" and maybe we'll have something to really debate...

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0