Extraordinary Convention: Speech by Eðo Grischun

[Eðo Grischun]

Azul, fellow Free Democrats, and fellow Talossans,

I will start with a headline rather than working my way up to a finale:

I, Eðo Grischun, hereby announce my candidacy for leadership of the Free Democrats of Talossa to contest this upcoming general election.

If entrusted with the honour of leading our party, I pledge to champion a New Talossan Revolution. A revolution where we shall tirelessly and uncompromisingly advocate for the transformation of our beloved nation into a Parliamentary Republic. Our mission will be clear: to usher in a new era of governance, one marked by Cosa Supremacy, where the legislature emerges as the bedrock of our political landscape. In this new order, the Seneschal, duly elected as the Head of Government, shall lead the executive and political branch of governance, guiding our nation's course with determination and purpose, while accountable and inferior to the Parliament.  Simultaneously, we envision a role for the Head of State as a ceremonial and non-executive President, symbolizing unity and tradition. This President shall also take up the mantle of the nation's ceremonial ambassador and of the apolitical leader of the Civil Service, consolidating the roles of Head of State and Secretary of State.  This shall create a true separation of powers between the functions of the nation that should be purely administrative and external to politics, and the executive functions that are political by nature.  It will also maintain and bolster the autonomy of the civil service by transferring its role to that of the State.

But this is not just a proposition; it's a rallying cry to all Free Democrats and like-minded Talossans. It's time to awaken from our slumber, to cast off complacency, and to embrace a new era of Talossan politics. We shall no longer accept compromise for incremental change or trudge through the muck of conservatism. Under my leadership, our goal will be nothing short of abolishing Talossa's outmoded monarchy in favor of a governance system where the people choose their leaders, their voices, and their representatives.

We are resolved to streamline our government, eliminating redundancy and inefficiency. Our small but vibrant community doesn't require the sprawling apparatus we've grown accustomed to. We pledge to reduce the size of all branches of government, making our system leaner, more accessible, and less prone to dysfunction.

On that particular point, we continue to learn valuable lessons in regards to the fragility of our nation's online infrastructure. We shall prioritize the long-term security of our nation's online assets, putting an end to the challenges we've faced. This commitment to safeguarding our digital infrastructure will be unwavering.

Our mission shall extend to a thorough review and trimming of our legislation, discarding the superfluous to create a more focused and efficient legal framework. We may establish a secondary tier of legislation to house the minutiae, allowing for a clearer and more concise legal system.

Our foremost objective is good governance, solid leadership, and the preservation of our nation's stability and longevity. But beyond that, we must ensure that Talossa is a vibrant and inviting place for all. We want our nation to be a nurturing environment that celebrates creativity and cultural contributions. Talossa should inspire and be inspired, and we're committed to breaking down barriers, eliminating stuffiness, and widening our doors for immigration. Our vision is clear: we aim to create a Talossa that is fun, friendly, and welcoming to all of our citizens.

I now ask my fellow Free Democrats to be prepared, as I am, right now, to campaign, to lead, to govern, to administer, to work, to love our nation, and put the people of Talossa at the heart of everything we do. Together, we shall forge a new path forward, guided by the spirit of unity, progress, and unwavering commitment.

Yours for Talossa,
Yours for a new Talossa,
And Yours for Seneschal of the 59th Cosa,

My name is Eðo Grischun, and I seek your vote for leadership of the Free Democrats.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'd like to thank Eðo for this dynamite contribution.

I'll make my own response within the next 24 hours, but I'd love to hear all other Free Democrats pile and have their say first.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

A lot of my speech to the previous convention seems worth repeating.

I'll get straight to the point; I think the party might be better off without me in it.

...

I cannot commit to any serious activity in Opposition. I cannot commit to helping to recruit or otherwise grow the party. I do not have new policy ideas, and I will oppose the major Organic reforms that most of this party seems to want.

...

If I stay in the party, I would advocate against major Organic reforms. Everyone else would probably acquiesce to prevent me from leaving, but that would just prevent the party from adopting a platform that could compete against the TNC. In return for giving that up, you will get very little by way of me being active in Opposition.

After this speech, the party stayed away from radical political positions, I remained in it, we didn't do well in the election, we didn't put up a very effective Opposition, and, as promised, I did pretty much nothing politically (except make speeches against some of the Seneschal's more ridiculous bills).

The question before us is whether we can really get energized on a platform of just "Defend the OrgLaw against the TNC" or if the party needs a completely new direction. As much as I would want the former to be true, I am honestly very doubtful.

(I am also a bit doubtful about S:reu Grischun's ability to stay energized and get everyone else energized on his platform, because I feel like I have seen the same song and dance from others before, but I don't mean to be a party pooper. Please prove me wrong).

If the FreeDems embrace Republicanism, I will leave. BUT, I will probably continue doing the same things I otherwise would be doing as a FreeDem member if the party didn't do that and I stayed in it. I'll still be in the Senate to cast my vote in favor of "defending the OrgLaw", and I could at least theoretically run for re-election next year.

This is not to say I really want to have to leave, because I wish more people were "good" Monarchists like I am and that "good Monarchism" was a more winning political idea. However, I have enough macro-national politics in my life now that I honestly don't care deeply about Talossan politics anymore. I care a lot more about the Talossan community, and I suspect that what would be best for the community is for me to get out of the party and stop being a stick in the mud.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

With the current state of the party, where our activity accords the board and exhaustion is low, which is something we have talked about a lot behind closed doors in previous conventions, my first question is this, how do you plan to breathe new life and energy into the party? Especially as this direction is likely to drive out some members from the party, and based on the resistance to simple change in the monarchy, or changing to a new monarch, how do you plan to bring the majority of Talossans with you in this prospective electoral plank?

Whilst I have many issues with the monarchy as I have openly stated in the past. Being so ideologically inclined, without having an actionable plan is something I am worried about. Especially as if we go hard republican, the party itself will be splitting votes from similarly inclined parties without offering much else of value in return.
So I would like to see how you think this would be actionable and timelines that you wish for these things to happen in?

A party does need a solid foundation to build strategy and drive membership with something that we all believe in, but in crafting a political platform for government, which is what the above for yourself is, being solely driven by ideology is not enough, you need a plan and a way forward that you need to convince the party of, and then the rest of Talossa to get on board with. And that requires being honest and realistic in our goals and what is actually possible. Whilst a Talossan republic is nice in theory, I, right now, can't see a way forward to that goal, even if we return to government. So a plan of how this will be possible in your opinion would be helpful to convince the membership to back your proposal and candidacy.

Whilst I admire and appreciate your ideals and agree that reforms are needed, I am not convinced that what is proposed here is best for the party. Not can I see a way forward for a lot of this, especially without negation or compromise. There are no easy solutions in the path forward, and I know that if plans are made things might happen that means change is needed, as at this point we definitely need change and a new direction in leadership and platform, but I am not convinced this is the right or even the most pragmatic path forward for the party, and will likely, in my view, cause more harm than good for the party long term, ideology alone a party does not make.

I am unsure on my own views about the party moving forward in general. And I am not saying I wouldn't support this in principle, if the party adopts this, and you as leader, but to gain my vote and to convince me this is the right approach, answers to the point is this post and other further discussion on such things will be needed to gain my vote to support this

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

My reaction to Eðo's contribution mirrors those of Senator Plätschisch and the Party Secretary. Here are what I think are the vital points:

1) The Free Democrats have never been a Republican party. We have been a party of coalition and compromise between Republicans and "good Monarchists", as Ián charmingly puts it. That's Article XIV of our Constitution. There would be therefore an argument to be made that Eðo's proposal would need a constitutional amendment and therefore a 2/3 vote in favour. (I would not push that argument because, given the dire state of the Party, maybe if there's a majority for Eðo's position we should just "let him cook".)

2) Our Party ran in the last election on a reasonably bold constitutional platform - demanding the abdication of King John - and we got, to put it colloquially, owned. Now I don't think that in retrospect it was a bad platform, but let us be honest - we ran on that simple platform because we had nothing left in the tank as a governing party, no platform for actually doing stuff as a government. In the years of Free Democrat success, that was what always differentiated us from our opponents. Eðo is standing on the good old FreeDem platform of "cutting green-and-red tape" in legislation, and he seems to have a Technology platform that centres on the main weak spot in the current TNC government's performance. Is that enough to set against TNC hyperactivity and fancy graphics?

3) There was already a Republican party on the ballot in the last election, and quite possibly in this one - the Partì dal Reformaziun. They haven't gotten great results. Why would we do better? Or, to put it another way - why not just seek to merge with the PdR?

4) A call for drastic monarchy reform will be, I feel, even less successful in this election, precisely because King John has lain low all term. He hasn't done anything at all - he hasn't interfered with the elected government or vetoed legislation, because, well, he doesn't have to when he's in cahoots with them. New citizens do not consider the Free Democrats relevant because they have no memory of why we think John is unfit to be head of state. They just see a barely-active old duffer who turns up to give speeches. That used to be the "Constitutional Monarchist" vision that Eðo himself promoted at the time of the Ranked Choice Referendum!

5) As much as it pains me to say it, I would like to "mick" this statement from Senator Plätschisch:

(I am also a bit doubtful about S:reu Grischun's ability to stay energized and get everyone else energized on his platform, because I feel like I have seen the same song and dance from others before, but I don't mean to be a party pooper. Please prove me wrong).

You know who else came into the party leadership with a hiss and a roar, only to burn out and go incommunicado? That's right, the incumbent President, Üc Tärfa. And dare I say it, for Eðo to come back from a whole Cosă term's absence to make a bid for party leadership 2 weeks before polling open does not invoke confidence in his possible "staying power".

===

Let me re-emphasise, I am really glad that Eðo has opened this debate, and I know he's acting out of love for the party and love for the nation.

As I think the other contributors to the debate have pointed out, we're in a position of desperation. We have, as I see it, three choices from this point:

1) support Eðo's Campaign for a New Republic.
2) support a narrow platform, as I have been suggesting for a while, of "Defend the OrgLaw from TNC power grabs". If we do this, and for want of better options, I would come back out of retirement (like the idiot I am) to serve as Party President one more time.
3) if we don't have confidence in any other options, don't run in the election at all. Or even dissolve the Party.

As many of you know, I've written up something of a "Manifesto" for option 2 which I'll repost in a different thread. Perhaps we need a "ranked choice" vote between these three options? Does that make sense?

[Eðo Grischun]

A lot of my speech to the previous convention seems worth repeating.

I'll get straight to the point; I think the party might be better off without me in it.

...

I cannot commit to any serious activity in Opposition. I cannot commit to helping to recruit or otherwise grow the party. I do not have new policy ideas, and I will oppose the major Organic reforms that most of this party seems to want.

...

If I stay in the party, I would advocate against major Organic reforms. Everyone else would probably acquiesce to prevent me from leaving, but that would just prevent the party from adopting a platform that could compete against the TNC. In return for giving that up, you will get very little by way of me being active in Opposition.

After this speech, the party stayed away from radical political positions, I remained in it, we didn't do well in the election, we didn't put up a very effective Opposition, and, as promised, I did pretty much nothing politically (except make speeches against some of the Seneschal's more ridiculous bills).

The question before us is whether we can really get energized on a platform of just "Defend the OrgLaw against the TNC" or if the party needs a completely new direction. As much as I would want the former to be true, I am honestly very doubtful.

(I am also a bit doubtful about S:reu Grischun's ability to stay energized and get everyone else energized on his platform, because I feel like I have seen the same song and dance from others before, but I don't mean to be a party pooper. Please prove me wrong).

If the FreeDems embrace Republicanism, I will leave. BUT, I will probably continue doing the same things I otherwise would be doing as a FreeDem member if the party didn't do that and I stayed in it. I'll still be in the Senate to cast my vote in favor of "defending the OrgLaw", and I could at least theoretically run for re-election next year.

This is not to say I really want to have to leave, because I wish more people were "good" Monarchists like I am and that "good Monarchism" was a more winning political idea. However, I have enough macro-national politics in my life now that I honestly don't care deeply about Talossan politics anymore. I care a lot more about the Talossan community, and I suspect that what would be best for the community is for me to get out of the party and stop being a stick in the mud.

I'll answer each post in order, but to all, I have to say, and thank each of you for it, that your responses are very, welcomingly, honest.

To Ian (and I suppose any other FreeDem member that is in some way supportive of the Monarchy) I will say this. It would be with regret that you would feel like you had to leave the party, however I do understand and appreciate why you would. Such an ideological shift as the one I am proposing, I admit, will alienate voters such as yourself. Don't get me wrong as I continue on here as this isn't meant to read like a "fine then, see ya, and don't let the door hit you on the way out" sort of thing. This all really isn't intended to come across like that at all. However, your post was extremely honest, so I'll be extremely honest in return...

My belief is that both Talossa and the FreeDems need revolution, reimagining and reinvention. Where does the nation go from here? Where does the party go from here? If we are of mind to simply remain in existence as a party for the sake of being goalkeepers to the Conservative policies we find ourselves to be disagreeable with, then I believe the party has no real future. We will continue to flounder and diminish. I believe we, as a nation, are heading towards another decade long rule of Conservative, old-boys-club style, rule very similar to the 10+ years of RUMP rule.

I believe, we, as a nation, are holding onto the Monarchy for the sake of holding onto the Monarchy. It seems to me to be an ingrained stubbornness on the part of the vocal Conservative factions and an misguided sense of safety with what we know of the politically apathetic majority.

But, is it fun? Is it even pragmatic? Is it what is best for the nation? As Miestra points out below, I was a defender of the Monarchy in the past, but I no longer believe that the Talossa is best being a Kingdom. It should be a Nation, led and governed by the Nation's people, with alternance factored into every facet of our governance and State.

I could go start a fresh party with this platform, or go join one of the other parties that might be easier convinced of my views. However, I choose the FreeDems as my preferred and first choice as the vehicle to drive the changes and reforms I believe in. I do so because I have faith and confidence in the skills of good governance of the people within the FreeDems (which does include you, Ian), but I do recognise that taking the path I propose is very likely to lead to us watching you walk away.  With the greatest, greatest of respect for you, it is a cost I am willing to pay for what I believe will be a greater return for the nation as a whole.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Can I ask @the Convention chair whether he accepts the proposal to end the convention with a straight vote between the two Platforms that have been raised? Or a ranked choice vote, with "sitting out the election" being the third option?

I should also note that I've told my good friend Eðo that I would be happy to be Party Secretary if the Republican platform wins; while I am skeptical of the strategy's success I would be willing to give it the best shot.

[GV]

If the Free Democrats adopt a radical-republican platform, I will leave the party, though with the caveat I will continue to hold the party line on Senatorial votes. 

Naturally, that would be my absolutely last resort.  The happy accident or circumstances which landed me in the Senäts has given the party a reliable legislator for a good long time. 

The root of modern Talossan politics is Ben Madison's demonizing of us in the first days of the 2004-2012 Republic.  Too many people fell for his line, and our mistakes with how we handled Wittenberg and talossa.com gave him a convenient shield with which he was able to blow smoke and mirrors, obscuring the fact the whole thing came from his falsely accusing (publicly on Wittenberg X) another Talossan of domestic violence in order to turn the country against said person and drive him out of Talossa.

In late 2005, John Woolley was the absolute "king" of Talossan society.  He is rightly regarded as a true giant of Talossan history, and I applaud his speaking truth to power during that year, exposing Ben's vindictiveness for all to see.

He had the unique power of pulling the plug on Ben Madison's demonization of the Republic.  Of course, he could never acknowledge the Republic's existence outright in a positive way.  It offended his sense of "law and order", and I can see where he is coming from.

His great failing in Talossan leadership was to not go through the back-channels fully open to him and reach out to the much aggrieved Kane Gruber and Miestrâ Schiva.

John need not have ever posted to our public Wittenberg to get this done and bring us home years before we finally did.  An email or two would have done the trick, and had John done such a thing, I think Kane just might have been receptive.  Or not.

But to my knowledge, John Woolley never did such a thing.  He never reached out to us "down south".  And he would have much-preferred we just gone away altogether, I think.  We were a threat to the way he wanted to do Talossa.

And in his defence, he had a point: once Ben was gone, the Republic no longer had any reason to exist.

I think a heart-to-heart conversation between him and Kane and/or Miestrâ would go a long way in alleviating the societal schism inherent in Talossan politics. 

John can still do this.

As for me and Edo's remarks, it is no secret all during the Republic and even today, I am the most monarchist-sympathizing member of the current Talossan Opposition.  I was so monarchist-leaning, I nearly personally (as well as politically) permanently alienated myself from literally everyone else in the Republic of Talossa.  (my old Blue Wave Party)

I have even wondered as to whether I should remain a Free Democrat and just go independent.  I've no desire to join the RUMP or its descendant parties, but I am seeing a slow tsunami of a new societal category in Talossa: those who know nothing about the Kingdom-vs.-Republic schism and really don't care as they came long after that time.

Eventually, there will be no-one in Talossa who knew Ben Madison.  And with him having been out of Talossa eighteen years, we have citizens who weren't even born when all that went down.

There is no longer anyone left in Talossa who knew Ben in Milwaukee.  I don't know if John Eiffler was still a citizen at the time of his January 2021 death, but his death took a bunch of Talossan lore from us.  I wonder just how many of the Old Growthers are still with us.

We are coming to the Great Change in Talossa where present society is wholly separated from the society of the Old Growthers and Cybercits that met its true end in Ben's vendetta against Kane Gruber, which came down to nothing more than a clash of personalities, both of which were forces of nature no-one could stop.

I remain a Free Democrat because it has policy-wishes I mostly agree with (or entirely, perhaps).  I also remain a FreeDem because it stands as the clearest opposition to the seemingly-default Talossan voting choice of RUMP-TNC-Davinescu.  One-party state in any country is dangerous, and it could be at least nebulously argued the one-party RUMP-Talossa was leading the Kingdom toward extinction-by-stagnation.  (The Republic died because it lost its reason to exist.)

I still like this party, and I still like my part in it.  I intend to stand for Senäts once again next term, but I do see Edo's point in that an umbrella-party can be so nebulous it loses its way with itself and not just with voters.

A FreeDem party with a radical republicanist platform is small, but it is absolutely clear.  But until I establish my tradition of being politically and societally truly active, dependable, and reliable, my part in the party will never be a true asset besides a near-perfect voting record in the Senäts, even if I have to be reminded half the time to vote, though I think I'm usually good at remembering.

Whether I will ever make a return to full Talossan activity is highly doubtful.  Much of my spirit has moved on from Talossan politics, but I know my leaving the FreeDems would not be good for Talossa.  I still love this place, and I want it to survive for centuries and beyond.

I agree with the three-fold ranked-choice vote as unofficially proposed above.  I have no idea as to how I will vote. 

Üc, I hope you are well.  Nothing short of bad circumstance would have made you disappear as you currently have as of 3 September 2023.  - GV

[King Txec]

Can I ask @the Convention chair whether he accepts the proposal to end the convention with a straight vote between the two Platforms that have been raised? Or a ranked choice vote, with "sitting out the election" being the third option?

I should also note that I've told my good friend Eðo that I would be happy to be Party Secretary if the Republican platform wins; while I am skeptical of the strategy's success I would be willing to give it the best shot.

Yes. What timeline should we use? We should do ranked choice of the three options.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Can I ask @the Convention chair whether he accepts the proposal to end the convention with a straight vote between the two Platforms that have been raised? Or a ranked choice vote, with "sitting out the election" being the third option?

Yes. What timeline should we use? We should do ranked choice of the three options.

Party Constitution Article V requires 3 days for a vote at the convention. This Convention was scheduled for Sept 1 - 8, so should the vote run for September 6-8 TST? Or September 5-7? Your call as to how much time is sufficient for everyone to get a chance to speak

[King Txec]

Can I ask @the Convention chair whether he accepts the proposal to end the convention with a straight vote between the two Platforms that have been raised? Or a ranked choice vote, with "sitting out the election" being the third option?

Yes. What timeline should we use? We should do ranked choice of the three options.

Party Constitution Article V requires 3 days for a vote at the convention. This Convention was scheduled for Sept 1 - 8, so should the vote run for September 6-8 TST? Or September 5-7? Your call as to how much time is sufficient for everyone to get a chance to speak

In accordance with our constitution, ranked choice voting will commence September 6-8.

Option 1: Eðo Grischun's proposed platform. Eðo as party president and Miestrâ as party Secretary.

Option 2: Miestrâ's proposed platform. Miestrâ as party president and Antaghla as party Secretary.

Option 3: no platform and no active participation in the upcoming election.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Are we going to also have a vote on whether to endorse Glüc da Dhi as Senator from Cézembre? Or will that be left up to the incoming party leadership?

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Are we going to also have a vote on whether to endorse Glüc da Dhi as Senator from Cézembre? Or will that be left up to the incoming party leadership?

I think this should be a party vote, if it was simply us choosing an internal candidate, then I'd say incoming leaders can handle that, but supporting an outside candidate I think should have a vote of the whole party.