Leader Statement on Current Status and Ongoing Vote

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

After emerging from the last campaign with a rousing victory, the Progressive Alliance was faced with tough choices.  We fell short of a majority, commanding 87 seats in the Cosa.  If we wanted to form a Government and start to bring change to Talossa, we'd need support from another party.  There were three other parties with sufficient seats to make that happen: the Greens, the very new IDT, and the incumbent URL.

The Green Party wasn't seriously considered.  S:reu Tzaracomprada is one of the few people in our history to be condemned by the Ziu for his past behavior.  To this day, he maintains that he didn't do anything wrong when he sexually harassed another citizen.  And since the most important thing is that our citizens feel safe, it would be irresponsible to put him in any position of authority.  He's the only active member of the Greens; it would be impossible for him to hand off leadership to someone else.

Initially, we forged an agreement with the IDT.  While the only IDT legislator, S:reu Malt, had very different views from own, we firmly believe that even people with very different views can find some common ground.  For us, it was his enthusiasm for our language.  Accordingly, our agreement confined him to working exclusively on language issues unless otherwise authorized.

Unfortunately, this agreement was reached before he began expressing the full range of his ideas and acting in an erratic manner.  Specifically, he expressed sympathy for a known neo-Nazi and doubled-down on his support for autocratic policies.  This is not acceptable.  We spoke with S:reu Molt and made it clear that his behavior had made it impossible for us to entrust him with a position of authority or power over others.  Again, the most important thing is that our citizens feel safe.  There will be no coalition with the IDT.

S:reu Malt has since apologized for some of his statements, however, so there is some possibility of accepting his participation in a supply and confidence agreement.  Any such agreement would not permit him to be in a position of authority, but would accept his support in the Cosa under the express understanding that this support would not come with any policy or legislative expectations. 

Our last option was the URL.  Their initial request for a possible coalition entailed a very deep collaboration, ceding them five of the eleven Cabinet offices among other requests.  There was no appetite for working with the URL to this extent after the recent campaign.

The Progressive Alliance works hard to be positive, but that often put us in a position of simply absorbing insults and falsehood from the URL leadership.  We deliberately chose not to "hit back," since it was our view that nasty scuffles were bad for the country and not what our base wanted from us.  We tried to push back, but always tried to be constructive at the same time as we discussed our policy plans or larger goals.

At times, this was a challenge.

• The URL repeatedly and knowingly lied about our flagship Public Process Act, saying that it would allow their leaders to be prosecuted for innocent mistakes.  Even though it's impossible for a law to criminalize past behavior, thanks to the protections of the Organic Law, the URL attempted to deceive voters that we had promised to "weaponize the justice system to punish political opponents."  There's no other way to see it: this was a knowing falsehood, cynically stated for political gain.
• One of the URL leaders, our current Seneschal, took a phrase out of context from a private conversation in order to lie about its meaning.  She was messaging with a past ally to scold him for his decision to support the Progressive Alliance, and she demanded that he denounce me publicly.  He said in dismissal of such a demand, "we're trying to win an election here."  Since then, this phrase has been touted as evidence of wrongdoing, rather than a phrase torn from conversation and re-interpreted.  He didn't mean that, and she knew he didn't mean that.  This was shabby behavior.
• The URL also spent a considerable amount of time attacking the Progressive Alliance as an organization, saying we weren't a "real party," that we wanted to "backslide into Madisonianism" and "yearn for those days" and think that "democracy doesn't matter," in addition to direct personal attacks on individual Progressive Alliance members.

We don't begrudge the URL their particular brand of aggression, but it was a rough thing to endure.  We didn't respond in kind, though, and we made sure to acknowledge the URL as valid choices with passionate and decent Talossans in their leadership.  We still believe that's true.  Still, it's hard to work with anyone when you know that private conversations are impossible, when they've spent months aggressively attacking you in personal terms, and when you wonder at times about their good faith.  Nonetheless, we were open about the possibility of turning the corner, and so we are still open to a confidence and supply agreement (a more typical one in this case).

At this time, we are still voting on how to proceed, deciding whether to seek a no-strings no-influence confidence and supply agreement with the IDT, or seek a confidence and supply agreement with the URL.  The vote will conclude within the week, and then we will move forward.

Whatever happens, we will continue to try our best to live up to our ideals and help make Talossa a better place, and that will always be true.

-Baron Alexandreu Davinescu, Progressive Alliance Leader.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Tough spot you're in. I send wishes for a wise decision by the PA, we might be headed for another election pretty soon.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

At the time of my statement above, a majority of the Progressive membership had already voted unanimously not to pursue negotiations with the URL.  I have already addressed some of the concerns: many members felt like it would be hard to work with individuals who were directly insulting us and some of our members, and who had no qualms about lying.  It seemed as though clearing the air about such matters might open up more possibilities -- perhaps with the end of the election, there might be space for self-reflection.  Maybe if we were open about our concerns, in a way we'd avoided during the campaign, things might shift enough that our members would have two valid choices.

Unfortunately, during this period, the URL leader told us we were just a "political clique" and a group of "clowns," among various other insults.  She even reposted at length a restatement of something she said had "personally offended" me.  Why, she wondered, didn't we just "riposte in kind?"  Where were our mocking memes and angry denunciations?

At this point, it should be crystal clear that we don't do that kind of politics.  We don't make personal attacks on other parties as a whole, don't apply denigrating names or mocking labels, and don't allege broader allegations against the legitimacy of other parties.  Our criticisms are specific and backed by evidence, not just cruel rhetoric.  That kind of negative campaigning might be effective in some quarters, but it makes Talossa less fun and drives people away.  We think it's better for everyone if we continue to focus on reform and good governance, and stay out of the mud.

With the vote concluded, it will surprise no one that Progressives chose to engage in a confidence-and-supply agreement with the IDT.  We are also in the final stages of formalizing an similar agreement with the Independent Greens, although no vote has yet been taken on that.

Our letter of majority is nearly ready, and we expect to be in a position to form a Government within a couple of days.

--Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

At the time of my statement above, a majority of the Progressive membership had already voted unanimously not to pursue negotiations with the URL.

The outcome of the vote was not a foregone conclusion,

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

People were permitted to change their votes the way it was set up. So while things were obviously trending one way, there was ample opportunity for people to demonstrate grace and change minds.

That did not happen.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Help me out here, guys: what's the abusive husband tactic where he yells at you that you've got to change your ways, but doesn't tell you *what* he wants you to do, because you should be able to guess?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

You're comparing me to a domestic abuser?

Listen, I think it's entirely possible for most people to engage in contentious, even heated, political discussion without calling people names like "clown" or making such incredibly insulting comparisons.  I don't think that it does anyone any favors to engage like this.

As a survivor, I also don't appreciate this flippant reference.  Shame on you.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

This has been one of the ugliest government formation periods I can recall. I am relieved we can finally move forward and see the URL conduct a vigorous opposition. Their shadow cabinet has been announced.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'm trying to find a citation, but I think the technical term is the game of "wrong-rock".

"You've got to do something to fix this. No, not that, try again. No, not that, try again." (etc etc)

Unfortunately, as a survivor of abuse myself, I am familiar with the pattern of thought whereby "since I am the victim, nothing I can do can ever hurt other people. If they claim to be hurt, they're just abusing me more." There has never been acknowledgement, accordingly, that the URL feels lied about and abused. The URL for our part have always been aware that it takes two to tango.