Working proposal for a new movement: the Justice Party

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009 · 138 Comments »
Lady Justice, depicted as she was originally, with eyes open to see

Lady Justice, depicted as she was originally, with eyes open to see

For past few weeks, we’ve been talking about the need for a new feminist-progressive movement or party in this country. The Democrats, as is all too clear, are merely Republicans under a different name. From the Stupak Amendment to the Af-Pak surge, from the Wall Street bailout to the healthcare debacle, we might as well be in Bush’s third term. Many of us have spent our lives voting for Democrats and sending them money and even volunteering on their campaigns, and for what? For this?

After several online working sessions to explore what a new movement or party might look like (starting here, and continued with posts tagged ‘diocletion‘), I’d like to share a proposal that I think distills the best of what we’ve discussed. This would be a feminist-progressive-populist party — though we wouldn’t call it that. This is what I think we should call it:

The Justice Party.

I’m thinking of an inside-outside party, as I explained here:

Another possibility, and one I’m proposing for consideration here, is a new third party designed to co-opt the Democratic Party from within. Since the two-party system has an entrenched death grip on our government, attacking it purely from the outside is a Sisyphean task. Why not tackle it from the outside and the inside? Create a third party that has an external independent existence and a matching bloc within the Democratic caucus. In the past, strong blocs have been able to function almost as rogue parties: the Copperheads, the Radical Republicans. The Copperheads (a notorious example, I realize) even had associated societies and booster clubs in the states.

For example, let’s say we created a third party called the Ponies (not really, but just as an example). We would also work on developing a Pony bloc within the Democratic Party, comprised of politicians who espouse the Pony message and vote Pony on every issue. Kind of an insider mole version of the formal Pony party. Meanwhile, the Pony party proper could work on ballot access, electoral fusion, etc.; nominate its own candidates where possible; and endorse Pony Democrats when appropriate. We would also need to develop a media presence, or at least a blogular presence, firmly identified as Pony.

Now just substitute “Justice” for “Pony,” and go from there. I’ll sketch out some basic themes and ideas for what the Justice Party/Justice Democrats might look like, but I’m going to try to keep it brief so the post won’t get too massive.

Bear in mind that this is still working-session brainstorming type stuff.

Why the “Justice Party”
  1. The name is simple and resonates with traditional American values: Justice for All.
  2. “Justice” expresses the concept of fairness that is at the heart of what we want and believe in: gender equality, economic fairness, social and global justice, etc.
  3. There isn’t already a Justice Party in this country, as far as I can tell, nor has there ever been one.
  4. The image of Lady Justice encodes female power as part of the core symbolism of the project. (Yes, that matters.)

Note that Lady Justice in her original guise has her eyes open to see and judge with intelligence, fairness, and compassion. In terms of political iconograpy, I think she could be a potent figure. Anyone who lived through the 2008 election — or who has a passing acquaintance with the great political movements of the 20th century — knows the importance of cultural memes and artistic expression. (For example, what if Lady Justice were re-imagined as an African-American woman? A Hispanic woman? What if different cultural communities created their own versions of Lady Justice? What symbols would she hold?)

EDITED TO ADD: In the comments, naturally the question of the name “Justice Party” came up right away. So I’ll repeat what I said there: I actually love “justice” as a unifying concept. I love it as a basis to build a platform. And I love Lady Justice as a symbol: she’s a she, but she’s also American and traditional. But I can see how “Justice Party” as a name could sound a little scary.

Well, we’ll see how it goes. Names are hard. I want to avoid a name that could be turned around or goofed on, and anything that sounds Communist, and anything the right has already co-opted (liberty, for example)…

Key Values

These are the six key Justice values that I see as comprising the heart and soul of a new movement. This isn’t a platform, but rather a set of precepts. After each value I’ve given some examples and specifics to explain what I mean. (ETA: see also my expository comment here.)

I think the first two are the most critical and timely, and probably the ones we should stress. But they’re all important.

  1. Economic Justice. Healthcare reform. Jobs creation. Wall Street clean-up. A tax system that helps the middle-class and working folks, instead of making the rich richer. Freedom from poverty. FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” (modernized and inclusive-ized).
  2. Gender Justice. ERA. Equal pay, equal opportunity, equal representation. Autonomy and choice. Ending violence against women and sexual exploitation. Eliminating gender bias. Creating a culture that respects and values women as persons. How about a “Second Bill of Rights” for women?
  3. Global Justice. An end to wars of conquest and empire. An end to oil wars and corruption. An end to exploitation of poor countries by rich.
  4. Social Justice. Equal rights and opportunities for all people. The freedom to live, love, and marry as you choose. Continuing the fight against racism and bigotry. Diversity and tolerance.
  5. Environmental Justice. A clean, healthy world for everyone. Green technology and solutions.
  6. Democratic Justice. Cleaning up government. Campaign finance reform. Fair elections. Grassroots democracy. Ballot access and fusion.

Each of these key values could and would be developed into a platform of specific goals and programs. For example, both Adrienne and Kali posted thoughtful comments (to this thread) that really amount to draft platforms for the gender justice category.

It’s possible to make interesting acronyms with these values, by the way. Notice that the first four spell EGGS. Heh.

Immediate demands/rallying cries

General values are good, but they aren’t usually enough to galvanize the electorate. People vote for specifics, like “repeal Prohibition” or “get out of Vietnam.” We’ll need to focus on a few key issues with immediate relevance. Here are some possibilities, depending on what happens in the coming months:

  1. Medicare for All: Yeah, I know.
  2. Medicare for Kids: If we can’t do Medicare for All, how about Medicare for everyone under 18? The Medicare risk pool would instantly be expanded to include lots of very healthy people. And it would be a great boon for parents, since they wouldn’t have to pay much for their kids’ health insurance (just minimal Medicare rates).
  3. Repeal Stupak-Nelson: At a minimum, we’ll need to remove whatever godawful monstrosity is going to get passed by Congress.
  4. Get out of Af-Pak. Get out of Iraq. Bring our people and our money home. No more blood and treasure for endless wars with no victory or end in sight. Besides, we need that money HERE.
  5. A new WPA or other federal job creation program. Instead of sending billions to the Middle East, how about we spend some of that money right here? Create jobs, pump up the economy, maybe actually fix some stuff while we’re at it.
  6. A bailout for the rest of us: I don’t have a specific plan yet, but I’m sure that when the vampire squids get their year-end bonuses here in a couple of days, something will come to me.

Other ideas?

Working strategy to develop the Justice Party

Very briefly, since I don’t want to overstuff this post:

  1. Form a working group of key activists, bloggers, thinkers.
  2. Create a list-serve or forum (or both) for planning.
  3. Refine and hone our message.
  4. Develop rules, procedures, and policies to safeguard our core values (read: women’s rights).
  5. Cultivate contacts in politics and government (see also political strategy below).
  6. Develop a public website for The Justice Party to promulgate our platform and ideas.
  7. Recruit bloggers, contribute op-eds, cultivate media outlets, plan events, create videos, etc. — in other words, develop a media strategy.
Political strategy

Extremely brief; there are worlds contained in each of these:

  1. Convert: Identify sympathetic Democrats ripe for conversion to “Justice Democrats.”
  2. Challenge: Identify Democrats, like Blue Dogs and Stupak supporters, to be primaried and pulverized.
  3. Demand: No Justice, No Votes!
  4. Appoint: Work to get Justice Democrats appointed (what I call “fusion or coalition by appointment.”)
  5. Build: Build an external Justice Party with local cells; start Justice clubs or organizations with local chapters.
  6. Elect: Run our own Justice Party candidates, work for ballot access and fusion in all states.

Okay, throwing the floor open for discussion.

138 Responses to “Working proposal for a new movement: the Justice Party”

  1. willyjsimmons says:

    Immediate demands/rallying cries

    7. End the War on Drugs: reworking of the Controlled Substances Act, removal of cannabis from Schedule I.

    8. End the Military-Prison-Industrial Complex: repeal Mandatory Minimums and restore judicial discretion, dissolution of CENTCOM and AFRICOM (could replace point 4)

  2. Violet says:

    Oh yeah! I agree on ending the war on drugs. Actually, if it were up to me I’d legalize most drugs.

  3. Fliedermaus says:

    I like the idea of a Justice Party but I suspect the name hasn’t been used before because what would its members call themselves — justices? Other parties’ members have readily identifiable labels: you’re a Democrat or a Republican, a Green or an independent, etc. “I’m a justice” sounds like you’re an appellate court judge. My suggestion is that members of the Justice Party refer to themselves as Justicians.

  4. riverdaughter says:

    Violet, Great Job! You and I are definitely on the same plane. Not sure about the name but OK, it’s still early.
    I have a proposal for getting the Dems attention right away. We should start an escrow account. Any time a Dem organization contacts you for a contribution, you calmly explain why you are not supporting them anymore and then add your contribution to the escrow account. Next step, create a widget for the lefty blogs to add to their frontpages that shows how the escrow account is growing. Next, at some point in time next year, use those funds to support primary challengers of our choice and to reward good Dems.
    Also, you will want to register this new org as some kind of entity. And you will need a finance officer/committee to deal with funds and possible tax liability. I recommend that one of your first orders of business is to get a lawyer.
    If one steps up to the plate to do this pro bono, all the better for us. Otherwise. ask for donations. It’s really crucial to set it up right from the very beginning.
    One more suggestion: Copy the Christian Coalition model shamelessly. They have been phenomenally effective.

  5. Violet says:

    Not sure about the name but OK, it’s still early.

    Heh. Yeah. I actually love “justice” as a unifying concept. I love it as a basis to build a platform. And I love Lady Justice as a symbol: she’s a she, but she’s also American and traditional.

    But I can see how “Justice Party” as a name could sound a little scary. Well, we’ll see how it goes. Names are hard.

    I want to avoid a name that could be turned around or goofed on, and anything that sounds Communist, and anything the right has already co-opted (liberty, for example)…

  6. Adrienne in CA says:

    Beautifully conceived and synthesized, Violet! I LOVE it.


  7. Riverdaughter says:

    I recommend The Third Party for a variety of reasons. Very not scary. When I am not tyiping on a fricking iPhone, I’ll tell you why.

  8. Adrienne in CA says:

    Hey, if Justice sounds scary, I love that too. The unjust should be scared.

    Better grab domains. I see is already taken.


  9. SweetSue says:

    I love the ideas and the name.
    However if the name is a little scary to some, I have a suggestion.
    There is a little town in Ohio named Justus. Maybe we could call ourselves the Justus party; how folksy and cuddly can you get?

  10. janicen says:

    Well done, Violet. I also love the idea of lady justice with her eyes open.

  11. Nymeria says:

    @SweetSue I could see it going into “THE JUST US” party very quickly. The attack ads, I imagine them!

    Granted they could probably do that for “Justice Party” in general.

    ..Names are hard.

  12. Michele Braa-Heidner says:

    Wow, Violet–this is fantastic!! I really love the name you came up with “Justice Party.” I don’t know if it is because I am a woman living in an unfair male based society, but I have always had this obsessive need for fairness. I wonder if this is the case for other women across our country and if yes, the name alone may appeal to them on a deep level.

    Have you thought about how the Justice Party would be structured within the actual party? I really like the “Cooperation Model” instead of the typical male system of hierarchy, competition & dominance.

    The closest model I have found to the “Cooperation Model” is the “Participatory Democracy model” used in the Green Party in Canada.

    Because I dislike our money based political system, where the candidate who has the most money wins the election, the principle I like the most out of the six they list is:

    “That all electoral systems are based on proportional representation, and all elections are publicly funded with strict limits on, and full transparency of, corporate and private donations. that all citizens have the right to be a member of the political party of their choice within a multi-party system”

    It also looks like the people in Canada are trying to create a separate party called: “Participatory Democracy Party of Canada.”

    Their constitution’s first Definition states:

    Definition 1.1 : Community and Kinship Equality and Justice – A societal situation where societal structures do not contribute to the formation of racial, ethnic, religious, sexual preference or gender prejudice, and where societal structures exist to work against this prejudice and discrimination.

    Even though I am not Canadian, I find these two parties useful for reference.

  13. Sandra S. says:

    I like the name. I could see it as a little scary, but maybe you could soften it to something like the Civil Justice Party (or something less lame).

    I’d like to see a stated commitment to freedom of speech and civil liberties. I think that would make our attempts to alter cultural perceptions of women less threatening. Maybe under Democratic Justice? Under Global Justice we could talk about support for peacekeeping missions, maybe?

    And I know this is a LOOOOONG way out (like AFTER we resolve the current economic crisis), but I’d like to see an effort to renew respect and funding for scientific research. We can promote women in science as a big part of this, and it has the potential to really stimulate the economy.

  14. Violet says:

    I thought about Fairness Party, since that’s the same concept but a friendlier name. But you can imagine how long it would take before we would be called the Fairies…

  15. Nina M. says:

    I don’t mean to be a stick in the mud, but I’m less enthusiastic than others about a party based on a broad range of issue positions.

    I think first and foremost, what’s needed is a “vision” of sorts, a way of approaching life and policy issues that is based on a set of values. One needs to be able to formulate that, and visualize and communicate that, or there’s no core to the endeavor.

    Personally, I want our country to be moving towards (and thus I’d support a party that advocated) a thoughtful, evidence-based, secular approach to law-making.

    I want a government whose primary role is to ensure a basic standard of living for everyone present in this country and serving it overseas. A basic standard of living includes shelter, nutrition, education, health care, personal security, and individual autonomy.

    I want a government that puts the public interest – the common good – first. The common good is judged on the principles of equality, personal autonomy, freedom, and protection of shared resources.

    Positions on particular issues can flow from that – expand Medicaid, or develop a different program, for example, or different approaches to economic policy. I think wedding yourself to specific positions is a mistake, as exemplified by the health care reform debacle. One may start off as “pro-health care reform.” If I now oppose the post-Stupak health care reform package, does that make me “anti-health care reform”? Rhetorically, it kind of does, or at least muddies the waters.

    If instead I want a legislative package that will deliver a health services system that will (a) help insure a basic standard of living and (b) is best for the public interest / common good, then I can evaluate different plans from a consistent perspective. And I can demand that lawmakers do the same. Obviously Stupak fails on many points – it is detrimental to a basic standard of living because it would impede the delivery of a health service, and it violates the principles of equality and personal autonomy. Further, it would do so without any secular, evidence-based justification. End of story.

    We (here) all know that gender equality is a great social evil. But why should our government care? Well, if our government was rational, committed to ensuring a basic standard of living, and acted in the public interest by protecting and promoting equality, personal autonomy, and freedom, the reasons would be obvious.

    Especially after this fractious election, when some of us learned rather abruptly that just because someone is a member of your political party doesn’t mean he shares your political values or even respects you as a human being, I think the “why’s” are more important than the “what’s.”

    If I’m asked to identify with a political party, I want to know who the party “is.” I want to know its identity, its character. I want to know if it is like me, and I want to know if its members and leaders are like me. Supporting the same legislative initiative, or supporting the same candidate, just isn’t enough.

  16. riverdaughter says:

    Violet, put Nina M on your policy or messaging committee. I like the way she thinks.

  17. Violet says:

    Nina’s the best.


    I think first and foremost, what’s needed is a “vision” of sorts, a way of approaching life and policy issues that is based on a set of values. One needs to be able to formulate that, and visualize and communicate that, or there’s no core to the endeavor.

    For me, “justice” is that vision. That’s the core. All six of those key values I listed actually tie back to justice philosophies that have been developed — social justice, gender justice, environmental justice, etc. — that are founded on ideas of fairness, equal rights, and the common good. As I’m sure you know.

    I think that’s probably true for most of us who are feminists and/or progressives or activists. Our moral sense is grounded in a desire for fairness, and in the knowledge that the world is unfair.

    In the post, I attached some specific policies to each of those values to illustrate how they might be manifested in political action. Which is kind of a shortcut for the serious work that needs to be done in terms of philosophy and platform development. (But from a political standpoint, we will actually need specific positions/programs to advocate!)

  18. Shannon Drury says:

    Yes, draft Nina. She should be the first candidate from the Justice Party, I think. I’ve reposted this to my Facebook page, because all my friends and I seem to talk about lately is how furious we are with the Dems. There’s a radical feminist activist from Minneapolis who’s just been elected to national leadership in the Green Party, which is also very appealing. In any case, I agree that Blue Dogs and Stupak Dems need to be pilloried. Like, now.

  19. scott says:

    Sign me up. And I agree that justice for all IS about the common good, equality, and the public interest.

  20. madamab says:

    I love everything about this. Count me in for the creative stuff.

    People who don’t party-identify that strongly call themselves “liberals” or “conservatives.” We could call ourselves “Justicians.” Hey, it’s not a lefty thing if it’s not kinda fun. And it’s no sillier than “Tory” or “Whig.”


  21. Sandra S. says:

    In Canada we have the Tories and the Grits, which is ridiculous.

  22. Violet says:

    I’d like to see a stated commitment to freedom of speech and civil liberties. I think that would make our attempts to alter cultural perceptions of women less threatening. Maybe under Democratic Justice?

    Or maybe under Social Justice. Civil and political liberties are often included there as part of every citizen’s rights. For example, see John Rawls:

    I agree it’s important to enunciate those basic Bill of Rights ideas.

  23. lambert strether says:

    Quickly agreeing with willy k simmons [waves] #! on ending Penal Keynsianism.

  24. Violet says:

    Shannon, thank you! That’s fantastic.

    Yes, everyone please share this as you like.

    “Justicians” is weird, I agree. Hmm. Shit, if it were up to me I would call us the Whigs. Bring back the Whigs!

  25. salmonrising says:

    The name Justice Party really resonates with me…intuitively simple for folks to grasp. As far as what to call members, well, for starters, I think Citizen, a quaint term perhaps, would suit. But if that strikes some as too ‘revolutionary’ then mebbe something like “AJs”…Americans for Justice would work. (It’s such a trivial issue, but someone upthread raised it and my pea brain started obsessing about it.) I think the 6 key values are excellent. The organizational advice from RD is also good.

    First post here. I’ve started checking your blog lately…thanks for what you do.

  26. Sandra S. says:

    To make it all about me for a moment:

    I recently wrote (as part of a larger blog post) “Justice demands Equality, and I demand Justice”

    I just like how much this corresponds to what you’re putting out there.

  27. lambert strether says:

    Method is just as important as vision. So, I want to call out a separate section of what Nina #15 wrote:

    Personally, I want our country to be moving towards (and thus I’d support a party that advocated) a thoughtful, evidence-based, secular approach to law-making.

    First, we can guess that such an approach could lead to electoral success, especially with the 40% of Democrats who are unlikely to vote or who have “firmly removed themselves” from the voting pool. Why? Because I’m betting there’s a large overlap between that 40% and that part of the Democratic Party that was thrown under the bus in 2008, and an “evidence-based” approach sounds a lot like the technique the popular vote winner used in small town halls (as opposed to the rhetorical techniques more appropriate to stadiums).

    Second, it’s important to be evidence-based because it’s extremely expensive to maintain a structure of bullsh*t and lies, like Versailles does. Even if it weren’t wrong, we still couldn’t afford it. Even if making sh*t up wins in the short term.

  28. lambert strether says:

    I think that if “Justice Party” is frightening, then that’s probably a good thing. There are people who ought to be frightened.

    * * *

    (I was toying with “The New Justice Party,” sort of resonating with the New Deal and also the rhythm of the name sounds better to me. Just a random thought.)

    * * *

    More planks, though these might be fit under existing headings:

    #7 Elimination of corporate personhood.

    #8 Create a system of banks for households that works like regulated public utilities

    #9 Define the Fourth Amendment’s “papers and effects” to include personal, digital data

    #10 Incentivize slow food.

    * * *

    I like RD’s escrow account concept. That makes a lot of sense.

  29. RalphB says:

    Excellent all the way around. Justice. New Justice great names, super logo in Lady Justice with her eyes open, and a fine start on principles.

    I really like this one which would change this country immensely for the good.

    #7 Elimination of corporate personhood.

  30. Michele Braa-Heidner says:

    Just dome ideas to throw out there for names. The origins of “Lady Justice” comes from the following Goddesses:

    Egyptian Goddess “MA’AT”

    Greek Goddess “Themis”

    Roman Goddess “Justitia”

  31. Michele Braa-Heidner says:

    oops, I meant “some” not “dome”.

  32. Adrienne in CA says:

    “Justicians” is weird, I agree.

    What if we just call ourselves The Just.

    I am just.
    You are just.
    We are just.

    “We, the just, call for…”

    You’re either just or you’re unjust.


  33. jumpjet says:

    I like ‘Justies.’ It sounds old-school.

    Definitely count me in.

  34. Adrienne in CA says:

    Definitions bode well

    1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
    2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
    3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
    4. in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.
    5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.
    6. in accordance with standards or requirements; proper or right: just proportions.
    7. (esp. in Biblical use) righteous. [How can the Bible Belt argue with that?]
    8. actual, real, or genuine.


  35. Adrienne in CA says:

    An after our meetings we can eat our Just Desserts!


  36. Cyn says:

    I love your points. I hate the name. I’m not looking at this from a marketing point of view, but from a legal professional’s point of view.

    Justice is for everyone but not everyone gets justice (and that’s another post).

    I don’t have any other name to offer, but I don’t think Justice does our cause any justice. We are hard working, deserving, smart women who are being held back. Somehow, to me, justice comes across as “you men wouldn’t see us a equals, so now we want justice”. Now that I think of it, maybe the Equality party says it better. It includes all of us – women, gays, minorities and every other segment of society that has been oppressed and ignored since time. And, isn’t equality what we are working for? I’m not looking to punish anyone, I just want the equal footing we all deserve.

  37. lambert strether says:

    I propose that party members call themselves JPs.

    * * *

    Short, sweet, and resonates with “Justice of the Peace.”

  38. Sandra S. says:

    I don’t know. I kind of think that the idea of Justice being fundamentally punitive is a horrible thing. Maybe it would be Good to remind people that it’s about fairness and equality rather than waiting until someone does something wrong and then punishing them for it.

  39. Toonces says:

    I thought of The Rest of Us (TRU) party but that sounds commie-ish. The problem with Justie is lusty and busty. I like The New Justice party because people are looking for something new. I also like The Third Party because it’s pre-branded — every time someone talks about a third party they mention The Third Party inadvertently.

  40. Toonces says:

    I also had the thought that if it ends up going the economic populism route, there could be a Conservative Women’s Party as a counterpart and the two could openly work together on the stuff they agree on.

    I also think a focus on women in business would be good to add, either in the Gender Justice or Economic Justice section (or both). Women are 70% of those in poverty and they’re mostly left out of the Master of The Universe discussions (Brooksley Born!!).

  41. It’s fun to read old blog posts « Donna Darko says:

    [...] Violet For President [...]

  42. taggles says:

    How about “Just Party”

    Just kidding. LOL

    I’m not sure of the name, but like I said before if there is a party that is truly for equality and leans left, I am all in.

    Good job Violet.

    Also, how about LGBT issues.

  43. anniethena says:

    (I fully expect this comment to go into moderation due to its length).
    The Justice party made me think immediately of Pierre Trudeau’s Just Society.

    Unlike the “Great Society” of US President Lyndon B. Johnson, the label Just Society was not attached to a specific set of reforms, but rather applied to all Trudeau’s policies, from official bilingualism to the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
    Additionally, the concept a just society, is the ideal strived for by advocates of social justice, civil rights, and toleration, of which Trudeau was one.

    Maybe (A) Just Society as a party name would remove objections to the name Justice, as that can summon up law’n order Republican types?
    An interesting link on that page leads to Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69.

    The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (S.C. 1968-69, c. 38) was an omnibus bill that introduced major changes to the Criminal Code of Canada. It was introduced as Bill C-150 by then Minister of Justice Pierre Trudeau in the second session of the 27th Canadian Parliament on December 21, 1967
    It proposed, among other things, to decriminalize homosexuality, allow abortion and contraception, and regulate lotteries, gun possession, drinking and driving offences, harassing phone calls, misleading advertising and cruelty to animals. The bill was described by John Turner, Trudeau’s successor as Minister of Justice, as “the most important and all-embracing reform of the criminal and penal law ever attempted at one time in this country”.[3] Trudeau famously defended the bill by telling reporters that “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”, adding that “what’s done in private between adults doesn’t concern the Criminal Code”.

    worth noting for this:

    Bill C-150 legalized contraception and therapeutic abortion under certain conditions. Both were previously illegal in Canada, which was still largely influenced by the Catholic Church’s moral positions on these issues. Bill C-150 made it legal for women to get an abortion if a committee of three doctors felt the pregnancy endangered the mental, emotional or physical well-being of the mother.[4] In a 1999 speech celebrating the 30th anniversary of the bill’s passage, Senator Lucie Pépin argued that the new freedom provided by Bill C-150 “proved to be a stepping stone for many other freedoms and options that have altered women’s place in [Canadian] society — self-esteem, education, jobs, a voice and empowerment”.[6] Abortion legislation in Canada was further liberalized in 1988 with the R. v. Morgentaler ruling, which left Canada without any laws regulating abortion.

    Lots more research needed…all this happened when I just starting elementary school so I grew up accepting a different status quo than my parents.
    Of course under Trudeau Canada got universal health care, thanks to the push from Tommy Douglas, then national leader of the New Democratic Party.

  44. lambert strether says:

    A problem with “The Third Party” is that it implicitly defines itself as not the other two. I prefer saying “We are…” to “We are not.”

    (One might argue also that the name is false, since in many areas of the country there is already a third party: The Greens, although in NY I’d guess that’s at least the Fifth Party, after the Liberal and Conservative parties.

  45. sam says:

    How about a “Second Bill of Rights” for women?

    A Jill of Rights?

    Notice that the first four spell EGGS.

    Eggs (in a basket or alone) could be the proto-donkey, proto-elephant, proto-human symbol of the Justice Party.

  46. sam says:

    I was half-joking about the egg symbol, but thinking more about it has me warming to the idea.

    Eggs are feminized.

    Egg is slang for a person, as in “she’s a good egg.”

    “To egg (on)” means to incite action.

    Egging is a defiant act of nonlethal, populist protest.

  47. Valhalla says:

    I really like Justice Party. It has a solid, grounded ring to it. Thematically it ties together the solution to pretty much all the problems identified here and across other liberal blogs (and non-blog groups).

  48. jumpjet says:

    It’s actually kind of neat that Violet’s arrived at this formulation, because it manages, completely coincidentally, to dovetail into my own personal formulation about the nature of government, which I settled on a few months ago. Put simply, I’ve come to believe that the whole reason for the existence of government is to facilitate justice.

  49. myiq2xu says:

    Taking a lesson from PUMA, make sure you have exclusive right to the use of the name you choose, and jealously guard that right.

    Be very careful who you involve in the organizing stages. There will be nutjobs, ratfuckers and people with hidden agendas that will attempt to glom on to a new movement/party. Don’t let them derail your efforts or defame your reputation by their presence.

    There are plenty of people in the blogosphere with established bona fides who will help you organize. Once you are organized you can be less exclusive and it will be impossible to screen the rank and file members, but anyone who is going an officer or spokeperson for the group needs to be carefully vetted. Take reasonable steps to ensure that any donations you accept are legal.

    Some other advice:

    Run a squeaky-clean operation. Be meticulous with your paperwork and cross all the “T’s” and dod all the “i’s.” Don’t allow even the appearance of impropriety, and set things up so that no one is tempted to stray from the straight and narrow.

    Plan for the future. Things that seem unimportant now will become very important. Informal arrangements can spin out of control pretty quickly. Create a detailed set of rules and bylaws.

    Establish policies on money handling and accounting before you start accepting donations. Don’t allow any one person to have exclusive control over the money – require two signatures on all disbursements and a detailed monthly report to your controlling board. Require an independent audit annually. Be prepared to fire and/or prosecute your treasurer and/or any other officer or employee who embezzles.

    If you are successful the PTB will try to corrupt your leaders with money, fame and access. That’s what they did to the A-list progressive bloggers. Assume that there will be efforts at espionage and sabotage too.

    Take a look at all the third-parties and political movements of the past. Don’t just learn from their successes, learn from the failures too. One scandal can kill the whole effort.

    If you think I am being overly paranoid and pessimistic, be prepared to hear me say “I told you so” in the future.

  50. lambert strether says:

    +1000 on all that myiq said, especially the money handling part. I’d go so far as to put the books online live…

  51. Aspen says:

    I’m not saying anything new here. But I want to reiterate the mad resolve we need to keep to never align with dude nation. Because there may be times, that because of some similarities in platform, it could become tempting to want to forget how many times they have told feminists to shove off and die. I mean we are going to need mad, mad resolve to never give in on that.

  52. iiii says:

    I like the name “Justice Party.” The name is the goal and the goal is the name. Besides, who wouldn’t want to be counted among the Just?

  53. Violet says:

    Thanks for all these great ideas and thoughtful feedback. Keep it comin’!

    A few thingies here and here:

    Riverdaughter @4, thanks for the great ideas on organizing and strategy. Let’s add “no justice, no money!” to our demands! And yeah, we need a lawyer.

    Michele @30, I could easily go off on a whole tangent with Maat and the goddesses and other cultural/ethnic versions of Lady Justice. (For example, think of the way Our Lady has been re-imagined as everything from a Mexican peasant to a Chinese empress.) In fact, I have to force myself not to go down that route, or I’ll be off with MadamaB in the Culture Committee 24/7.

    lambert @37, party members could call themselves JPs. And Justice Democrats could call themselves JDs. All terribly legal sounding!

    taggles @42, LGBT issues are under Social Justice. We need to build on and commit to all the justice movements, like racial justice and gay rights.

    Myiq2xu, your comment @49 is epic. Fantastic.

  54. Violet says:

    Regarding the name:

    Let’s not get too fixated or worried. We’re going to need to very shortly move this conversation off-line, since whatever exact name we come up with will need to be protected and a domain purchased.

    For the record, lots of people are also emailing me to say how much they love “Justice.” It’s serious and sober and American, and it really is what we’re about. On the other hand, I hear all the concerns others are raising.

    One thing to bear in mind is that whatever name we choose will need to work as a prefix for “Democrat,” since we want to develop an inside bloc.

  55. Briar says:

    I like the platform, but the name “justice” is far too redolent of calls from the far right for capital punishment, three strikes and you are out, long gaol sentences, no “soft” touches in prison, zero tolerance and so on. I am always afraid that for the majority “justice” is just another word for vengeful pay-back and repression of minorities and the poor.

  56. Alwaysthinking says:

    The ideas, and some strategies, seem to be coalescing. Would be wonderful to see a movement come together that excites and awakens people across the spectrum of our concerns.

    I agree that the name to symbolize all of this would have to be fully researched and selected offline. (For example, there is a Texas Civil Justice League made up of large trade and business groups that has focused effectively on tort and legal “reforms” since the 1980s.One would not call it a liberal organization, however.)

    Lady Justice as the symbol does seem quite beautiful to me, and the mission/vision must capture that excitement. The platforms for the party/movement can then be fully hammered out (great start already!).

  57. stateofdisbelief says:

    The name is great. It says a lot with very little effort and any negative connotations are mitigated by association with the sub-categories of justice it is associated with.

    Since you are fashioning this as a way to integrate into the existing two-party system the best approach is to use it as sort of a “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” system. You could also fashion the approach after the Union Label “Do Buy” “Do Not Buy” system. Candidates are evaluated NOT on what they say they’ll do, but what they’ve done. Members of the “JP” pledge to vote or not vote based on their Justice Party approval.

    Plus, in conjunction with RD’s funding ideas, only Justice party approved candidate get funding. And again, turning the current system on its head, candidates are not rewarded or funded based on what they promise to do, but what they have already done. We certainly don’t train our dogs by rewarding them before they do the “behavior” and so if we want to train them to “behave,” reward upon action.

    We must leverage our votes as part of this movement. While money has an effect, we cannot seriously compete with GS and their ilk in the money area and some of those who would be “members” of this organization have nothing to give. But all the money in the world cannot fight back a tidal wave of voters.

    The DNC was only able to steal our votes because the race was close enough. We need to open those gaps much wider — only votes can do that.

    The RNC was able to steal the 2000 election because it was close. If the gap were wider, we’d be in a different place today.

    Money and votes. Without both we’re doomed to failure.

  58. hellonhairylegs says:

    I love the idea of a Justice Party (and an internal and external one), and although I’m not a regular commenter, here are a few ideas that your post sparked.

    (1) A competent, apolitical civil service that would remain no matter who was in power would be immensely helpful in getting a third party into power. At the moment I’m scared of Republicans stepping in and appointing their country club buddies to important positions. The thought that we could end up with another Katrina means that the right candidate could have me back with the Democrats fairly easily. In addition, a competent civil service without political loyalties would also have an easier time regulating big business so our next economics “bust” isn’t quite so horrible. I admit I have no idea how to effectively campaign for this within America.

    (2) A prison system that rehabilitates criminals as well as punishing them. TJP should emphasize ending the war on drugs in tandem with meting out just punishment to violent criminals if we want to get more than the left.

    (3) This has already been covered, but it needs to be said again. The Justice Party needs to focus on ending corruption in politics, given that politicians are people too and we’d have a hell of an easier time getting them to support human rights by removing at least some of their links to corporate fundraisers. This raises the question of where TJP will get its funding from. Obviously there will be donations from the member base, but other alternatives need to be explored.

    (4) Slow movement. Politics seems to be very hard and fast in the US. An enduring member base that steadily increases will give TJP positive momentum without making it a flash in a pan. Strategies should be in place to outreach to youth via the internet and to older people who might not be so comfortable with technology. There is a huge, untapped amount of unregistered/ apathetic voters that the right Third Party could harness.

    (5) I love the idea of Lady Justice as a symbol. Pure brilliance!

    Anyway, those were just a few thoughts from an American who has spent most of her life overseas. I’ll vote for whatever candidates y’all endorse.

    Good luck,


  59. lambert strether says:

    JP (NJP?) material and IP ought also to be Creative Commons’ed, extending myiq @49.

    * * *

    I also rather like the idea of calling members JDs and JPs, exactly because the legal connotations — one of the things we surely ought to be about is restoring the rule of law, which the legacy parties (;-) have failed to do.

    * * *

    And back to the name for one moment: New Justice Party (a) distinguishes from the capital punishment loons, (b) implies new forms of justice (that is, it’s not enough to return to some past, ideal state), and (c) heck, it’s new!

  60. lambert strether says:

    Re: Iconography of Lady Justice. When did the blindfold get added?

  61. Violet says:

    When did the blindfold get added?

    16th century. And it’s never been universal; for example, the Lady Justice statue on top of the Old Bailey (sculpted around 1900) has no blindfold.

    The ancient goddesses on which Lady Justice is based weren’t blindfolded. They embodied fairness and justice in themselves: no need to cover their eyes.

    I personally interpret the change as part of the male romanticization of women as beautiful objects representing abstract virtues — Liberty, Justice, etc. Think of France’s Marianne. These female figures are objects for male projection, not the inherently powerful goddesses they once were. (Even the word “goddess” now more frequently connotes a gorgeous sexy woman rather than a powerful being who can fry your ass.)

    And that’s your feminist history lesson for the morning!

  62. willyjsimmons says:

    The first known representation of blind Justice is Hans Gieng’s 1543 statue on the Gerechtigkeitsbrunnen (Fountain of Justice) in Berne.

  63. m Andrea says:

    What exactly is terrifying about a Justice Party? I’m terrified of our current non-justice parties.

    Excellent work Violet. Frankly, I’ve decided I should take your word for everything to do with politics, and be done with it. Everything you’ve ever said that I disagreed with, eventually I decided that you right after all.

    ‘cept the transgenderism thing. That isn’t logical and let’s not derail.

  64. Less is better says:

    I like the idea of the rules first proposed in the article.

    One thing that really needs to be addressed right now is policy on scandals. If this new party can be on track by 2010, it would be great. In order to move that fast, there are going to be a large number of things that are not solved. This will be a problem as long as the rich control everything but the internet. The message will be based on minor problems that will be blown up to major proportions. Excellent case in point is the registration of new voters that will undoubtedly not be democrats or republicans. Think the republican propaganda was hard on the volunteers for registration when they register more democrats? This will be 5 times worse as the democrats join in a chorus of “oh no’s.”

    One thing that is good about most of the feminists blogs that I go to is they have a solid core that they hold to. No matter who or what, they hold to the core. Violence is not tolerated. Orders are not tolerated. The new party must have women who are willing to hold the core to the initial desires. There are plenty of women who can and will do this.

    Now one of the real secret things in America is that women control an enormous amount of capital. Think widows who were trophy brides for old rich men. Offer them a chance to fund. Being a supporter on the platform of a new party is a lot more exciting than shopping for the 5000th new pair of shoes.

    Giving anyone the adrenaline rush of being “on the new before it even existed” is available. If you check out the enthusiasm of a large number of small political parties that tried to challenge the current republican/democrats and democrat/republicans, their worst problem was cold hard cash.

    Get your money lined up first. It does not matter if you only get $100 from 10 people, you can establish a web site and then start heavy duty solicitation of the women with money.

    College sororities might be a fertile ground for the enthusiastic women that just might be thinking that they could beat the pants off of Palin and have access to mom and dad’s cash. Give everyone a shot.

    Organization is not a problem. Go to the women’s clubs and sororities, there are experienced women who could give Rove and Gingrich classes on down and dirty politics. Utilize them. Use church women’s groups. Use any functioning political organization that is not part of the rot.

    Embrace the idea that those who are not against us are not our enemies.

    The real solid core of evil in the existing system really is very very very very small number of people. There are not more than 1 per cent of the top 1 per cent who are actively running the US right off the cliff.

    When politics are so close that one single senator can derail anything, they are SO vulnerable. A center party with six committed votes is better than an enormous party with 45 votes against another enormous party with 45 votes. For pennies, a center party can control the direction of the country.

    The republicans and the democrats are working illusions, they actually have no power. They have reached a point that the average congressman or senator is worth over a million dollars. This money was not “earned.” This money is just stolen.

    Almost every politician is vulnerable just on what they forgot that they stole or did that everyone can see as wrong. The average Joan or Jack can not comprehend a Ponzi scheme of $65 billion dollars, but they can understand a senator who votes for whomever provides the best hookers. Always keep nailing the existing politicians on minor things that low rent trailer trash and the doctor’s wife can both understand clearly. Keep it simple. Push and push and push the moral compromises that all politicians make.

    If you have read this far, thanks, I am so pissed at Obama about Afghanistan that I need to have some hope.

  65. madamab says:

    I admit, I was teasing about “Justicians.” I know that most people are not as whimsical as I am.

    I think what we call ourselves is important, but sort of tangential at this point. I had thought of JP too, but then thought the legal ramifications would be a minus. Maybe it’s a plus, as lambert says.

    My down-deep preference for reform is a voting bloc, not a third party. Furthermore, I’d prefer it to be a group of women’s rights organizations banding together in support of women’s equality.

    But since that direction is not being taken, if people want to do the party thing, I’ll help in any way I can.

  66. PolyisopreneCollum says:

    What is wrong with the green party folks? Have you discussed working with them?

    It seems like they share a similar platform, and they have an infrastructure in place already.

  67. Violet says:

    We like the Greens, and we’ve discussed them at length. It was in the original post. But the Greens have baggage of their own, and they also have a history (like the rest of Dude Nation) of trading away women’s rights in order to get what they really want (which in their case is environmental stuff).

  68. PolyisopreneCollum says:

    and they also have a history (like the rest of Dude Nation) of trading away women’s rights in order to get what they really want (which in their case is environmental stuff).

    I kind of figured that. I didn’t realize you already discussed it. Sorry, I wasn’t here for the original discussion, but I’ll go back and read so I can contribute.

    One question, and apologies if it’s been hashed out already. When you get to the point of electing party officers, is it going to be open to all of us readers and lurkers too? I don’t know if the big bloggers here all know each other offline, and would form a clique leaving us out. Not saying that’s happening, I just wanted to put a word in for inclusion!

  69. Marirebel says:

    I like the name “Justice Party” and the acronyms “JP” and “JD.” The acronyms are easy and instantly memorable. I like the idea of a “Justice Party” because it denotes a common good, and for too long we have been isolated and immobilized by skewed notions of individualism and the priority of an insular self-interest. More, I think the idea of a justice party places us squarely within an American liberation tradition that says “injustice any where is injustice everywhere,” and that seeks for “justice to roll down like waters from a mighty stream (quoting the Prophet Amos).” I disagree with Briar@55 that we should relinquish the term “justice” because it may have been misused by some.

  70. lambert strether says:

    By “goddess” I definitely mean, and have always meant, “a powerful being who can fry your ass.” That is all.

  71. lambert strether says:

    I wonder if the smart and not fraudulent part of Obama’s primary strategy — that is, the focus on caucus states, many of them small — could be replicated on the national scale by the JP attacking small-population “square states” in the Senate and/or the House. For example, the MT single payer movement is very, very strong, Brian Schweitzer introduced Obama by praising Canada’s single payer system, etc. This connects to Wampum’s idea (Monday 16 January 2012 :: Iowa Caucus) that somebody just needs to move to IA and organize there every single day. Of course, caveat, if I were any good at strategery that’s what I would be doing…

  72. Nadai says:

    I like the Justice Party name and the core principles, and I love the iconography of Lady Justice. I have an image in my head now of a line of multi-ethnic/age/appearance/etc. women as Lady Justices serving as the columns of that Greek temple (the name escapes me) where the columns are goddess statues.

  73. jumpjet says:

    It might have been implicitly assumed, but I think if you want to keep women’s issues at the forefront of this new party, you have to have a policy of preferring female candidates. You should make it a goal to always attempt to find a woman to run for whatever office is being contested, if only because women are more likely to keep women’s issues front and center than men are by virtue of being women.

    You can point out that women are underrepresented in government, and that it’s fitting for a party pursuing justice to pursue equitable representation.

  74. DancingOpossum says:

    I have nothing brilliant to add except I like it, I like it all! The platform and the name!

    If I get any blinding insights I’ll add them.

  75. Adrienne in CA says:

    Here’s another source of potential members, affiliation, and powerful organizing ideas.

    RN SuperUnion Founding Convention Opens Monday

    The day has come. Eight months in the planning, delegates from across the nation will gather in Phoenix Monday, December 7 for the founding convention of the new 150,000-member National Nurses United — the largest RN union and professional association in U.S. history.

    Who knows where we might be 8 months from now?


  76. cwaltz says:

    I realize the point of brainstorming is to throw things out there to see what resonates and sticks but I hope whoever is on the steering comittee if it gets that far remembers to keep it simple and realizes the more narrowly it tries to define its mission the more likely it is to have problems with consensus.

    My suggestion is to start of really broad and introduce the party in a way to suggest its purpose is to replace the two antiquated parties that don’t appear to represent average Americans since that appears to be the route your going(rather than a womens coalition per se).

  77. bluelady says:

    My advice would be to set up a steering committee to work on defining the mission statement/vision-then delegating someone to register the group as a PAC with the FEC and IRS, which also entails getting an EIN number(employee identification number)-delegating someone to set up a website and establish a bank account and keeping records.
    The PAC I was involved in had a goal of chapters in each congressional district and then meeting with their respective congress member. Also chapter members were encouraged to run as delegates to the state conventions to effect candidates and platform on the state level.
    The PAC I was in was also privileged to have people at the national level who had good contacts with influential members of Congress and they were frequently meeting with them in Washington.
    I’m not sure how a third political party is set up- maybe it’s similar to a PAC- this page may answer those questions:

  78. Nessum says:

    Nadai at 2.44:
    The Porch of Caryatids. Erechteion, Acropolis. :)

  79. Nadai says:

    Nessum – Thanks! That was driving me crazy. :)

  80. bluelyon says:

    I’m in. No PAC. I want a party that represents us.

  81. cellocat says:

    How about the American Justice Party? Retake the idea of American justice, which has been perverted into imperialism. Reinvigorate it with all the ideas stated above – there is no justice for some until there’s justice for all, equality, etc.

    I think Lady Justice is a totally brilliant idea, adaptable but never losing the core of who she is. I think of her as Hera and Athena rolled into one. It’s also great to counter the cultural stereotype of women as being all sentimental, heart, emotion-based beings. To me, anyway, justice implies integrity, truthfulness, intellectual rigor – all things that the patriarchy has liked to claim for men.

  82. Topper Harley says:

    Because I dislike our money based political system, where the candidate who has the most money wins the election

    I know what you mean. Like in ’92, when that billionaire Ross Perot bought the Presidency. It’s too bad about that Arkansas governor Clapton, er, Clinton.

    And then, in ’96, when billionaire Steve Forbes outbid billionaire Perot. That was awful. 1996 to 2000 were some of the worst years in the history of the US.

    In 2006, that rich dude Len Munsil beat out poor Janet Napolitano for Arizona governor with all his money.

    It was worst in 2008. Mitt Romney beat out John McCain’s wife’s money, and Hillary essentially bought the nomination out from under that other Senator. Damn, what was his name again? Barry something…

    Even then, all Hillary’s money wasn’t nearly as high a stack as ol’ Mitt Romney’s. President Romney is the worst president ever: Rich dude only cares about the fat cats…

    Why, just last month, that rich libertarian Hoffman beat out Scozzafava and Owens.

    /snark off

    In reality, it’s usually the incumbent that wins, as that old boys club has managed to rig themselves a nice game. They get special privileges on postage, travel, media access, etc. etc. About the only thing that kills an incumbent is being caught with a live boy, a dead girl, or on the short coattails of an unpopular president.

  83. lambert strether says:

    Speaking of money-based politics, read this thread and especially this question, directly relevant to the JP.

  84. Human Head says:

    I appreciate and support your general thrust. But for my part, The Justice Party and it’s attendant sub-points of Gender, Global, Democratic, etc. equality doesn’t quite do it for me, precisely because the idea of justice means many things to many different people based on context, culture, notions, etc.

    I’m of the belief that the statement “Life isn’t fair” is a true one. Certainly, many people use this as an excuse to be unfair, predatory, uncaring, etc, but in the end I do not think it makes it any less true, because after all, despite our best individual efforts, we are all human and fuck each other over from time to time, to vary degrees, consciously or unconsciously.

    Further, when speaking of, for example, Gender Equality/Gender Justice, to me this creates an unnecessary division attached to terms that can never be satisfactorily defined on paper, and/or more importantly, defined within our present systemic structure and state of affairs. From a purely marketing perspective, in the context of the delineated sub-points, I think this approach unnecessarily creates lines or boundaries (therefore limiting size and scope of audience/market) between the individuals in the mass where there need be none, especially since it is this fragmentation that I believe has in many ways led us to this state of affairs.

    I propose The Human Party. I think a core/foundational value that would serve well is one that has been around for time immemorial in many forms–”Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

    Adopting this name includes everyone, and I believe that adopting this Golden Rule core will remove the need for any sub-points, as reflecting our actions and efforts (in our daily actions, great and small) through this foundational philosophy is the very place from which those human values of justice and equality spring.

    Thanks for the great post.

  85. Save the Oocytes says:

    There needs to be “purism.” Let the best be the enemy of the “good.” The system is suffused with intolerable “lesser” evils that a new party will be meaningless if you find yourself supporting. There need to be limits, clearly demarcated, such that they will never be crossed by this party.

    In particular, there need to be safeguards so that you are never selling out one constituency to benefit another.

    A particular line of argument popular in Europe you’ll have to be ready for as a feminist antiwar party goes as follows: “Islam is unfair to women. Thus as a whole it must be opposed. We therefore will not allow the construction of minarets in Switzerland. Our [insert 'liberal democratic,' 'Judaeo-Christian,' 'reason-based,' 'Western' as you wish] society is under attack by extremists and by immigrants. With such an awful religion existing in the world, is it any wonder that we need to invade or at least heavily bombard the Middle East and Central Asia?” Not everyone hits all those bullet-points in that order, but it’s a distressingly common line of argument.

    Coalitions with widely ranging other groups on individual issues should be encouraged, on the other hand.

    Get ready to counter arguments about how entryism in the Dem party isn’t “democratic.” If you’re serious about this, socialist parties have a long history with the strategy that is worth investigating before you invest yourself in it.

    Depending on who you’re dealing with, the notion that the US isn’t democratic may be a hard sell.

    Lose the overt fear of “Communists.” Saying “this far but no farther” is a bad way to start a party of the “left,” and Communists-with-a-capital-C (Stalinists, Maoists, “Marxist–Leninists,” “anti-revisionists”) are a small minority of the (already small) socialist left in the US.

    There need to be very definite rules on funding. The situation where a powerful supporter starts to disagree with certain of your positions and tactics, and little compromises start to creep in—”after all, it would be worse if we our party didn’t exist at all, and we need the money”—and your party represents winning elections and the continuation of its own power. This is a very common final outcome for a new party that promises reform.

    That’ll be all for now.

  86. cripes says:

    There is a precedent for the name: Juan and Evita Peron were/are the icons of Argentina’s “Justicialist” Party and has a mixed ideological tradition, although it was orginally founded as a pro-union workers party.

    Still, the general idea is sound, and likely there is no other answer to rule by the oligarchy through the fake two-party system.

    Since the current system has completely disenfranchised 99% of the populace, any party that can effectively mobilize their support has tremendous potential.

    Let’s hope it isn’t the party of Beck and Palin.

  87. Adrienne in CA says:

    I hope we can eventually get to initiatives like this.

    French plan to force gender equality on boardrooms

    • Proposal would turn Paris stockmarket 50% female
    • Scepticism but also seen as ‘necessary evil’

    I love the part near the end about how it turned out in Norway:

    It unleashed an uproar in the Norwegian business community, with many protesting it was ridiculous to shut down a company because it lacked a woman on the board. Others argued that the law infringed the rights of shareholders to decide who they want as directors. But the threat worked and company owners duly complied. Norway now has the highest proportion of women on boards anywhere in the world with 44.2% – up from 6% in 2001.

    They scoffed…and then it worked.


  88. Nessum says:

    Save the Oocytes at 12:37:
    What you cite in your third paragraph as “[a] particular line of argument popular in Europe” (from where did you get that impression?), to me sounds an awful lot more like what I read on some Puma sites!

    And please note: “Switzerland” doesn’t equate “Europe”. And “Swiss voting against minarets” doesn’t equate “All Swiss”.

  89. Nessum says:

    Adrienne at 2.45:

    Not that I disagree with you, but look how it worked out in the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee: 4 women let the sole man in the committee talk them into rewarding Obama (for what?) with the prize! As if there weren’t plenty of worthy female candidates to choose from!

  90. Rosemary Molloy says:

    I’m new here, but may I come in? I’ve been looking for you for years. I’m excited over the concept of a new party that actually represents the needs and wishes of its members. So glad I found you.

  91. Aspen says:

    The Justice Party is a feminist party, and should say so. Gender Justice is too sex-neutral. If the Justice Party is not a feminist party, then it isn’t any more attractive to me than Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists (if such a thing was/is to exist in the US) or even Greens.

  92. Aspen says:

    It unleashed an uproar in the Norwegian business community, with many protesting it was ridiculous to shut down a company because it lacked a woman on the board. Others argued that the law infringed the rights of shareholders to decide who they want as directors. But the threat worked and company owners duly complied. Norway now has the highest proportion of women on boards anywhere in the world with 44.2% – up from 6% in 2001.

    Not that I disagree with you, but look how it worked out in the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee: 4 women let the sole man in the committee talk them into rewarding Obama (for what?) with the prize! As if there weren’t plenty of worthy female candidates to choose from!

    I know! There was that time women did something stoopid!

    Your point is?

  93. kit says:

    Re: NNU Inaugural Meeting—A great change for all Americans

    To respond to the author referring to the National Nurses Union as just a “women’s coalition”, perhaps this will help this person understand the facts:

    #1- Ann Demoro, the president of the NNU/ NNOC was listed as one of the most powerful thinkers in health care today

    #2-Attorneys work directly with the NNU team throughout the country to protect human rights.

    #3- The NNU has a direct action campaign and sophisticated media from groups like Michael Moore. In fact, Donna Smith, from this group was featured in Sicko
    The NNU memberships sent vans in IL to lobby for healthcare reform. The were present throughout much of the hearings and add to critical impact with numbers and voice.

    #4- Dr. Linda Aiken, from the University of PA, has affirmed that the nursing ratios initially researched by the NNU are truly life saving. That is also the key group who has disclosed the “data” behind managed care excesses. Finally it is the NNUs hard work which will make a hospital stay safer for your loved ones.

    #5- The NNU has been on the forefront of many progressive systemic changes These changes include hospital safety, single payer, open disclosure of safety net problems.

    #6- The physicians from SEIU, Drs for America & PHNP have supported the NNU aggregate changes.

    #7 -The NNU will be taking on hospital associations to assure that patients will be able to see how hospital personnel numbers impact their care. Currently that consumer protection is not available to you. In fact, you have to go to significant extremes to assure where the safest hospital is for your family.

    Using anecdotal data, like identifying hospitals that are located in richer areas, is not currently adequate to assess RN ratios. This is because hospitals have become aggressive at cost containment. So they may cut personnel costs everywhere including in lucrative post-op units where your families may being treated.

    In summary, please understand that the NNU is the premier health consumer advocacy team in the country now. I hope that you trust this assessment because I am an NP who is also an epidemiologist. As a consequence, I evaluate medical tragedies that could have been prevented. Saving professional nursing service will, in fact, save us all. The facts are with the NNU. The risks are being taken by us all now.

    So I hope that we can all advocate for the NNU to continue this advocacy nationwide. Moreover I congratulate them on their efforts for forge a national patient safety movement.

    Let us wish good luck to the NNU on their inaugural meeting this month!. We are in their debt and have witnessed a historic movement forward for our families.

    In the name of patient safety and medical integrity, I remain a friend to you all.
    In turn please pass on kind words for the NNU.



  94. Violet says:

    Aspen, the party is definitely a feminist party! Gender justice isn’t a euphemism; it’s a recognized label for feminist philosophy and activism all over the world. I think it works. And I think people understand right away what it’s about.

  95. lambert strether says:

    @94 Well, I’m not sure that “recognized labels for feminist philosophy and activism” would be my first choice for a source of terms that “people understand” (not, I hasten to add, because of the feminist aspect, but because of the philosophical aspect). It’s easy to take a “recognized” (by whom?) term or a bit of shorthand from a years-long conversation in one subset of society, and assume it will scale to society as a whole. Speaking for myself only, “gender justice” sounds both academic and the product of what in Versailles they call a “group.” Probably not what you want, eh? And people may “understand right away” but that doesn’t mean that their understanding is correct; I offer myself as an object lesson. Please note here that I’m talking about the words, not the meaning.

  96. Violet says:

    Sure, but that’s true of all of those terms. Does the average Jane Doe know what “environmental justice” means? I bet not. The point I’m just making is that “gender justice” is not a euphemism. I’m not hiding the feminism.

  97. lambert strether says:

    No, not a euphemism, I agree. I was about to say that I think you’ve got it exactly wrong on what Jane Doe knows on “gender justice” vs. “environmental justice” as terms, but then I realized that (a) I’d only be guessing anyhow, and (b) I might also guess, though I don’t know, if Jane and John Doe have different levels of familiarity with the two terms.

  98. Violet says:

    Well, it was interesting to me during the Van Jones thing that many people apparently thought it was the height of absurdity to even mention that non-white, non-privileged groups have borne the brunt of environmental burdens. “What craziness is that?” was the theme. I don’t think environmental justice is a terribly familiar concept.

  99. Save the Oocytes says:

    Nessum, it’s the general sort of thing you get from the Eustonites, etc. It’s all too common.

    I haven’t kept up with PUMA sites, sorry.

    For the record, “Swiss voting to ban minarets” seems to comprise 57.5% of participating voters.

    But my goal wasn’t to impugn Europe in general or the Swiss in particular, or two conflate the continent with a country there, but to cite a recent example of the way that the alleged interests of one oppressed group (women) can be used as a cudgel against another.

    It seemed like it might be relevant to the ideological formation of a broad-based feminist party in these times.

  100. Pacific John says:

    Other ideas:

    Broad access to higher education. No financial hurdles for qualified applicants.

    I would model this after the hugely successful California Master Plan, that increased college attendance rates to over 50%, made UC the best university system on the globe, and resulted in an unparalleled economic boom.

    The plan guaranteed the top 12.5% of the state’s high school graduates places in the UC system; the top one-third of graduates were assured places in the state colleges; and free community colleges were open to all. A graduate of the latter’s two-year programs was guaranteed admission as a transfer student to a university or state college. Fees and books at those institutions amounted to a few hundred dollars a year.

    Until the GOP got their hands in it, there was *no* tuition at UC. In fact, when Reagan ran as the law and order anti-big government candidate, he promised a 10% across the board cut to all state departments, but *only* ended up cutting education. The GOP has since successfully gutted educational opportunity and disabled the economic escalator for those for whom high income is not an entitlement of birth.

    See more here:,0,2869973.column

    As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the Obama movement of class entitlement is an echo of Reaganism, especially from ’80s cuts to federal grants and loans. Prior to Reagan’s presidency, working class kids with the grades went to college. After Reagan, enrollments shrunk, and the college population narrowed to those who were born into the right families. This is why Obama’s young supporters had no guilt supporting a candidate who proposed smaller grants tied to the stigma of community service and why the non-AA working class voted against them by 70/30 – they are almost completely non-self aware that they are the shock troops of the Dem party’s culture war on the working class.

    Obama’s base, such as it was, was dominated by people who graduated from college after 1983 and their children, people of Obama’s age and less, children of Reagan.

  101. Tomecat says:

    Seconding both the repeal of corporate personhood, and ending the “war on drugs”.

    This is an idea whose time has come. A final attempt to reform our government from within the existing structure (before a full fledged revolution becomes the only option of the common citizen).

    A thought on the name–maybe the Equal Justice Party elicits less of a punitive image? Also implies inclusiveness.

  102. Pacific John says:

    I’m just catching up to the discussion, so I may be behind. On the prioritization of gender and economic justice, I suggest that the two must be framed and joined at the hip.

    The women’s movement since the ’70s has been justifiably criticized as a white upper and upper middle class vanity movement. It had a lot in common with the elitism of the Obama movement in it’s tone-deafness to the vast majority of struggling working class women.

    It is self evident that the invisible Democratic base is disproportionately working female. There is no group (aside from perhaps their children) who are getting screwed worse by the legacy parties than regular women.

    A top feminist funder and organizer I know in real life points out that women, of all people, are subject to Maslow’s hierarchy. They have their hands too full with survival to invest their time in principles and justice, but they are certain to rally to leaders who will stand up for them. The key to success to to make this movement genuine, organic, and of regular people; it cannot be a conversation limited to people with the time to sit on computers or give time and money to pet causes.

  103. Violet says:

    The women’s movement since the ’70s has been justifiably criticized as a white upper and upper middle class vanity movement. It had a lot in common with the elitism of the Obama movement in it’s tone-deafness to the vast majority of struggling working class women.

    Well, no. As someone who’s been involved in the women’s movement since the 1970s and whose own background is working-class, this is not true. It’s also not true that it was a white women-only movement. That is anti-feminist propaganda.

  104. lambert strether says:

    #102 vs. #103: I’d like to hear the “theory of the case” on this from both of you, since I know and respect you both, but and though perhaps this is not the thread for it. Dunno…

    * * *

    As far as policy, yes:

    On the prioritization of gender and economic justice, I suggest that the two must be framed and joined at the hip.

    It cannot be otherwise!

    There are many Psalms about justice in the bible (many of them involving imprecatory prayers) but a consistent them is the inability to even get a court to hear one’s case. Plus ca change….

  105. Violet says:

    #102 vs. #103: I’d like to hear the “theory of the case” on this from both of you, since I know and respect you both, but and though perhaps this is not the thread for it.

    A debate on whether feminism is a vanity movement? A debate on whether the work of liberating women from violence and oppression is a vanity movement? A debate on whether the women marching and fighting and struggling and enduring endless crap for themselves and their sisters and daughters is a vanity movement?

  106. lambert strether says:

    No!! The argument John makes on classism is well-known. If you don’t want to shoot down the propaganda (again) then I trust you to give me the “Best of RL” Link. Please?

  107. Violet says:

    I guess it’s a question of how much basic shared understanding we expect within the organizing group. Obviously all the positions we espouse will have to be explained to the world at large, and propaganda will have to be dealt with. But within the organizing coalition, I would hope for basic agreement on the six key values at least.

  108. Adrienne in CA says:

    The insidious pervasiveness of anti-justice propaganda can trip up the best of us, and will be our constant foe. Think what an invaluable educational resource the Justice Party canon will become!


  109. Pacific John says:

    I’m not sure this whole concept is going to have legs if we are already shutting down civil conversation.

    I consciously used language from luminary civil rights activists I know in real life, so if it was also been used as propaganda, it is simultaneously a genuine belief and observation of people who have had a lot at stake.

    It’s also fair to say that a number of post-60s liberal causes disproportionately drew white economic elites. There were few if any minorities or blue collar activists at the major anti-Diablo Canyon actions when I lived nearby, nor at the actions protesting nuclear arms I know of.

    The problem isn’t that these activists didn’t have their hearts in the right place, it’s that they were tone deaf to most of the population. They lacked broader support because they couldn’t figure out how to draw from and relate to 2/3 of the population.

    The extended problem is that the Obama phenomenon was juiced by social affinity, the leaders of liberal interest groups, nearly all of whom are veterans of the ’60s and ’70s, saw Obama as one of them, educated, credentialed, elite. The reason Hillary, and Bill before her, had so much opposition from media and party elites was they were of the working class, not of proper society.

    Michael Lind observes that post-unionism working Americans simply do not have institutions that produce their own leadership class, whereas, the elites of the party are cranked out like countless Pez candies, a la Yglesias and Klein. Look around DC issues groups and they are packed with fresh faced kids (or former fresh faced kids) who don’t have a living working class relative in their family tree. For them, success is a gift of birth. Top to bottom, liberal interest groups are populated by people with only theoretical knowledge of labor or economic distress. They have never missed a meal or been evicted from an apartment.

    This is an opportunity to invent something to fill this enormous gap, but such a project has to have the self confidence to work ourselves out of a job and admit the elitist nature of our roots. We cannot do it to be another version, or even the best, of the ’70s, filled by the best and the brightest, because the ’70s was the beginning of something that left most Americans behind – as I’m sure everyone who can visualize the graph of real wages and productivity knows.

    This is why my proposed additional central plank is higher education. The people who will be disproportionately aided by dramatic expansion of education and resulting economic opportunity are the people who are most disadvantaged now: females and their mostly working class families.

  110. Pacific John says:

    One added quip…

    Something that movement conservatism realized, in large part because they understand business and financial systems is, the best way to attack the opposition was to de-fund it. They incrementally attacked unions, funding to the opposition fell, the opposition because weaker, and the feedback loop continued.

    The only successful movements do this in reverse. They have integral policies that build financial momentum and popular support. A Justice Party movement has to internalize that broad-based social institutions increasingly build loyal constituents, like k-12 education, defense spending, federal retirement benefits and popular environmental legislation did. You can’t build a movement as simply a set of solid principles, you have to also lay down the architecture so it automatically has self-reinforcing political support.

  111. Violet says:

    I consciously used language from luminary civil rights activists I know in real life, so if it was also been used as propaganda, it is simultaneously a genuine belief and observation of people who have had a lot at stake.

    Sure. But it’s also a genuine belief that Hillary Clinton called for Barack Obama’s assassination.

    As for civil conversation, recall that you began by asserting that feminism is an upper-class vanity movement that is tone-deaf to the vast majority of working-class women. No matter how politely you phrase it, or how sincerely you believe it, that’s still antifeminist bullshit. So the question isn’t whether civil conversation is possible — it certainly is on this blog — but what our basic expectations of each other are.

    For example, if you casually asserted that the gay rights movement has been “justifiably criticized” as a vanity movement by perverts who wish to destroy traditional marriage, what would be the appropriate response? I’m not sure what I would say, but I would be extremely surprised.

  112. Violet says:

    The problem isn’t that these activists didn’t have their hearts in the right place, it’s that they were tone deaf to most of the population. They lacked broader support because they couldn’t figure out how to draw from and relate to 2/3 of the population.

    That is not the problem with feminism and never has been. Feminism is something that comes from the ground up, not the top down. It’s in our everyday lives as women. Sure, any political movement eventually produces an elite self-perpetuating class of leaders, but that doesn’t mean that the movement itself isn’t working on the grassroots.

    Women’s lib is not like some rich white kids going to protest at a nuclear power site. Women’s lib is needing a rape shelter, needing child support, needing a job, needing equal pay, needing not to be harassed at work, needing not to have to sleep with the boss, needing birth control, needing an abortion. It is as down-to-earth and basic as it gets.

    Sure, Betty Friedan was a bored affluent housewife, but that style of feminism lasted for about six years. By 1970 feminist leadership had expanded to include former prostitutes and survivors of rape and domestic violence, and there were branches of feminism in the black women’s community and the Chicana community and every other community in this country.

    The problem with feminism is that it is an enormous threat to the status quo. And so it has been assaulted with propaganda from day one.

  113. Pacific John says:

    You’re missing something, and I think to see it, you have to ask yourself why a self-identified social justice movement doesn’t mention the word “education,” in its values, demands, or strategies.

    We can debate whose coffee tables had Ms. Magazine or not, but that’s a distraction when the overall concept lacks fundamental relevance to regular people and the central building block of economic justice.

    We have to captivate politically invisible people, and as a lot of the people here know, I don’t see the point of anything that we can’t deploy in the field for the benefit of people who don’t have the luxury of screwing around on a computer for hours a day.

    Address it or not, it’s your forum. That’s my point.

    But I can tell you as a field veteran that most feminist groups are as socially elitist as other non-union liberal groups I’ve worked with, and am a member of. Have feminist organizations always broadly reflected working class feminism? I point to NARL. Something between 70% and 100% of working class feminists voted against Obama in the primary, but you would never know it from their performance. This lack of organic representation of regular people would be fatal to any new movement.

  114. Violet says:

    It seems to me you’re talking about two different things. If you’re referring to the current leadership of establishment feminism — the people who run NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc., and who used to run NOW — then I would certainly agree that there is an entrenched elite class of leaders that is quite different from the great mass of Americans. But that’s true of just about all political movements in this country.

    In the feminist world, that disconnect led to a huge contretemps last year. It’s why new grassroots women’s organizations were founded and why the existing NOW regime was voted out this summer. Women were frustrated that the “official” feminist leaders just seemed to be beltway bureaucrats. (I wonder: were there similar revolts in other progressive movements? I’m not aware of any. I think those guys are all still debating what to do with their Obama wall posters.)

    But when you start talking about feminism itself, as a philosophy and as a social movement of the past 40 years, then you lose me. You say:

    We can debate whose coffee tables had Ms. Magazine or not, but that’s a distraction when the overall concept lacks fundamental relevance to regular people and the central building block of economic justice.

    Are you saying that the overall concept of women’s rights lacks fundamental relevance to regular women? If that’s really what you believe, then please re-read the second paragraph of my comment #112.

    The very fact that women’s rights do matter to “regular women” is why there is anger at the miscues from NOW and NARAL.

  115. Violet says:

    you have to ask yourself why a self-identified social justice movement doesn’t mention the word “education,” in its values, demands, or strategies.

    I think education is included in the “equal opportunities” in Social Justice and Gender Justice. It’s also included in FDR’s Second Bill of Rights (“the right to a good education”) under Economic Justice.

    But I agree that a formal platform would want to spell that out explicitly. I would include not only access to higher education, but also an emphasis on improving primary and secondary education.

  116. Pacific John says:


    All I’m saying about the feminist movement is its activist membership was not a cross-section of the population, and it didn’t take adequate pains to overcome this and connect with the sensibilities of those who could have been its natural supporters. Same with the other post-’60s white upper income movements.

  117. Violet says:

    Thank you for the clarification, Pacific John. I appreciate that.

    I think I probably disagree somewhat with your take on feminist history, but I completely agree with your vision of how this movement should go forward: I see social justice/gender justice/racial justice as being wedded to economic justice. More than wedded: they’re part of the same fabric. They’re interwoven. I am an economic populist down to my toes, and the Whole Foods Nation blogger boyz are about as much my friend as the vampire squids at Goldman Sachs.

  118. Adrienne in CA says:

    Whoa, Clash of the Titans in here. :D

    Re Pacific John’s statement here:

    All I’m saying about the feminist movement is its activist membership was not a cross-section of the population [...] Same with the other post-’60s white upper income movements.

    How often were/are activist members of any movement, including non-white movements, truly cross-sections of the populations they claim to represent? Gandhi came from a privileged background, son of a regional Prime Minister. MLK seems to have been of solidly middle class (relatively speaking), college educated parentage. Cesar Chavez’s father once owned a store, though the Great Depression sent the family into migrant farm labor, so perhaps he qualifies as rank and file. Even Jesus was apparently funded by wealthy (women!) donors.

    Union members voting for their reps or showing up on a Saturday to walk door to door don’t really enjoy the same level of engagement and input as their leadership, plenty of whom are fresh faced college kids of comfortable origins. If any of these and other movements were “of the people” once, are they still?

    The reason I ask is it seems to me that the egalitarian grassroots movements people wish would exist are extremely rare. Regardless of how disadvantaged a constituency they represent, founders and inner circles of movements need enough free time from subsistence scrounging to even conceive of a different reality, let alone study and construct and deliver a vision and strategy capable of changing it. The challenge for all of them, and for us, is to work against the natural human tendency to fall in love with our own specialness, and instead to begin and remain responsive to the needs of the many versus we few.


  119. Pacific John says:

    A – there was a big “and” in my statement. It’s that “and” that I’m all about.

  120. Violet says:

    Clash of the Titans! Heh. Well, I have the greatest respect for Pacific John and I invited him to this discussion. And as I said above, I share his vision for how all these values connect. It was just his one statement that raised my eyebrows, and raised, too, the question of how we deal with misinformation or misunderstanding within the group.

    I want to tie back to what Adrienne just said about elites and grassroots, which is also an echo of what John has been talking about. But first let me say that one source of confusion regarding feminism is in terms of nomenclature (I’m sure this is true of other movements as well, but I know feminism best). When we say “the feminist movement,” what do we mean? Do we mean Kim Gandy and Ellie Smeal and the rest of the beltway brigade? (And you all know how I feel about them and their leadership.) Do we mean the women who work as activists? Do we mean the women the media notices? Do we mean the Second Wavers in the 70s? Do we mean the movement as a social revolution that has taken root in all classes and segments of society?

    It’s that last one that I usually think of, because I know that feminist principles are part of almost every American woman’s life. It’s the “I’m not a feminist, but…” phenomenon. Listen: when a small-town Christian woman who belongs to the local Republican party talks about how she has to work a double shift (home and work) because she’s a woman, and why doesn’t her husband do his share, and why is her work at their family business not fully compensated but his is…that’s feminism.

    This is why I’m confident that Gender Justice as a value is not some strange, irrelevant concept.

    Now back to what Adrienne and Pacific John were saying about elitism versus working class folks: I think the ideal movement would draw from both for its leadership. The best and the brightest, but also people from the working world, the everyday world.

    Interesting parallel: for many years NOW has had a rule that 25% of its officers at every level must be women of color. One-fourth of the national leadership, one-fourth of every state’s leadership, one-fourth of the delegates to the convention…etc. I don’t exactly know how you’d do that with socioeconomic background in this country, but it’s something to think about.

  121. Adrienne in CA says:

    One-fourth of the national leadership, one-fourth of every state’s leadership, one-fourth of the delegates to the convention…etc. I don’t exactly know how you’d do that with socioeconomic background in this country, but it’s something to think about.

    Absolutely. One sure way, circling back to John’s original point, rightly stated in boldface, is:

    Broad access to higher education. No financial hurdles for qualified applicants.


  122. I am vaguely calling you an idiot « Donna Darko says:

    [...] Murphy channels Faludi and objects to the post-structural, deconstructionist aspects of French feminism. I began to have problems with French feminism when I realized it did not translate into constructive action and essentializes women and men. Faludi characterizes deconstructionism in feminism as toothless and unconstructive. Faludi, Murphy and I think relativism is harmful to feminism. Faludi’s third paragraph is the same as what Violet says in this fabulous, must-read thread. [...]

  123. Clinton/Gaga 2012 | Reclusive Leftist says:

    [...] Or maybe 2016. We gotta plan ahead. [...]

  124. Justice Party planning will resume after the holidays | Reclusive Leftist says:

    [...] It’s probably buried in a comment thread somewhere. Anyway: we shall pick back up with the Justice Party (or whatever we’re gonna call it) stuff after the holidays. It’s impossible to do any [...]

  125. songster says:

    How about the Fair Deal Party? Yeah, it’s identified with Truman, but it’s not a strong identification, and not such a bad thing anyway.

    At least it avoids associations with the FBI!

  126. Violet Socks says:

    I like the Fair Deal Party. I’m going to copy this comment to the new thread.

  127. lambert strether says:

    Violet @126 You could still use Lady Justice iconography.

  128. Violet Socks says:


  129. Freethinker says:

    Well “The Popular Party” should be considered since this would appeal to the narcissism prevalent in American culture. Plus it is a term that would invoke Depression-style populism. Definitely marketable. Wouldn’t every American want to be invited to the Popular Party?

  130. A fair deal for every American | Reclusive Leftist says:

    [...] what the Justice Party is about: a fair deal for every American. Whether you’re rich or poor, male or female, black [...]

  131. A fair deal for every American | Reclusive Leftist says:

    [...] what the Justice Party is about: a fair deal for every American. Whether you’re rich or poor, male or female, black [...]

  132. Sasha, CA says:

    I’m late to the party (very busy lately; not much time to read blogs), but I really like the name “Justice Party” and the key values. I also agree strongly with what myiq said at #49, particularly the part about making sure you have exclusive right to the use of the name and being very careful who you involve in the organizing stages. For instance, there are some people here and on other sites who support any woman regardless of her positions on the issues, but if organizers for a new party that’s supposed to stand for gender justice, social justice, environmental justice, global justice, etc. go around cheerleading for, say, Sarah Palin, the party’s credibility will be shot from day one.

  133. lambert strether says:

    Film at 11: Power corrupts.

  134. jeff roby says:

    Very, very interesting. At a quick glance, it appears that we are thinking along similar strategic lines, while diverging on tactics. The Full Court Press is designed to be as simple as possible, so that it is compatible with a wide variety of other tactics.

    I’ll have more to say on this on both Corrente and Docudharma.

  135. lambert strether says:

    See also Stop me before I vote again… from 2005!

  136. Oh, hey, a java party… | Reclusive Leftist says:

    [...] Coffee Party! Jeesh, why didn’t we think of that? But hang [...]

  137. Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, Part II « Blue Lyon says:

    [...] Throwing the bums out sounds so attractive, but not if you don’t have a vision for what kind of person you want to replace them.  This Statement of Priniciples is be a good start. And so is the Justice Party. [...]

  138. Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, Part II « The Widdershins says:

    [...] Throwing the bums out sounds so attractive, but not if you don’t have a vision for what kind of person you want to replace them. This Statement of Priniciples is be a good start. And so is the Justice Party. [...]