A Quick Response to Post-Election Analysis

Day 2,908, 19:22 Published in USA USA by Azazel Romanov


A bit of an odd title to the article, but it is the best I could come up with. Franklin Stone recently argued that SFP restarted my writing career and I denied this. Now I'm responding to an article inspired by SFP politics, so I guess I'll have to eat my words on this particular case. So here goes nothing.

J.A. Lake just wrote an article about why he thinks Jude lost the race, and he appears to lay blame at the way they went about trying to win. His first statement is that "this could very well be because the SFP has done nothing to garner the votes to win." I'd say he's right on that note. SFP is new to the Top 5 game and hasn't come out with any particular achievement other than that, unless you want to argue about party activity. While party activity is great, what makes it something to be elected for is to translate it to national activity. You have to break the bubble and show that beyond party politics that your members are capable of performing for the national benefit. Think of the party itself as a training ground for the bigger game. The USWP and Feds have always kind of followed this model of development, and encouraged their members to become leaders rather than devoting all energies to the party.

However, Lake takes this in a different direction. He argues that "the hard truth is our campaign promises have gone unfulfilled and our conduct has been less-than-revolutionary." In other words, it was because they couldn't accomplish their goals, and thus the personal appeal of the candidate couldn't break through. He states that they need to find ways to win to accomplish their goals (in his view): lower taxes, a different foreign policy, and an elimination of the defensive dictatorship. SFP (and including BSP I suppose) will likely never have a majority over the other Top 5, or at least one that is sustainable to have those policies implemented long-term. If these are the goals, you need to sell them. And not just to your party, but to the other Top 5. Otherwise, it will always be 4-1, and you won't win the national election, or implement any of the policies. Push why lower taxes benefit the country. Push why a different foreign policy could be more beneficial (rather than just something different and fun). How do we benefit more from a lack of a defensive dictatorship. Show us. If this has been done, point me to it, and I'll be glad to read it. Internal discussion is great, but it doesn't mean national change.

Lastly, something I heavily disagree with, is his assertion that "in order to save the kingdom we have to stop being drawn into the metagame that has wrecked the eUS". On the contrary, I argue that the metagame is one of the only things still keeping a lot of people here. National forums? Metagame. Party forums? Metagame. IRC? Metagame. Until there is a viable in-game alternative to organizing national policy and foreign policy (and knowing the game, likely never), you're going to see the metagame used. And you're going to have to contend with the metagame user.

Shorter article, and kind of biased I admit. Really just wanted something to write about, and this was an opportunity. Have at it.