[TRG] On Legitmacy

Day 3,060, 08:40 • Published in USA USA • by J.A. Lake
Mood Music
(Another track from the JFK soundtrack? I guess!)

I wanted to respond to Brother Gnilraps' article as well, though Josh Whitehead did a fine job himself. This is a conversation SFP has had at least once in recent memory, though I'm sure long-timers have seen it before more often.

Recently the SFP saw a split between radicals and conformists when Jude Conners ran for Dictator in November. A lot of the radicals were mad- not just because we were radical, but because this was a surrender on the most important issue of the day: dictatorship.

Since then a lot of Jude-ites have bailed on the SFP, and radicals have risen to power in a sense. There have been growing pains, but the SFP is stronger for them I think. We need to work out many of the issues facing ourselves as a Party, and Gnilraps correctly cites one of the largest.


So, legitimacy.

I would break it down to two categories, Internal Legitimacy and External Legitimacy. For the purposes of clarity I will define both:

1) Internal Legitimacy

This is the Party's view of itself as cohesive, consistent, and true to itself and its values. In SFP as in most parties (I would assume) we have high internal legitimacy. SFPers are fiercely loyal to the party and our brotherhood is unmatched.

2) External Legitimacy

This is the view of the party from outside. Following the events of 6 December it seems apparent that SFP's external legitimacy took a serious hit. This has implications that have driven off several of our members, namely the exclusion from the eUS Forums metagame and offices therein by the cabal in charge there.

Now, the way I see it the proposals made by Gnilraps are geared toward the restoration of the SFP's external legitimacy. To boil it down to bullet points:

* Adapt the SFP to Meta-Congress rules.
* Introduce a ban on running "blacklisted" members for Congress.
* Implement a Congressional Training Program.

Points 1 and 2 are clearly in service to that goal. Now, the goodness or badness notwithstanding we have to confront what this would do to our internal legitimacy. For one, our collaborationist wing has almost entirely fled the SFP. All that can be done by implementing these policies is drive out who remains: the radicals and the nonconformists. I don't believe this would help to improve our membership as a result.

Secondly, these proposals would lead to a sacrifice of internal legitimacy to try and increase external legitimacy. What good is getting back on the eUS Forums' good side if it means dragging the SFP's reputation through the mud in the hearts and minds of its own members?

What could be done instead? A middle ground must be found between collaboration and radicalism, and a hard-shift toward collaboration is not, I believe, the way to accomplish that. I agree that we should train people how to deal with Congress better. Maybe do a few grammar/spelling tutorials, issue ground rules on post content, work to build a body of research and legal precedent we can employ in debates on the forums.

We can increase our prominence, and through that I believe we can increase our external legitimacy. It will require work, and some of it may be combing through the noxious trash posted on the eUS Forums.


I agree that something has to change, but I disagree that bending to the eUS Forums' will is the way to do it. Change begins within, not without. SFP should get to work improving ourselves and our image, not conforming to what others say our image should be.