1. Much of my time over the past few years has been searching for, developing, and now
attempting to gain traction to promote participatory democracy. The result has been an
organizing model I call FUN21 CCDC, or The Focused Umbrella Network for 21st century
Citizenship and Community Democracy Clubs. The goal is to put forth an organization which
better represents people-centered politics. Following is a summary.
There are weaknesses in conventional organizing which present obstacles to creation of
"cooperative movement politics." The idea that democracy must be, or should be acrimonious,
and difficult, is detrimental to participation. Additionally, people are weary of efforts which
appear to be replication of "the same old formulas."
I believe there is a simple and effective approach to gather the participation necessary to
empower Bernie's "Our Revolution," and to put teeth into Citizen Barack Obama's call to
practice citizenship. In fact, I believe they should ideally work together in an alliance to promote
the model I have designed to do what they want. That is discussed as this note progresses.
But first, it would be interesting to hear a bit of feedback from you on three observations of mine
surrounding attempts to create a new type of movement politics. Bernie of course wants to do
that. Barack spent a huge percentage of his farewell address emphasizing the need to create
direct citizenship action centered upon municipal affairs. And recently Noam Chomsky spoke
about the urgent need for citizenship. My three observations are the following:
Bernie of course wants to create a participatory movement with "Our Revolution," OR. Citizen
Barack Obama spent a huge percentage of his farewell address emphasizing the need to create
direct citizenship action, centered upon municipal affairs. And recently Noam Chomsky spoke
about the urgent need for citizenship. But all three are short on detail. Thus, my three following
observations. I believe they are critical to forming a truly new movement and that being ignorant
of these elements establishes invisible road blocks to progressive cooperation organizing efforts.
1) Psychologist Abraham Maslow said when one's tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I again came across the exact quote in this book, Originals. The book provides supportive data
indicating that the obvious is not always true regarding original people and ideas.
2) Also validated in the book, is the idea that often times it is the "experts" in a particular field
who fail to recognize an original idea. That applies to attempts at organizing a new type of
movement politics. Basically, the people expected to come up with the new model are people
who are trained very specifically on how to organize within a specific model. They are blinded to
ideas that do not fit the norm and often are antagonistic to them. Organizers have a track record
of success in issue and campaign advocacy. It is not their job to come up with new organizing

2. models. To create the movement Noam, Barack and Bernie want, will require thinking outside of
the box.
3) This last point is something I will be particularly interested in hearing your thoughts on.
Specifically I feel that, at its base, current political competition is between the cannibal capitalist
philosophy which proposes complete economic freedom, independent from democracy, VS
advocates for 'credible capitalism' and the common good, as delineated in our Declaration of
Independence and in the Preamble to our constitution. That match is like a football game
between a professional football team, (with a full game plan and all of the attending staff) VS a
bunch of high school athletes recruited from various pick-up games. In the political world the
teams are represented by the orchestrated machinery of ALEC, the (American Legislative
Exchange Council) and a team made up of loosely affiliated "liberals."
Most importantly --- the success of ALEC is not due primarily to its issue advocacy. It's success
with issues, (including getting a playbook out to legislatures which support its mission), is a
direct result of three primary requirements for successful movement politics. The primary reason
ALEC succeeds is because it has members agree to a basic philosophy (laissez-faire economics),
a basic mission (promoting that philosophy through legislative packets, fake news associated
think tanks, seemingly independent review agencies, etc), and a structure from which they allow
no deviation. That is the discipline of what has become reactionary conservatism. That tripod is
used by reactionary forces to decimate credible capitalists, progressivism, and democracy
proponents.
Therefore, it has long been my position that the largest mistake the progressives make ---
repeatedly, is the attempt to form an organization based first, around issues, or around getting
issue groups to cooperate. That is not surprising because that is what organizers do. They do not
begin with basic common philosophy, mission and structure. They are taught to think about how
to organize around issues and elections.
Why doesn't democracy work? Because as a verb, an action word, it requires participation and
not enough of us participate. The vacuum is filled by special interest. That begs the question,
how do we promote participation? We make this too complicated. The answer we choose is to
organize around issues and that is the wrong answer. We can begin to resolve the problem by
recognizing that progressives have no counter organization to compete with ALEC! When we
ask why, then we can begin to build the solution.
The model I propose, begins simply with philosophy, (historic independent); mission, (to expand
America's middle class); and a unique structure to allow replication. It thus functions, and is
easily copied, to operate as a franchise for participatory democracy. The structure controls
divisiveness, while also promoting creativity at the local level, and networking on a larger scale.

3. It begins simply by acquiring a critical mass of membership who agree to the simple task of
municipal meetings. But imagine how revolutionary it would be to democracy if 20 new citizens
attended every county board meeting in counties across each state. Then imagine 15 to 20 people
attending every school board and city council meeting. Each person would need to attend only
once per year but would be accompanied by 19 other progressives. After that basic commitment,
members who so wish, would meet monthly to take on local issues. These groups in each
assembly district become local Citizenship and Community Democracy Clubs (CCDCs), and
they are networked and are fed with an umbrella of progressive services, (policy analysts, think
tanks, message framers, marketing and communications assistance, etc).
Component parts are added as the network develops. Local groups in each assembly district are
networked on a state-wide basis. But super cooperation like this is not possible when organizers
try to develop the movement by first attempting to organize around issues or candidates. A
movement is not possible so long as liberals and progressives attempt to organize around issues
first because that ignores the basic fundamentals of successful game planning.
It is also incredibly important to make participation easy and enjoyable. One reason people avoid
politics is because they see it as the antagonistic competition it has become, rather than as the
"politika" of its Greek root beginnings for citizenship.
Barack or Bernie endorsing such a model would help to overcome the largest obstacle. Namely,
it is difficult to get people to believe. But it is both belief, AND a model that begins first with
philosophy, mission and structure, which will promote necessary cooperation.
This type of model empowers the vision of former U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone for permanent,
independent, progressive, grass roots organizations in each community, to exist independent of
single issue campaigns and single electoral campaigns.
There are ways to practice conviction politics without being offensive; a way to "pro" "test"
people-centered public policy. Enjoying the process through bonding inside of clubs, and
bridging clubs with community, is very important. That places an emphasis on better citizenship
and community placemaking. Inside of each club is to be developed what I call Spontaneous
Organic Socializing. SOS is designed as a key inclusion to build enjoyment into the process.
The idea that democracy should be acrimonious is detrimental to participation.
I refer to this organizing model as The Focused Umbrella Network for 21st century Citizenship
& Community Democracy Clubs, or FUN21 CCDC. The idea can stand alone, or act as the nuts
and bolts of Obama's idea to empower citizenship, or in Bernie's proposed OR movement.

4. The goal of Our Revolution is to create a new type of movement politics to capture the
popularity of Bernie's message. The major drawback is, a) the conventional organizing --- like
that now attempting to develop a plan for OWR --- and, b) the agenda itself is too complicated to
attract an already stressed group of activists into believing they have time to do more of the
same.
The beauty of FUN21 CCDC is that a) it starts with the fundamentals of common philosophy,
mission, and structure, b) it can attract members and give them an immediate simple task to
attend county board meetings together in large numbers, and c) while doing so, the component
parts --- to create a vibrant participatory network of direct action at the local, state and,
eventually the national levels --- are added in sequence to allow ever greater participation.
Once signed up, (people would be randomly assigned with a large number of fellow
progressives), to attend one county board meeting per year. Computer software could even allow
people to sign up in pairs or groups. And once county-wide membership lists are created, then
those could be broken down into assembly district lists. Then city lists could be created and
from those lists would come the AD democracy clubs. In larger cities there could be multiple
clubs and some of them would be neighborhood groups. Some existing independent citizenship
groups could sign on to become CCDCs. At that point citizens begin functioning at the city
council and school board levels within their communities.
Imagine if Bernie or Barack had that simple plan. With that endorsement, people would sign up
to take part in attendance at county board meetings. It would become an updated call to action,
reminiscent of JFK's call, "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather, what you can do
for your country." This model becomes a "Peace Corps for Democracy."