After working on several more projects, we realized that with the limited resources of a small, underfunded party, organization, planning and optimization of resources were prerequisites to any future success. After working on campaign literature for 2 recent by-
elections, it became obvious that treating each district as a unique circumstance would simply never work. Also it seemed obvious that a general election was looming, and we'd better get our ducks in a row to prepare.
CAP's greatest asset had to be its members. If we could get a list of members in each riding, we could get them to harvest information for us about the resources available in their area. What newspapers to advertise in, where to get billboard advertising, where to get printing done, etc., etc. We would build a database dedicated to all the information needed to run a full election campaign now rather than wait until it was an emergency and everyone was too busy to help.
In my capacity as media consultant, I made three simple requests of Catherine: a list of members that she could contact as potential volunteers, job descriptions of those on the Executive, and some notion of what was available for a budget.
Since only Connie Fogal had access to membership information, had a copy of the Constitution, or knew anything at all about CAP financial matters, Catherine sent a rather straightforward request to Connie for information, so that we could at least enter into a planning stage.
That's when it hit the fan.
Catherine, out of the blue, was accused of being disloyal. What was she implying by asking for this information? The accusations tumbled out one after another, astonishing and then dismaying both of us. I watched as Catherine tried time and again to calm Connie's anxieties, only to be rebuffed and for new accusations to appear.
It went from surprising to ridiculous as newly appointed Executives (by Connie) lined up to take shots at Catherine who by now really had to be wondering what it was about the books that needed to be hidden away.
You must understand that Catherine freely gave her time to promoting CAP principles - and it was a considerable amount of time. She purchased a computer and software to manage the database with her own money, she travelled and called long distance--all on her own dime.
She never asked to be reimbursed.
Connie Fogal has indeed been betrayed. But not by Catherine Whelan Costen. Connie has been betrayed by the membership that did not force her to stand for election as required for party leader at the last general meeting (she would have won). She has been betrayed by those in the Executive who cannot distinguish between personalities and principle. "Loyalty to our leader" is something we expect to hear in a dictatorship, not a properly functioning democratic institution.
When rules are made by the electorate, the Executive - and leader must comply.
The North American Union can come about only because the soil is fertile for dictatorship - corporate or otherwise. To the degree that we expect others to step forward and bear the load of democracy, while we do no more than vote or make the occasional donation, is to
take on the role of sheep. Sheep attract a few shepherds and a lot of wolves.
I have watched over the years as Connie has single-handedly fought to bring a difficult and dangerous message to a disinterested public. She had to do it all - if she didn't so it, it probably didn't get done. She worked alone and was scared a lot of the time. Somehow, over time, as people started listening to her message, there was no
room for people to help, this had become her own private show. She was the only one who could do it.
Connie was eventually betrayed by Connie. Like King Lear, she lashed out at those who urged her to a better way. Criticism = disloyalty.
CAP has lost a true patriot in Catherine and it is therefore a loss to all of us.
[Editor's note: Vive Le Canada is not affilliated with the Canadian Action Party, Boy Scouts of America, or The Edward R. Murrow Foundation.]
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 21, 2007]
Comments
view comments in forum
You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.
Catherine was also pretty vocal here prior to the last election, if she reads this, hopefully she is not too dismayed. There is always running as an independant:) Here in Ontario they have a party that helps independants, unfortunately, like CAP they seem to have gotten into the idea that the only way to combat the system is by becoming more like it.
That's personally why I like direct democracy, when people look at different issues at the least they form different 'groups'. These are informal so you don't get the 'political party' problems that we have in Canada.
When a party leader reacts like that to even those closest to them, its really got to make you wonder.
In my view CAP has done it's self irreparable damage at the hands of Connie Fogal and If Ms Fogal has any integrity she will, IMMEDIATELY set the record straight and consider tendering her resignation.
Her paranoia will leave a bad taste in the mouths of many who saw CAP as a legitimate alternative to the current political gangsterism prevalent in to-days political system here in Canada.
I happen to know that the work of Catherine Whelan Costen was responsible for help of other concerned people being offered to get the message of CAP to Canadians and one individual offered help because of their belief in Catherine Whelan Costen rather than the system.
A Bloody shame, that there are perhaps many away deep in the background who also felt the sting of a figuarehead's insecurities
---
"And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan."
* George Bu
I am willing to help in rebuilding this party in any way possible, please let me know if I can be of assistance...
Until Catherine informed me herself, I thought she was the leader of CAP. Connie who? I had to look her up. After that, I had to wonder why Catherine was not the leader?
Sometimes I wonder if these fringe parties are just there as false opposition.
I have not heard all sides of this story, but based on what was just posted, for a party leader to keep information hidden away like that can only mean that there's something seriously wrong with the leadership.
I have to ask because I want not to make a judgement based solely on what you have written. Could you kindly give a broader definition of what you are driving at by your opening sentence?
In my view parties are exist by there membership and as I see it the membership of these parties are drive more by an inner sense of putting thing right than any sense of desperation.
As far as your lack of knowledge as to who was who within CAP, a simple google would have cleared that up in a couple of heart beats.
I believe I have posted here on more than one occasion until each and every individual that joins an organisation, political or not shows some internal integrity some “leader” will take over.
Eternal vigilance resides, if at all, in you as well as I
---
"And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan."
* George Bu
As for the CAP situation - sad state all around. I'd ask Connie for her side but she doesn't return my calls.
---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.
Harper is furiously bribing the masses with their own money, and we'll see if that old trick still works or not.
The Liberals seem to be still stuck in the mud.
If we're lucky we'll finally see a Green MP get elected.
This race to the top is like watching glaciers melt, or compost decompose.
My opening sentence was "Fringe Parties are fringe for a reason."
Forming a new party without the backing of a billionaire is next to impossible. To make matters worse, the alternative parties always seem to fight each other more than their opponents - perhaps because they don't know what else to do given the near impossibility of the task, or perhaps they are not serious to begin with. I don't know, but the "fringe" always seem to self-destruct on their own, and that's unfortunate.
Yes it was.
Although I didn’t realise that fringe parties are fringe parties for the reasons you state. Thank you
---
"And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan."
* George Bu
Yes it was.
Although I didn’t realise that fringe parties are fringe parties for the reasons you state. Thank you
---
"And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan."
* George Bu
I've been a red hot environmentalist since the beginning of the 70s, Sierra Club exec in Vancouver, organic farmer, but would not vote for them.
In any case, here in the Cariboo, they'll get about 10 votes and we'll once again have a warmed up Reform fossil, elected in 4 union towns.
The Canadian political scene is the most hopeless mess one could imagine, with all parties trying to jump on the "wealth creating foreign investment" bandwagon.
Ed Deak.
I can understand the infighting happening out of shear frustration with not being able to do much of anything given the difficulty of the task in becoming "popular" enough to make a difference.
What do you suspect else is going wrong?
But for that it has to be done right. CAP was never a 'grassroots' party, even less so than mainstream parties. When your leader hasn't even been elected, and nobody but them can see the books then thats far more dictatorial than mainstream parties, no matter what their policies state. So one of the reasons they are 'fringe' could well be the lack of trust that people have in politicians. Sure, CAP SAYS they will do certain things, but all partys make promises that end up on the scrap heap once elected. Our current liberal government is proof of that!
When 'grassroots' build a party then it shows, like it did with the Reform, and like it did with the Parti Quebecois. The problem with those two was that was they gained some little success they simply became the same as the other parties.
Here in ontario at the 'fireweeddemocracyproject' a group of independants and fringe parties got together to try to build a slightly bigger fringe party yet from virtually the first announcement the ego's and disputes kicked in. Even though it was supposed to be 'direct democracy', the nominal leaders of the tiny parties voted for all their 'constituents'.
In those cases you clearly have a house made of sand, although just having them around serves a valuable purpose. The Green Party has nothing close to decent representation but often gets more press than the NDP-perhaps because of those 'old tory' members who are more business friendly than the NDP.
However, the current emphasis on the environment couldn't have happened without them, and that shows the real power of 'fringe parties', and shows they are at least worth fighting for-or starting.
I disagree, I find both the provincial Green party and the Federal one to be rapidly developing a mature and reasoned action plan for running government should they win, and I often vote for them. Their main problems appear to be constantly ending up splitting votes with the NDP, securing adequate funding, and getting airtime from the biased corporate run media.
---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”