One point I think you and others haven’t considered is that, regardless of the problems with Council, its aggressive push for the issues outlined above gives our movement so much more credibility than groups like SPD, SLAC or even MCSC with the administration and other institutions of power, as well as with the press and other establishment entities. It simply means so much more when our student government is demanding divestment from war profiteers than groups constantly labeled as fringe. This legitimacy also extends to the student body itself. A leftist ASM has a lot of potential for increasing involvement in progressive causes. I think it’s a dialectic, in which increasing activism on campus will radicalize ASM, while that same transformed ASM will then help to create even more activism among students.

Again, no one is saying our task is an easy one, but we are obviously unified in our belief that a democratic takeover of ASM will only aid in our cause.

As I have said repeated, I feel it is absolutely essential that the financial side of ASM be as sheltered as possible from the political debates which are going on. This means you will have to find alternative ways to open up the organization. This is the reason why creating a viable council becomes so important, but it almost necessitates a legislative function. If council is relegated to activist functions it will either be representative, but not functional, or active, but not representative.

A better place to begin a conversation between the two sides starts with your previous post, which is very insightful, despite some disagreements I may have. Council is indeed an organizational mess and it will be a great challenge for a (hopefully successful) slate of progressives to reconcile what it means to be a “legislator” with the grassroots element. No one would contend that combining the two is an easy task, which is why the few progressives currently involved in ASM will have to play a large role in educating future members about the jumbled mess that is our student government.

Within the next few days, a core group will be meeting to discuss strategy, vision and concrete plans for what we would like to see for the future of ASM. While larger social justice concerns will have to be intricately tied to anything we do, the bulk of our platform will be around fairly uncontroversial progressive issues – tuition/financial aid, diversity, student empowerment/democratization of the university and socially responsible investment. The truth is these are things that most students agree with, including most members of the Constitutional Committee. There is no reason why these plans should invite a backlash from anyone outside of the far right.

The implementation of these plans is, of course, the hard part, which is why we are interested in making this coalition as broad as our core principles allow. Much of your advice seems sound and welcome, and it is a conversation that should continue among everyone interested in fighting for student issues.

GSSF groups alone are not that powerful. An endorsement from “Sex Out Loud” does nothing.

On a related note, the lack of democracy means ASM fails to attract talented leaders from across campus. Ideally student leaders from organizations would see the opportunity to serve in ASM as a step up. However, a position on ASM holds no status. As a result, ASM’s ability to recruit talent is stifled.

Very interesting point. I can tell you in the “moderate Dem” circle, being Chair of the College Dems, running a campus-wide campaign (think Obama), or running for office (city or county) is given higher prestige. The later, especially in a post-Judge world, the District 8 City Council seat, is in my view considered the “top” spot, amongst politicos and interested students who might otherwise rise to the top of ASM. This is not necessarily bad, but in any space with limited resources — as UW has 40,000 potential bodies — ASM has to win some of these competitions for attention.