How to Steal a Club

Democracy is a funny thing.  If abused, it can let the few outvote the many.

Wait...what?

Well, picture a club with 100 members.  The Vegan Club.  But one of the guys is a secret meat eater, and he wants to get his pro-meat agenda accepted.  

Wait - why is he even in such a club if he likes meat? 

Well, maybe he was raised in the club by Vegan parents.  So he enjoys a lot of the friends there, the sense of community, the familiar.  But he does really want to eat meat.  Instead of leaving then, and finding a Meat Lover's Club, he figures he'll change the club from within.

Mmmm...diversity!  

He can't do it by himself, but since he is in already, he has plenty of time to see who might be swayed.  

The woman who he saw having a Sausage Egg McMuffin at McDonald's last week.  The guy who he knows has a son in the Meatpackers Local 483 Union.  A dozen 20 somethings who watch a lot of TV showing how cool eating meat is and who figure this will let them have their "voices heard" as they exercise a bit of youthful rebellion.  A dozen who were dissatisfied with the club anyway, for a variety of non-meat related reasons and they figure that this kind of shake up is just the "get back" they need to feel better.  

Some disaffected wannabe leaders, sad that they were passed over, but who see that if they get in on the ground floor of "Meat loving" that they might be able to grab some leadership positions in the future.  A few sincere believers who while greatly deluded, really and truly see no conflict between meat eating and Veganism.

A noticeable number more who have various friends and family who enjoy a bit of meat now and then, and are more than up for being more "inclusive" so as to have their buddies in their club.  Or to not be looked down up for raising up a kid who so obviously loves eating meat.

Even a few outside agitators who so hate vegetables that they're willing to join just to disrupt from within.

And maybe some are tired of resisting meat, and figure this way they can indulge without being judged.

What's that all add up to?  Well, probably not so much.  Let's say 35.  Guess the Vegan Club is safe, huh?

Not hardly.

So the original guy knows not to just put it to a vote - because they'd lose and lose big, 64 to 36.  But 36 still isn't nothing, so he plays a game wherein at the end of it, a vote will help, not hurt him.

He speaks of "having a discussion" on it, as if the idea of eating meat is a normal and natural one for a Vegan club.  While that is really as insane as the Klan speaking of having a diversity program, he'll insist that a "discussion" never hurt a thing.

He'll have others give strident testimonials here and there about how sad some of their friends and family are about how "exclusionary" the Vegan club is when it comes to innocent meat eaters.  To listen to them, you'd figure that meat eaters are killing themselves in droves over not being able to join the Vegan club.

Others will wow you with stories of how wild Vegans, hyped up on the "Vegan Agenda" are beating and bullying the meat eaters, driving them to despondency, depression and sometimes - death!

The evidence for any of this will be so scant as to be non-existent.  Such examples as you'll see will melt upon further examination when it will turn out that maybe the guy who hung himself did so over being fired, having his house seized and his wife divorce him - as opposed to it being over not being able to join the Vegan club.

But such nonsense will, while having no merit, keep the issue in front of the club's membership and make calls for a "discussion" seem more credible.

It will also give them their lead in for asking, "Can we at least acknowledge that meat eaters should be treated with love and kindness and support?"  This will be agreed to at once, and the trap there is that since there is no similar statement about treating Sri Lankans and baseball players and Democrats with such love and kindness and support this sets up meat eaters as a "special class" in need of "special consideration".

And aids also in that from now on, anyone who does not agree that a discussion is needed will be told, "But our own club leaders told us to treat them with love and kindness and support - are you going against our own leaders?"  Ironic, as the person saying that is doing nothing BUT going against the leaders in every other way.

Then the writings of the club's founders will be gone over with a fine tooth comb and then twisted and turned about into seeming support of meat eating.  "It was wrote by our Founder that we should only eat of that which grows from the good Earth, but the cow is made up in it's entirety from the grasses of that good Earth!  Thus the eating of a burger IS the eating of grass!"

Idiotic?  Yes.  Does it ignore the other clearly wrote sayings like, "We Vegans will NEVER eat pork or fish or beef?"  Yes.  But does it keep the topic thus before the membership and give still more credence to the "need" for a "discussion" on what is now an issue?

For note that it was never an issue before.  But now just for yammering over and over, it's an issue.  And what do groups do with issues?  Resolve them.  And how do you resolve it?  With...a discussion first!

You can just see the discussion on this issue coming, can't you?

There's ten chapters of the Vegan Club, and given that some chapters have more of the disaffected secretly pro-meat in them than others, it will be almost inevitable that two or three will at some point vote for a chapter chairman who is "pro-meat".

Others, like those disaffected for other reasons and those who just look for rebellious opportunities to keep things lively, will see that and know that this is a cause they can go with.  Wannabe leaders will see this development and take that as an opportunity.

A guy who is running a close second in who gets to be the 7th Chapter's chairman will come out strongly "pro-meat" if he realizes that there are five in the chapter who were leaning that way for a variety of reasons.  Or a chairman in place, worried about a challenge, might come out "pro-meat" if he thinks it will get him enough panache to hold that seat.

If the main leadership gets upset, the "pro meat" chairmen will simply claim that they are "non-practicing" though they are "longing for the day" when they don't have to hide their true selves or their thoughts and feelings.  The main leadership will then dither about with whether "non-practicing" is okay, and the meat eaters will all the more call for a discussion to "resolve" this.

Now some of the main bulk of the Vegan Club, who still control most of the chapters, will start to get upset and say that this kind of thing is wrong, that they didn't join a meat eater's club, that meat eaters should start their own club, and that nothing needs to change.

But this plays into the meat eater's hands, as they'll say, "See, so you agree this issue needs a resolution!  Let's have some dialogue on this - for the sake of the club!"

Note in this that to the extent the club is in crisis or danger, it is the meat eater's who have done that.  They now propose that the crises they created be resolved - by giving them the "discussion" they always wanted!

Discussions are then had.  And three chapters pass "non-binding resolutions" encouraging a "tolerance" of the "diversity of thought" on the "cows are grass" issue.  Such that we should be accepting of those who eat cows, as they may honestly feel that cows are grass, and who are we to judge how a fellow Vegan goes about practicing Veganism?

And at least one chapter will offer up a non-binding resolution that their chairperson can so be "practicing" and if he goes, they go!  So there!  They may also stomp their feet.

This simultaneously emboldens the meat eaters and gets the Vegans even more in a tizzy.  The pretended made up crisis is now a real crisis, so since the Stage 1 "Let's have a discussion" was given to them in a vain attempt to appease them, the meat eaters now move to Stage 2 where they ask for "A Vote".

Why a vote?  Oh, to resolve the crisis "fairly"!  But didn't they know earlier that they could not just win an out and out vote?

Well, it won't be an out and out vote now, because since some of them are now in various leadership positions, they can have "input" into how the vote will be done.  And while before Vegans not eating meat was an obvious non-issue, now everyone not only perceives it as an issue, but knows it to be an issue that has already been discussed, and already had various chapters speak on various sides.

From it then being a non-issue not worth a second thought, now it's a big issue, it demands resolution, and - and this is crucial - that there are people on each side, lets many in the middle know, "Well, I thought Vegans were only to eat veggies, but with a lot of my neighbors and friends and such coming down on the other side, I guess there must be some validity to it."

So instead of a small but strident minority with a monolithic block of "keep it as it is" against them, now it's one small but strident group on one side, one small but strident group on the other, and the great middle who now honestly believe that the issue is NOT cut and dry, because here there are so many discussing and debating on it!

Now it's time to vote.  Because without a vote, some chapters are threatening to bolt.  And threatening that, they claim they'll stay if only a "fair vote" can be had.  Hard for those Vegans who don't believe in eating cows to disagree with a "fair vote", isn't it?

True, there'll be a few who'll point out that on core principles, no vote is needed.  That voting is for stuff that doesn't matter so much, or to pick chapter chairmen in general, or what day to have the broccoli bake sale on.  Not about whether Vegans should be Vegans!

But this will only have the "cows are grass" faction howl about how they ARE Vegans also and they have voices and they need to be heard and it's not fair for some to try to boot others out and destroy the club over their old fashioned out dated ideas!  That they - the meat eaters - aren't asking for any "traditionalists" to leave, so how mean is it that the Traditionalists should ask the "alternative vegans" to leave?

Notice now how those who are actually "real believers in the ideals of the Vegan Club" are now re-branded as "Traditionalists" with all the old fashioned fuddy duddy connotations of that?  And those who eat meat are re-branded as "Alternative vegans", with all the hip modern panache that has?  Not to mention that it makes them out to be the "real" vegans?  And that now both paths are seen as valid, and the "issue" now is only about which path is better?

Yeah, you guessed it - now it's vote time.  Which the Alternative Vegans want as they know they're ready now, and the Traditionalists only grudgingly go along with just to "put this silliness to bed".  They're still so sure that the obvious will be known to all, and don't even realize that their base is now not their base but only just watching to see which way the wind blows and go along with whoever shouts loudest.

In one possible scenario, let's picture that one of the higher up leaders, is road blocked in his career ambitions.  He has known for years he's as high up in the hierarchy as he can go.  And yeah, he's bitter.  He sees an opportunity now, though.  The old regime won't promote him up higher or give him that much needed raise - but a new regime might.

If that new regime had cause to be grateful.

So he uses his power and influence to get the duty of running the voting process "fairly".  He comes up with a great idea.  He calls the other 99 to a great meeting at the main club house hall.  He tells them that to avoid "chapterism" he's going to separate the 100 members into 10 groups of 10, randomly, just to keep it fair.

Knowing full well who is who from his back room conversations with that original secret meat eater at the beginning of this article, he takes the list of 36 Alternative Vegans and places six of them in the first group of ten, six of them in the second group of ten, and so on until six of the ten groups has six Alternate Vegans in each.

He sends each of the groups off to "discuss and vote".

Six groups - the ones with the six Alternative Vegans in each - come back and say, "Cows are grass".  Four groups with no Alternative Vegans in them come back and say, "Vegans can't eat meat".

And that's how 36% of a club take it over and make it the opposite as to what it was.  Nor is that the only way.  Every thing described could be done, but instead of a razzle dazzle of mixed voters, each chapter could have voted.  

In that scenario, probably only three or four chapters out of ten would have voted to change, so it would seem that the Alternative Vegans would lose in that situation.  Not at all.  They'd threaten to all withdraw and start their own club and the others, not wishing to lose the dues or to see their Vegan mission cut in near half or to lose club houses and club properties, would immediately proffer compromises.

Maybe the Vegan Club could then go "local option" when it came to "Defining" what it "really means" to be a Vegan.  Which does nothing but allow the 3 or 4 chapters to grow in influence and numbers for any who witness that will see it as the defeat for the "Traditionalists" that it was.

Maybe they'll out and out call the bluff and 1 or 2 chapters really will bolt.  In that scenario then there'll be calls to compromise with the ones who didn't leave, and that then strengthens the Alternative Vegans in proportion to the now weakened Traditionalists.

Once it gets to the point where it's an "issue" in need of "discussion" then it doesn't matter which method is used, it's a sure thing that "a" method will be used.  A vote will be had.  And it will be a loss for the club regardless because honestly, when you vote on your core ideals, you've already lost even before the ballots are cast.

Because you're conceding that your ideals are no big deal and that whatever the crowd feels at any given point is fine with you and you'll go along with it.  And no, the same can't be said of those calling for the vote.  They're calling for a vote to gain what they claim are their deeply held convictions which you may be sure that if they won they'd not let it be voted on the following year.

You on the other hand are taking your allegedly deeply held ideals and placing them before the crowd for a thumbs up or down.  No one who cares about their ideals ever willing does that.

They also are making their new idea equivalently valid as your old idea.  How so?  Well, you're voting on it, aren't you?  Thus the new idea, whether it wins or not, does win in the sense that you've just acknowledged that it could be valid.  That it was at least worth considering!

What's the real solution?

The club needs to make darn sure from the start that no disaffected member leaving can take club property away.  Because often times that's what is really being sought.  The "cows are grass" folks obviously know they can leave and start their own club, the main reason why they don't is that they want to steal the buildings, bank accounts and properties of the original club.

They don't want to have to go through a century of capital accumulation, they figure they're owed being able to have all the advantages of the original group, without any of the long work it took for that group to get all that.

After making darn sure the assets are protected, a club should make sure that it's clearly known by all that some issues are NOT and NEVER WILL BE up for a vote.  Like whether Vegans can eat meat. 

Finally, a club should immediately, and at once, kick out any "leader" of any chapter that in any way attempts to speak against the clearly stated ideals and rules and mission of the club.  No "thoughtful talks" no "alternative viewpoints" no "points to ponder" on the subject of whether cows are grass or whether Vegans can eat meat.  And none of the passive aggressive talks like, "I refrain from meat, but only out of respect for the club, I do believe that cows could be good to eat if we could only get over our traditionalist prejudices that, I feel in my heart, are holding us back!"

Any thing less than what I just said and the club may as well just toss the keys to the first person who disagrees with the entirety of the club.