SVR: Dissension in the Ranks

The plot thickens... Vermont Commons contributing editor Robert Riversong has apparently been shown the door. It seems like the inner workings of SVR as not as democratic as they'd like us to think:

Among the stated goals of the SVR are "power-sharing" and "mutuality", code words for what most of us would consider democracy in its local, decentralist form. And yet the "co-chairs" of the SVR have chosen to exercise a rather exclusivist control over both the nature of the organization and it's public statements...

SVR has occasionally rethought its mission and purpose, trying at one time to become an organizing hub for the kind of grass-roots movement that is the sine-qua-non of a successful secession trajectory. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, this effort collapsed and the SVR returned to being a "voluntary association" or, as Rob Williams has suggested, a "civic club".

The term "civic club" has always suggested exclusiveness to me (old white men lounging on stuffed chairs smoking their pipes), and the reality of the SVR at this time supports that perception.

Now, to his credit, Riversong has on numerous occasions voiced serious concerns about the certain advisory board members in question, and was not at all comfortable with the League of the South affiliation. Unfortunately, he still hasn't gotten over the delusional heightened sense of importance that seems to plague the organization:

Apparently the Second Vermont Republic (SVR), its sister publication the Vermont Commons (VC), and the movement-at-large toward peaceable secession is gaining enough traction and credibility that it is now being attacked by its erstwhile supporters - "progressive" groups and bloggers.

Uh, no, Robert. Get real. I supported SVR, but even then, I was well aware that most people either don't know about your organization, or consider it a fringe or novelty group at best. And many that do take it seriously are jumping ship because of this controversy. Heck, the mainstream media's reaction to this so far has been, "Who cares?" When I first heard about this story, the first thing that popped into my head wasn't, "Uh-oh, these guys might actually get somewhere. I better do something to stop them!" It was more like, "Wow, a lot of people (including myself) who support them might have an issue with this. I'd better make sure they're aware of it so they can decide for themselves what to do." I felt about as "threatened" as I do when I play with my cat.

The sheer, almost Bush-like hubris and incompetence, in particular of Rob Williams, in the handling of this controversy had led me to suspect that Williams and Naylor were primarily calling the shots. Riversong's latest writing lends credence to that, and should more controversy develop, as I expect it will, I'm not holding my breath that this brain trust of two will handle it any better than they already have.