Via CC, via "Impolitical" comes this list of voting projections. My problems with the Greens? They deny the reality of "left/right" in politics. Anyone who denies that has their head up their ass as far as I'm concerned. "Left" stands for economic and social equality, it stands for anti-racism, sexual freedom, intellectual freedom. "Right" stands for economic and social inequality, deference to authority, deference to outmoded ways of thinking like racism (now denied and hidden due to leftist pressure) and homophobia (barely concealed, and the basis of some political choices) and religious intellectual conformity. Greens come at their environmentalism from a flawed "market-based" perspective. And, aside from a few exceptions (and I do mean you Jim Bobby, and a couple of folks I've debated with on "babble" and "EnMasse") Greens often appear to me as flakes. Flakier than the flakiest acid-burnout hippie-long time NDP supporters I've seen.
Given our archaic electoral system, there's simply no reason that we should have to sacrifice any more ridings in order to support a party whose very existence jeopardizes the chances for the pro-environment policies they champion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Why the insults thrown at Green supporters, thwap? Isn't that beneath you?
Arguing against Green policy, its platform, even the behaviour of its leader is fine.
But calling the party's supporters "flakes" and saying that "anyone who denies the 'reality' of left/right in policies has their head up their ass" goes too far.
I'm a Green party supporter. I find the left/right distinction more harmful than useful, since it forces people into choosing between only one of two boxes. (The quadrant used for most online political quizzes is an improvement.)
By your reckoning, I'm both a flake and have my head up my ass - and I can imagine you nodding your head in affirmation now.
Well, thank you, but ad hominem slurs do nothing to persuade me. In fact, they have the opposite effect. As with most people, only reasoned argument can get me to reflect again.
I tend to agree.
The Greens are less a political entity than an international brand name with very little cohesion or common ground in policy matters: just think of the philosophical differences between the last two leaders in Jim Harris and Elizabeth May.
As for flakes, the Green candidate in my riding (Edmonton East) is a self-proclaimed witch (not that there's anything wrong with that) - but I think they could have found someone a little more grounded in reality.
"Isn't that beneath you?"
Insulting people? Beneath me?
"But calling the party's supporters 'flakes' and saying that "anyone who denies the 'reality' of left/right in policies 'has their head up their ass' goes too far."
Hey, "flakes" is my personal impression of Greens that I've met. Completely vague, incoherent rambling detached from any analysis of power realities or anything else.
My take on those who deny left-right is argued in my post. You disagree, but I'm not sure that you do.
"I find the left/right distinction more harmful than useful, since it forces people into choosing between only one of two boxes. (The quadrant used for most online political quizzes is an improvement.)"
You can "improve" on left-right, add nuance and the whole "quadrant" thing is pretty cool, but I've already said what I mean by left and right, and if you disagree that this split doesn't exist, then I've got to wonder what you're smoking.
And the whole vote-splitting thing wasn't addressed at all in your complaint. The Greens are being used as a useful tool by the Liberals to try to destroy the NDP. To make two "third parties" that is, two non-entities.
Oh boo-hoo, thwap insulted Greenies!!!
Thwap, you're right on target when you say anyone who says there's really no left and right "has their head up their ass."
To my Green friends, I say the most important thing to me is the labour-capital dynamic. I'm on the side of labour, so the Greens' support of a party that was led by a shipping magnate and nearly gave its leader position to a lackey to the U.S. capitalist elite ... well, that doesn't sit well with me. At all.
b_nichol and stimpson,
Thanks for commenting. My other problem with the Greens is that I get no clear indication from talking to them just HOW they're going to legislate their eco-agenda when they both (at different times) disparage corporate/capitalist values and the concerns of unions and working people for their jobs. I've written before about the political support for capitalist and social-democratic values, but what interest group has a direct stake in the environment?
Obviously we all do, but in reality, none of us are moving fast and far enough to reverse our destructive ways before we reach an undeniable crisis. The Greens tendency to either pursue some form of "eco-capitalism" is the only politically sound strategy they have, given that I see nothing real to address the valid concerns of working people about unemployment, poverty and misery.
Perusing the "Green Politics" website I saw some hopeful articles though. But the subject matter just made me wonder what the hell is so important about their "left-Green" perspective that it justified adding a 4th party to our already split progressive vote?
Anyway, this old babble thread says more about what I'm concerned about.
damn
Post a Comment