The Green fairytale must be replaced by political acumen.
I've been a Green supporter for many years, for the most part simply by being a Green voter. I have been increasing my participation recently by stepping up with donations to both the GPC, and as an Ontario resident to the GPO.
I came close to running as a candidate, but before doing so I read line-by-line the approved member policy. This was an eye-opener. It was also very troublesome. As pointed out by many, the approved policy is not the platform, but in many respects this response reflects a laissez-faire attitude toward the political nature of politics!
What do I know? I am not a politician. Maybe my observations are not relevant, but others have more diplomatically been saying similar things, and so I feel I am on to something.
Self-Determination
To begin with, GPC members need to understand that approved GPC policy is both extreme and not well publicized. This is very dangerous, for it were to become more publicized, support may prove to have been illusory. It has lead the GPC into a self-made trap of sorts. Having been left alone until a seat might be in reach, the other parties will pounce to show we are not ready for mainstream acceptance.
First off, a fair amount of the GPC policy is derived from ideals of the Global Green movement. For the GPC, a political party that stands against centralized control, the irony is beyond critique. The GPC does not just derive its policy from the Global Green movement, it has adopted Global Green policy in such a way that any attempt to move away from it would make the Canadian wing be the black sheep of the herd necessary to feel shame and self-loathing.
This is my perception of inclusiveness that the GPC really wants versus what it claims it wants.
Inclusiveness
As I state above, I feel that a large part of GPC approved member policy is extreme. This is my belief, and I would be happy to see it refuted. There is of course no evidence either way, because the GPC has not bothered to perform a scientific survey to determine which policy elements are attractive, and what correlations exist between them.
I define a policy element as extreme if the ratio of the number of Canadians strongly rejecting a policy can be reasonably expected to significantly outweigh the number Canadians who support it at least minimally.
For those who may or may not know, a limited list of extreme elements of GPC policy are as follows:
Non-Violence
Non-violence is a very broad philosophical model. Anyone I have ever asked what they think the GPC means when it refers to non-violence, says that they think it means not to attack other countries unilaterally. This is also what I thought. When I found out that the GPC policy, which is aligned with the Global Green policy really means absolute pacifism, along with coerced pacifism of other nations, I was irked. This is not well publicized. It is certainly not publicized that the GPC's goal is disbandment of our military. And regardless, this desired goal is not widely shared amongst Canadians.
United Nations
There are numerous areas where the GPC wishes to defer authority unto the United Nations. The United Nations is not a decision making authority. It is a mechanism through which powerful nations can achieve diplomacy. The general assembly of the United Nations grants one vote per nation regardless (a) of size; (b) of the democratic nature of a nation; (c) the coerciveness of the educational system and media of a nation. It makes no attempt to represent the true opinion of the world's population. It has demonstrated a complete inability to protect those who require it, and it has failed in all important undertakings whenever subject to minimal political interference.
Population reduction
I am personally for population reduction, although approved policy doesn't really explain how it can be accomplished in the face of religious doctrine. Reducing the population of the enlightened so that they are overwhelmed by unenlightened simply means that the world will be dominated by unenlightened. And ignoring that consequence or removing reality from context when discussing policy is perilous and counter-productive. Regardless of my personal feelings, Muslim and Catholic followers, among others are required by religious doctrine to reject this policy. Leaving the policy in a fuzzy state makes open ended and scary.
Economy
The official policy states that an economy is a means by which we can all subsist, and that it serves little other purpose. There are in fact several related policy statements that argue against conglomeration or centralization of economic resources. I think many can agree that intellectual property law has run amok. But the policy adopted by the GPC goes so much further. Extrication from free trade pacts is deemed to be an immediate requirement. Normalization of fair trade policies is not even a factor in the decision. The stated mission is a completely disorderly renovation of economic policy. It would be devastating and would create a large amount of poverty in its wake. A replacement of free-trade with fair-trade is a perhaps a noble goal, but the method by which it is expected to occur is very extreme, certainly not desirable to many Canadians.
Urban Sprawl
The approved policy is so internally conflicting on this, it is offensive. A couple of approved policy articles are childishly worded, in fact. But let's just take a look at what GPC policy has to say. There are two overriding themes: (1) All human-environment interface is morally reprehensible, since humanity has no superior claim over the environment; and (2) all people have an inalienable right to live in a healthy and pristine environment.
I don't want to go on a tangent, but if you are being forced to live in high-density urban development, you do not have access to a healthy environment.
Millions of individuals in Canada have chosen a model of suburban living. Urban sprawl is clearly bad for the local environments upon which the sprawl occurs, but in Canada all urban sprawl takes up only a very tiny fraction of all land. It is unclear that urban living has any less affect on energy consumption, or that it lessens environmental impacts in general. Urban living comes with lifestyle changes that end up being more energy intensive. It is certainly clear that for some, high density urban living comes with significant environmental negatives, both physical and psychological.
The GPC approved policy simply alienates a huge swath of the Canadian electorate.
Self-deprecation
The GPC needs to ask itself why it bothers to run candidates in suburban ridings. It seems rather self-deprecating. The GPC's adopted policy practically begs that you not vote for it if you live in a single family dwelling in the suburbs.
Uranium
The GPC has adopted the Global Green policy to ban Uranium. This is just nonsensical. Every reason for banning Uranium put forth is non-scientific. Uranium is ubiquitous, you cannot prevent clandestine mining of uranium, uranium mining does not have to be dangerous, fossil fuels in their totality have released more radioactivity than all nuclear waste ever produced, nuclear waste can be neutralized using fusion reactors, nuclear proliferation does not require uranium, and prohibiting DU in armaments will just lead to the use of some other toxic material. And despite what wind power proponents believe, there is currently no viable GHG free replacement technology for nuclear power. You would require up to 100,000 wind turbines if you wanted to eliminate Ontario's current nuclear and coal power plants. Conservation only goes so far.
Political Science
It is true that the inclusiveness issues I raise above are something you can argue about philosophically. For example, the Canadian Heritage Party has no intention of being inclusive. They are what they are, and it is good enough for them. But one of the GPC goals is to actually get elected; I'm not sure if the CHP really has that as a goal.
There are five pillars to getting elected: money, pandering, obfuscation, incrementalism, and compromise.
The GPC is not on track on any of those paths, other than maybe obfuscation, but I'm not sure that's intentional. And what's worse is that the GPC has undertaken no scientific process by which a pathway to success can be shown to be possible. I mean this from a purely political sense, without respect to any adopted policy. Politics is also a game, and I don't see the GPC playing their A-game. As far as I know, there have been no correlative studies performed to find out which sets of policies are winners or losers. There is also no professional management of policy. A free-for-all is nice, but what happens is that you disfavour individuals without free time on their hands, and instead the minority remainder pushes whatever agenda they want.
There is little to no professional management of the GPC brand in Canada. Elizabeth May is a very nice person. However, the leader of the party cannot be the only nationally recognizable spokesperson, and for the most part, the leader is not supposed to make statements of concision. She is supposed to limit her statements to obfuscation and vaguery so that the electorate cannot form a negative view of her. Statements that may carry controversy are best left for spokespeople who can be replaced when necessary.
The bottom line is there are plenty of general policy initiatives and even more specific social initiatives that are universally acceptable to the electorate and are easy sells, but for some reason, this is not how the GPC has arranged itself. There is some insistence that the GPC has to be swallowed whole or not at all, and it willfully chosen not to make itself a small pill.
- Bram Kivenko's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Theodore Tadeson |
- Rick Shea |
- Bram Kivenko |
- Rick Shea |
- David Barclay |
- 1 of 2171
- ››
Comments
The Green fairytale - Is not Green Governance
I have to agree with Bram Kivenko's blog entry, in it's entirety. I have also been a long time Green voter and joined the Party a couple of years ago just to support it financially and to better understand the party its platform and ideals. It kind of went downhill from there. It's strange but most of what Bram touched on I had already identified as problems for me, for much of the reasons outlined. Perhaps Bram is a little too cynical and harsh in his political assessment but regardless it is very astute.
No matter what we say as a party, we began as a part of the Peace and Environmental movement as a protest party, but we have evolved over the years as the world and our membership has changed. The problem with evolutionary change in a "grassroots" party like the greens is that is can lead to a haphazard message that is not helpful for a party that tends to poll in the 10% range. As Bram indicates our message is sometimes contradictory and in many ways quite unrealistic. I tend to harp on the fact that we are not a single issue party and that we don't do enough to focus discussion and press releases on non environmental issues. But Bram is right if we don't rebuild our party from the constitution on out to our platform to be electable we will have a hard time ever getting more then one or two people elected at any time, and we will never be able to build the world we want to live in. As you can see simply influencing the political discussion in Ottawa only gets you so far, think the difference between Dion and Ignatief.
This is not a sell out! We are a political party, not an activist group! And as such we must strive to achieve our ends over the long term but compromise in the short term. We must also always put our policies to the acid test...If we were to get elected on this platform how much can we actually do without bankrupting the economy, activists have the luxury of saying we must do something therefore we will find a way, governments must govern for the greater good of all. Is our goal "sustainable living", or is it to push an "ecotopia" down the throats of a population that does not want it!
I can see that within the party there is a tug of war between the idealist greens and the pragmatist greens, and that currently the idealists are winning, thats OK, if it works! I suggest that if you are like minded with Bram and I, you don't quit the party, in fact you should do the opposite, get more involved in your EDA, and the party as a whole, and demand change, this is how parties are changed. I will give it my all between now and the next election to get our candidate elected on the platform that exists today. but if we fail to elect enough people to even hope for "official party status", I suggest the pragmatists get more vocal and more active.
I am tired of politics as usual and am very worried about the world I leave for my sons and future generations, I strongly believe that the green party should be about sustainable living and that the only way our core goal, to leave a better life to our children will not be achieved if we do not get elected in greater numbers, and I am not willing to let the old line parties lie to us again and again until it's too late. We don't have decades to hope the electorate will see the wisdom of our "ecotopia" and sign on, we need large numbers of greens in Parliament NOW so that we can prop up a more mailable old line party and start moving the country in the direction we know it needs to go!
Now if you see the above and say "he's dreaming"......ask yourself why?
GPC climbing up the charts
Hi Ron,
I don't think you're dreaming but your are glossing over the significant fact that there have been tremendous electoral gains made in the last 5 years. In 2004 the GPC leaped from about 20 years of fringe 1% general election popular vote results to almost 5%. In 2008 we could have done better with a better prepared national campaign but even the below potential 7% of the vote was another leap forward. In 2008 about 40 ridings broke the 10% campaign expense rebate barrier while in 2006 less than 10 did.
In the last 5-6 years our polling results have steadily climbed from 1-2% and have touched 12% territory. Any political party would love to be able to add 10% to their existing levels. Even those who don't support Green at least know who we are.
It's tempting to think that the remarkable 'greens are for real' 5 year surge is due to a greater influence of the 'pragmatists' but I believe its mostly due to the 'idealists' doing the spade work for the 20 years before that. We need both the pragmatists and the idealists to keep rolling forward. We certainly need spade work. Campaign savvy won't help much without deep roots in local riding communities.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Real "Spade Work" not to be discounted
Hi Ard,
I am sorry if I gave the impression that the idealists have no value in the party, or that the gains we have seen to date are not almost exclusively the work of the idealists, however I do believe that our recent gains have more to do with the honest and sincere work of those same idealists finally resonating with at least a portion of the electorate. The problem I see is that a party that had always polled around the 1% mark can say and think whatever they want without having to worry about making it a reality in parliament. What we have right now is a party that has discovered a 'roundabout" in the road, we can either go forward or around in circles.
some acumen
I do not think, at this stage anyway, any "extreme" piece of GPC policy would prove to be its undoing. An exception might be some local play where a threatened candidate from a larger party draws negative attention to & plays up something problematic. But I have been outspoken on this website taking exception to some policy directions. And more important is a process & structural review & change regarding policy development & approval, in order to allow the party to actually function effectively as it nears actually occupying seats in Parliament, however many years that is postponed. I have tried to draw useful comparison to the experience of some western populist parties, particularly the UFA which eventually suffered from a burgeoning & unmanageable policy methodology not dissimilar to GPC's. In my opinion, policy discussion should be ongoing, but official development should be directed centrally, with reference to periodic (dis-)approval by membership, best done via EDAs, a kind of forced invigouration of the latter as well where needed.
But as noted, a policy wish list is not a platform, and a platform is not governance. Surely Bram & Ron are attracted by the overall tenor, by the party culture as expressed in the party literature. What's the problem then? The attraction for many Greens to party involvement must have been ability to have had an open say in policy development. It's possible there have been many delusions about the political efficacity of what they were engaged in, but there would be no delusion about the salutary effect of the exercise in thinking about issues and practising self-expression, not to mention personal satisfaction for all kinds of other reasons and, as also noted, the effect on other political parties. So, really, what's the problem?
"For the GPC, a political party that stands against centralized control, the irony is beyond critique." This seems a bizarre attempt at criticism. There is no centralized international control of what GPC adopts or does not. And broad statements of value hardly is at issue when it comes to opposing centralized control.
Bram's definition of policy extremism seems to me to resemble political pandering.
Where do you get the "absolute pacifism" thing?
In Canada it is pretty much de rigueur to hopefully reference the UN whatever its failings, so it's hard to see an opposite proposal as not being "extremist" by your own criterion.
You do seem to have a problem with religion. And too bad you weren't around for the various population discussions around here, although of course you are free to pick up old threads & see what comes of it. I could provide all kinds of links on the blogsite, but it's easy to use a search engine.
The suburban self-deprecation thing is a pretty silly comment. When you worry about alienating "huge swaths of the populace", how could you have come to support GPO with its anti-Catholic/religious ed. policy?
We've already exchanged words on your pro-nuclear stance. How anyone who claims to have an attraction to stated "green" values, especially preference for scaling things down, can be a proponent of nuclear as it is, is beyond reason to me. If Amory Lovins nauseates you...
I'd be surprised to learn that CHP has no intention to get elected. With a sensibly proportional Senate, for example, they would deserve a seat to air their viewpoint at that level.
"There are five pillars to getting elected: money, pandering, obfuscation, incrementalism, and compromise." There has been plenty of money thrown around. I do not believe that it takes all that much money, just creative & dedicated use of what is available. Pandering I should think is anathema to green political purpose, why assimilate to what others do well enough already?
If you mean by "obfuscation", ambiguity, then that is sensible and even good & honest. But if you mean inauthenticity, forget it. Your last two pillars are fair enough, but I suspect not as you'd want to see them applied.
I just don't see how GPC is not making itself your "small pill".
The first thing I always counsel people regarding political invovlement like this, especially at a federal level: be reasonable about expectations. Then keep the discussions going. You will be moved to act in other ways, if you've come this far. And if you must take leave, you will have had, even if too unmeasurably to an engineer, a beneficial effect (even if only sometimes by spurring on others to take contrary positions that prevail, or not).
please..
Daryl, do not put words in my mouth: I do not express having a problem with religion; what I am saying is that two major religions have a problem with the GPC adopted member policies. Important doctrines of at least Catholicism and Islam are directly contravened by several of GPC policies. The conflict occurs unnecessarily, either because policy statements need not be part of policy at this time, or because policy statements are vague to the point that it may scare people into assuming the worst conflict possible. To make a very strong point, as far as I can tell, our public position on abortion is to anger everybody.
I am not going to refute the criticisms you have made, I will leave it to others to simply reread my initial comments, as I believe the answers are there.
Instead, as a general rebuttal, the following is clear: a majority of people who are currently voting for the GPC are not aware of significant portions of GPC policy. The gap persists because precious campaign funds have yet to be allocated for negative ads targeting the GPC. However, as soon as a candidate is in a position to win, this gap in awareness will be exploited. It makes it impossible to gauge where core support might exist, which is moot because we have yet to achieve a threshold sufficient to elect anyone. The trend shows that we have peaked at about 10% of all voters nationally (stalled since '07), and saturation is probably confirmed if polling continues to show around 10%. This translated to only 6% of actual votes, and my fear of course is that for the next election, with Dion gone from politics, our transient boost from protesting Liberals may cause us to show a decline from the last election. Can we agree that any decline from the last election is detrimental?
Anyway, we still do not have a safe riding in which our leader can run, even with this awareness gap intact. The party is over 25 years old, and has failed to elect a single MP. And so, within that time, and with this awareness gap, we still poll behind all national parties who currently hold seats -- and we do so in most (if not all) ridings. We have difficulty finding more than one candidate in many ridings. For a grassroots party, where such a socialist platform makes fiscal prudence a worry for many, the party's debt should be a P.R. concern.
Finally, I am disappointed whenever people use the term pandering as a perjorative. Why is pandering worse than refusing to pander? Refusing to "pander" comes across as ideological zealotry. And election results show that such zealotry is apparently misplaced.
words from a mouth
Where, Bram, have I put words a mouth? My comment about religion had to do with what I gathered from a previous interchange with you, corroborated a bit here. On the interface of religion & politics, see examples at https://greenparty.ca/blogs/733/2009-05-24/what-would-jesus-drive#commen... and http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/3355 and various other places at this site. Do be careful with perception about "doctrines".
I obviously don't see that "the answers are there", otherwise I would not have piped up as I did. I do see promise of intelligent engagement & contribution, which is obviously why I am presisting in response.
Internationally, do you know of an example of a Green party doing significantly better than GPC in terms of % support? The "saturation" you speak of varies along a timeline. (See e.g."What's our timeline?" at https://greenparty.ca/node/3293?page=1 .) It is my strongly held opinion that "pandering", in whatever neutral sense you can conjure, would be counterproductive to the betterment of saturation point. Take the best example of the left in Canada, among which has been found historically the most incisive critics of aspects of wayward modernist leadership. Had they let go of ideals, would they have been of as much influence? I think not. Yet they also hung on to organized political effort. Their leadership must believe their own apparent saturation point, at a few % points higher than ours, can change favourably in the near future. As a Green I feel they tend to not go deeply enough in their dissent. That, as well as the different angle on things provided by originating Green perspective, has me perpetually locate myself among Greens. The goal is to have influence. It should be more effective influence with actual seats in the Commons or Senate. But that is not the only way. Not only that, but if electoral reform is simply not now forseeable, a consolidation of Green support -- and any "saturation" does seem to indicate stability -- by increased education by various means (internet, radio, book publishing, canvassing &c, all being done, we just need dedicatedly more), could lead to block voter power in Greens' hands, as I've suggested in other comments here. Maintaining clarity & force of positions to draw other parties or their individual candidates into approximating a Green line in return for throwing electoral support behind them, that is a real possibility, hard maybe to conceive and manage but doable. But that is only one example of how influence can be had. This brings to mind something I wrote for GPC a couple of years ago:
"We made clear that we did not act in any official GPC capacity [in preparing this report], rather as concerned and engaged supporters. Any contributions of those consulted are understood as in no way expressing support for GPC. However, we unexpectedly found that among our academic consultants there already existed significant connexion with Green politics, in the guise of ballots cast, membership, professional assistance & sympathy. This should be taken as a serious indicator of where GPC is in public perception, especially in such academic circles of great, although lesser seen, influence: that such positive inclinations lie so near to the surface should be an important prod for GPC to work hard to dispel any reticence such people would have in actually expressing open support and participation. That reticence is surely related to perceptions or expectations that such a political party, in its apparent broad dissent from others, lacks serious attention to things like law, history, administration, at the very heart of governance. It is thus in part to raise the intellectual bar in GPC policy discussion that recourse was made primarily to consulting academicians, among whom experts in international law, regional history, sociology, religion."
You see, I think we share concern about the "bar" level in GPC. But that is par for a populist organization. That is why I strongly recommend artful change, as mentioned above, in finding a better balance between populism & leadership. That is also why I am happy, despite our very different angles, to see you participate this actively. Greens who were there at the political start decades ago, like Elizabeth, like myself, intuited that the fundamental bases of livelihood & fulfilment pursuits were seriously awry. This touched, in the world of seekers of "alternatives", everything from child-rearing to food provision to schooling to waste disposal to transportation to...nearly everything, since the those bases were and are so awry. How can one not remain true as possible to that intuition now borne out by scientific study and increasing general awareness? The malaise, as Elizabeth has been accentuating recently, is with the function & operation of politics altogether in our land. I think I disagree with her on the depth of the problem, but it is just so deep & culturally involved, how can one find a neutral use for the term, 'pander'? (see "Q&A: Canadian democracy in crisis?", http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/620134 , from my question at 11:48 and James Travers' & Elizabeth's responses following).
GPC can capitalize on all kinds of reasons for electors to switch to it, but I do not think that being less true to roots, if that is the gist of what you'd prescribe, would be of eventual benefit. When one philosophically questions so much at root, just by inserting notions of ecology into our regnant destructive world of livelihood & fulfillment pursuits, one cannot be other than a "movement" at the same time as a practical political party. The challenge is to bring new adherents closer to the root criticism, not to obfuscate away what has to be made more plain.
Let me respond to your earlier comment first...
Daryl,
You: "I do not think, at this stage anyway, any "extreme" piece of GPC policy would prove to be its undoing."
Response: The mistake here is that we are deluding ourselves (myself excluded) into believing that our polling at 10% means that 10% of those polled actually support GPC policy. You can argue that the platform is not the policy, but if the end-game is our policy, then the distinction is up to the voter to make. A majority of individuals would not, or ever support a plurality of the issues I outline above. And because voters are generally not aware of these policies it is impossible to tell where we actually stand. This is very important in case we ever come close to winning a seat. That is,we can never really know if we are ACTUALLY close to winning a seat, or we are just deluding ourselves into thinking one is in reach.I would like to reference Ms. May's news release regarding the Chaulk River reactor from June 2nd. She blames the Conservatives for mismanaging the reactor, but fails to mention ANYWHERE that since the reactor runs off of Uranium, GPC policy requires it be shut down immediately and without regard to public health consequences. If you think that our 10% voter base wouldn't evaporate if this came up during an election, you are deluded.
------
You: In my opinion, policy discussion should be ongoing, but official development should be directed centrally, with reference to periodic (dis-)approval by membership, best done via EDAs, a kind of forced invigouration of the latter as well where needed.
Response: Great, let's make that happen. We can't be a multiheaded hydra making policy in all directions. We need to make policy that is populist and applies for the current election cycle. All other policy needs to be discarded.
------
You: The attraction for many Greens to party involvement must have been ability to have had an open say in policy development.
Response: I see no evidence to support this. It may be true, but you have no foundation to make that statement. I think people would be just as happy as long as their voices were heard. Allowing everyone to adopt conflicting policy statements at a whim makes for a mess. It certainly creates policy devoid of political charm. The fact that I am involved with the GPC is irrelevant. I am not representitive of the population at large.
-----
You: For the GPC, a political party that stands against centralized control, the irony is beyond critique." This seems a bizarre attempt at criticism. There is no centralized international control of what GPC adopts or does not.
Response: AFAIK, the GPC has directly adopted all of the Global Green's values and the feeling is that those values are entrenched. There is very much centralized international (faceless) control over the GPC. Should the GGs come up with some new cause celebre, we will surely follow. They do not directly control our direction, but we've constructed a model whereby any digression from GG policy will cast a shadow of guilt upon us. We should neither endorse nor even reference the GGs anywhere on our official website, and for that matter, no one should mention them in any official capacity. We must be seen unquestionably our own masters with Canadian interests paramount. This may contravene current GPC philosophy, that everyone is equal and peace and love, but Canadians want a Canadian government looking out for Canadians. So we'd better be willing to give them that.
-----
You: Bram's definition of policy extremism seems to me to resemble political pandering.
Response: My definition of extremism was to label policy that is popularly rejected on ideological grounds as being extremist. You cannot "educate" someone into wanting to disband our army. Disbanding our army is dangerous. We are dozens of generations away from that being a possible option. We cannot defend our borders with Natural Law. You can "educate" someone into believing the UN is a body capable of making apolitical decisions, because it is no such thing. It is a political workbench that is structured such that it can only render political motivations.
-----
You: Where do you get the "absolute pacifism" thing?
Response: It is stated policy that we should disband our military, coerce others to disband their military, only resolve issues of national importance through global agreement and to cede our right of sovereign defense to the UN. This is a stand of absolute pacifism.
-----
You: In Canada it is pretty much de rigueur to hopefully reference the UN whatever its failings, so it's hard to see an opposite proposal as not being "extremist" by your own criterion.
Response: Rejecting the UN certainly does not fall under my definition of extremist. Canadian support for the UN is barely a majority even for general welfare issues. Replacing the UN with a more democratically adjusted international body is certainly not strongly rejected by the Canadian public. Moreover, of issue of national importance, most Canadians are quick to dismiss the UN's findings.
-----
You: You do seem to have a problem with religion.
Response: I have no problems with any peaceful religions. I have problems with any religion that seeks to overwhelm the world through reproduction or that seeks to oppressively convert everyone to that religion. I think many people hold the same view. I also hold a dim view of young earth creationism that interferes with scientific progress, since YEC is unscientific. The Earth, even if young and constructed by a divine being, is formed in such a way that applying old-earth geological science yields scientifically beneficial results. It is not a matter of what is true, but what yields beneficial science. YEC yields no scientifically usable results, while old-earth cosmological formation does.
But, I don't care what you believe as long as you don't get Galileo's way, so to speak.
-----
You: The suburban self-deprecation thing is a pretty silly comment.
Response: The goal of the GPC is to get elected. GPC policy ascribes to suburban voters that their ways are sinful and are anathema to green living. Candidates would be from these ridings, so unless you are suggesting we only field farmers in suburban ridings, we are fielding candidates who are themselves ruining nature, and therefore should not support. This is self-deprecating in my mind. It's like begging racists to vote for a visible minority.
-----
You: How anyone who claims to have an attraction to stated "green" values, especially preference for scaling things down, can be a proponent of nuclear as it is, is beyond reason to me
Response: I am not a proponent if down-scaling. I question your implication that down-scaling is necessarily a "green" value. Who decided this? It might be a GPC value, but that is certainly not unalterable. I very much shy away from policies that attempt to achieve an end by regulating a means -- which is what down-scaling is. Whatever it is you want to achieve by down-scaling should be our policy, not down-scaling itself. You are suggesting that anything big cannot be good, and I disagree. The internet is big, is it not good? Should we down-scale Earth into tiny pieces? Is it only man that makes big things bad? Fusion energy necessarily would produce energy on very large scales, but it would have virtually no other drawbacks. Are you against fusion power? Should we continue to burn wood instead?
-----
You: I'd be surprised to learn that CHP has no intention to get elected.
Response: This is not what I said, and you know it. I said that they have ideological values that are unalterable. This is why I believe they have no reasonable expectation of ever getting elected. And if you have no expectation of being elected, I believe their goals aren't to get elected. You can disagree, but I certainly hold no knowledge superior to yours on this matter.
-----
You: There has been plenty of money thrown around. I do not believe that it takes all that much money, just creative & dedicated use of what is available.
Response: Our party is in debt, so if we are so fiscally conservative (which I categorically reject) then we should have saved some money for a rainy day. I've been told that money was spent under Jim Harris only to see the findings thrown away when they arrived under other leadership. If you believe that money doesn't solve political problems, then you are fooling yourself. And that belief puts you in a very select group of people, I might add.
-----
You: I just don't see how GPC is not making itself your "small pill".
Response: It is currently a very large pill because a lot of GPC policy is not populist. The more populist the GPC becomes the smaller the pill. And by your own admission you think moving toward populist policies is sort of pandering you don't want, so you can't have it both ways.
-----
You: The first thing I always counsel people regarding political invovlement like this, especially at a federal level: be reasonable about expectations... And if you must take leave...
Response: I ain't going nowhere bub.
-----
With regards to your comments on % support and saturation. The Green parties in European countries operate under proportional voting rules. Thus, they are more likely to be contenders with less support. Once seats tilt in favour of a Green candidate, the awareness gap that I keep referring to will diminish voter support. Under our plurality system, we have not yet been targeted by other political stripes because we have not achieved contention status.
2010 is almost here and 20% support is not possible unless the NDP close up shop. We are stuck at 10%, and have been for a couple of years now. There has been no year where growth leaped by 10% or on a relative basis by 100% within 12 months.
The GPC has achieved saturation whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I choose to acknowledge the truth. You can call pandering whatever you want, but we only have two options: choose more populist strategies, or target policies to small but meaningful demographics. I guess you probably assign "pandering" to the latter option, maybe both options, I don't know. But you cannot "educate" everyone to your ideology. At some point people no longer sway. And if you are busy fighting a battle on ideological grounds, you lose the opportunity to make a real difference.
GPC support has been artificially elevated as a protest party over a span of 15 years now. First it was by conservatives who didn't want to vote for either CCRAP or the PCs. Then it was Liberals who didn't like Paul Martin or Dion, or who thought the party was fracturing and were annoyed. Well, the CRA has found its feet, and the Liberals have adopted progressive party mechanisms such as one member one vote, and internet friendly technology. This means that we may see the first decrease in voter support during the next election.
Please don't overestimate our political influence. We haven't won any seats yet, and we can't get our leader a seat. So whatever visions of grandeur you have about who supports us, it is insufficient. It is time we stop acting like an ideological movement and instead act like a political party. We need votes to get elected, because only through an elected member can we wield any real power. If that means compromise, you'd better be willing.
find another sparring partner
Just to take one item, wherever do you get "disband our military"? Seems to me you're rather shooting from the hip, and I'm verging on retracting the welcome, whatever its worth. There are lots of federal political parties out there that maybe could use your energy & take on things. Still not "going nowhere bub."? .Ard gave a decent response just now to another of your comments. Maybe others will find you good to practise with, or on.
From our approved policy.
· The Canadian Greens would work to replace the Warsaw Pact and N.A.T.O. with an international agency, affiliated to the United Nations, whose objective would be a peaceful and de-militarized European Zone. Therefore, the Canadian Greens would immediately serve our required one year notice of withdrawal from N.A.T.O. upon entering office. After that year of consultation the Canadian Greens would begin the phase out and withdrawal of all Canadian political and military involvement in N.A.T.O.
· The Canadian Greens would convert the Canadian Armed Forces to perform treaty verification, territorial monitoring, peace-keeping, Search and Rescue, and ecological reclamation. These converted resources should also be directed, in part, toward overcoming the environmental crisis. [where is the mandate of sovereign defense?] The ecological duties could include research of environmental abuse, ensuring environmental legislation is carried out, monitoring toxic storage facilities, and organizing clean-up programs.
· The Canadian Greens would replace Canada's involvement in N.O.R.A.D. with an independent Canadian Early Warning System. This system would monitor not only the northern but the southern, eastern, and western areas of Canada's sovereign territory. It would include not only radar but seismic, sonar, and electronic monitoring equipment as well to be used for the purposes of treaty verification and territorial integrity assurance.
---
I don't care about other political parties. If you retract your welcome, that's your issue. I have said nothing here with malicious intent. This, however is a political party, not a sing-along. I'm not going to walk on eggshells so as not to upset anyone.
The Electorate Has Spoken
We continue to advance virtually the same platform election after election with little or no real modification, certainly not in the voters eye, any tweaking we do falls way below their radar. While we have certainly made gains in our support over the last 25 years, and quite a bit in recent years, we need to ask ourselves why in this time of environmental crisis are we not being supported in massive numbers? You could say that the voters are being tricked by big business and the old line parties, but ya know, most people I talk to believe in global warming and believe something must be done, they just don't know what to do about it, which speaks volumes. We do not have the luxury of time, we can not wait for the environmental effects of global warming to up and slap the electorate in the face and say you should have voted Green, by then it will be too late!
Madness - to continue to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result
There are many activist groups in the world and they do a terrific job of making the populace aware of a myriad of problems that plague us, and encouraging us to do something about it. We on the other hand are a Political Party, and as such should remain true to our Core Values (which should be summed up in a single sentence or phrase, not a book), and advance a platform that resonates with the public, but carries the thread of our core values in order to get people elected so that we can do the Job of a political party, which is to Effect Change, along the lines of the belief structure that founds your Core Values.
We desperately need to elect people to Parliament, preferably enough to make official party status, so we can actually put the government of the day's feet to the fire on the issues that matter to us and the Canada, and use the mechanisms of government to effect change.
Canada does not need another protest group, it needs real leadership, it needs political change!
As I have said before I will say again, I will give it my all between now and the next vote to build my EDA, put the systems and mechanisms in place to give our candidate, (as yet not found) the best chance possible of winning the riding on the platform the party presents. I will also use every opportunity to voice my concern that the platform, policies and principles of the Green Party as currently constituted do not resonate with the voters and we need to do something about it!
If we do nothing, and Bram and I are right, we will make limited or no gains in the next election, and we will certainly not elect anyone, or worse we could decline in support, despite our fervent and Zealous efforts, if that happens, and I hope it does not, we really have to make the changes necessary, or watch the survivability of our planet decline past the point of no return.
Disbanding the Military
I don't think it says anywhere in our political writings about disbanding the Military, but it certainly does talk about cutting the military budget roughly in half which will leave us a choice between equipment or soldiers. As and ex-military man this is something I have a real problem with, on so many levels. The party says it respects our soldiers but thinks that the job we should be doing is peacekeeping. As I am sure most soldiers would agree, that is the prerogative of the elected government to decide, to wit “the people” and would have no problem with whatsoever. What I have a problem with is the inherent lie and dishonesty towards those who would give everything to allow you the right to treat them badly.
Either the party is full of fools (not likely) or they have chosen to willfully ignore the inconstancies in the platform. While calling for massive military budget cuts they are simultaneously calling on Canada to get more involved in peacekeeping missions around the world. I would like to share with you some facts that would likely shock the average green, if not those that write in this blog.
Canada's peacekeeping stats;
Number of peacekeeping missions served since 1949 – 50
Number of Canadians who have served in missions – 100,000
Number of Canadian dead on peacekeeping missions- 107
I think most greens have this rose coloured vision of what peacekeeping is, I think they envision teachers in a schoolyard keeping the naughty little boys and girls from throwing snowballs at each other. I got news for you folks, it usually involves going to stand in between people that if you let them actually stand beside each other would happily gouge each others eyes out with a spoon! Or more likely lob mortars across no mans land where the peacekeepers patrol. Think....we need lots of soldiers with big armored vehicles to patrol this territory or don't even bother.. what, oh yeah that costs money, better give them another couple billion back for that.
Also, I remember a few years back in Rwanda, and more recently in Darfur, and many other places for that matter, there was a great hew and cry over what was happening there and pretty much everyone said, something should be done about that, the only problem was that no one was actually willing to do something about it. Now I believe the greens were honest and sincere in their desires to put a stop to the Rwandan genocide, what I don't know is who they thought would stop it. If the greens were the Government of the day with half the military the Liberals were grudgingly allowing our nation back in the 90's, would they have sent them in unilaterally to stop it, here are just a few of the logistical problems;
A country willing to slaughter its own people will slaughter unarmed soldiers / protesters too
These things happen fast, that means you have to have a well trained and prepared military to get to insertion in 48 hours, not 48 days
How would you get your peacekeepers there in the first place....Air Canada
What airport would you land at, I am sure the slaughter's would welcome you with open arms and re-fueling trucks
Under who's authority would you go? The ineffectual UN that sat by wringing its collective hands but otherwise did nothing.
How would you keep these soldiers / protesters supplied?
How long would you leave them there
Some of the people we send will likely die, as the murderers usually don't want to stop, how many of our dead will you accept before you give up?
Sorry to break this to you folks but we live in one of the most peaceful corners of the world, we cannot use our experiences here to guide us on military policy when there are still a lot of really bad people in the world. Either stop talking about what we really don't understand, or maybe get some of our senior ex-military and perhaps diplomatic corps. types to draft policy on what they actually know. I expect if we looked we would find some greens that have actually served on peacekeeping missions, handled military logistics and having seen the beast have a far better appreciation of peace then any pacifist you can name.
It's not for nothing that our Royal Canadian Legion pushes Remembrance Day on us every year, or that their overriding theme is “Never Again”, these are people that really understand all the consequences of war because they have smelled it, tasted it, lived it and breathed it, like you and I will hopefully never understand, thanks to their efforts.
Unlike protest and activist groups, political parties must be prepared to govern in all eventualities.
Like the old soldier says the first casualty of war is the battle plan.
military conversion
Ron, please see my comment above where I quote the adopted (and apparently non-reversed) policy from 1988. The term "disband" is incorrect, the policy uses the term "military conversion." But the effect is the same. Coast-guard and treaty-verification is not sufficient for sovereign defense. Aside from this being actually dangerous, it is certainly not politically astute. I'll say it again, we are at least generations away from realizing this as a dream. In the meantime, we cannot withdraw from NORAD or NATO. North Korea's strategic plan to attack the US was to nuke Montreal, because of a mistaken belief that the US would not retaliate with nuclear weapons. Maybe not realistic, but it shows that our reputation is not enough to shed our capacity for sovereign defense.
This discussion apparently hits a nerve among some members here, but you'd better be prepared to deal with it, because this policy is a show-stopper. It would take only one 30 second negative ad to destroy the chances of winning a seat. Why are we setting ourselves up like this? This policy is the most extreme example I can find within our approved policy. It is something I think the GPC needs to address, or at least run a public survey so that we can face reality.
The Road to Failure is Paved with Idealistic Intentions
Hi Bram,
I know I am up for some tough times, but I think it's too important to be silent. I know exactly what you mean, I have sat on the sidelines for a couple of years wondering when the party would get it's act together and do the things it takes to at least try to win. Eventually I got tired of waiting, (the last election) and I decided to get involved and put my time where my mouth is. Now that I am on the inside I can see why we aren't streamlining the message. Apparently we do not realize there is a problem?? The Greens have that little fringe party with great intentions and real honest to goodness altruism all over them, which is great, but I don't think the vast majority of the leadership realizes that the message does not resonate with the electorate. I am sure they think we do not understand the full import of the Global Green Policies, or that worse we are sell outs that are more interested in winning then the mission we are on. To them I would say that I do not accept that we must turn the clock backwards in order to save the Planet, but that we do indeed have to change the way in which we live, and work hard to remediate the environment, among other things.
The only way we can be true to what I believe the core values of the Green Party are, is to get people elected and use the forum of Parliament to make the lives and futures of Canadians better. I think the effect our presence has on the political discussion, died with Stephan Dion's career, and if we don't get on to winning in our own right, we are up for a big surprise come next election.
Lastly you are right on the Sovereign Defense issue as well, I don't quite understand what the Greens problem is with the Canadian Military, a police officer has a gun but that does not mean he has to shoot it, but it certainly makes the thugs think twice, and it does come in handy when you are being mugged.
Philosophy of Natural Law
Ron, in order for you to understand the stance taken by the GPC, you may want to do some reading up on the history of the Global Green movement: http://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/ghipubs/web/gps.pdf Unfortunately, it's 180 pages, but it's worth skimming at least. You will want to read the section by Sara Parkin, page 38 of the PDF, or page 31 of the document itself.
It is enlightening, and it very important to understand that old-guard greens treat the Green movement as a theological intrinsic truth. It has foundations of natural law, and therefore policies derived from these philosophies do not require modern context, or any context for that matter -- as the application of a universal truth, of course is devoid of context.
Unfortunately, the GG movement is not actually based on universal truths, due to political convenience it merged with marxist leninist, anti-nuclear activists and others, and formed policies that have been frozen in time. If you want to know why the GG movement is anti-uranium, it's because of this.
Some people here make claims as to why they are anti-uranium, but these claims have no modern validity. Maybe they made sense in '72, but they make no sense given our current understanding of physics. The roots of the anti-uranium policy come from the assimiliation of anti-nuclear activitists and the philosophy has simply been propagated ever since. but uranium is not unique to nuclear proliferation, it is not unique to fission energy production, it is not unique to large scale energy production, it is simply not unique. It is however, ubiquitous and cheap, so it has suffered the wrath of anti-nuclear protest movements.
The GG movement governs the direction of all national Green parties. This is bad, as we should be electing a party for Canada, not the planet. It restricts adaptation of policy, and as a fundamental project, we need to question the solidarity with the GG movement. The GPC path needs to be set by Canadians. The GPC shouldn't feel the shame of a shadow cast by the GG movement if we choose an alternate path for ourselves. Right now, such ideas are an impossibility.
And lastly, the Green movement, as a static 1970s view of the world is non-populist, and global influence has been receding for the last half decade.
Can't disagree on anything
Can't disagree on anything really, however I will state that I have no great love for nuclear and that as a tool it may be quite useful and therefore should be in the toolbox, but as soon as somebody invents the better tool I am all in favour of ditching the old one. I did not know all the details of the past even though I have read quite a bit about it, and suspected more. I think the GPC has the ability to be a great force for change in the Canadian political scene (or I would not be here) but to do that we have to get elected and that means more then knocking on doors. I take heart that when we are poling with the numbers we are currently, that is saying that at least portions of our party appeal to a significant portion of the electorate. I would love for us to do some serious surveying and analysis and find out exactly what about us excites the public and what turns it off. Without this kind of scientific analysis and the will to make the changes needed, this is about as far as I think we can go!
I have to admit, sinse
I have to admit, sinse joining the green party and looking further into its policies, some things I've read have really scared me away from throwing full support behind the party (and this includes donating more funds). There evidently is an extremest element to this party. I can appreciate the thinking behind a lot of this policy - myself, I've always questioned why we humans have such a delusional sense of entitlement and supremacy on this planet. I agree that ideally global cooperation is needed to tackle some of the most fundamental issues facing the human race, the planet, and our future on it.
The fact is, however, that many of the GPC's official policies are not realistic in the world as it stands at this time. I've read some reports that say if examined the greens stand close to the center of the political spectrum, and yet I've read evidence to suggest the opposite is true and in a big way.
At the same time however, I do support many of the policies and their intentions. I'm a proponent of sustainable development, walkable neighbourhoods, hugly increased investment of mass transit and future-looking infrastructure and future-looking, post-oil-economy green jobs. I think a majority of Green Supporters share these views and want a party that is heading in this direction without an underlying extremest misanthropic ultra-motive.
With all this said, I have a question, who do we voice these concerns to and can these policies be voted on/changed?
Good for you!
Hi Timothy, I know exactly what you mean, since I have been there myself. I have long known there is a very radical element in the party that I am fairly sure does not speak for the majority of members never mind those that vote green, but do nothing else. I personally would like to see the Greens figure out what the core beliefs, principles and ideas are that resonate with the electorate, and turf the rest with the biggest broom you ever saw. I know that some of our more idealist colleagues would say we are throwing away the baby with the bathwater, but I think that does not give the electorate enough credit, as I think they would distill our policy down to the real fundamentals.
Do not lose heart, you are not alone, but perhaps in for a bit of a rough ride. It is always possible to send e-mails to the leadership, if you surf around the site a bit you will find them. You have already done something by posting a comment in this blog, if you don't think a lot of people read it, you would be mistaken. And above all, if you believe the Green Party is the only party that will do the job that needs doing as I do, then fight for the changes you want to see.
Right now the most "involved" people in the party are the idealists because the more pragmatic members sit on the sidelines and don't do much else. I encourage you to do what I did and join the board of your riding EDA, now I'm the CEO and working hard to build our riding association and get our candidate elected. When you put your time where your mouth is people start to pay attention, and you start attracting like minded people to you.
join the board?
What's the process in getting involved with one's EDA?
Contact the CEO
If you use the your riding tab on this website, and find your riding you should find on there a name, phone number, and e-mail for the board contact in your EDA. In most EDA's they are starved for help and will welcome you as at least a member at large, which depending on the constitution of your EDA may only require a vote by the other members of the board, for executive positions they usually require a more "Formal" meeting such as an AGM or nomination meeting, but attendance at those is usually quite thin as well so it usually resembles more of an acclimation then an election. You will likely find that the EDA reflects the broader party to some degree and has a mix of idealists and pragmatists, but its different then the bigger scene because you are dealing with more bread and butter issues here such as raising money, doing community outreach and growing your membership and supporter base for the next election, but this is how you pay your dues and get respect in party politics. Once you are seen as a doer your voice will soon be heard much higher in the party, you would be surprised at how few people in any party not just the Greens actually make decisions and effect policy. If you have any questions you can find my contact info under Ontario - Simcoe Grey.
Think Green, Vote Green, Act Green
It's not easy being Green :)