Where did it all go wrong?
By Stuart Hertzog
January 2nd, 2010
Conventional political thinking undermined Canada’s Green parties
VICTORIA, BC — In a previous post, I pointed out that Canada’s Green parties have utterly failed to achieve any meaningful electoral breakthrough after a quarter of a century of trying. No doubt some steely-eyed May mavens and a few remaining active Green Party members will label this as ‘negative thinking’ and condemn me for undermining their efforts and destroying people’s hopes.
Indulging in such naïve and mindless political boosterism is part of their process of denial. Whether these avid Greens want to accept today’s political reality or not, the fact is that Canada’s Green parties are deflating rapidly, and are in imminent danger of disappearing as a meaningful political force in this country.
I have repeatedly pointed out on these pages that its conventional, hierarchical, party structure is the main reason for the failure of Green electoralism in Canada. But where else did Canadian Green parties come off the rails? I’ve pondered this question many times over the past two-and-a-half decades, and it seems to me that the top ten reasons for its historical and current failure are:
- Green parties are still seen as being only about the environment
- But pro-environmental policies are not exclusive to Green parties
- The environmental movement did not support Green electoralism
- Internal party processes became convoluted and dysfunctional
- A succession of autocratic leaders disempowered its grass roots
- Green parties have been taken over by the disenfranchised Right
- Middle-class, middle-age, small-c conservative environmentalism
- Little or no internal debate or education about political principles
- Exclusive focus on electoral process stifled grassroots activism
- A general distrust of politics has left Green parties out on a limb
Let’s look at each of these in more detail:
Green parties are still seen as being only on about the environment
Green politics originally was a coalition between the Left and environmentalists. Anti-war and social justice issues were fundamental to their platform. Canadian Green parties have drifted far from that approach, to the extent of making protecting the environment apparently their primary goal. Disarmament and social issues may be buried in their policies, but to the lay observer Canadian Green parties are perceived as being only concerned with the environment, and that in a very human-centric way. Lip service is paid towards protecting other species, but genuine eco-centrism isn’t prominent among party members. This “one-issue” label has been an electoral albatross for Canada’s Green parties.
Pro-environment policies are not exclusive to the Green Party
It’s hard for Greens to accept that their party does not hold an exclusive licence on concern about environmental protection. Any political party can claim to be ‘green,’ and they do, even if they aren’t, cleverly enough to fool a lot of people. There are environmentalists within all political parties, who sometimes manage to ‘green’ their party’s policies, legitimising its pro-environment claims and effectively neutralising the need for its environmental faction to vote Green. Clinging on to the idea that only the Green Party supports the environment is a losing strategy that is apparent to anyone but avid Greens. Too bad, really.
The environmental movement never entirely supported the Greens
Although Canadian environmentalists helped form the Green Party, it did not follow that the environmental movement adopted the Greens as its political arm. In fact the opposite was true: environmentalists in mainstream parties ensured that party Greens would have to hoe their row entirely unaided. Party representatives were excluded from environmental coalitions and caucuses, especially those that were receiving government support. Mainstream Canadian environmental groups didn’t want to be seen as partisan, both to protect their charitable status and enable them to appeal to a wide range of private funders, so they too have not supported the Green Party.
Internal party processes have become convoluted and dysfunctional
In the early days, Greens tried to run meetings by consensus, aiming at attaining close to full agreement on an issue. Just one person could block consensus, and the result was chaos. At the same time, members were attempting to create detailed policies and legislation to cover almost every issue and industry that impacted the environment, attracting the appellation of ‘eco-fascism’ for their efforts. This, plus the attempt to control consensual chaos, turned into a procedural obsessiveness that persists to this day. Metres of rules and regulations lurk in the Green party domain for those who care to look — not that most people even bother to try.
A succession of autocratic leaderships has disempowered its grass roots
As a consequence of its hierarchical structure, Canadian Green parties attract psychopathic power-seekers like vultures to a rotting corpse. With only a few notable exceptions, a succession of self-serving, autocratic Green party leaders and their retinues have progressively disempowered their grassroots members, to the extent that active grassroots Green Party electoral associations now hardly exist. Most of the local electoral organisations are just empty shells to be filled with placeholder candidates at election time. Due to the lack of a delegate system at annual general meetings and the centralisation of power, even those few active and well-established local organisations have little leverage. As one party activist expressed it: “When it comes to the Green Party, there’s no ‘there’ there.”
It all started with the Founding Convention
That’s when the Green Party rejected grassroots democracy
OLIVER, BC 1985 — Although the Green Party was conceived as an alternative to conventional politics, the Green Party of Canada’s Founding Convention rejected the grassroots, distributed democratic model that I put forward at that time. Instead, it adopted the same hierarchical, ‘top-down’ structure suggested by the Canada Elections Act, in which all power is concentrated in the hands of the party leader.
A distributed democratic structure would have returned decision-making to the grassroots membership and downgraded the role of leader to that of a spokesperson. Instead of electing one person as Leader, I suggested that two or three spokespersons be appointed, one from each gender, or even that the party elect a symbolic child as a leader to represent its obligation to safeguard this planet for future generations. But fear of rejection as a party by Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer prevented this from happening.
I pointed out that this could work to our advantage. If the most democratic Canadian political party was refused status, we would have succeeded in proving the essentially undemocratic nature of Canadian politics. The Greens would become the only political party offering an alternative to the anti-democratic status quo. This would have brought discussion of the nature of Canadian democracy into the public arena, allowing us to claim it as our issue and win our case in the court of public opinion.
If the Chief Electoral Officer would have accepted such a radical departure from conventional politics, we also would have won in that we would have set up the Green Party as a grassroots movement according to the non-hierarchical principles of grassroot Green politics. We would be practicing what we preached. Either way, it would be a win-win situation.
But it was not to be. Then BC Green Party leader Adriane Carr, who chaired this founding convention and who is now deputy leader of the federal Green party, was vocal among those in favour of the status quo. From that moment, the fate of the Green Party of Canada was sealed.
Green parties have been taken over by the disenfranchised Right
The demise of Canada’s Progressive Conservatives (Tories) after Brian Mulroney’s disastrous reign as prime minister, plus the absorption of Preston Manning’s far-right populist Reform party into the Alliance and then the Conservative party, left a number of Red Tories and eco-inclined Reformers without a political home. Attracted by the declared fiscal conservatism of the Greens, these now experienced political refugees moved in and easily took over Canada’s disorganised, confused, and politically naïve federal and provincial Green parties. These conservative, middle-class Blue-Greens (The Turquoisie) are Canada’s neo-Greens. They are the primary reason that playing the electoral game has become the only Green political strategy.
Mostly middle-class, middle-age, small-c conservative environmentalists
Every political party is a coalition across a slice of the political pie, and Green parties are no exception. Coalitions are held together by a common social vision, but in Canada the Red-Green coalition between the Left and the environmentalists has been entirely dismantled and displaced by the Blue-Greens. Canadian Greens are now overwhelmingly middle-class, middle-aged, middle-brow and muddle-minded small-c conservatives, who think that applying small business methods and fiddling with personal lifestyle will somehow avert ecological disaster. This short-sighted, patchwork thinking doesn’t appeal to younger, anti-globalisation political activists, who reject conventional politics and political parties, including the Greens.
Little or no internal debate or education about Green political principles
Green political principles are written into every Green party constitution. But without an ongoing process of discovery, discussion, and development of these principles, how can a party know whether its members actually share the same political view? For the neo-Conservatives, it’s free-market capitalism; for the Liberals, corporate capitalism mitigated by guilt; for the New Democrats it’s Social Democracy; but for the Greens — it’s what? Environmentalism? Neither-Right-Nor-Leftism (whatever that means)? Social Evolutionism? Just-Get-Me-Elected-ism? Unfortunately, and perhaps most important, no exploration of or debate about Green political principles takes place in the Green parties. As a result, blind dogmatic electoralism predominates, creating a political philosophic vacuum inside the party that precludes any real political analysis and virtually eliminates strategic thinking.
Exclusive focus on the electoral process has stifled grassroots activism
The name of the game in Canada’s Green parties is Get Someone Elected, Anyone Will Do. In the Green Party of Canada, that Anyone has become Only Elizabeth May, the current leader. The rationalisation for this desperate exclusivity is that the Greens won’t be effective until some are elected to parliament and/or legislatures. This overlooks the fact that Green parties have affected the political dialectic just by existing. It also suggests that politics takes place only inside existing legislative chambers, which downplays the importance of working on local issues, the bedrock and school of politics, and introduces the caution of not offending anyone. The result has been to encourage Greens to behave like ordinary politicians — as if we need more of those. Green candidates should be activists known in their community for their work on local issues. Instead, this exclusive focus on electoralism has stifled grassroots activism, the vitalising force and foundation of democratic politics.
A general distrust of politics has left Green parties out on a limb
Politics and politicians do not enjoy a high level of respect at this time. Many people have become overtly sceptical as to the moral and ethical honesty of politicians, and angered by the way their opinions are being manipulated by a compliant corporate media. Once they have voted, citizens are excluded from any further decision-making by an élitist electoral process. A large gap has opened between political junkies who actively participate in political parties, and the majority of the electorate, who either don’t actively concern themselves with politics or who chose a more hands-on, grassroots approach focussed on specific local or global issues. This atmosphere of distrust has left Canada’s Green parties flailing around for support and finding little. It’s not a good time to be growing a fledgling political party, especially one that appears to want to play the same rotten game.
Is there any hope?
At the beginning of this new decade, I really don’t see much hope of Canada’s Green parties recovering from their essentially dismal situation. The Blue-Green mindset is firmly ensconced within them, with all its conventional thinking and lack of an urgent and meaningful political strategy that I’ve outlined here.
Even as I write these words, efforts are being made by her bevy of starry-eyed mavens to cement Elizabeth May into the leadership of the Green Party of Canada for as long as she wants to remain, just like any other petty dictator. Those Greens who do not want to see this happen lack the person power and organisation to oppose her well-oiled and financed, personal political machine.
The fact that no Canadian jurisdiction has adopted proportional representation, and the rejection of conventional party politics by progressive young local and global anti-corporate activists, does not open any windows of opportunity for Canada’s Green parties to overtake the union-based New Democrats and become the focus for progressive political opposition in this country.
By choosing to play the electoral game under rules that effectively marginalise minority political parties, Canada’s Green parties have condemned themselves to be the perpetual “also-ran.” Canadian Greens would have to entirely reinvent and restructure their federal and provincial parties for them to become meaningful players in the urgent global struggle for peace, social justice, environmental protection, ecological security, and citizen democracy.
I’d like to think it was possible. But at this time, I really don’t see it happening. Too bad, really. Fascism, anyone? After all, Security is our biggest concern… isn’t it?
Welcome to the Corporate Era. I said it wasn’t going to be a nice time.
Posted in Canada, Green parties, democracy | 8 Comments »
[...] Original link here and background piece on the Failure of Green Electoralism. [...]
Good for Stuart, good for us, that he’s musing aloud like this. How many other “Greens” will find this writing provocative as they should, to be of longest-lasting political benefit? To Stuart’s post just prior I started to append a provocative response of my own, but it got scrubbed when I pressed “Save” failing to fill in some required field. Just as well, as this current post is as if he had taken the provocation. But a drive to responsibly discuss without prompting is to be expected from, as he put it in that prior post, one “who believes in Green political principles. (There must be one or two others besides myself.)” If I am that other one, let the second show up then, and do bring some unanticipated friends.
On “Green parties are still seen as being only on about the environment”.
This is not fairly fully pinnable on the party, however. The originating coalition referred to seems to have come back to life electorally in Europe recently (esp. provoked by Rivasi’s leadership on the anti-microwave mania issue in SE France, something GPC has, despite my repeated private and public strong urging, stupidly still chosen to ignore or be unresponsive to, to its serious detriment — might they come around in the new year? — as I predicted, another party has picked up with what should have been a solo GPC banner issue, although the roguish prorogation might stifle the BQ attempt at responsiveness…will the Liberals now steal? where oh where is GPC?). And I have noticed some fairly strong insider participation in GPC of late by those inclined to stress “anti-war and social justice issues” (even if I found some prescription and expression problematic, eg re Israel or talk about GAI of some sort; but I hasten to add that the best among those of this group seem to have taken seriously my criticisms, further reason for some encouragement). And the one-issue tag is partly the party’s fault, but in a less expected way I’m sure, by assimilating too readily to the prevalent discourse about what constitutes environmentalism, ie as if it is not truly all-encompassing, and trying to stress about how Greens are not “one-issue” only serves to strengthen the regnant misconception about environmentalism/ecology. But this is a deep cultural matter, and Greens wouldn’t in the short term achieve much electorally by artful shifting of rhetoric. What they would do by that is prepare for the day when they would be turned to as the alternative waiting, better prepared, in the wings, all the while helping the change along by speaking & thinking differently. It’s slow, slower still because it’s glacially slow Canada, but gotta be done.
“Pro-environment policies are not exclusive to the Green Party”
See my parenthetical comment above for support on this. And by talking more responsibly radically as “environmentalists” would Greens stake out clearer exclusive territory, both for public service benefit in creative function for public discourse as well as to deepen their readiness for the electoral leadership eventually sought. Still, over at rabble-babble not long ago I posted some challenging posts about how GPC still somewhat usefully stood out versus NDP, see, where I’m “D V”, at threads
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-or-greens-path-peace-economy-yes-magazine followed by http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-or-greens-path-peace-economy-part-2 .
“The environmental movement never entirely supported the Greens”
I think the desire to “appeal to a wide range of private funders” has been overly imported to GPC under its current leader, in several senses. First, the overemphasis on $ vs vigourous voluntarism, and the gross misexpenditure of a lot of those $ (on things like assimilatory teevee ads, more of which I think are being wastefully prepared, apparently under the auspices of a talented recent notable recruit to the party, a radio personality whose name I noticed not long after I had recommended emphasis on radio (esp. for the current leader where she is truly at her best, voice quality, demeanour, lack of stupid visual distraction from serious thought allowing intelligent focus to more properly shine etc.), although the two radio bits he hosted put on the GPC website were somewhat removed — again in a too assimilatory vein — from what I had in mind, but the audio was a somewhat welcome addition). Other critics have focussed on questionable payroll $, but I have left that field to them, they seeming mostly to be of a political stripe even further removed from what I’d prescribe for GPC, although their criticism there might be quite on the mark. The background threat of people more of their ilk taking back control of the party soon, were that to be realized I’d be driven further away still from these Greens I’ve abandoned (for now, we’ll see).
But the importation of the culture of appealing to that “wide range”, esp. of course the richer set who have mostly gotten rich, wittingly or no, on depredations that have us require a Green movement at all, well, it should be obvious where that leads one, to a self-destruction, or self-dissolution rather, by, again, assimilation. Politically it has translated into what many have criticized as Liberal-like tendencies. (On another babble thread I suggested, better than another poster’s “Greenerals”, for a conjoined party, “Libereens”…like it? — I know that might particularly inflame one person I was praising above.)
“Internal party processes have become convoluted and dysfunctional”
The “procedural obsessiveness” is of a cultural piece with peculiar Canadian interest in politics. In that respect, it is neutral, and even an index of party maturity in styling itself in a truer Canadian vein, where sense of rule and structure predominate. I agree that that can be anathema to political activism, but we’re stuck in Canada. Which would lead to what I was going to put to Stuart in that scrubbed comment, about misconstrual of the place of national politics altogether, as in, I’m not sure Stuart has reasonable expectations for Canadian national politics. I challenged him in my first posts on this blog in the midst of the SGI nomination controversy, but I suppose he was too busy to engage.
“A succession of autocratic leaderships has disempowered its grass roots”
Stuart’s over-the-top comment about power-seekers has almost put me off continuing, a needless low blow it was.
But I’ll go on to say that I have strongly urged that policy-formation be rejigged to necessarily include local involvements. It is not possible to go on much longer really with the party’;s current policy-formation and -adoption framework. I have often referred to the demise of other populist parties here and in Australia, a fate for which GPC seems headed minus reform here. (I understand some new policy mechanism is in the works, but who knows what or if all that significant a change.) Much more strength has to be accorded to the centre, perhaps a move Stuart would reject, but maybe not, as I’d like to see regular EDA meetings, in person if possible, at which actual member voting occurs to register (veto-powered dis-)approval for better-researched words that come as policy from an better empowered head office, spending some of its $ better for researchers & writers than for rah-rah-rah-ing into the FPTP void. Thus would EDAs attract the politically interested who really wanted to have a say, it would de-emphasize the national convention for something better done otherwise, allow that convention time to be better used itself, continue to promote GPC’s superior leading edge function as internet-centric for ongoing, constant even, national policy discussion, rehabilitate direct local involvement as required to actually have one’s say count. Whether ridings would get one vote, determined internally by centralized rules, or more likely one member one vote across the country, or whatever, actually having members physically go somewhere more frequently and nearby than a national mail-in & convention, that should serve to re-engage where Greens have failed to come together as they otherwise should have in a non-directly electoral vein, upon which the electoral should be built. Cons. & NDP-ers have a firmer non-political base to build on, Liberals less so, Greens even less. Greens, having mostly failed at something repeatedly urged, to come together for community purpose, can salvage that community purpose by direct political orientation via involvement in policy formation.
That said, I am strongly against the culture of leader-centricity, and for all the apparent attempts to be inclusive of numerous others in party statements, which is good, a ponderous presence is put over the party with its Eliz. this, Eliz. that all over. This has been a very big mistake, also indicative of assimilation to Liberal-like political culture. Her calibre is surpassing in many regards, I have even stood in the breach and effectively defended her when no one else seemed capable or willing to. But Eliz. should NOT have allowed her superior ability to obscure others. Her having gone too easily along with the media-attraction to her for a time, and not used that to deftly deflect attention to other capable party people, which would have broadened attraction to the party some, as it would have helped build up those involved personally and publicly; the ongoing assimilation to overfocus on the party leader is destructive of many “green’ things, although maybe not quite in the way Stuart contends. Another likely effect of all this is leader burn-out. It is maybe not too late, and it cannot all be Eliz.’s fault (I actually would probably fault those retained to more closely advise her, but if these are hand-picked to make her feel comfortable, sometimes required sharp criticism might not be forthcoming). But the way things seem to be going, party strength is being sapped maybe too far to salvage for all the leader-centricity. Perhaps the party really is headed to merge with the Liberals, should the latter go to their expected modernist demise in an accelerated fashion, rather than the current slow sad fade-out, and Greens sink for some Liberal-like errors.
“Green parties have been taken over by the disenfranchised Right”
I don’t know if The Turquoisie are the “primary reason”. I see members coming from all quarters and too often bringing little substance or little sense of Green fundaments, just mainly liking being around the frivolities of politics. That’s not a bad thing in itself, only if it usurps the deeper critical concerns that should animate the party.
Further, if there is a future to GPC, it should be, as I’ve pointed out, corroborating some learned Australian comment, that the NDP and Greens in a vague left-right opposition should emerge as a central axis to our politics. The postmodern rise of regionalist parties makes perfect sense on Green terms, the Cons. & BQ, the abiding worth of an NDP, for all its modernist assimilations, has effectively served as the strongest voice of dissent of some modernist excess, and the Greens, if they hold somehow, ESP. IN THEIR ALLOWANCE OF SPIRITUAL FOCUS into politics, should intelligently differentiate themselves and prove of lasting worth. The homeless red Tories are natural ones inclined to more readily admit this nod to traditionalisms, versus the mostly devoutly secular left, and just there you have the seeds of a lasting creative political opposition, would that Canadians were up to the challenge to fulfill those roles.
“Mostly middle-class, middle-age, small-c conservative environmentalists”
I rather think that there are avenues to creatively engage this group. I fear, however, that they would incline to engage only as their $ & other assets devalue, and it is at this point uncertain how quickly that will occur in our land with such a relatively gigantic per capita exploitable resource base. So as the transitions go on ahead of us all over the world, even in the US, centre of evil that it is, where people are less inclined to wait for a dumbly slow central authority to act, here our otherwise possibly very useful deference to authority risks backfire, making the country even more laggard than it is “glacially slow” already. (Actually, the Cons. are on track to keep on disempowering that looked-to authority, in the process destroying more quickly what remains of our modernist construct of a country, only under their leadership the country gets mostly yanked in exactly the wrong direction as a result.)
“Little or no internal debate or education about Green political principles”
I have to concur with the woeful general lack of good discussion that would be distinctively in line with foundational “green” thought. I tried for some three years, since rejoining with Green politics after a 20-year absence, and the provincial Ontario Greens were utterly woeful, the federal ones less so, but still sorely lacking. But my expectations have been low, which allowed me to continue as long as all that before letting go, and also of course I saw that my words poured out were having some good effect. I think I’ll still vote Green, and if asked for advice might give some. But as it is, I think our membership will lapse.
“Exclusive focus on the electoral process has stifled grassroots activism”
I agree about the wrongful electoral overfocus on the party leader. I can see how it is correctly even grossly off-putting to some. There are other worthy candidates out there, and moreover, what giant difference would a single MP make? It’s true, a legitimizing entry wedge could lead to a nearer-term larger contingent getting elected. But that’s less likely with too many dispirited EDAs. Even with the actual practical intent of getting just her elected, several ridings concurrently could have been better targeted with $ & resources, detracting from the impression of selfish overfocus, and serving to build up other eventual likelier ridings, also better spreading the wider public’s attention.
Stuart’s other comments about local activism and its relation to politics are astute. But there is some hope in mostly sheepish & complacent Canada if, eg, municipal politicians of note will step up and identify with Greens. But as attractant the party will likely have to lose more of its foundational impetus, which is bad, as well as cleanse itself of the effect of loopier types, which would be good.
“A general distrust of politics has left Green parties out on a limb”
The hopeful re-engagement that GPC does succeed in fostering is its greatest value. But I fear that even “hope” has been childishly usurped these days for gross political purpose, and “Greens” fall for it, too.
“Is there any hope?”
I sense that Stuart is thinking politics a bit too much in general and not enough in the Canadian context. Maybe he has not lived here long enough? But I hope he has appreciated that I take the time to comment, because I appreciate his inclination to thoughtful & braver political voice, actively far too uncommon in Canada.
Thank you, Daryl, for your frank and thoughtful response. You’ve given me a lot to think about and digest. Glad I’m not the only Green who still believes in Green political principles!
I’ve lived in Canada since 1968, and am a Canadian citizen (I still hold dual nationality), but some days it still seems that I’m still a stranger in a strange land. As I’ve lived in Canada almost twice as long as I’ve lived in England, I’m sure I’d feel totally out of place if I were to return.
I’ll take my cue from Steve (below) and respond more fully later.
Stuart, this was a very thoughtful piece. Thank you for taking the time to share this with the rest of us in cyberspace. I just wanted to take a moment to provide you with a quick comment of thanks. If I can, I’ll try to provide some comments related to the discussion at some point in the near future, when things aren’t as busy.
Thanks, Steve. I look forward to reading your response.
Your ego seems to be larger than your “brilliant” resume.
If you are going to come out with such outlandish, baseless and remorseful attempts at describing democracy, you should have an educated understanding of the Canadian democratic parliamentary system (not listed in your resume) and the Canberra Global Green Charter. If your blogs are any indication to the integrity of your book, the content must be pure hogwash. Sorry, somebody’s gotta be frank with you. Most Greens are too gentile to confront your antics.
It’s no wonder an NDP hack like Bill Tielman, who was the loudest opponent to a more democratic STV and changing the FPP electoral system, referred to your site on CBC today. I’m sure he’s concerned about the rising Green poll numbers released yesterday (which goes directly against your theory). Canwest loves to profile division within the Green Party that only you and John Ogilvy seem to collude on. Didn’t you run for them? Didn’t he? What happened there? The journalistic research was apparently not worthy of investigating.
The problem with the tone of your constant whining and disruptive nature from democratic discourse is that it seems to function great without your aggravated and petulant notions (or so I have personally observed at every event you appear at). It’s in your right as a member. But if you have such difficulty in group harmonization, why stay on and antagonize those that want to move forward? You resemble Harper in this respect. If it doesn’t go your way, kick, scream and take every legal means necessary to disrupt the process. The fact that you haven’t written on the prorogation is more than questionable, it’s shameful. There is nothing more violating than the PM’s position on democracy. That’s worthy of writing a book on (Elizabeth May did — perhaps you should read it. You may learn something).
Why blame those wishing to achieve a democratic solution-based discourse of dialogue?
No federal party would have allowed you to run against the leader of the party from outside the riding and slander, distort and prorogue the process — even so far as to take it up with EC! The fact you were able to run speaks volumes to the integrity of the only federal party that seems to embrace the very notions of democracy and responsible governance.
Perhaps you should consider the number of votes you received at all the positions you’ve run for and assess the situation long and hard.
Like Harper, you have no one to blame, but yourself.
I normally don’t allow ad hominem arguments or scurrilous personal character assassinations such as this one to prevail on this site. But I’ve left this one on as it represents the kind of personal viciousness that too many Green Party members believe it acceptable to hurl at anyone who contradicts their simplistic and mindless support of the party’s policy of getting a Green elected at any cost, as long as that Green is Ms Elizabeth May.
You chose to hide in anonymity, Anon, but this cannot cloak the fact that your response contains absolutely no rebuttal of substance or any attempt to discuss any of the non-personal factors I have suggested as the reasons for the Green Party’s present state of disarray, a state that has nothing to do with my own character or personality.
Your diatribe proves my point that there is no political analysis of any substance or any discussion of political philosophy, Green or otherwise, taking place in the Green Party of Canada. Instead, brainless boosterism of the level of angry viciousness that you have provided here prevails.
You can attempt to shot the messenger all you want, Anon. You are shooting with blanks. Nothing you have written here rebuts any of the issues I have raised, or will persuade anyone contemplating voting Green to have any respect for a party whose internal level of debate has sunk to the nadir that you represent.
Sticks and stones…. but it’s the Green Party’s bones you are stomping on, Anon. If that was your intent, you have succeeded admirably. Thank you for your comment, and do have a nice day. But I must inform you that any personal attacks that you aim in future on this site at myself or anyone else will be removed.
If you want to debate on matters of substance, you are welcome to take part in this democratic discourse. It would be better, though, if you would be brave enough to debate under your own name.
P.S. I did read Ms May’s book. I also reviewed it on this site.
As a Green sympathizer, but not supporter, I think the reason the Green Party is labelled as being only about the environment is because in a policy sense it’s mostly true. The health platform for instance deals almost entirely with health promotion and “keeping Canadians healthy.” That’s certainly worth emphasis, but how do we get from here to there?
It’s laughable when they say this stuff at the provincial level, because if the miracle happened and the Greens actually formed a provincial government, the day after the election they would have to do something with the massive disease system they would inherit. You know, the one with doctors and nurses not just midwives and naturopaths.
Illness prevention and health promotion can be a strategy, but you still have to address the context of an overwhelming demand for chronic disease treatment and hospitalization we have currently. The test of any policy is what would you do the day you took office? Maybe the people in hospital could be reminded that our system is about disease not health?
Nothing about how patients are treated like they are a bother or forced to navigate their own way through a fragmented system, or wait unreasonably or have unequal access to diagnostic tests, or patient safety, or lack of mental health options, etc. etc.
There are big issues here, and they need to be confronted. If the Green Party wants to be taken seriously it needs to be serious about policy development on something other than environment and economic alternatives.