Green bleeding red

Their insincere musing in environmentalism and social justice is a consequence of their party's early revelation that they can only attain power by impressing those who put them there: the voters.

"Mr. Harper has, perhaps inevitably, acquired something of a Machiavellian reputation in the course of his rise to power. Mr. Dion has not. If anything, he is regarded as almost too sincere (on the environment, in particular, he risks coming across as a fanatic, even if it is “the issue of our time”). But authenticity, besides being a virtue, is a potent political weapon. The public can sense it, and hungers for it." ~ Andrew Coyne

Welcome Rob to my site, I truly appreciate your response and I encourage you to continue posting in the future!

Coyne's quote is not unreasonable. Dion issue-oriented imaging, appears naive and quaint amongst Liberals who are as I say, about power and nothing more. I stress that this is an imaging issue because Dion's apparent 'fanaticism' can be called at best "born-again" and more likely "photo-op" environmentalism. Many Canadians would have welcomed more popularly a fanatic as an environment minister than as a party leader.

There have been many activist Liberals before who have presented themselves with a pet issue; Dion is no different. Whether the Liberal party manages to wrap their power strategy around Dion's issue centric facade is completely irrelevant to the question of actually getting results. After all, the notion of change directly contradicts the raison-d'etre of the Liberal party-- and change is needed in this country... desperately.

Dion issue-oriented imaging, appears naive and quaint amongst Liberals who are as I say, about power and nothing more.

I think that you are painting with a pretty wide brush there. I am a Liberal, and I am certainly principled. Also, during the leadership campaign Ignatieff pooled highest amongst Liberals on who was most likely to win an election, but we still voted for Dion because we liked what he stood for.

Dion's apparent 'fanaticism' can be called at best "born-again" and more likely "photo-op" environmentalism.

That quote again seems to have more to do with your pre-conceived notions about Liberals than any study of M. Dion. Dion pushed environmentalism into mainstream Canadian political debate, he didn't come to the issue after the fact for photo ops like Harper.

Dion's issue centric facade

Again, rhetoric. Dion is a policy wonk. He makes principled stands, even when in danger of splitting his caucus and even though it may hurt him at the polls, as evidenced by the recent terrorism provisions debate.

After all, the notion of change directly contradicts the raison-d'etre of the Liberal party

All the progressive change in this country has been because of the Liberal party. Obviously the NDP has also played a role on some of the issues, but it was the Liberal party that always made it happen.

Listen, the party may not be as progressive a you would like it to be. Obviously, you support the NDP. I would remind you that they blew up the house when they were in a position to get more done than they had been in a long while, because they had a shot at some extra seats. I would also remind you that they ran a campaign where they focussed on the Liberals while taking it easy on the Conservatives so as not to make the latter party look as extreme as they are, for fear that it might drive people to vote Liberal to stop Harper. I really don't think that NDP'ers should be so quick to lecture on 'power over principle' after that little charade.

Also, you may want to check out Pat Martin's comments on Dion 'messing with Alberta', Martin and Layton's comments on Dion's dual citizenship, or the NDP election strategy in 1988 of attacking the ani-NAFTA Liberals and taking it easy on the pro-NAFTA Conservatives, to win a few more seats. These are all great examples of the NDP choosing power over principle.

I don't mean to rag on the NDP, or ignore all the instances where the Liberals were guilty of the 'power over principle' thing. I just think that we should have these discussions minus the rhetoric, and keeping in mind the actual records of parties and individuals rather than party talking points and generalities.

Cheers,

Rob

I always like it when the NDP is accused of making the Liberal tent fold in 2005 and thus the libs losing the 2006 election. The last I checked, there were 3 opposition parties that voted against the lib minority govt, unless you think that the NDP should always be depended on to prop up the libs. The fact is, Martin Liberal govt much preferred brinkmanship to actually as a progressive govt, and only came progressively minded when its back was against the wall.
The liberal 2006 election campaign sucked. When Martin tried to wrap himself up as a progessive liberal again, well you know the old adage, fool me once, fool me twice... you get my drift. Go find another cheerleader party.
May is just trying to co-op some Tommy Douglas feel good image making, by wanting to be the next Tommy Douglas (quote) and evoking Tommy Douglas any time she can. But sticking it to the NDP is just so un-Tommish. Essentially she is trying to kill off his off-spring.

I always like it when the NDP is accused of making the Liberal tent fold in 2005 and thus the libs losing the 2006 election.

I'm not saying it was the NDP's fault that the Liberals lost. Obviously the polls turned for the Cons when the NDP prompted the RCMP investigation (which turned out to have nothing to do with Goodale in the end), but the Liberals also ran a brutal campaign. During the campaign I criticised Martin's penchant for trying to scare progressive voters rather than woo them by delivering on progressive issues.

The last I checked, there were 3 opposition parties that voted against the lib minority govt, unless you think that the NDP should always be depended on to prop up the libs.

Right, but my point still stands. The NDP had more influence than they've had since I've been alive, and instead of using it they blew it away for a chance at 10 more seats, while running a campaign solely against the Libs and purposely making the Cons seem less extreme than they really are (much like '88). Good politics, but not very principled. Progressives who don't toe the NDP line aren't impressed.

As for May, at least she is targetting the Conservatives and being open and honest about how extreme the Conservatives are.

perhaps, you are right that the NDP wanted more than just to influence, but reality was, we were having to work damn hard for that influence and Martin sure wasn't making it very easy. I also don't think that anyone thought that Harper would do as well as he did, including the libs and the NDP. That said, in BC the contest was really between the Cons and the NDP, so saying they didn't take on the Cons is a part of the myth. And what about how the Libs always do the scary thing, the cons will get you so you better vote lib. That happen in 2004 and we lost ridings because people thought they should liberal, the NDP lost votes in those ridings, and the cons got in. What about that? Except this time, we didn't play that ball game and played the same game - lend us your vote liberal voters. Somehow, you think the libs deserve to get NDP leaning voters to mark their X beside Liberal, but the NDP doing this, well the nerve of that party - don't they know we are natural governing party. And that is the problem in a nutshell. The cons got a minority because the liberals ran a crappy campaign, the NDP campaigned like it was no tomorrow, even with Buzz hugging and wrapping his arms around Martin, the millionaire who flew his shipping company under a foreign flag so he didn't have to pay workers all those Canadian benefits. Yap, he sure represents my interests. Yap, he sure cares and is all progressive and such.
And, when you say May is open and honest about how extreme the cons are, well the NDP ran a candidate in that riding that was very popular the last two times and who came pretty close. The NDP has to working real hard to win, and often has to run 2 or 3 times before they can possibly win. We don't have the luxury of having a band name party where people usually park their votes, or much great MSM quoting us.
And don't talk to me about principles. Principles like the liberals when they ran in 1993 on jobs, jobs, jobs and than turned around and basically turned their back on every redbook promise. I know, I use to be a liberal and campaigned on that crap. Told people to vote for them, answered their phones, and guess what, I help elect one those right wing liberals - Steckle. Nope I won't be fooled again.

Again, you seem to be missing the point.

Somehow, you think the libs deserve to get NDP leaning voters to mark their X beside Liberal, but the NDP doing this, well the nerve of that party - don't they know we are natural governing party.

I didn't say that at all. I was just pointing out that the NDP had a tendency to choose power over principle, just like the other parties. The whole point was just that you (as many NDPers do) were perpetuating this myth of the principled NDP. I was just pointing out the innaccuracies of that myth.

in BC the contest was really between the Cons and the NDP, so saying they didn't take on the Cons is a part of the myth.

I'm not sure which BC you're talking about, because in the BC that I know, the Libs and the NDP got pretty much the same percentage of the vote. Anyways, that is beside the point. Read the Laxer article that I linked to in my first post. He does a pretty good job of explaining the point that everyone but hardcore NDPers seemed to get already: the NDP took it easy on the Cons.

reality was, we were having to work damn hard for that influence and Martin sure wasn't making it very easy.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The NDP had their first budget ammendment pass in the history of that party.

Don't you think that it is better to face up to the realities of the situation, even if it means admitting faults with the party that you choose to support? i don't know why partisans often think that they should never admit that their party has any faults. When you admit the faults, it gives you more credibility when you extol the positives.

Cheers,

Rob

First of all, I think it's interesting that even in your highly NDP-slanted article you've come down very hard on the Liberals and the Greens and took it easy on the Conservatives.

I don't know why I let your article get under my skin, but I guess it's just because I get very frustrated when the alternative media writes such irresponsible, unfounded opinion pieces as the one we have here. All you've really managed to do in this article is make angry allegations and sarcastic criticisms without backing any of them up with facts or even anecdotes.

Speculation is now flying as to a possible deal being struck between the Liberals and the Greens-- something that May has said she would never do; she further implies that New Democrats choose power over principle and to whom the Greens are a real alternative.

This is supposed to be the main point in your article, I suppose, but you've failed to tell me anything about this alleged alliance: who is speculating? Paranoid NDPs? On what grounds? I don't see how running a Green Party candidate, even a high profile one, like Elizabeth May will help the Liberals against Peter McKay. If anything, it will split traditionally Liberal votes, and do neither party any good. On the other hand, May might have plenty of her own reasons for running there: it's close to home, it would be great if that asshole McKay could be beaten out *by a girl,* and it's bound to be a high-profile contest where she can get enough attention from the rest of the country to discuss her platform outside of the national televised debates. But I guess a sordid alliance with the Liberals seems more likely than any of that...

The hypocracy of the Greens is something I take issue with not because they are particularly worse than the Liberals or Conservatives, rather because their sanctimonious and self-righteous tone of "dissatisfaction with the NDP" is disingenuous to say the least.

I'm sure you've noticed that every party rails against each other in order to look superior. It's low, and it's tedious, and it's a waste of time, but they all do it. If there's one thing that's hypocritical about May, it's that she promises to stay out of that business, but doesn't quite manage to do so. But if you watch her in the next election, I think you'll find that she does this surprisingly less than other parties. The NDPs, at least in the November bi-election in my town practically ran their campaign on this strategy. Early on, Meagan Walker exposed a member of the Liberal party for being a chauvanist, which he truly was, and which was terrible, but she tried to make this reflect badly on Glen Pearson who is a great guy; she spent much of her time just being in opposition to Diane Haskett's blatant homophobia, and made a last-ditch effort to scare potential Green voters by releasing a little pamphlet, less founded on fact than this article, about why the Greens won't cut it in parliament. I am not saying that Walker shouldn't be against homophobia and sexism, but the campaign was run based more on what she was against than what the NDPs were for. But like I said, everyone does it: it's a shitty part of politics, but it's real.

Furthermore, it would seem that the party is now comfortable making deals with the Liberals-- who have by far the worst track record on the environment,

Here you mention this obscure deal again without qualifying the accusation...

The Green party are showing signs of fatigue, and it is only time before something snaps. May's popularity could waver and form a rift within the party.

On the contrary, we've only been gaining momentum. But you're right: May's popularity could flag. That is not outside the realm of possibility. But so could Harper's, Dion's, and even Layton's! Never mind that, England could accidentally aim one of their new nuclear weapons at Canada, and fire. That's not also out of the realm of possibility, so I think we should start preparing for that. How can Tony Blair sleep at night?

It is a simple process of taking an existing issue adapt a stance such that it has the appeal of foresightedness, or sustainability, give it a cute new name, and stick it in their policy booklet next to a green field with a sunflower.

What would you have said if the Green Party didn't take a stance on any existing issues? One-issue party? No-issue party? Just because the Greens are reletively new, they're not allowed to talk about the same issues as the old boys? Furthermore, I contest that every issue IS a green issue. In this world, we are inextricably linked to this planet we live on. The health of our planet is already being reflected in our health, and everything we do has an affect on the planet: the way we live, the wars we fight, the way we trade. This in mind, it seems appropriate that the Green Party should address these issues: the party doesn't aim to save the planet primarily for its own sake. May's Greens are not deep green fanatics, opposed to the seal hunt; rather, May's Greens are concerned with our governance of our planet, and how it affects our lives and contributes to global social injustices.

We will soon likely see May choose power over principle-- maybe Jack should return the call she claimed to make a year or two ago him asking her if she as trouble sleeping at night.

Your conclusion is based on the likelihood of something for which you've still provided no evidence, or even an arguement leading logically to this assumption. This is why alternative media saddens me: hopefully anyone who might read this has their own faculties to see the breaks in your arguement. That isn't to say that I hope anyone who reads your article recognizes the ignorance and immediately votes Green, but I do hope that you haven't managed to convince anyone who voted any way to consider any of the points you've made as valid. Maybe the Greens are secretly seeking power through the Liberals. I don't know that this isn't the case: but I sure don't know that it IS that case based on anything I've read! I guess this is just a (not unpartisan) plea for responsible journalism.

Peace,
Kristi

Hey Kristi, welcome to my site! Thank you for that heated response!

Firstly, I should mention that this is not a blog of a journalist. I wear my biases boldly, and I try to make it as clear as possible that these posts are opinions, or editorials. To some degree I'm honoured that you feel as though this is written at least in a style which is comparable to journalism. This university drop out is flattered.

I will commend you for confronting media bias, but I think in this case it's unwarranted. Start by asking a few of the media outlets why "freak polls" are published over reasonable ones, to portray the Liberals as a "tight second" to the Conservatives, and the Greens as "breathing down the necks" of the NDP. Ask a few questions about why Dion could burp and make it onto the nightly news, while New Democrats are consistently shut out. I've gotten over my bitterness for the media in Canada and their political biases, I've taken to writing my thoughts in whatever way I can, in the hopes that it will stir up a little bit more conversation than is happening. If anything, I want my readers to question me... it brings my blog beyond the status of propaganda: people are encouraged to ask questions!

Secondly, you are right in that May has not signed onto a deal with Dion. However the deal, whether it involved a backroom meeting and a piece of paper or not, is implicit in choosing a riding where the Liberals have no chance, and the NDP are just behind the Conservatives with an outstanding female candidate (Alexis McDonald). In the 2006 election, Mckay's lead was roughly 7%. May has specifically said that it was not politically desirable to knock-off a Liberal backbencher, and that Mckay was a far better target. Firstly she makes no mention that this is a winnable seat for the NDP, and it also confounds me that she would not run agains John Baird, who is the current (unsubstantial) environment minister, and is in Ottawa-- where she lives!

Call it a "deal", call it a "coincidence", call it a "hidden agenda". Hell, call it an elephant for all I care! The olive branch has been clearly extended to the Liberal party with May's unspoken non-aggression treaty, and cold shoulder has been given to the NDP. May has clearly shown that she will not pin her critiques on the Liberals; I'm asking why she's doing that, and who's interest does it serve?

You must have misread me in that I do in fact believe that most issues have a profound connection to environmental sustainability, in fact I openly and at times fanatically (haha?), advocate for issues relating to environmental classism and racism. What I resent is that the Green branding, simplistic and vague, undermines the work of many people invested into the issues.

The implication of an "old boys" with in the NDP mentality is concerning. Particularly because the NDP/CCF have championed women's rights for decades, and to this day are often all alone in the political arena in working for women's equality. A manifestation (one of many) of this commitment is that the NDP caucus is currently 42% female, with Jack urging more Women to run this election! Furthermore May will be making no headlines about beating Mckay as a women, because she will most likely split the vote from another prominent woman politician in Central-Nova!

Indeed I admire May compared to Jim Harris, and welcome her as currently the only female leader at the moment. Consider however that for the NDP, Jack Layton is a leader who happens to be a man; May has already made the attempt to label the NDP political institution as a "old boys club" (by association), and it didn't hold-- it was cheap and I think was a major step backwards with regards to the achievements that have been made of late.

In short May is selling herself to Canadians on trust, integrity, and honesty which she has not earned or proven. She claims that she will not choose power over principle. I hope that she doesn't, I think we need more of that, but she is not off on the right foot. If she believed in that, I would expect she would be far more supportive of the NDP, to whom she has shown nothing but coy bitterness. It remains to be seen why she consistantly flatters Liberal and Conservative politicians for their principle, and has not once to this day, to my knowledge given credit to the NDP for the work the party does.

To Mrs. May, claiming exclusivity or originality over policy and issues, while paying no dues to the people who have worked and are working on them is not principled. Snubbing the NDP on the issues while catering to the unsubstantial efforts of the dominant old-line parties clearly benefits your political career to the demise of the chance for truly positive change in Canada. You are in fact choosing power (or the potential of), over principle.

I am strongly in favor of this comment, I have nothing but sceptism for the Greens at this time, possibly because although he is a stellar guy, the Guelph Green Rep is also a memeber of the Nuclear Power iniatitve, mostly because I think that in order to mobolize any sort of social change, be it environmental or not, you need to moblize people first, People are not going to give two shits about their environment if they are being forced into abject poverty and poor social programming.
I am wary also, about Harpers Green Initiative, not only because he is harper, but because about the same time he put close to 2 million into Green Initiatives, he cut 2 million out of funding for women in need, women's social assistance and research into domestic abuse. It is always a question of where the funding comes from. I am wary about Elizabeth May's interest in the Liberals and I am especially wary about the so called power hungry NDP who seem to have let those extra few seats come to their heads? I think not.

Calling the Kettle Black??

I think Jan from the Bruce is acknowledging all party faults,
and not showing favoritism although I would assume from her
comments she is NDP,
recognition of fault within a party seems to be
something you (rob) seem to be incapable of.

As much as I support political voicing on blogs, there
needs to be some recognition within debate of the party
that you stand for,

and if someone mentions Bob Rae's name again, i swear...
although I appreciate the bullshit he brought in the name of the NDP
there are many politicians, past and present who represent the values
of the commonwealth without attaching ourselves to one man, at one time
in history, I don't think we all need a history lesson on the liberals.