As you recall, in my last post I outlined my reasoning for supporting the Green Party. As I suggested, this is a difficult decision because, in many ridings in the country, this means one less vote to go to defeating Steven Harper. And defeating Steven Harper is, as Martha Stewart says, a Good Thing.
I will admit though, in these last few days I have been having some second thoughts. My local Green Party candidate (his name is Brian Timlick… now he can Google himself later if he wants), from what I have been able to find of him, is profoundly uninteresting and, frankly, not representative of what I think is Party is (or should be) about. This dude is a one-trick-pony, who apparently had a post-retirement revelation that fossil fuels are bad. Oh, and he proudly parades his love of organized labour around like it’s a coat made from the rarest of endangered species. It all leaves one to wonder is he’s a plant by the NDP…except that it’s hard to fathom that it would be worth the NDP’s effort.
But I digress.
Why I can’t vote NDP
The catalyst for these musings was the arrival of my local NDP candidate, Fiona Shiells, to my door this evening (interupting the consumption of pizza and the watching of the Backyardigans no less). She comes across as a reasonably reasonable and intelligent person, so I thought I would talk with her a bit (unfortunately, I tend to be a bit like a deer in the headlights when people interrupt my watching of Treehouse).
As is done these days, she wanted to know what issues I was concerned about. Not knowing where to start I mentioned that I was thinking of voting Green, but that I definitely had a preference for Steven Harper never being Prime Minister again. And then, out of the mouth of this reasonably reasonable candidate, came the NDP party line with respect to the Green Party: “The Green Party is almost the same as the Conservatives when it comes to fiscal policy.”
Not being one to think on my feet, I just kind of said, “ya, I’ve heard that.” What I really should have said was, “How so, Fiona?” I wonder if should even knew? I’ll maybe email her tonight to find out (or just let her read this post perhaps).
Now, I’ve looked over the Green platform before, but I can’t say I’ve been through it with a fine-toothed comb. After hearing this comment a number of times, however, I thought it time to go back and have a better look. As far as I can tell, what the NDP must be grousing about is the inclusion of terms like productivity, the mention of ideas like income-splitting, and the fact that the Green Party places no emphasis on propping up manufacturing.
By the same token, the Green Party and the NDP are pursuing a number of the same policies on the economy: A $10 Federal minimum wage, universal child care and dealing with accessibility of education.
The reality is, none of what the Green Party wants to do is really like the Conservatives at all, except that want to do it by addressing fundamental problems, rather than piecing together a patchword of policies and regulation addressing specific issues. The Green Party wants to create a system that works; the NDP wants to regulate and insert subsidies into the exisiting system so it sort of works. When I heard that the NDP solution to high gas prices was to regulate them, it all become pretty clear to me.
The Green Vision
From my perspective, the Green Party sees the big picture, the whole picture and, as far as I am concerned, understanding the big picture is the only way we are going to make any progress. I found a paragraph in their platform on Justice that puts the difference quite well:
“It is also true that the Green Party does politics a little differently. One of the things this means is that we strive to get at the root of problems in our society and take a more integrated approach to governmental action. For example, it will not be uncommon for Green candidates to begin speaking about health care, affordable housing, and education when asked about problems of crime. We are always seeking to get at the root of a problem”
It is so plain and well-understood, if you really read about environmental and social issues, that environmental issues, social issues, health issues…they’re all interlinked. A solution to one is no solution by itself. We will never be able to solve any health crisis unless we acknowledge the role that environmental pollutants play, or the quality of our food and diets, or the fact that so many live in poverty.
The Social Determinants of Health
I mentioned in my last post about how I thought the NDP had dropped the ball on the Social Determinants of Health as one of these key understandings of our time. When I mentioned this concept to Ms. Shiells, she responded by informing me that the “NDP was the party of health care,” and at some subsequent point, “the NDP is the party of poverty issues” (I’m probably paraphrasing at this point).
And there’s the rub: The NDP may or may not be the party of health, poverty, social justice. But the point is that they are the party of those issues as issue silos. They are the party that, while acknowledging that these issues are serious, and developed specific policies to address them (at least superficially), fails to see (or at least admit) that one leads from and to another.
The Green Party is the party that explicitly links these issues, and others, and has developed a platform guided by a vision that acknowledges the interconnectedness of these issues and the need to see the solution as a vision of a whole, rather than a patchwork of policies, each destined to fall short without the support of the other.
To the lies
To me, the abolutely most disturbing thing about this whole election experience is to realize how profoundly identical are the three main parties in their willingness to say and do anything for votes. To campaign against other parties, putting forward straw men to represent their opponents policies, seems to me to be more offensive that putting forward useless and incompetent policies. After all, I believe that one can learn and improve the facts of one’s policies. It will be much harder for me to believe that a candidate or party that was willing to forgo ethics to get elected will somehow rediscover their value once in power.
Without a doubt Canadian politics is becoming more and more superficial. We are asked to be more comfortable with Steven Harper because he plays the piano, wears a nice sweater and is really glad he has kids. Mr. Dion is rejected by the populace because he is too meek and genuine, and has a hard time with English (wait…where have I seen that before?) The NDP are the right choice because “Steven Harper can’t be trusted,” and “Stephane Dion is not the change we need” (luckily they are putting me and my family first…which is too bad for my neighbors I guess).
And the point of the whole thing?
One could argue that, nice as the Green platform is, it isn’t practical, and such broad changes would never actually be implemented. It is quite possible that this is a fair point. But the same could be said for much of what is held up in the platforms of the other parties as well. Very little of what is proposed at election time ever makes it through to reality untouched.
At the end of the day, however, what Canada desperately needs is a vision. We need to understand how we are going to address environmental issues in a way that is broadly sustainable and that supports other aspects of our society. We need to understand what our society will look like when it fuctions to support its citizens, when it places with health and welfare, along with the health of the environment, ahead of other issues. We need to understand what sustainability REALLY means when it isn’t just a buzword in an election platform.
We also need to believe in a politics that can be about solutions, rather than opposition. While the Green Party is not perfect, by any means, at staying focused on the issues and not personalities, they have much more to differentiate them from the other parties, and have done the best, I think, at focusing on that.
Right now the only party that is honest about the challenges we face, is focused on positive politics, and comes close to articulating a comprehesive way out, is the Green Party.
That’s my choice, but how do you feel about the Green Party?
Filed under: election, ethics, government, politics
I vote for the Greens for the same reason you will this election: because they understand the forest is not just a clump of trees.
While it`s fair to say that the GPC`s platform is ambitious, I`m glad that it is. It`s also in many ways pragmatic – a few years ago, the party wouldn`t have called for a green tax shift or income splitting – an immediate moratorium on the oil sands and taxing carbons to oblivion would have been the main points. I`m glad the platform is ambitious because a party`s platform should be a vision, not an amalgamation of separate policies designed to pander to specific groups.
We can’t forget, of course, that in the CCF/NDP’s heyday most people would have characterized their policies as ambitious and unrealistic. Universal health care? Are you nuts?
And yet, here we are, and so much of that vision has become what we know and love about Canada now.
I will never take that away from the NDP: They have historically led the important debates. The problem is the leading is over, and the vision is gone.
But you’re right, the Green Party fills this role well, and I’m glad to have them.