Green Politics

Post Reply New Topic

In the last 20 years there have been third party candidates who succeeded in instigating debate among candidates who have a real chance of nomination.

Not that i agree with, say, Ross Perot, or think he was a realistic candidate, but his candidacy was not strictly political masturbation.

The greens haven't succeeded in being heard yet, and don't seem to be trying. Cynthia McKinney? Really?

The Greens are better off as an environmental lobby group.

It is watermelon politics. Green on the outside, red on the inside. The viros are anti-capitalist.

ruveynb

So I think the Greens are better represented by Labour

what do they mean by respect for diversity and why is that even a party platform? Ecological wisdom as in wisdom derived from nature or wisdom in how to be its steward? I think the only thing tenant I find attractive is sustainability.

@MarketAndChurch: Respect for diversity means just that. Greens disagree with racism and all other forms of prejudice. In practice it means that they tend to favour multiculturalism and LGBT rights etc. Ecological wisdom seems to be used in the context of how to be its steward. Based on the Green Party of Canada's platform, that's what it would seem to be anyway. Although I imagine many would support biomimicry in technology.

@ruveyn: I have 2 points to make. 1) That varies by country, really. The Swedish (or is it Finnish--I forget) Green Party, while rejecting capitalism, also rejects socialism. The Canadian Green Party is strictly social democratic at the moment. There are some elements of the Green movement that are called eco-capitalist--they think capitalism is best, it just needs a few modifications. 2) Some people would see anti-capitalism as a good thing. Maybe not you, but there are plenty of others out there. I personally think being a "watermelon" is a good thing.

@AceOfSpades: That is not the scientific consensus, but even so I can argue why Green politics are a good idea. For one thing, if we are making it worse, then cutting our CO2 emissions would still be a very good idea. If we are having no impact even, then cutting CO2 emissions could help reverse the natural trend (which would not be good for us whether natural or not). In any case, fossil fuels will be running out sooner or later, so it makes sense to start moving away from them now. And if you turn out to be wrong and global warming is real then we'd have done a lot of good.

I am the watermellon man googoo gajoob....

peace j

What if in pursuit of this diversity, (the "collective") we tolerates a differing value system that runs counter to tolerance and equality? Or do you outsource the responsibility of battling for the hearts and minds of the non-tolerant crowd to other cultural institutions ie the media, the educational system? Most don't seem militant or hawkish in promoting equality, liberty in the service of equality, compassion, and tolerance(unless it has to do with America - nothing focuses the leftist mind like America), so that is why Im thinking that it is outsourced to other cultural institutions. I also think they rarely confront the opposing value system unless they are on the internet or tune into cable television news so there is no inherent need to reach out to or oppose the opposition since you would be preaching to the choir: unless pushed by some legislation like the minaret bannings or a subway bombing.

Again, the assumption being that human beings are inherently good is a left-of-center one. Racism, sexism, xenophobia, and capitalism are all constructed systems, so if (the "collective") we construct a fairer more equal and tolerant system in a "build it, and they will come" sort of way, the crooked (in your case, it may be the Muslims, in other cases, it may be the Christians, or the Conservatives) will see our greatness, drop their free associations, and fall in line with our beliefs and value system. Do you believe that you can reason them away from their crookedness? Or do you just let them be as they are?

I would like the green perspective; the American left(or those whose politics are left of the American center) probably resembles it in spirit, but 40% of the Democratic party in the US would be considered conservative in your country so an authentic opinion would be appreciated.

Hmm... Tricky question. I'm not actually involved with the Green Party (yet), so I can't tell you what everyone there would think. My personal thoughts are that I will at least tolerate all parts of another's belief except those that are discriminatory. So although I dislike the Canadian Conservative Party, I will put up with all parts of their platform (despite the fact that I disagree) except those which are homophobic or in some way discriminatory to immigrants etc.

Islam is a tricky one of course. I'll accept someone who believes in Allah (as I accept someone who believes in the Christian God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster). I will not accept any homophobic or sexist behaviour that results. The good news is that, in Canada at least, such behaviours never seem to be directed at anyone outside of that cultural group. Internally it is, of course, quite hard to intervene. I think that the best we can do is teach acceptance in our schools (which is hard to do mind you--I think all of the gay rights components have been removed from the sex ed classes for example) and hope that 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants will slowly learn to accept these values.

However, these issues rarely come up in Canada. So I don't know if we have more liberal Muslim populations (for example), or whether it's swept under the rug, or if I just don't here about it because my province is predominantly white. Interestingly though, it came up awhile back that the Conservatives were targeting the "very ethnic" vote in some of their key ridings. They'd buy cheap advertising time during cricket matches and put out commercials that were subtly homophobic and sexist. But note that I have heard all of this 3rd hand through a speech given by the Green Party leader.

Your statement about the leftist idea of people being inherently good is interesting. I am quite a leftist but view humans as mostly bad with the potential for good. I think we must construct a society which limits the bad behaviours and allows the good ones to shine through. But I suppose you are right and I'm quite an unusual leftist.

I don't know if these views match the views of the Democrats (who, as you say, I view as centre-right--the Greens and the New Democratic Party would probably be labelled "Commies" in the USA).