Green Party vs. NDP

[starr]

Not that the left isn't split enough already (between the liberals and the NDP), but what does everyone think about the green party?

I'm starting to feel like we need to put environmental issues before social issues, mainly because without taking care of our environment we're all fucked.

But I'm not about to further divide my already ridiculous divided loyalties by voting green.

Do you all think that these parties (Green and NDP) will merge in the future? What's the fate of the NDP, the GNDP? I just don't want to see the NDP get squashed because of the Green Party, but I do agree with some of what they have to say.

Meh, I guess I'm rambling. Anyone have links to any relevant articles?

 

[Ditto Much]

I think the NDP need to figure out if they are a labour oriented party or an environmental oriented party because the to aren;t necessarily the same thing!!

The green party doesn't serve any purpose in my opinion. I think of them in the same way as I think of the family coalition or the communist party. There appeal simply isn't formal enough as to do anything of any effect.



I won't vote for a party that hasn't been official opposition once unless I'm voting in protest.

 

[AdRiaN]

Why do people insist on tying environmental issues with left wing politics in the first place? I realize the anti-corporate undertones of "environmentalist" rhetoric is appealing to the left. But I've always had a problem with the view that right wing parties cannot possibly represent environmental interests simply because they offer a less narrow view of the issues.

It seems like you cannot be considered environmentally sensitive unless you blindly put the environment above of all other considerations.

 

[Subsonic Chronic]

Originally posted by AdRiaN
But I've always had a problem with the view that right wing parties cannot possibly represent environmental interests simply because they offer a less narrow view of the issues.

It's based more on track record than narrow viewpoints, IMO.

The fact is that a right-wing party will be more friendly to corporations 9 times out of 10. Keeping a corporation environmentally friendly is quite costly, (you never see big companies voluntarily putting up the money required to keep the environment clean).

Therefore, if a political party wants to remain friendly to corporations, they necessarily have to place environmental concerns on the back burner.

It's not so much that right-wing parties don't care about the environment, but that it causes a huge conflict of interest with their support for industry - traditionally a bunch of serious polluters.

 

[Subsonic Chronic]

Of course... this is a problem faced by the NDP.

They've always been big supporters of unions, but union workers often work for polluting industries, and when environmental laws are tightened, jobs are lost, making the unions unhappy.

 

[Ditto Much]

If its based on actual results than the US Republican party has a vastly superior record on environmental issues. They have been the ones to pass emissions laws, they were the ones to get lead out of gas, they were the clean water ammendments and the irrigation program initiatives. They were acid rain and freeon.

 

[OTIS]

Originally posted by AdRiaN
Why do people insist on tying environmental issues with left wing politics in the first place? I realize the anti-corporate undertones of "environmentalist" rhetoric is appealing to the left. But I've always had a problem with the view that right wing parties cannot possibly represent environmental interests simply because they offer a less narrow view of the issues.

It seems like you cannot be considered environmentally sensitive unless you blindly put the environment above of all other considerations.

Because maybe for decades current industry standards & norms have obviously included the view that dumping costly aspects of getting a product/service to market onto the commons (environment) is acceptable, and widely practiced. This is reflected with most industrial economic estimates which hardly ever include the 'environmental cost'. The cost of clean up is almost always transferred to the taxpayer putting an extra burden on top of whatever corporate subsidization or government sponsorship they also pay for. For the odd time that Industry is charged and even more rarely convicted for criminal environmental neglect, reparations are hardly ever paid, and if they are, they are just included as a cost of doing business, which statistics show overwhelmingly remain the more profitable course of action. Industry has had many opportunities to police itself yet has repeatedly sidestepped them and instead attacked environmental protection regulation as beaurocratic fluff and useless. But you're right, some industry can be seen as environmentally sensitive, but only after they have assumed control of the mechanisms that dictate what the standards of environment sensitivity is. We are seeing that overwhelmingly now as those same industry lobbyists that fought the EPA in the US, now control it directly, and are dismantling it to reflect the current ideology driven 'industry above all else' logic that's dictated by the current administration. So the balancing force that was set up to protect the citizens from industry, is now in the hands of industry. This not only results in frustration from citizens, but perpetuates the notion that industry operates for industry only, and they'll spend 20 dollars of yours to protect 1 of theirs. To them, your money is no object and it shows on all levels. So you tell me why people believe that being pro-industry & pro environment are polar ideas.

 

[Ditto Much]

Originally posted by OTIS
So you tell me why people believe that being pro-industry & pro environment are polar ideas.

Because as with all good propaganda we place people into "either" category and not both. Its considered impossible for a person to be both pro environment and allow logging for instance, or to allow the creation of a damn whiule being pro environment.

By all rights Jean Chretien was never a pro environment kind of guy, he was most definately pro industry. Yet he devoted more land to protected wildlife than any other Canadian prime minister.

Everyone remembers reagon for being pro industry. But he did more for emission standards than anyone else.

Propaganda requires an US vs Them mentality. Its not just limited to left vs right. Its used in ever facet of governance and marketing.

The only way for left leaning parties to benifit from the environment is to make themselves viewed as pro environment while making others anti. Regardless of if its true or not.


Now lets be realistic OTIS, its not like you can say that Reagon was pro environment or that you can acknowledge the fact that the biggest dumper of waist was Kennedy. It would ruin your political argument. Your forced to tow the propaganda line just like everyone else.

 

[OTIS]

Originally posted by Ditto Much
Because as with all good propaganda we place people into "either" category and not both. Its considered impossible for a person to be both pro environment and allow logging for instance, or to allow the creation of a damn whiule being pro environment.

And those who spend the most on said propiganda usually call the shots.. so how is it that industry hasn't been able to shake this "misconception" again? Maybe cuz instead of bowing to environmental issues, they'd rather demonize it by calling it left wing communist hogwash.

Originally posted by Ditto Much

Everyone remembers reagon for being pro industry. But he did more for emission standards than anyone else.

Yea, so what.. you can also say that Nixon began the EPA.. it says nothing about what industry is, but more of what kind of political climate existed at the time.

Originally posted by Ditto Much

The only way for left leaning parties to benifit from the environment is to make themselves viewed as pro environment while making others anti. Regardless of if its true or not.

Yea, this has nothing to do at all with industry historically allying themselves with right wing politicians. It's only do to ill conceived hippy misconceptions.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
Now lets be realistic OTIS, its not like you can say that Reagon was pro environment or that you can acknowledge the fact that the biggest dumper of waist was Kennedy. It would ruin your political argument. Your forced to tow the propaganda line just like everyone else.

Kennedy, as described overwhelmingly by many historians was considered a centrist. Not a leftist.

 

[~atp~]

Originally posted by AdRiaN
Why do people insist on tying environmental issues with left wing politics in the first place?

My thoughts exactly. Traditionally, there is an argument to be made that correlates capitalism, right-wing politics and lack of respect for the environment. Similarly, and conversely, you have environmentally aware organizations who encourage left-wing politics because right-wing environmentalism feels like an apparent contradiction because of the correlation I described above.

But!! The existence of one factor does NOT implicate the existence of the other. You can be right-winged and feel strongly about environmental issues. You can be leftwing and feel apathetic about environmental issues.

Einstein once commented that the traditions that we are accustomed to in our daily lives is the very first thing we should question.

 

[OTIS]

It can be solved by a simple idea..

The 'environment' is just a different word for 'the commons', the commons is a set of resouces that is shared by all, and meant to be sustainable, therefore those who look to keep it sustainable (ensuring it's existence) get associated with keeping it's interest, those who wish to look at it's main value as being anything else(commodity, marketabe resource) are those that place it's intended value second, have less of a stake in maintaining it's sustainability, and therefore get associated with it less.

It only takes one of these viewpoints to be adopted to have the other assigned by default.

 

[Ditto Much]

Originally posted by OTIS
It can be solved by a simple idea..

The 'environment' is just a different word for 'the commons', the commons is a set of resouces that is shared by all, and meant to be sustainable, therefore those who look to keep it sustainable (ensuring it's existence) get associated with keeping it's interest, those who wish to look at it's main value as being anything else(commodity, marketabe resource) are those that place it's intended value second, have less of a stake in maintaining it's sustainability, and therefore get associated with it less.

It only takes one of these viewpoints to be adopted to have the other assigned by default.

So unless we don't cut down a single tree we aren't thinking about the environment first.


BULLSHIT!!!


Even the most nvironmental of us are willing to say that you can still have citis and you can still have mines. You just insure that uou always use the least damaging practices in the least sensitive areas. You try to keep yourself to a minimalists approach.



But OTIS lets try another approach. List your top three world leaders for environmental causes.

 

[OTIS]

Originally posted by Ditto Much
So unless we don't cut down a single tree we aren't thinking about the environment first.

Wrong, you're asking why environmental issues are seen as more of a left wing policy, I told you it's by default that it is. Not some dumb misconception by some radical hippy group.

Originally posted by Ditto Much

Even the most nvironmental of us are willing to say that you can still have citis and you can still have mines. You just insure that uou always use the least damaging practices in the least sensitive areas. You try to keep yourself to a minimalists approach.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
But OTIS lets try another approach. List your top three world leaders for environmental causes.

I don't put environmental issues at the top of my list when judging what you call world leaders, nor do I see world leaders as representing the top leaders in the environmental movement.

 

[why not]

if the left wasn't so caught up in internal power struggles and infighting, they would realise that their only hope is to unite the various fringe parties as the right wing has been doing.

and on the topic of the conflict between labour and the environment, I don't really see it. i would think that becoming more environmentally friendly would create new jobs, not eliminate existing ones.

 

[OTIS]

You forget, money is a very correcting & agenda setting force. In certain circles, where the money flows, the goose-step like loyalty follows.

 

[why not]

Originally posted by OTIS
You forget, money is a very correcting & agenda setting force. In certain circles, where the money flows, the goose-step like loyalty follows.

huh?
not sure who's post you're refering to.
are you saying that unions are influenced by the money of the companies that their members work for?
generally, unions tend to be a little more antagonistic to corporations.

 

[OTIS]

Yea, I was just saying that when your camp's ideology includes loyalty to the power of the dollar, getting all in your camp to rally around it is not difficult at all when compared to something like environment, civil rights, worker's rights, social safetynets etc. So when an issue is placed in the context of it's financial value, it's very easy to define how much effort to devote to it.

Unions are traditionally the voice of the working class, and not particularly that of left leaning people. Getting into the dynamics of unions would only be leading us off topic I think.

 

[starr]

I didn't realize I would have to explain why voters for the Green Party are most likely old voter of the NDP as opposed to the Conservatives. I just thought that was common sense.

And for all of you arguing the opposite, would you truly ever bet any different. No really, with your own money would you actually bet that the Green Party was made up of more righties Didn't think so. I get that you're arguing some ideological point, but I'm talking about reality right now.

I suppose my question is if you think that the Green Party is having an large effect on the amount of votes the NDP is getting. I think the answer to this is yes.

I think the Green Party is going to start getting more votes (probably from NDP defectors). So my REAL question is what should the NDP do in response, if anything. Can they become more environmentally sensitive without alientating their core supporters? Or will the non-union supporters of the NDP all switch to the Green Party eventually.

Does anyone see these parties merging in the future? Is that even possible? If not, what will happen to the NDP if the Green Party keeps siphoning NDP voters?