Forcing Dion into climate change ACTION

My name is Ken Summers and I wrote the article "Proggressives Shun Layton on Climate Change" posted on Rabble a couple days back.

The article spawned a thread on what people thought of a Green/NDP alliance. An interesting topic, and the thread got broader than that, but it only touched briefly on my main concern as an environmental activist.

So I'm launching this new thread. First, reposting what I said in the earlier thread with only some minor proofreading corrections.

In the article I was pointing out that Jack Layton gets blamed by both environmentalists and 'general lefties' for being concerned only with the NDPs narrow and near term electoral fortunes- at the expense of [unspecified] possibilities for 'getting something done' with the Greens or with the Liberals.

I pointed out that Elizabeth May is 'guilty' of the same 'charges' of not putting the cause ahead of electoral gain: that people just [i]assume[/i] she would like an arrangement with the NDP for each party not running a candidate in selected ridings.

She has never said such a thing, and it would not be in the overall interests of the Green Party.

In a way, I was just asking for 'equal negative time' for Elizabeth and the Green Party.

In the NDP/Green thread I got that and a lot more.

A number of people enthusiastically agreed that an arrangement with the NDP is not in the interests of the Green Party- because the Greens are a bunch of right wingers in sheep suits.

I don't buy that, at all.

The Greens are unlikely to get into an arrangement with the NDP for the simple reason that they are competing electoral parties. As such, the Greens have to distinguish themselves: in an overall sense, and specfically in relation to the NDP.

While it would be advantageous for Elizabeth May and a few other Greens to run without an NDP candidate in the riding, the larger cost would be far too great.

Two big costs to the national message that has to be their paramount priority. One cost is that the NDP and Greens are seen as interchangeable. If so, why should people vote Green? Second cost is to swing voters who would not consider voting NDP: for them the arrangement would reflect poorly on them choosing to vote Green.

While there is a grain of truth in each of the specific criticisms about the Greens made in the thread, they are way overboard.

I give Elizabeth May and the Greens as a whole lot more credit. I just wouldn't vote for them. Big deal.

This moralistic colouring of politicians that don't meet ones approval is a product of infantile leftism.

Politicians are hopelessly tainted by some stain they can't wash out... be that right wing orientation, obsession with pandering to voters (and the wrong ones to boot), or dumping on Trekkies.

Either they are all inherently and fatally flawed (and we should stick to protests in the streets); or maybe one of them is worthy of being not totally panned (if so we make sure to shit on the rest even more).

It happens in that thread that the strongest expression of this infantile analysis was directed at the Greens. It is more often directed at the NDP- if not everywhere. But it makes no difference.

The slicker and far more pernicious form of infantile analysis is what we get from the Jim Laxers [Dec 19 Globe] and Murray Dobbins [posted Rabble Dec 30]

The title of Dobbins column is "Vote NDP to Keep Liberals Honest"- but it reads to me as a turgid re-hash of Laxer's more straightforward piece.

It would be more aptly titled "Vote NDP, but A, but C, but X getting to Q, Vote Liberal"

Unlike many, I don't think the "Vote Liberal" is really intentional. But what matters is the outcome. As has been said more than once in this thread, complex arguments about how to vote don't work.

And it's not because voters are 'simple', its because they aren't stupid. If you say "Vote NDP to Keep the Liberals Honest" then you want the Liberals to govern. So whoever you think might be best in an ideal world, vote for the Liberals.

Period.

The rest of the contorted logic by the Laxers and Dobbins is just the mutterings of the chattering classes.

Albeit more polished, these mutterings are an expression of the same Canadian left proclivity for infantile analysis.

Jim Laxer in particular should know better, that he doesn't is testimony to how pernicious this is.

Laxer, and Dobbin among many others, are so sure that Jack Layton is obsessed with making deals with other parties so the NDP will get more seats in the next election that:

* it doesn't matter how many times Layton says he's not interested in propping up the Conservatives for token gestures to action on climate change. The skepticism would be understandable except...

* Layton says repeatedly that he wants a Lib/NDP/BQ total rewrite of the legislation that would pass in SPITE of the Harper government. A goal not worthy of note by our esteemed critics...

* Liberal Environment Critic Godfrey says repeatedly that the Liberals do not WANT to pass an Opposition bill. I guess reading in alleged motives for Jack Layton's actions is supposed to be more relevant than commenting on what the Liberals SAY.

As I said in the article- that's a smoking gun the Liberals are holding. And what do the Laxers and Dobbins say: "Jack Layton should be working more with the Liberals to bring down the Harper government."

Excuse me.

Jack Layton bends over backwards to try to get an opposition bill passed- a bill that he knows, especially with Dion as Leader- the Liberals will take primary credit for... and he knows they will largely succeed in getting that credit.

But that isn't good enough for the Liberals. Because they will fare better in the next election with NO bill having short and long term Kyoto targets.

Does Dion face criticism for putting party electoral interests ahead of citizens wishes?

No he doesn't. Jack Layton gets the blame for that.

It's really quite stunning.

===================

But enough of being stunned. It's not too late to jump and down and shame the Liberals into joining the effort to rwrite a completely revamped act and get it passed into law.

Somebody not far back in this thread aggreed that we are passing up an opportunity to get something done NOW. But obviously thought I was talking generally, and wondered how.

I's very simple. Staring us right in the face. As Rick Smith of Environmental Defense said yesterday on CBC The Current, "political moments like this do not come often".

We have a minority parliament with all the horse trading possibilities that brings, we have legislation in the process that can end up anywhere; and we have an election within months and an electorate keen to see progress on climate change action.

Bingo.

I want to start a new thread. The NDP/Green thing is a sideshow really. I say that even though the Greens stand to deprive the NDP of a number of seats, which matters to me. But it's still a sideshow.

Enough of the green scarves. Let's smoke out Dion.