The Green's Overall Strategy
The whole Buckdog/GPC lawsuit fiasco is, to my mind, indicative of the broader strategy of the green party (and in particular the green bloggers) in this election.
The greens (as a relatively young and inexperienced) party are falling into the exact same trap that the NDP fell into for years. Let me lay out the NDP follies.
For years the NDP knew that there was a group of voters that occasionally voted Liberal, occasionally voted NDP. (hence the whole 'lend me your vote' thing recently.) There are many in our party who for years and years advocated attacking the Liberals so that those voters would "wake up" and vote for the 'true party' - the NDP.
What this analysis was missing that for these swing voters, the calculation wasn't "which party better represents me" but "which party comes close enough to representing me, but also will stop the right-wing forces" which in a first-past-the-post system, is a perfectly reasonable strategy.
Lately, the NDP have woken up to this fact and now they are running straight-on at the Conservatives, rather than wasting their time on the Liberals. This is not only good for the NDP, but is good for ALL progressives. The more discredited the Conservatives are, the less likely the true swing voter (who can go any way at any time) is likely to vote for them. That person may not end up voting NDP, but they may end up voting Liberal, or Green, but that is OK (in the general sense, if not in my partisan sense) becuase what we have in common is (if only slightly) more than what seperates us from the Conservatives.
Not only that, but it is a more honest campaign. I would much rather attack the forces of the true right-wing rather than attack the only psedo-right-wing Liberal Party of Canada.
What is particularly interesting is that the Green Party and Elisabeth May, deep down, get this. Hence the whole last week of the campaign strategy to ask voters to vote Liberal to stop the Conservatives. But why not say - vote Liberal, or NDP or Green to stop the Conservatives?
Because the Greens are caught in the same trap that the NDP have been caught in for years, focusing on fighting over a small piece of the pie, rather than trying to make that pie bigger. that is why they would rather sue a NDP blogger for posting a video that a Conservative blogger made.
The greens (as a relatively young and inexperienced) party are falling into the exact same trap that the NDP fell into for years. Let me lay out the NDP follies.
For years the NDP knew that there was a group of voters that occasionally voted Liberal, occasionally voted NDP. (hence the whole 'lend me your vote' thing recently.) There are many in our party who for years and years advocated attacking the Liberals so that those voters would "wake up" and vote for the 'true party' - the NDP.
What this analysis was missing that for these swing voters, the calculation wasn't "which party better represents me" but "which party comes close enough to representing me, but also will stop the right-wing forces" which in a first-past-the-post system, is a perfectly reasonable strategy.
Lately, the NDP have woken up to this fact and now they are running straight-on at the Conservatives, rather than wasting their time on the Liberals. This is not only good for the NDP, but is good for ALL progressives. The more discredited the Conservatives are, the less likely the true swing voter (who can go any way at any time) is likely to vote for them. That person may not end up voting NDP, but they may end up voting Liberal, or Green, but that is OK (in the general sense, if not in my partisan sense) becuase what we have in common is (if only slightly) more than what seperates us from the Conservatives.
Not only that, but it is a more honest campaign. I would much rather attack the forces of the true right-wing rather than attack the only psedo-right-wing Liberal Party of Canada.
What is particularly interesting is that the Green Party and Elisabeth May, deep down, get this. Hence the whole last week of the campaign strategy to ask voters to vote Liberal to stop the Conservatives. But why not say - vote Liberal, or NDP or Green to stop the Conservatives?
Because the Greens are caught in the same trap that the NDP have been caught in for years, focusing on fighting over a small piece of the pie, rather than trying to make that pie bigger. that is why they would rather sue a NDP blogger for posting a video that a Conservative blogger made.
I hope that with time, the Greens will grow up, just like the New Democrats have. Let all of the left0wing parties attack the right-wing parties and let the voters decide which one is the better alternative.
10 comments:
I disagree that the Green Party is "left wing," (nor is it right wing). But this part of your post I think particularly perceptive, although I would expand it to all parties left of the Conservatives - including the NDP but perhaps less so in this election, as you suggest: "[we're] fighting over a small piece of the pie, rather than trying to make that pie bigger."
You're right. The Greens - and the NDP and the Liberals and any others left of the Conservatives - should be working to expand our collective piece of the pie. Hence we should all be saying: Vote Green or NDP or Liberal, but do NOT vote Conservative.
The legal threat was completely out of line. However, I expect the Greens to be pretty upset with Layton for plotting to keep them out of the debates. With Harper, no one expects anything different. And then the Conservatives blabbed and made Layton look really bad for working with them.
Your general idea that the parties should work together is good. Just at this moment in time, I don't trust Layton and the NDP.
One thing I notice now is that the Liberals are being described as left-wingers. When the party was ruled by Chrétien and even Trudeau, Canadians viewed them as a centrist party (except by right-wing conservatives).
I'm going to come up with problem with progressive bloggers that is similar to the old Reformers: when the Reformers advocated reuniting the Progressive Conservatives with the Reform/Alliance, there was an assumption that 20% + 20% = 40%. When the two parties reunited, not all PC supporters supported the new Conservative Party under Stephen Harper. Likewise, don't assume that all people supporting the Liberals, NDP, and Greens will opposed the Conservatives at all costs. I will tell everyone that of the four major parties in English Canada, the Conservatives are not number four on my list. They may or may not even be number three.
Good point SkinnyDipper. Most Canadians more likely choose their party based on several issues, and which parties get them right or wrong (in their opinions). The notion of being a "left" or "right" winger probably doesn't come to mind, because that implies blind partisanship in a sense. A good issue is good whether it's left or right. To me, that's what makes me a centrist, not really a left winger even though I believe in some socialist ideals.
Ah, Layton didn't plot with Harper to keep May out. If that was true, then that is true for Duceppe, and Dion, who said that he wouldn't participate without Harper.
As the CBC exec stated quite clearly - the PM who makes the decision was not on board. But spin all you want.
Duceppe never said he would boycott if May wasn't included. Neither did Dion.
Emerson and other top Conservatives said they were supporting Layton in their threat to boycott, had been for a year, had an agreement, and had been in contact with the NDP about their positions. That is what I mean by plotting - having a back room deal to exclude May. The media exec was not aware of the agreement between Harper and Layton.
Can you point me to the link that states this. And it's pretty funny. As I see the blog rolls tonight, I see that there are topic headings calling conservatives liars. Yet, hear you trot out "Emerson who use to be a liberal" and has as much credibility as a pooping puffin as the "speaker of truth."
Wow you sure are selective in the credibility index. But let's ignore that because, like, it doesn't meet the liberal/green narrative.
It must be hard to know that for 2 years the Dion Liberals opening supported Harper's right-wing agenda. Now that is of public recorded - ridiculed in the MSM. Hard to shake that poop off.
Janfromthebruce, listen to the National and Newsworld from the 10th. There are also some newsarticles, in particular a Canoe article had some attributed quotes. The people quoted include the two campaign co-chairs as well as the usual "top Tory insiders". The site TeamBC has pulled out some specific quotes from the press, but there is more on the web.
When you have a backroom deal between two parties, the only way of finding out is if one of them speaks. I would say a Senator and a former senior Cabinet Minister, both of whom are campaign co-chairs, giving attributed quotes means something. Also, Layton was caught lying by initially saying the media consortium made the decision to block May not him and Harper. The media consortium verified that they only blocked May because of Harper's boycott and Harper's spokespeople confirmed that they were only supporting Layton. Within minutes of Layton backing down, Harper backed down too.
Since Layton was caught lying, and also did the act of blocking Canadians from hearing May, one certainly can't take his word on this, can one?
Jan, this is from today's Hill Times:
CBC TV's The National reported, meanwhile, last week that Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and NDP Leader Jack Layton (Toronto Danforth, Ont.) had some sort of deal not to allow Ms. May into the debates. But public opinion forced the consortium and the leaders to change that.
I also find it disturbing that Harper's campaign would be keeping in touch by phone with Layton's campaign on policy matters, as quoted earlier in reports on this matter. Harper and Layton should run independent election campaigns, not coordinated on policy or strategy.
CH, forget Jan, she's a troll on this issue. I've called out her misrepresentation of Layton's position before he reversed it, several times. She ignores the truth for partisan reasons.
Post a Comment