tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post6295347044703118692..comments2024-02-07T06:48:23.474-05:00Comments on Sudbury Steve May: Canada's Green Party Falling Victim to the Progressive DilemmaSudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-9092609937436879052016-10-08T15:54:45.423-04:002016-10-08T15:54:45.423-04:00One of the strongest arguments against this resolu...One of the strongest arguments against this resolution is that we are giving up sovereignty over our position to an activist group, with which we might not be in full agreement and over which we have little control – a full endorsement means we are now connected at the hip. Some will argue that I’m picking nits, but that ignores the fact that a full endorsement means we would then be placed in a position of defending everything the movement is fighting for. Does that matter? Well, when I go to their website I see one of the things they are calling for is the expulsion of Israel from the UN. Though I support BDS (and my full disclosure: I was a sponsor of the resolution and green carded it at the convention, sitting across the table from Elizabeth), I do not support that – whatever injustice Israel has perpetrated against the Palestinians, I still want them at the table talking. So what, the BDS resolutions supporters argue, our resolution doesn’t include expulsion of Israel from the UN. We don’t have the luxury of nuance – if we support BDS nobody reads the fine print, we support it all.<br /><br />I think the possibility exists that we might find consensus on the basis of expressing support for the goals of the BDS movement, stopping short of a full endorsement. This is a long shot – many of the resolution’s supporters are more determined now than ever to see the resolution adopted unchanged. If that leads to a lot of us leaving the party some of them will find that regrettable, some won’t care, and others will consider that a positive outcome. But others might also feel that a party united behind some kind of resolution will be a lot more effective in furthering their goals than one that divided, fractured, broken. Hope for a consensus rests on some of the original resolution’s supporters coming to that realization.<br /><br />We shall see, maybe this is just Brian’s Saturday morning daydream. Maybe it will just be a straight-up fight with no consensus achieved, and some losers who stomp away mad. Maybe we will, as you believe, be left divided, broken and irrelevant. But I can tell you that I spent years with the Green Party being the lonely voice in the wilderness – I’m not going back.<br />Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02461181447045751739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-17151820510222162532016-10-08T15:53:00.429-04:002016-10-08T15:53:00.429-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02461181447045751739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-22633109798744734072016-10-08T15:52:31.575-04:002016-10-08T15:52:31.575-04:00Thank you Steve for this articulate analysis of wh...Thank you Steve for this articulate analysis of where we are as a party following the adoption of the BDS resolution at this summer’s convention. I concur with much of what you say; this is a conflict between ‘realos’ and ‘fundis’, but I think there are some other aspects to this disagreement that are important to understand, and I don’t think that achieving consensus is impossible. It will be difficult and we may fail, and if that happens like you I will probably be looking for another vehicle in which to work on the issues that matter most to me – electoral reform and climate change.<br /><br />This IS a conflict between realos and fundis, and those of us with long experience in the party might respond, ‘twas ever thus’. But in a number of ways this is an unusual and extreme example of that kind of conflict and it’s worth reviewing some of the particular aspects of this issue:<br /> - we already have consensus on our position regarding the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the unjust treatment of the Palestinians, this is about the specific endorsement of the BDS movement.<br />- the leading proponents of the BDS resolution are new to the party and for them, this issue trumps all others. Many of them joined the party specifically to promote this issue, and I was even surprised to find that one vocal proponent is an ardent, long-time climate change denier. Most, if not all of them have no experience in electoral politics – they are activists that have seized upon an opportunity to further their cause.<br />- this resolution passed fairly at the convention, but under new rules and under a very heavy time constraint. Many BDS proponents argue that they won fair and square; others in the party feel that the process was flawed, and at a more gut level, feel that it passed without sufficient effort to find a consensus that we all could live with.<br />- because of our leader’s discomfort with a resolution that she, far more than all others, will be forced to defend and because of wider concerns about the process in which it was passed, we are taking another run at finding consensus at a special meeting that has been called. For many BDS resolution proponents this is undemocratic and unfair, and they want the resolution to stand even if it means losing our leader and a lot of our strongest supporters (people like you and I). Others say, well yes, the resolution passed, but it was sort of a ‘technical’ win, and this isn’t how we do things around here, this needs to be revisited to see if we can’t achieve consensus.<br />- some of the people who are concerned that Elizabeth has too strong an influence in the party have jumped on this as an argument that she should no longer be leader.<br /><br />So, given all this, how could I think that we could find some middle ground from which to continue to move forward as a party? Certainly many of the resolution’s sponsors don’t seem ready to give an inch, and really, why should they? Their cause is just and the people they are defending have already been forced to give up far, far more than an inch. But what if we endorsed the main goals of the BDS movement, and defended the right of others to take peaceful actions against the state of Israel? i.e., we stop just short of a full endorsement of BDS.<br /><br />to be continued...<br />Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02461181447045751739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-31976766657404339902016-10-08T15:51:55.534-04:002016-10-08T15:51:55.534-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02461181447045751739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-71663159836403174762016-09-17T20:50:23.307-04:002016-09-17T20:50:23.307-04:00Your description of Realos as "those who are ...Your description of Realos as "those who are willing to find a little compromise if it leads to a little more power and influence" is bang-on. <br /><br />Your other references, however, are IMHO way off and paint Realos as sellouts. For example: "Ditching our values in the pursuit of power". That is not what a Realo would do, because a Realo wants to ADVANCE the values of the party; ditching them would leave nothing to advance.<br /><br />A construct like "Do we stay true to our values at the risk of marginalization, or do we abandon those values and those who value them in the pursuit of mainstream political acceptance in the pursuit of a narrower political agenda?" is again framed from a Fundi perspective. (You might be getting the sense that I'm a Realo - and you'd be right). Again, Realos *are* staying true to our values - true enough to do what it takes to actually advance them!<br /><br />The problem with many Fundis is that they are so focused on the strongest expression of our values that they lose track of the whole point of having a party: advancing those values. Activists advance values by carving out a niche and using it to create pressure, happily creating enemies (and bystanders) in the process. In activism, radical or extreme expressions can be an effective tactic. But in a party, you must bring people around to your values (and policies) so they will help you advance them. You can't keep dividing the world into black & white, those who are politically pure and those who want to destroy us all. The reality, not only among the public but even within a party, is a diversity of views, of ways of seeing values, of ways of prioritizing those values, and of advancing them. Fundis tend to see only one interpretation of a value, and often one that pushes away potential allies, while Realos are willing to focus on common ground and overlook minor differences if the common ground is a party value which can be advanced together.<br /><br />Hence, in my view, Fundis are too inward-looking for politics, and will generally not accomplish anything - not directly through the party, and not by getting Green policies adopted into other parties. When the Green Party proves that "green policies" are too extreme to get elected or even get many votes, it scares other parties away from ever adopting/copying them. While being leading-edge is good, staking out too extreme a position is counter-productive. It is only when the Green Party starts getting serious votes that other parties start trying to steal (and hopefully implement) our policies - which is as much a win as electing Greens. And failing that, we get elected to do it ourselves. <br />Erich the Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11433590628245316583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-17176826364481263302016-09-17T04:02:17.041-04:002016-09-17T04:02:17.041-04:00The Greens will not implode over this. More fundi ...The Greens will not implode over this. More fundi voters will turn to the greenparty once the electoral system becomes fair as their votes will not be wasted.Green members emotionally opposed to BDS because of cultural training from childhood will leave and fundi members will take their place.Zorbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04914951052220663380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-46247700584384245052016-09-16T13:51:51.896-04:002016-09-16T13:51:51.896-04:00Steve, I don't think this is as stark as you t...Steve, I don't think this is as stark as you think. The sky will not fall because the GPC supports BDS, more likely the GPC will attract a lot of new members. That is a risk, that you do eventually get subsumed, but I doubt it.Matthew Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00595380522150008022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-88748044546942668482016-09-16T10:34:42.532-04:002016-09-16T10:34:42.532-04:00I feel for you buddy, there is nothing worse than ...I feel for you buddy, there is nothing worse than civil war in a political party. <br /><br />As you mentioned we in the NDP are facing a similar crisis over Leap. You think that it is not as serious as your problems and on this I disagree. I think this could be as bad as the Waffle war in the early 70s only this time the Fundis may win and a whole bunch of realos walking and unlike the Waffle who in the main continued to support the Party, the realos will go permanently the main reason is that they could lose control of the reins to the Party.<br /><br />As for your continued insistence that the Greens are a progressive party I will concede that they are environmently but on economics most of your policies mirror the Liberals and even the Conservatives sometime.<br /><br />Anyway if you are interested if the Greens implode before we do I have memberships available.��<br /><br />Yours in solidarity<br /><br />HarveyHarveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892195158530321781noreply@blogger.com