The Green Party political positioning statement this weekend is a significant move to the right despite attempts to paint it otherwise, and a culmination of long internal party debate. The risk is that they may just be outwitting themselves

The Green Party’s political positioning statement this weekend is significant to any of us who follow left and green politics in this country.

From my point of view it marks the end point in a process that’s been happening since just after Rod Donald’s tragic death in November 2005.

Up to that point Rod had held the line in the Green Party. He stated over and over again, in any internal or external political forum, that he would never countenance the party getting into bed with National.

However, once he was no longer in the picture, all bets were off, and a concerted campaign began to shift the party to a much more open position in terms of its relationships with the two major parties.

In the early days, Green MP Nandor Tanczos lead the charge, writing and speaking of his belief that the Green Party should consider itself ‘neither left nor right, but out in front.’

Russel Norman was also keen on moving right along, bringing Australian academic David McKnight, author of ‘Beyond right and left: new politics and the culture wars’ out as a keynote speaker at a national Green conference.

From early 2006 onwards, the debate raged within the party. Should the Greens move away from the traditional left/right paradigm and into a brave new world where they are open to relationships with any party which will help forward their agenda?

In the 2008 election year, I put my own position and credibility on the line, telling the caucus that if the party decided that it might support National on confidence and supply post election, I would have no option but to resign.

In the end, the party chose the ‘maybe Labour, but definitely not National’ position with which it went into the election.

It was therefore not surprising that the female co-leadership contest between myself and Metiria Turei in 2009 was, in major respects, a continuation of this internal struggle.

I lost, she won, and it was very clear what the outcome would eventually be.

The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has now joined the majority of Green Parties around the world who believe that in the struggle to save the planet Greens should support any party in government with whom they can cut good enough deals.

I accept that this is a democratic decision of party members, just as the co-leadership outcome was, but I cannot help but be saddened by it, and by the loss of the clear, radical social and environmental justice kaupapa for which the party stood when Rod was one of its leaders.

Nowadays, it is common to hear some Greens say things like ‘unions are so out of date, so 70s’. The concept of ‘class’ is unwelcome, and talk around capitalism, if mentioned at all, is more likely to be about greening business to make it more sustainable, than about the necessity of changing employment law so that the playing field between capital and labour is made even slightly more equal.

Green Party support for emissions trading schemes was almost the last straw for those of us who felt that setting up another market for capitalists to play in, while not necessarily achieving any gains for the people and environment who are suffering most from the impacts of climate change, was not something the party should be promoting.

My position within the party became untenable in 2009, not just because of the co-leadership vote, but also because I could see clearly that a majority of members preferred a cleaner, greener capitalism to the ecosocialist agenda which I support.

I refrained from talking about this publicly because it was likely to sound like sour grapes, and because I still harboured hope that perhaps all those good people who remained within the party would see that going down the road of the Irish and German Greens – or the Maori Party – is a recipe for disaster.

At least one commentator has called the new Green Party position ‘Machiavellian’ in its cunning.

That’s one way of looking at it.

The Greens have always delighted in finding ways of putting forward positions that are so complex and convoluted they outwit all comers, and this latest decision is a prize example.

Their hope is that they’ll keep a whole bunch of different groups simultaneously happy with the new position.

Left leaning members and supporters are expected to remain satisfied by the statement that it’s very unlikely the Greens will formally prop up a National Government.

Blue-green members and supporters will be kept happy by the possibility that in some circumstances a support arrangement with the Nats may be possible.

At the same time, the Greens are also trying to maximize their negotiating ability with Labour by holding the threat of going with the Nats over them.

Each of these groups is expected to believe what they’re told, and act accordingly.

It might work, but I think that sometimes there’s a danger that people who think they can outwit everyone else end up outwitting themselves.

For some of the best analysis of what’s been happening with the Greens, I suggest readers take a look at some of Bryce Edwards’ recent blogs.

And fundamentally, the message for those of us who want to get rid of National is that voting Green risks our vote being scooped up by the Nats.

 

Comments (45)

by Rimu on June 07, 2011
Rimu

It suits certain people's agenda to promote the perception that the Greens have moved right, to give Mana more room on the left.

Any confidence and supply agreement with National would be political suicide for the Greens and everyone knows it. It's just not going to happen, not in a million years.

by Claire Browning on June 07, 2011
Claire Browning

For some of the best analysis of what’s been happening with the Greens, I suggest readers take a look at some of Bryce Edwards’ recent blogs ...

Quite so. You won't find it here on Pundit.

Questions for you, Sue:

If the Greens "move away from the traditional left/right paradigm and into a brave new world where they are open to relationships with any party which will help forward their agenda", is this not in fact more radical than manning the old barricades? And, if they are in fact "forwarding their agenda" - the one with the same policies that haven't changed nor seem likely to - how is this a "loss of the clear, radical social and environmental justice kaupapa for which the party stood when Rod was one of its leaders"?

by Tim Watkin on June 07, 2011
Tim Watkin

It is the classic argument in politics, in many ways. Do you stick to policies with limited appeal and convince the voters to come to you, or do you bow to moderate swing voters and compromise (sell out) some policies that you may achieve others?

If the Greens want to influence more than home insulation, they've got to their vote up above 10%. Maybe a 'move right' will help that, although Sue's warning is interesting. Being open to either main party has been the Maori Party's strategy and the weight of trying to be all things to all Maori has been too much for them... Interesting to watch.

by Sue Bradford on June 07, 2011
Sue Bradford

Rimu - it's not a matter of 'perception' that Greens have moved to the right, it's a matter of fact.  Until the decision this weekend, the Greens had never openly said that they would be open, in some circumstances, to going into a confidence and supply agreement with a National Government.

Some party members have wanted this to happen for a long time; but this is the first time it's become an official party position.

Claire: the point you make is right in line with current Green Party thinking, and I totally accept your - and the Green Party's - democratic right to believe that the party should operate 'beyond' or 'above' the old left/right divide.

However, I still believe that the work to try and save and nurture the earth's natural resources goes hand in hand with the job of trying to ensure every child that's born has a fair chance in life, and that to deny the

realities of 'left; and 'right'  can mean getting sucked in to propping up an unfair economic system for meagre environmental gains.

You only have to look at the recent Green experience in Ireland to see the perils of a Green Party adopting this position.

 

 

 

by nommopilot on June 07, 2011
nommopilot

I think the important thing is not so much the positioning of possibilities, but what bottom lines they set for any such potential negotiation.

The maori party have severely screwed up by coalitionising with the Nats and they have suffered for it without any real significant gains in policy.  The same thing will happen to the greens if they sell out to National but saying you're open to negotiating is not the same thing as selling out.

I also think that if such negotiations occur, the Greens play real hardball (want to be part of the government that opened up mining and drilling on DOC lands?) and that they shouldn't take cabinet positions for their leaders (which has been the downfall of pretty much every party to go into a coalition (except Dunne/Anderton because they were tame and do not bite the hands that feed them/pat their fur) with a major government.

I don't think it's a bad thing to be open to negotiation but it would be political suicide to actually coalise with the smiling assassin.

by nommopilot on June 07, 2011
nommopilot

"can mean getting sucked in to propping up an unfair economic system for meagre environmental gains"

That is the danger, sure, but declaring a willingness to discuss a coalition is not the same thing as joining one.  I truly hope they don't and I also think that they won't.

by Claire Browning on June 07, 2011
Claire Browning

Some party members have wanted this to happen for a long time; but this is the first time it's become an official party position.

I'm moderately confident that some other party members regard left and right, National and Labour, as indistinguishable on any measure that matters - like promoting economic growth, correcting inequality, cleaning up the environment, keeping MoU promises made to the Greens - and cannot comprehend this insistence that Labour is always better all the time.

The alternative, of course, and impossible to characterise as a "move right", would be to refuse to give power to either, which comes with its own different costs. Would you like that better? I'm guessing not.

by Claire Browning on June 07, 2011
Claire Browning

... and I totally accept your - and the Green Party's - democratic right to believe that the party should operate 'beyond' or 'above' the old left/right divide ...

Thanks. Well that's progress on 2008, anyway.

("In the 2008 election year, I put my own position and credibility on the line, telling the caucus that if the party decided that it might support National on confidence and supply post election, I would have no option but to resign ...").

by Morgan Jones on June 07, 2011
Morgan Jones

The Greens saying their undies aren't red does not mean their undies are now blue or even some sort of purple.  Sounds to me like they're proudly asserting their undies are, in fact, green.

by Ron Wilson on June 07, 2011
Ron Wilson

Sue is so correct. Where does that leave anyone that wants to be rid of National. I could vote Green and still end up with National. God Forbid but I would almost be better voting for NZ First. If we want a left of centre government there is little future in voting Green. We have been down this trail before with Stephen Rainbow and the so called Blue Green Progressives.

No Thanks I will look elewhere for my vote

by Richard Aston on June 07, 2011
Richard Aston

It seems inevitable that as green thinking becomes more mainstream, as green policies become more universally accepted, the only NZ political party advocating green policy will move into the mainstream , in the process attracting the people you are unhappy with Sue as the radicals leave.  I was at Rod Donald’s memorial service in Auck when Nador reminded us Rod was a revolutionary, the greens were revolutionaries – he said it wistfully, he knew it was changing then. He left. 
I for one am happy that green is becoming mainstream – I have been a greenie since the seventies and I am bloody glad not to be written off as a “treehugger” etc –  I am so glad to see organics becoming more widely accepted, so glad conservation is now mainstream, so glad people are actually willing to discuss green issues not just right them off as crazy.  The green movement has much to be proud of and of course much more to do but I get really pissed off hearing green supporters say they won’t vote green now because the party has made a tiny move to the right, who the hell are they going to vote for?  Were they really interested in green issues or were they more interested in being radical.
Left right left right – the polarity is stifling.Humanity’s current challenges need a way deeper response.

by Richard Aston on June 07, 2011
Richard Aston

I still remember Labour turning their backs on the Greens for Winston Peters. It was a shock at the time and left me cynical about the left who I had always voted for. Has the left ever really supported Green policy ?

by Claire Browning on June 07, 2011
Claire Browning

Where does that leave anyone that wants to be rid of National. I could vote Green and still end up with National.

Oh I think Sue's pointing pretty clearly in the [right] direction. And what goes around comes around. Where does that leave anyone who wanted to be rid of Labour, and doesn't much want them back - because they were fresh out of ideas, all about the power, not listening, etc - and not a scrap has changed?

It's convenient to tell the history from the 1990s - which of course is when the charter was written, and this iteration of the party formed. If you start in 1972, you might get a bit of a different answer about who hijacked whose movement, and what in the sweep of history constitutes a "move right", or not. "Neither left nor right but out in front" didn't come from Nandor. It came from Values.

by Chris Trotter on June 07, 2011
Chris Trotter

Thank you Claire for making clear to all of Pundit's readers where you stand on the political spectrum, and how you make your political choices.

I had long suspected this was your true position, but it's always nice to have one's intuitions confirmed.

by Justin Maloney on June 07, 2011
Justin Maloney

So Greens basically say if National moves a bit more to the left they might be able to support them. If National were to do this there would no doubt be somewhat of an exodus to a new right party among the more hardline members of National (lets call this theoretical party "ACT" just for fun).

Now with the strong right wing neo-liberals gone to "ACT" it is feasible you could see a moderate swing to the left in several areas of social policy from National. An objective person, not caught up in petty tribalism, would probably realise this could make National slightly more left wing than Labour (who to be fair is a bare hair left of centre these days and still has the blood of the 80's on its hands).

If this were to happen it could mean the Greens could go into coalition with National, a party now (in my little dream world) more left wing than Labour, IF National advanced Green policies significantly.

In this scenario, one that isnt that far removed from reality (remember in the 80's Labour was for a time more right wing than National), would it be so evil for the Greens to exist inside of government with National??

In addition, I am unlcear on how saying "there is a very remote possibility we could work with National if they changed to the left" is a swing to the right. At least any more of a swing than saying "there is a chance we could work with Labour as they stand now". To me Labour is fairly right of the Greens, arent they?

Maybe I misread something though.

by Andrew Geddis on June 07, 2011
Andrew Geddis

Claire,

You now are on the official list of enemies of the people, and will not be getting a Christmas card from Mickey J Savage's ghost.

by Flat Eric on June 07, 2011
Flat Eric

Alternatively, over time the National party adopts such elements of green policy that are feasible, implementable and have found mainstream support.  This cuts the ground from under the Green party and there's no need for any negotiations.  The Greens get to stay pure - and out of power.  But they or their supporters also get to see some of their policies implemented.  You could call this National moving left; or you could call it National doing what political parties do.

 

by on June 07, 2011
Anonymous

The discussion here actually reminds me of the debate that occurred within the Party at our AGM and much of it is really around semantics and perspectives. What is the real likelihood of a supply and confidence agreement with National when moving from "definitely not", to "extremely unlikely" or "highly unlikely" and what shifts from National would be required for this to happen?

Sues argument that this indicates a shift to the right is one a reasonable conclusion, but simplistic. The right/left continuum is problematic when referring to the Greens as environmental protection and social justice can still be pursued in properly managed and regulated market environments.

My personal point of view is that the current shift is less a change in philosophy and more a growth in confidence. The smaller the party the greater the risk of any confidence and supply agreement and there is no logic in a small party aligning itself with a much larger one with diametrically opposed policies. The Green Party are now at a point where they have reached a level of critical mass and public acceptance where achieving more than 10% in an election is perfectly conceivable.

There is a big difference, when contemplating any coalition, from entering into an agreement with 15 MPs (or more) compared to 5. By stating that such a possibility would still be hugely unlikely is largely about growing confidence and strength than a weakening of values.

by Gotham on June 07, 2011
Gotham

I look forward to the Hone saying that never, under any circumstances, no matter what change happens, even if they became more pro-Maori than the Maori Party, would he ever enter into any kind of agreement with the National Party.

(you know, again. Because, though it's very convenient to forget, Hone was in a FORMAL COALITION with the Nats for 2 years, swearing forever loyalty to the Maori Party until they actually made it clear they were gonna kick him out.)

by Rich on June 07, 2011
Rich

I guess there are a few things going on:

- there's a part of the Greens support base (and desired support base) who are typically geeks on six figure salaries derived (directly or indirectly) from the public sector. The kind of people that inhabit Public Address for instance. They have university degrees and are culturally liberal, but also like to spend their dollars on new toys from Apple and other favoured parts of the capitalist world, rather than seeing them go in income tax.

The idea of a nicer, greener National government appeals to those people.

- There's also the fallacy that opposition is about getting a few token policies through. It doesn't matter that National wants to sterilize beneficiaries and torture Afghans - we've persuaded them to build 5km of cycle track. And fly the Maori flag on the Harbour Bridge.

 

by MikeM on June 07, 2011
MikeM

Justin: "An objective person, not caught up in petty tribalism, would probably realise this could make National slightly more left wing than Labour (who to be fair is a bare hair left of centre these days and still has the blood of the 80's on its hands)."

I think you've hit on how the two major parties often aren't idealistic juggernauts so much as generic vehicles for the idealists of the day. Both have changed throughout their histories to reflect society, but also by collecting anyone and everyone who went to the opposition because they didn't like the government. ACT's already had an opportunity to govern, it was just calling itself Labour at the time.

Personally under MMP if it's retained, I'd like to see National and Labour eventually break down into smaller parties that better represent the people who vote for them, similar to how the Green Party has already siphoned lots of people who might otherwise have voted Labour because it represented those people's views more accurately. Under that scenario there might actually be some groups of current National supporters with whom the Greens could work comfortably.  If it happens, though, it's probably at least a generation into the future.

by Antoine on June 07, 2011
Antoine

> The idea of a nicer, greener National government appeals to those people.

Yes it does, we think that sounds like a great idea.

A.

by stuart munro on June 07, 2011
stuart munro

It's interesting that the Greens might believe that it is possible to move beyond left and right. Lange thought the same thing, and his time in power was marked by the end of Labour as a mass party. His traditional supporters would say he sold them down the river.

Perhaps there is something natural about the Greens seeking a niche position, but - given that this government combines epic economic incompetence with sociopathic and environmentally destructive policies, it is difficult to understand the nature of the attraction.

by on June 07, 2011
Anonymous

Sue, you know as well as I do that the Greens are not going to help National do things that are contrary to Green Party policy.

Labour brought neoliberal economics to New Zealand, and ever since, a massive slice of our economy has been based on borrowing money from overseas backed securities to buy houses and then selling them at a higher price to someone else who borrows even more, and this is a major driver of global inequality. Smart green policies like a capital gains tax on rental properties and support for a sustainable, locally focused Green economy will turn this around. So National and Labour are as bad as each other; it is by necessity to urgently advance their policy agenda that the Greens work with them.

Yes, we need the safety net of the welfare state and strong unions to advocate for the little guy, and the Greens have always been mindful of that in their voting and policies - and I'm sure that stopping the union and beneficiary bashing would be a necessary prerequisite for any coalition.

Making it absolutely clear that the Green Party is an independent political party will mean that the party gets a better shot at implementing its policy objectives.

by Claire Browning on June 07, 2011
Claire Browning
Oh, I figured you'd be along eventually, Chris, classy as ever, or not. You're welcome, 'comrade'. It is, as you say, no secret what I stand for: I stand for being green, and argue that the Green party should too; the rest follows. And, since we value transparency here on Pundit, rest assured that it wasn't an accident. It's tough, you see, for those of us - a rare breed, apparently - that do have a political choice to make, come election day; and who have to self-enquire every day about risks like conflict of interest, and personal bias - or grievance.
by on June 07, 2011
Anonymous

I don't think the Greens have any intention of going with National.  I see this as a declaration of independence. I do take issue with this "not left, not right, but green" idea. Without economic sovereignty we lose control of our entire nation and will have no say in how we (they) treat our (their) environment. There is no such thing as a right wing Greenie. Our inability or unwillingness to match our spending with our earnings as a nation will destroy us. The right wing agenda (be it National or Labour) is dictated by foreign powers (the Fed, IMF, World Bank, G8, Apec) who have been steadily concentrating the wealth of the world into fewer and fewer hands for decades. National intend to sell them our Electricity generators and probably our bank and TVNZ. The more we run up debts, private and public, and the more we sell off our essential  profit making assets the less ability we will have to be "green" in any meaningful way. I think its fine to say the Greens will not rule out anyone, but the Greens are a left wing force, no doubt about it. If they did go with National there would be hell to pay.

by on June 07, 2011
Anonymous

Wasn't it the Harawiras who were so keen for the Maori Party to go into coalition with National? Isn't Maori Sovereignty a race based policy and therefore "right wing" in political terms?

by Che Nua on June 08, 2011
Che Nua

'Maori Sovereignty' is a somewhat provocative 70's/80's attempt to update the enduring political ideas of Kingitanga & Kotahitanga.  If you don't look at the wider context of indigenous peoples resisting European colonisation it is often misunderstood & misrepresented as a race based policy (especially by those who are "right wing in political terms")

Respect to you Sue but I reckon it is highly unlikey that the Greens have sold out their core values, and they are definitely going to do better at the next election because Metiria was elected co-leader

by Tim Watkin on June 08, 2011
Tim Watkin

Interesting comments everyone. I'm just wondering what we mean by left and right these days, as MMP means it's no longer a simple dichotomy and the definition seems to shimmer and morph a bit from comment to comment. Answers in 25 words or less, below please.

by David Small on June 08, 2011
David Small

I think this move is a predictable consequence of the decision to create the Mana Party with a clear left-wing agenda, rather than as a principled progressive alternative to the Maori Party.  Why would the Greens want to nail their leftist colours to the mast when Mana (which is pretty much guaranteed parliamentary representation by way of a safe seat) has announced its intention to eat the Greens' leftist lunch?  I got the impression that you, Sue, supported Mana's leftist orientation. Did you really think that it would have no impact what you describe as a delicately poised left/right tension within the Greens?

by Gotham on June 08, 2011
Gotham

Tim - I have a hard time getting my head around it too. Does Nandor's new blog help? It certainly helped me get the shrieking of the hard left out of my head...

http://rasnandor.blogspot.com/2011/06/greens-step-forward.html

by Skinman on June 08, 2011
Skinman

Didn't David Suzuki say something along the lines of "if Green politics really makes sense then every Party will become Green (sic)"? I'm like Sue and I worry that as Green becomes mainstream we'll be swept away. However that doesn't mean that I am not happy to see Green become more broad-based. After all, 'Green politics' is 'everybody politics', isn't it? We all have a vested interest in looking after the environment and looking after our people. The reality is that for most 'First-World'  people it takes a fair bit of soul-searching and reflection to 'get' Green - simply because our everyday existence is so focused on money that we lose sight of what's really important. As Greens we can yell and scream and try and pull everybody towards us or we can find ways to remove the barriers between us and 'them'. So on balance, I'm happy with the new approach as long as it results in more Green in politics. I'm also happy Sue that you are still out there firing away because you help anchor us.I also support David Suzukis vision of a future with no Green Party because every Party gets it, and practices it (except maybe ACT who will never change ;)).

by Andin on June 08, 2011
Andin

"The kind of people that inhabit Public Address for instance. They have university degrees and are culturally liberal, but also like to spend their dollars on new toys from Apple and other favoured parts of the capitalist world, rather than seeing them go in income tax."

Could you put a pair of glasses on that strawman please.

Sorry everyone as you were.

Yep visions of the future anyone's guess really:-)

by on June 08, 2011
Anonymous

I was a member of the Green Party from its founding until about 2011. I feel the party had gradually moved so far from its founding principles that it had left me, rather than the other way around. Green Party members tend to be pakeha, well-educated, employed and reasonably affluent and (worst of all) theoretical. I always had to ask myself when I voted Green whether I believed that the Green Party could govern the country if they had the chance. My answer was always no - they wouldn't have had a clue. So their function  at least in my mind was to raise environmental awareness  and new ideas in mainstream parties. Despite MMP, there is  still a fundamental two-way split in NZ politics and in NZers' political consciousness in general - basically between the haves and the have-nots. I have no time for the politics of grievance, envy, complaint and entitlement and unfortunately there is a component of the left (have-nots) where this flourishes. Despite that, our economic system does not give all people equal opportunities even when they are willing to work hard and contribute to society. We all know that the rich are getting richer and fewer while the poor get more numerous and poorer. A chance meeting with some people interested in social justice recently led me to  join the Labour Party, which historically aimed at a just society. Sure, the Labour Party lost its way when sucked into New Right ideology. But its Constitution still expresses the values I hold. Social justice includes environmental wisdom.  Environmental despoiliation can be conceptualised as the theft of the commons, a theft which made fortunes for the thieves.

I think the mainstream parties (basically left and right) have now got the message and green parties are superfluous. If we no longer have MMP, they will disappear. Indeed, the coming (present) environmental crisis the whole world is facing is going to polarize politics into two opposing camps - those who desperately try to preserve the status quo, mainly because they have vested interests, and those who see that we need to change our way of life radically. A current example of this is the National-led government's policy of 'investing' in roading,especially around Auckland while not making more money available for public transport. I think over the coming decade we will see the battle lines drawn up into two opposing forces, those in favour of radical social, politcal and economic change and those against. I have no doubt of which is the right side to be on - human beings must now quickly change or die.

by Rich on June 08, 2011
Rich

"strawman"

The other thing that distinguishes the liberal geek is the use of boilerplate debating cliches: 'strawman', 'ad hominem attack', 'trolling', 'sockpuppet' and the final clincher 'Godwin'. All of them lined up on whatever Macs have in place of function keys..

 

by Antoine on June 08, 2011
Antoine

Hahaha I've only just realised that Rich's description of the 'liberal geek' was not meant to be complimentary

A.

by Bruce Carruthers on June 09, 2011
Bruce Carruthers

It's a rather insignificant step to the right when it does not involve any policy changes.

Besides saying that a coalition, or a confidence and supply, arrangment with National would be considered places public pressure on National not to move to the right in coalition with ACT (and it may be effective given National's own strategic inclination to retain a free hand by having more than ACT as an option). Given the weak poll position of Labour at the moment that is a sound tactical position to take.

The move is also in line with the party's own long term view of itself as more of a change agent than a junior partner on the left.

by william blake on June 09, 2011
william blake

David Suzuki merely said "it was too late" to effect any change to the earths reaction to climate change at his lecture in Auckland.

If we are to accept Suzuki as a Green spokesman and his science as being accurate, then Green politics is at best damage limitation, at worst performance art.

by Antoine on June 09, 2011
Antoine

What have you got against damage limitation (or performance art for that matter)?

Damage limitation sounds like a great idea to me.

And since when was climate change the only topic of green politics?

A.

by Andin on June 09, 2011
Andin

"All of them lined up on whatever Macs have in place of function keys.."

F7 is fuckwit

FYFR

by william blake on June 09, 2011
william blake

@A. eek.why so hostile? I didn't introduce Suzuki to this thread and he is a climate change warrior, hence the reference to climate change.

The real-politics of the environment are well mapped in Merchants of Doubt, by historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, who also recently lectured in Auckland, and like Suzuki see the real argument, while rooted in old school cold war left/right politics, is now a media battle for the hearts and minds of those who want to regulate our way out of the shit we are in, the Greens and those opposed to the nanny state, the neo-conservative capitalists.

 

by Antoine on June 09, 2011
Antoine

Agh, I've lost track...

Are Green politics damage limitation, performance art, or a media battle for the hearts and minds of those who want to regulate our way out of the shit we are in, the Greens and those opposed to the nanny state, the neo-conservative capitalists?

It seems like an important distinction.

A.

by on June 13, 2011
Anonymous

Every party being nicer and greener is a good idea. The Greens should be doing everything they can to promote this (as it seems, they are).

 

"We can't do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime, we should all go shopping to console ourselves."
(Banksy)

by on September 26, 2011
Anonymous
88Amity3: Asics Australia
by John Stroup on December 14, 2011
John Stroup

"Greens and those opposed to the nanny state, the neo-conservative capitalists?"

The greens opposition to a nanny state? You must be joking. Read about the collectivisation of society that is circulating. Then read "opposed to nanny state", you'll get the joke.

Post new comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.