In which I try explaining why the Greens are neither left nor right, why they never have been, and why that is important to their future and ours

The Greens will never be an environment party, and have never been a left-wing party. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand is neither left nor right because that is what their charter says, what their policy shows, and what the existential global challenge, that is their raison d’etre, requires.

Their cause is not the environment per se, or class struggle and injustice per se, but a sustainable society -- in which correcting global injustice and inequality, between species, generations, the privileged and the under-privileged, is a big part. It is a big part because, until those things are fixed, we won't manage the appetite for growth that is pushing the ecological boundaries of our tiny planet.

We know that there are people who care deeply about the environment, but fail to see the relevance and importance of social responsibility and the rest of the mélange of Green policy, get cross about the distractions, and therefore do not vote Green.

Also, there are people who (to paraphrase Ray) know that the right’s favourite solutions are harmful, but also believe that the left’s are ineffectual -- therefore, winning support from these voters seems unlikely while the Greens are seen as a raggle-taggle left-wing bunch of socialists, revolutionaries and eccentrics.

But more importantly, the existential challenge that is the Greens’ raison d’etre, that underpins all of their policy, requires them to reach out to the whole world. In the end, everyone needs to go green.

The first Green Party charter principle, ecological wisdom, says that human beings are part of the natural world, which is finite, therefore unlimited material growth is impossible. It says that ecological sustainability is paramount.

It is the closest the charter gets to the environment. It says: we are the environment, therefore, people policies are environment policies. It says because limits to growth are a fact, we must find ways of sustaining the environment, so that it can sustain us.

“Ecological wisdom” is a comment on hubris, and policy design. The first principle of the Greens is about learning from nature, modelling our own lives on it, not ‘dominion’. It is about building a society that is like an ecosystem: a diverse, integrated closed loop.

“Ecological sustainability” means the Greens are a party for future generations. As defined by the UN, sustainability means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of others, now and in the future, to do the same -- not just an environmental principle, but a social and economic one, too.

The second charter principle, social responsibility, says that unlimited material growth is impossible. Therefore, the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resources.

Social responsibility follows from ecological wisdom. Material growth is not the answer to inequality, because unlimited growth is impossible. But although “the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resources”, this is not socialism.

New Zealand Greens are unique in their choice of “social responsibility” language, and recently one member, in the party magazine Te Awa, wondered if there may have been some confusion within the party or imprecise use of language:

In my opinion, one driver for the confusion has been the more recent (last 10 years or so) use, particularly by MPs, of the term 'Social Justice' instead of 'Social Responsibility'. Social Justice is a conceptual part of Socialism and is but a fraction of the big picture encompassed by Social Responsibility. … I am equally sure that this change in terminology has not even been done consciously, but was a carry over from individuals' pre-Green, socialist politics where it was/is habitually used, without noticing the different wording or thinking through the consequences of diminishing the scope of the Charter and with it, changing perceptions of what it is to be ‘Green’. … I have no quarrel with using the term 'Social Justice' in its correct political place; that place is not as a Green Charter Principle -- not the one I signed up to in June 1990.

Social justice is about the state intervening to reallocate resources and power more fairly -- redistribution of wealth through taxes and social power through the collective.

Social responsibility is about individuals acting to benefit society, rather than society mediating between individuals. It is about taking responsibility personally, for choices and interactions and decisions not to act: personal choices about family size and consumption, interactions with other people, other generations, other species, the natural world. Social responsibility is for the benefit of all -- the collective -- but while it may mean supporting state-administered socially responsible initiatives, the responsibility is an individual one too.

The third charter principle, appropriate decision-making, says that for the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.

Devolved decision-making, and decision-making that lets those affected own their own destiny, is an expression of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, as well as “for [their] implementation”.

The fourth charter principle, non-violence, says that non-violent conflict resolution is the process by which all of the other principles will be implemented.

As well as a process (preference for consensus decision making, civility of Green conduct in Parliament), it also finds expression in policy: animal welfare, disarmament, child discipline, policies about not doing violence to the environment.

From those principles, we can tell some things about what type of government a Green government would be.

Not anarchist because, far from a preference for little or no government, Green principles of social responsibility and ecological wisdom -- and non-violence for that matter -- require a regulatory role for government, and some economic intervention, to safeguard the interests of the socially vulnerable and the environment.

Not Marxist-Leninist (communist) because this is not about whether the people or private enterprise own capital and the means of growth. Greens stand for a different thing. Far from a central planning ethos, Greens stand for resilient, localized, self-sufficient communities, and decentralised participatory decision-making: an ecosystems approach.

Not capitalist because Greens reject capitalist values of unlimited material growth, and short-term maximisation of profits in the interests of shareholders rather than the environment. Too often, owners of capital have also been the oppressors and exploiters of people and the environment.

Not social democratic because it is not about socialism or evolution towards it or any sort of third way compromise, raising up the working class within the established neo-liberal economic system. Green means a new economics.

Neither right nor left, but some characteristics of both.

Greens may favour markets when they work, green growth within the economy relative to the fossil-fuelled kind, and some globalisation, to tackle global challenges, of which climate change is the ultimate one.

However, a Green government would strive for ecological economic efficiency. That is, not small government in the centre of a free-market growth economy, but small economy, of scale (not growth) and resources, within the environment.

It may mean less lavish government spending, because of less and ultimately zero material growth, and instead, the careful generation of wealth, and smart choices about how to use it. It means more community resilience, not big central government, governance delegated to communities and individuals -- socially responsible individuals.

But it also means prudent investment in a strong government sector including state assets, and good public infrastructure, to support sustainability. It does promote social equality, in part through progressive taxation -- addressing inequality as a substitute for growth. And it requires some regulation, for a responsible environmentally-friendly society.

Green politics is neither left nor right because the politics of class struggle and old left-right political tribalism are not only irrelevant, they are a risk.

The problems that confront us require left and right to turn together, to face the real threats. Capitalism is one of these, but looming even larger than that is the ultimate environmental threat, against which political tribalism and entrenched ways of thinking and being are both dangers and distractions.


Comments (31)

by Antoine on December 01, 2011

When Catherine Delahunty or Sue Bradford comes in here and says the Greens are not left-wing I might believe it :)

But seriously, good on ya for taking some time to get the Green message out.




by Joshua Grainger on December 01, 2011
Joshua Grainger
So I am a Green, and I consider myself left wing. This isn't because I believe the Greens want to revolutionize the proletariat, or nationalize the means of production, but because the left-right paradigm is a spectrum. A spectrum that moves over time, adjusting to the politics of the day, not the politics of the 60s.

Being left wing at the moment isn't about questions of socialism v capitalism, but about inequality, identity politics, and the role of the welfare state (what does Labour campaign on after all?). The Greens are simply the premier party for those of us that believe in these issues in New Zealand, and so I proudly stand underneath the Green banner fighting to get 100,000 children out of poverty, fight National's welfare reforms, and to fight for gay rights.

To demonstrate what I mean, Catherine Delahunty released a report just a few months ago declaring National's welfare reforms were a "War on the Poor." If that isn't some good old left wing class politics then I don't know what is.

by tussock on December 01, 2011


Why are National far right? We have almost no regulation on finance, business, or industry (coal mines and oil wells are left to self-regulate via "best practice" along with trivial fines for breaches of the laws), yet National promises less regulation on all of them. Our environmental protections are a joke, open cast mining on conservation land FFS, and National wants to weaken them, throwing out local councils who balk at unlimited destruction of our public waterways. Beneficiaries are paid below starvation levels, and National wants to kick people off benefits, saying "bugger all of them would starve". Treating information as private property.

Authoritarian? Yes. Gay rights "aren't a priority". Prisonors shouldn't be allowed to vote. Ban everything. We can spy on you, but you can't listen to us. Crush cars. Pillory and arbitrary fines and loss of basic human rights for all convicts, regardless of the crime.


The Greens aren't communists, but they are the left, and they are the only liberal party in New Zealand (aside from ALCP and the Pirate Party, I guess). The Greens end up seeming centrist because they have to cooperate with the right wing Labour party.

by Phil Sage on December 02, 2011
Phil Sage

Hi Claire

You claim the Greens are liberal but refer to working towards a society that does not grow.  If I choose to work harder and increase my income how is it liberal to constrain me from doing that?

by Phil Sage on December 02, 2011
Phil Sage

I should add that this is far and away the best articulation of Green philosophy I have seen in a long time.  The issues are complex and deserve to be argued through. On your stated journey the Greens could usefully stand for the little guy against the corporatist instincts of National and Labour with their preference for large organisations.  Backing small business, including sustainable farmers is worth doing both of itself and to improve the Green vote.

I suspect you are anti capitalist because of historical abuse, but why shouldnt google profit from their intellect?

Government can provide transparency and fair regulation but it cannot replicate the dynamism of the individual in a liberal economic environment.

"Growth" is essentially intellectual progress.  It provides better healthcare, better food and better shelter.  Once basic needs are met people are obviously more interested in improving & sustaining their local environments.  I find it difficult to argue that those in the third world now should not accept some detriment to their local environment in return for greater growth leading to a higher quality of life.  If everyone in the world had the standard of living of those living in the South Island and working in information technology it would be much easier to gain agreement on environmental sustainability.

by Phil Sage on December 02, 2011
Phil Sage

Humanity has been trading and increasing specialisation since it began.  Profit is simply the difference between the value of your product to someone else and what it cost you to produce it.  There is nothing inherently evil about trade or profit.

by Judy Martin on December 02, 2011
Judy Martin

Thank you Claire. This could be considered the first round in the next election campaign, going by Jeanette's comment in the other thread - two years explanation, one year repetition.

The comments so far remind me of George Monbiot's statement (paraphrased) that the battles of the future aren't going to be between left and right but those who believe resources are finite and their use must be constrained, and those who do not. As you have so clearly explained, if you believe the former, you must share what is limited fairly. If you believe the latter, carte blanche for claiming "yours".

by Antoine on December 02, 2011

> the battles of the future aren't going to be between left and right but those who believe resources are finite and their use must be constrained, and those who do not. As you have so clearly explained, if you believe the former, you must share what is limited fairly.

It doesn't follow.


by Claire Browning on December 02, 2011
Claire Browning

> the left-right paradigm is a spectrum ...

Yes, it is. Not one that has anything to do with a sustainable society, though. The opposite.

> Being left wing at the moment isn't about questions of socialism v capitalism, but about inequality, identity politics and the role of the welfare state

Fair enough. But with respect, Joshua, you are fairly spectacularly missing the point. You need a planet to live on, first. I will happily fight beside you on inequality (which is the same issue in the end as gay rights, because discrimination is one form that inequality takes), and debate the role of the welfare state - in the context of a wider debate about sustainability. You are talking proudly about what it means to be left wing. I am talking about being green. The small 'g' there is deliberate: I do not know yet whether Green and green are the same thing.

> Rubbish.

Thanks Tussock for your considered views.

> This could be considered the first round in the next election campaign.


So many straw men, Phil Sage. A very army of them. But I am grateful for the compliment.

by Iain Butler on December 02, 2011
Iain Butler

sorry, Claire, but as a Green voter, I have to say that while the party is not tied to the left like Labour's union affiliation ties it to the left, or tied to the right like National's business affiliations tie it to the right, the claim that is not on the left-right spectrum at all has no more credibility than, say, Federated Farmers view that it is apolitical. Just becasue you Choose to put it in your consitution, doesn't make it so, as Catherine Delahunty and Don Nicholson so astutely prove.

by Antoine on December 02, 2011

There is a genuine point here about the green movement and Green Party being broad (and broadening) tents. They need to be able to accommodate people who proudly see themselves as leftie activists, and people who think the Green cause transcends right and left, and "green growth" renewable energy corporate magnates.

In fact isn't the idea supposed to be that everyone ends up green in the end?


by Jeanette Fitzsimons on December 02, 2011
Jeanette Fitzsimons

It's a very old debate, going back to Values days. If left-right is about who controls resources and how they are shared, then of course we are left. The point is that "left" is not what defines us. Old left parties took the easy road of agreeing to the powers that be having control and growing the cake fast as long as they shared the profits (a little)  with "the workers". A few things wrong with that now - the poor are mostly (not wholly) the non-workers. And you can't keep growing the cake, which forces us to consider equality in the absence of growth.

Yes, of course you can have good green growth, and we must  - but there are so many economic activities that need to shrink - fossil fuel extraction, motorway building, pesticide production, that the net effect will probably not be a larger economy. But the overiding requirement is that the throughput of resources and energy must not grow. That is an absolute. And if the peoples of poor countries are to have a future, our throughput of resources must shrink. Within those limits, work as hard as you like and produce more - but it is very hard to grow the economy without growing energy use and materials use at all. And that's the stage we've got to.

by John Stroup on December 02, 2011
John Stroup

"But more importantly, the existential challenge that is the Greens’ raison d’etre, that underpins all of their policy, requires them to reach out to the whole world. In the end, everyone needs to go green".

I do agree with the idea that the "green agenda" is not about the environment. This has come out several times via UN revenue generation campains.

I recon that, after much hardship then failure, the excuse is going to be that the world just did not embrace the green policy. Universal acceptance is the fall guy, it would have worked if only people gave it a chance. "There you go again".

This all inclusive (collectivism) has been tried, and it has failed, when will we learn that some things need to stay just thoughts and not be put into practice.

Some very chilling quotes from Henry Kissinger about how world view manipulation is to be attempted, so everyone will "go green", beg for it, but through manipulation, not on merit. There is a reason that greens have shrunk in N. America (Canada), it's unsustainable.

10% does not constitute a mandate. Tyranny of the vocal minority is more like it. So, when you say that greens are neither left or right, that's not really true. Greens consistantly promote "left" ideology.

Or are you developing a case that greens are right (correct, pun) and any that disagree are wrong?

by Nic on December 02, 2011

I think the Green are holistically de-generate, many high profile at the individual level as well as in an overall systemic way. To be fair, this is all part of a systemic symptom of a wider casual problem & to be expected.

But this is not the forum for such truths to be grasped such as these. There are really no such forums of anti-thesis type at a root level of being a totally different frequency to such things as 'Green' at the moment, at the moment it is all just never ending supplies of money and politics in one garb or another.

The Greens are a step outside the left/right paradigm in terms of being holistically degenerate, and that is why at some point they will come to be widely reviled at an individual & systemic level as better truths get realised in society moving on to greener pastures. But this is not the mode for any of that to be debated in a way that has any meaning what so ever.

Theorectically, it is possible that the Green party could achieve 20% of a vote, although the pay offs and media saturation required would probably further reduce the voting population down to 50% level from 65%.

by John Norman on December 02, 2011
John Norman

Claire, Joshua - re spectrum. a useful word tho capable I suspect of improvement.

Instance the broad green banded physicality that Newton discovered when he first pinholed light through a glass prism and, eventually establishing a satisfactory distance for the colors refracted thereby onto his flat's wall ( focussing), found green as the essential body of that spectrum.

If we visualize this for ourselves we have, I believe, a universal for all mankind. Should you wish to intellectualize it, then the French postmodernists( e.g Mon. Derriere) working in another field entirely  express communal meaning/s in terms of ideas, views, folding in to the center. Thusly included, part of a larger, swelling whole.

I'm a little rusty on the poetry side, but from there, eg Yeats, one sees a kind of reverse to Derriere insofar as the center will not hold. Saying, I sense, that side-to-center and vice versa is the spectrum for sustainability. Whole sustainability.

Hope this helps

by Antoine on December 02, 2011

[Antoine - sometimes, but we don't say so. Ed.]

by Antoine on December 02, 2011


by Richard Henderson on December 02, 2011
Richard Henderson
Rumi says it best I think - "Beyond right and wrong there is a field. I'll meet you there" To my politically naive friends (ie any who don't support Green Party) I adapt it to - "Beyond Left and Right there is field of Green. I'll meet you there" Visually... (repeating JN above) look at rainbow - what colour is in the middle? What colours are at the ends? Or look at a 'yin-yang' symbol moving.. A plane does not get off the ground unless it has two wings.. "left/right" - "subject/object" - outdated centuries old newtonian physics "green" - "holistic connected energy" - quantum physics But like Jeannete says it's an old theory.. just hard for people to understand.. Even most of the GP don't get 'green theory'.. imho, just a part or a certain colour...Catherine Delahunty admits to being a 'watermelon' that is green on the outside and red on the inside. Sue Bradford has left the GP because she didn't get it, or chooses not to learn. In the Northern Hemisphere the GP comes out off the 'right wing'. In the Southern Hemisphere the GP comes out off the 'left wing'.. And so the charter stills needs perfecting, but the important thing is to keep going and changing ('growing?"). And so Kudos to you Claire for writing something to this effect...
by Nandor on December 02, 2011


Thanks Claire for a very interesting contribution to this ongoing discussion.

Iain and Joshua seem to be saying that the presence of left-wing individuals in the Greens proves that the Greens are a left wing party. This does not hold. There are committed Christians in the Greens - that does not make it a Christian Party. It just means that green values are compatible with Christian values.

Jeanette you are of course right about throughput, but you sidestep the question. You say "If left-right is about who controls resources and how they are shared then of course we are left" but don't explain why. I would have thought that the Greens are as much a party of smallholders and the self-employed as a party of public ownership.

Part of the problem, of course, is that definitions of left and right depend on who is making them and for what purpose. Both sides use a definition that includes the things they like and excludes what they don't. IMO at the most basic level, left and right is about the tension between the individual and the collective. In that continuum, I think the Greens are not at either extreme but at the balance point - articulating for both collective and self respponsibility. This is not the same as being 'centrist', which for a political party normally means being uncentred and without conviction.

But more importantly, as so many have said, L/R is only one dimension of politics. On the sustainability dimension, the question that greens should be asking is whether Labour is enough of a green party to be an ally.

by Manu Caddie on December 02, 2011
Manu Caddie

The post doesn't mention anything about where the NZ Green Party posits itelf in relation to Māori/indigenous issues/rights/responsibilities... which I would think may (and more so with a bit of tweaking) make the party both unique within the NZ politicial party landscape and the international Green parties fraternity.

The commitment to "honour Te Tīrīti ō Waitangi" within the objectives of the Party Constitution was probably unique for a political party that was not led by Māori. How well the party has honoured its own commitment is debatable, but I just think it's another defining feature of the Greens that is not necessarily 'left' in the sense of supporting Māori nationalism and Tino Rangatiratanga or 'right; in the sense of supporting self-sufficiency and the devolution of otherwise state responsibilities.

by Alan Preston on December 03, 2011
Alan Preston

'Green' = Freedom, with responsibility

'Right' = Freedom from responsibility


by Claire Browning on December 03, 2011
Claire Browning


by Claire Browning on December 03, 2011
Claire Browning

Except Alan - I'd modify your formula slightly, to Right + Left = freedom from responsibility.

In both cases, you pay your taxes, in little or large amount, progressively or less so, vote every three years, and that is the social justice obligation discharged. Green = personal choices, all the time, every day.

It's the same point Antoine (who needn't apologise) was making last night on the other thread.

by Bruce Bisset on December 03, 2011
Bruce Bisset

Well done for so neatly encapsulating all the reasons why I've been a party member these past 20 years. It is absolutely true that we ALL need to "go green" in order for humankind to survive; there are no borders around or relevant subdivisions within that.

Because the bottom line is the choices are green or black. Life or death.

It's really remarkably simple.

by Brent Leslie on December 03, 2011
Brent Leslie

I think the article is right - greens can exist in either a right wing or left wing government. Thats why the greens should right now be trying to form a government with National.

Its obvious to me that green values can exist in coalition with leftist/rightist values - greens can't deny that the efficiency obtained in free market capitalist economies, for instance, would be a boon for sustainability, if it is aimed in the right direction. On the other hand, strong collectives more interested in the ideology of collectivism and protectionism rather than focused on sustainable futures can hold back change and growth. Yet here we see the green party aligned with the latter and being in complete denial about the former.

A focus on sustainability as an ideology in itself and ignoring old ways of thinking about the political spectrum is what is required. Unfortuantely I don't see this happening in NZ as the structure and process of the government (which in itself is how many centuries old?) forces parties to choose between an antiquated view of political spectrums. We need a government whereby all parties are included in decision making and their policies are reflected in the eventual laws based on their representation in parliament. MMP I think is the first step towards this but real reform needs to occur within the government itself to make the point of this article a reality.

by Anake Goodall on December 03, 2011
Anake Goodall

thank you Claire for your thoughtful post, and the resulting comments and conversation.

this is a wonderfully clear articulaltion of some fundamental planks of a fair, just and sustainable society.

let's hope we're all up to the challenge!

by Geoff Keey on December 03, 2011
Geoff Keey

I'm with Jeanette on this one.  A think tank or blogger can be neither left nor right, but this is generally not an option for a political party, particularly one that is interested in the allocation of scarce resources.  A reasonable analogy to the perils of the 'neither left nor right' approach is the situation that the Maori Party found itself - eventually you have to make decisions that create winners and losers.  Another analogy is the view that neoclassical economics is about allocation and so is distributionally blind - all policy creates relative winners and losers. Who those winners and losers are defines where you sit on a left/right spectrum.  In fact, in a world of limited resources the left-right divide will be a stronger, not weaker, aspect of politics.   I could write a coherent environmental policy based on core ACT principles (place limits and auction to highest bidder in case you're wondering) and I could write an equally coherent sustainability policy based on core principles of the Socialist Worker (equally strong limits but social control over the distribution of resources) but they would look fundamentally different.

by Ben Smith on December 04, 2011
Ben Smith

I enjoyed that post!

If I understand you correctly, you emphasize "social responsibility" and say that it is bigger than just "social justice", because (in part) all of us as individuals need to take responsibility for creating a sustainable society.

"Individual responsibility" is a popular buzzword of the libertarian right, and I can think of two criticisms which could be equally applied toward advocating more individual responsibility as a solution, as libertarians do. First, it ignores different capabilities that people have, so while it's "equality of opportunity" in some formal sense, it leaves intolerable inequities in outcome; it allows governments to shirk responsibility for addressing systemic problems or injustices. Second, changing people's behaviour so that they take responsibility for their own wellbeing is sometimes challenging in itself; perhaps they don't have the capabilities - taking responsibility for the group's welfare is an even bigger ask! I'm fairly cynical about how much behaviour can be changed away from people acting in their own self-interest, in one form or another. Behaviour change requires a significant cultural shift where previously accepted behaviour becomes unacceptable to the extent where previous behaviour becomes too socially costly for individuals to engage in, and new accepted behaviour is rewarding enough for people to want to do.

The first criticism couldn't possibly be applied be applied to green "personal responsibility"; the second criticism could be. Practically what kind of approach do you think a political party can take to build an ideal and culture of social responsibility that includes not only the govt (as with the left) but also civil society, communities, families, and individuals? I like the ideal but it's difficult for me to see how that kind of mass culture shift toward sustainability and responsibility might take place, and what a political party can do to bring it about. Are there some brilliant ideas about how this might happen I haven't heard?  Or am I just too cynical about people?

by Gareth Ward on December 05, 2011
Gareth Ward

I've come back and re-read this a couple of times (and resulting comments) so thanks for something so thought provoking.

To me, the concept around "green growth within the economy" whilst limiting overall material growth is an attractive one and is possibly a(nother) area where Green intent is sometimes misheard.  Shifting economic growth to a model that looks for more-from-less, rather than more-from-more, allows for an acceptance of growth, markets, innovation etc within the understood-but-blithely-ignored limits of inputs.  I take Jeannette Fitzsimons point that this will likely result in a smaller economy but that would seem to be an outcome rather than an intention.

by glenn p on December 14, 2011
glenn p

Thanks so much for the post. I think that if we can learn to think within the framework that you present, we will be a lot more effective. Lots to think about.

by Bob Johnson on December 16, 2011
Bob Johnson

That was nicely said, however this uses and features New Zealand whose Greens label themselves as neutral to being "left or right" and produces this as an example of the position that Greens should take in general.

What this blog seems to be missing, is how absolutely left-leaning New Zealand has become!

Greens there already stand on a social minded state which does far better then the right style capitalist overrule... say of my country: the USA.

The article above ignores that this island has free public education, and is rated 7th best in the world, (compare that to the US dismantling and disintegration of its schools and infrastructure.)

New Zealand also has mostly free heath care with completely free public hospitals and secondary non-profit insurance (!) to cover other more extreme health issues.
Under this it spends the equivalent of $3460 per capita, compared to the United States capitalist system at $7290.

It seems obvious that the imbalance we here in the states suffer, is our having been toppled over and fallen to the right.
This continues to tap our society and ecology without mercy, our two party system, now under the regime of Obama, has shown to be disgracefully war-mongering and complacent to the right. Most of the promises made by Obama to the left have proven to be only rhetorical.

I believe Conservatism is the anchor of which states remain fixed in its ideology, and this Concervative anchor in these United States, makes our "ship" stuck in the worst of all "right-wing ocean's...breaker-rocks" of absolute disaster.

I also believe our Green Party, to be the only real 3rd party choice for change, must remain active to move our "perriless ship" greatly away from this hazard, if only to balance us towards safer "leftist" harbors, and that our "Conservative anchor" be set down there to hold us to that permanently...if Greens are to remain faithful to any of their values.

Then and only, when we find balance, should we can talk about "neutrality" between the left and the right.

Post new comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.