Wednesday, December 14, 2005
An Attack on Jim Harris and a Defense of the Other Party Leaders. Huh.
As a voter who voted for the Green candidate in my riding during the last federal election and who doesn't regret it a bit, I still recognize that the possibly imminent rise of the Green Party in Canadian politics comes with its fair share of both pros and cons. Pro: it will bring environmental issues into sharp focus. Con: it will do so courtesy of a party whose solutions to environmental problems are at best New Democrat-lite and at worst kind of wacky. Pro: it helps weaken the hegemony of the existing parties. Con: it will do by increasing the power of a new party that supports ideas like proportional representation. And so on.
I do, however, have to sympathize with Jim Harris' desire to be included in the leaders' debates. In 1993, Preston Manning was allowed into the damned things, and his party had all of one seat, that it had won in a by-election. Lucien Bouchard's had more, but only one of them (Gilles Duceppe) had been elected as a Blocquiste, also in a by-election. Moreover, the B.Q. ran candidates only in Quebec, and the Reform Party ran candidates only outside of it (and there were many maritime ridings that it was unable to contest). Contrast this with the Green Party, which ran candidates in every riding last election, virtually always placing in the top five and often finishing ahead of candidates from the other "main" parties. While my disregard for political parties translates, at least on an intellectual level, into a distaste for national leaders' debates, as long as we're to have them they should represent the broadest possible cross-section of options available to Canada's voters. In my books, running 308 candidates should alone guarantee inclusion; everything else the Greens have done is just gravy.
Still, though, from a purely opportunistic standpoint, I don't really see why Harris wants in. He's got a pretty good thing going as it is, what with all of these people supporting his party from a standpoint of ignorance.
Consider all of the people voting Green because the environment is the most important issue for them. And then consider that the New Democrats consistently receive higher marks from environmentalists for their environmental platform than do the Greens for theirs. Or consider all of the people who vote Green because they're tired of the so-called "old line" parties. Then consider that Jim Harris is as much an old line politician as either Martin or Layton (and somewhat more of one than either Harper or Duceppe). Consider all of the people voting Green because they see a fiscally-conservative approach combined with progressive social views, and then consider that the Green Party (rightly, in my view, but still) takes a much harder-line approach to rising gas prices than do New Democrats, and is every bit as vociferous in its condemnation of the government's proposed corporate tax cuts.
The Green Party's not unlike William Lyon MacKenzie King, in that it looks more attractive to many people from a distance. Jim Harris should perhaps be leery of removing that distance.
EDIT: I just realized I left out the defense of the other leaders promised in the title. I eventually decided, in the spirit of trying to reduce topics-to-posts ratio of my blog, that that bit will wait until tomorrow, along with a few miscellaneous tidbits.
|
As a voter who voted for the Green candidate in my riding during the last federal election and who doesn't regret it a bit, I still recognize that the possibly imminent rise of the Green Party in Canadian politics comes with its fair share of both pros and cons. Pro: it will bring environmental issues into sharp focus. Con: it will do so courtesy of a party whose solutions to environmental problems are at best New Democrat-lite and at worst kind of wacky. Pro: it helps weaken the hegemony of the existing parties. Con: it will do by increasing the power of a new party that supports ideas like proportional representation. And so on.
I do, however, have to sympathize with Jim Harris' desire to be included in the leaders' debates. In 1993, Preston Manning was allowed into the damned things, and his party had all of one seat, that it had won in a by-election. Lucien Bouchard's had more, but only one of them (Gilles Duceppe) had been elected as a Blocquiste, also in a by-election. Moreover, the B.Q. ran candidates only in Quebec, and the Reform Party ran candidates only outside of it (and there were many maritime ridings that it was unable to contest). Contrast this with the Green Party, which ran candidates in every riding last election, virtually always placing in the top five and often finishing ahead of candidates from the other "main" parties. While my disregard for political parties translates, at least on an intellectual level, into a distaste for national leaders' debates, as long as we're to have them they should represent the broadest possible cross-section of options available to Canada's voters. In my books, running 308 candidates should alone guarantee inclusion; everything else the Greens have done is just gravy.
Still, though, from a purely opportunistic standpoint, I don't really see why Harris wants in. He's got a pretty good thing going as it is, what with all of these people supporting his party from a standpoint of ignorance.
Consider all of the people voting Green because the environment is the most important issue for them. And then consider that the New Democrats consistently receive higher marks from environmentalists for their environmental platform than do the Greens for theirs. Or consider all of the people who vote Green because they're tired of the so-called "old line" parties. Then consider that Jim Harris is as much an old line politician as either Martin or Layton (and somewhat more of one than either Harper or Duceppe). Consider all of the people voting Green because they see a fiscally-conservative approach combined with progressive social views, and then consider that the Green Party (rightly, in my view, but still) takes a much harder-line approach to rising gas prices than do New Democrats, and is every bit as vociferous in its condemnation of the government's proposed corporate tax cuts.
The Green Party's not unlike William Lyon MacKenzie King, in that it looks more attractive to many people from a distance. Jim Harris should perhaps be leery of removing that distance.
EDIT: I just realized I left out the defense of the other leaders promised in the title. I eventually decided, in the spirit of trying to reduce topics-to-posts ratio of my blog, that that bit will wait until tomorrow, along with a few miscellaneous tidbits.
