by frog
Among a great deal of bile directed our way by right-wing bloggers, there are a couple of progressive voices in the Kiwi blogosphere speaking our praises today.
In comparing the coalition options open to Labour and National, Russell Brown says:
The Greens absolutely deserve a shot at government. They have been organised and consistent and on one or two key issues, they are ahead of the pack on policy. National’s high-stakes strategy of grabbing all the vote by killing off minor parties may or may not bear fruit. But even if Winston makes it back, his offer of support on confidence and supply does not bode well for manageable government, especially for National, which has no other options.
Meanwhile, No Right Turn has written:
I’d like to encourage people to take the broad view and cast their party vote for a left-wing government. There are a number of parties which would contribute to such a government, and under MMP, it does not really matter which particular one you cast your vote for.
I will be voting Green, because I seem to share their general ethos, because a left-wing government will not be possible if they fail to make it over the threshold, and because IMHO Labour’s failure to defend human rights (particularly with regards to Ahmed Zaoui) means that they are not worthy of my support – but it is not necessary that we agree in order to work together…
While there are complicating factors which provide Labour supporters with a strong incentive to vote Green and help them into Parliament by a comfortable margin, the blunt fact is that unlike the right, we don’t need to worry so much about tactical voting, because we’re all going to get into Parliament. Any vote for Labour, the Greens, or the Progressives advances our mutual cause; none of them is a “wasted vote”.
A vote for any of these parties will contribute to a New Zealand where the government works for the many rather than the few, where the partnership symbolised by the Treaty is upheld, and where everyone can participate regardless of race, gender, faith, or sexual identity – and that, ultimately, is what we’re all working for.
This final paragraph is a very eloquent description of why so many Kiwis are hoping so fervently for an LPG victory tomorrow.
UPDATE: Philosophy, et cetera has a very interesting piece on what the author believes are the good and bad things about the Greens and why, on balance, he’ll be voting Green.
Published in Campaign by frog on Fri, September 16th, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
This is very encouraging and inspiring.
My band played a gig last night and in talking to a whole bunch of people there – musicians, music-lovers and others – they all share the same sentiment: that National is pandering to the selfish and narrow-minded, and that people voting National because of tax cuts are selfish and conceited. There seems to be a consensus on this with various other individuals I have spoken with too – many of whom are progressive Christians who are concerned that this election has been mainly about “what is there in it for me?”.
In my comment on a earlier blog, I mentioned how I used to be a member of the Libertarianz – a party that is more extreme and conservative than National and ACT put together. They literally preach the virtues of selfishness. Incidentally, their free-market philosophy is based on the teachings/theories of Ayn Rand, who has a book called ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ – an oft-cited text by Libz members and laissez-faire advocates. Funny that huh?
Indeed, the cause of the Left is a mutual cause.
Perhaps the cause of the Right is mutual too – but only insofar as a consensus that greed and selfishness are moral virtues.
They are so divided this election because they differ on:
1) The means by which to screw this country over;
2) How far they should screw over the poor, disadvantaged, and various minorities;
3) The extent to which the rich should be benefited even further; and
4) Which minority group to focus their attacks on – Muslims, gays and lesbians, or Asians.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good points and very well said redgreen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Don’t forget the endorsement from my mum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr. I-S over at NRT is spot on.
i think the Green vote will be higher than most people expect because a lot of Labour/Green waverers will play it safe by voting Green to make sure the Greens don’t go the way of ACT.
here’s to 10%!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Excellent article, Philoffiser. I agree with quite a few of your points… and I’m a GP member…
BUT, remember that the Greens are a minority party. An excess of pragmatism makes you toothless. You’ve got to DEMAND a yard, BOTTOM LINE a foot, to end up with maybe an inch and a half. That’s politics.
In a political party, the usual dynamic is that the base is more radical than the politicians. This leads to endless tensions and extensive internal blood-letting, at least in parties where the base have any say in anything … what I find admirable in the Greens, is that the MPs manage to stay radical. In fact, they are probably less pragmatic than I would be, in the same situation (with the possible exception of Rod). More power to them!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually for a philosophy student I found Richard’s criticisms a pretty dogmatic.
He says, “the Left needs to give up its racial separatism and recognize the goal of a colourblind future (even if they think it’s too early to dispense with our concept of race quite yet).”
Which is kinda strange because in the previous paragraphs he’s accusing them of dogmatic romanticism and emotive language (“racial separatism” anyone?). Positive discrimination is in fact a pragmatic and PROVEN approach to some of the injustices in our society. It seems Richard has an ideological problem with positive discrimination, precisely the thing he was criticising in his opening paragraphs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)