by frog
In his usual fashion, Chris Trotter is both cursing and blessing the Greens in almost the same breath. In his article for The Independent this week, entitled Grave Issue for the Greens, Trotter pedals a few tired myths and predicts the demise of the Green Party. He then follows up with a glowing Greens Have Come of Age, (not online), story in today’s Otago Daily Times, speaking in glowing terms about Green ascendancy and taking the fight to the streets of Mt Albert.
We’ll start with the myths that Trotter is pedalling, both of which any journo doing a spot of half-arsed fact checking would have debunked.
The first is the now tired rumour, unfortunately amplified by Nandor post election, that the Greens were refusing to talk to National before, during and after the election. It’s simply not true, as the written and video records of the last year show. Here’s Jeanette, just 3 weeks before the election:
We have looked at the policies, programmes and public statements of both National and Labour. We found that they are closer to each other than either is to us, and neither of them aligns closely with our own ideals for a fairer and more sustainable New Zealand.
There are individual policies where we agree with the National Party, for example they helped us stop a law that would take away control of dietary supplements and they want to see more of the NZ Super Fund invested in New Zealand.
Depending on the outcome of the election, the Greens would prefer to work with Labour to form a Government, as their policies are more closely aligned with our own. But, no matter who forms the Government we will look for areas of common ground where we can work together.
That’s just one of the many records that Trotter could have looked up, if he could be bothered. The fact that it was said by Jeanette leads to the second myth, which is that Russel has taken advantage of Jeanette’s Co-Leader retirement announcement and signed an MoU with National, upsetting her and the rest of caucus. Trotter then goes on to predict our demise because of this tactical takeover by Norman, which is doomed to failure.
From Jeanette’s lines above, it is clear that she was willing last year to sit down with the Nats and talk about areas of common interest. As for caucus, well, I can say first hand that caucus was deeply engaged in the entire MoU process. It’s the way Greens do business. By consensus.
The Greens are obviously doomed to destruction under the divisive direction of the dictatorial Dr Norman. Yeah Right.
Then there is Trotter’s happy-go-lucky, Greens Come of Age effusion in the ODT. After waxing lyrical about the possibility of a Green win in Mt Albert, supported by secret whisperings from pollsters he knows, he goes on to say:
What they’ve actually decided to do is parachute in Mr Norman, the Green’s top-gun, along with his newly acquired coven of media wizards, to use the opportunity of the Mt Albert by-election to build and enhance “Brand Green”.
Simply by standing Mr Norman, and waging an aggressive campaign, the Greens are signalling that all is not what it was on the Centre-Left.
The children have left home.
The children have left home? How condescending. The Greens were never the child of Labour, the way the Alliance, New labour and the Progressive Parties are or were. Labour has eaten all her children, like Atreus in Greek mythology.
We were born from the hardy root-stock of the Values Party – a very different whakapapa of which we are very proud. Try as they might, Labour has never been able to eat her Greens. This might explain her weakness at the last election.
So Chris. Is Russel going to be the demoniacal demise of the Greens or the dashing debutante, ravishing Mt Albert?
Oh, and what’s this about a coven of wizards? Are we gender confused? (As I am with my dashing debutante?)
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Fri, May 8th, 2009
Tags: by-election, chris trotter, Mt Albert, Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Unfortunately, the entire western media runs on soundbytes and presenting things out of context. The media will never summarise the intent of what is said, but instead try to ‘simplify’ things to the point that the public doesn’t actually get the true story.
This is a difficult issue to solve; any sort of government control over the media as a whole leads to subversion of democracy, abuse of power, and preservation of the established viewpoint (even when wrong). But at the same time, in a small country like NZ, when journalists get it wrong, other journalists just copy details from the same story, and there are too few alternative sources of news that the public regularly consult.
The Internet is probably improving the situation somewhat compared to what it might otherwise be, although even then people still get their news from a few mainstream sources.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why do you care what trotter is saying? If you think his voice might be heard and muddy the green message – it’s already muddy I’m afraid.
Maybe I want the bar to be higher for the greens. I don’t want you to compromise or drop your values and be pragmatic – i want you to stand up for this world and all it’s citizens, including me… are you doing that? Because if you are just the same as all the other parties i may as well vote for them, don’t you think?
So go for it in Mt Albert but do it right… and if you lose, lose with dignity not win with shame. A win is achievable but get into people faces (in a kind, caring way) don’t be aloof.
Obviously there is quite a little on-line-in-crowd with the green tag… but guess what, i and most green voters – don’t care. Put your egos away and take the example of the green leaders that have earned respect and kudos, you’ve got one leaving soon so you might as well make the most of her presence.
and finally – this blog is disappointing… is this one of the big issues of the day? FFS I hope not!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fair ctitique marty – and no, I don’t think it’s one of the big issues of the day. I don’t happen to have the dirt on today’s big issues!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is the sort of schizophrenia we’ve come to expect from Chris. Its bizarre and fun to read, but it ultimately tells us more about him than anything else. At the end of the day Chris is just an statist lefty, gritting his teeth as his beloved Labour Party shunts itself to the right, but unable to embrace any alternative for fear of, well I don’t know what.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis said: Chris is just an statist lefty, gritting his teeth as his beloved Labour Party shunts itself to the right…
Yeah, I think it used to be his beloved Alliance Party too Valis, after Anderton left Labour and first formed NewLabour and then hte Alliance.
But when the Alliance self-destructed becasue of Anderton’s authoritarian approach (there were only two ways of doing policy in the Alliance – Jim’s way, and the wrong way) Chris Trotter, and Jim Anderton for that matter, could look no further than going back to the Labour Party that had betrayed (and still does betray) their socialist ideals.
The concept of libertarian and environmentalist socialism, which the Greens espouse, seems to have passed both of them by – yesterday’s men, I guess.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry about my rant. Youré doing a good job frog. I suppose I am looking for a cause. Something to raise the energy and create some green-momentum. I want the greens as the government (taina to the maori party) not just mou’d. My party vote will still go greens, the alternatives are just too horrible.
trotter deserves to be shown up for what he is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
- “The concept of libertarian and environmentalist socialism, which the Greens espouse”
Sorry? “Libertarian socialism? That’s when we’re free to do what you tell us, right?
There is absolutely nothing libertarian about the Greens; all their policies are based on coercion. Or do you suppose that those gaps in your agenda where, for the moment at least, you have no particular interest in further controlling our freedom, somehow constitute a claim to the title?
And we have already dealt with the indisputable fact that you are not socialists; you don’t advocate the state controlling the means of production. Your policies are demonstrably fascist (and, frankly, decidely Völkisch with the emphasis you put on racial theorising.)
Of course, there is a huge overlap between fascism and socialism, because they are both left-wing ideologies; but there is no doubt that current Green policies fall into the former camp, rather than the latter.
There’s a review of a book here which looks at the history of the left’s fascist movements: http://crf.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=5370
“Most of us today forget that Mussolini, to his dying day, considered himself a man of the left and a socialist…A major New Deal program, General Hugh Johnson’s National Recovery Administration, was an American version of Mussolini’s corporate state. Entering Johnson’s office, visitors found a portrait of Mussolini on the wall behind his desk.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Standard disclaimer for any wat post on fascism applies here. As a staunch Libertarian/Objectivist, wat sees as fascist anything that includes coercion, including the NZ govt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A mother guides her reluctant just-born baby to the breast for its first drink – a fascist act, wat? Or the milk of human kindness?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The day you coerce me is the day I see you on the barricades.
Likening a voter to a new born is bluidy insulting greenfly.
I followed Values & the Greens because i believed they would use consensus & reason as the weapons of change.
Should I now in my old age head for the hills with my scatter gun?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The day you coerce me is the day I see you on the barricades.
If that were true, you’d be on the barricades now, as every law is a form of coercion. The Greens do use consensus and reason for change and our ideas only take hold as we convince people we are correct via the normal democratic process. wat goes on about fascism treating all coercion the same, ignoring that real fascism is inherently violent and the antithesis of democracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
- “As a staunch Libertarian/Objectivist, wat sees as fascist anything that includes coercion, including the NZ govt”
You have not been paying attention.
There are various authoritarian themes, including socialism, communism and fascism. Being coercive collectivist ideologies, these all overlap each other considerably and are distinguished not by the colour of their uniforms – red, black or green – but by their economic models. So, no, not all coercive systems are fascist.
If you would like to demonstrate that Green policy is, say, socialist rather than fascist then please do so.
Also, like a great many people, you place too much emphasis on democracy and not enough on freedom. Just because you have marshalled enough votes to form a government does not give you any rights over anyone else. If you really “convinced people you are correct” you would not need to pass laws, because as free people they would already act accordingly. What are really talking about is using democracy as a means of legalising mob rule.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the Greens are stymied by a domination of leftists. Leftists can be characterised by the degree to which people see the “system” (power structures/) as the dominant cause of peoples behaviour. People outside “the system” are largely blameless victims. Is bj still a member?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat says:
“because as free people they would already act accordingly. ”
everyone wants a car and so eventually the roads fill up with cars; but people don’t want busy roads.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The point being?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So, no, not all coercive systems are fascist.
Great. Again, for those who haven’t been listening, my main concern is not what you believe are the theoretical underpinnings of the Green movement or any other, but that people understand your frame of reference when you talk about fascism. Many people that hear you are National or Labour supporters, so when you argue to them that Greens are fascists, they should know you think they’re fascists too. And further that you downplay, when its mentioned at all, the brutal violence and stifling of political descent that most people agree is a defining attribute of fascism, while most people are far less concerned about the type of coercion you are obsessed with.
Also, like a great many people, you place too much emphasis on democracy and not enough on freedom. Just because you have marshalled enough votes to form a government does not give you any rights over anyone else. If you really “convinced people you are correct” you would not need to pass laws, because as free people they would already act accordingly. What are really talking about is using democracy as a means of legalising mob rule.
Funny, Catherine goes on just like you do here quite often – and generally gets trashed for it – and most Greens would agree this is one of the biggest flaws with a democratic system. At the same time, giving up on it entirely doesn’t seem like an option either. Greens at least do know that line exists, that ultimate success requires convincing people and that is really our main goal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
It’s just that the above claim that the Greens are libertarian socialists is so patently false. I’d have more respect for these people if they were honest with themselves about what their policies actually mean. Like countless others now in the past, they think they know what’s best for the rest of us and seek to impose it by force. Yet is seems they have to lie to themselves and to us.
I will just add that when the Greens etc give still more powers to the state (for the immediate purpose of furthering their own agenda) they are responsible for everything that every subsequent government does with those powers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat, Maybe a better term than “libertarian socialists” may be “social libertarians”. The Greens tend to think that government should be kept out of the bedroom, but allowed in the boardroom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Social Libertarian sounds like liberal progressive so why don’t you just join the labour party??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
People don’t always mean the same things with the words they choose (even when not being sarcastic like turnip). That’s why I always capitalise Libertarian and call the Greens social libertarians as kiore suggests.
I think both social libertarians and Libertarians generally agree that people should be free to do what they want so long as they do not impinge on the rights of or do harm to others. The big difference is where each draws that line. Libertarians err on the side of the individuals rights to action, believing that almost nothing short of assault or breach of property rights should be prevented. So if a business uses a chemical known to be dangerous to people, correction will occur by people taking their business elsewhere. Rodney Hide (probably not your preferred poster boy for Libertarianism, I know) once argued that it was just fine if a business practice resulted in death because they would suffer lost business afterward. Of course Greens would say that if a chemical is known to be dangerous, then its use should be prevented. That is coercion and the abridging of someone’s rights, but so is risking lives and we needn’t invoke fascism to properly debate the merits of the two positions.
And as kiore points out, while Greens are not economic libertarians, we are very socially libertarian and surely have a healthy overlap with Libertarians in this regard, though certainly not 100%.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Social Libertarian sounds like liberal progressive so why don’t you just join the labour party??”
Can’t speak for anyone else, but my reason is because Labour, like National care more about industry profits than animal suffering. So they are keeping government out of the flesh industry boardrooms and letting them do as they please.
I would not mind so much if they were honest about it. If they would put forward press releases stating categorically that they don’t give a toss about animals, and the only thing that interests them is squeezing as much profit from their suffering as possible. Instead, both main parties continue to spread the barefaced LIE that they are committed to animal welfare.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)