Last week, I promised a series analyzing the positive and negative characteristics of each of the main federal parties. To help orient the reader, it should be noted that each party analysis is broken down into political grounding, policies I like, policies I dislike, and, finally, an assessment of the leader. In this first edition, I have chosen to focus on the Green Party, the smallest by Members of Parliament of the pan-national parties.
First, it must be understood that the Green Party considers itself part of a global movement.
Throughout the world, Green Party representatives at all levels of government seek to move forward a "green agenda" that espouses ecological wisdom, grassroots democracy, social justice and pacifism.
Also, when reading through the Canadian Green Party's policies, it is clear that its working political philosophy is more communitarian and non-adversarial in nature.
Yet despite this flawed philosophical outlook and rather Marxist methodology of global implementation, there are still Green policies I'd happily live under. According to their own website, the Green Party would eliminate taxpayer funded business subsidies, invest more money in apprenticeship programs, review how the Bank of Canada borrows money, lower the voting age to 16, and set up an independent body to investigate complaints against the RCMP.
These policies are not only commonsensical but would actually garner bipartisan support in many cases; even the lowered voting age isn't a bad idea given that it could become a lightning rod for voter engagement within families and high schools. Further democratic innovation is clear from the Green's desire to discard "first past the post" and whipped votes.
And yet, like most left-wing parties, the Green's endorse carbon taxation, which I cannot abide.
While the Green Party argues this will always be redistributive in nature, and only affect industry, this is an economic fallacy as, one, all business costs are passed onto consumers, and, two, governments are notorious for tapping any and all revenue for its own political ends.
Furthermore, the Greens again betray a lack of economic savvy by arguing that the oil field and other non-renewables, produce less long term jobs than green energy.
While I have nothing against wind farms and geothermal plants, the free market does in fact dictate when these methods will be both viable and profitable. We need only look to the U.S. to see how subsidizing green energy is just as bad as subsidizing anything else - it all leads to cronyism.
Also, the commitment to no longer whip votes begs the question of how their party can sustain such promises as keeping abortion unregulated, joining the UN Arms Trade Treaty, and legalizing marijuana. Even in a room of ten people there's no consensus on these issues.
Finally, there's the matter of Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada. May has long fought for environmental protections, holds several distinctions and merits from dozens of organizations, and was in fact the first Green MP elected to parliament in 2011.
Yet for all these accomplishments, I must admit that I've not met many people who would describe May as inspirational, and that is indeed a problem.
While it's too late in this term to change leaders, I would highly encourage my comrades in green to shop for someone with more electoral experience and better rhetorical delivery.
Also, someone who isn't prone to rude rants.
Overall, I believe the Greens have some great ideas, but like most left wingers, they need to rethink their ideas about human nature and its implication on economics. Yes, our adversarial, free market system can be unforgiving at times, but it is the basis of our innovation, justice, and prosperity. Leave it be.
