"...sometimes people vote Green to make a point, thinking privately that they will never get into power anyway. In their heads, a vote for the Greens is a vote for caring for the environment. So by this logic, in voting Green, they are doing a "good thing" for society. "
Precisely. Follow the logic as these educated, well-off, well-read individuals (men and women, it can't be hard reading my last post to see I'm referring to both genders in the way chardonnay left refers to non-chardonnay drinkers) then cast their vote for:
Black bashing
Tampa and long term stays in detention centres
Anti-Muslim bigotry
Inciting racial violence
Guantanamo Bay and the Neocon war on everything
Anti-worker IR laws
Bans on gay marriage (gee, in all the Labor bashing on that topic how many people forgot whose laws and wedge attempt drove the damn issue)
Constant needling away at women's right to choose
Money flowing from the poorest schools to the richest
Your ABC becoming their ABC
Anti-diversity media laws
'Climate change, what climate change?'
etc
etc
etc
...So, they are NOT doing a good thing for society, not where you equate good thing with left thing.
No ifs. No buts.
I'm not gonna get any nastier than that, I have a couple of friends who fit this category. Generally, nice people. Politically, a waste of space.
In case it wasn't obvious I was not in the previous post or this one ridiculing people who vote Green who also know which side, broadly speaking, their bread is buttered on.
If you aren't defending the people I've described above, save me the breathless moral indignation.
** Initial snappiness edited back for irrelevancy. It'd be nice to debate the issue at hand, a little at least. **
11 comments:
Uh, what? How is a vote for the Greens a vote for any of those things?
A vote for the Greens is the only way to vote against ALL of those things. (A vote for Labor is a vote against some of those things, but not all.
You need to take the time to read the post before commenting mr lefty. With respect.
I completely agree with you. I'm referring to people who vote greens + liberals, which is in my view a ridiculous contradiction.
True, but then they'd vote Liberal anyway. At least if it's funneled through the Greens, there's a chance of their vote actually doing some good. (Provided that the Greens don't change policies to keep the Drs' wives on board - which they won't.)
I'm with Lefty, perhaps I haven't read this properly yet either..the coffee hasn't kicked in and brain is in low gear.
I smell the same argument a local Labour guy spewed at me after the last federal election. That it was ok for Lab to preference the fundamentalists over the Greens because a vote for the Greens - being not a vote for labour - was like voting for the libs.
Is that the party line you are repeating? This is 2 party voting thinking. And pretty offensive to people who think and vote for what might be considered to be a minor party. I think both parties are fearful of a 3rd or even 3th party gaining popularity and upsetting the status quo. It means they have to use new strategies. Which unimaginatively at the state election was Green bashing, rather than actually proving their credentials.
I dunno Armagniac - are you been attending labour brainwashing sessions lately or is impending parenthood making your become conservative? :) No personal attacks, just trying to work out where you are coming from on this. It's not the kind of orignial thinking that usually comes from you.
that was "4th" party..and all the other grammatical errors...told you coffee not activating grey matter yet
Not attacking people for voting green, as in being left wing and voting green and making sure they put labor above liberal.
In a seat like northcote where it's a greens vs labor contest, that means they will vote for greens as opposed to labor (libs being way out of contention). However in a marginal lib-labor seat their vote will end up, when it comes to the battle between those two, firmly with labor.
I completely respect greens and people who vote for them. I certainly understand why lefties might prefer them strongly over labor.
I don't understand how anyone can profess to want to make a difference, support the greens then turn around and vote liberals (who are, contrary to bland characterisations of 'centre right', actually well across into the mid-far right).
I haven't seen 5 words of cogent defence of such voting buffoonery.
A faith-based argument if ever I heard one. The Greens are as much a political party as any other and should deal and make compromises. That's the idea of the whole thing, you see.
No, that's the ALP approach. Whatever wins power.
That's NOT the only idea behind becoming involved in politics, of course.
The reason I'm involved is to advocate for particular policy positions - to advocate for progressive social and economic policies. And that's what the Greens are doing.
The Greens could probably win more votes by pitching themselves more at the centre (as the Democrats did) - but what's the point? Power without any aim other than the continuance of power.
I'd much prefer the Greens work to build a left-wing base (however limited that ends up being) in the hope that there are enough left-wing voters that once we're fairly represented in parliament the other parties will have to consider our views.
The bloody religious right gets away with it - not by compromising their position, but by building their right-wing base. I don't see why we can't do the equivalent on the left.
Religious right as in... families first? Because while they are a deeply concerning beast, they pull a pretty small chunk of the vote at the moment.
I wasn't so much defending people who vote Green and Liberal, as seeking to look for reasons why this might occur. I think they don't think about the contradictions which are inherent in their position.
One of the most conservative people I knew when I was a teenager was also a long time member of Greenpeace. This surprised me, and interested me immensely, so I asked her why. She came out with the explanation that she "wanted to do something good for the world" (hence my comment on the previous post). She was a concert pianist rather than a doctor's wife, but she drove a Merc which her Dad had bought for her, so you get the picture. Nevertheless, she was fundamentally a decent and intelligent person. Exactly the kind of person you were talking about, Armagnac!
"Conservationism" and "conservative" have the same root: to conserve the status quo, and prevent change. So perhaps my friend's position wasn't so inconsistent after all? I personally have always been a little wary of the Greens for this reason.
There's also a tinge of the religious zealot about some hardcore Greens which worries me. Certain beliefs are articles of faith which cannot be questioned!
To be fair, that probably goes for elements of all political parties. I remember some Socialist Workers at uni trying to get me to come to a meeting, and getting a strange feeling of deja vu. Yes, it was exactly the same feeling I had as when the Student for Christ started to pray for my soul in the coffee lounge...
To get back to the topic, personally, I always number every single Upper House box, one by one. I hate those bl**dy preference deals, and I didn't think much of some of the deals which were done (very cynical). I'd prefer to determine my vote myself.
I don't understand how anyone can profess to want to make a difference, support the greens then turn around and vote liberals (who are, contrary to bland characterisations of 'centre right', actually well across into the mid-far right).
I haven't seen 5 words of cogent defence of such voting buffoonery.
"5 words" - that's a Go betweens song.
OK then:
"Bracks Safe, Must Be Punished!"
Didn't work though. The cute fur-seal smirk is still in situ.
Cast Iron Balcony
Oh, just to give the context, I voted in the Williamstown electorate.
Post a Comment