One of the favoured tactics of the Greens seems to be to have "intellectual celebrity endorsements" coming directly from the intellectual celebrity. I received a message about 4 months ago from David Suzuki, extolling the evils of Stephen Harper (for the record, I think I recall David suggesting that Stephen eats live human babies, but it WAS a while ago, so I can't be certain - maybe that was just the TONE of the message...). Well, just a few days ago, I received an e-mail message from noted Canadian author Margaret Atwood. The text is below, with rebuttal underneath.
Dear Friend,
Global warming -- with the related environmental degradation, "natural" catastrophes, and accelerating species extinction -- is surely the biggest issue facing, not just Canada, but the entire planet. Without oxygen to breathe, water to drink, and soil to grow food in, a cut to the GST is worth nothing. It won't matter if you're paying 1% less GST if you're dead. Nor will your survivors care much that they got a deal on your coffin -- they'll be dead, too.
Yet Stephen Harper's government has gone from outright denial of climate change to lukewarm attempts to cover up and paper over this issue, while all the time keeping Stephen Harper's pledge to "build a firewall around Alberta." Stephen Harper doesn't want us to develop alternate energy, he wants us to keep burning oil. That's why there was no significant money for green economic development in his latest budget.
The Green Party can be depended on to keep green issues front and centre. Graeme Gibson and I joined the Green Party to support Elizabeth May as its Leader. In October, we traveled to the heart of Elizabeth's Nova Scotia Pictou riding to give a boost to her campaign to defeat Peter MacKay. Speaking to a packed hall of 600 local voters, I enumerated the reasons why Pictou should send Elizabeth May to the Canadian Parliament.
She is fearless.
She is honest.
Having led the Sierra Club for so long, she knows where the bodies are buried. If people make untrue statements about environmental issues, she'll have the expert knowledge to call them on it.
When she gives her word, either in writing or orally, she keeps her word -- unlike Peter MacKay, who promised not to demolish the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, but then did it.
In October -- even in the home town of Peter MacKay -- there was spontaneous cheering and two standing ovations for Elizabeth May. Some of this was no doubt due to his betrayal of the old Progressive Conservative Party in the merger with Alliance. As I wrote at the time, the Alliance Party were the "body snatchers." They consumed the Progressive Conservative Party whole and emerged as the new "Conservative" Party. Elizabeth insists we must not call them "Tories." They are the Alliance-Conservative-Republican Party of Canada.Like Elizabeth, I believe we must stay focused on defeating Stephen Harper. Ensuring Elizabeth May is in the Leaders' Debate is key. The Green Party must have the resources it needs to raise the most important issues of our time. It must be able to wage significant campaigns, especially in key areas.
Donations can be made to the Green Party, and to other parties as well. The Elections Act allows personal donations only. You can donate up to $1,100 each year to the national party and $1,100 to one local riding (electoral district).
We need to put Elizabeth May into the House of Commons so that she can speak honestly about an issue that is of top importance to Canadians. When a general election is called, and if I am in the country at the time, I will travel to Pictou and go door-to-door for Elizabeth.
Please make your donation today.
Yours truly, Margaret Atwood
Okay, let's go back over the message... my responses, fittingly, in green.
Dear Friend,
Global warming -- with the related environmental degradation, "natural" catastrophes, and accelerating species extinction -- is surely the biggest issue facing, not just Canada, but the entire planet. Without oxygen to breathe, water to drink, and soil to grow food in, a cut to the GST is worth nothing. It won't matter if you're paying 1% less GST if you're dead. Nor will your survivors care much that they got a deal on your coffin -- they'll be dead, too.
All right, well first off, Margaret, thank-you for taking the time to write me. As a frequent reader of my blog, you're no doubt aware that I value the participation of EVERY Canadian in our democracy, so kudos to you.
I was hoping, though, if you could kindly enlighten me as to what exactly "global warming" - the subject of the above paragraph - has to do with "oxygen to breathe, water to drink, and soil to grow food in". I mean, they're certainly all important issues, perhaps the MOST important issues, but global warming doesn't have an effect on oxygen levels - perhaps you're confusing global warming with air pollution? They're not the same thing. Jean Chretien made the same mistake a few years back, so don't feel too bad. I just expected that a world-renowned author might have done a bit of homework on her subject matter, is all.
Yet Stephen Harper's government has gone from outright denial of climate change to lukewarm attempts to cover up and paper over this issue, while all the time keeping Stephen Harper's pledge to "build a firewall around Alberta." Stephen Harper doesn't want us to develop alternate energy, he wants us to keep burning oil. That's why there was no significant money for green economic development in his latest budget.
I'm guessing, by the way you tell us what Stephen Harper wants, that you've spoken to him about this issue, and he has told you as much? Could I bother you for some proof?
See, Margaret, here's the problem with the environmental movement in general, and the Green Party in particular... This is an EMOTIONAL issue, but if you want to politically agitate for change, you have to appeal to people's higher-developed, logical brains. Saying "he doesn't like trees because he's a jerk!", or "he cut taxes but didn't pledge $5B for tree-planting, so he doesn't CARE about the environment" plays to the emotional heart-strings of people, but in a political forum, it reeks of junior high class presidential speeches. "He's a jerk, vote for me".
Also, nice use of the "Firewall" reference. I wonder, if you polled Albertans, how many would say that the federal government has favoured Alberta above all other provinces since Stephen Harper took office? After all, if he's willing to sacrifice, as you imply, the health of his future grandchildren for the good of the oil-patch, then he has no doubt favoured Alberta in many obvious ways... right?
The Green Party can be depended on to keep green issues front and centre. Graeme Gibson and I joined the Green Party to support Elizabeth May as its Leader. In October, we traveled to the heart of Elizabeth's Nova Scotia Pictou riding to give a boost to her campaign to defeat Peter MacKay. Speaking to a packed hall of 600 local voters, I enumerated the reasons why Pictou should send Elizabeth May to the Canadian Parliament.
She is fearless.
That's good, I guess... will she be taking on live small-weapons' fire in the House?
She is honest.
Well, she has on several occasions noted her friendship with Bill Clinton - and, as Bill might point out, that might depend on how you define "is".
Having led the Sierra Club for so long, she knows where the bodies are buried. If people make untrue statements about environmental issues, she'll have the expert knowledge to call them on it.
"She knows where the bodies are buried"... you mean, like this guy? Again, the bottom line is that the "truth" is so open to emotionalism and interpretation on this issue that it deflects the attention away from the issue and onto minutiae. I mean, you can't even get a room full of 50 scientists to agree that global warming is even HAPPENING - how are you going to accuse someone of lying, when the facts are in dispute by the TRUE experts in the field?When she gives her word, either in writing or orally, she keeps her word -- unlike Peter MacKay, who promised not to demolish the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, but then did it.
You mean like when she committed to run in the riding of Cape Breton-Canso (she's not)?
In October -- even in the home town of Peter MacKay -- there was spontaneous cheering and two standing ovations for Elizabeth May. Some of this was no doubt due to his betrayal of the old Progressive Conservative Party in the merger with Alliance. As I wrote at the time, the Alliance Party were the "body snatchers." They consumed the Progressive Conservative Party whole and emerged as the new "Conservative" Party. Elizabeth insists we must not call them "Tories." They are the Alliance-Conservative-Republican Party of Canada.
Okay Margaret, here's the part you're not going to like.
If you are writing me on behalf of Elizabeth May, and in your message you tell me what she believes, then you are endorsing those beliefs.
You are a nearly 70 year-old woman. You are a literary giant. And you just crossed the line into school-yard name-calling.
I don't know your position on George W. Bush, but I could probably hazard a guess. That doesn't concern me. Likewise, I imagine you're not overly fond of the Conservative Party of Canada, or their forebears, the Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party. What DOES concern me is that you are labelling someone in much the same way as men used to label women - by what we SAY you are, rather than how you self-identify. 30 years ago, to do this in Margaret Atwood's presence would be unforgivable. Now, she is doing it herself. Unless you can prove to me that Stephen Harper intends to eschew the monarchy and declare Canada a republic, you have just shown yourself to be hypocritical at worst, and juvenile at best.
The name of the party in government is "The Conservative Party of Canada". To identify them as anything other than that suggests that it is in fact perfectly acceptable to refer to you as "Maggie Polk", or "Graeme Gibson's Ball-and-Chain". Sure, it's not accurate, or what you WANT to be called... but, since we're name-calling, what do I care? If it's good enough for a Booker Prize-winning writer, it's good enough for a Blogger from Calgary.
Like Elizabeth, I believe we must stay focused on defeating Stephen Harper. Ensuring Elizabeth May is in the Leaders' Debate is key. The Green Party must have the resources it needs to raise the most important issues of our time. It must be able to wage significant campaigns, especially in key areas.
I couldn't agree more. The Greens deserve to be in the Leaders' Debate. They run candidates in every riding in the country, and pull in around 5% support WITHOUT media attention.Donations can be made to the Green Party, and to other parties as well. The Elections Act allows personal donations only. You can donate up to $1,100 each year to the national party and $1,100 to one local riding (electoral district).
We need to put Elizabeth May into the House of Commons so that she can speak honestly about an issue that is of top importance to Canadians. When a general election is called, and if I am in the country at the time, I will travel to Pictou and go door-to-door for Elizabeth.
Please make your donation today.
Yours truly, Margaret Atwood
(end message)
Now, I know a lot of you are going to find it contradictory that I on one hand applaud Margaret for getting involved, and then on the other hand rip her to shreds for her letter. "This is why more people don't get involved", I'll hear.
The truth is, if you are going to endorse a candidate and make statements on their behalf, then you are completely engaged in the process, and therefore open to criticism. To allow Atwood to make statements unchallenged gives her and her candidate an unfair advantage - she can name-call in a public forum, but is above reproach because of who she is? Hardly.
I like the Greens. They're great environmentalists, and as politicians, well, they're great environmentalists. They need to work on their communications strategy, though. The problem with limiting your candidates to "true believers only" is that you end up with bad politicians trying to run for office. At that point, it doesn't matter what they intend to do - if they're bad politicians, they're not getting elected, and therefore can't do diddly squat. So long as the Greens continue to field candidates based on their environmental credentials first and their political skill second, it doesn't matter how many intellectual celebrities write letters on their behalf, or even if they get into the Leaders' Debate or not - they will not be elected.
To know your issues, and be passionate about them, is one thing. But when asking for the people's consent to govern them, you must at least feign an interest in other issues, and show people how you are going to advance your own agenda while still having the time and resources to advance theirs.
After all, to paraphrase Margaret Atwood:
Without streets to drive, a home in which to live, money to pay for food, a cut to Greenhouse Gas emissions is worth nothing. It won't matter if we're emitting 30% less CO2 if I'm living in a cave in Fish Creek Park. Nor will my children care much that they've got an extensive system of bicycle trails to ride -- they won't be able to afford a bicycle.
The Greens are solid on their primary focus. But a one-issue party can't get elected to govern Federally, no matter HOW well versed they are on that issue.
1 comment:
Great post. You are so smooth in print. I would have said something coarse like "... what, you would prefer a handmaid's tale over living under a Stephen Harper government?"
And who is Graeme Gibson? Well, I get the idea, but really. It would be like that "Jean-Daniel Lafonde and I..." If Governor General Michaelle Jean was saying the words, you might get the drift... but no one outside of a few raging Quebecois separatists knows the guy as anything outside of being the concubine of the GG.
Post a Comment