Debunking Dobbin

Written By: Anonymous
Date: 2004-07-09 15:00:00
<a href="/article/85944415-debunking-dobbin">Article Link</a>

Its fiscal, economic and even environmental policies would be a near perfect fit for the old Progressive Conservative party. Reply: We might like to think so, but truthfully, our policies on democratic reform, gay marriage, and foreign policy are probably too progressive for Joe Clark, not to mention Brian Mulroney. In fact, the Greens are led by a former Tory, Jim Harris, and under his direction have become the quintessential small government, pro-market party. Reply: Actually, in the Green Party, unlike the other parties, the leader does not control what goes in the platform - the members do. This is called "democracy". Volunteers from across the country submitted the policies and decided what issues should be at the forefront of our campaign. Jim submitted his leader's message but received the rest of the platform "as is" from the platform team. Their social analysis says virtually nothing about the structural causes of poverty, and their solutions borrow from both the former PCs and the Alliance. Reply: It is hard to imagine how anyone who has actually read our platform could truthfully say this. Greens always think back to "root causes," and perhaps further back than leftists do. Page 9 of our 2004 Election Platform states: Health care costs are rising rapidly. What is making people sick? Most of a child's intellectual development happens before the age of six. Why are we spending most of our education dollars only after they turn eighteen? Families are increasingly dealing with both parents working outside of the home. What are the long-term consequences if mothers and fathers don't have enough time to spend with their children? Page 12 of our 2004 Election Platform states: The Green Party is committed to addressing the issues that determine good health - such as safe housing, nutritious food, rewarding jobs, a clean environment and a healthy self-image. The Green Party is "Socially Progressive" and "Fiscally Conservative" because we think long term and enact policies for problems before they become expensive problems. Compare our policies on the all-important issue of health care, and the difference is clear. They talk about how a Green government would "enhance the existing network of . . . school nutrition . . . and food-bank programs . . ." to eliminate hunger in Canada. Those who study poverty with a view to ending it see food banks not as a solution, but as a symbol of everything that is wrong with the way governments approach poverty. Reply: Page 22 of our 2004 Election Platform states one of our boldest promises: Ensure - within five years - that no Canadian will suffer from hunger or malnutrition. We're not just talking about food banks. We're talking about a nationwide strategy to get healthy food on our tables, as a fundamental right of being Canadian. Food banks are certainly a part of the strategy, but so are grocery rebates, farmers' markets and community gardens. The NDP is softer on this issue than the Green Party. The Green Party is also highly aware of how important empowerment is in fighting poverty. Government should "do less, help more" by creating empowerment, rather than dependence. The party is committed to smaller government in a way that no other party is, except the new Conservatives. Reply: This is obviously not true. Smaller government, by definition, is less revenues and less spending. The Green Party's platform clearly increases both. We are committed to smarter government, and a more democratic government. In our first press conference, aired nation-wide, we said that we would hold a referendum to see if Canadians wanted bigger government. We are committed to decentralization - most people agree that it is a good idea. With respect to the devastated federal public service -- characterized by massive downsizing, unprecedented stress levels, completely inadequate staffing to carry out department mandates and years without real increases in pay -- the Green Party has a single response, and it sounds a lot like Stephen Harper's: "Reform the public sector to be more responsive and accountable." This is union busting by another name, and seems to promise the continuation of the right-wing assault on government employees. If you want the public service to be "responsive," the logical solution is to return it to functional staffing levels. Reply: Our platform on governance states that we would "flatten hierarchies and empower front line civil servants" because we know they are stressed and deal with far too much bureaucracy and frustrating political flip-flops. The federal government probably has the most talented workforce in Canada, sadly paired with some of the worst management. Real civil servants working in the federal government helped to conceive our governance policies. Our intention is to give more freedom and responsibility to the civil service in finding the creative approaches to achieve the results Canadians want to see. The Greens' fiscal policies are among their most reactionary and problematic. They toe the Bay Street line by promising to "lower taxes on income, profit and investment, to promote increased productivity and job creation." Reply: This quote is grossly out of context. The rest of the sentence reads: "?while raising taxes on pollution, waste and inefficiency" (page 38 of our 2004 Election Platform). When read in its entirety, the full statement takes on a completely different meaning. The NDP does not understand much about Green Economics, and launch attacks based on their misunderstanding, but meanwhile include a small mention of "tax shifting" (page 21 of the NDP platform) - just in case they needed to borrow that idea too. As for addressing the problem of chronically high unemployment, the party takes a page out of Paul Martin's book of maintaining extremely low inflation -- Greens will still fight inflation by putting people out of work unless unemployment rises above 10 per cent. These policies have been notable failures for the past 15 years -- lowering wages, increasing the productivity gap with the United States and creating mostly low-wage jobs -- and certainly have no place in the platform of a party that pitches its appeals to social democrats. Reply: This is fuzzy economic thinking, and another distortion of what we actually say. The economic reality is that slowing inflation hurts - accelerating it is fun, but continued acceleration leads to hyperinflation, which precipitates total economic disaster. Keeping inflation stable means a healthy environment for investment and jobs, which is what we've had in Canada since 1994. Saying that we would trade higher inflation for lower unemployment would bar us from any Monetarist convention. It is interesting that Dobbin chose to ignore the information that immediately preceded the quote he selected: Price stability is good for the economy, but not the only good thing. Lowering unemployment will also have positive lon- term consequences; they are not as easily measured but fundamentally more important for the well being of real Canadians. The Green Party will advise the governors of the Bank of Canada to walk a mile with the homeless and unemployed before making their next important decision. This statement could easily have come from Linda McQuaig, Canada's foremost lefty critic of monetary policy. Any increase in revenue from promised Green taxes on "harmful activities" would be neutralized by lowering income taxes, the most progressive and fair taxes we have. The Greens also call for an increase in property taxes, a regressive tax. They are committed to using surpluses to ". . . reduce the national debt." In other words, the party is to the right of all the major parties, which are now committing billions for spending on social programs that Canadians say they want. Reply: Dobbin contradicts what he said earlier by actually looking at both sides of the tax shift - and he's still wrong. A tax on gasoline is likely more progressive than our current income tax system because wealthy people tend to drive bigger cars, own more cars, and commute longer distances. Our commitment to lower only the lowest bracket means that this tax cut will be shared fairly evenly across the board - unless your income is so low that you pay no taxes at all, in which case you probably can't afford to drive a car. One of the most remarkable aspects of the Green platform is the lack of any commitment to using government legislation or regulation to accomplish core environmental goals. Reply: Our industry policy clearly states that we will legislate regulatory measures to "close the door" on ecologically outdated or socially disruptive practices. (Industry Policy - GPC Platform 2004 website). However, the whole point of Green economics is that you don't need to regulate if you collect the full cost of a product through taxes. Here are just a few examples: "The Green Party will: Empower [bioregional] stewards to seek intervenor status in legal actions that impact the health of the ecosystem; . . . work with local environmental groups to reduce pollution levels in the air, water and soil; promote sustainability through education; and monitor the diversity of species, the levels of pollution and the health of the ecosystem." These are not the actions of a government committed to using its mandated power to actually protect the environment. Reply: These are the actions of a citizens' movement that knows how the right tools will enable citizens to do more for the environment - more than government (even a Green one) ever will. The party also supports the corporate sector's position on self-regulation: "The Green Party will assist and encourage Canadian companies to attain ISO 14000 certification, the international standard for management." The ISO 14000 has been almost universally condemned by the international environmental movement as ineffective and unreliable. Reply: In general, the only problem with voluntary measures is the way governments use them to excuse a lack of regulation, rather than treat them as steps to a stronger and smarter set of regulatory standards. If the government makes a credible threat to regulate, industries will likely take steps to self-regulate, finding the most economical means of achieving the target required, and saving the government's time and money. Those Canadians thinking of voting Green because they believe it is progressive had better do their homework. There is more to this party than the user-friendly name would suggest. Reply: There is nothing we would welcome more. People who do their homework love the Green Party platform. The feedback in our rank-a-plank system gives "A" grades to about 80% of our ideas, and only one idea in over a hundred has less than 50% support. Murray Dobbin is author of Paul Martin: CEO for Canada? Hopefully, Dobbin's next book will not be a guide to ethical journalism.

While I think it's important to discuss where the Green party actually stands and whether Dobbins' analysis was accurate, I think it's crossing the line to question his journalistic ethics. I doubt he's intentionally trying to misrepresent the Green party platform. It seems to me he is trying to raise some questions, and present the evidence as he sees it--just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean they're unethical. Now if he were in a conflict of interest or something along that line, maybe it would be justified. It seems to me that Dobbins' main point is that the Greens are not leftist/progressive. The Green "debunking" seems to agree with that statement several times (eg . Dobbin: "... a look at Green policies reveals that this party is really a Conservative alternative, not a social democratic one"...Reply:...we agree with this statement."; eg " Greens always think back to 'root causes,' and perhaps further back than leftists do" ie Greens saying they're not leftists etc.). Now as to how FAR right they are, that's where discussion needs to happen. And while we're continuing that discussion on this site about the Greens, here's another <a href="http://www.rabble.ca/in_her_own_words.shtml?x=32850">article</a> worth taking a look at, by the former leader of the Green Party in Canada, who has since joined the NDP. Some excerpts from <a href="http://www.rabble.ca/in_her_own_words.shtml?x=32850">Greens vs NDP: Who's Greener?</a> by Joan Russow: ...As its former leader, I have become increasingly disappointed with the development of the Green Party of Canada and its loss of broader socialist concerns, its weakened opposition to militarism, its proposals for reduced government, and its "market-based" environmentalism... ...When I ran and won against Jim Harris for the leadership of the Green Party in 1997, I became concerned about his business of giving motivational talks to corporations. Now in the 2004 Green Party Platform, the Green Party is "Encourage [ing] ISO 14000 Certification -- Achieving progress requires measuring performance. The Green Party will assist and encourage Canadian companies to attain ISO 14000 certification, the international standard for management." Along with the WTO and so-called "free trade," ISO 14000 is a centre-piece of the corporate agenda. It is the corporate scheme of voluntary compliance. In ISO 14000, polluters set their own environmental management objective, and the means to attain it -- with no external evaluation. For example, one company claimed that it was reducing greenhouse gases by moving more towards civil nuclear energy. It is quite possible that Green Party candidates or the public may not realize the implications of what the party is supporting through its endorsement of ISO 14000... ...When I was the Green Party leader, I cringed when some members would proclaim that they "were neither left nor right but straight ahead." This claim is now proudly stated on the Green Party's website. I am increasingly concerned about the Green Party's denial of the left. I worked so hard, with others, to try to establish the Green Party as a progressive party on the left. When NDP leader Jack Layton was recently in B.C. talking about social justice, Andrew Lewis, the deputy leader of the Greens, was quoted as stating that Layton's speech was only "socialist rhetoric."--- Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf

PS And just to be a brat, I want to provide some contradictory evidence to the easily debunked Green argument that: "People who do their homework love the Green Party platform." The contadictory evidence: both the Sierra Club and Greenpeace did their "homework"... and then gave the NDP higher marks on their environmental platform than the Green Party. The NDP got As all the way. See: <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/mini/CTVNews/1087425260777_56?s_name=election2004&no_ads=">Two leading groups rate NDP greener than Greens</a> (CP).--- Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf

I was a Green member. The party is to far Right for me and continues in that direction. I left the Ontario Greens for the NDP.

True, the NDP environmental election platform received slightly higher grades than the Green one. However, it's also true that NDP governments have not received many high grades for their environmental performance.

Having a good platform is better than not having one, but actions speak louder than words.

As for these articles, they're not from the most objective sources in the world. Yes, the Greens seem to agree with you that they are not "leftist". However, you would probably get an argument if you say that leftist=progressive and that the Greens are not "progressive".

This whole left/right argument is outdated and overly simplistic. Here are a couple of exercises that add another dimension to the old categories:

Shorter Version:
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Longer Version:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

While it is logical for the greens to pursue policies of healthier food and poor health prevention, they say nothing about strengthening public health care. I don`t know, when I read the green platform, I was left with the impression that existing disparities between the classes would remain under them.

---
Dave Ruston

I like that. The whole left-right thing has been on the BBQ toooo long! However, it demonstrates basically that spending should be done by government (left), or by private sources (right). In this regard, there are no "rights" in this country, as all parties believe in government spending, and differ only in degree. The Greens have moved "right" using this scale, because it's quite plain to see that voters will not elect what they perceive to be a "left" government to power in Ottawa. The Greens were once "left", and now they are "right", and if they can move once, they can move again. But politics is not about principle; it's about compromise.

That is the problem. Politics should be about doing what`s right for the people, as opposed to making deals. The wealthy who currently control the politicians aren`t 'compromising.' They are taking and taking. If a government had the backbone to progressively tax the rich and the corporations, well, they`d still be rich, and society in general would be far better off!

---
Dave Ruston

I was listening to a member the Citizens' Assembly:
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public
who said basically that the FPTP system we use is designed to squeeze out peripheral or third parties, and to force us into a two-party system. And the two party system would essentially be variations of a commom philosophy, like the Democrats and Republicans, or Liberals and Conservatives. There is no room in FPTP for a stable government of three or more parties. So we DO need to scrap FPTP and go to PR.

---
RickW

Once upon a time...there were real differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.

FPTP does work best in a two party system, but it can function in a three party system. Before 1993, things weren't too bad (1st/2nd/3rd place in votes = 1st/2nd/3rd place in seats). After 1993 is when things really started to go downhill (BQ runs in one province and becomes official opposition, PCs get more votes than BQ in every election from 1993-2000 but never get as many seats).

An element of proportionality needs to be added to the system now. Don't scrap the FPTP system, but add a PR element like they have in New Zealand and Scotland.

Hopefully enough MPs can get together and get something through the system.

On the Issue of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace issuing report cards giving the NDP's platform better marks on the environment.

The key is looking at what they have done in government a provincial arm of the NDP presided over one of the largest mass arrests in Canada's history when environmentalists were arrested for stopping the logging trucks from entering Clayoquot to cut one of the last remaining old-growth forest stands of its type anywhere in the world. It has also continued the long tradition of uranium mining in Saskatchewan for the US export market, to be used in nuclear energy and weapons. Not to mention the NDP's exempting hog barns from environmental legislation in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

The problem with the NDP is that with the allegiance to labour, it can't support bringing in any new practices that may be more environmentally friendly in a given industry if the new procedures would lead to an increase of in efficiency and thus the possibility of job cuts.

"The problem with the NDP is that with the allegiance to labour, it can't support bringing in any new practices that may be more environmentally friendly in a given industry if the new procedures would lead to an increase of in efficiency and thus the possibility of job cuts." Environmentally freindly progams and policies MUST be coupled with reeducation programs. Just as the computer was destined to put everyone out of work (but didn't), so environmentally friendly practices stand at the same cross-roads. And telling a logger that he can be retrained to work part-time at some theme village for tourists just doesn't cut it. The "collateral damage" (real or imagined) is mainly what is holding back implementation.--- RickW