Pie Palace

There’s a big difference between being an activist and being a politician. An activist can say what they want, when they want. As long as their donors don’t yank the funding, they’re good to go. A politician walks a much finer line: they have to attract more voters than any other politician.

Which is precisely why I disagree with Elizabeth May‘s brother when he says

I find it odd that telling the truth is “Bush bashing”. Is criticism of Hitler, “Hitler bashing”? … The sooner we speak the truth the better. Funny it turns some off.

The “truth” that Mr. May is talking about is Elizabeth May’s allegation that Governer Jeb Bush threw the 2000 US presidential election in Dubya’s favour (which is plausible, but that’s neither here nor there). But truth doesn’t matter here. What matters is perception.

Dissing Bush does a bunch of things:

• it alienates people who think that a potential Prime Minister should have a certain level of decorum,
  
• it makes the disser look like the standard mud-slinging politician,
  
• it clouds the broader issue.

A potential leader for the Green Party shouldn’t fall into any of those traps. The original complaint of Bush bashing came from Darrell, who is pretty much the target vote for the Green Party: he’s a mainstream guy who is concerned enough about the environment that he recycles, and minimizes his energy consumption, but is also concerned about other issues like health care, the economy, and all of the stuff that the Green Party doesn’t usually play to. He’s interested enough in the Green Party to follow them during elections, and look into the platform. He is exactly the kind of voter the Green Party should not be alienating with off-the-cuff remarks.¹

The Green Party tries to make a big deal about how we’re somehow different. That we don’t treat politics in the same partisan manner as other parties. David Chernushenko is a great example of that: he doesn’t sneer, instead he makes his point in the positive, saying “We need X, Y, and Z”; not “Those nasty Foobars! They’re stopping X, Y, and Z.” That won him a lot of support during the last election. During every All Candidates Debate, he won over lots of voters precisely by taking the high road.

Looking at it more pragmatically, think about what would happen if the leader of the Green Party said “Due to the terrible energy policies of the past, and the current Conservative government, we aren’t going to get the childcare deal we need, which is stronger legislation to ensure that working parents have more flexible work hours and on the job day cares”. In our era of soundbites, that solution would be dropped, in favour of “Due to the Conservative government, we aren’t going to get the childcare we need”. Which misses the point entirely.

The Green Party can’t afford to alienate any portion of the population, especially not folks like Darrell. I’ve never seen Elizabeth May speak, nor have I read any of her writing other than her blog, so I don’t know if this is her normal state. I hope that she is only this frank when speaking candidly, and that she puts on a more pragmatic face when she’s in public.

1. I have absolutely no problem if we alienate people with good policy, I do have a problem if we alienate people just because we don’t take the time to know our audience. (back)