Tu Ingrate Vireta! Stabbing The Green Caesar
WHAT ARE THE GREENS telling us when they allow 29 people to overrule the wishes of 71 people? In essence, they are telling us that, in their political party, minorities count for more than majorities. Or, to put it more bluntly, the Greens are telling us they do not believe in democracy.
For those who look back fondly on the co-leadership of Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons, the Greens antipathy to democracy will be hard to accept. The Green Party they remember seemed very much a party of human rights and freedom, and its consensus-based decision-making process struck many as the epitome of political inclusiveness. Masking the fact that consensus-based decision-making actually disempowers people, stands among Rod’s and Jeanette’s most important contributions to the Green Party’s electoral viability.
How much harder it would have been for their party to crest the 5 percent threshold if Rod and Jeanette had openly repudiated traditional democratic decision-making processes. “We believe in allowing minorities to overrule majorities” is hardly an election-winning slogan!
The Greens’ anti-democratic instincts constitute one of the more important reasons why they have never allowed themselves to become a mass party with tens-of-thousands of members. And it’s odd, isn’t it, that they haven’t? When you think of the huge numbers of young people eager to do all they can to rescue the planet from disaster; or the scientists desperate to make themselves heard; or the workers keen to stop contributing to the despoilation of the natural environment; it’s astonishing that the Greens are not, far-and-away, New Zealand’s largest political party.
What is it, then, that leads the Greens to believe – like Lenin’s Bolsheviks – that “fewer, but better” is the way to go? The answer is brutally simple: a mass party, in which everyone has an equal say, and policy reflects the will of the majority; is a party whose ideological purity will very soon be compromised, and its political priorities side-tracked, by people with “unacceptable” ideas. Bluntly, Ecologism and Populism do not mix.
Those who join the Greens do not enter an open system, with simple, practical structures, but a strangely opaque organisation whose rules and rulers are hard to find and difficult to understand. It is a party of initiates who assess, rather than welcome, newcomers. How likely are they to measure-up to the ideological and procedural strictures of the Greens? Will they be disruptive? Will they challenge the party’s precepts? Are they racists, sexists, transphobes, and/or Islamophobes? Do they know what it means to be te Tiriti centric? Are they familiar with the jargon and buzz-words of the contemporary Left? What are their pronouns?
How many meetings will an ordinary person, keen to fight climate change, attend before people of indeterminate gender, with purple hair, talking menacingly of heteronormative privilege, convince them that it might be wiser, and more enjoyable, to be a Green Party member who “works from home”. One? Two? Assuming, of course, they don’t decide they’d be better off getting involved in some other – any other – political party?
Fewer, but better.
Even the saintly Jeanette Fitzsimons had her Leninist side. I well recall an old time ecologist, one of those who fought to “Save Manapouri”, approaching me with a bitter tale of intolerance and exclusion. Unconvinced by Catherine Delahunty’s interpretation of the te Tiriti o Waitangi and its meaning, this Green Party member had argued for a more nuanced Treaty policy. Fatal mistake. When he put his name forward for the Party List he was informed bluntly by Jeanette that his views on the Treaty made him unfit to carry the Green banner into an election. His name was not even allowed to go forward to be ranked by the members – lest a lifetime of contributions to environmental politics prompted too many of them to overlook his “racism”.
To be accepted into the body of the Green Church, one must be willing and able to recite its catechism word perfect – and without demur.
This is the critical political weakness of the Greens – their unwillingness to repose the ultimate determinative power of their movement in the collective judgement of their party’s members. In the inner sanctum of the Green temple burn four torches: Ecological Wisdom, Social Responsibility, Appropriate Decision-Making, and Non-Violence. Their sacred flames are tended by priests and priestesses whose manner of induction remains mysterious, but whose powers extend even to striking down a co-leader, should his dedication to the party’s guiding lights be deemed insufficient.
As James Shaw saved the Greens from themselves in 2017, they resented him. As he secured the Climate Change portfolio for his party, they suspected a trap. As he achieved cross-party support for crucial climate change legislation, they suspected an even bigger trap. And as he was white, and male, and straight, and admired by a clear majority of Green Party members – as well, unforgivably, as the Prime Minister herself – they slew him with 29 daggers.
And the 71 daggers, whose owners supported this Green Caesar, were powerless to defend him.
Because, whatever else the Greens may be – they are not democrats.
fascism
/ˈfæˌʃɪzəm/
noun
1
or Fascism : a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
Oh so like Trump or Key.
Poor Jamie Shaw, He will have to go.
Climate action is far too slow.
Chloe, Chloe, will you have a ago?
She says so carefully, no, no, no.
Jamie, Jamie, come back we love you so.
I don’t see having the minority empowered to have a reassessment is quite the same as minority rule. It means that a minority can call for a check on a leader’s performance but no one is expecting Shaw to loose his job by it.
This is unless he does need a complete consensus without decent to be re established even though there is no one who comes near to his support base within the party. Surely this could not be the case. It would be completely unworkable .
D J S
Excellent article Chris, thank you.
Yes, thank you Chris Trotter. The Green women extremists who hijacked the party are too much of an anathema for me to contemplate returning.
Snow White: “…too much of an anathema for me to contemplate returning.”
Agreed. I’m a former Green voter, but it’ll be a cold day in hell before I vote for them again.
I’ve never been a member of any political party – it’s too constraining of critique for my taste – but even so, I’d never now contemplate membership of the Greens. Were it the case that it was an actual environment party, I might possibly reconsider.
Ditto! Straight white male here and past Green voter here. It appears we’ve been run out of the party for similar reasons.
Same here, I would like to support a leftish true green party but the actions of the current greens have put me off voting for them again.
Matt: “Straight white male here and past Green voter here.”
A family member thinks that the Greens are trying to get rid of whites generally, a fortiori straight white blokes. From what I’ve seen, it certainly looks that way.
D’Esterre. I donated, and will never donate online to anything again. There’re times and places where I could be called to account for supporting charlatans with dubious agendas, so that’s another lesson learned.
Snow White: I can not now recall when I last donated to the Greens, but it certainly won’t happen ever again. Unless, of course, the Green party turns into an actual environmental party, leaving all the wokery and identity nonsense to other political parties.
On the other hand – and to my everlasting regret – I donated to LABOUR several years ago. Never again…. I had a bad feeling about it when Ardern took the leadership of the party. I should have listened more closely to my instincts.
D’Esterre I might be wrong, and don’t really care, but the divisive identity politics issues here in New Zealand seem to have been very much driven by the Greens – excluding, of course poor Mr Shaw, the epitome of what they hate most, a white cisgender male, an endangered species for whom I am developing a certain compassion and find less threatening than his screwball opposites still behaving like captains of the fourth form hockey team with bullying tongues in lieu of bullying sticks, and often total moronic cows – with due respect to the nourishing sacred bovines of India.
Ouch!
Spoken truly oh my Captain…
Your post misses something that has always struck me about the Green Party. It is overwhelmingly professional\managerial class: wealthy and casting disproportionately large carbon footprints and conflicted in achieving their green goals.
To me, they represent the problems of their class interests. To achieve anything meaningful there is a need for major structural change. Virtue signaling with electric cars and solar panels is little more than virtue signaling on the elite deck of the titanic with the hope of being at the front of the queue for the too- few life rafts.
Much of the so-called ‘woke’ posturing serves to distract from the major challenges of the crises we are facing. Challenges that your class, Chris, is unwilling to honestly confront. There are genuine problems with discrimination, especially with ever more limited resources. Elitism means it is easier to mess around with such posturing than to face the now pressing class battle that underlies it.
What used to be called middle-class hypocrisy is beginning to be starkly exposed as space on the elite decks is severely limited and the ship is clearly going down.
An interesting charge WN.
If by “my class” you mean the NZ middle class, I would plead “Not Guilty”. We are no longer even close to the people in charge.
And if you are referring to members of the Professional & Managerial Class born after the mid-1960s, then, once again – “Not Guilty”.
The old NZ middle class (The Baby Boom generation) has enormous difficulty understanding and relating to the ideas of the PMC/Gen-X. But, as already noted, we are no longer in a position to do much more than draw people’s attention to their excesses.
Hmmm, I’ve been a Green Party member and can’t say I recognise Chris’s assessment of the Party.
And what’s with the snide dig at purple hair? Mine is “platinum blonde” *ahem*… but never felt ostracised for it.
I concur with his sentiment that James Shaw’s ousting was bizarre and anti democratic but I think he could have phrased it in less lurid language.
To put it in his lingo, “the comrade is in error”.
Hmmm, I’ve been a Green Party member and can’t say I recognise Chris’s assessment of the Party.
And what’s with the snide dig at purple hair? Mine is “platinum blonde” *ahem*… but never felt ostracised for it.
I concur with his sentiment that James Shaw’s ousting was bizarre and anti democratic but I think he could have phrased it in less lurid language.
To put it in his lingo, “the comrade is in error”.
I realized how supportive the Greens were of “minorities must rule, because we know best” because of the gender self id Bill. The Greens tried to introduce it by stealth in 2018 on the back of a very mundane bill about computerising Births, Deaths and Marriages info. One of the Green party members got wind of it and spoke up on their newsletter, (I think it was). Her piece was cancelled.
The Greens or Labour added the section about gender self id after submissions on the BMDRR had closed (this was in 2018). Labour had not campaigned on these issues. So these “we know best” sneaky people who are paid to represent us, felt entitled to sneak through this legislation without wide spread consultation. We have Tracey Martin to thank (as Minsiter of Internal Affairs pushed the pause button on this legislation)
But after the 2020 election, Labour (who did not campaign for self id ) the Greens put the bill forth again depsite having a Vote Compass poll show the majority were not for this change.
The select commitee process was a farce with Dr Elizabeth Kerekere and Labour women, being quite aggressive towards presenters who did not support the bill, accusing them of transphobia and dismissing their concerns. To see these women who are supposedly intelligent, expose themselves as captured by gender ideology, with its dubious origins and anti science stance really made me feel it was impossible to trust these politicians. It was like being the little boy watching the parade in the Emperors New Clothes.
In the early stage of this change a group called SUFW was formed to raise concerns about the bill. The allies to this legislation have acted like real fascists, shutting their meetings down, ensuring their adds were cancelled and vilifying these women (who are mostly left wing feminists)
Watching this happen has lead to a profound change in my political outlook. I think the Greens (and to a large extent Labour )are ideologically driven and failure to comply with the doctrine will lead to cancellation and accusations of transphobia, racism, sexism, cis heteronormative privledge blah blah blah.
I was hoping Dr Elizabeth Kerekere would be elected as leader, because she would likely show the party up for what it is.
Agree
It’s just like National Supporters to want every other party to run through leaders like there’s no tomorrow. Good try though. Jedi Mind tricks don’t work in this place the way you think.
Haven’t you ever wondered why force users don’t just force pull lightsabers out of each other’s hands or switch them off?
And no. I don’t want to tell you how I know these things. Sorry 🙂
“Masking the fact that consensus-based decision-making actually disempowers people, stands among Rod’s and Jeanette’s most important contributions”
Chris, I am a bit confused by your statement above – was it sarcasm or are you arguing against democracy?
Closer inspection of the consensus approach reveals deep problems and shows that it is prone to a process of collectivism before honest individual thought and full discussion.
Norman Rockwell showed in his famous picture in the Saturday Evening Post how someone who doesn’t agree with everyone else can feel pressured. The one jury person is holding out and keeping all the others from their normal jobs. And is being persuaded, begged, harangued.
Look up on google with keywords ‘rockwells the jury hold out picture’
I’ve always felt that that the greens are really red woke warriors who are squatting on the green name. I wonder how well they’d do if they couldn’t use that title. Not so well I think. It’s unfortunate to be honest as I’d like to be able to vote for a true Green Party but I can’t bring myself to vote for this mob.