Tuesday, November 5, 2019

it's not clear, in the end, if people are going to interpret her as a force that built a movement or as a force that slowed one down. her numbers in the most recent election were not that different than the ones in 2008.

she did, however, get into parliament. and, her party has elected two more representatives, since.

i may have been more likely to vote green in this election if it meant voting for a different leader. but, a vote for the greens in this riding wouldn't have helped anybody much, except the ndp, who won anyway.

this opens up a struggle for the future of the party, and it's one i may find myself rather interested in - my vote is that the party moves in a direction of secular liberalism/humanism and really stresses the importance of science as a policy making tool, thereby distancing itself from the "progressive", aka the religious, left.

if the greens are to set up a clear division between themselves and the ndp, that should be the point. yes, the greens are actually serious about the climate, and the ndp aren't. but, that stems from a fundamentally different epistemology. the ndp are a part of the religious left, with historical ties in the prairie gospel and a fundamentalist sikh at the helm, today - that is their identity, it is who they are. i want an actual socialist party that roots itself in the enlightenment and the revolutions in france and spain (both failed.), and belongs strictly to the secular left, and if i have a hand in building something, that's what i'll want to be building - not a party with "progressive" values that comes out of the traditions of the christian left.