The Green party’s awful politics
Last week, ahead of the Green party’s just-concluded policy convention in Ottawa, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May spoke of the costs and sacrifices of political life. “I love being a member of Parliament. I don’t love politics. I don’t love being leader of the Green party,” she confessed. “It is not really something I’d recommend to a good friend. It’s not fun. Politics is awful.”
Canadians have earned the right to be cynical about their politicians. And voters can also be forgiven a certain degree of skepticism regarding May herself, given her very public history of odd comments and behaviour. But on this matter, the Green leader — and sole member of Parliament — is absolutely right. No one should question her commitment to her constituents, or her dedication to duty. She is, if nothing else, earnest and hardworking. And no one who has seen what a life in politics looks like up close could quibble with her description of it. Politics, and especially a life inside of it, is awful.
In speaking with media outlets over the weekend, May was clear that she’d step down as leader if the right successor came along. Whatever thoughts about her post- leadership future may have been percolating in May’s brain (aided by the WiFi energy passing through it, no doubt), they must stand in sharper relief in the aftermath of the convention. In explicit defiance of her wishes, the party has set itself on a new, damaging course, which she will be expected to defend. Who needs that?
Specifically, t he party voted to endorse the odious BDS movement. BDS stands for Boycott, Divest and Sanction. The target, of course, is the State of Israel, which BDS backers hope will face the same kind of economic, political and moral isolation that South Africa endured during the waning days of apartheid. There are varying degrees of commitment to the BDS cause. Some adherents would be satisfied boycotting military technology, government conferences and commercial products manufactured on contested land. Others are more ideologically pure in their Israel hatred, and want the isolation to be total, extended to cultural and academic ties, as well. Many — too many — are simply rebranded anti- Semites, cloaking their hatred of Jews and the Jewish state under the more palatable euphemisms of economic leverage and political persuasion.
Whatever the flavour of BDS in question, the Green party has now signed up, at least in principle. The party has become the first Canadian federal party to endorse the movement, although 42 New Democrats voted against a motion in February condemning the BDS, which passed by an overwhelming vote. Green members adopted a resolution that read, in part, that the Green party “supports the use of divestment, boycott and sanctions … that are targeted to those sectors of Israel’s economy and society which profit from the ongoing occupation of ” Palestinian territory.
May, to her credit, made clear her opposition, repeatedly and publicly, before the vote. The grassroots adopted it anyway, claiming to have acted in the name of social justice. It’s the same- old, same- old — Israel’s policies, enacted out of urgent military necessity after generations of unceasing attacks, are treated as provocation, whereas the violence committed against Israeli citizens is dismissed as an unfortunate but logical reaction to Zionism and imperialism and the like. It’s rubbish, of course, and Canada’s two largest federal parties, to their credit, see it as such. The Greens, alas, do not.
Their apparent determination to single themselves out is unlikely to help their already poor electoral prospects. But it must be particularly galling for May, the party’s only candidate popular enough to secure election. To be publicly rejected on a matter as important as this is more than just personally upsetting, though no doubt it is that. It is also a tangible and clear sign from the grassroots that electability and credibility, the goals May has sought as hard as she has the protection of our environment, simply don’t matter to the bulk of her party. They view the party as a means to send a message, not to wield real power.
Fair enough. That’s a position the party is cert ainly welcome to t ake. But for May, the message is clear: politics is awful. And the Greens won’t be making it less awful anytime soon. Should she decide to let someone else take over as leader of this mess, who could blame her?
THEY VIEW THE PARTY AS A MEANS TO SEND A MESSAGE.