Bill Shireman, a well-known writer and speaker about the environment, on business, and on the future, has this interesting and original commentary on the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, posted at the Huffington Post.
Bill Shireman, a well-known writer and speaker about the environment, on business, and on the future, has this interesting and original commentary on the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, posted at the Huffington Post.
OK. I read Mr. Shireman’s piece three times. He contends the present government is bankrupt. He contends the Greens and Libertarians SHOULD see a common ground. He advises both to shed the “ideological rigidity, which prevents them from gaining the power they claim to seek.” He seems to want some kind of coalition of Greens and Libertarians governing in some vague consensus.
I would suggest to Mr. Shireman that the ideological rigidity he deplores should best be resolved by letting the people decide in fair, free elections just what mix of ideologies they want. But that is not possible because the present regime governs by force and deception to prevent peaceful political persuasion to resolve ideology by the periodic triumph of individual choice at the ballot box. Ballot access control and other institutional restraints prevent alternative candidates taking their ideological ‘rigidities’ to the people.
Perhaps, Mr. Shireman would show us how a coalition government of Greens and Libertarians can be elected without a revolutionary change in the electoral system. I’m waiting to hear about it. Until that solution is forthcoming, the rest is mere rhetorical saber rattling.
This guy sounds Robert Milnes and his ridiculous “Progressive/Libertarian Alliance” nonsense.
I think such an alliance would be toxic. I don’t think you can have libertarians, or people of an anti-statist mindset would share power with private property abolitionists.
I think the meta-concept makes sense. But it doesn’t seem like Shireman really understands anything about where the Green Party really is from a policy perspective. I don’t hold this against them – it’s not like we’ve done a very good job of articulating where we’re at.
The best way to think about how Greens and Libertarians could interact is in terms of how people _think_ that Democrats and Republicans “could” interact or maybe “used to” interact, but taking it a step farther, and putting that in the context of a multi-party democracy. Not an “alliance” per se. But, you know, _governing together_.
Thank you Phil, that’s pretty close to my take. As a member of both parties, I did like very much how Shireman explains the similarities, which mirrors my standard line that to a very large degree we are talking about the same things, just using different language and citing different examples. When we were both party Chairs here in NC, Elena Everett and I had a couple joint appearances which made me proud for exactly the reason you state: we exemplified true bipartisanship and showed people can remain civil and respectful while debating the ideas, because it’s all about serving the people.
I did find the article annoying in some ways – he seems to want us to both sell out our principles for practical politics. On the other hand, he is right that we do have to come up with real world solutions to effectively govern. Principles are good but pie-in-the-sky won’t cut it. Fortunately, where Greens and Libertarians have won elections, we’ve been fortunate to elect some very good people who do a fantastic job, play nice with others, and over time are successful in moving public policy their way.
If we did have a multi-party system, you might see a caucus of civil libertarians that would include Greens and Libertarians. The two parties do share a strong drug reform and gay rights platform.
In Virginia, as I suspect in many other conservative states, the Independent Greens and Libertians work together often. Indy Greense have endorsed, supported and worked with their candidates, as they have Indy Greens, and in some cases Green Party candidates.
It is a positive and constructive working relationship based on common sense, common ground, and shared values.
Shireman’s article is appreciated.