|
|
|
|
|
|
by brazzy
5181 days ago
|
|
|
Claiming that the Greens achieved nothing is rather ridiculous. They achieved a lot of things (most importantly that protecting the environment has become an issue none of the other parties can simply ignore). That they did not achieve everything they wanted at some point is the nature of democracy (and reality). It's true that the Pirate Party is right now getting attention and votes through hype and protest voters, and that they choose their stances based on ideals rather than realism. They'll have all kinds of problems when these things change (as they will have to). But the Greens are a perfect example for a new party that pulled through all this and became firmly established because their core issue is important enough. |
|
|
It sounds you are with the Greens from your statement (Disclaimer 2: I voted for them in the years before).
Saying that the Pirates are basing their stances on idealistic views might be fine. Using that as a contrast to a party that more or less embodied idealistic (and sometimes unrealistic) positions for as long as I followed their way seems awkward to me.
Yes, the Greens matured. I .. think one of the reasons is that there's a generational gap now. Around me, Greens are represented by people in their 40s-50s that - while still believing in the core environmental values - gave up a little and made peace with a more realistic (as you put it) stance.
The Pirates, for me, are what the Greens probably (wasn't there, in my early 30s here) were for my parents generation..
My bottom line: I agree that the Greens are/were important. But it doesn't make sense to ignore the similarities in 'idealism', the youth factor etc. - the Pirates are what the Greens couldn't be. It's a failure of the Greens that they couldn't capture the young generation. In spirit they are similar. In practice, the Greens grew up. Became mature, parents (or grand parents) and (Disclaimer 3: obviously this whole piece is one big opinionated mess) old and boring.