The touch stone to good policy is using a valid yard stick.
The environment is not an issue, there are many scientists who are using what is existing as a yard stick to judge the best directions to take to obtain viable solutions to the many issues we as humanity face in the coming years on all levels of government and the world.
The Green Party members believe that many issues sprouting from the changes we humans have effected on the environment and noted by these scientists are valid and must be acted on at all levels of government within Canada and the world.
Rising levels of carbon dioxide is an issue, wild fires due to climate change are an issue, each way a person or group is effecting the environment is an issue.
We as humans have been told and assume the environment can take care of everything and that we could never change the environment enough to make it unlivable by our activities, we are, and that is why there is a green party.
- Adrian De Jong's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
I agree with your point, but be careful of your framing
Sorry to be analytical about your post, as I agree with the point you are making. The problem, as I see it, is that communication actually accomplishes the opposite of what you want. Here's why.
"Framing" is the art of laying out the playing field within which discussion occurs. Successful political parties, and the Conservatives in particular, are extremely good at selecting the frames for issues in such a way that anyone disagreeing with the point of view is disadvantaged in the discussion. There are some excellent examples of framing and how to use it on the internet, or in books such as "Don't Think of an Elephant", by George Lakoff.
"One issue party", or "Single issue party" is a frame. As soon as you say, "we are not a one issue party", the reader associates you with one issue party. It is like the word "not" is missing from the sentence. They unconsciously assume that we must have to justify this because there is some truth to the position.
In order to change the communication, you have to change the language. Expunge the dreaded OIP or SIP phrases from your vocabulary. Talk instead about extensive policy coverage, a platform to cover all aspects of Canadian society, comprehensive interlocking policy directions, etc., anything but the frame you want to avoid.
In fact, the title of this blog post, "Have Greens ever been a OIP?" simply shouts the wrong message to anyone new coming here. I challenge you to edit the title of your blog to emphasize what you really want to emphasize. (This is, of course, a friendly challenge ;-)
Jim Johnston,
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
Opinions expressed are my own.
Jim thank you
Is the above better to what I am trying to communicate?
Much better, thanks!
Well done. You're getting the hang of this!
I found that avoiding negative frames and creating new ones is like learning to speak all over again. It is not easy, and that speaks to the intrinsic power of the concept.
Jim Johnston,
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
Opinions expressed are my own.