Greens unite - but why and what for?

The Greens have finally united.

Hoping to be more than a group of one-issue lobbyists, the environmental-based party is now organizing in an attempt to gain seats in the EU Parliament, obviously with the eventual intention of gaining seats in nation-state governments around Europe. Currently they only have representation in Germany.

My questions is this : a single-issue party has a natural niche to gain the recognition of those who agree on that one issue - but what are their stances going to be on other issues? Just how are the Greens going to differentiate themselves from the Liberal Democrats and establishes far-left parties already entrenched in local governments?

The Green party had some success with Ralph Nader over here because there are no alternatives to the Democratic Party, which plays the role of Labour over here. Those who find the D's too moderate have a myriad of adhoc choises from the Greens to the politically-lost Reform party to socialist parties that know how to get a name on a ballot even if they are likely to receive less than a 1,000 votes nationwide.

Yet with Parliamentary systems providing the opportunity for multiple-party representation, there are already far-left-wing parties such as the aforementioned Liberal Democrats. They are entrenched, they are represented, and in general they carry out the same views as the Greens, if not as ferverent on the single issue.

The economy - i.e. patterns of consumption and production - must be adapted to the tolerance of the natural environment. (http://www.europeangreens.org/info/principles.html). That's great in principle, but how exactly is this going to be put forth in policy? How can this be done in an electable way (namely, you can't just ban cars because you'll never get elected that way. In order to accomplish a goal like that in an electable way, a plan of action which phases out combustion engines and benefits the economy at the same time must be adopted and enacted.)

And beyond the environment, what are the Green's policies?

Forgive me, I fail to see what difference they make between themselves nad Liberal Democrats as I am going to assume they have the same viewpoints regarding taxation, education, and other governance issues being that the Green Party draws heavily from the far-left. Since I cannot find any issue other than directly-environmental-related, the party seems to shallow to me to have any viability as a governmental influence.

Can anyone from the other side of the pond who has a deeprer insight to this situation enlighten me?

Thanks.

Firstly, the Greens also have representation in the Scottish Parliament. They're useless, middle-class with no agenda, but they got 7 people elected.
I don't know the position in the US so well, but there seems to be 2 distinctly different sorts of Green party in Europe. There are those who will work with the Socialist left (and others) and build alliances and take on social issues, like in Germany. There are also those who have a much more middle-class agenda, who're only interested in safe issues like recycling and the like.
For example, Robin Harper, the leader of the Scottish Greens, recently 'discovered' poverty on a trip to India. His party then came out with all sorts of nonsense about what could/should be done about it. Sickening really.
Is Nader standing for the Greens again or just as an independant? From what I read, he'll not do well this time, as the left Democrats will unite around an 'anyone but Bush' candidate.

Originally posted by stammer
The Greens have finally united.

Hoping to be more than a group of one-issue lobbyists, the environmental-based party is now organizing in an attempt to gain seats in the EU Parliament, obviously with the eventual intention of gaining sea ...[text shortened]... o has a deeprer insight to this situation enlighten me?

Thanks.

It also would be interesting to know whether they are advocates of the "person" concept for animals and humans as it is expressed by philosophers and the consequenses of this for society.
.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

It also would be interesting to know whether they are advocates of the "person" concept for animals and humans as it is expressed by philosophers and the consequenses of this for society.
.

Originally posted by Redmike
While many supporters of the Greens are into issues about animal welfare, and many may be vegetarians or vegans, I don't know about this idea of a 'person concept for animals'. Is this about giving cats the vote?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You'll be surprised what this is all about. I'll be posting on this in the future .... heavy stuff !

In short: According to postmodern (?) or maybe post-postmodern philosophers, some animals also hold rights as persons, the same way humans hold rights as persons. A person is "someone" who has the capacities to suffer, for awareness and of rationality. I hope I remember it correctly, I'm not a philosopher.

Hey stammer,

I think maybe the point isn't so much that the greens are a political movement. They, in conjuction with the vegans, punks, goths and anachists just seem to have a giant need that isn't being met by contemporary civilization. To that end, what we are seeing is not really a political movement, but a "spiritual" movement to try and have that "itch" scratched. For this reason, I have referred to this whole phenomenon as the new "Green Religion" and have snidely commented that at least we have to wait for thirteen hundred years for their "inquisitional" phase to present itself to us.

Why would I consider this great movement a religion? Because it is based on mysticism and "feelings". Because it moves many people to great passion. That is religion. Let's give it a few hundred years to decide what it will be. It took Christianity that long to develop a set of dogma. It took Islam five hundred years. Buddhism took several hundred and on down the line. Each new religion takes a while to develop.

Mike