The Greens and the Pursuit of Ideology

In basing a political party on a set of political ideologies, the Greens are not unique. It is true that many of our choices of political parties have, deep in their foundations, an ideology which molds and shapes their approach to policy and power. 

Quite aptly, Wikipedia includes in its explanation of political ideologies, among other things, doctrines and myths. Quite apt because this is largely what sets the Greens apart from other mainstream political parties.

The other aspect that sets them apart is their dogged and unwavering pursuit of these ideologies, so unwavering we could quite accurately describe their approach as utopian - from their perspective at least this is the case.

 The birth of the Greens was quite noble; deep in the Tasmanian wilderness a few brave men and women fought hard for the environment, in this regard they weren't too dissimilar to the hunters that fought hard to save the Macquarie Marshes and other wetlands in NSW in the face of the threat of drainage for agriculture. It is a great shame that these die-hard environmentalists, while not perfect, have seen their party overrun with modern extreme leftards whose heads are airily found in a utopian ideal. They cannot compromise, they cannot foresee the impact of their agendas and most of all, they are so far entrenched in a dogmatic ideology that they represent the greatest threat to the freedoms of the Australian people.

The problem with this dogma is that it often sees the sacrifice of pragmatism and compromise in the pursuit of solutions and the shaping of policy.

For example take the very first attempt at an emissions trading scheme in Australia, the Rudd Governments Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) in 2008. From the outset, because it didn't meet the utopian ideals of the Greens, they rejected it. Despite it being a big step forward in Australian energy policy and its response to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the Greens rejected it and called for even more ambitious targets.

Because of their pursuit of the ideal position, it was four years before a new scheme was introduced and in actual fact there was bugger all difference, in terms of achievements to tackle AGW. This was four years the slightly less ideal scheme could have been in force, stoking R&D in renewable and clean energy. It is highly unlikely that the Greens resistance to the CPRS gained anything for the environment and almost entirely certain that it cost.

A more recent example has been the abolition of the Game Council and the suspension of hunting in State Forests in NSW.

The Greens have made it no secret that they wanted the figurative head of the Game Council on one of the iron spikes on Macquarie Street. They have been nothing short of continuous in their hounding of the Game Council and volunteer recreational and conservation hunters since its inception in 2006. With the news of the decision to abolish the Game Council and suspend hunting in all State Forests braking, the Greens were practically orgasmic in receiving and retransmitting the news with slogans such as "We did it! Game Council abolished".

Now I'm not about to suggest that hunting should be celebrated by everyone; far from it for me to tell others how to think, how to source their meat or how to contribute to the conservation movement - I'll leave that to the Greens - but what I do expect is that while ever my own pursuits are conducted within the law and are not impacting detrimentally on others, I will not be vilified for it. However, the unrelenting and dogged pursuit of volunteer conservation and recreational hunters by the Greens and their followers, in the name of environmental ideology, has been the exact opposite.

Their campaign was so hysterical and so venomous they whipped up vicious, vilifying antics by their sheeple (people exhibiting the characteristics of sheep i.e. they follow without question). There were instances of graffiti on prominent hunters' private property, hate mail and derogatory, almost defamatory material spread across the internet.

All of this behaviour aside, where the Greens have spectacularly failed is in addressing the actual problem. And at that, it is an issue that plagues their flagship cause: conservation and the environment.

Because of their ideological pursuit of hunters and the Game Council, 400 State Forests are now with absolutely no strategy or means for the control of feral animals and the management of their increased impact on the indigenous biodiversity.

State Forests have, for almost seven years, enjoyed an annual economic benefit of $2.4m from restricted licence (r-licence) hunters. The recent Public Benefit Assessment has outlined the contribution r-licence hunters have made to the control of feral animals on State Forest land. In fact, such was the impact of our collective achievements, Forests NSW had virtually eliminated their budget for feral animal control across the lands for which they were responsible.

Now though, because of the Greens ideological pursuit of hunters, there is an enormous vacuum, potentially in the order of 21,000 feral animals annually. Their impact on our indigenous flora and fauna remains to be seen, but we can reasonably expect that it will be quite marked with the passing of time.

What is quite troubling however is the alternative should hunting in State Forests not resume at the same levels of efficiency as in the days of the Game Council.

The Greens have already made murmurs about deer being listed as pests, paving the way for the use of aerial baiting with 1080 poison; a similar path to that followed by NZ and no doubt a similar ecological blitzkrieg awaits us.

And finally a rather bizarre example is one where the Greens position actually flies in the face of the historical ideology of the left-wing, that is the position that supports social-equality in the face of unjust disadvantage.

So venomous and all-consuming is their hatred of hunting, farming and fishing, they are prepared to sever the public from these interests - in effect they aim to remove society's ability to feed itself should we ever suffer a food crises.

And should we ever face a food crises, who will be the first to suffer? Whose children will be the first to go hungry? It will be the disadvantaged among us that will not have any means to harvest their own food from the water or the land. They will be slaves to higher food prices and they will suffer as a direct result of those who are supposed to champion their plight.

But it gets worse - and this is where their ideology creates hypocrites of them - their pursuit for organic, free-range (note, not true free-range, but farmed free-range) and generally less intense farming, if successful, will guarantee that food prices will increase and there is absolutely no question that the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society will suffer the most.

All in the name of a utopian ideal.