[pp.int.general] Greens saying Pirate Parties unnecessary
cabalamat at googlemail.com
Wed Sep 16 15:20:20 CEST 2009
2009/9/16 Eric Priezkalns <eric.priezkalns at pirateparty.org.uk>:
> I don't think it will be the most important argument when stated directly to
> voters, but I think we do have a basic philosophical conflict with how the
> Green parties have tried to influence politics. The Pirate parties are not
> trying to provide a full spectrum of policies. We may get criticism for
> arguing for a narrow platform of change, but I think it can be appealing to
> stay narrow.
I agree, although I'd probably express it differently. I'd say that
whatever policies we have outside our core areas are giving a reason
for people not to vote for us. So if we have lots of non-core
policies, we're giving people lots of reasons not to vote for us.
Having said that, I do think pirate parties should cautiously look at
policies outside our core areas: Piratism is an ideology caused by the
information age, and since we are now in the transition from an
industrial society to an information society, it's worth asking what
economic, social, and political issues will be raised by this
transition, and as a consequence what policies pirate parties should
advocate to deal with those issues. If pirate parties did so, it would
be in keeping with our core narrative, and would help to win over
voters who complain “the Pirate Party are just a single-issue party.
Sure I care about file sharing and all that, but there are lots of
other issues I care about, and the Pirate Party seem to be quiet on
them, so I'll vote for someone else.”
> It allows us to reach out to disaffected voters who are
> cynical about the arrogance of traditional career politicians who claim to
> have answers to every single problem. In contrast, the Greens do offer a
> full spectrum of policies - without having done the research or accessed the
> expertise to make many of those policies credible.
Indeed, some Green parties have very silly policies, see for example
Many greens have anti-science and anti-technology prejudices. OTOH,
many Pirates use technology (particularly computer technology) in
their everyday lives and have a favourable emotionable response to it.
> Except the Greens are worse, because they
> can make promises without ever worrying about how to satisfy them. And that
> is how I interpret the Green party stance on pirate issues - yet another
> promise that they need not take seriously because all that really matters is
> picking up some extra votes.
It is partly that. As pirates get more support, we can be sure that
other parties will steal some of our policies. That's fine, it's a
symptom of our success. But they'll say they support these policies,
not for pincipled reasons, but because they'll think it sounds good.
We need to explain to voters that if they care about pirate policies
they should vote for the real thing, not some pale imitation, because
(1) we really care about these policies, other parties would be happy
to negotiate them away in coalition talks, and (2) other parties will
look at how many votes PP got, and use that to assess the strength of
public feeling on our issues; for example, if voters vote green
instead of pirate because the greens have some pirate policies, other
parties would come to the erroneous conclusion that they should lsant
more towards green policies than pirate policies.
> Perhaps the world needs to cut carbon emissions more
> aggressively. Pirates all believe it needs IP reform. Wouldn't an honest
> politician say the obvious - that there is no genuine philosophical or
> political connection between the two issues? Wouldn't it be honest to say
> you can support one without supporting the other?
Philip Hunt, <cabalamat at googlemail.com>
Campaigns Officer / Press Officer, Pirate Party UK
More information about the pp.international.general