Thursday 15 February 2024

Shrugging-Off The Atlas Network.

Upholding The Status-Quo: The Left’s election defeat is not the work of the Atlas Network. It is not even the work of David Seymour and Act. It is the work of ordinary citizens who liked the Right’s stories better than they liked the Left’s. If the Right’s stories were made more convincing by a sympathetic think tank, then the Left should not be getting mad at their opponent’s effective apparatus, it should be getting mad at itself for not having one of its own.

THE ATLAS NETWORK has been trending lately – in the minds of the New Zealand Left. Devastated by the election result, and further demoralised by recent polling showing the Right increasing its grip on New Zealanders’ political imagination, the Atlas Network has provided the Left with what it most needs – an explanation for its failure.

It is important to state at the very start that the Atlas Network is not the Left equivalent of Q-Anon. It is a real organisation, founded in 1981, by Antony Fisher (1915-1988) devotee of the fanatical anti-collectivist, F.A. Hayek (1899-1992) and a tireless proponent of the monetarist and free-market ideas that ultimately found practical political expression in the government of Margaret Thatcher and the administration of Ronald Reagan.

Fisher’s objective in forming the Atlas Network was to encourage like-minded individuals and groups to do as he had done nearly thirty years earlier: set up “think tanks” dedicated to advancing free-market ideology. His own creation, the Institute of Economic Affairs, was founded in 1955 and played an important role in formulating what would become Thatcher’s economic programme. But, just as Che Guevara wanted “one, two, many Vietnams”, Fisher wanted one, two, many right-wing think tanks. He had witnessed at first-hand what could be achieved by a handful of people “thinking the unthinkable”. The more there were of these ideological handfuls, the faster the “New Right’s” ideas would spread.

None of this information is new, Fisher’s exploits are documented comprehensively in Richard Cockett’s book, “Thinking The Unthinkable: Think-tanks and the Economic Counter-revolution, 1931-83”, published in 1995.

Paying close attention to who is influencing whom behind the scenes is, however, something activists on the New Zealand Left engage in only intermittently. There was a brief flurry of left-wing journalists twitching back the curtains in the late-1980s. They were motivated, mainly, by the dramatic emergence of the Business Roundtable as the New Zealand free marketeers’ ideological powerhouse.

The fact that Roger Douglas, father of New Zealand’s neoliberal revolution, was a member of Hayek’s high altitude think tank, the “Mont Pelerin Society”, prompted even more left-wing interest in the influence of think tanks on New Zealand’s political life.

With the election of the Labour-Alliance coalition government in 1999, however, the power of the Business Roundtable began to wane, leading to a corresponding falling-off of interest in venturing behind-the-scenes by left-wing journalists. This decline was compounded by the death of the Left’s principal keeper-of-tabs on the machinations of the business-backed Right, the editor, author and journalist, Bruce Jesson (1944-1999).

The death of the Business Roundtable’s indefatigable Executive Director, Roger Kerr (1945-2011) was similarly demoralising for the Right. In 2012, having already merged with the New Zealand Institute, the Business Roundtable became a new, much sunnier, think tank, the New Zealand Initiative. Led by the ebullient Oliver Hartwich, the New Zealand Initiative has carefully avoided acquiring the sinister reputation of its big-business-backed predecessor.

Growing alongside the Business Roundtable for most of the 1990s was what began as the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers (ACT). Founded in 1993 by Roger Douglas, the former National cabinet minister, Derek Quigley, and multi-millionaire, Craig Heatly, ACT was to serve as a vehicle for those classical liberal ideas no longer deemed acceptable by either Labour or National. In 1994, a year after New Zealand’s adoption of the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system, ACT became the Act Party. In the first MMP general election (1996) Act (now led by Douglas’s former henchman, Richard Prebble) secured 6.1 percent of the Party Vote.

The question being asked by left-wing journalists in 2024 is whether or not the Act Party has always been associated with right-wing organisations like the Atlas Network. Or, is the Network’s sole link with Act its present leader, David Seymour, who, prior to entering Parliament, was employed by two conservative Canadian think tanks, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the Manning Foundation, both of which were, at one time or another, members of the Atlas Network.

Neither of these questions make much sense.

To begin with, the Atlas Network has never made any secret of its existence (even if, after years of left-wing attention, it now keeps its membership list secret. It was not illegal to set up such an organisation in 1981, and it is not illegal now. Think tanks, and organisations dedicated to facilitating the establishment of think tanks, have been a feature of the global political landscape for decades – and that is as true of the Left as it is of the Right.

Indeed, the rise of right-wing think tanks in the 1970s and 80s was a direct response to what their big-business backers (including, entirely unsurprisingly, big oil and big tobacco) saw as the near conquest of their capitalist societies by left-wing ideas and left-leaning institutions.

The free-market fightback, pioneered by think tanks like Fisher’s Institute of Economic Affairs, represented UK and US capitalists’ last-ditch defence of their profits and power. They had witnessed the trade unions bring down a British government in 1973, and the liberal press force the resignation of an American president in 1974. These unprecedented defeats had struck them as harbingers of doom – their doom.

That the Right was smart enough to realise that the battle for the hearts and minds of voters living in democratic states would be a battle of ideas – ideas that those same voters could believe in and be inspired by – and against which the Left, still mired in the demonstrably inadequate economic doctrines of the past, could offer nothing remotely competitive, was hardly the Right’s fault.

Nor is it fair to blame a young man, inspired by the libertarian and free-market doctrines of the right-wing counter-revolution of the 1980s and 90s, for accepting offers of employment from conservative Canadian think tanks. Where else was he supposed to go looking for a “political” job – the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions? Greenpeace?

It is highly instructive that left-wing politicians with CVs that show them working for “progressive” organisations, NGOs, and yes, even left-wing think tanks with links to billionaire donors, are not portrayed as evil-doers by the mainstream media. Having a background in the trade unions, student organisations, environmental groups, etc, is seen as perfectly natural. Where else are left-wingers going to learn their trade? Exxon? British & American Tobacco? Pfizer?

David Seymour’s links to the Atlas Network do not make him a villain. Working for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy is not the same as working for Hamas. Morally-speaking, is taking money from oil companies really all that distinguishable from giving money to oil companies every time we fill up our petrol tank? Getting from A to B; winning the battle of ideas; the Devil clips our tickets either way.

The Left’s election defeat is not the work of the Atlas Network. It is not even the work of David Seymour and Act. It is the work of ordinary citizens who liked the Right’s stories better than they liked the Left’s. If the Right’s stories were made more convincing by a sympathetic think tank, or two, then the Left should not be getting mad at their opponent’s effective apparatus, it should be getting mad at itself for not having one of its own.


This essay was originally posted on The Democracy Project of Monday, 12 February 2024.

10 comments:

DS said...

Morally-speaking, is taking money from oil companies really all that distinguishable from giving money to oil companies every time we fill up our petrol tank? Getting from A to B; winning the battle of ideas; the Devil clips our tickets either way.

Taking money from the Devil might well blind one to the fact that he is, well, the Devil. As the old saying goes, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understand it.

Archduke Piccolo said...

" ... the monetarist and free-market ideas that ultimately found practical political expression in the government of Margaret Thatcher and the administration of Ronald Reagan".
"Practical expression", forsooth! Hilarious. You could say the same about bank robbery.
Ion A. Dowman

David George said...

It's not that they don't exist (obviously lefty academia, media and NGOs qualify) but that these "Left wing think tanks" are increasingly against the values, interests and aspirations of the working and middle class. Open borders and immigration, shutting down cheap oil and gas, anti family, anti marriage, trans entitlement and so on are not vote winners, despite all the propaganda. The failure of the "Yes" vote in Australia, even after the wall of pro agitprop, a recent example.

They can't see it of course convinced as they are of their sainted intellectual and moral superiority.

No-Skates said...

I won't be the first to criticise the Devil clipping out ticket both ways comment.

Obedience doesn't automatically come with enthusiastic consent.

The Devil will still get their cut from an EV, though the mining of minerals and the hydrocarbons that go into tyres, plastics. So too with much of public transport, though to a lesser degree. Frankly, there is no escape. The fossil fuel lobby are the Devil's most committed minions.

Being forced to participate in order to sustain a modern life, versus actively helping the companies that perpetuate these systems, I feel are very different. Morally, and in their impact to the environment.

If the two are indistinguishable, then the only truly moral act to avoid any damage to the environment would be suicide. The common western man is statistically no more than a burden, without the means or ability to provide a net benefit to the environment through action or invention. Better yet, it would be morally just to take as many others with you.

Of course I'm being hyperbolic, but I wasn't the first today to take so many liberties.

Anonymous said...

too right

Jude Gillies said...

That’s all very well Chris, but the voters got more than they voted for, aka a government implementing policies they never shared prior to the election…including cancelling eliminating future smoking addicts.

David George said...

Much has been made (up) of the Aussie "Yes" campaign, it's alleged defeat by the dreaded Atlas outfit and big business interests, and the Right's treaty principles position. It's complete nonsense from Forbes & Co. No, it's a calculated lie designed to delegitimise the debate.

"Every major Australian news outlet in the run-up to the referendum publicised the eye-watering amounts of money that major businesses pledged to the “Yes” campaign. Some estimates put the total in the tens of millions of dollars. And, ironically, the biggest donors included the big oil and gas producers.

BHP and Rio Tinto donated $A2 million each, while resource giants Woodside Energy, Newcrest and Origin Energy, among others, publicly advocated for the “Yes” vote. The Minerals Council of Australia backed it too.

That Forbes failed to mention these well-established facts about corporate Australia’s enthusiasm for the “Yes” campaign while she pumped the narrative that a sinister and secret conspiracy with links to the oil and gas industries had propelled the “No” side to success is a sorry indictment of the programme’s integrity."

Graham Adams, has a look at the Atlas conspiracy theory, essay: https://theplatform.kiwi/opinions/mihi-forbes-and-the-great-atlas-conspiracy

Craig Dobson said...

Loved the article! Very informative and eloquently written.

John Hurley said...

Regarding this
Democracy Denied
The weakening state of democracy in New Zealand is evidenced by the middle class dominance of the political parties, and the rise of elite lobbyists and think tanks

What Forbes and her fellow conspiracy theorists fail to grasp about democratic success, is that the exercise of real political power by working-class people (as evidenced by Labour’s dramatic economic and social transformations of the 1930s and 40s) does not just alarm the corporate elites.

When confronted by a confident and increasingly insubordinate working class, broad swathes of the middle class grow fearful that their superior social status is about to be eroded. To resist the rise of the working-class, two strategic options present themselves. The first is to effect a middle-class alignment with the ruling elites. The second is for the middle class, using its credentialled expertise, to overwhelm the organisations of the working class, turning lions into lambs, and effectively giving the bosses two parties to play with.

The New Zealand middle class has chosen both options. Its commercial and industrial half backs the corporate elites in National, while its professional and managerial half makes sure Labour remains the neoliberal party it helped it to become in the 1980s and 90s. Middle-class idealists may have migrated to the Alliance and the Greens, but their more “progressive” policies have not yet contributed, in any meaningful way, to the re-empowering of the working class.


the middle class grow fearful that their superior social status is about to be eroded.
I was skeptical, but (having thought about it), take the word thrown about dehumanize .

We don't dehumanize people as in not human. We think that they are.
1. inferior
2. competitors.

The middle classes have great lives. If they live in the city they have nice warm houses plus:
[(as MJS said): "We have visions of a new age, an age where all people will have] beauty as well as space and convenience in and about their homes". This is the middle class life.

Look at the urbanists who post renderings of apartment blocks; it is never about the lived experience 30 years down the track. The apartment block itself is what is good and when they aren't posting pictures of the "good" apartment block it is them in a (a cherry-picked ) beautiful city or in the middle of wilderness. The apartment is there for the beast.

Not acceptable. As the capitalist elites discovered in the 1970s, even the middle-class version of democracy has a nasty habit of eventually encroaching on those parts of the system that capitalism has ruled off-limits. Give people of colour, or women, or the environment enforceable rights and the next thing you know the cheeky so-and-sos will be wanting to use them.

That was then.
Now it's about "diversity acceptance" and density. People trust kin (not strangers). That's how human society evolved and ethnic groups are the extension of that. The working class are expected to adapt and enjoy while the white middle class can congregate together.

John Hurley said...

Oh look!: a bug escaped the jar:

The lower class can have what the middle class have, there is nothing stopping them apart for themselves, if they stop believing that they are intituled to do nothing but complain about what they haven't got, knowing that they will get a free hand out anyway.
There is not much distance between lower class and middle class, you just have to want to make the jump but that will never happen as long as there is charity and free hand outs, it all starts from someone seeing someone else getting something for nothing and thinking, "well if they can get away with it why cant I", and the cycle just goes on and gets bigger, in the mean time dragging the middle class down and making everything expensive.

https://nzissues.com/Community/threads/chris-trotter-at-his-most-brilliant.53215/#post-2239086