Tuesday 27 December 2016

2016: Annus Horribilis

The Last Laugh: As Plato predicted, more than 2,000 years ago, a democratic citizenry that loses faith in its own efficacy will voluntarily entrust its destiny to the first demagogue who learns to speak its language of despair. In 2016, this annus horribilis, those demagogues’ names were Nigel Farage and Donald Trump.
 
THIS WAS THE YEAR that democracy failed. The year that, in the English-speaking world at least, citizens stopped being citizens. Exactly what we are turning into is not yet clear, but it’s unlikely to be anything good.
 
This is a harsh judgement, and hopefully, in our own case, a premature one. In the case of the United Kingdom and the United States, however, it is more than fair. The Brexit decision and the Trump triumph, on their own, constitute more than sufficient evidence to warrant the indictment of both the British and the American electorates.
 
If it is to work at all, democracy requires a citizenry who both understand and value the principles of representative government. An interested citizenry, who take care to inform themselves about what is happening in their country – and why. A well-educated citizenry, who seek after the truth and cannot be swayed by the cheap falsehoods and even cheaper promises of demagogues and charlatans. A proud citizenry, who prize the scientific, technological and cultural achievements of their nation’s history. A decent citizenry, unwilling, on principle, to use the franchise as a means of inflicting shame and injury upon individuals, groups and organisations which a fraction (maybe even a majority) of them distrust.
 
In all the long history of the world there has never existed a body of citizens which fitted perfectly this idealised description of a democratic people. Prior to 2016, however, there have always enough of them in the United Kingdom and the United States to ensure that the moral trajectories of those nation states traced an upward course.
 
The British people overcame the power of their kings and wrenched a welfare state from the pockets of a reluctant capitalist ruling class. The American people, likewise, made good the promises of their Declaration of Independence and abolished slavery – even if they had to fight a bloody civil war to do it. In the 1930s, rejecting the extremes of left and right, they embraced Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and, in the 1960s and 70s, as the world’s most affluent society, they gave birth to the “New Social Movements” of racial and sexual emancipation and environmentalism.
 
While in both the United Kingdom and the United States the popular struggle for human rights and social progress has endured many difficulties and delays, it has never been decisively reversed. As Dr Martin Luther King reassured all those still fighting for their share of the American dream: “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.”
 
Or, so we thought, until this horrible year.
 
Who is to blame?
 
The very question is emblematic of our malaise. So much of what went wrong in 2016 is attributable to an ever-increasing number of citizens’ furious quest for the causes of their besetting nightmares. Immigrants, Muslims, the undeserving poor, liberals, conservatives, Clinton, Trump: the dread creatures of our unease wear many faces. All of them, however, have one thing in common – they are to blame.
 
Progressives like to blame globalisation and its ideological bodyguard, neoliberalism. They point to devastated regions and hollowed-out communities filled with men and women psychologically paralysed by their diminished status and security. People mired in a crippling nostalgia for their vanished life-worlds. People frightened of the future. People hungry for some kind – any kind – of social and political revenge.
 
We are losing faith in collective efficacy. For the second time in a century, the future threatens. The first was after World War I, when the progressive belief that dramatic economic and technological change could be turned to the advantage of ordinary people, by ordinary people, faltered – and with it their faith in democracy. In Europe this disillusionment fuelled the rise of dictators. In the English-speaking world, however, ordinary people’s faith in democracy endured, and the totalitarian dictatorships were defeated.
 
In the twenty-first century, totalitarianism wears a different mask. Economic and technological change are no longer means to collective emancipatory ends, they’ve become ends in themselves. Winners find a place in the free-market system; losers get spat out. Thirty years of this inhuman political calculus have convinced voters that while they might change parties, they cannot change policies.
 
Except they can. Not in the progressive spirit of their ancestors, but in the spirit of an ignorant, illiberal and recklessly vengeful nihilism. If the “Establishment” urges them to remain in the European Union, then they’ll vote for Brexit. If Donald Trump represents the antithesis of everything the Establishment’s candidate, Hillary Clinton, stands for, then: “Let’s make America great again!”
 
As Plato predicted, more than 2,000 years ago, a democratic citizenry that loses faith in its own efficacy will voluntarily entrust its destiny to the first demagogue who learns to speak its language of despair. In 2016, this annus horribilis, those demagogues’ names were Nigel Farage and Donald Trump.
 
This essay was originally published in The Press of Tuesday, 27 December 2016.

46 comments:

Guerilla Surgeon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Neil said...

Chris, Do you accept that democracy itself with warts and all served us well and no doubt will continue to do so. Even if you are unhappy with it.

Polly said...

Millions of people across Britain and America would disagree with your opinion that Farage and Trump are demagogue's.
In my opinion Nigel Farage's viewpoints on immigration to Britain and his anti- European stance on the advent of a European army and their immigration policies are what most Britons support. His arguments are rationale and that is why he was supported.
Britons want their Country back.
If Donald Trump can make America great again then let him try, I see dangers but I also saw dangers in the Obama / Clinton adventures with their willing Saudi Arabia support in the Middle East. If Clinton had got the American Presidency their was plenty of evidence from her, Obama and Kerry that a war with Russia over Syria was just what the American economy needed.
The ordinary American has had enough of war, particularly war in the Middle east, thank goodness they saw through Hillary Clintons demagoguery. Clinton had no policy on the curbing of immigration.
Americans want their Country back.

I feel uneasy about the future, but to attack Farage and Trump is to simple for it's own good.

JanM said...

James A. Baldwin: "The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose."
I cannot imagine at this time any other way the 'deep despair' could have been expressed other than by 'vengeful nihilism'. All the other avenues have been well blocked by manipulators who eventually got too clever for their own good.
The optimistic point of view is that at this stage these are warning shots across the bows which, if heeded, may avoid catastrophe - if not who knows what may happen next!

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"A well-educated citizenry, who seek after the truth and cannot be swayed by the cheap falsehoods and even cheaper promises of demagogues and charlatans."

The unfortunately, I suspect that even well-educated people can be swayed by the promises of demagogues and charlatans. Many of them in fact voted for Trump. I also think that we haven't really been citizens for quite a long time. Just consumers or clients or whatever. It's the managerialist streak since Douglas. "Managers can manage anything. Let the managers manage." Since proven to be at least partly bullshit, and mainly responsible for the situation we are in now.
And the wacky right in the US are at the moment specifically targeting anything connected with Roosevelt, who they regard as absolutely evil. It has been and still is an ongoing social engineering project for the right. The Republicans are led by a vulgar Aryan conman, who has appointed people to government organisations whose sole wish is to get rid of them, and is advised by someone who served his wife with divorce papers on what could have been her deathbed.

"Thirty years of this inhuman political calculus have convinced voters that while they might change parties, they cannot change policies."

Are they not correct? The rump of Blairite neoliberals in Britain is hamstringing major policy changes. Labour politicians in New Zealand duck and weave when they're asked to condemn neoliberalism. And politicians in the US can't call themselves democratic socialists any more than they can call themselves atheist if they expect to be elected.
And people will continue to believe in this crap, simply because the main drivers of belief are emotions not reason. They have so much of themselves invested in it, and it's almost impossible to talk them out of it. Because providing them with evidence to the contrary simply confirms their beliefs for some strange psychological reason.
I suspect that the only thing that will nudge people, will be some sort of democratic socialist leader who can pull the emotional levers necessary to sway people onto their side. It's going to be difficult in the US, because there's been a lot of gerrymandering by the Republicans, who in many states are unassailable because of this. Time and time again, public opinion is shown to favour some moderate forms of social welfare, but the repubs. can safely ignore it.
Britain seems opaque at the moment. But I'm a little more optimistic about New Zealand, because as I've said many times – New Zealand elections tend to be cyclical. Sooner or later we will get a Labour government. The nature of that Labour government however remains to be seen.

Pete said...

It must be remembered that 3 million more people voted for Clinton over Trump. In any other country that lacks America's baroque electoral system, Trump would not have won. That's not a failure in the voting public, that's a systemic failure in the electoral college system.

Secondly, generational differences cannot be ignored. Older people voted for Brexit and Trump. Once the cold hand of the Reaper starts claiming more of the conservative baby boomers or the boomers change their minds, millennials and gen-xers will finally take up the torch and the bunny-hop of History can start progressing again - as we see in Canada.

Patricia said...

No, no, no Chris. Yes, we are uneducated and even stupid at times but how could this not be so when we have been continually fed, for the last nearly forty years absolute rubbish, even propaganda, in all our media sources? Everything has been gradually dumbed down. it has been deliberate so how could it not be effective? But when someone stands up the people will listen because no matter what the media says they KNOW things are bad. The people will succeed. It may be messy but in the end those in control will have to listen. Trump and Farage are old men and will die, but there will be others who will take up the banner. And Chris, just because you don't like those two men does not mean their ideas are bad.

paul scott said...

Too funny. Chris thinks democratic elections don't represent democracy because, well, they don't support the global progressive mind set. It's dplorable but you ain't seen nothing yet Chris.

Nick J said...

I think you are on the right track Jan. And Chris, in democracy I have never once got the government I wanted yet I respect that the people voted as they saw it. And enough people saw that their interests aligned with Trump and Farage. I respect that too. Why do you so loudly lament rather than get the message? There is a sea change and a change of course with trimmed sails is upon us. Personally the two votes actually encouraged me that democracy can work, that the status quo did not have it locked down and sewn up.

Nick J said...

I think you are on the right track Jan. And Chris, in democracy I have never once got the government I wanted yet I respect that the people voted as they saw it. And enough people saw that their interests aligned with Trump and Farage. I respect that too. Why do you so loudly lament rather than get the message? There is a sea change and a change of course with trimmed sails is upon us. Personally the two votes actually encouraged me that democracy can work, that the status quo did not have it locked down and sewn up.

BlisteringAttack said...

2016 saw the politics of class resentment and of working class agitation.

Farage and Trump played the tune to perfection.

The working class in the US & UK hummed along with them.

Pinger said...

What the media, pollsters, and pundits continuosly fail to grasp is the relevance of social class attitudes in driving the Brexit result and the Trump victory.

Particularly that of working class Brits & Americans.

No analysis of these events is complete without rigourous examination of this sentiment(s).

Barry said...

I think I agree with the comment of Polly on 27 December 2016 at 14:40.

Charles E said...

Nick J & paul scott have my vote.
And in hindsight, so do both Farage and Trump in a way, or at least their supporters. I say hindsight as in both cases, before the event, I imagined I would have 'swallowed a rat' & voted for Remain & for Clinton if I lived in the UK or US. That is because I mostly support the sensible, liberal yet conservative, establishment, orthodox and rather unexciting yet intelligent line The Economist (for example) epitomises. It's always evolution, never revolution for me. Pretty much a typical old paternalistic Tory, I admit.

So it is funny to see that Chris, of the conservative left is in some ways shares the distain of a Tory, and a Christian one too based on recent writing. Rock the cradle not the boat eh Chris? Personally I'm more Jewish than Christian but still an atheist one though. Christ was of course Jewish, Christians omit. A rebel Rabbi.
But I think there is a part of we conservatives, best retrained, which likes, sometimes precipitates even, excitement and sudden change. Sort of like the earthquakes here in CHCH. A guilty admission is that I found they were really exciting and stimulating. I almost miss them. And I like the brand new town we are getting out of them and that marvellous capitalist invention, insurance. I would even like a rebuilt, mostly wooden new Anglican cathedral… modern Gothic perhaps … … The old one was second rate.

But no, democracy has not gone wrong at all. The opposite. In America this year I stayed with some well off Democrats in California and as they were too civilised (and embarrassed) to talk US politics with their guest, I was rude enough to bring up the subject of the coming election. They, and their friends around the table all said pretty much the same thing: ‘We can't stand either candidate so we probably will not vote’. I politely pointed out that if too many people like them in key states do that, Trump might just be their next leader. I don't think they took that possibility seriously (nor did I), just as the Economist pointed out: ‘Trump won because his supporters took him seriously but not literally, and his detractors took him literally but not seriously’. And one lot gave him more votes, where it counted.
So this is not a failure for democracy at all. It is a failure of some people to get off their arses and VOTE! Particularly a failure of the ‘liberals’ (in the American abuse of that word). And a great demonstration of the brilliance of democracy: The louder, ‘know it alls’, inc me, can be embarrassed by the quieter folk who we ignore too often. Well done democracy.

Kat said...

John Key resigned. That alone is worth celebration and rescues 2016. It would have only been vengeful enjoying watching him go down in 2017. His celebrity approach to the office of PM and his cynical attitude towards the electorate at large will not be missed by any right thinking citizen of this country. Even his stale old replacement is a breath of fresh air.

Brexit and Trump signal a different political malaise that has little to do with freedom and the rights of humans and everything to do with so called 'democracy' and the hands that pull the levers of power. Brexit was always going to happen as history shows the inhabitants of Britannia will only stand oppression for so long. The Americans finally get the president that is what the business call America is all about.

Tiger Mountain said...

Farage and the Orange Groper– “El Scumbagos” par excellence the pair of them

‘mine mine mine’ neo liberal globalisation and individualism is surely at root of their slim ascensions to hopefully brief glory; the winners and losers “Tale of Two Cities” our world has become is a living nightmare for millions

but perhaps this latest example of people “voting” against their better interests may reset things for all sorts of struggles, just as in NZ our glorious ex leader’s departure for Hawaii may be a circuit breaker to get peoples attention once more

greywarbler said...

All you say could be partly or even fully true Chris. But the people in USA had to vote for something or nothing. They voted for what is disruption to the bloody government they have had. Bloody as in a put-down and also in its willingness to spill lesser people's blood and the decent living with prospects that a citizen could expect in a fabulously wealthy country of the modern sort.

No-one determined to be informed could escape noticing the disgraceful way that the money system works with the losers being the main body of people. People have been added to the list of resources available for mining. It's stone against flesh and blood, and the soft resources are hurting in this inhuman practice.

So USA and Britain have been forced to rouse themselves for change, and left with a chicken run but determinedly taken it in desperation. In Britain as in the USA, the war against the poor not against poverty has not gone unnoticed!

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"No analysis of these events is complete without rigourous examination of this sentiment(s)."

If you're going to do a rigourous examination of these, you should probably remember that particularly in America, black and brown people are working class not just white people. They were presented with a choice of a vulgarian conman and sexual predator with very little work ethic, and a member of the Washington establishment. So they tended to stay home rather than vote.
I had a conversation with an American libertarian a little while ago, about my 9 or 10 reasons not to vote for Trump, and he said he didn't like Trump, but Trump would take him closer to the libertarian ideal of a small government state. 'Well good luck with that' I said, 'because he's probably going to screw you as well.' Trump is in fact going to screw everyone except his friends and family. He is already reneged on 2 of his major promises, and God help us whoever can figure out what the man is going to do is a better political analyst by far than I am, because he changes his mind every time he changes his bloody socks.
And I consider any system where so few people actually vote is definitely a failure of democracy. So there.

jh said...

Hillary got more votes than Trump but migrants sway the vote. What would the vote look like (NZ) if only citizens got to vote?
It is a lie that people want diversity. They may want sushi shops and Turkish cafes but they don't want to be outnumbered but that is where Susan Devoy, beaurocrats and journalists have waged war on indigenous New Zealanders.

The Humanities are mentally ill?
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/10/21/one-telos-truth-or-social-justice/

jh said...

Johnathan Haidt has a good quote "I am a primate who lives in small groups. Diversity over each reaches my design tolerance" (or close to that). This is what progressives don't get. They say "the melting pot is working" while they over look population and limits to growth fundamentals; like a farmer who let's the crop perish because he doesn't work on Sundays.

jh said...

Meanwhile in Queenstown (lunch time) every bus parked along the waterfront had a Chinese driver at the wheel. Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with that except a time traveler from the past may think we lost a war?

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"have waged war on indigenous New Zealanders."
You mean Maori? No of course you don't, just trolling you.

Johnathan Haidt has another good quote " Some authoritarians see their race or bloodline as the thing to be protected, and these people make up the deeply racist subset of right-wing populist movements, including the fringe that is sometimes attracted to neo-Nazism. They would not even accept immigrants who fully assimilated to the culture.......It’s as though some people have a button on their foreheads, and when the button is pushed, they suddenly become intensely focused on defending their in-group, kicking out foreigners and non-conformists, and stamping out dissent within the group. At those times they are more attracted to strongmen and the use of force."

Nick J said...

There were some very major losers this year. And Chris it was plain to see coming. The frames of reference of the last 30 years frayed and tore. The losers:
The media. Part of the nexus who sought establishment dollars to drive opinion. They got exposed as the propaganda arm they are. No thinking person with access to the web believed a word they said. They failed to convince the voters. The Dons tweeting Trumped them.
The pollsters. Wrong on all counts. Impaled on their own hubris like the media a waste of their paymasters dollars.
The establishment. They long since rejected Joe and Jill Average. Silly move, Joe and Jill have only one weapon to respond with. A vote.
The insider political apparatus. Too smart for their own good, their hubris exposed by leaks showing their dirty dealing and corrupt principles.
The neocons. Supported by Obama perpetually waging war, outmanoevred by Putin and Trump.
The banksters: American industrial capital supported the non finance candidate.
The pay to play allies of the Clinton Foundation. Wasted cash and a declaration of interests that may haunt them.
The Pentagon CIA nexus. Due for a downsize.
Last and not the least losers. The politically correct "progressives" who attempted from a priveleged position to impose rather than persuade. The willing fools of the establishment they railed against BREXIT and Trump. The people rejected them. They lost because you cannot impose rules on peoples thinking.
A lot of losers. As for winners that may appear obvious but that is still up for grabs.

JanM said...

jh you have some valid points there. Governments determine who enter our borders,but once in they largely absolve themselves of any further responsibility. In many cases new residents are settling in areas which are already struggling to cope and there is little support either for the newcomers or the disrupted and challenged society into which they integrate. My experience (as a teacher) is that integration does mostly work, but there is a lot of stress to cope with in a society which has to confront the issues that arise. The wealthy and privileged people who make the decisions which bring about these situations rarely have to deal with the consequences

greywarbler said...

jh
Your pathetic narrow point of view condemns you and your like to oblivion faster than others who are more widely thoughtful following Darwin's theory of survival which is ability to adapt.

Those able to adapt to changing reality, be flexible enough yet finding a way to conserve the important values needed by people in their society by applying their intelligence and memory may just be able to achieve a working culture that preserves kindness but also copes with the problems.

You just rail against change. But it's happening, so if you aren't going to lie back and report it sourly, can you apply your mind to the problems we face and how to ameliorate them instead of to just describe them and complain. All your sources, the education that you have absorbed, doesn't seem to help you make useful comment so far.

Victor said...

Congratulations, Chris, on one of the best posts you've produced of recent months. A harbinger, I hope, of more to come.

The response you've engendered, however, points up the counter-intuitive, angular and delusory mindset that increasingly dominates the New Zealand left and is fast turning it into a support club for the western world's newly ascendant fascism.

With apologies to the immortal shades of Spencer Williams, Louis Armstrong and Jack Teagarden:

Bowalley Road's become the street
Where the dumb left and the Alt Right meet,
In the post-truth, internet land of dreams,
You never know quite what they mean
Or where they get their crazy memes.
Conspiracy freaks with wild eyes,
Kremlin dupes and click-bait lies,
And I can't lose
My post-liberal blues!

Honourable exceptions to this worrying trend on the current thread are GS and 'Pete', but I caution against the latter's lapse into generationalism.

Who, I wonder, will see fascism for what it is, if not those of us old enough to remember at least the aftermath of its last glory ride? And double shame on those of my contemporaries who fail to do so!

Charles E said...

GS your last quote perfectly describes the Han Chinese, the world's largest and most implacable racist group. The Economist did a feature on their belief in their racial superiority recently. You'd have to go back a couple of centuries to find the English as racist. Very similar to the Nazi view of their supposed Aryan race.
So jh you are right on this one. And jh I too regard myself as indigenous being fourth generation NZer, although second would be the line I'd draw. Born of this land of one born of this land, we have no other place. That is indigenous in my book.

Many self labelled Maori have more colonial ancestors than I do yet they complain about colonisation. Unconscious self hatred is it? And it is hilarious and damning of the fawning PC culture here to listen to them talking about their ancestors when we all know at least 75% of them are Pakeha, yet curiously not mentioned or credited with their contribution to the subject's existence and fortune, be that good bad or indifferent.
High time all reference to race was abandoned, especially at government level.
Privately people can believe they are special because of the race of some ancestors but to celebrate it publically should be condemned these days. Now culture is a different matter ... not race bound at all.... and valuable, changeable, improvable, comparable....

greywarbler said...

I think the image is amazing. The golden, sparkling background, the two grinning victors delighted at massaging the masses. Says it all.

jh said...

Guerilla Surgeon said...
"have waged war on indigenous New Zealanders."
You mean Maori? No of course you don't, just trolling you.
.......
No I meant (in the context of the current invasion) Maori and those who sat through (as kids) One Hundred Crowded Years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFYy-l6aI5A

"It is only right to see the macracarpa and wooden church as being as much emblematic of the landscape and human occupation of it as the cabbage tree and meeting house"
Michael King

jh said...

The demagogues were the insulated people who attend superdiversity conferences while they sip from ballon glasses paid for by BNZ while pushing diversity of point of view from the academy (Spoonley/Clydesdale).

jh said...

Susan Devoy: Micro aggression. We shouldn't question where an Asian is from because they could be a Chinese New Zealander (from goldfields days). We need to get over the idea that a New Zealander looks like a European or we are marginalizing them "we belong here; they do not"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMRXTypUBPk
The authorities in action. A few decades ago they would have had to face 303 bullets. The authorities knew who belonged here and who didn't. Now the guns face inwards.
Asia NZ Foundation featured a cartoon where two rough Kiwi men ogled a couple of Asian women saying "they should only let the women in". The inference was that they were sleazy (I think) however that is they way change should happen, a population changes because of mutual advantage of the people who live, breath and experience the reality - not the poo-bah professional types from Epsom and Ponsomby who dabble in it all on their own terms.

jh said...

From GS quote
It’s as though some people have a button on their foreheads, and when the button is pushed, they suddenly become intensely focused on defending their in-group, kicking out foreigners and non-conformists, and stamping out dissent within the group. At those times they are more attracted to strongmen and the use of force. At other times, when they perceive no such threat, they are not unusually intolerant. So the key is to understand what pushes that button.
"The answer, Stenner suggests, is what she calls “normative threat,” which basically means a threat to the integrity of the moral order (as they perceive it). It is the perception that “we” are coming apart:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-why-nationalism-beats-globalism/

EG
Bold young men drove sheep on to the vast grazing runs to found pastoral empires and land owning dynasties. Out of the wealth from the squatters’ wool clips, and from wheat when the tussock was ploughed, grew a city of scholarship, grace and dignity”
Professor Kenneth Cumberland Landmarks

One thing he is clear about is that the demographic changes set to occur in Christchurch could transform the city infamous for its white supremacist National Front movement. While Christchurch does have small ethnic enclaves, hosting lantern festivals for Chinese New Year and Diwali festivals for the Indian community, the scale of the anticipated migrant influx is unparalleled in its history.
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=86EB3C7F-B375-B8DF-A111-53B3788C75E5

Someones father bought a house in a new Wigram subdivision. "He kept it immaculately groomed. later Chinese bought up all around. They didn't tend their gardens, they were noisy they packed their houses full of people. In the end he had to move"

Andrew Nichols said...

I am appalled by the election of Trump and delighted at the failure of Clinton.

CanSpeccy said...

Ha! The Leftie position on democracy stated with crystal clarity:

Vote for the democratic, sovereign nation state and you're not a democrat.

Um, well anyway your not a leftie for global governance under the rule of political correctness, and the replacement of a dwindling European population by people from elsewhere.

Jigsaw said...

What a breath-taking column of sheer arrogance!
You don't agree so everything you don't agree with is evil and dangerous. The States have suffered through 8 years of a leader who not only thought himself greater than the constitution which he sought constantly to bypass but used great rhetoric to promise more that he was even slightly capable of achieving. And even now has now apparent self awareness of the absolute mess he has made of the position and portably never will.
The thing about democracy is that you have to accept the result even when you don't agree and the left at the moment are doing all they can to signal that they really they don't accept the democratic decisions and will do all they can to undermine the results because they KNOW they are correct.
What arrogance!!

Jens Meder said...

In view of the "annus horribilis 2016" leaving the world perplexed and uncertain about the future, with the faith in "progress" without a clearly identified goal(?) and apparently to some extent even replaced by the urge to move backwards(?), -

isn't it high time - for re-capturing socio-economic world leadership by New Zealand - to examine the following:

That our deeply held conviction in the rightness and justice of home ownership potential by all citizens actually unifies us on the vision of an "Ownership Society", defined by at least a minimally meaningful level of personal wealth ownership by all citizens eventually ?

Would that not be progressive Social Democracy onward from the point where it got stalled when welfare state expectations began to demand more than what the economy was able to deliver in a sustainable way ?

As free market liberalism only intensifies socio-economic polarization into haves and have-nots, Labour has a brilliant opportunity to take up leadership in progress towards that vision, through systematically raising personal and national savings rates e.g. by strongly preferring to convert any possible freely consumable tax reductions into NZ Super Fund contributions.

This matter, although having been raised before, has not been debated anywhere so far.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

So much fluff, so little time.
"We shouldn't question where an Asian is from because they could be a Chinese New Zealander (from goldfields days). We need to get over the idea that a New Zealander looks like a European or we are marginalizing them "we belong here; they do not."

And she is eminently correct. People in the US are stopping Hispanics in the streets and asking them where they are from, or telling them to go back home. People whose ancestors have been in the US longer than theirs have. Not to mention the various police raids against New Zealand citizens they thought were overstayers. So I'm not quite sure what the point is here.

"And even now has now apparent self awareness of the absolute mess he has made of the position and portably never will. "

True, Obama has not been the president he promised to be, but let's not forget the fact that for most of his term he has been faced with a rocksolid, obstructionist to the extreme Republican party. He is also a hawk, and very right wing economically. But even so, employment in the US is rising, and he has given 20 million people medical insurance they didn't have before.

"The thing about democracy is that you have to accept the result even when you don't agree and the left at the moment are doing all they can to signal that they really they don't accept the democratic decisions and will do all they can to undermine the results because they KNOW they are correct."

Considering the noises that the extreme right in the US were making about Second Amendment solutions and impeachment and outright rebellion if Hillary was elected I think the rather wishy-washy response of the Democrats to someone who could start dismantling their freedoms is a little disappointing actually. After all, the Republicans even went to the extent of denying Obama the right to appoint a Supreme Court judge. At the moment it seems all the left has done (if you can really consider there is a left in the US) has been to write strongly worded letters and condemnatory articles.

"Um, well anyway your not a leftie for global governance under the rule of political correctness, and the replacement of a dwindling European population by people from elsewhere."

I really don't understand what this is driving at, so all I will say is that the right has a political correctness all their own, particularly in the US. So anyone who uses the words political correctness instantly loses the Internet. Unless used ironically :).

"Someones father bought a house in a new Wigram subdivision. "He kept it immaculately groomed. later Chinese bought up all around. They didn't tend their gardens, they were noisy they packed their houses full of people. In the end he had to move"

No, as you right wingers are constantly telling us – he CHOSE to move. And in fact I once chose to move when a Pakeha family moved in next door to me, whose noisy vehicles arriving at all times of night, and uncontrolled dogs kept us awake a lot. Luckily, we could afford to move. Maybe not so much with the National and Labour governments' housing policies for the last 20 or 30 years.

Enough – I need some coffee. But could I suggest Chris that you start writing columns again soon, so we can start the process of moving that bloody awful picture of the orange one and the neo-Nazi one down the page until I don't have to look at them anymore?

Victor said...

Jens Meder

Thanks for a thought-provoking contribution.

In my ignorance, I've not come across this idea before and, at first instance, it certainly makes sense.....just so long as it isn't used as an excuse for eroding the universality of NZ Super.

Victor said...

Jigsaw

"The thing about democracy is that you have to accept the result even when you don't agree and the left at the moment are doing all they can to signal that they really they don't accept the democratic decisions and will do all they can to undermine the results because they KNOW they are correct."

I don't agree. The thing about democracy as normally practiced in advanced societies is that you're not required to like the government or to refrain from seeking to change it by all legal and constitutional means.

A weakness of the US system is that it locks the executive branch of government in place for four years. Even so, the system provides space for opposing that executive, weakening its congressional support and working towards its replacement in four years time.

That is what needs to happen now, just as it invariably happens when there's a Democrat in the Oval Office.

Victor said...

greywarbler

re: your post of 29 December 2016 at 10:01

Spot on! Happy New Year!

Jens Meder said...

Hi Victor.
While for an accelerated move towards "Ownership Democracy" it would be very effective also to resume the $1000.- Kiwi Saver kick-starts to all "from cradle to grave" who have not received them yet - (which as an investment within the NZ Super Fund can be done without requiring any extra current taxation revenue) -

resumed NZ Super Fund contributions are the most effective way to secure better NZ Super sustainability from age 65, and if allocated to Personal NZSF Accounts, they would belong to their owners' estates in the case of death before having been fully consumed on their owner's NZ Super (at which point normal PAYGO would take over).

Victor said...

Jens

Yes, of course, I agree with all that, subject to there also being an automatic, universal basic pension of a level similar to that of NZ Super.

As far as I can make out, many other countries, including the UK, already have a mix of basic universal pension and personal accounts. Nothing new there.

But (as far as I was concerned) what was new in your previous post was the direct linkage between possible future tax cuts and some form of directed personal savings, linked to investment in the key national asset of the Super Fund and which can form part of an inheritable estate.

If that's what you were talking about, it makes sense to me.

Jens Meder said...

Thanks, Victor - if it makes sense to you, where or how could we discuss it for a practical policy proposal on the "political ideas market" in public - or confidentially by private email ?

Would Chris help or tolerate such a discussion on the pros and cons of the "Ownership Society" concept on his blog ?

Victor said...

Jens

On one occasion in the past, Chris put me in touch with another poster to discuss topics of common interest. We just emailed our addresses to him and it all went ahead from there.

But before we take that step, I should point out that I lack any expertise in this field. So I don't know that I have anything to add beyond broad agreement with what seems like an promising idea.

An alternative might be for us to urge Chris to write his own post on the subject and then we can all pile in with our comments.

Jens Meder said...

Yes - great idea, let us appeal to Chris -

Please Chris write one of your open minded essays on your opinions of the pros and cons of the Ownership Society concept, defined by at least a minimally meaningful level (say $400 000 at present) of personal (retirement) wealth by all citizens eventually -

or whatever other definition you would prefer ?

Yours faithfully - Jens (and Victor?)

Victor said...

Jens

Yup...include me in