Good Will Receiving: If New Zealanders are in a mood to promote the public good, then there is every chance that the Ardern-led government will succeed. If they are more concerned with promoting their own, private, welfare, then the resistance to the new government’s redistributive ambitions is likely to be very fierce indeed.
WILL THIS NEW GOVERNMENT SUCCEED? Across the political
spectrum, that is the question. Will Jacinda Ardern and her NZ First and Green
Party allies find their fellow New Zealanders broadly accommodating of, or
fiercely resistant to, her government of change?
If New Zealanders are in a mood to promote the public good,
then there is every chance that the Ardern-led government will succeed. If they
are more concerned with promoting their own, private, welfare, then the
resistance to the new government’s redistributive ambitions is likely to be
very fierce indeed.
A sociologist might attempt an answer to this question by
asking where New Zealand currently stands in the “Hirschman Cycle”.
Named after the much-admired American sociologist, Albert
Hirschman, the Cycle describes those recurring historical transitions from
periods in which society is predominantly concerned with maximising private
consumption and individual well-being; to periods characterised by a general
willingness to accommodate public programmes aimed at uplifting those in need
and dedicated to reaffirming the nation’s core values and aspirations.
The period of US history most proximate to Hirschman’s
research was the period known as “The Great Society”. After nearly two decades
of rapidly rising incomes and growing affluence, Americans entered the 1960s
more willing to embrace public policies of uplift and altruism than at any time
since the “New Deal” of the 1930s.
The architect of The Great Society, President Lyndon Baines
Johnson, attempted to sketch out his administration’s response to inequality –
especially racial inequality – in his famous “To Fulfil These Rights” speech to
Howard University’s commencement class on 4 June 1965:
“There is no single easy answer to all of these problems”,
the President told his audience of mostly African-American students. “Jobs are
part of the answer. They bring the income which permits a man to provide for
his family. Decent homes in decent surroundings and a chance to learn – an
equal chance to learn – are part of the answer. Welfare and social programs
better designed to hold families together are part of the answer. Care for the
sick is part of the answer. An understanding heart by all Americans is another
big part of the answer. And to all of these fronts – and a dozen more – I will
dedicate the expanding efforts of the Johnson administration.”
This, the high-water mark of social-democratic liberalism in
the United States, is made even more luminous by the darkness currently
enveloping Trump’s America. Born out of one of V.O. Key’s, “permissive”
political consensuses, Johnson’s “Great Society” would not survive the public’s
rapidly declining faith in Washington-based solutions. The race-riots of the
mid-60s, a steadily escalating war in Vietnam, and the fast-deteriorating US
domestic economy soon ushered America into the selfish phase of Hirschman’s
Cycle.
The question Jacinda and her colleagues have to ask
themselves, therefore, is whether or not such a “permissive” political
consensus exists in New Zealand. Is her “administration” entering office at a
point in the Hirschman Cycle roughly analogous to where the US was when
President Johnson was inaugurated in January 1965?
The answer, sadly, is: “No.” Far from being swept into
office on an historic landslide, Jacinda’s victory is both electorally narrow
and politically controversial. If a US precedent is being sought, it isn’t to
be found in the Johnson Administration, but in the politically and economically
fraught administration of President Jimmy Carter.
Massive problems have grown up during the nine-year period
of National Party rule. Escalating social inequality has fuelled poverty and
homelessness: leading to rising levels of mental illness, suicide, violent
crime and a record number of incarcerated citizens. The social and economic
climate is, therefore, very different to that which prevailed when Norman Kirk
was swept to victory in the golden year of 1972.
Like the Johnson Administration, the Kirk Government
inherited a “permissive” political consensus of unprecedented scope. Jacinda’s
political environment, by contrast, has all the room for manoeuvre of Jimmy
Carter’s and Helen Clark’s. Hirschman’s Cycle-wise, New Zealand remains deeply
mired in its individualistic/private consumption phase. Moreover, as Winston
Peters soberly observed, there is little prospect of the country enjoying,
anytime soon, the expansive economic and social conditions capable of persuading
an electorate to embrace a government committed to the public good.
And yet, out-of-phase though New Zealand may be, Hirschman
Cycle-wise, Jacinda and the public good have no choice but to deliver each
other.
This essay was
originally published in The Waikato Times, The Taranaki Daily News, The
Timaru Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 27 October 2017.
13 comments:
I will never forget the calculated eradication of any progressive tendencies of the labour Alliance Govt of Clarke and Anderton by the so called Winter of Discontent in 1999 exaggerated beyond belief by our media. It manifested itself later again with the equally diingenuous campaign against the public access policy of the same govt which sought to improve access to public lands along rivers and to the high country. I fear the same will shortly begin. Any hope that Ardern will have a spine stronger than that of Clark who failed those earlier tests was shattered when she bottled on the Capital Gains Tax during the campaign - the disastrous captains pick that stopped what was then a highly likely Labour Greens majority Govt dead in its tracks. Maybe she will be learning from her mentor Clark and surprise us but I doubt it. The neoliberal cancer (as represented by the likes of the malevolent Prebble is as hardy a survivor as cockroaches, rats and blackberries.
Some things just happen and the result could be taken as a "lucky break". I would look at the captains call on tax one of those breaks. The coalition we have now is going to have real spine given the announced ministerial make up. I would wager that once New Zealanders as a whole get to know her come 2020 Jacinda could very well increase her majority significantly.
Jacinda Ardern is one very remarkable woman. We are very fortunate to have her as our PM, heck even Mike Hosking is coming around.
Yes, this government will be a winner if it succeeds in promoting "the public good" in a fair and sustainable bay - but how is that to be done ?
Since the redistribution of earnings becomes self-defeating and unfair from the moment it discourages harder work and investment by skimming off too high a proportion of profits for redistribution from the more profitably productive workers and investors -
would not the "common good" be achieved in the fairest and most effective way by having all citizens participating in the effort of profitable productivity, such as has been achieved by all of us already - including the poorest through a proportion of the GST they pay participating in building up retirement and national wealth through the NZ Super Fund ?
What about any wage rises including a proportion of automatic KiwiSavings, that could be with minimal administration costs be invested with the NZ Super Fund ?
Why have I never heard of Hirschman's Cycle before in my life? Why are NZs so ignorant of politics and think that they are a hobby the equivalent of stamp collecting? It should be part of all democratic schools curriculum. That and many other things. We can look up things on line now, what we should learn is to understand the various ways we use to channel our activities and our thoughts and hopes.
The Humanities Department is being shrunk in many unis. Many people protest, but not as many and as vociferous as outside an abortion clinic.
Cutting short the development of a single baby is sad for the mother but the baby is too young to comprehend. But cutting out the opportunity to think about our humanity and try to get perspective is denying us important education in a country that is already arid of original thought and reflection in many houses.
We need to learn all about politics and the different types, and religions and the different types. And all the different things that we do to subvert every system that we start up, and how we can be encouraged to worship symbols, and ignore the real thing.
The National government was turfed out because of their intransigence in pursuing absurd housing and immigration policies which worked against the public interest, mood and professional economic advice. Had National adjusted themselves on those two factors over the last six years and not let the mental health system collapse they would have won over 50% of the vote this time. Politicians can't deliberately impoverish an entire generation and expect them to still vote for them.
It is remarkable their determination to pursue policies of exponential house price and immigration expansion was so strong they would sooner throw away the election both before and after in coalition negotiations instead of giving way. As in terms of realpolitik those policies would always change if NZF went with Labour we can see National's unwillingness to negotiate the two policies that would allow them to remain in power could only be motivated by greater long term goals or petty personal oppositional-defiance and egotism. Nats don't see themselves as having lost the election but having won it and been stabbed in the back by the electoral system and Peters for not giving them what they deserve. Without any sense of defeat invalidating their policies and leadership, should they win the next election expect them to roll back everything this government changes on housing and immigration.
"Since the redistribution of earnings becomes self-defeating and unfair from the moment it discourages harder work and investment by skimming off too high a proportion of profits for redistribution from the more profitably productive workers and investors -"
No it doesn't.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/9/27/work-tax-income-marginal/
@ Jens Meder
"would not the "common good" be achieved in the fairest and most effective way by having all citizens participating in the effort of profitable productivity,"
I strongly agree, more particularly from the point of view of those not able to find a job, not given the opportunity to participate in or contribute to societies' economy, than from the point of view of the economy itself. Even the checkout counter job at $17 an hour. At our local example they rotate , so sometimes they are standing at the till and sometimes packing shelves etc.. It's a small town so they know all the customers and have a constant social interaction with them and with each other. There is a lot more positive stuff going on for them than just the $17 or whatever per hour.
Apart from the deliberate humiliation passed on by WINS as an aperitif to go with their benefit, life for many beneficiaries must be a drag ," and Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do." There would be some with artistic talent, or a wish to study or write, who can find some fulfilment on the dole , but they will be a minority. The priority of government should be full employment achieved by ensuring that things made overseas that could be made or done here are only available when there are not enough workers to make them here. And training should replace excessive immigration.
On Kiwi saver and The Super Fund , if you have 20 minutes you could have a look at this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EObtwxpDSzk . Savings would be a good idea if the money system were not so illusory.
Cheers David J S
Guerilla Surgeon - do really believe there is no limit to what can be taken from workers and businesses without "killing" extra efforts and risks taking ?
Have you not heard the genuine public joke in post Stalin Soviet Union time Moscow :
"They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work".
jens. again... we are not talking about command economy dictatorships, with which the right seem fixated, but social democracy. So please ... just stop!
David Stone
I like "Apart from the deliberate humiliation passed on by WINS as an aperitif to go with their benefit, life for many beneficiaries must be a drag ," and Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do." There would be some with artistic talent, or a wish to study or write, who can find some fulfilment on the dole , but they will be a minority. The priority of government should be full employment"...
This is so important to know that it should be sent out in the snail mail to every postbox in NZ. Or if there is a local newspaper a half-page advert. A full page would be more costly and excessive!
What people should do is think of other struggling individuals kindly, as someone having troubles, and accept that they aren't able to magically rise above it. No-one can. We need to think of people as sensitive as lettuce; perishable, and going limp after too much deprivation of needs.
This morning on Radionz there was an Insight program into something noted in Sweden where some refugee children developed a syndrome they call 'Resignation'. The children just lose the will to live and give up eating and talking. It usually happens after the children and anxious parents are told that they will not be accepted for a permit to stay for some years which though not permanent gives some stability.
The journalist found one children's home that has found a way to help these children recover from this crushing depression. But they had to work intensively at it with sometimes very fast results, though some could take six months. I think they had 100% success. The point is that changing thinking, changing from a dull acceptance meaning trudging through life to a level where feeling confident that they can make change feeds vitality and hope into them, in increasing amounts.
Neoliberal economics has built a template for the mass of people that diminishes us. They have stated that there view is the total truth, faulty, unreliable, not machine-like. Humans must rise and take over, accepting ourselves as slightly flawed in different ways, but full of promise, and we must accept that we have different gifts, find ways to enable each to be committed to helping society with the good gifts, and be part of a creative, kindly, thoughtful and pragmatic society. Everyone who is fit and has their mind still, can offer to do something useful and be expected to do so. Nobody useless, nobody just taking from society, rich or poor. In that way we might be able to survive the coming disasters from our changing environment with minimum loss of life, infrastructure, food production, and fauna and flora.
Thanks Greywarbler
I 'm sure that the "Resignation" syndrome you refer to is exactly what happens to many people when they are constantly denied
the opportunity to contribute. Society has rejected them and nature modifies their psyche to adapt to that situation. And remember it is a deliberate policy , an essential part of the neoliberal Philosophy that there should be some unemployment to
incentivise the workforce .
Let's hope this is all changing. Looking good so far.
Cheers David J S
GS
"Since the redistribution of earnings becomes self-defeating and unfair from the moment it discourages harder work and investment by skimming off too high a proportion of profits for redistribution from the more profitably productive workers and investors -"
Surely the point is not that this moment never occurs but that it takes a mountain load of skimming-off before it's reached and that far too much is made of this possibility by right wing polemicists.
Moreover, the skimming-off process can itself provide compensatory stimuli (e.g. more money in the hands of the poor, more opportunities to break out of ghettos of hopelessness etc.)
I also suspect that ennui about work tends to set in particularly late in New Zealand, a country with a reasonably strong work ethic but where, paradoxically, the big bucks tend to come not from hard graft but from property speculation. But this might be a mistaken view on my part.
Jens. As successful countries. like post WW2 USA, New Zealand until the 80's, All the Scandinavian countries, and other social democracies had very high degrees of redistribution, I don't think your idea holds water. We have a 30% Government share of the economy, including redistribution. (Sweden has 60%) and it shows in our economic, social and infrastructural failure.
We have had 33 years of upward redistribution, to speculators, financiers and other non contributing parasites, to the detriment of those who do the work,including local entrepreneurs, and spend locally. How well has that worked?
China, one of the worlds fastest growing countries had almost 100% redistribution of wealth. Not that I approve of their process, but certainly breaking the cycle of idle rich having all the money, has been good for their economy. To the stage where they are propping up the Western countries, that have been foolish enough to go the neo-liberal small state, trickle down economy, route.
Post a Comment