Sheer Loopiness: Many of those expressing bemusement at the antics of these #turnardern effacers, were convinced that they were yet another expression of the National Party’s increasingly spiteful anti-government propaganda campaign. They marvelled at the oddness of the perpetrators’ mindset and questioned the common-sense of allowing the rest of New Zealand to glimpse the sheer loopiness of the Prime Minister’s detractors.
WHAT IF EVERYTHING we currently think about politics in New
Zealand is wrong?
We assume that our political parties correspond more or less
accurately to the shape of our society. National stands for businessmen,
farmers, wealthy professionals and all those temperamentally conservative New
Zealanders opposed to radical change. Labour represents wage workers, public
servants, people engaged in what might be called the “caring” professions, along
with the young and/or idealistic people who hunger for “progressive” reform.
The so-called “minor” parties: the Greens and Act; cater to smaller, more ideologically
driven, groups of voters. Finally, NZ First represents those mostly older Kiwis
nostalgic for the less confusing, economically cut-throat and culturally
diverse New Zealand of yesteryear.
So far, so straightforward. But what if these familiar
descriptions of our political parties no longer correspond to what they truly represent?
What would that mean? What would it tell us about the people and organisations
charged with making sense of our politics? Could it be that we are being
deliberately misled about what is actually going on in the precincts of power
and influence? Or, are the journalists and pundits, the PR mavens and academics,
no more aware of what is actually happening than the rest of us?
Over the weekend, Twitter began to fill up with video-clips
of individuals, in supermarkets and dairies, turning around women’s magazines
with covers featuring photographs of the Prime Minister. Persons also recorded
themselves turning over copies of Jacinda Ardern’s biography in bookshops. These
bizarre actions were presented as acts of political resistance. Those
responsible clearly believe themselves to be living under a dangerous and
oppressive government – whose leader merits literal effacement.
Many of those expressing bemusement at the antics of these
#turnardern effacers, were convinced that they were yet another expression of
the National Party’s increasingly spiteful anti-government propaganda campaign.
They marvelled at the oddness of the perpetrators’ mindset and questioned the
common-sense of allowing the rest of New Zealand to glimpse the sheer loopiness
of the Prime Minister’s detractors. How could such behaviour possibly boost
National’s chances of re-election?
At the heart of that last question lies an assumption that
the National Party, its leaders and campaign strategists, continue to be guided
by a rational assessment of New Zealand’s present condition, and that the
policies formulated and articulated by the party represent a rational response
to that condition. We assume this because the alternative explanation: that National
is in the grip of seriously deluded individuals, driven by profoundly
irrational impulses, is simply too frightening to contemplate.
But, contemplate it we must, because the people we used to
describe as the “Right” have, indeed, succumbed to delusions, and no longer appear
to be engaged in rational political behaviour.
If there is a single word to describe the current mood of
the people in charge of the National Party – and their followers – it is
“paranoia”. The Merriam Webster Dictionary describes Paranoia as “a mental
illness characterized by systematized delusions of persecution”. For the
purposes of this post, however, Merriam Webster’s second definition is the more
useful. It describes “a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward
excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others”.
The New Zealand farming community is very much the
poster-child for political paranoia. The fear and anxiety, suspicion and distrust,
triggered in the typical dairy farmer by the formation of a Labour-led
government is disturbing. It’s as if, at some point in the past, angry columns
of working-class militiamen had invaded the countryside, hellbent on subduing farmers’
freedoms, robbing them of the fruits of their labour, and driving them into
penury. That New Zealand history records exactly the opposite happening –
Massey’s Cossacks anyone? – is conveniently forgotten.
Very much at the front of rural and provincial minds,
however, is the urge to punish and humiliate the urban poor – especially the
brown urban poor. Install a listening device in any venue where farmers and
their families are confident they will not be overheard and you will hear the
most appalling sentiments expressed. Not just hostility, but visceral hatred.
The sort of dehumanising language that generally precedes physical assault – or
worse. So speak the paranoid guardians of rural and provincial virtue. To
fathom the fury of National’s policies
towards beneficiaries, state house tenants and the homeless – just visit the
country.
It would be wrong, however, to locate the paranoia currently
afflicting New Zealand politics exclusively on the Right. On the Left, too,
suspicion and mistrust run riot.
Fuelling the Left’s paranoia is its awareness of the Labour
Party’s sociological contradictions. Founded by, and for many decades dominated
by, the trade unions, Labour’s culture was uncomplicatedly working-class. In simple
terms: its members and voters tended towards economic radicalism and social
conservatism. Yes, they were fervent believers in state intervention, but they
were also, consciously or unconsciously, racists, sexists and homophobes.
The new social movements of the 1960s and 70s complicated
this picture considerably. Tensions between the old social conservatives and
the young social liberals grew steadily – most particularly in response to the
party’s conservative stance on abortion. So long as all elements within the
party cleaved to the state interventionist “democratic-socialist” thrust of
Labour’s economic policies, however, those tensions remained manageable. It was
only when the social liberals abandoned democratic-socialism for the “free
market” that the party tore itself asunder.
When the smoke and fire of the 1980s had cleared, a very
peculiar picture emerged. The party organisation had taken on an unmistakably
middle-class, social-liberal countenance. It’s electoral base, however,
remained stubbornly working-class. A wide gulf had opened up between the values
of the party and the values of its voters. This was especially true of its conservative
Christian supporters from the Pacific Islands.
Somehow Labour’s leaders had to finesse these profound sociological
and moral divergences. Not only was Labour now required to conceal from its
staunchest “have not” supporters a radically different set of values and
beliefs, but it also had to obscure the fact that the people who actually
controlled the Labour Party should now be counted among the “haves”. In other
words, Labour found itself committed to living a political lie. Understandably,
it grew increasingly fearful of its contradictions being exposed. Its suspicion
and distrust of its own electoral base grew. Labour, too, was becoming
paranoid.
Plant a listening device in any Grey Lynn Labour household
and the inhabitants’ recorded conversations are likely to prove as hair-raising
as that of any farming family. The working-class Pakeha male, when he’s not a
cross-burning white supremacist, is an eager participant in rape culture. It is,
therefore, vital that the freedom of expression of such dangerous people be
curtailed as the processes of full-scale decolonisation are set in place,
immigration increases, and gender roles are radically reconstructed.
The most important conclusion to be drawn from the paranoia
into which New Zealand politics has fallen is that its ugly manifestations are
driving more and more voters out of their old political pigeon-holes. Those who
still see a point in voting are casting their ballots more out of habit than
conviction. There may already be an electoral majority in support of a
political style that is neither delusional nor irrational.
All it needs is a party.
This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Wednesday, 11 December 2019.
9 comments:
Then there is the myth that National are better managers of the economy and the myth that business is better off under a National govt. There are many more myths, who are these people that spread them and what streets do they live on.
"punish and humiliate the urban poor – especially the brown urban poor"
You forgot 'unworthy'. The gentry have always distinguished between worthy and unworthy poor, and by God they hate the unworthy is getting "free stuff". Quite happy to get it themselves though, because they are "productive". And productive people obviously deserve free stuff.
Pardon me for asking, but have you visited Grey Lynn recently? You'd be very lucky to find a member of the working classes there now - it's gone nearly as upwardly mobile as its Herne Bay neighbour with house prices heading rapidly to the 2 mill mark. Try New Lynn which is maybe what you meant!
I don't think there is a need for a new party because both of our main parties have within themselves the seeds of a common future already, especially since Labour is not so much of a "class struggle" party anymore, but has taken up responsible economics which accepts also private wealth ownership creation as helpful or "progressive" towards improving the welfare and earning capacity of the poor and "have-nots" owning nothing beside only their personal working capacity.
Please remember, has not undiluted Socialism severely discredited itself everywhere, so far?
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you" (Joseph Heller). Thanks to a minor party and its leader seeking maximum personal benefit for himself we now have an authoritarian government that acts capriciously and destructively without regard for democratic norms: exhibit one, the oil and gas exploration ban done without forewarning, consultation or debate threatening thousands of livelihoods and New Zealand's energy security: exhibit two, the firearms clampdown affecting thousands of responsible New Zealanders including some who require their firearms for their livelihood done with insulting haste as the result of an atrocity carried out by an itinerant foreigner whose licence to hold his weapons was apparently somehow approved by the Police; exhibit three, the announced intention to shut down free speech including by means of an Islamic blasphemy law. There are many more examples. Farmers, who produce so much of the country's wealth, have been slandered and abused by leading members of this shambles of a government, whose only competence is to ban, not build (as "kiwibuild" amply demonstrates). Now today we have an announcement of $12 billion, including from borrowing, on infrastructure as this government begins to panic, another figleaf to try to hide their sheer incompetence. Another "kiwibuild" moment.
"All it needs is a party". It seems to me that the old definitions hold true and false at the same time. The American experience of a leader of the right taking the deplorables with him may be instructive, as is Peronist Argentina. Ultimately though these are outliers who forced their oligarchs to fall into line, much in the way Muldoon played the National Party grandees.
The above examples are all compromises and smokescreen from the real issue. That is representative democracy that window dressing for the real power of a small corporate elite. The reality is that if the citizen engaged a tively in democracy in real parties that represent their personal interests the elite could be brought into Line. So yes, all we need is a party.
Better and safer than a new party which under a charismatic leader could become another totalitarian nightmare -
is a NEW IDEA, with the existing parties competing for better or more acceptable leadership on the way towards the measurable goals of that new idea -
the "Third Way" between Right and Left - Upwards - for all - through constructive co-operation, without wasting time and energy on "playing anyone against another".
On what grounds would you want to ignore, or even oppose that new idea (or perhaps new approach to an ages-old idea?), Nick J ?
As someone who teaches Sociology, your analysis is spot on Chris. In short, the old 2-party class divides have become ever more meaningless. There is a centrist urban liberal sector that covers elements of National, Labour and some of the Greens. this is really the new establishment. Remember that a number of electorates vote one major party for their MP and the other party for their party vote. Then there is the conservative farming and provincial vote that is anti-major centres, anti-poor, and pro-white. There is also a suburban socially conservative vote that is split into white and non-white sectors. Then two small hard fiscal right and hard fiscal left minorities.
Another way to think about this is as groups of consumers as outlined in the pop-sociology of the 8 tribes of nz:https://www.8tribes.co.nz/
Although somewhat dated it still provides the basis of good discussions with students, even if most of them lack the geographical knowledge to know where the tribes are located...
Yes Mike Grimshaw - so would not the confusion and dissatisfaction at present between haves and have-nots be most sensibly and fairly resolved through moving towards the simple concept of "Ownership Society' or "peoples capitalism", defined by at least a minimally meaningful level of personal (retirement) wealth ownership by all citizens eventually ?
Post a Comment