 |
| Downloading The Deplorables: What Chloe Swarbrick is proposing to her Green comrades is a mass movement, but mass movements are driven by the interests of dominant majorities, not elites, and certainly not by the agendas of ethnic and sexual minorities. Working-class people, poorly-educated people, heterosexual people, Pakeha people: these are the New Zealanders the Greens will be required to accept on their own terms – which are most unlikely to line up with their elitist, anti-democratic, identity-driven political ideology. |
CHLOE SWARBRICK has embarked on a brave, but almost certainly doomed, political experiment. She has set out to build a mass movement on the foundations of a political party that rejects majoritarian decision-making, and which, by elevating the particular above the universal, makes the social solidarity that fuels mass action impossibly difficult to achieve. If the transformational movement Swarbrick is hoping to build is ever to eventuate, then she will have to fundamentally remake her party.
Perhaps the best way to illustrate the difficulty of the task Swarbrick has set herself is to reverse-engineer the salutary fate of the Auckland chapter of School Strike 4 Climate. This was the organisation, composed mainly of conscientized middle-class secondary-school students, widely credited with mobilising upwards of 50,000 young Aucklanders for the struggle against global warming back in 2019.Central to the success of School Strike 4 Climate was its correct assumption that mass support for their cause already existed among those aged 15-20 years, and that to mobilise that support all they needed to do was organise a time and place for them to demonstrate it. The leadership of School Strike 4 Climate was largely self-selected, but the organs of organisation they conjured into existence were open to all. The kids who produced one of the largest political demonstrations in Auckland’s history did not ask permission before proceeding. Instead, they took the advice of the Nike Corporation and Greta Thunberg – and just did it.
And what a price they paid for having the temerity to organise a successful political event without first proving themselves fit “allies” for the victims of white supremacy, colonial subordination and heteronormative oppression. In the months and years that followed School Strike 4 Climate’s 2019 success, its organisers and participants were systematically “re-educated” to the point where their casual exercise of white privilege “persuaded” them to disband their organisation and withdraw into silence. In a statement released in June 2021, Auckland School Strike 4 Climate, declared itself to be “a racist organisation”. Henceforth, the fight against global warming would be led by their systemically victimised comrades.
But, if School Strike 4 Climate’s fate was to start huge and be made small, Swarbrick’s problem is how to take an organisation whose political mechanisms are designed to keep it small, and make it huge.
The Greens insistence on consensus-based decision-making, or, failing that, requiring the support of 75 percent of those responsible for making decisions, is driven by a profoundly elitist approach to politics. Those who framed the constitutional arrangements of the Green Party of Aotearoa were mistrustful of majorities and the political behaviour best suited to generating them. They did not want demagogues, they wanted philosopher kings and queens – men and women whose demonstrable wisdom counted for more than their ability to sway a conference of delegates. Investing these wise elders, and their tight circle of supporters, with veto powers was considered preferable to allowing 51 percent of Greens to overrule the preferences of the remaining 49 percent.
The problem with this constitutional structure is that it not only empowers those gathered around the revered philosopher king and/or queen, but also every other minority with the political smarts to throw a spanner in the decision-making works until its own agenda items are ticked-off. Constitutionally and politically, the Greens could hardly be better suited to advancing the cause of “Identity Politics” which, almost by definition, is hostile to the claims of dominant majorities. So much so that any Green politician demonstrating an ability to enthuse, galvanise, and (most alarmingly) mobilise large numbers of people is bound to attract the suspicion, even the outright enmity, of those whose interests would be compromised by an influx of members advancing policies believed to represent the greatest good for the greatest number.
In her speech to the Greens’ AGM in Christchurch (27-28 July 2024) Swarbrick challenged her audience with what, in the context of Green politics, is a deeply subversive question:
“What would it mean to build the biggest Green movement that the world has ever seen? For me, that’s not just about more seats in Parliament. It’s actually not even just about holding the Government benches. It’s about a country of citizens equipped with the understanding and the time and the resources to actively participate in our democracy. To hold those who make decisions on their behalf accountable. Even and especially if that’s us. It’s tens of thousands more Green Party members – people choosing to wear their hearts and values on their sleeves, organising and practising those values to win transformative change. From our neighbourhood corners to the very fabric of our state, in record numbers. Those people can and must come from all kinds of different backgrounds and walks of life.”
What Swarbrick is proposing here is a very big tent indeed – one stretching sufficient canvass to cover the sort of numbers needed to transform societies, and rescue planets. But such a big tent – “the biggest Green movement that the world has ever seen” – could not possibly endure for more than a few months under the present Green constitution.
What Swarbrick is demanding of her Green comrades is a mass movement, and mass movements are driven by the interests of dominant majorities, not elites, and certainly not by the agendas of ethnic and sexual minorities hostile to people who “come from all kinds of different backgrounds and walks of life” – most of them radically at odds with their own. Working-class people, poorly-educated people, heterosexual people, Pakeha people: people the Greens will have to accept on their own terms – and whom they must on no account attempt to convert to their elitist, anti-democratic, identity politics.
It is unclear whether or not even Swarbrick grasps this central reality of mass, or, as most commentators prefer to call it these days, “populist” politics. Buried in her challenge to the Green AGM is a perplexing reference to “a country of citizens equipped with the understanding and the time and the resources to actively participate in our democracy”. Nowhere does Swarbrick explain how such a country could possibly come into being prior to the revolutionary changes she is seeking. Only after the revolution is it possible to envisage citizens with “the understanding and the time” to make eco-socialism work.
Could it be that the only people Swarbrick is capable of envisioning as co-participants in the construction of a better world are people exactly like herself? Does she not understand that those in possession of the resources needed to participate meaningfully in the processes of self-government will always, this side of the revolution, be those with the most to lose by its arrival. Doesn’t she “get” that those with the most to gain from revolutionary change are unlikely to evince the placidity and equanimity of philosopher kings and queens? Their willingness to join the fight for change will be born of anger and despair, and the certainty that they have bugger-all left to lose. You don’t tell these sorts of people what they should be looking for – you give them what they want.
This essay was originally posted on The Democracy Project substack page on Monday, 29 July 2024.
25 comments:
The self cancellation of the School Strike 4 Climate against climate change was as predictable as it was hilarious. But thank god they did. I felt sorry for a lot of them, adults politically manipulating kids for political gain is a disgrace.
The deeper into woke dogma one goes, the more insane it is. You can't be truly woke without profound self loathing. You sure as shit can't be white. Worse still, male, heterosexual, have a gender or eat anything that tastes nice. Life is miserable and like the middle ages flagellants, the only way forward is self harm.
Which is a nice segway into Chloe. She's nothing more than an immature politicians politician. When not explaining why one of her co-led MP's is posting bail, or guilty of worker exploitation racketeering, or Wellington small business owner stand overs, she's cutting into a party political advertisements. Jesus love, give it a bone! She's pretty cringy to be fair. How she must resent those blue eyes and white face staring back at her in the mirror. It would not surprise me if mirrors are banned by the Greens for colonists.
The way the Greens are infighting at the moment is priceless and expected. The most sanctimonious puritan contradictory holier than thou political entity in the country is imploding into woke faux outrage, "retriggers" and unsafe safe places. If Chloe thinks that nuthouse verging on a seriously creepy religious cult is unifying or attractive to anyone vaguely sane, think again Toots! It ain't.
I'm thinking Ms Swarbrick, them they, will have to take a leaf out of the students book, if she is to retain woke cred, and self cancel out of politics altogether! There quite simply is no other way!
Despite the clear electoral division of the last two elections, it is most likely that majorities between the right and left party blocks in future elections will come down to slim majorities. If the Greens are willing to be held hostage to errant list MPs, it is difficult to see how they can enter numbers in a coalition agreements in good faith.
The current 'waka jumping' legislation ties list MPs into the reflection of the party vote. If Darleen Tana, or any other list MP, brings the party into disrepute or has intention to cross the benches, they are removed and the proportion allocated by the electorate for Parliamentary votes and resources is maintained. If an electorate MP, they are forced to resign and may chose to stand in a by-election under a different banner to seek mandate.
The Green Party view was that an MP leaving a party for idealistic reasons can get the traction to create a new party and direction. They cite their own reemergence from the Alliance and the founding of the Maori Party, but rarely cite the New Zealand Independent Coalition (Brendan Horan), Mana Wahine (Alamein Kopu), the New Zealand Momentum Party (Gaurav Sharma),the Right of Centre (Ross Meurant), New Zealand Pacific Party (Taito Phillip Field) or Mauri Pacific (Tau Henare et al). The pattern is clear, the self-serving out number the ideologue.
Thanks Little Keith, very good. And true.
The self loathing extends to the entirety of humanity itself but with a discount to some; full on hate for others.
Only the Greens could think they could build a "mass movement" in society by, one way or another, alienating and insulting almost everyone in it. Women, men, Europeans, farmers, motorists not wanted?
Transforming the Greens from their current style to being able to get say 25% of electorate is a herculean task. At present the Greens max out at 15% because their style and organisation doesn't reach beyond the avant garde and the relatively small creative sector. There is almost no connection with people in the engine room of the economy, be that urban or rural.
To gain support from a much wider group of the electorate would mean refashioning the Greens so they are more like the larger political parties with a more traditional hierarchal system. Or at least by fusing some element of that into their existing system. Perhaps by giving more power to the Green MP's in developing their policy agenda to appeal to a broader group of voters.
Little Keith has taken refuge in reassuring himself that such a transformation, especially by Chloe, can never happen. However, she is the very one who is imagining such a change. Can she transform the Greens into a 25% party by setting out a pathway in how that can happen?
It think it more probable than not. She has set out the challenge almost immediately upon becoming the co-leader and in fact is doing so when she is de facto the sole leader. I suspect that within 3 to 5 years the Greens, in thinking through their opportunities, will have made sufficient adjustment so that they can appeal to the next tranche of voters beyond 15%. If they do so, they will have done something that no other smaller party has done since the establishment of MMP 30 years ago. Break out of the third party category and change the system of two major parties into one of three major parties.
Yes ... under ... just below the surface ... of the Green's raison d'etre ... of a rationale for their organizational structure, there is ... at least to the eye of a normal sane Kiwi, a superior entitled assumption that "we possess a better anointed superior view of the world".
The reality is very different as Chris points out The Green's distaste for these many realities ... such as their flat organizational structure more or less invites organizational chaos to how they conduct their affairs
" adults politically manipulating kids for political gain is a disgrace."
That's a very bold statement to make – do you have any proof of that? Do you think young people are incapable of thinking things out for themselves? Reminds me of the good old US civil rights "outside agitators." Or even aliens building the pyramids. That's bullshit too.
Funny, there are a lot of personal attacks on Swarbrick. They seem to outnumber attacks on policy by a pretty large margin – I suspect if you looked at her email inbox it would I most certainly show that. There is the usual misogyny when a woman gets power. People are obviously running scared – conservatives are always scared of just about everything. With this reaction I suspect she is probably doing her job pretty well. But there is also the usual misogyny when a woman gets power.
She has set out to build a mass movement on the foundations of a political party that rejects majoritarian decision-making, and which, by elevating the particular above the universal, makes the social solidarity that fuels mass action impossibly difficult to achieve.
.................................................
That’s subversive Chris. I don’t think it is an accident that MBIE started that silly CaddANZ program; the Superdiversity Sillies, and NZ Self-Interested and Greedy Inc are joined at the hip.
Not refuge Wayne Mapp, just reality. I like you just lived the social justice dream under Labour, just it was more of a nightmare. Labour, of course, were far more bashful when it came to their woolly ideals, but implemented them to a disastrous outcome, just the same. The Covid lockdowns were the prequel to Chloe's all knowing state, taking us proles into its magnanimous bosom, thinking for us and together in our carless soviet communes, inequity would be replaced by inclusion, a serenity of common beliefs and coldness.
But who was going to pay for that fantasy story? Who could be bothered getting out of bed? We can't all be overpaid academics or politicians or their entourages. And as the lockdowns proved, rather than happy socialists, we ended up like caged rats at the say of scientists and their manipulative political friends who of course were all agreed...or else! Where oh where have I heard that before?
I voted for Chloe back in her first foray into politics as a mayoral aspirant. It happens when you don't think and listen to vague meaningless promises. She had no more clues then than now, but she has hardened. In interviews Swarbrick spins and pings around like a pinball, making shit up as she goes, hence my comment she is an immature politicians politician. There's nothing remarkable to see. A person who doesn't pay a mortgage, no dependants, has barely worked for a living and has gone into the unreal lifestyle of an all expenses paid politician. And is telling us how it's going to be.
As a peddlers of the apocalypse, she enthusiastic but routine, but I loathe politicians who market fear. I think most people do.
And were more proof needed, the principled Greens are looking to invoke the party hopping legislation they were so utterly against. Darlene Tana was charged, tried and found guilty by a hired gun, a lawyer. She once suited their made up image with her gender, race and facial tattoos but she has publically embarrassed that same bullshit image. The Greens want her cancelled and they want her out of the cool girls club. It's that bitchy. This from the party of "natural justice", "inclusiveness" and "equity". The irony is so typical. They haven't got the common decency to put this to a judicial hearing. Because the activist Greens hate the man and so they replace that with childish justice.
And that's why the Greens have nothing to sell us. They are fakes and they're dangerous!
You seem confused as to the process in regard to Tana. The Green Party followed the path most political parties do when investigating an MP for actions that could bring the party in to disrepute. An independent investigation by a senior lawyer or party grandee is expected, in this case the lawyer. Having considered the investigatory report, a decision is made as to discipline or not.
Tana resigned from the party before that consideration and decision. In doing so, she created the situation that could trigger the "waka jumping " legislation. If the result of consideration of the report the Green Party expelled her, that would have also given potential to the legislation. However, her resignation is what has created the disproportionately.
If she was charged and convicted of a crime that had a potential jail term of two or more years, then she would be removed by the Speaker under separate legislation.
Wayne: "To gain support from a much wider group of the electorate would mean refashioning the Greens"
A "refashioning" isn't going to do much when your party's core beliefs are the problem. Fortunately almost all of us are not in thrall to their wacky theories on gender, race or climate as the surveys of voters concerns show; Green party support is falling elsewhere as the destructive social and economic effects of their policies become apparent.
"Ban everything we can, eco-tax the rest: this could be the motto of the environmentalists in politics. If human CO2 is the problem, then Man must be restrained, controlled, suppressed in every one of his CO2-emitting activities: that is to say, in the totality of his actions. Researching environmentalism from the root of its anti-humanist ethic to the staggering heights of its actual demands — banning cars, aircraft, meat, nuclear energy, rural life, the market economy, modern agriculture, in short, post-Industrial-Revolution modernity — Drieu Godefridi shows that environmentalism defines a more radical ideology in its liberticidal, anti-economic and ultimately humanicidal claims than any totalitarian ideology yet seen."
https://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/the-green-reich/32007092
Personal attacks, patronizing misogynist comments, the colonisation of terms such as woke all reflect a sad desperate effort to cover one's insecurity and threatened place in a world that is increasingly elitist and controlled by single economic interests. We are increasingly seeing a move towards authoritarianism in the West and greater polarization in so called democracies. Genocidal murderers such as Netanyahu have never had it so good. Chloe might not be everyone's cup of tea, but she is not dangerous. She is fighting a system that spits anyone out who has any inclination whatsoever to challenge the staus quo. She is a product of that same system. Perhaps some personal reflection is called for. Perhaps we too are products of that same system, trapped, and in our frustration wanting to break away. To find some nirvana that tolerates our insecurities and to which we can feel some attachment. My single most concern is that a mass movement of the people will explode without any clear moral premise or direction. Rather the desire to destroy all and anyone that is seen as the enemy of popular revival. Unfortunately history tells us this is most likely, especially given the signs already prevalent worldwide. Indeed some of the commentary here reinforces those very same concerns.
Chris – the word woke simply means someone's done something I don't like. You then label it woke and you don't have to discuss the substance of what you think is wrong. Most of them find it difficult to define the term. Just lazy thinking.
Politics world wide isn't fair. The best of the bad are democracies as we have in NZ. In short the Party or parties who receive the most votes run the show and introduce their policies that were most popular with the majority of voters. Our Minority parties resent this because in their minds their policies would be far better to build a better more inclusive and environmentally friendly country. The reality is the Greens is a Minority party. IMO Chloe believes we all really should want green policies so potentially she will be able to convince the electorate that she can lead us and NZ to the promised land. She may have had a chance but for the Green party members (including herself) who have hijacked the greens to push their own agendas. Over the last seven years some who have believed all the authorities tell us about the environment, and what we should do about it, have come to the conclusion that punishing our farmers, or joining the electric car revolution isn't going to change the world, but might just make their own situation worse. The green part of the greens isn't as straight forward as it used to be, and the woke part of the Greens and its attraction to the sub groups may attract a few more members but to the detriment of the base green policies. In other words some ordinary NZrs who just want good green policies hate the BS that has permeated the party in recent times. It's a distraction. The Greens ratings reflect the population who hate the other parties and that's about it. IMO the Greens would have to purge many of their sitting members to gain any credibility with the wider voting public and Chloe hasn't the power to make that happen any time soon. Just as an afterthought, any party that will appeal to the wider voting public has to have some sort of believable economic policy. We are not all stupid enough to think we don't need one.
Everything is about class.
Maori: Academics see immigration as about racism rather than negative affects of immigration. Tina Ngata quotes A,B,C who (conveniently) find that immigration doesn't affect house prices.
Ranginui Walker was firmly against immigration (current ethos), but a Maori nationalist. Makes you wonder if he would feel the same today?
High achievers and their progeny will always be able to come out on top.
It come's down to old versus new New Zealand.
The old New Zealand of Austin Mitchell had a commons for the common people. Now that has been exploited, but that doesn't bother a lot of people "just build more infrastructure" (out of taxes).
David Seymour demonstrates the point here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6mLhz3jIGQ&t=720s
Yesterday Sean Plunket had a 15 Y/o read a speech which New Plymouth Boy's Highschool wouldn't let him make. Sean (however) doesn't agree with the bit about "mass migration" (he said so).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCdmZ76pOZg&t=325s&pp=ygUMVGhlIFBsYXRmb3Jt
Saving the planet, is about sacrifices, however Julie-Anne Genter says: "more people isn't a problem". She wants us to believe in a possibility of what could be, whereas all around us we see what is. What is more, the cool voices; the PR ("enabling housing choice" v's " adjustments for rapid population increase"), are falling flat. The political system has got away with this so far because (as Kim Hill jokes to Robert Wade: "is it good luck or good management?"), people aren't aware of the levels of filtering and suppression.
Chris: "Perhaps some personal reflection is called for."
No perhaps about it, Chris.
"One way of elevating your reputation is to claim unearned moral virtue.
And so, a huge part of what motivates the “Woke” nonsense that insists that the mere reflexive act of feeling sorry for someone constitutes a moral virtue, is an attempt to claim a reputational status without having to do any of the work whatsoever.
To be a good person, you have to be productive. That's hard. And you have to be generous. And that's hard. And you have to play medium to long-term stable, voluntary games with other people. And that's hard.
Nothing but diligent, upward-oriented work over the years puts you in that position.
Whereas if you make an unwarranted moral claim, “I'm compassionate,” then instantly, you're with the angels. It also allows you to derogate those whom you regard as predatory and enhances your moral virtue.
“Not only am I compassionate, and that makes me good, but and I'm on the side of the angels, but there are the snakes, and they're not in me at all because I'm saintly in all regards”.
The snakes have to be somewhere. And the most convenient place to put them is in someone else." Jordan Peterson.
I think you're getting close to the core of the issue. Chloe is just a facet of the 'fantasy beliefs' of an elite who have for decades been insulated from the consequences of them. Mass migration from the 3rd world and insane climate policies aren't impacting the likes of Chloe with her private school education and trust fund. It's impacting the middle and lower classes... and they're getting angry.
In NZ we're vastly better off than say Europe or the UK which is now reaping the whirlwind of open borders and absolutely bonkers beliefs about CO2. The latest widespread riots in the UK will result in an inevitable authoritarian crackdown because the people in charge, regardless of their party affiliations, have absolutely no clue as to how everyday life works for people in these cities. The enemy is on the gate and nothing much can be done now. I hear Aldous Huxley saying "I told you so" from his grave.
The Greens Climate Change, Climate Catastrophe, the Worlds Burning/Boiling message. All the hall marks of a depressed pyche. The apocalypse is now! Or are you living under a rock?
It's propaganda is updated at least annually as each doomsday end of time prediction fails to materialise, handily for the Greens, to keep the nightmare alive.
Vote for us, eat vegan, ride bicycles, end car use, mind everyone else's business, do not tolerate independent thought and you'll turn the global temperature down as precisely as using the heat pump remote at Chloe's flat. It's that easy! Easy to say.
The climate change thing is the greatest political swindle in the modern times making Donald Trump look like Mother Teresa in the integrity stakes, and telling the young and impressionable that they have no future, ad nauseum, is Greens woke 101. Hence they want to lower the voting age! Good enough?
Chris: "a sad desperate effort to cover one's insecurity"
Speaking of sad, desperate efforts I see that criticism of Joe Biden is now being described as "ableist".
https://youtu.be/2-nUmJDgguY
In other words, David, you think that in holding a political belief you are "insulting" anyone who does not agree with you. Little Keith's comment, above is little more than opinionated waffle.
"banning cars, aircraft, meat, nuclear energy, rural life, the market economy, modern agriculture, in short, post-Industrial-Revolution modernity — "
They don't ban any of these things, though they advocate reductions in ghg emmisions, and reductions in some of these things would be beneficial with respect global warming.
There have been many commentators that have intertwined his physical movement with mental decline. This is ableist. There are those that have parodied the stutter Biden has struggled with throughout his life as a sign of cognitive decline. That is ableist. Joe Biden has age related issues, this is very much in line to slowing at a level expected at his age. Noting this, and evaluating it in his ability to hold another 4 years in a high requirement position is not ageist. However, extrapolating this to a conclusion that he has dementia or any other defined medical condition is ableist.
So David, you have to evaluate the line of criticism or attack and see whether it is valid or prejudicial.
Good enough? Er no... as someone said before ... opinionated waffle. "mind everyone else's business, do not tolerate independent thought ". Particularly this. Anyone who disagrees with you is not thinking independently right?
And of course you independently think that climate change is a swindle. You know better than thousands and thousands of scientists? Nope.
The use of "in other words" doesn't excuse deliberate misrepresentation, "mikesh".
Obviously not everyone is going to support all policies but calling motorists "fascists" (Genter), white men are responsible for most violence (Davidson) or chanting terrorist's slogans and trying to shut down Speak up For Women events isn't going to endear you to many, much less help generate a mass movement.
As for the Green agenda; they do indeed have a record of calling for the end of motoring, modern agriculture etc. just as Drieu Godefridi claims. His book details, with references, many such examples. The only reason they haven't been implemented is because the Greens haven't been in power. Thank God.
"The strange and otherwise incomprehensible alliance between the diversity, inclusivity, and equity enterprise and the so-called environmental movement can be best understood in this manner.
At first glance, the consumerist hedonism of Pride—its aesthetic of overflowing variety, abundance, and inclusive generosity—appears to exist in direct conflict with the sobriety and top-down centralising restraint characteristic of environmentalism, with its demands that the earth itself be protected against its inhabitants, who do nothing but damage it in their requirement for ever-increasing freedom and standard of living.
How can these two ways of thinking co-exist, much less regard each other as obvious political allies?
The development of total statist control over even the minutiae of our private lives (forbidding everything from non-elite flights, private automobiles, and natural gas stoves and furnaces on the macro side, and functional toilets and showers, wood-fired ovens, and plastic bags and drinking straws at the micro-level) is nothing but the reverse side of the coin of infinite diversity and difference, the exacerbation of the duality of individual versus the state, which is now reaching its surreal crescendo.
The reason why we were allowed, encouraged, and mandated to identify with, give our attention and especially our sacrifices to the environment and a pandemic, is precisely because they are global and all encompassing, portrayed as transcending all intermediary identities, from individuals, to families and even nations. In that way, the global identity of such crises is the mirror image and dance partner of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ explosion of idiosyncrasy and exception."
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog/identity-individual-and-the-state-versus-the-subsidiary-hierarchy-of-heaven/
Follow the link to the extraordinary research paper for Peterson and Pageau.
Post a Comment