No. Despite what those at the top - like yourself (and a certain Mr. Henry) - tend to believe, New Zealander's are not stupid Mr. Farrar.
Things are not as they seem. New Zealanders are hanging onto National by a thread. They're not clinging to the right-wing party they voted in, they're clinging to the hope inherit in the image National painted. And National better deliver.
I hope that our government shows more concern for democracy and the wellbeing of our citizenry than you do. You have openly endorsed a government to follow radical policies on which they were not elected. Policies which New Zealanders are tired of, which have proven to be destructive, and which would ultimately just make you richer.
You attempt to legitimize your position by saying "I don't mean do stuff you (National) said you would not do". Unfortunately that still leaves pretty much everything on the table, including what David Cunliffe calls 'p' word: privatization. National's pre-election policies were a lolly scramble of "er, well yes, we'll get to that when we get to that. But hey, economic growth!". By not saying what they would do, there is nothing National said they would not do. As far as privatization is concerned, the rhetoric from Key has been "I have never said I am philosophically opposed to asset sales. It does not form a part of the government agenda for this term."
The reality is that should John Key at any time even snore "privatisation" in his sleep, he would drop dramatically in the polls. New Zealanders are not stupid.
I used to think they were, to be honest. But I have been proven wrong. They think hard about issues. They are a decent, hopeful, and faithful people. They are not a nation of people who - as you presume - simply do not listen to the opposition ("the public is not listening to [Labour]"). We cannot assume New Zealanders are so ignorant to not listen to the opposition. They are listening, but Labour is not being heard. Instead of blaming the public perhaps we should - for once - hold those whose job it is to be the communicators and interpreters responsible.
New Zealanders are not stupid. They are waiting to see if National delivers on the change it promised and, more importantly the change they believed they were voting for. They are waiting for Phil Goff to "come out of his shell" and "develop". The vote is not weighing to National at the moment because they're doing such a standup job. It is stuck in a holding pattern: status quo until we see how this lot turn out.
So, Mr Farrar, you have given your endorsement for a democratically elected government to exploit the votes and faith of the people and follow a radical agenda. If this is what you long for, fuck off to Zimbabwe.
Actually, you know what? Let National follow these radical policies you are so eager for, let them test the intelligence and sensibilities of the nation. Go on, "rev it up, and take it out for a spin". Let's see how long they last when private companies begin drilling in Fiordland. Let us see if your audacity is sustainable then. I, unlike you, understand that everything - wealth, the environment, the economy - is temporary. There is nothing you can accomplish from this other than gifting National a very short spell in office.
So let them off the leash and privatize away. Make your money my friend... I'll enjoy watching the shit fall from a great height.
4 comments:
Interesting piece.
I note that it's poor form to insinuate your opponents advocate policies only that will enrich themselves. It adds nothing to the debate, except possibly signalling that you don't intend even to understand what your opponents are talking about. It's a lazy ad hominem, and far beneath you.
There are in fact legitimate—even strong—arguments in favour of what you call a "radical" agenda, and one does not need to be stupid or mendacious to believe them. It speaks sad truths about the state of our political culture that so many people take this "easy" rhetorical path, and I'm saddened and surprised to see that you've done this. This is also beneath you.
I'm not going to argue the merits of such an agenda here, or even the merits of the arguments about it. Suffice to say, it hasn't been "proven" to be destructive, else we would have reversed Rogernomics and reverted to Muldoonism (is this what you advocate?).
Finally, I think New Zealanders are the best judges of what they "are tired of", and it strains plausibility to speak in their place with partisan soundbites.
And as for the "fuck off to Zimbabwe" crack, well, that's overheated and you know it.
"Beneath him"? Drinkwater, your entire reply is a lazy, rhetorical, ad hominem attack. BK says: "Don't call names, name-caller."
The problem is, the growth-obsessed economics of National and Labour have been proven destructive. It just has not been acknowledged. The point has been made time and again, but it has been beaten down with power.
Fact is, we live in a society where capitalism has been given increasing priority over democracy for 40 years. And that's not even good healthy, Adam Smith capitalism which integrates the necessary tension between the market and the collective good. We're talking global capital, neo-liberalism, monetarism, which borrows the bits of capitalist theory it likes and throws the rest away.
This has been an active, self-published agenda by the wealthy and corporate elite, with readily empirically verified effects.
The environment is worse, social standards are worse - in '61, we were using 30% of the world's sustainable capacity. Now we're using 120%. Where's the world-saving technology huh? Biofuels? Sequestration? Laughable. It's promised every time this debate comes up, every ten years. But nada.
Why? I'll tell you.
The problem is, the reductionist, normative approach of Neoliberal economics externalised consequences.
If you don't admit consequences, how can you fix them?
If you don't admit consequences you're never proven wrong!
Instead, it made everything a challenge. An opportunity. Just a number that popped up out of the blue. And at that point, your reductionist economics ceased any pretence of science.
It became dogma. Purely, the ideology of power, as "freethinking" as the catholic church.
And that's your proof. It's all there, all around us, waiting to be read. Sure, you can deny it: it's a sweet ride if you want to jump on the gravy train whiles it's running. But it's not reasoned. It's not intelligent. It's not even good capitalism.
It's neanderthal.
Drinkwater: If you truly believe this dogma, I'm sad for you, because you obviously have intellect. If you're in it for the self-interested pats on the head, at least that's understandable. That just makes you among the next generation of young intellectual footsoldiers who have been dazzled by the success of the dominant elite.
I hope that makes you feel special, because the thing is - you don't matter.
Not you personally, of course, because in a true democracy, a wide range of competing viewpoints are given significance. What we have now are the interests of 10-20% of the population (at MOST) broadcast and popularised to gain a majority. That's an impressive feat of power... but is ultimately vulnerable.
Because Mr Bear's story is right. And put properly, in the right venue, and repeated, it will feel right for a great many people - people who have been waiting a long 25 years for a change.
So there's no need to convince the likes of you.
That's why you have to cry him down. He's not partisan. Labour are only slightly more balanced than National. Again, cries of Muldoonism are ridiculous and "beneath you", beneath your intellect - but are a crucial plank in the politics of the dominant elite.
But really, natural limits, if nothing else, is coming; and there is hope in other quarters.
So scream yourself hoarse.
My appetite for these fights is limited. But I feel the need to say three things here.
First, my comment was not an attack on MBS, and if it can be read that way, then I must have written it poorly. MBS is one of the best men I'm honoured to know. I agree he's not especially partisan, and I admire that (even though I feel his line of attack here was both partisan and invalid). I'm not trying to shout him down at all: I'm trying to nudge him away from arguments that fail to engage with his opponents. I do this because I know he's smarter and better than that (my suspicion is that he's smarter and better than me). He's newish to the political fray and I think he'll contribute a tremendous amount, but only if, when attacking opponents, he actually engages with them. All else is noise and hackery.
Second, I do not resile from my criticism of this post. To attribute anyone's political advocacy only to their own self-interest—all politics as rent-seeking—is poor form. It's not political debate. It's point-scoring. True, if "put properly, in the right venue, and repeated, it will feel right for a great many people", but that says nothing about its truth: anything at all, put properly, in the right venue, and repeated, will feel right for a great many people.
Third, I don't believe my political views to be "destructive", "reductionist", "neanderthal", "not reasoned", or anything of the sort. I pay people on the Left the courtesy of not assuming they are stupid or dazzled by power or craven. I am resigned to the fact that people on the Left seldom pay me the same courtesy. Maybe you're right, maybe you're more perceptive than me, and maybe your judgements of my opinions—made apparently without knowledge of my actual opinions or how I arrived at them—are correct. Maybe. But I don't need your pity ("I'm sad for you") or your patronization ("If you're in it for the self-interested pats on the head, at least that's understandable") any more than I need pity or patronization from anyone else. No pats on the head for me, please.
A very genteel withdrawal.
Post a Comment