There is no "unacceptable" threshold for public response to political action, no matter what the form of government. It is a continuum of escalation - the more dramatic or dislikable the political action is to citizens, the stronger their reactions, and the reverse.
I don't want extremism in NZ. But extremism starts with politicians and ideologues - not with the general public.
The article effectively sides with people and politicians who want to experience no discomfort for their attempts to transform society. Revolution is the extreme end of public reaction to unacceptable politics. If politicians don't fear the reaction of citizens in some form, there is nothing stopping them.
I agree and without endorsing violence or intimidating behaviour the rise in MPs being abused since Covid is entirely understandable when you recognise the extraordinary impact govt had on people's autonomy. You can't essentially legislate "house arrest" without pushback!
And given Jacinda Ardern and parliament's ostracisation of the protest I don't see the push back on her as irrational.
Good column thanks Bryce. Social media has a huge part to play in the way society is negatively progressing. The ability to voice very nasty opinions and comments anonymously has made a huge contribution to the polarization of society.
Totally agree here. Social media exacerbates polarities because many people only listen to their own side of politics and regularly experience confirmation bias. Verbal abuse of public figures, and among those arguing on social media, gets worse because there are usually no consequences.
I think that political extremism in the US and NZ have some stark differences. The USA, with approximately 72 times the population of NZ is far less cohesive. Here, we have 2 degrees of separation instead of 6 degrees as in the USA, which also has far more cultural and racial diversity.
Additionally, the USA is flooded with guns (393,347,000 guns as opposed to a bit over a million here). The USA has been a violent nation since the beginning - with multiple violent unrests, a civil war, and extremely violent racial and union struggles in the late 1800s and early 1900’s. They had deadly riots and demonstrations along with multiple high-profile assassinations of 60’s 70’s. "In a single eighteen-month period during 1971 and 1972, the FBI counted an amazing 2,500 bombings on American soil, almost five a day" (Time Magazine). All up, the levels of violence in the USA made the Springbok tour riots look like a walk in the park. So, I think that we are much better positioned.
Populism in the USA (and among the likes of Chris Trotter here) generally refers to right-wing populism. Right-wing populism is fundamentally authoritarian, violent, anti-intellectual, and racist. It exaggerates fear and insecurity with scapegoats of elites and immigrants ("a catastrophe") while extolling law and order. (These supposed “elites” are defined as university-educated liberal bureaucrats, intellectuals, scientists, and social liberals, who tend to be economically middle to upper-middle class, with a social consciousness that includes class, race, and gender.
NZ went from one of the most progressive end egalitarian nations in the 80s almost overnight to one of the most right-wing nations in the developed world. Misinformation was employed under the pretense of saving the economy. Suicides tripled, and crime skyrocketed. Inequality increased multifold with some of the most radical tax cuts for the rich in the world (income tax down from 64% to 33” including a land tax that was basically a capital tax, in now the only developed nation without a capital tax of some sort). Unions were decimated by right-wing Orwellian named “right to work” laws. Instead of helping the economy with the neoliberal turn, it tanked. So now talk of reversing some of the inequality is considered radical left “populism”?
We need to distinguish between the misinformation apocalypse that caused irrational redneck outbursts against Jacinda and continued smears against the Greens; and actual economic realities brought on by one of the most right-wing governments in NZ history...at least since the 80’s-early 90’s.
You cite Ryan Bridge offering as an example of potential political violence in New Zealand 'Chloe Swarbrick chanting slogans that many Jewish people interpret as calling for Israel to be forced out of the Middle East'.
As has been patiently and politely explained many times, the slogan 'Palestine will be free, from the River to the Sea' is not a call for violence, nor a call for Israel to be forced out of the 'Middle East': it is a call for Israel and the territories it illegally and brutally occupies to be transformed from the apartheid state it is now into a democratic state where all have equal rights, regardless of language, religion, culture, or purported ethnicity ... just as we have in New Zealand.
And it is precisely this that we must cling to in New Zealand: a democratic state where all have equal rights, regardless of language, religion, culture, or purported ethnicity.
The struggle in New Zealand must be for fairness. That means rejecting the divisive politics of identity that have seduced Labour, Te Paati Māori, and above all the Greens, where anger and energy are wasted on whether one is male or female, Māori or Pakeha, gay or straight. The struggle must be for healthy and affordable homes for everyone, for an adequate basic income for everyone, for free and accessible health care for everyone, free and equal access to schooling for everyone, a universal superannuation that is enough to live on, for everyone.
Dildos and lamingtons seem about right as protest vessels aimed at the current Govt, as Darth Hooton observed pre election, and as we have seen since, 'these are not serious people'
I judge people on their actions and inactions which is why I have little respect for most politicians currently in parliament.
I disliked Jacinda because of her actions and inactions and the jury is out on Luxon but as he is doing what he said he would do and not hiding agendas from the public so he is way ahead of Jacinda currently in my books.
One of the things the last government tried to do was stifle different opinions and they were ably supported by the MSM. Once you stop open debate on any topic you drive people into tin foil hat wearing echo chambers.
Sadly the MSM are no longer a bastion of information so the public can make up their own mind and I can't see that changing any time soon, so they have to bear some of the responsibility for where we find ourselves today.
after listening on sunday to Tane and the co leader of Te pati Maori and also a NZ Politician who provided unbelivable scathing comments against all New zealanders ,.As a fourth genertaion NZ i was gutted ? Yes as Michael Laws predicted there is a Civil war on its way and MAORI are RESPONSIBILE
It is not Māori who are responsible for anything. Only individuals are responsible. To quote from the beginning, and a paragraph a bit further in, of an essay, Racism, by Ayn Rand, "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage — the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.... Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement [or bad behaviours]. There are only individual minds and individual achievements [or bad behaviours]— and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements [or bad behaviours] of individual men." The square bracketed insertions are mine.
Check out this interesting talk by David Brooks: "The Root Causes of Populism, Authoritarianism and The Whole Global Mess" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDdssTQG6Vc. It covers essential elements by this centrist Republican NYT columnist. Albeit he omitted the decimation of unions (causing the stagnation of wages - the stagnation of hope) and massive neoliberal government spending cuts (in a transition from free or almost free public higher education to costly and in the US, corporate-funded education re the education divide) - certainly major causes not addressed by Brooks (or Bryce).
Farrar: “rule out Te Pati Maori playing any role in a future Government unless they drop their violent extremist language.”
I think the time has come for that, at least under it's current leadership. Are Labour really happy to be in any way associated with claims of racial superiority and calls for antidemocratic revolution and separatism? For all our sakes cut the toxic Maori Party adrift.
It's WAY more complicated.
There is no "unacceptable" threshold for public response to political action, no matter what the form of government. It is a continuum of escalation - the more dramatic or dislikable the political action is to citizens, the stronger their reactions, and the reverse.
I don't want extremism in NZ. But extremism starts with politicians and ideologues - not with the general public.
The article effectively sides with people and politicians who want to experience no discomfort for their attempts to transform society. Revolution is the extreme end of public reaction to unacceptable politics. If politicians don't fear the reaction of citizens in some form, there is nothing stopping them.
I agree and without endorsing violence or intimidating behaviour the rise in MPs being abused since Covid is entirely understandable when you recognise the extraordinary impact govt had on people's autonomy. You can't essentially legislate "house arrest" without pushback!
And given Jacinda Ardern and parliament's ostracisation of the protest I don't see the push back on her as irrational.
Good column thanks Bryce. Social media has a huge part to play in the way society is negatively progressing. The ability to voice very nasty opinions and comments anonymously has made a huge contribution to the polarization of society.
Totally agree here. Social media exacerbates polarities because many people only listen to their own side of politics and regularly experience confirmation bias. Verbal abuse of public figures, and among those arguing on social media, gets worse because there are usually no consequences.
I think that political extremism in the US and NZ have some stark differences. The USA, with approximately 72 times the population of NZ is far less cohesive. Here, we have 2 degrees of separation instead of 6 degrees as in the USA, which also has far more cultural and racial diversity.
Additionally, the USA is flooded with guns (393,347,000 guns as opposed to a bit over a million here). The USA has been a violent nation since the beginning - with multiple violent unrests, a civil war, and extremely violent racial and union struggles in the late 1800s and early 1900’s. They had deadly riots and demonstrations along with multiple high-profile assassinations of 60’s 70’s. "In a single eighteen-month period during 1971 and 1972, the FBI counted an amazing 2,500 bombings on American soil, almost five a day" (Time Magazine). All up, the levels of violence in the USA made the Springbok tour riots look like a walk in the park. So, I think that we are much better positioned.
Populism in the USA (and among the likes of Chris Trotter here) generally refers to right-wing populism. Right-wing populism is fundamentally authoritarian, violent, anti-intellectual, and racist. It exaggerates fear and insecurity with scapegoats of elites and immigrants ("a catastrophe") while extolling law and order. (These supposed “elites” are defined as university-educated liberal bureaucrats, intellectuals, scientists, and social liberals, who tend to be economically middle to upper-middle class, with a social consciousness that includes class, race, and gender.
So-called leftist “populism” is fundamentally based on old-fashioned social democracy or democratic socialism, which is based on fighting economic elitism but has a social conscience. In my opinion, “left populism” is a term of abuse to distract from actual economic realities where “New Zealand’s millionaires pay lower tax rates than cashiers”. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/27/new-zealands-millionaires-pay-lower-tax-rates-than-cashiers-its-time-to-fix-the-system
NZ went from one of the most progressive end egalitarian nations in the 80s almost overnight to one of the most right-wing nations in the developed world. Misinformation was employed under the pretense of saving the economy. Suicides tripled, and crime skyrocketed. Inequality increased multifold with some of the most radical tax cuts for the rich in the world (income tax down from 64% to 33” including a land tax that was basically a capital tax, in now the only developed nation without a capital tax of some sort). Unions were decimated by right-wing Orwellian named “right to work” laws. Instead of helping the economy with the neoliberal turn, it tanked. So now talk of reversing some of the inequality is considered radical left “populism”?
We need to distinguish between the misinformation apocalypse that caused irrational redneck outbursts against Jacinda and continued smears against the Greens; and actual economic realities brought on by one of the most right-wing governments in NZ history...at least since the 80’s-early 90’s.
You cite Ryan Bridge offering as an example of potential political violence in New Zealand 'Chloe Swarbrick chanting slogans that many Jewish people interpret as calling for Israel to be forced out of the Middle East'.
As has been patiently and politely explained many times, the slogan 'Palestine will be free, from the River to the Sea' is not a call for violence, nor a call for Israel to be forced out of the 'Middle East': it is a call for Israel and the territories it illegally and brutally occupies to be transformed from the apartheid state it is now into a democratic state where all have equal rights, regardless of language, religion, culture, or purported ethnicity ... just as we have in New Zealand.
And it is precisely this that we must cling to in New Zealand: a democratic state where all have equal rights, regardless of language, religion, culture, or purported ethnicity.
The struggle in New Zealand must be for fairness. That means rejecting the divisive politics of identity that have seduced Labour, Te Paati Māori, and above all the Greens, where anger and energy are wasted on whether one is male or female, Māori or Pakeha, gay or straight. The struggle must be for healthy and affordable homes for everyone, for an adequate basic income for everyone, for free and accessible health care for everyone, free and equal access to schooling for everyone, a universal superannuation that is enough to live on, for everyone.
Dildos and lamingtons seem about right as protest vessels aimed at the current Govt, as Darth Hooton observed pre election, and as we have seen since, 'these are not serious people'
I judge people on their actions and inactions which is why I have little respect for most politicians currently in parliament.
I disliked Jacinda because of her actions and inactions and the jury is out on Luxon but as he is doing what he said he would do and not hiding agendas from the public so he is way ahead of Jacinda currently in my books.
One of the things the last government tried to do was stifle different opinions and they were ably supported by the MSM. Once you stop open debate on any topic you drive people into tin foil hat wearing echo chambers.
Sadly the MSM are no longer a bastion of information so the public can make up their own mind and I can't see that changing any time soon, so they have to bear some of the responsibility for where we find ourselves today.
He's hiding a lot.
after listening on sunday to Tane and the co leader of Te pati Maori and also a NZ Politician who provided unbelivable scathing comments against all New zealanders ,.As a fourth genertaion NZ i was gutted ? Yes as Michael Laws predicted there is a Civil war on its way and MAORI are RESPONSIBILE
It is not Māori who are responsible for anything. Only individuals are responsible. To quote from the beginning, and a paragraph a bit further in, of an essay, Racism, by Ayn Rand, "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage — the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.... Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement [or bad behaviours]. There are only individual minds and individual achievements [or bad behaviours]— and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements [or bad behaviours] of individual men." The square bracketed insertions are mine.
Check out this interesting talk by David Brooks: "The Root Causes of Populism, Authoritarianism and The Whole Global Mess" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDdssTQG6Vc. It covers essential elements by this centrist Republican NYT columnist. Albeit he omitted the decimation of unions (causing the stagnation of wages - the stagnation of hope) and massive neoliberal government spending cuts (in a transition from free or almost free public higher education to costly and in the US, corporate-funded education re the education divide) - certainly major causes not addressed by Brooks (or Bryce).
Farrar: “rule out Te Pati Maori playing any role in a future Government unless they drop their violent extremist language.”
I think the time has come for that, at least under it's current leadership. Are Labour really happy to be in any way associated with claims of racial superiority and calls for antidemocratic revolution and separatism? For all our sakes cut the toxic Maori Party adrift.