In response to Perry’s comment:
“Anyone who finds it necessary to self-proclaim their religious virtue should be treated with great caution”
Yes Perry, I agree – your litmus test is useful. But context is everything.
A “mask” of self proclaimed virtue in business (or, more accurately, SALES, like the spruikers we discuss here occasionally) can conceal skulduggery … in spite of the “trust me, god talks to me“.
For instance, a few years back it was novel to have someone overtly claiming in their marketing that ‘serving God and helping the poor in Fiji’ was the goal of his money-making ventures. In a charitable work context, sure, tell me all about your religion and how you’re operating to fulfil the call you feel god has placed on your life, how you are racing to shift your family to Fiji so you can help directly etc etc.
But as the raison d’etre for running property “trading workshops”, hawking your mate’s rural subdivision, or profiting from property sales to people asking for advice? Er, that sounds dodgy to me. (And not just me, apparently, judging by some recent comments.)
And when I feel cynical, or have reason to be suspicious of your loudly, repeatedly claimed, supposedly god-inspired, I’ve-turned-over-a-new-leaf “integrity” … and watch how you operate and who you partner up with … well, it sounds like a confidence-trick. It reminds me of an illusionist’s misdirection so the punters don’t notice sleight of hand.
—
But also of interest to me in the Lewis article is the dichotomy between the ethics of “the market” and the generally-accepted morality of (sorry to put it this way Perry) Judeo-Christian society in which many of us try to operate. You know: honesty, fair-dealing, avoiding usury.
• Where does one go in one’s head for predatory, crooked, dishonest behaviour and LIES such as Lewis points out in his Goldman Sachs article to be “OK”?
• Where does one go in one’s head to routinely publish promotional exaggeration and LIES of the sort that so-called truth-loving christians have peddled to part the naive and gullible from their cash?
• As highlighted in the discussion about Dean Letfus, Steve Goodey, Shaun Stenning and US tax liens, how does one mentally/morally shift from: ‘US tax liens are snake oil, stay away!’ to ‘Let me help you get really rich, really fast using … US Tax liens’?
—
The risk in making any public call or appeal for a higher standard (as Lewis does, as I do) is that it can open one to “Who the hell do you think you are to say such things?” responses and trigger a frantic search for “dirt” — real or imagined — with which to attempt to discredit the ‘critic’… which regularly happens to Aussie real estate advocate Neil Jenman. (Or attract barely-coherent, hassling threats of ‘legal action’, as David Whitburn recently experienced.)
My – sounds just like politics in New Zealand.
“My – sounds just like politics in New Zealand.”
[snort] Yes!
I remember years ago wasting my time sitting down in my office in the press gallery with a newly-arrived National Party backbench MP (now a cabinet minister in the Key government) and giving him some feedback on his media statements — in which, I tried to explain, it seemed to me he tended to play the man not the ball. [I know. Ironic.]
“You’ve got a choice, Nick,” I said. “What kind of MP do you want to be?”
Water off a duck’s back.
– P
Do they have a choice? Or are they ‘whipped’ into line? Either by their PR spin doctors (“it all depends on how you ‘package’ it”), or are they just victims of their speech writers and the need to be consistent with government policy / show a unified front to the nation’s disrespected ballot-box-fodder?
Choice? Well, yes. That was the point I was trying to pursue with this enthusiastic first-term MP. He did have a choice. He still does.
Parliament contains elements of the worst of boarding school-type schisms, gangs, bullying and jeering mockery to ‘psych’ people out — adversarial politics encourages that. The testosterone-riddled atmosphere, the radical, cultural landscape-changing Historic (intentional capital H) political events of the times (mid 80s-early 90s) seemed to crank the pressure levels up even higher.
Some MPs’ reaction, as always, was to attack their opponents rather than dismantle the argument, or even consider the contradictions of their own position. It’s weak argument, but some of these people are vigorous and convincing salesmen… that’s how they got elected: being plausible.
Yet others, when caught out peddling a specific lie or misleading statement, fudge the issues as best they can and turn on their exposer or accuser, attempting to smear them, and allege that person is telling (unspecified) lies for some ‘corrupt’ reason.
It’s a defence reflex (or a character flaw. Call it what you will.)
In some cases, you eventually understand that you’re dealing with a feral compulsive liar … even though they may trumpet their “love of God and the truth”.
-P
I think that the choice you refer to is more imagination, fantasy and self-deception, than a real choice, at all. A close acquaintance has confided in me that he does not think he’s ‘cut out’ to be a real estate agent. To him, it seems that the ones who are the most successful are the ones who lie the best and most plausibly and with a straight face. The idea of emulating that makes him feel uncomfortable.
I allow that many start out in politics (or other vocational pursuits), with high ideals. Ideals and ethics that have very short half-lives. Not because they were fleetingly transient in the individual, no. More because the person had no idea of the pressures soon to be faced by such lofty notions.
However, oft whispered in the mind’s quiet hours is this caveat:
Thanks for your reply Perry.
Self-decepton? Well, if that changes my behaviour, I can work with that. (Is that self-discipline by another name?)
This ‘how do you want to play the game of politics’ question was a matter of some concern to me at the time – and a topic of discussion with politicians and political actors of all stripes.
I was lucky enough to have (and to take) the opportunity to talk the matter over with cabinet ministers, Party presidents and lowly back bench MPs … as well as my much more experienced (and smarter than me) colleagues in the press gallery.
In those days the, er, informal socialising with MPs, with late night wanderings along the halls of Parliament Buildings and (to a lesser extent) the round lift lobbies of the Beehive led to some earnest discussions. I don’t want to overstate it, but we talked about this stuff among other crucial matters.
We watched the bunfights, some planned, some organic and unexpected — and de-briefed them afterwards.
Some MPs were cynical players who were in their element.
Others were crunched by the caucus experience and the pressure, as you say, and adopted the boarding school/macho/’shout down the opposition’ culture as a matter of survival… or efficacy … or a perverse kind of ‘teamwork’.
Still others, appalled, got the hell out.
Which was a choice too. – P
My . . .
. . . was more intended to depict the options the hapless politician had.
Although I despised gutter-mouth Crockery (was that her name?) at least she ‘blew the whistle’ on the machinations in the house where democracy is desecrated, daily. Russell Fairbrother’s expose – which might be fairly labelled sour grapes – was similarly insightful.
Interesting to ponder the number of ex-politicians that go to businesses, in contrast to how few go from businesses to that sandpit of screaming child effigies, euphemistically called the debating chamber. (debacle chamber?)
Good examples Perry.
I liked Pam Corkery a lot. She and I had worked together a little bit at Radio NZ Network News, then when I was producing Holmes Breakfast at NewstalkZB for a while before she went into politics she was the night talkback host … so we knocked about (professionally) a bit there.
Having worked in the press gallery around the time Jim Anderton was struggling to save the Labour Party’s soul (as he saw it) from the evils of Rogernomics (as he saw it) and from my dealings with then Party President Ruth Dyson who I ran into when covering party conferences and events, and at Vic, I knew what Pam was letting herself in for.
You well describe it as ‘machinations’. It was like an agitator washing machine. With agendas within agendas. Fascinating but awful.
Caucus politics, the bear-pit of the debating chamber, the endless competitive pressure, the ‘hang-together-or-hang-separately’ ‘are-you-with-us-or-agin-us’ dogma and grubby compromises … which over time EJECTS those with a solid sense of intellect or conscience (I mean this)…
I applauded Pam’s valiant attempt to contribute… and even more so her decision to pull the plug and get her life back.
It’s a shame, because by doing so (quitting or, in my own case, avoiding engagement) we leave the game of politics and the highest court in the land to venal self-serving manipulators in large part. (Not true in all cases, but even the ‘best of the best’ have their moments of rancid compromise in the pursuit of power.)
And don’t get me started on the Christian Heritage Party and their lay-down-with-dogs-get-up-with-fleas experiences. Crikey! Hard work.
Phew. Rant ends. – P
PS I also learned a hell of a lot from reasonably close observation of the Bill Birch/Jim Bolger machine and its players and had decent discussions with them both and people whose intellect I respected like John Luxton and Wyatt Creech … and a somewhat fractious rapport with Lockwood Smith now Speaker of the House.
Because I had a political column in Straight Furrow, the Federated Farmers magazine for a few years — and this was read by these guys’ National Party/farmer constituents, we’d have cause to discuss the ins-and-outs of political management along the way. Among other things…
[…] learned, do you think? I’m not sure. We discussed Nick’s slow learner status earlier. I think he’s what you could call ‘a resistant case’… He followed up with […]
[…] Likewise, history has shown us, surely, (and we’ve discussed it here) that someone’s trumpeting of their religious convictions is no indicator of the veracity of their claims or the truthfulness of their nature. Surely only […]
[…] MISGUIDED TRUST – Trust me… I’m Religious / a Christian / Churchgoer / (fill in the blank) or have some other affiliation which means I’m ethical… [Comment: see this post On Trumpets] […]
[…] — for instance, citing success or achievements that are exaggerated and (perish the thought) trumpeting ethics and motivations that were … […]
[…] Jen, First, your attempted spin: Loudly trumpeted charity donations, if they actually occur, are their own reward, in my view. Even if I was aware of […]
[…] of exceptional trustworthiness based on espoused religious affiliation … as we discussed in ‘Of trumpets’. Like ThePaepae.com on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Share […]