I had a coffee with Cameron Slater this morning. I like to interact face to face with people whom I criticize — it’s far better to engage, in my opinion, than to reach for pistols at dawn dueling online personas.
We discussed some of our recent disagreements (most recently noted in Cameron Slater’s defective moral calculus) in good humour and Cam helped me understand that his belief in a whacky (my word) conspiracy theory about ‘The Left’ manipulating ‘the media’ is sincerely held. Who woulda thunk it?
I scoffed into my flat white and told him so, but later it reminded me of an article I read in BBC Focus magazine about how a self-reinforcing belief and fear can make you ill …
In 1998 at a high school in Tennessee, a teacher complained of a pungent “gasoline-like” smell in her classroom. Soon after, she fell ill, reporting symptoms such as nausea, shortness of breath, dizziness and a headache. Almost immediately several students in her class started to experience similar symptoms and, before long, the rest of the school was stricken.
The building was evacuated as Fire fighters, ambulances and police arrived on the scene to tend to the sick. That evening the local emergency room admitted 80 students and 19 staff members; 38 were hospitalised overnight.
But what was the mysterious toxic gas that sparked the outbreak? Several extensive investigations by Government agencies found nothing. Blood tests showed no signs of any harmful compounds. Instead, according to Timothy Jones a local epidemiologist, the fear of being poisoned had spread, fuelling the symptoms experienced by everyone inside.
A report in the New England Journal of Medicine attributed the outbreak to a phenomenon known as ‘mass psychogenic illness’, which occurs when the fear of infection spreads just as virulently as the disease itself. The students and staff had decided that, based on the behaviour of those around them, there was a real threat they needed to be afraid of.
The ‘outbreak’ in Tennessee demonstrates that people can be scared – to the point of sickness – without there actually being any real threat present.
from ‘The Science of FEAR’ by Daniel Bennett — BBC Focus magazine, July 2010.
It seems to me from what Cameron and I discussed, that Right Wing spin doctors and bloggers/activists/schemers like him (and only a handful of others – in NZ anyway) have convinced themselves that their Left Wing ‘opponents’ are waging a dirty, unprincipled propaganda war and will stoop to virtually any sleazy strategy to gain influence or advantage. So strongly do they, as a group, hold this belief that they (the Right-wing cabal) feel they are therefore completely justified in waging a dirty, unprincipled propaganda war and to stoop to virtually any sleazy strategy to gain influence or advantage. I bet some on ‘the Left’ think exactly the same way. (Trevor Mallard, I’m looking at you. And you Martyn Bradbury.)
It’s very George W Bush ‘Bush doctrine‘ (justifying US first strikes as ‘preventive war’) … attacking ‘the enemy’ to beat them to the punch. ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Macho bullshit.
So, seeing that in context, and observing again the vehemence with which Cam appears to hold those views (although he says he’s ‘having fun’) I’m struck by what I see as a troubling upward spiral of personal animosity. The shouts of ‘Scumbag!’ directed at PM John Key after he (in very bad taste) apparently tried to blame Labour for a protester trying to jump from the public gallery(?) are just the latest example and seem to me to reveal a deep mutual loathing.
This visceral, reflexive escalation of hostility, in my opinion, can only hurt politics in this country.
It doesn’t matter who ‘started it’. We really don’t want or need the intense partisanship of US politics where Congressional and Senate ‘co-operation’ is characterized by some Southern white extremists — the Tea Party —as ‘treason’. But it looks like we’re heading there.
I don’t have an answer. I’m sorry if you read this thinking I might have. I’m just sharing my observations of the battlefield, less than 50 days away from the General Election.
It’s going to get even more fraught.
– P
Good for you Pete and Cameron Slater … i have to disagree with you though … this animosity has been going on for decade after decade. It seems that we now live in an overcommunicated society where information transfer is almost immediate … only heightening the angst etc.
I see it all as positive frankly – there are going to be clear battle lines drawn – and Key is going to have to cease being all things to all people … he will actually have to stand for something.
We’ve all had so much centrist namby pamby bullshit that we’re all sick of it but we dont know it yet. In this PC society we’ve all become old women of both sexes it almost seems … time for some clear delineations of matters.
Shades of grey rob us of so much.
Time for some good old black and white stuff.
Take a look at whats happening in Washington and on Wall street.
What a great comment! I laughed.
Hey, I’m in favour of strong opinions, powerfully expressed and clear policy differences. But not HATE.
The trouble with a jockeying for ‘the centre’ is that it just ain’t a true reflection of the constituency interests that drive political parties.
In NZ, National was the bosses’ party and Labour the workers’. But it’s become a battle for the centre … with the consequent loss of distinction of which you complain.
National’s winning strategy (besides waiting until the Clark administration wore itself out and excommunicated any shades of disagreement from its ranks) was ‘Labour Lite’ — remember?
Did you read in The Hollow Men about the ‘innoculation’ approach Brash and National took … aping Labour policy (Nuclear ships ban etc.) to deliberately REDUCE the points of difference while the sledgers mercilessly attacked Clark’s perceived strengths?
Asset sales is a defining difference this time around, but even there, National’s political managers are trying to miminize, down play — ‘don’t frighten the horses’ seems to be guiding principle.
What do you think?
– P
Yes i remember clearly the last years of the Clark Government. Many voted National – not because it was National – but because they were sick and tired of the arrogance of Clark and her Government. Thats in my view the danger of what National have done to get into power. They’ve misread the electorate or its fickle behaviour. National promised Labour Lite – and instead we got retractions (GST) and the fifth column element of ruthless hardliners waiting in the wings. Now they already exhibit all the worst aspects of the Clark persona – spread across several personalities not just one. Its only taken them 3 years to get there too – so they are faster.
They will try to refer to all the disasters including the earthquakes etc – and the Global Financial Crisis. But it wont wash. Key and his fellows and fellesses behave like the Currency trader he actually is – unplanned reactive moves constantly and temporarily plugging holes in the dyke. The Supercity election was a portent of things to come. The “moving like a ballbearing through a thick blancmange” approach being taken toward the shipwreck off Tauranga – is also a portent as was the slow movement with Pike River and with Christchurch. Key is there for the photo ops (Placido Domingo concert) – RWC – Memorial Services … you can only get away with that for just so long. The man is insulting our intelligence. He is making us all perform fellatio on his ego and he’s loving every minute of it. Running the country is just a hobby to this man – another notch in his belt. Its like being governed by George Soros.
Centrism encourages devious and deviant behaviours. Its the marketing of a lie – the creation of something that doesnt exist and never has. Every decision becomes poll-driven and not based on sound thinking and the imperative that the good of the people comes first. There is a rash or epidemic of looking at and appearing to understand all sides of the argument. I call bullshit on that. Nothing worthwhile was ever achieved without a fight of some sort or other. We are introducing the tactics and actions of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq into our politics. We fight unwinnable wars maintaining a thin hold on stability by unwise compromise and a state of armed neutrality. Its pointless, costly and a drain on National Morale and the fibre of peoples lives. No one gets ahead – they go 3 steps forward then 8 steps back and its wearing and contstant.
We tinker around the edges of the engine of our social and economic structures – like amateur mechanics with no plan other than “remove that bit and see if it makes a difference”. Meantime the engine that is NZ runs like a chaffcutter on 3 out of 6 cylinders.
Look at the Computer blowout with the Supercity. They have to damn well change everything – get new stuff – and the consultants just love it. My argument was – do a basic setup and then see what washes out operationally and in terms of costs and capital requirements after a nominal period of time. It isnt the councils fault – its the flawed model the Government has arbitrarily imposed on an unsuspecting Auckland. You wait – the blowouts are only just beginning – the washup over the next 4 – 5 years will tell a terrible story.
Oh – and we couldnt and cant afford the RWC i reckon. Waste of time and money. The IRB are a bunch of flatulent posturing dipsticks who are parasites on the sporting passions of others. I’m with Eliota – “kiss my bum….”
There – i feel much better now. Have a great day Pete. its all your fault – you did ask me what i thought.
So I did. Good on you for sharing! – P
Aaaand i should have added – Key is becoming New Zealands most prominent Professional mourner. He had the gall to turn up a the funeral of an SAS Soldier who died for nothing (no disrespect to the Soldier – only to Key). He’s like one of those funny old fellows who (apparently it happens) turn up to other peoples funerals to get a cup of tea and a bikkie afterwards. (in Keys case its to get a cup of tea and a photo op)
You can only turn up to so many funerals or memorial services Pete – before someone will start to equate the growing bodycount with your appearance at same. No matter what the fine speeches say.
I think of the families at those times of grief and suggest they would feel the Prime Minister’s presence was a sign of respect… whoever the officeholder.
It’s clear from your comments, Ivan, that you have no time for Mr Key, but that doesn’t apply to everyone.
– P
yep its not escaped me Pete that the families would see it as a sign of respect … thats what sticks in my craw – he used it (in my view) to good effect – and then nothing further happens.
I know my view of key doesnt apply to everyone (never claimed it did) … neither does yours.
@Ivan re views of John Key…
I think your invocation of Chancy Gardiner has merit. It’s a step *way* past that, in my view, to suggest Key is a cynical semi-professional mourner.
There’s a level of expectation attached to the office and I think it’s unfair to be too harsh. Key does follow a strategy of trying to be ubiquitous … and it’s working for him.
See http://www.thepaepae.com/newly-political-peter-leitch-timing-is-everything/19023/comment-page-1/#comment-11516
Of course we can see things differently. Cheers, – P
I expect him to have sympathy and be present – thats true. I also expect him to lead and provide solutions – thats also true.
There are a lot of very programmed moves – even alluded to by you Pete – surrounding Key and his approach …. strategems – deliberate planned moves. What makes any of us think that then there are moves that are ‘outside’ that model?
How do you become a successful currency trader. I dont know as i’ve never been one – but from the little i do know – its not without having a predilection for prescient cynicism. There is a lot more expectation attached to the office Pete – than seeking photo-ops .. and then buggering off and doing not very much more. It might indeed be working for him – there have been precedents set for that in history i think.
It may work – it doesnt make it right – and thats what counts.
we may see all sides of the story pete – but eventually you have to take sides.
[…] points of view … although we may still disagree. For that reason, I frequently try to meet (engage with) those whom I […]
[…] theory can actually make you indistinguishable from a Dipstick. It’s like I said in Be careful what you believe… … Right Wing spin doctors and bloggers/activists/schemers like him [Cam Slater] […]
[…] from your opponents is the kind of paranoia fearful thinking that I was referring to here in Be careful what you believe: It seems to me from what Cameron [Slater] and I discussed, that Right Wing spin doctors and […]
[…] are legitimate tools in a culture war” reminds me of the thought I tried to express here (Be careful what you believe) about political animals demonising their ‘opponents’ as engaging in such underhanded […]
[…] Focus magazine July 2010 – article by Daniel Bennett It’s as I discussed when we looked at the science of fear: political operators can – and do – use their hallucinations about how ‘corrupt’ […]
[…] experience that I talk about here from time to time. (The one that some people just don’t seem to ‘get’ — or […]
[…] me of the justification for dirty tricks waged closer to home we talked about when discussing the science of fear and how it applies to political adversaries: It seems to me from what Cameron and I discussed, that […]
[…] is not foreign to National Party hate blogger Cameron Slater. I mentioned it last year in a post Be careful what you believe … It seems to me from what Cameron and I discussed, that Right Wing spin doctors and […]
[…] c*nts’ and devious, conniving radicals — a belief which, as we saw in this post, Be careful what you believe neatly justifies devious, conniving actions […]