I knew Rodney Hide back when he was still using a Cassiopeia and I was using Psion Series 3a. (We used to compare features.) While he’s a pleasant man, and I personally like him, he’s never struck me as an intellectual powerhouse…
So it was intriguing recently to read in the NBR online his vapid criticisms of New Zealand journalists (all journalists, Rodney?) as having ‘lost their ability to think while still quite young‘ and having an attention span of ‘less than 30 seconds’ and not possessing the ‘intellectual reach and interest’ to perform even rudimentary, basic policy analysis. Viz:
Journalists have arts degrees and lost their ability to think while still quite young. They can’t distinguish good policy from the bad.
In my early days – when too young to know better – I would try to engage journalists in rudimentary policy discussion. I mean really, really rudimentary, like there are tough trade-offs and always opportunity costs.
The eyes would glaze. The attention span was less than 30 seconds. I gave up. I am slow. I don’t give up easily. But even I quickly learned that basic policy analysis is beyond the intellectual reach and interest of New Zealand journalists.
Implicit in Rodney’s comments and his narrative about valiantly trying to help journalists ‘distinguish’ ‘good policy from bad’ (!) is a suggestion he, Rodney, is somehow mentally superior … that HE has retained ‘the ability to think’ beyond childhood.
Oh really?
One could, of course, issue similar empty, sweeping generalizations about politicians.
One could suggest all New Zealand MPs are unprincipled, venal, shallow vote- and donation-chasing narcissistic muppets. But that might be unfair.
Further, one could say the ACT Party, in particular, attracts a special class of duplicitous political actor — the type who deceptively conceals their past, their true ‘agenda’ and their sponsors, (like, say, British American Tobacco, or Kim Dotcom?) and attracts extremists, some much more subtle than the racist Bernard Crimp or beneficiary basher Cathy Odgers.
An observer with an attention span could make some wry and cynical comment about the fruits of devious political stealth … and how sleazy electoral tactics sometimes deliver their just desserts: The ACT Party’s decline through fratricide to irrelevance and zero percent popular support.
This despite spending ‘rich prick’ donations (take a bow Mr Crimp) of $1.283 million on the 2011 general election campaign (second only to National in spending). With all that money and even with Mr Popular John Key’s symbolic ‘cup of tea’ and awkward, contrived imprimatur, at 1.07% ACT’s share of the vote was less than the Mana Party.
One could point all that out to Rodney Hide in response to his vacuous comments about journalists.
But I’ve lost interest.
– P
Here’s a link to a related topic:
http://www.thepaepae.com/taking-criticism-hard/15430/
Peter,
“The ACT Party’s decline through fratricide to irrelevance and zero percent popular support.”
ACT effectively finished as a coherent party once Richard Prebble left as party leader. Personally, I never thought much of Mr Hide’s brand of populism.
What is intriguing is that you spend so many posts on an ACT Party when you believe (correctly in my view) that this party is an irrelevancy. They attract zero percent, as you say.
Perhaps your interest is piqued because you view ACT as supported by “a special class of duplicitous political actor(s) … and attracts extremists.”
The ACT supporters may be extremists, but they still account for zero percent.
If focussing on extremists is important, where should we look? On the right, they amount, as you say, to zero percent.
On the left, the extremist Greens got 7% last election. Their policies would send NZ into the Dark Ages.
“[Fundamentalist environ-mentalism] condemns cities, culture, industry, technology, the intellect, and advocates men’s return to “nature,” to the state of grunting subanimals digging the soil with their bare hands.” [Rand]
You are looking the wrong way?
Rgds,
*p*
Ha! Yes, you’re right of course about the irrelevancy. And yes, right again, I’m attracted to the skulduggery and the melodrama/train crash.
(And I don’t deny a wee element of schadenfreude.)
Even before the infamous ‘cup of tea’ the ACT Party was a soap opera … some were critical of the artificiality of their ‘National’s lapdog’ participation in government — me, I always saw it as the cost of Proportional Representation and defended their right to be involved.
But even defenders like me have been shamed into near-silence at the apparent duplicity of their dealings — inside and outside the party.
Some would describe it as the corruption of politics. That seems too extreme a condemnation to me, but I am critical.
Mr Crimp as poster-child of ACT is an indicator of how low they’ve fallen from the principles they avow.
—
I love it that you call the Greens ‘extremists’ … actually that you throw that epithet around so casually about, well, anyone.
[Putting on best air crew voice]: Poormastery, have you seen this?
It’s called a ‘bell-shaped curve’.
Your so-called ‘extremist’ Greens got 11.06% of the vote in 2011 according to this official report http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011/partystatus.html
… where does that put them? On an extreme? Or a chunk of the mainstream? I’m not so sure they ARE ‘lefties’ are they?
Listen to Matthew Hooton’s lament about how these Marxist-Leninists have fooled us all … http://www.thepaepae.com/a-rich-green-comedy-performance-from-matthew-hooton/19357/
– P
You’re quoting Rand to me about grunting subanimals? Pfft! (You’re joking, right?)
Hi Peter,
“Your so-called ‘extremist’ Greens got 11.06% of the vote in 2011 according to this official report.”
It’s much worse than I imagined! The extreme lefty environ-mentalists got 11%? Truly scary stuff.
“… where does that put them? On an extreme? Or a chunk of the mainstream?”
The Nazis gained 43.91% of the vote in March 1933 elections.
The Nazis passed your 11% threshold by a factor of almost four…
So the Nazis weren’t extremist? The Nazis were “mainstream”, in your percentage terms.
No. I think I prefer my definitions of extremism…
Yet all this is rhetoric and nonsense. The issue is quite clear in my mind.
Will NZer’s be better off in the long term, if the government adopts a conventional capitalism based economic policy involving incentivising improved productivity, innovation, choice, competition and economic growth?
Or would the average NZ citizen do better with Green Fortress NZ policies – professional bunny loving, tree hugging, andd of course digging the soil with their bare hands?
You continue to look the wrong way?
Rgds,
*p*
“Will NZer’s be better off in the long term, if the government adopts a conventional capitalism based economic policy involving incentivising improved productivity, innovation, choice, competition and economic growth?
Or would the average NZ citizen do better with Green Fortress NZ policies – professional bunny loving, tree hugging, andd of course digging the soil with their bare hands?”
As if THOSE were the only ‘choices’ we face.
Who, in your imagination, is suggesting we abandon conventional capitalism?
Isn’t that a nonsense or an imaginary bogeyman, poormastery?
I think I perceive the miscommunication we’re having:
When you say ‘extreme left’ you mean them as separate describers — viz: ‘extreme’ and ‘left’ … i.e. they are extremists and they are on the left.
Whereas, when I read ‘extreme left’ I think extremely left … as in ‘militant left’ … the opposite of ‘hard right’ or neocon.
You say the Greens are (a) extremists and separately, (b) ‘not economically conservative’ in their politics, rather than (as Matthew Hooton says, laughably in my view) that the NZ Greens are Marxist revolutionaries committed to the overthrow of the capitalist economic system.
Am I understanding you?
– P
PS Re the Nazis (Godwin’s Law FTW) yes, they were extremists (do I have to answer that?) Their rise to power through the ballot-box (nasty tactics aside) is a phenomenon which political historians will still be discussing and puzzling over when we have moon bases.
I feel the 11% green is mostly a guilt ridden vote (kind of like the support for Global Warming with out knowing the facts) and the people who miss the point and buy a Prius, sure there will be some that would like to see them control NZ but if the Greens were a serious threat I think people would bail.
Poormastery is correct. They would be a disaster if they got too much control.
I’m sure poormastery will appreciate the vote of support.
I think you’re serious in your comments but they make me laugh.
That’s like saying ‘Why give women the vote when they don’t have the sense to vote on the correct issues or for the right party? It’s just a waste.’
I’m not sure what you base your prediction of ‘disaster’ on? Besides tribalism or fear of the new/different?
The Green politicians I met and interviewed during the last election campaign didn’t strike me as luddites trying to get us back to tilling the earth by hand or livestock.
Prius? Dunno. I still like my 5 series but boy I’m paying for it at the bowser these days!
– P
God – i feel like i’ve just read a commmmmplete monologue by colin mathura-jeffry …. from all contributors bar craig perhaps.
Tell me – can you identify with the great unwashed … when you can say you are so angst-ridden re your 5 series and what it costs you darling …
Or has Graeme given you papal dispensation via doctrinal manipulations to shame a shanghainese contortionist with barbers-pole in taiwan?
Rodney may well be a lying prick – so also this could be the case with his colleagues past present and future. Strange, rich, right wing people with more than a hint of the chicken farmer about them (strange theories and all).
Meanwhile you and PMY roll in the metaphorical pigswill of mutual philosophical body-rubbing while watching vids of TV3 newsreaders strutting their stuff.
Do your wives know all this??
You may never ever go to heaven. This is quite serious.
Very good article about Mr Crimp and historical pakeha colonial oppression/separatism here:
Louis Crimp: the face in our mirrors
http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/louis-crimp-face-in-our-mirrors.html