It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way.
Charles Dickens – A Tale Of Two Cities 1859.
Those words, written by Charles Dickens 161 years ago, still stand as the definitive description of a revolutionary epoch. That they resonate in our ears almost as loudly as the shouts of joy, ringing cow bells, beaten pots and pans and blaring car-horns of Americans celebrating the election of Joe Biden, strongly suggests that we are living through another epoch of great change.
What makes Dickens’ opening sentence so powerful is the stately progression of its contradictory clauses. They capture perfectly the impulse to both change, and not change, that grips a population confronted with challenges that are overwhelming in their magnitude.
Contradiction certainly describes the United States of America in 2020. The electorate may have rejected Donald Trump, but it has not done so emphatically. It has certainly not done it in the way that the US voters rejected Herbert Hoover in 1932, George McGovern in 1972, or Jimmy Carter in 1980. Yes, Biden has received the greatest number of votes ever cast for a US presidential candidate, but Trump has racked-up the second-largest vote.
True to his disruptive character, Trump has decisively demolished the conventional wisdom surrounding big turnouts in American elections. For years, US political scientists have declared that a bigger than usual turnout is bound to deliver a bumper crop of ballots for the Democratic Party.
Not true.
The most effective Republican campaigner since Teddy Roosevelt, Trump mobilised enough Republican voters to destroy the Democrats’ hopes of a “blue wave” sweeping them into a commanding position in both houses of Congress. When all the votes are counted the Democratic Party is facing a sharply reduced majority in the House of Representatives and – at best – a tied Senate where Vice-President Kamala Harris’s casting-vote will be needed to pass even the most timid reform legislation.
The biggest turnout in 120 years (currently estimated at approximately 70%) was enough to give the Democrats the White House – but very little else.
Without the House and the Senate, President-Elect Biden faces an enormous struggle to meet and resolve the challenges and contradictions currently producing such ominous creaking and groaning in America’s Eighteenth Century constitutional foundations.
Perhaps the most important lesson to be drawn from the American result by New Zealand’s newly-elected Labour Government is what a huge privilege it is to have both the electoral and constitutional mandate to effect urgent and comprehensive change.
The final result of the 2020 New Zealand General Election, announced by the Electoral Commission on Friday, 6 November, reveals a House of Representatives in which the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, can count on 77 progressive votes out of 120. To find a centre-left majority as big as that in US history, you’d have to go back to Lyndon Johnson’s massive landslide of 1964, which gave birth to the “Great Society”. Or, even further back, to Franklin Roosevelt’s big wins of 1932 and 1936, which delivered his “New Deal” to Depression-ravaged Americans.
It is, therefore, extremely baffling why the Prime Minister and her Finance Minister have set their faces so firmly against anything remotely resembling the Great Society or the New Deal.
The explanation offered by most political pundits centres on the estimated 250,000 voters who switched their allegiance from National to Labour in 2020 – largely in response to the Prime Minister’s handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic. This block of votes represents roughly 17% of the nearly 1.5 million votes cast for Labour, and just 14.5% of the 1,703,932 votes cast for the Centre-Left as a whole. And, herein, lies the mystery: with 58.4% of the votes cast, why is the Centre-Left tailoring its policies to the prejudices of 14.5% of the electorate?
Now, the hard-boiled political campaigners who cobbled together Ardern’s astonishing 50.1% of the Party Vote will simply invite their critics to deduct 17 percentage points from Labour’s tally and ask themselves where that would leave the Government’s chances of re-election in 2023? Their contention? That any coalition – be it of parties or voters – can only ever be as radical as its most conservative elements. If the Left forgets that, then it is simply inviting the sort of catastrophe which overcame the Third Labour Government of Norman Kirk and Bill Rowling.
The counter-argument advanced against these advocates of incrementalism is equally straightforward. Upsetting voters cuts both ways. A government given a strong mandate for broad and meaningful change by its most loyal supporters is likely to suffer an electorally fatal loss of political traction if the expectations of those voters are simply set aside. Moreover, if they subsequently discover that this is being done to retain the support of voters historically hostile to their interests, then the disaffection will be huge. One of the reasons Labour lost in 1975 is because a critical number of Kirk’s “battlers” were convinced that “their party” was moving away from them.
The irony of Labour failing to learn from the mistakes of the US Democratic Party, even as the latter demonstrates the efficacy of reconstructing and mobilising its traditional support base, would be considerable. To employ an epidemiological metaphor: imagine the reaction of citizens who discover that their government, having amassed a huge stockpile of vaccine, nevertheless refused to authorise its use for fear of incurring the wrath of anti-vaxxers. When the diseases in question are poverty, homelessness and climate change; a government which refuses to take decisive remedial action – even when it quite clearly has the votes to do so – is unlikely to be forgiven.
It is almost as if, at the upper levels of the Labour Party, there is a deeply ingrained belief that its right to govern is derived not from the votes of ordinary New Zealand citizens, but from some sort of special dispensation granted to them by business leaders, senior public servants, media personalities and other members of the ruling elite. A dispensation, moreover, that is instantly revokable the moment a Labour Government attempts to put the interests of the majority of New Zealanders ahead of the elite. If that alarming perception is allowed to grow over the next three years, Ardern’s stunning victory of 2020 will be reversed in 2023 – and rightly so.
Dickens’ wonderful sequence of internally contradictory clauses matched to perfection the perils and possibilities of his times. Our own times: the years of Trump; have caused the words of another writer, the Italian socialist, Antonio Gramsci, to take on an equally prophetic cast:
“The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”
Americans are celebrating what they earnestly hope is the end of the Trump Interregnum’s morbid symptoms. Many New Zealanders will be hoping, with equal fervour, that their new majority government will allow the old order to die; and that it is ready to act as midwife to the new.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
56 Comments
Given there wasn't much indepth scrutiny of Labour's manifesto pre election it might be a bit early to make calls about transformative action or lack of. They'll be judged on what they get done, which hopefully won't just be closing borders - that was a no brainer. Housing affordability, infrastructure (local govt managed), transport, and education access and outcomes will be how they're measured imh. The electorate has rolled the dice - let's see what it wins.
I guess if you were foolish enough to believe a politician then a CGT and further PAYE Tax increases are off the table - sure leaves a lot left on it that has gone unmentioned, the Debt load has to come down so sooner or later measures to claw back Govt income have to be implemented.
Labour campaigned on a "no new Taxes" platform but there was no mention of "no surprises". I have no doubt there are some ambiguous wordings in their policy documents that allows them to make changes and then claim the public was informed.
Good article CT. The US has and will provide the rest of the world a deal of entertainment, and not a little concern for some time to come. And one has to wonder why our current Government is not now making noises to deliver the 'reset' they spoke of going into COVID.
Looking at today's Breakfast Briefing I wonder when we will learn from China, to build our resilience and independence, To actually deliver the reset that is so obviously needed.
The problem for the Left is eternal: to win it must secure non political centrists who do not like politics and take little interest outside of 4 weeks per 3 year period. This floating vote is essentially apolitical but can be swayed to the Left once in a while , especially where the messaging of society is around 'we" and not "you" and "I". Ie when collective endeavour and provision is clearly needed. In an essentially capitalist system, this is about every 30 years and only lasts 3-6 years. So Labour always tacks Right to get in and stay in. Over time this leaves them in position of alienating the Left wing who can then be attracted to Right demagogues promising that they are truly anti-elite. See Trump, Johnson, etc. Max Weber outlined danger of bureaucracy and charismatic leader stating he can govern that elite on behalf of the masses, over 100 years ago. Nothing has changed. Much of working class America supports and votes for Trump plainly because Clinton and Obama did not deliver them anything and inequality and racial injustice in USA has simply got worse for 45 years. Some of this is due to jobs going to China but a lot of it is because the Democratic Party has not had an even social democratic leader with Senate on his side, for most of last half century. The Left needs inspirational leadership but is usually to scared to select one. The media also does not help, failing to explain anything that might benefit the 80% of the pop working for a living.
Too true Mike. I have always struggled to understand why politics is so polarised and tribal. I don't understand that the strongest societies are when EVERYONE gets a fair share. There will always be leaders, and the entrepreneurial will always develop wealth and these are not bad things. But to think that because they are a leader, or are wealthy, that they then have the right to deny others a fair share is just wrong. Much of the late 20th century and then the 21st so far has been about wealthy, elitist groups developing new forms of slavery and dependency, cloaked as something else. If the ordinary working folk had money to spare they would spend it, giving the entrepreneurial and wealthy more means to make money, not less. But i guess for some, power and status is more important than wealth, although it doesn't last long if there is no wealth to back it up.
The amazing thing about the US is that they don't appear to have spent one second seriously pondering on why Trump got elected. God knows there is enough political commentary both inside America and outside to tell them. But it seems those elite classes just don't want to know. One wonders what their education system actually teaches them beyond 'America being the greatest country on earth'?
Take a look at the rise and fall of civilisations Hook, rather than look to specific examples. Civilisations rise from the power of the people. People who group together, and form communities. The do it initially for survival, but over time societal stratas arise, even elitism, and ultimately those civilisations collapse through the weight, corruption and hubris of their elites. Look at the Greeks, and Romans, consider the French revolution and so on. The lessons are there to be seen if you want.
Your comment seemed to infer there was a specific model that was proven hence the question. My understanding is there has never been a society based on equal/fair sharing that lasted or indeed even existed. Human nature always drives some humans to want to be more equal than others hence methods of control arise. Those in control of those methods become more influential and thus subject to bribery and corruption offered by the ambitious. Most empires were initially created by a single entity or group seeking to exert control over an identifiable common enemy - hence their support.
Don't disagree, but nations and communities are strongest when their people all share in the benefits. The US looks very much to be close to a disintegration phase, and that will have been driven by the corruption of the political elites. They may have staved it off for the moment, but will it last? As a society the elites don't seem to be aware or want to acknowledge how or why Trump got elected. How he got to tramp rough shod over a political establishment that thought they were unassailable. and how he has managed to thumb his nose at so many established conventions. And ultimately why the Republican House was prepared to do anything to keep such a blatantly dishonest and self-serving president in power than run the risk of losing their own power base.
On that last point, interestingly I think if they had done something then, they may have been able to walk away with this election. All they needed to do was to show a little integrity and transparency.
Yeah, I think you've nailed it when you speak of self interest by the GoP. They ignored him in 2016 until it was too late then threw their weight and support behind him when there was no alternative. What a pack of self serving, self entitled hypocrites. The US political system and it's players would do well to seriously and honestly analyse how and why Trump gained so much support and where he gained it in 2016. A lesson that may be applicable here in 2023
From Hayek: (the full text is relevant reading on this topic for everyone)
Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. It is by no means an obvious remedy for the obvious evil which the interests of that class will necessarily demand. It is a construction of theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar; and it required long efforts by the intellectuals before the working classes could be persuaded to adopt it as their program.
For all the replyers as well, the working class have never been able to be sold on progressive or the majority of socialist ideas and ever time these intellectual controlled parties (Labour or the Democrats) goes to far left the centre picks the other main party as the lesser of the two evils. Leftist ideology is by the intellectual class for the intellectual class, at no stage do they ask the workers what they want. They are just lesser of the two evils a lot of the time.
Maybe the reason for not wanting socialism is lack of understanding of it's benefits or maybe the working class are fundamentally (classical) liberals who want property rights and the right to be an non-collectivised individual above anything socialism promises.
Maybe it's because the creep of the communist principle of equality? Most working class I know (and I am one) are proud of their roots but resent being denied opportunity by those who pay their wages when their wages are kept low, but they work damned hard for their employer. A common story, but just one instance I saw some years back, a business owner kept telling his staff he couldn't afford to give his staff a pay rise, but then they found out the business made millions in profit. This is not a rare story. I have also heard a business owner say he had a right to make and take a big profit as he carried all the risk. What he did not realise was that while he owned multiple business's his employees only worked at one, and all their risk was tied up in the success or failure of one business.
So most working class i know are not socialists per se, but just want to be treated fairly for the work they do, something it seems is hard to achieve these days.
Socialism "is by no means an obvious remedy" to worker bargaining rights. It seeks to collectivise them and then have a bureaucrat tell them what they are entitled to. They lose even more individual power or the right self organise a union.
Workers might feel aggrieved about being at a negotiating disadvantage with their boss but your never going to excite or win them over by offering to let the government choose their pay rate. That would be a backwards step in getting plaided what they think they are worth.
There is more at stake to the worker than being able to cover his expenses stress free. Its not so much capitalism or communism; its individualism and property rights vs socialism.
For years the employer has held the weight in any negotiation, unless they have hunted you out for specific skills. Unions are a poor substitute to provide weight for a worker, but better than nothing. Employers on the other hand are just as lazy as the label they would lay on their staff. People costs are some of the easiest to control. But loyalty and effort are only gained by providing loyalty and benefit. In my experience most managers and business owners just do not understand what "leadership" truly means, and instead are just managers, and more than a few, barely that.
True story - young chap with some ambitions went out and spent a lot of money getting qualified in a specialist role. It took him several years. He them got a job in a support role with the company to build up his experience and on the promise of getting the role when the work was there. He spent six years working for the company on not much money, put up with a lot, went the extra mile for them, did no harm for them (while others also in that support role did some quite expensive damage), and just recently was told the company had hired a new person into the role he had been promised. That person already had experience. This chap quit to a chorus of complaints that they were going into their busy season and the company needed him. Loyalty begets loyalty.
In truth this is a complex subject and there is no easy solution, but companies currently have it easy - with lots looking for work, the race to the bottom in wages has never been stronger.
I'll tell you one thing murray, every working class bloke I know is an out and out capitalist. They all want to sell their product for the highest possible price and pay their suppliers the absolute minimum for their inputs (often late). They form cabals to attempt to manipulate their market. There is no guarantee on the quality of their product nor on the continuation of supply. They enthusiastically allow the market to set the price for their product and will shift allegiances without a blink.
There is a fair amount of that. A previous employer of mine used to charge what he thought the market could bear for the company product. I had recently come on as a manager. I asked him how much it cost to produce the product and was shocked to learn that he didn't know. He really didn't want to admit it as he was an accountant by trade, but after quizzing him from multiple directions, he finally admitted it, but told me it wasn't my problem. He was very good however at squeezing the extra dollar out of contracts. I still think he could have been doing a lot more if he had better knowledge and control over his company.
This last weekend I learned something about Watties. I had noted that a type of potato chips produced by Watties was no longer being stocked by our supermarket I asked about them and was told they had been deleted. A friend is an buyer for another supermarket and I asked him about it and he told me that supermarkets had virtually no margin on Watties products. A recent move by a supermarket chain to address this resulted in Watties telling them where to get off. This friend told me that last year Watties declared something like a $3 billion profit (I don't know if this is true). I think Fonterra are probably another like that too.
Your previous employer needed to hire a Production Manager and stick to Marketing maybe? As for Watties, it's just a logo now. They were bought out years ago by Heinz, who then merged with Kraft, so your friend is probably confusing the two. Between the three brands (Heinz, Watties and Kraft) there's a fair bit of market power so it's interesting the supermarket doesn't stock them. It's possible Watties doesn't produce them anymore though.
I believe we are going back to a time where unions and labour had significant representation and control in Labour parties. This is not currently the case.
Credit where credit is due if welfare and working standards was partially derived from Marxist thought but it was implemented by a variety of parties lead by unions or parities trying to appease unions and workers.
I could have concluded the above with when intellectualism drives a Labour party left for its own agenda don't expect the workers to agree and follow.
I'm a centrist, moderate, swing voter and I am anything but apolitical. I am not "swayed" either way. I make a very hard, researched decision on which set or policies and party members are best likely to serve a country at a particular time.
If I had to choose between capitalism and socialism, I would strongly favour capitalism. Socialism has disastrously failed several times. Capitalism is flawed but has delivered the best quality of life for the most number of people in all of human history. We forget this but our quality of life is still better than almost all of our ancestors. Unfortunately, much of that improvement turns out to have been at the expense of the planet, other species and maybe our own futures.
However, capitalism vs socialism are not the only economic social policies available and there is a wide spectrum in between them. Globalisation and human impact on the planet and resources have become just as important. It also turns out that pandemic response and leadership is now a major influence on voters. I hate the shallow, lazy thinking that the left vs right political spectrum encourages.
I agree - we need to stop thinking along the socialist/capitalist divide.
The ideological center is globalism - with two variants 'market globalists' (e.g., NZ) and 'imperial globalists' (e.g., US and China).
To the right of the globalist center we have National populism, New Localism (e.g., promoted here by the NZ Initiative) and Religious Fundamenatlism. Trump combined (and hence appealed in particular) to the first and last of those political ideologies.
To the left of center is International Populism, Global Feminism and Global Social Justice.
Hypothetical situation: Incensed by being abandoned by his Republican media and allies as he flails, a heavily medicated and vindictive Trump changes tack. He no longer wants revenge on the Democrats for stealing the election, he wants to cause as many headaches for those he perceives have wronged him.
So he gets out his pen and starts making executive orders: Bam, student loan debt wiped. More furious scribbling - marijuana is no longer a controlled substance. Sure, an extra few pardons get thrown into the mix, but who's keeping track? He calls Biden - "Anything you want done, right now, no political consequences for you, I'll make happen. I make deals. I'm Donald Trump". "Bernie, lovely to talk, hey, I'm just tying up loose ends, anything on your list you'd like to see?"
In doing so, he gives himself something to crow about on the way out and also massively undermine Republicans who he might think have wronged him. We're all assuming we think we know who he thinks has done the dirty on him. What if we're wrong?
GV.. as likely as me winning lotto. And I have never bought a lotto ticket. Still think he just slinks away once he accepts reality. Unfortunately, I doubt it will be the end of his political influence. After 4 years of Biden and (especially) Harris he could easily run and win in a landslide in 4 years.
Unless he's in jail by then. He can potentially pardon himself or arrange to be pardoned for any federal crimes he may have committed, but he can't be pardoned for crimes against the state of New York. They're just waiting down the clock on him being President until they can continue with their prosecution.
It's hard not to obsessively hate someone when they constantly insist on standing in the limelight as much as possible, constantly screaming for attention, whilst waffling either absolute nonsense or delusional, hateful bile and simultaneously being the most powerful single human being on the planet with the codes to the nukes. You'd have to be a very detached and apathetic human being to not have strong feelings about Donald Trump.
"You'd have to be a very detached and apathetic human being to not have strong feelings about Donald Trump." - or realistic enough to know he, at best, is temporary and would be replaced. Most people I know just look at Trump in particular (and the US in general) and either chuckle or shake their heads in bemusement but certainly don't get worked up about it. Why waste energy and oxygen getting worked up about something you can't affect the outcome of?
or realistic enough to know he, at best, is temporary and would be replaced
Except this wasn't a blowout election like some had been predicting. He well and truly lost the popular vote (and did in 2016 as well), but it's likely Biden's going to hold Pennsylvania by 100,000 votes or so, and the other key states by even smaller margins.
8 years although 'temporary' is still 10% of someone's life, or about 13% of someone's adult life, or 26% of a typical mortgage. It is a long time (even if temporary) and he's already done huge damage to American institutions and global relations in just 4 years. There's also the possibility of setting up a political dynasty, with Ivanka and/or Donald Trump Jr allowing 4-16 more years of power. Suddenly that looks a lot less 'temporary' when put in that light.
And finally it's not really about Trump anyway - his behaviours and attitudes have CLEARLY allowed every day bigots, racists and anti-science idiots come out of the woodwork and revel in their new-found social acceptance, driven from the top.
It's easy to chuckle or shake your head in bemusement when you don't suffer any of the direct consequences, but that doesn't mean you should just shrug those things off as if they don't matter because it's "temporary".
Donald Trump's gross ineptitude at handling COVID has resulted in a rather more 'permanent' outcome for 238,000 americans and counting.
As we all know now he was "temporary". As for American institutions and relations - they are well overdue for a reset and I for one am glad to see a rebalancing. As for a political dynasty - possible but more likely fantasy,and besides - the American people get what they vote for. As for the bigots, racists and anti science brigade - they have been there since day one, Trump didn't create them anymore than Biden will quell them. Social media is the forum that has driven their popularity not Trump.
As for the 238K - America's DR historically is about 8.75/1000av from 2000 to 2019. 238,000 people is less than 10% of their normal annual DR so hardly a showstopper and not the disaster currently portrayed by some. Without background to the deaths (age,physicality,comorbidities etc) they shouldn't be taken in isolation.
for those basking in a global media indulgence of Bidens success in ousting Trump -- consider that the 70 million who voted for Trump - did so despite a completely hostile media / high profile celebrity and political environment -- they are even more entrenched in their views now than they were four years ago - and as noted the loss of those house seats - puts the house in the republicans sights in two years time!
Without Covid - Trump was a shoe in -- and dont forget that he has appointed a huge number of Federal judges and heavily moved the judiciary to the right - not just the supreme court!
Biden has talked a lot about a plan to tackle covid -- but provided no details - except where a mask! - he wont be able to enforce a lockdown in many if any states - wont be able to finance the damage that any restriction on the economy will cause as the senate will block the fiscal package required - and wont be able to put limits on group/gathering sizes - so apart from encouraging mask wear he has very little options
We can expect at least two more years of economic pain, job losses, covid deaths and increasing debt - Chinese aggression - all of which will likely lead to a republican swing in two and four years time possibly handing them the House / Senate and presidency -- oh and dont rule out the Donald standing again in four years time - the margins between victory and defeat in this election are horrificaly small !
Labour will not be able to do anything about housing affordability, specifically in Auckland and Wellington and to a lesser extent elsewhere. The horse has bolted. It would take something radical like forced buying of unoccupied and existing un-improved developers land and leasing it for a 1000 years. That way the most expensive portion of affordability is removed. Not going to happen. Too timid.
Reduce the light rail to the most important sections with option to extend to the airport later. Postpone major climate change initiatives that will cost the economy big time. Little is going in the next 30-50 years in any event. All the major climate change predictions in the last 40 odd years have come to nought. Cancel University fee subsidy and divert those funds to more useful apprentice training. There is still a shortage of trades people. Unfortunately this will take years to overcome. Probably the only good thing Labour did in the last term was more support for apprentice training.
Drop the increase in support for the psychiatric and psychologist class.
I have wondered about that. I suspect instead we may end up looking like a developing country. Low wages, lots of apartment blocks (if NIMBYs are conquered) and those with land in desirable locations being enriched by the central support and protection of the government / reserve bank.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.