By Chris Trotter*
Tucker Carlson is Fox News’ most persuasive voice. Mild-mannered, wide-eyed, and softly-spoken, he is a much deadlier proposition that his tiresomely stentorian colleagues. So persuasive is Carlson, that some Republicans are already talking him up as a potential presidential candidate in 2024.
It is, therefore, a very big deal that Tucker Carlson, with the backing of Fox News and the Hungarian Prime Minister, Victor Orban, has recently been broadcasting live from Budapest. Tucker, as New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait wryly paraphrased, has seen the future – and it is illiberal democracy.
No more than the Labour and Green parties right here in New Zealand, does the Democratic Party in the United States fully grasp the danger represented by illiberal democracy and the authoritarian regimes it is bound to usher in. At either end of the Pacific Ocean, the Centre-Left is displaying a singular incomprehension of cause and effect.
Two powerful forces are driving the surges of right-wing populism which, for more than a decade, have been transforming the politics of the West. The first, as always, is the actual, or feared, impact of adverse economic conditions. The second is composed of citizens fearful that their once dominant position in society is being challenged by “subordinate” minorities. “Bottom rail on top!” – as African-Americans colourfully described the social inversion inherent in Abraham Lincoln’s emancipation of the slaves.
The period in American history known as “Reconstruction”, which lasted, roughly, from 1869 until 1877, was an heroic effort to ensure that the bottom rail remained, if not on top, then at least not on the bottom. It offers historians (and social reformers) a powerful lesson in the dangers of legislating “against the grain” of entrenched power.
For eight remarkable years, the federal government of the United States attempted to give practical effect to the equality now constitutionally guaranteed to the freed slaves of the defeated Confederacy. Nowhere on earth had such an attempt been made to politically, economically and socially empower a formerly servile population. During the two terms of President Ulysses S. Grant, former commander of the Union army, African-Americans were elected sheriffs and judges, won seats in state and federal legislatures, established schools and hospitals, and with assistance from the frankly socialistic Freedman’s Bureau, set up their own farms and businesses. “Bottom rail on top!”, indeed.
The only problem with the Reconstruction project was that it could only be carried out under the protection of federal bayonets. Without the US army of occupation billeted across the South, the constitutional guarantees to African-Americans weren’t worth the paper they were printed on. In the fatal compromise thrashed out between the Republican and Democratic parties to resolve the bitterly disputed presidential election of 1876, the Republicans held on to the White House – but only at the price of withdrawing federal troops from the solidly Democratic South. It required less than 20 years for all the gains made by African-Americans since 1869 to be undone. By 1900, all-white city councils and legislatures were erecting statues to the military heroes of the lost Confederate cause all over the Jim Crow South.
The bottom rail was, once again, on the bottom.
As he was praising Orban’s regime, did Carlson detect in the Hungarian Prime Minister’s success in constructing a democratic system in which the “right” people always win, an all-too-audible echo of the American South’s elaboration of an outwardly democratic system in which the “white” people always won?
Orban has taken over the news media, suborned the Judiciary, redrawn electorate boundaries to the advantage of his party, and made it appreciably more difficult for his opponents to both cast a ballot and have it counted. By his very presence in Budapest, Carlson was signalling his endorsement of this debased form of democracy.
It is a form already familiar to Americans living in the 30 (out of 50) states already controlled by the Republican Party. By choosing to go to Budapest, Carlson was signalling to Republicans that if, by 2024, their party has reclaimed both Congress and the White House, then an American version of Orban’s illiberal democracy will be introduced across the entire country. Such an outcome would further signal that, finally, the Southern inventors of Jim Crow democracy had their vindication, and “Dixieland” its long-delayed victory.
And the lesson Labour and the Greens should draw from this jaunt down the backroads and interstate highways of American political history is – what? Simply, that if progressive change has to be imposed and enforced by the naked power of the state, then the political reaction will likely be strong enough to undermine progressivism and democracy in equal measure.
If we think of the He Puapua Report as the blueprint for an “Aotearoan Reconstruction”, then we must also ask ourselves how it might be enforced. Are we sufficiently evolved politically to accept its radical changes without demur? Or will Pakeha, contemplating the imminent loss of their power and privilege, shout like those good-ole southern boys: “Hell, no!”? Confronted with such open resistance, who could the Government rely upon to fix bayonets?
Such questions are jarring. Only seldom are New Zealanders asked to confront the deep fissures running through their society. Since the crushing of Māori military resistance in the Land Wars, there has never been the slightest doubt as to the state’s ability to prevail over its internal enemies.
New Zealand’s long-lived and deeply-entrenched democracy further strengthens the state by furnishing its political rulers with a popular mandate for their policies. By first obtaining the permission of the electorate, even a radical programme of reform can be accepted. Introducing such a programme without a popular mandate, however, is a much riskier proposition. In buoyant economic circumstances a government might get away with it – just. But, should the economy turn sour in the midst of unpopular reforms, the party responsible will soon find itself in serious trouble.
Hard times and unmandated reforms are the classic catalysts for populist surges. Whether these surges draws their energy from the left or the right of politics is largely determined by the ideological complexion of the incumbent government. There are occasions, however, when the severity of the economic downturn and the radicalism of the government’s reform programme produce in the minds of voters fears that can only be called ‘existential’. Convince voters that both their economic security and cultural ascendancy are fundamentally threatened, and the party presenting the most convincing promise to eliminate such threats will win not only power, but be given a mandate to smash those deemed responsible for putting the welfare of “the people” at risk. In these circumstances, the rights of minorities fare very badly.
Labour and the Greens are whistling in the dark by dismissing all such considerations as “culture wars” distractions. Given that the wars are of their own making, this is a little hard to swallow. It was Labour who commissioned He Puapua – and then kept in secret. It was Labour and the Greens who promoted laws on “Hate Speech”, and defended giving nearly $3 million to the Mongrel Mob. While unemployment continues to fall, wages continue to rise, Covid-19 is kept at bay, and the National Party remains a moribund hulk, the culture wars Labour have started will smoulder rather than blaze. Let Covid breach the border, and the economy crash, however, and New Zealanders won’t need Tucker Carlson to teach them how to whistle “Dixie”.
*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.
38 Comments
The Treaty was a poorly worded document, it should have clearly stated an expiry date like the lease on land does. I don't think that simply burning it now will solve all the racial problems, they will just continue to fester and the race card will still be pulled out as an excuse.
Pockets, like a sizable chunk of kiwis born here I have a mixed heritage. My cousins, who have exactly the same proportion of Maori blood as me, have chosen to become deeply involved in our local marae and avail themselves of benefits of crown compensation. The rest of my wider family are obviously known to them but never receive any of the perks. It seems to me that the rationale of compensation based on ancestry is not applied evenly.
Beanie; my wife's and my great grand parents were all of English/ Irish descent. Their extended family, living and dead, numbers more than one hundred, most of whom live in NZ. At least sixty of these qualify as part Maori, but none of them identify as such. The point is , that if over the space of six generations sufficient miscegenation has occurred that at least half of the population can claim Maori descent but chooses not to, how long will it be before the whole population is part Maori? What then will be the point of any race based initiatives?
Be mindful that hate speech legislation will soon protect us from publications such as yours that discriminate based on race.
Inciting a group to believe that they have more rights than others based on race is dangerously close to the “White supremacist” ideology of that Australian terrorist who shot up a bunch of kiwis in Christchurch.
Very good article, but CT doesn't drive to the really hard core questions. As occurred in the US a specific focus on 'groups' including minorities, on stirs tribalistic anxieties within populations. In NZ there are groups including the Government who focus on unerringly negative statistics for their political platforms, and if asked the truly hard questions, the inevitable accusations of racism arise. A process of the "5 whys" should be followed, although in reality there can be many more than 5 whys. For example we are bombarded with stats on Maori crime, but superficial questions on why come back that the police and courts are racist, but further whys are required. If only because there are plenty of Maori Police officers, so are they racist too? I doubt it. I strongly suspect the real reason is that there are groups of the population who can be virtually guaranteed to give those Police Officers attitude. And attitude if a highly reflective emotion. Police have a job to do, and if when trying to do that job they get nothing but attitude from those they have to deal with, then the response can be reasonably guaranteed. Police after all are human too. True some may over react, and some may be imbued with their own attitude learned from their experience, but they can be easily held to account.
Real solutions can only come from real understanding, not some political hack looking for sound bytes. In this we are all highly depended on a strong, independent MSM to live up to their responsibilities and ask the hard questions, and not accept being fobbed off!
It would be more surprising to me if Māori didn't appear these statistics more frequently given they make up an economic underclass within New Zealand society:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/pete-mckenzie-on-the-ethnic-wealth-gap
Curled up in that though is the unfortunate reality that the African American racial problems of today are rooted in the fact that their ancestors were slaves, full stop. The USA importation & imposition of slavery was actually small in comparison to the West Indies & Sth American instances. The arrival of the cotton gin, human labour necessary for power , the great riches to be made hand over fist, thus created inherently, the problems of today, the historical stigma going on entrenched hatred and persecution.By the time NZ started to be seriously colonised Britain had abolished slavery, and thank god for that.
"Since the crushing of Māori military resistance in the Land Wars, there has never been the slightest doubt as to the state’s ability to prevail over its internal enemies."
I find the New Zealand Government is a funny old thing at times. From what I can see, as per the The Treaty of Waitangi, it technically should be consulting Māori but actually it acts with absolute primacy on any issues of importance.
Immigration, one of the foremost considerations in the The Treaty of Waitangi, is a classic example. Māori have stated for many years that they feel immigration from outside Britain undermines the treaty by diluting it's important to the resident population but the New Zealand Government has ploughed on absolutely regardless in a unilateral manner for decades.
In many circumstances the Government only appears to uphold the The Treaty of Waitangi when it suits them to do so or the issue is of little national importance.
"it technically should be consulting Māori but actually it acts with absolute primacy on any issues of importance." Could it be that being a democracy, there is an expectation that the Maori voice is represented in parliament without any special representation? Currently Maori are disproportionately represented, with more Maori MPs per head of Maori population, than for non-Maori. Why then is the need for specific consultation still be required for Maori? Isn't that racist?
My interpretation of the Treaty text is it implicitly cedes control of (European) immigration to the government. Article one allows the government grants the government primacy on most issues of governance. There are areas where consultation is required but its not for everything.
If you let people reinterpret the Treaty they will do so for their own motives and won't be completely honest about them.
Umm, uhh, maybe? Depends on which version and the interpretation at the time. It's not a unified document:
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/treaty-of-waitangi/meaning-of-the-…
The preamble is the only part to explicitly mention immigration and that's as a statement of fact that it is underway and will continue and it would have though it would be obvious that this was the case at the time. The Treaty was part of a plan to manage it. The crown would have though they already had rights to control immigration to the areas they occupied.
I don't think the Maori text translation differs in any meaningful way on this issue.
I don't see why all grievances or politics need to be tied to the Treaty.
"THE TREATY OF WAITANGI, An explanation by Sir Apirana Ngata (~1920's) should be mandated in the soon to be revised NZ History curriculum.
His last words: "...the Treaty of Waitangi created Parliament to make laws.The Treaty has given us the Maori Land Court with all of its activities. The Treaty confirmed Government purchases of lands which is still being done and it also confirmed past confiscations. The Treaty sanctioned the levying of rates and taxes on Maori lands, it made the one law for the Maori and the Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our
ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful."
I don't think many of us here know much about Orban and Hungry beyond brief assertions from MSM. This appears to be a partisan news topic where the "right" can't find anything wrong. Orban and his party has be in and out of power over since 2000 it looks like a functional democracy to me.
It raises the issue on what happens when the politics of the public servants and judiciary disagree with that of the government (a local example is Seymour wanting to abolish the HRC). I think in a democracy the government must be able to pass legislation regardless of the public services politics and the politics installed in them from previous governments. It's up to constitution and electorate to safeguard democracy. Otherwise its a self appointed, unelected and unaccountable group deciding what they think is best for the rest of us. If ACT get into government they should have ability to undo the previous governments decisions regarding the HRC. Unless something is enshrined with a super majority.
“Simply, that if progressive change has to be imposed and enforced by the naked power of the state, then the political reaction will likely be strong enough to undermine progressivism and democracy in equal measure.”
Or to put it another way ….
It could be that forcing through change which is not seen as progressive or progressivism by many and on a slender mandate ultimately polarises opinion, undermines social cohesion and discredits democracy.
Its a big mistake to assume that white people will fight for their political system. They are far more likely to simply pack up and move to Australia, where they don't have to deal with any of this stuff. "White Flight" will be a thing, along with Maori people who don't want to be tarred with the "hapless victim" label. Just like in the US, people are packing up and leaving States like California and New York to go to Florida and Texas. Its far easier to move than it is to fight. The Govt needs to figure out what will they do when all the middle/upper class productive people have left the country.
KW, I was at a friends 50 th in Brisbane 10 yrs ago, he was of Maori decent. There was a huge gathering with hangi and haka's. Speaking with some of the party goers, who were mainly Maori, I asked why they lived in Australia rather than NZ. The general reply was better wages but of interest to me at the time was many said that in Aus we are Kiwis but back home we are just Maori. Not sure what to make of it, another thing in common was no one I spoke to had any intention of moving back to NZ.
KW historically you are correct but there are other passive ways of protest as is happening in HK & China were the youth are simply doing nothing or the minimum. Obstruction is another eg Census/Tax Returns/Rates bills etc all can be obstructed with wrong timing wrong/incomplete information, delays or constant remindesr to bureaucracy with e-mails telephone and personal calls just clogs the machinery up. Even peaceful protests or not so peaceful as in France and Berlin tie up Police who have less time to investigate other crimes and the sheer fear of facing a large mob and worrying - do they know were I live - makes the job unattractive and in the US 160 San Francisco Sheriffs deputies threaten to resign over mandated covid vaccinations, only in America? yes for now but keep watching it may spread like the Delta Covid but more deadly. These signs are a worry as without order & consent of the public even the current chaos will get worse and who knows a Charismatic new leader may emerge and then?????????
Hungary is an 'illiberal democracy' - there's irony for you. I feel like NZ is becoming the same - inability to insert balance into the debate and get tarred as racist for daring to question the orthodoxy as imposed by the Wellington elite. No debate about He Puapua or co-governance, just blithe responses like - the Treaty says so.
Also, we're not that well off Chris, NZ/Aotearoa is a struggle for a lot of people and many of us are seething. The lack of an alternative is holding the situation in check, not COVID or a buoyant economy. National are defunct, and do we really want to swing all the way to ACT?
'Or will Pakeha, contemplating the imminent loss of their power and privilege, shout like those good-ole southern boys: “Hell, no!'
You also forgot to mention that those Pakeha and non-Pakeha regardless of any position you think they have or not, are also saying 'Hell no'.
On spending half a day at the Treaty Museum in Russell a few years back I came to realise just what initially prompted the Treaty of Waitangi in the first place. There will be all sorts of views on this but from my reading it arose from the Chiefs of the far north iwi wanting the British to re-establish some much needed law and order in that part of the country in the early nineteenth century. The whaling crews of all nationalities were running riot there (hell hole of the Pacific they called it) and Maori were usually the victims of that drink fueled lawlessness. The Maori leaders asked the British to exert some military control on these European maritime wild men to which the British said that that could only happen by Maori ceding sovereignty to Queen Victoria. This may well have been an argument of political expediency on the part of the British but once an broadly acceptable draft was put together, circulated and a majority of iwi had agreed to the terms they signed up. Perhaps it shows that you should always be careful of what you wish for.
"If we think of the He Puapua Report as the blueprint for an “Aotearoan Reconstruction”, " it's not reconstruction, it's deconstruction.
"Are we sufficiently evolved politically to accept its radical changes without demur?" Surely he means "Are we sufficiently cowed to accept these changes without demur?"
"Or will Pakeha, contemplating the imminent loss of their power and privilege, shout like those good-ole southern boys: “Hell, no!”? " Comparing all Pakeha with a bunch of good-ole southern boys is pretty offensive.
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.