By Chris Trotter*
It really was the best of times. The brief recession of the late-1950s was over. The United States was led by a young, Harvard-educated, war hero with the dashing style and good-looks of a Hollywood movie star.
The Kennedy Administration had made idealism sexy, and politics heroic. “Ask not what your country can do for you,” John F. Kennedy had declared in his Inaugural Address of 20 January 1961, “ask what you can do for your country.”
The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, and its peaceful resolution, offered proof positive that “the best and the brightest” of the “Free World” were more than a match for the hard men of Soviet Communism. There was a confidence and purposefulness about the United States that not only lifted the spirits of Americans, but fuelled the hopes of people all over the world.
Even the great American scars of racism and poverty no longer seemed beyond remedy. Dr Martin Luther King’s non-violent civil rights movement was galvanising young Americans of all colours in ways not seen since the Civil War of the 1860s. It recalled the high idealism of the Abolitionists: that extraordinary fervour for racial justice reflected in the words of The Battle Hymn of the Republic: “As [Christ] died to make men holy, let us die to set men free.”
Kennedy had also invited Michael Harrington, democratic socialist and author of the 1962 best-seller, The Other America, to the White House for a briefing on those pockets of poverty Roosevelt’s “New Deal” had left in place, and how, finally, they might be eradicated.
Underlying all this optimism and idealism was a rising tide of Keynesian-inspired economic prosperity that had lifted all boats high enough for the usual hardscrabble, hand-to-mouth priorities of ordinary Americans to be temporarily set aside. If the United States was rich enough to contemplate putting a man on the moon by 1970, then perhaps the elimination of racial inequality and poverty could be overcome.
Paradoxically, Kennedy’s assassination only hardened the resolve of Americans to meet the challenges their fallen leader had set before them.
President Lyndon Baines Johnson pledged unreservedly to make good his predecessor’s promises. In January 1964, just weeks after the tragedy in Dallas, “LBJ” used his first State of the Union Address to declare an unconditional “war on poverty”. In November of that same year, Johnson handed Barry Goldwater, the presidential candidate of a Republican Party hi-jacked by its far-right lunatic fringe, a stunning and humiliating defeat.
In his most effective campaign ad’, Johnson said, simply: “Either we must love each other, or we must die.” Less than sixty years ago, an American President had secured a landslide victory on a platform of delivering racial justice, ending poverty, and keeping America at peace.
In the bitter aftermath of the US Supreme Court’s revocation of Roe v. Wade, the above history lesson should serve as a sharp reminder of just how tenuous, and temporary, political progress can be. In the space of just four tumultuous years, the United States had retreated so far from its progressive high-water mark, that Richard Nixon was able to re-take the White House for the Republican Party. Nothing in politics is ever “settled”. The hands of History’s clock can go backwards, as well as forwards.
Nor are such dramatic political reversals peculiar to the United States. In 1972, the New Zealand electorate swung sharply left, propelling the Labour Party into power with 48.4 percent of the popular vote and a whopping 23-seat majority. The professors and the pundits of the time were unanimous in their opinion that a majority of 23 could not be overturned in the space of a single term. Labour, they insisted, was good for at least six years.
They couldn’t have been more wrong. Between 1972 and 1975, the mood of the New Zealand electorate soured to the point where National’s right-wing populist leader, Rob Muldoon, was able to exactly reverse the 1972 election result. Politically and socially, New Zealand voters had swung as sharply to the right as, only 36 months before, they had swung to the left.
Fear was the key: fear and its associated need for reassurance and protection. Muldoon’s success was built on the sudden failure of the New Zealand economy. Rampant inflation, rocketing petrol prices, and the widespread conviction that something very serious had gone wrong with the stable (some might say smug) New Zealand so gently mocked in Austin Mitchell’s in/famous Half-Gallon, Quarter-Acre, Pavlova Paradise.
Which is why, when professors and pundits glibly reassure us that there is no way New Zealanders could turn against a woman’s right to choose an abortion, we are entitled to a small snort of derision.
Four years ago, approximately 65-70 percent of New Zealanders were in favour of decriminalising cannabis. That’s roughly the same percentage of the population that supports the current abortion law. After 18-months-to-a-year of extremely sophisticated campaigning by the anti-cannabis lobby, however, the percentage of voters supporting marijuana law reform had plummeted to just under 50 percent – a fall sufficient to cost the reformers the 2020 referendum. Public opinion doesn’t just change, it can be made to change.
With most economists predicting an imminent recession, many New Zealanders will enter 2023 in fear of what lies in store for them, and resentful of a Labour Government they believe has let them down. If extra-parliamentary forces like the Family First organisation are able to associate Labour’s political leadership with an ideology that despises and derides the beliefs and values of ordinary people, linking their lack of empathy with New Zealanders’ declining economic fortunes, then the chances of them producing a dramatic shift in the electorate’s thinking are relatively high.
In a commentary-piece written for The Conversation, the Auckland academic Suze Wilson warns New Zealanders against placing too much stock in Opposition Leader, Christopher Luxon’s, reassurances that National would not pursue a change to this country’s abortion laws should it win government.
“Even if Luxon’s current assurance is sincerely intended,” writes Wilson, “it may not sustain should the broader political acceptability of his personal beliefs change. And on that front, there are grounds for concern.”
Wilson draws particular attention to the sharp rightward drift set in motion by the Covid-19 Pandemic and the measures adopted by Jacinda Ardern’s Labour-led Government to protect New Zealanders from its worst effects. The early success of those measures, sufficient to secure Labour’s landslide victory in 2020, has not been maintained. Voters who, just 18 months ago looked upon “Jacinda” as a national hero, are daily falling prey to extreme right-wing conspiracy theories depicting her as a power-crazed tyrant.
“If these kinds of shifts in public opinion continue to gather steam, it may become more politically tenable for Luxon to shift gear regarding New Zealand’s abortion laws”, Wilson warns.
The same America that gave us JFK, also gave us Richard Nixon and Donald Trump. The same New Zealand that gave us Norman Kirk, also gave us Rob Muldoon. Except they weren’t the same countries, were they? Because, when Prosperity leaves the building, Empathy is seldom very far behind.
Nothing in politics is ever settled.
*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.
62 Comments
If anything, the recent Covid response and performance of our health system is a stunning return to form. Pre-Covid, Labour was looking like having to defend a track record of either walking away from key promises or making no progress on them. Then COVID happened and on the strength of one competent display (albeit with the mistakes either not addressed or just outright fibbed about) and a disintegrating opposition, she got another term.
What has that gotten us? A 'let it rip' Covid strategy after years of fearmongering about the Nats, constitutional changes to our governance that ignores widespread negative consultation outcomes and accusations of outright nepotism favouring the family members of influential cabinet ministers.
Panicking about the right and 'empathy' ignores the very real damage being done by the actual party in power. I can only imagine if they were held to the same bar that the media seems to want to hold our opposition to.
"Voters who, just 18 months ago looked upon “Jacinda” as a national hero, are daily falling prey to extreme right-wing conspiracy theories depicting her as a power-crazed tyrant."
You don't need to be extreme right wing to consider a person, who leads a government actively undermining over a century of democracy with racist policies that they kept secret from the electorate, as a power-crazed tyrant.
Or, just maybe Labour are finally delivering Te Tiriti as it was understood and agreed by Maori? I have said this before, if you think National are going to undo these policies then you are going to be sorely disappointed. The Western world is waking up to it's obligation to the indigenous including Australia. I may vote National based on Labours economic record because I have no fear National will undo anything in the Te Tiriti space, they would not want the international condemnation just like Green policies.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/plan-to-transfer-10-per-cent-of-nsw…
Go along with that. Think ever since the extraordinary antics of Muldoon in the later stages of his prime ministership, all our subsequent PMs have decided it is safer to be seen as moderate rather than radical. Even David Lange, overseeing a dynamic government of change, realised this eventually leading to the famous, time for a cup of tea. The problem though is how to manage and contain the fringe extremes that mount up and often raised far beyond normal relativity by a media more keen on publicity, even personal fame, rather than the actual substance of the material. No action invites accusations of appeasement or indecision and on the other side, being labelled as over reactive, a bully. But you are right no incoming government is going to wilfully unstitch previous legislation that has obviously found favour with the wider population and is working. If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.
Maori leaders understood it clearly a century ago.
https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html
That doesn't stop anyone's historical revisionism a century later to suit their contemporary purpose.
Brilliant post kknz. The 1922 essay of Aprirana Ngata should form a significant treatise on "The Treaty" to underpin our new history syllabus. He was right onto both the intent,...(and of some of the failings,) but in most respects would be regarded as a major lunatic by our current leftie academics who have their own agenda with respect to the direction our children should be "guided".
"...I have no fear National will undo anything in the Te Tiriti space..."
Exactly this, certainly in the first term.
In fact the historical record would suggest the National led administrations tend to focus far more on shifting the dial towards more equitable Te Tiriti positions than Labour led governments do.
I don't agree with you that Maori understood it to be so different; there's plenty of evidence to counter your contention.
However, even if you are right, why were Labour so secretive about wanting to advance this agenda? Surely, if they'd been more open and transparent (which, after-all was promised in 2017), they'd be rewarded with widespread electoral support. The Maori Party wouldn't have won Waiariki and the wider electorate would have endorsed a drive to right historic wrongs, etc.
First, maybe if the media did not make such a big deal over a change in abortion laws in a foreign country it would not be a big deal here. We are fairly close to importing the full existential panic that the US left has fallen into. Maybe if the MSM stopped vicariously trying to role play the US "liberal" or intellectual coup into the other side of it may not be as relevant (they made Qanon and Trump banners relevant). No one expected Luxton to change abortion laws before RvW was overturned.
"Public opinion doesn’t just change, it can be made to change."
This is far more interesting topic. If you, bombard people with positive opinions and narratives on a topic and the run an opinion poll shortly afterwards and get a favourable result, does it mean anything? Does the MSM have more of a right to do this than anyone else? Where those temporary convictions real or was the electorate just startled by the rapid change in media narrative? (Or maybe, Chloe asked for a little to much from a 3rd of the support and they just wanted small steps.)
Sorry, I guess I was not clear. They, our MSM, made the banners relevant here in NZ, somehow. They have been used in a number of protests, such as the lock down one.
I could never figure out why, what relevance do they have here? However, when our politics sound the same as US and our media are uncritically repeating the US mainstream narratives (CNN/MSNBC) without any extra editorial or added relevance, the most ready made other side are the opposition narratives from the US. One example was from last week where we were expected to believe the absurd Trump lunged for the steering wheel story (I really don't want to discuss how improbable this was), the opposition US media had another take but we just got it repeated unchallenged. Eventually people figure out our MSM are clueless and you can find foreign news that comes with foreign ideas. Plus, have you seen how much the banners annoy our media commentators. You are welcome to share another theory.
Extra: Why do we get our news from CNN/MSNBC when Fox has higher viewer numbers than both combined? Media don't have to republish any news they believe could be misleading or inaccurate.
A sobering reminder Chris given where we are right now in NZ. Swing voters vote right as a response to feeling threatened and then left when feeling more comfortable in their lives. Changing the governments accordingly. If your group are smart enough to identify the threats or raise social justice and rights issues then you are on the way to influencing enough members of the swing voters in the electorate. The threats are currently in the ascendancy. Still more than a year till the next election. Not a lot of time to extinguish those threats. Especially with climate change lurking.
all I've been hearing for the last 5 years is "the socialists are stealing my money and muh freedums for their elitist agenda" - and the next term it will be "the capitalists are stealing my money and muh freedums for their elitist agenda"
So basically it's - them bad, us good and all around nauseating.
It is all very dull.
My perennial favourite coming into election season though are the 'man on the street' takes where some random punter decries socialism but quite happily takes vast amounts in government transfers because "I paid my taxes".
If you like a national health service and a universal pension, you're a socialist.
Another insincere piece worshipping the achievements of liberalism past.
Firstly, decriminalizing cannabis is not the same thing as legalizing it, the vote to legalize was blocked because the concerns raised by the opposing side were valid, there is no way to drug test for someone who is currently high on cannabis, so how do you manage drug using workers who actively use prior to or during work? Also plenty of previous cannabis users have experienced significant negative side effects and know the social consequences of heavy use. Plenty of people I used to smoke weed with in High School/University ended up down a dark path, which many of their friends and relatives feel can be placed on their cannabis dependency. The failure to address that issue, combined with the very questionable arguments around managing cannabis use as a medical issue despite the obvious recreational intent behind the bill, caused its failure.
Secondly, The LBJ administration became extremely unpopular and lost most of its support for its agenda. It was dishonest and lied about the results of the Hart-Celler Act, it lied about the consequences of Civil Rights (which was extremely unpopular at the time but total media dominance by the few television networks and newspaper outlets allowed them to ignore that) and the abortion issue was manifested as a channel for white anger at US domestic policy by the Republicans of the Nixon/Ford administrations because they explicitly did not want to fight back against the imposed Civil Rights legislation during the LBJ period . Not just that, the Nixon administration won in a total landslide opposing the legislation pushed by the LBJ administration.
Labour is going to lose by an enormous margin, it has pissed off everyone from Home owners, to Public Servants, the Teachers/Nurses/Firemen/Police as well as most of their own base. They have pursued radical socially liberal policy for the last three years unopposed and delivered very little in terms of positive economic policy to improve the lot of workers at all. National doesn't even need to do anything, it is going to win by default by not messing up.
I used to smoke alot myself, I would prefer it was legal personally.
But it needs a way to scientifically and consistently test if someone is currently intoxicated/cooked/stoned/baked and roughly how much they are affected by the current consumption. How can you effectively know someone isn't driving baked out of their mind or operating heavy machinery while cooked. Legalisation as well as appropriate taxation is the right move, but only once we clarify processes for managing people who have heavy usage, use inappropriately and put others in danger through their use. We have that for alcohol with breath/blood tests and we need it for cannabis.
Not that that's going to happen in the near future.
The workplace safety & performance issues remain equally important. Back in the good old days running factories for decades I lost count of the number of people I dismissed for turning up "under the influence" - no quantitative testing required.
Nowadays we've decided to ignore centuries of precedent requiring employees obligations to present "fit & able to work": it's considered a mental health issue & the employer is expected to manage & provide the employee with support for addictions.
I have to admit to being a labour voter last election, however I feel lied to by the party because of their dishonesty in revealing their true agenda . If , three waters, co-governance and splitting the health system along racial divides had been declared they would not have got my vote . I have no time for religion in any of its forms and view the American division along religious grounds with dismay as this threatens a generally stabilizing force in the world that its collapse would lead to widespread war and conquests of weaker nations eg NZ . In NZ Luxon has shown his Achilles heel being religion, expect it to be exploited by his opponents at every opportunity.
Politics is in part the rewriting of history. CT does his bit in talking about the "peaceful resolution" of the Cuban Missile Crisis. A series of events that is in my view particularly relevant today. That "peaceful resolution" while involving a lot of behind the scenes diplomatic negotiations, up front involved a military "quarantine" (read 'blockade') and standoff where JFK told the Russians after they had shot down a U2 killing the pilot that they had fired the first shot, and if there was another it would be followed up with the US taking out all anti-air sites and likely follow with a full scale invasion. Nukes had been threatened by the Cubans (Che Guevara and Castro), but clearly the Russians hadn't handed that leash over at the time.
Peaceful? Barely at best. If the US hadn't had their own very large club, and clearly were prepared to use it then the Russians may have pushed harder. Putin it seems understood the current political climate in the west pretty well, that there was no appetite for an all out war and much would be tolerated to avoid it. Proven right so far.
In this column CT seems to be self appointing himself as a pathfinder for Labour’s next election strategy. The usual thread by over emphasis of some points and the opposite for others. Do agree though, that nothing in politics is ever settled, nor is it often forgotten by the players involved either. Thus a fixation to get even, or best a previous reversal, can too often take priority over what is either good policy or of actual benefit.
What is wrong with abortions being allowed or not allowed on a state by state basis? If the majority of a state want a certain speed limit on the roads, then they do it, I suspect. not all crimes and actions have to be looked after by the Federal government. There have been so many lies spoken, and violent actions threatened on this topic, it is no wonder that normal ordinary people get turned off contributing to a debate where they get these grossly irrational violent reactions to their contributions. Regardless of his actual character, that was a great LBJ quote above,"Love each other, or we all die." Love it.
I forgot to say that a lot of people do not think of killing foetuses as just another medical procedure. They regard it as a killing. I used to possess a 14 week old foetus that was from a miscarriage. A boy, with fingers and toes. Eyes shut. Anyone who saw it would have certain opinions on the morality of deliberately killing this little boy. The only way to justify it would be to have faith based morals that make killing him okay. Rationality would not justify it for a lot of people.
That’s not really it though is it? It’s the removal of the upper band, the reintroduction of interest deductibility and the bright line test being moved back to two years I consider tax cuts. Poorly targeted ones too for increasing NZ’s long term prosperity.
Totally have no issue with the bands being adjusted, seems sensible and I’d be surprised if Labour doesn’t introduce similar policy closer to the election.
CT always brings a smile to my dial on Mondays, which is not always an easy thing to do. Revisionism of events past (& relevant to him/his point) are as smooth as any riposte from the current leftists who can still write. NB: CT is old like me. Where are all the younger ones? Perhaps they can't write.
Control the narrative CT. Control the people.
The Supreme Court's ruling, based on some fairly thorough constitutional research by a couple of the judges, has said that ''Nowhere in the constitution does it mention anything about abortion, therefore it is not in our mandate to have to rule over this subject. We therefore revoke RvW & return this decision to the State level where all 50 states can make their own rulings.''
Whilst the Supreme Court decision is technically correct, it has given the leftists a huge boost before the mid-terms, who will no doubt target younger women in particular with their ''This is not fair. It's anti-women.'' campaign, leading into November. Democracy's a fragile beast alright & with a fresh bone in their teeth, the media have been given another topic to sensationalise & beat the s...t out of to further their cause.
In NZ nothing changes. However, our msm media are already trying to make it an issue, just like they did with covid, & you know how well that went for everyone, don't you?
In his most effective campaign ad’, Johnson said, simply: “Either we must love each other, or we must die.” Less than sixty years ago, an American President had secured a landslide victory on a platform of delivering racial justice, ending poverty, and keeping America at peace.
...Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos...2 million dead...war crimes.
This is who Chris Trotter decides is invoke as the historical figure of closest resemblance to Jacinda Ardern?
Ironic wasn’t it. The Kennedy brought LBJ on board to sway Texas. Yet it turned out to be in Texas that JFK was assassinated. In truth should never have been there. FDR bailed him out over tax fraud. Should have gone to jail and that obviously would have finished him off.
Dear old CT, I always find his essays elegant and worth a read if only because he illustrates how the Labour Party has disowned its roots in the blue collar "worker". These days, Labour fortunes float on the academic, the senior ranks of the civil service, and the tail of analysts, policy wonks and wannabe young politicians who infest Parliament, and its Press Gallery.
I marvel at Chris's ability to select historical incidents and personalities to suit his thesis (with clear missing context)and project the imminent demise of capitalist society. His admiration of JFK for example rather fails to balance the great man's rhetoric with his more pertinent bedroom adventures.
I also wonder why his blogs are included in this mainly financial column?
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.