(no subject)
Sep. 4th, 2005 09:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labellementeuseOn my notepad in my handbag is a list of stuff I was supposed to make a thoughtful and considerate post about over the last week and it looks like this:
-Brash m(&%*&(&^$ wrt: mainstream, also wrt: debate, latent sexism, muther(&%$%^$&
-Helen, Don, State of the Nation, working for families, voting for self-interest
-Hurricane Katrina
-election icons
I just got back to christchurch and I'm trashed and I think you're going to end up with the short, compressed version.
Don Brash
It may be wrong that my problems with the Right this election for me are very much about my passionate dislike not for the National party but for its leader, Don Brash. Nevertheless under Don Brash we have seen the National party move significantly to the Right, dragging the entire Parliament with him- and I include Labour, which I personally find angering. Actually, though, I find the entire direction in which Parliament has shifted over the past three years to be angering and while it certainly cannot all be laid at Don Brash's feet, he's the most public, very conservative, and also? he's kind of an asshole. I really, really don't like him, but my biggest problem right now? the National party line: "for mainstream New Zealanders."
There's so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. Firstly, the Maori Party has been criticised heartily for being a party which seeks to represent the interests of only some New Zealanders, rather than all of them. I would agree with this criticism. So, then, to find it in National, one of the two major parties, is a serious problem and one that has not been addressed. I have yet to see (although I may have missed it) anyone attack Dr Brash and the party over what, exactly, mainstream means; or question what right any party has to set them up as representing the interests of only a segment of the NZ population, the elusive "mainstream" that they refuse to define. Particularly for either National or Labour, one of the leaders of these two parties will be the Prime Minister of this country after September 17th, almost without a shadow of a doubt. Don Brash has set himself up to be a Prime Minister who will not represent the interests of all New Zealanders; only some, those deemed to be worthy by being the "mainstream." this sounds to me a lot like "traditional values" and "family values" and other rhetoric of the Right.
And secondly, why is "mainstream" and this kind of rhetoric dangerous? Because it actively seeks to create divisions among New Zealanders. it actively seeks to separate the "mainstream"- ie we who watch the ads- from the "non-mainstream"- people not like us in some way, people who do not deserve political representation. Are these people somehow sub-standard New Zealanders? Are they- we, I should say- unworthy? Don Brash and the National Party have sought to split New Zealand into a "them"- gays, Maori, solo mothers, immigrants, beneficiaries, people on the dole, poor people- I can't even list properly because after all Don himself has refused to define it- from "us", some kind of ideal New Zealander. The rich, the white, business men, traditional nuclear families. This rhetoric refuses to acknowledge the basic and shared humanity of all New Zealanders, of everyone. I'm grasping for the words to explain what I mean here, which I think is the trite "we're all the same underneath" which is ineffective because really, we're all different underneath- which means that some gays are not interested in the CUB, lots and lots vote National, or would economically- I mean being gay does not mean you're automatically for benefits or anything. The only reason Labour has to some extent "got" the gay vote, the only reason is the human rights issues- and surely National does not see itself as a party which neglects human rights for a part of the population. But that's not an effective demonstration of what I'm trying to say... okay. National is creating an arbitrary and largely imaginary division in an attempt to create some kind of, I don't know, feeling of solidarity and fear of an outside attack, that the "mainstream" of NZL is somehow under attack from a group of people that doesn't really exist, a group that would think of themselves as mainstream.
I was talking to some friends about why Don Brash saying that 'some homosexuals may be part of the mainstream" is offensive and I found it difficult to explain- they basically said, well, you know, homosexuals aren't a majority of people so they're not mainstream. And sexually, okay, maybe not; but in terms of families and money and working and voting and being on the dole and everything that the government has a right to dictate, homosexuals are in no different position than other New Zealanders. There is no agenda.
Anyway. Moving on.
Working for Families, National's tax cuts, and voting for self-interest
The general consensus: Working for Families and the tax cuts are pretty much the same thing. WfF may be more economically sound- people keep talking about borrowing- but because both sides get pretty het up about this and I'm not an economist, I'm not going to comment. What these are are "election bribes" or, rather, election promises: the things a party says they're going to do and then does as part of their policies and commitment to New Zealand. So-called election bribes are just another way of the parties demonstrating where their priorities lie, and it is this demonstration that makes the tax cut and WfF packages different.
It's all about target audience. In an across-board tax cut, who benefits- "saves"- most in pure terms? The people who are paying the most taxes. Who's that? Oh, yeah, the rich. Of course- I cannot tell a lie- almost everyone will get some money back from this. Maybe five bucks a week, but hey, it's something right? On the other hand, WfF, if you don't have kids, well, yeah, you don't get anything. But the people who need it- poor families- are the people who get the most- not the rich people, who are the people who need the least. I don't think my family will be getting anything from WfF either because the kids are older and we're relatively wealthy- we probably would do better under National.
Which brings me to voting for self-interest. My family has never done it, and so I frankly have no time for the concept of voting for what's going to get you the most money. Sure, under National you'll get five or ten dollars extra a week... but that might come at the price of dole and beneficiary cuts, privatisation of essential services, sacrifice of foreign policy independance. That's simply not enough for me, to say that because I'll get a few more dollars a week I am happy to sacrifice what I believe is right for the country. I guess that is self-interest in a way, though- what's good for the country is good for me.
I am aware, though, that I say this from an extremely privileged position. Also self-interest would probably lead me to vote for Labour anyway, being a student with a loan. So you know. grain of salt.
Hurricane Katrina
Mostly I feel helpless. It's horrifying. The administration's response to it is by turns horrifying and revolting. I can't say anything more about the people who have died, or bash Bush's actions anymore. I just sort of wanted to, you know. I'm not ignoring it.
And for the icons... next post! :P
-Brash m(&%*&(&^$ wrt: mainstream, also wrt: debate, latent sexism, muther(&%$%^$&
-Helen, Don, State of the Nation, working for families, voting for self-interest
-Hurricane Katrina
-election icons
I just got back to christchurch and I'm trashed and I think you're going to end up with the short, compressed version.
Don Brash
It may be wrong that my problems with the Right this election for me are very much about my passionate dislike not for the National party but for its leader, Don Brash. Nevertheless under Don Brash we have seen the National party move significantly to the Right, dragging the entire Parliament with him- and I include Labour, which I personally find angering. Actually, though, I find the entire direction in which Parliament has shifted over the past three years to be angering and while it certainly cannot all be laid at Don Brash's feet, he's the most public, very conservative, and also? he's kind of an asshole. I really, really don't like him, but my biggest problem right now? the National party line: "for mainstream New Zealanders."
There's so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. Firstly, the Maori Party has been criticised heartily for being a party which seeks to represent the interests of only some New Zealanders, rather than all of them. I would agree with this criticism. So, then, to find it in National, one of the two major parties, is a serious problem and one that has not been addressed. I have yet to see (although I may have missed it) anyone attack Dr Brash and the party over what, exactly, mainstream means; or question what right any party has to set them up as representing the interests of only a segment of the NZ population, the elusive "mainstream" that they refuse to define. Particularly for either National or Labour, one of the leaders of these two parties will be the Prime Minister of this country after September 17th, almost without a shadow of a doubt. Don Brash has set himself up to be a Prime Minister who will not represent the interests of all New Zealanders; only some, those deemed to be worthy by being the "mainstream." this sounds to me a lot like "traditional values" and "family values" and other rhetoric of the Right.
And secondly, why is "mainstream" and this kind of rhetoric dangerous? Because it actively seeks to create divisions among New Zealanders. it actively seeks to separate the "mainstream"- ie we who watch the ads- from the "non-mainstream"- people not like us in some way, people who do not deserve political representation. Are these people somehow sub-standard New Zealanders? Are they- we, I should say- unworthy? Don Brash and the National Party have sought to split New Zealand into a "them"- gays, Maori, solo mothers, immigrants, beneficiaries, people on the dole, poor people- I can't even list properly because after all Don himself has refused to define it- from "us", some kind of ideal New Zealander. The rich, the white, business men, traditional nuclear families. This rhetoric refuses to acknowledge the basic and shared humanity of all New Zealanders, of everyone. I'm grasping for the words to explain what I mean here, which I think is the trite "we're all the same underneath" which is ineffective because really, we're all different underneath- which means that some gays are not interested in the CUB, lots and lots vote National, or would economically- I mean being gay does not mean you're automatically for benefits or anything. The only reason Labour has to some extent "got" the gay vote, the only reason is the human rights issues- and surely National does not see itself as a party which neglects human rights for a part of the population. But that's not an effective demonstration of what I'm trying to say... okay. National is creating an arbitrary and largely imaginary division in an attempt to create some kind of, I don't know, feeling of solidarity and fear of an outside attack, that the "mainstream" of NZL is somehow under attack from a group of people that doesn't really exist, a group that would think of themselves as mainstream.
I was talking to some friends about why Don Brash saying that 'some homosexuals may be part of the mainstream" is offensive and I found it difficult to explain- they basically said, well, you know, homosexuals aren't a majority of people so they're not mainstream. And sexually, okay, maybe not; but in terms of families and money and working and voting and being on the dole and everything that the government has a right to dictate, homosexuals are in no different position than other New Zealanders. There is no agenda.
Anyway. Moving on.
Working for Families, National's tax cuts, and voting for self-interest
The general consensus: Working for Families and the tax cuts are pretty much the same thing. WfF may be more economically sound- people keep talking about borrowing- but because both sides get pretty het up about this and I'm not an economist, I'm not going to comment. What these are are "election bribes" or, rather, election promises: the things a party says they're going to do and then does as part of their policies and commitment to New Zealand. So-called election bribes are just another way of the parties demonstrating where their priorities lie, and it is this demonstration that makes the tax cut and WfF packages different.
It's all about target audience. In an across-board tax cut, who benefits- "saves"- most in pure terms? The people who are paying the most taxes. Who's that? Oh, yeah, the rich. Of course- I cannot tell a lie- almost everyone will get some money back from this. Maybe five bucks a week, but hey, it's something right? On the other hand, WfF, if you don't have kids, well, yeah, you don't get anything. But the people who need it- poor families- are the people who get the most- not the rich people, who are the people who need the least. I don't think my family will be getting anything from WfF either because the kids are older and we're relatively wealthy- we probably would do better under National.
Which brings me to voting for self-interest. My family has never done it, and so I frankly have no time for the concept of voting for what's going to get you the most money. Sure, under National you'll get five or ten dollars extra a week... but that might come at the price of dole and beneficiary cuts, privatisation of essential services, sacrifice of foreign policy independance. That's simply not enough for me, to say that because I'll get a few more dollars a week I am happy to sacrifice what I believe is right for the country. I guess that is self-interest in a way, though- what's good for the country is good for me.
I am aware, though, that I say this from an extremely privileged position. Also self-interest would probably lead me to vote for Labour anyway, being a student with a loan. So you know. grain of salt.
Hurricane Katrina
Mostly I feel helpless. It's horrifying. The administration's response to it is by turns horrifying and revolting. I can't say anything more about the people who have died, or bash Bush's actions anymore. I just sort of wanted to, you know. I'm not ignoring it.
And for the icons... next post! :P
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-04 10:50 am (UTC)I like that WfF looks very much like WTF when skimmed over quickly. That's about all I have say on that.
I've cried so much reading about Katrina. When I get paid this week I'm going to see what I can do to help.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-04 09:23 pm (UTC)*amused* Yeah, I noticed that too...
no subject
Date: 2005-09-04 01:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-04 07:54 pm (UTC)*mind boggles* x_x
no subject
Date: 2005-09-04 08:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-04 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-04 08:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-04 09:27 pm (UTC)Whereas with this government the economy's done very well, we have incredibly low unemployment, people are well-off... Michael Cullen is apparently rather good at both social and fiscal concerns. Whereas Don Brash, you know, he was head of Treasury for however long- of course he's going to be all "ooh, can't spend money, bad!" because that's the Treasury's job. But it's not the government's job; the gvt is a not-for-profit organisation, it's supposed to look after its people. Treasury experience doesn't tell you how to do that, only how to "ask Treasury for permission to set policy." as Helen said.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-04 09:22 pm (UTC)And that guy?
I'm not even going to SAY what I think, the asshole.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-04 04:33 pm (UTC)An interesting insight into the political system and issues concerning your government though. I wish I were smart enough to bash Canada's Conservative party (gaaah. *hiss* freaking extremists under Harper who tossed out all the moderate PCs from positions of power, alienated a whole lot of people, but are still going to get voted for because the Liberals are in a quandary over the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery inquiry, which had to me done - stop squawking about the "waste of money" because you know as well as I that if they hadn;t done anything you would have squawked and made them look bad because they didn't do anything. . .) as effectively as you just bashed the National Party.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-04 09:24 pm (UTC)grr. Right-wingers. *hiss*
no subject
Date: 2005-09-05 12:04 am (UTC)I always jsut assumed that was probably the best way to do thigns. The policies I agree with were always things to help those worse off, never to straight up give me cash or anything.
Except now I find that WfF offers me an extra 160 by this time next year. And a universal student allowance is possible. And my debt won\'t balloon. And by the time I'm workign there will (hopefully) be things in place to help buy a first home.
It makes me very suspicious, just because I'm used to saying "put others first"
I never thought my little family could come under that heading of 'others'.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-05 03:48 am (UTC)Well, but, see, you said that you voted for things to help the worse off, right? That's not in your own interest- well, not directly. That's how I believe people should vote. Of course, the idea is that you get good things yourself, too- coincidentals like health systems or, you know, WfF. :P
no subject
Date: 2005-09-05 07:55 am (UTC)Some homosexuals may be part of the mainstream. As long as they don't flaunt that they're on the lunatic fringes. Maori can have their culture, language etc as long as they shut up about their land and try to act white the vast majority of the time. People can stay on the dole, as long as they submit their souls to working schemes in order to assimilate. And so on.
Wow, Dr Brash, I'd really love a homogenous society! Sign me up!
no subject
Date: 2005-09-05 08:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-05 10:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-05 10:16 am (UTC)...this is so incredibly off topic
Date: 2005-09-09 04:00 am (UTC)SUCH an interesting post! I spend so much time complaining about American politics, I rarely have any time to consider that other countries have politics. (*insert oblivious!American joke*)
Anyway, I look forward to reading more.
Re: ...this is so incredibly off topic
Date: 2005-09-09 10:37 am (UTC):D