(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 09:22 pm (UTC)And that guy?
I'm not even going to SAY what I think, the asshole.