Monday, June 27, 2005



Don Brash and the politics of division

So it's settled then. Having initially sold himself as "socially liberal but fiscally conservative", someone who would run a balanced budget while supporting liberal social legislation, Don Brash has decided to run an election campaign based on the politics of division. His keynote speech at the National Party conference over the weekend was peppered with references to "mainstream" New Zealand, and "mainstream" New Zealanders. When challenged by a journalist, he was unable to define exactly what a "mainstream" New Zealander was. But on Morning Report this morning he was quite happy to tell everyone what it's not:

PRESENTER: Okay. Let's have a look at some of the other things you said over the weekend. You talked about mainstream New Zealand. What does that mean precisely?

BRASH: It means the large number of New Zealanders whom this Government has neglected for the last six years. This Government has been trying to work hard for minority groups, small parts of the community...

PRESENTER: Which minority groups, which minority groups are we talking about?

BRASH: Well we know, for example, that the Government has been funding Maori programmes more generously than non-Maori programmes...

So if you're Maori, you're not a "mainstream" (meaning "real") New Zealander in Dr Brash's eyes. But it doesn't stop there:

PRESENTER: Okay. So Maori is one of the minority groups. What other minority groups?

BRASH: Well we know also that Government has been focusing on prostitution legislation, civil union legislation, all that kind of stuff, which caters for a small minority of people, while neglecting...

In other words, this is about social liberalism, "political correctness", Labour's efforts to expand opportunity and erode privilege, and ensure that every New Zealander is treated fairly and equally, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. But its clear that Brash doesn't agree with that struggle, because he doesn't see gays as real New Zealanders:

PRESENTER: No, I just want to pick up on something else here. You talked about civil unions. Does that mean you do not regard gay people as mainstream New Zealanders?

BRASH: Well they're clearly not, they're a small minority of people, but let me be clear. I made it very clear in the debate on that issue that I thought this should be dealt with by referendum because it's a big change in the civil institutions of society. I also said that in the referendum I would vote for it because I have no problem with same sex couples committing to live together faithfully as heterosexual couples do.

PRESENTER: You simply don't regard gays as part of mainstream New Zealand?

BRASH: Well they are clearly, by definition, a small minority of New Zealanders...

So, Maori aren't "mainstream", gays aren't "mainstream", and judging by the way he runs his caucus and National's list selection, women aren't either. This is a clear attempt to scratch the itch of racism, homophobia and bigotry and pander to the culturally insecure in order to grub for votes. If it all seems a little Murray McCully, it's because he's National's campaign strategist and has obviously decided that playing Muldoon or Winston is a sure winner. The problem is twofold. The first, as pointed out by Nandor Tanczos in his second-reading speech on the Civil Union Bill is that

there no longer is a mainstream. We have become a braided river.

National's supporters may decry that, and long for the "good old days" when New Zealand culture was defined by white, middle aged, straight farmers - but those days are dead and gone. And not because of "political correctness" or "social engineering", but because of urbanisation, immigration, globalisation, and pure generational and demographic change. National's dead white males can try and stuff this genie back into its bottle, the gays back into their closet and Don Brash's wife on a plane back to Singapore, but the best they can get is temporary respite - because none of this is going away. Under these circumstances, I think it is far better to adapt and get used to it.

The second problem was pointed out by Brash in his speech: New Zealanders are better than that. We may be a braided river now, with many different and intertwined strands to our culture, but that does not mean that we have nothing in common. New Zealanders do generally share values, and perhaps the defining value is a sense of fair play. Opinion polls showed that New Zealanders supported "politically correct" moves like the Civil Union and Relationships Act - because they were fair. Similarly, we supported Homosexual Law Reform back in '86 - because it was fair. And we support the Treaty settlements process and efforts to ensure that Maori enjoy the same life-chances as any other New Zealander - because it is fair. Using the politics of division may gain praise from bigots and seem attractive to those who superficially base their political strategy on whatever worked last overseas, but it runs deeply counter to New Zealand values. I am hoping that that will be proven at the ballot-box.

But what's really disappointing about all this is that Don Brash knows better. In his speech, he mentioned his role as an ongoing patron of Amnesty International's Freedom Foundation. He voted for prostitution reform - something he now criticises Labour for passing. And he supported the Civil Union Bill through its first reading on principle. Prior to becoming leader, he was a fairly consistent advocate for equality and human rights. Now, he seems willing to sell out any principle if it increases his chances of handing out tax cuts to the rich.

I do not believe a man who is willing to set New Zealander against New Zealander in this way deserves to be Prime Minister - do you?

10 comments:

The simple answer is yes.

Posted by Anonymous : 6/27/2005 04:05:00 PM

And one should always be wary of simple answers to complex questions.

Posted by Ghet : 6/27/2005 04:17:00 PM

May we take it, therefore, that Anonymous believes it is a desirable objective to set New Zealander against New Zealander?

In what way, I wonder, will this improve and enhance our lives?

Posted by Gary : 6/27/2005 06:41:00 PM

Great post I/S. The man is an utter hypocrite on these social issues, as he is on the economic ones - as a former Governor of the RBNZ he knows very well that promising tax cuts across the board is a recipe for disaster.

Posted by Jock : 6/27/2005 07:54:00 PM

To be fair, I don't think that he actually wants the wedge policies but for some misguided reason (and I would take a very serious look at his policy/PR minders), he thinks that is the way to distinugish National from a fairly cnetrist Labour.

I like some of National's economic policies (there, I've said it) but they have got captured by some loony spin doctor and/or the far right. I realise that according to the polls, I am going against the swing but then I reckon I am going to vote for Alistair Inform anyway.

Posted by He-Hole-ad : 6/27/2005 10:08:00 PM

I think Brash is telling the truth when he says he's not homophobic. But he does have a big fat homophobic constituency to think of. He can't get up on national radio and call gays "mainstream" and still have Nats vote for him.

Who wants to be "mainstream" anyway? Bugger that! You'd think gays would prefer things Brash's way.

BTW, if you see Nandor, ask him who's his common sense dealer - I need a big hit.

Posted by Psycho Milt : 6/27/2005 11:25:00 PM

I agree, it's precisely this sort of loathsome bigotry that drives away our most talented people and stokes up trouble among those who are left behind here.
It's also vintage National Party stuff - remember this is the outfit that took us to the brink of civil war over a game of rugby.

Posted by Anonymous : 6/28/2005 12:50:00 PM

What I think is particulary dodgy is claiming that Labour has been wasting time on Prostitution Reform and Civil Unions when in fact those were both private members bills! What I would like to know is how National would have handled these two private members bills differently in terms of the resources expended on them? Remember it's a ballot that decides what private members bills are considered, not the government, and these two were both concience votes with cross-party support. Didn't Brash vote yes on both of them at least at the first reading? What a cheek to them blame labour for "wasting" governement time on them.

Posted by Seth : 6/28/2005 02:56:00 PM

Ah, yes, and no supporter of the CUB was "pandering to bigots" when every single one of them went out of their way to stress that civil marriage is a straights only club. Equal rights? Yeah, right.

And, of course, Labour will never, ever attempt to "set New Zealander against New Zealander" when the spin machine starts blasting the Maori Party as a pack of "dangerous radicals", and re-code the standard class war rhetoric about tax cuts for the rich while Granny dies in the gutter. You won't start smearing as 'bigots', 'racists' or 'homophobes' anyone who doesn't fall into line.

I don't know what offends me more about your post, Idiot. The hypocrisy or the intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by Craig Ranapia : 6/28/2005 05:31:00 PM

Craig: I've stated repeatedly that the Civil Union Act did not go far enough, and what was needed was an amendment to the Marriage Act instead. I also opposed the way that Labour pandered to the redneck vote over the foreshore, and have shown no qualms whatsoever about slagging them off when they have bowed to bigotry rather than standing up to it (most recently over immigration). I think that rather speaks for itself about where the intellectual dishonesty lies, neh?

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 6/30/2005 12:54:00 PM