National and liberalism

There's an interesting confluence of articles in today's papers about the National Party's attempts to "rebrand" itself. The first, in the Sunday Star-Times, is an in-depth focus piece on National's attempts to appeal to urban liberals. They rightly recognise that, with no real coalition partners, they have to capture votes off Labour if they are to gain government. The demographic they have chosen to target is urban liberals, and to this end Chris Finlayson and Katherine Rich are planning on forming a "Blue Libs" group within the party (Nick Smith can also be seen to be part of this push with his attempt to revive a "Blue Green" group). While this is welcome - National is going to be in government eventually, and when it is, I'd rather they were moderate centrists rather than hard-right neo-liberal / social conservatives they have tried to present themselves as in recent years - its also problematic. The first problem is Don Brash. While the article talks about "rebranding" him (again) from a representative of the "mainstream" (meaning dead, white, and male) to "someone vaguely centrist, inclusive and cuddly" with a more liberal streak, this will simply underline his nature as a flip-flopper with no solid principles beyond tax cuts for the rich. And the proof of this is in his voting record. When he first entered parliament, Brash was a reliable social liberal - he voted for Death With Dignity, he voted for Prostitution Reform, and he voted for the first readings of both the Civil Union and Relationships (Statutory References) Acts. But once he had completed his coup, he took an immediate turn to the right in what was clearly a calculated decision to pander to the bigot vote, voting against the later readings of those two Acts as well as for parental consent for teenage abortions and the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill. In addition, he bashed immigrants and called for prisoners to be stripped of compensation for human rights abuses - and this from a lifelong supporter of Amnesty International. While a return to his social liberal roots would be welcome, it would simply lack credibility. And the best defence he could muster - that he was adopting those positions in an effort to get elected - would both make it clear that he has no commitment even to beliefs he professes to strongly hold, and that he believes in a "moral obligation to lie" if it benefits him politically. The only way National will be able to credibly rebrand its leader is by replacing him, with someone like John Key.

The second problem is demonstrated by the other two articles. In the Herald on Sunday, Deborah Coddington details National's appalling propensity to dump on women, which is not exactly going to help it capture the votes it needs. Meanwhile, the Sunday Star-Times reports Chris Finlayson - one of National's liberals, remember - comparing the Prime Minister to Lady Macbeth - in the process providing a perfect example of both the regressive attitudes Coddington was complaining about, and of why so many powerful women adopt a tough demeanour. It's simple misogny, and it certainly doesn't increase National's appeal to either women or urban liberals.