Politics does not have to be dirty

Writing in The Press this morning, Chris Trotter argues that politics is essentially dirty: "Bluntly, "dirty politics" is the only kind there is".

I reject this proposition absolutely.

I'm not doing so out of naiveity; I agree with Trotter on the essentially Hobbesean pact which underlies democracy, that its a gentler way of solving issues that used to be solved by civil war and murder. And I've read my Machiavelli and agree that being an effective ruler may sometimes demand immoral methods. But that doesn't mean that all is fair and that we should accept what we have seen. To point out the obvious, if being an effective ruler demands immoral methods, one can always choose not to be effective - or not to be a ruler. In the C16th when Machiavelli wrote, that choice was effectively suicide, or at the least impoverishment and exile. In the modern era, the consequences are rather less severe.

Our politicians make choices. How far they are willing to go to get what they want and to stay in power is one of those choices. The ruling clique in the National Party has clearly chosen to delve into the sewer and behave like sociopaths to keep themselves on top. Other parties - and indeed, others in National - would clearly make a different choice. The choice as to which ones get to run the place, and therefore how much of this toxic crap we have in our political system, that's up to us.

I can't stress that last point enough. We get to hold politicians accountable for their choices. And in 31 days, we'll have a chance to do just that. So, if you reject National's dirty politics, vote the fuckers out. And hopefully, whoever replaces them will get the message that this sort of shit just isn't acceptable.

Real leaders don't beg

So, after the insanity of Tuesday nights media-created "coup", David Shearer is now reduced to begging the media for a fair go.

Yes, he's got a point: certain journalists seem to have an obsession with coupmongering with Labour, to the extent of leaping on the most insane rumours and leaving the basic journalism behind. But at the same time, real leaders don't beg - at least, not if they want to be elected. Again, I'm reminded of Machiavelli's words on weakness:

It makes him contemptible to be considered fickle, frivolous, effeminate ["weak" - I/S], mean-spirited, irresolute, from all of which a prince should guard himself as from a rock

This is just the latest in a long list of ways Shearer has made himself contemptible. Refusing to take a firm stand on asset sales. Or homophobia. Or racism (in fact, about the only thing Shearer will take a firm stance against is women). He won't promise to repeal John Key's spy bill, or even his corrupt Skycity pokie deal. And the result is that he looks weak and untrustworthy, while alienating even his own supporters.

Like his mentor Phil Goff (who shoulder-tapped him for the job), David Shearer has no virtù. And the quicker Labour is rid of him, the better.

David Shearer: Spineless chickenshit

Yesterday Winston Peters flung down the gauntlet on asset sales, declaring that NZ First would buy back stolen assets at no more than cost - and borrow if necessary to do it. Labour leader David Shearer's response? He "won't rule it out but we won't rule it in either". I'd ask him to tell us what he really thinks, but its clear that he doesn't really think anything. He's just a spineless chickenshit, saying nothing for fear of offending anyone.

This isn't good leadership, and it isn't good politics either. Back in the sixteenth century, Machiavelli noted that

A prince is also respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy, that is to say, when, without any reservation, he declares himself in favour of one party against the other; which course will always be more advantageous than standing neutral... Because he who conquers does not want doubtful friends who will not aid him in the time of trial; and he who loses will not harbour you because you did not willingly, sword in hand, court his fate.

Machiavelli was talking about wars between semi-feudal states, but his reasoning boils down to "nobody likes a fence-sitter". And that applies equally to democratic politics too. By offering nothing to either supporters or opponents of asset sales, Shearer (and Labour) earns the contempt of both and the support of neither.