liberation

Identity politics vs class politics - 1: Introduction

Phil Goff has recently challenged issues that are at the core of socially liberal politics in New Zealand. The Labour Party leader has been asserting a more class-oriented and leftwing version of politics, effectively seeking to shift Labour away from a core part of its project of the last three decade: liberal identity politics. The meaningfulness and authenticity of this shift can be questioned, but the intrinsic tilt to the left cannot. While the conventional media and blogosphere interpretation of Labour’s new direction is to label it as either ‘social conservative’ or ‘rightwing’, Goff’s repositioning is in fact nothing of the sort. It is actually a newfound expression of relatively leftwing positions on important issues. What’s more, the controversy over the speech has sparked an important and long overdue debate within the New Zealand left about what it means to be leftwing in 2009, and what the way forward is for those interested in fighting for a more equal and just society. It has made the left confront questions of how concepts such as ‘social liberalism’, ‘political correctness’, ‘post-materialism’, and ‘identity politics’ fit into the leftwing project, if indeed they do at all. Yet, much of this significant debate occurs in an incredibly murky and confused manner, mainly due to an inability to conceptualise the different elements at play. So, in an attempt to contribute to this discussion, this blog post introduces a whole series of posts discussing these issues. The series attempts to reframe the debate and the terms of the debate in a way that is hopefully useful. It argues that to understand what’s going on in the Labour Party, what Goff has recently pushed for, and indeed what’s happened to the Green Party, is not a case of social liberalism versus social conservatism; nor is it left versus right; but instead it’s liberalism versus leftism – or simply: identity politics versus class politics. [Read more below]

The changing nature of ideological conflict in New Zealand electoral politics (1996-2008): The rush to the centre & the rise of post-materialist issues

To what extent does the left-right political dimension still structure political party competition in New Zealand politics? Where do the parties sit on that spectrum? What other political dimensions now underpin our electoral politics? This extensive blog post presents the findings of a regular survey of New Zealand political scientists about party ideological conflict that has been carried out for the three MMP general elections of 1996, 2002, and 2008. Explaining the results, and drawing on some previous blog posts, it argues that the left-right spectrum is of declining importance in New Zealand politics, and that ideological conflict is cohered to a greater degree by post-materialist issues. The major political parties in New Zealand now all agree on the basic post-Keynesian economic framework that dominates discourse and policy formation. No party fundamentally challenges the paradigm shift that occurred with the neoliberal revolution that occurred from 1984 onwards. All parties now agree, explicitly or implicitly, that the market is the best mechanism for generating wealth and distributing good and services. Within this ‘new policy consensus’ there is, of course, room for some limited discussion of when and where the state should intervene to correct market failure, but because there is essentially no debate of any substance around material/economic issues, what might be called ‘postmaterial issues’ now represent the arena for ideological and political conflict in parliamentary politics. Furthermore, within this post-reform era political conflict is underpinned by a strong pragmatism rather than principle. Some explanations are proposed for the rise of the new consensus, the decline of left-right conflict, and the increasing salience of societal issues in electoral competition. [Read more below]    

[Act Party history] 24: Socially conservative repositioning

Early on in Act’s history, commentators were inclined to categorise Act as a new right urban-liberal party – a party that is rightwing on economic issues, but liberal on social ones, and sophisticated rather than traditional. This was certainly an image the party leadership, and in particular Richard Prebble, wished to convey. According to political analyst-satirist Dave Armstrong (writing in 1997): ‘This is the image Act are successfully portraying: they're fun-loving trendy young things with Pajeros and CD Roms. Act is the National Party without all the boring old farts who want compulsory military training, respect for the flag and a drinking age of thirty-three’ (Dave Armstrong, 1997: p.8). But in reality, the party was always somewhat less socially liberal than they might have seemed, and this was concealed only by the fact that they had initially chosen not to market themselves as social conservatives. [Read more below]

Issues in New Zealand politics in 2007

It might seem a bit odd to have a blog post about issues in NZ politics in 2007. But every year the European Journal of Political Research publishes a yearbook looking at what’s happened in the previous year in politics of 20+ western democracies. For the past decade or so, this has been written by Jack Vowles, but this year I’ve given it a go because Prof Vowles is no longer in the country. And the latest Political Data Yearbook (Volume 47, Issue 7-8, 2008) has just been published. You can read this in university libraries, and some universities will have online access to it here. But for those that can’t, below is the text that I submitted to the yearbook.  Although it pertains to last year, hopefully what I’ve written is actually a useful context for understanding the current election campaign. The extensive analysis includes discussion of all the major issues from an action-packed policy year involving the ‘anti-smacking’ law, the Electoral Finance Act, extensions and enhancements to KiwiSaver and Working for Families, the terrorism raids, scandals about Air NZ in the middle east, employment and politicisation in the public service, and the charging of Labour MP Phillip Field with corruption and bribery. There was also the rise of John Key and the attempted revitalization of Labour. I argue that although it appears contradictory, political consensus and conflict increased in tandem during 2007. [Read more below]

[political party social bases] 17: Postmaterialism

Increasingly the politics of industrialised democracies are based around a set of issues that do not directly relate to the traditional class-economic-materialist left-right cleavage, but which fit broadly into a postmaterialist cleavage, in that they are not concerned with the struggle for material security (as seen in conflicts over income, tax, state social support and so forth), but with issues relating to ethnic culture, gender discrimination, personal behaviour, policies on age, and so forth. This type of ‘new politics’ is characterised by identity, values, culture and psychology rather than social background. Instead of being understood by the polarities of left and right, the terms of liberal and conservative are more useful in deliniating differences. The increase in the significance of this cleavage, and the decline of other traditional social cleavages signals the decline of politics, as structured by social division. [Read more below]

[political party social bases] 11: Alternative cleavages

Previous blog posts in this series about the social bases of political parties in New Zealand have concentrated on the traditional class cleavage which relates to the economic left-right ideological spectrum. Changes in society and politics suggest that, at least for the time being, class is not the all-dominant cleavage structuring the party system. But while the relevance of the class cleavage has declined for party politics, are there now alternative societal cleavages relating to geography, ethnicity, gender, age, religious, or even postmaterialism that are now structuring the political party competition in New Zealand? [Read more below]

Key’s law & order: 'Labour Party policy with a blue ribbon'

Justice Minister Annette King has provided the most accurate and concise analysis of John Key’s newly announced law and order policy for National by labeling it as ‘Labour’s policies with a blue ribbon’. The opening election campaign speeches by Key and Helen Clark have indeed shown just how bland and similar the two main parties are. Furthermore, they’ve reiterated what was argued on this blog in August last year – Law & order: the new political battleground - that law and order issues are shaping up to be one of the main areas of political debate in New Zealand due to the decline of economic differences in the parliamentary parties. [Read more below]

Law & order – the new political battleground

Law and order issues are shaping up to be one of the main areas of political debate in New Zealand. Despite little differences between the parliamentary parties, increasingly they all stress how socially conservative they are on such issues. Labour in particular, is ditching any policies that smack of liberalism and has now begun to assert its socially conservative side in order to fend off National’s law and order campaigns. So today we see the Labour’s announcement of Tougher rules to smash gangs and Increased coercive powers for police. The reason for this resurgence of political conflict on these ‘social issues’ can be explained by the decline of economic differences in the parliamentary parties. [Read more below]

Step to the right with Labour, National, NZ First, Maori Party, and Chris Trotter

There is a consensus building in favour of a clampdown on gangs in New Zealand, and most of the methods advocated involve the significant erosions of our civil liberties. This conservative consensus involves both parliamentary and non-parliamentary forces, as well as, sadly, 'the left's' Chris Trotter. [Read more below]

New Zealand not so racist

Liberals often despair over the state of race relations in New Zealand, viewing the masses as being particular backward on racism. But a recent comparative survey of countries shows that NZ is less bigoted than most other comparable nations. The survey found that in NZ, 3% of society would not like neighbours of a different race. This compared to 16% in Italy. Apparently we are second lowest (out of 23 countries) for racism, with only Sweden beating us (2.6%). On other issues NZers are similarly bigoted to other nations. When asked if they minded living next to a gay neighbour, the survey found 22% did. The countries with the highest homophobia were the macho and/or Roman Catholic countries such as Greece (26.8), the Republic of Ireland (27.5) Italy (28.7) and Portugal (25.6), although interestingly enough, it was Northern Ireland that easily came out on top, with 36% saying they did not want gay neighbours. In Sweden only 6% said they would object. There's more info in the Herald article, as well as commentaries by NoRightTurn and Kiwiblog.

We need a campaign against economic violence to children

For all the good intentions of the 'anti-smacking' lobby, we actually need more attention focused on the violent effects on NZ children of our current economy. In line with this idea, John Minto reflects in the Press today on his work in low-income area schools - see Poverty produces the bash. Minto argues that 'Getting "the bash" is a regular feature of many kid's lives' in communities stressed out by poverty - 'where families live day to day on earnings from low quality, low-paid jobs'. He says the real long-term solution to child abuse is 'to tackle economic change head-on'. [Read more below]

Socially liberal Cuba to legalise gay marriage

Cuba is set to become the most socially liberal country in the Americas by legalising gay marriage and making sex change operations free of charge under Cuba's world leading health service. The country abolished its anti-gay laws in 1979, well before most US states (many of which retain various laws against forms of sexual activity usually associated with male homosexuality), and well before New Zealand. NZ too, has only adopted a half-way-house approach to gay marriage whereby gay and lesbians can only get Civil Unions (because Helen Clark and co thought that the sanctity of marriage meant that it should remain a heterosexual-only institution).

According to a Guardian opinion piece, Havana now has a lively and vibrant gay scene, and the days of official repression and machista cultural societal oppression are over. It quotes the president of Cuba's national assembly, Ricardo Alarcon, saying that 'We have to redefine the concept of marriage. Socialism should be a society that does not exclude anybody.' This is a huge advance on the Cuban revolution's early homophobia. The Guardian says that the change has come about primarily due to pressure within Cuba, but also significantly from Cuba's external supporters of the revolution that have encouraged progressive social-political change in the island. See also, the USA Today article, When it comes to gay rights, is Cuba inching ahead of USA?

Chris Trotter: Withdraw the anti-smacking bill

Anti-smacking advocates in New Zealand have adopted an elite, lobbying-style of politics that has effectively killed any chance of successfully changing society's orientation to smacking kids. To this effect, Chris Trotter has written a very interesting opinion piece in the Sunday-Star Times arguing that the 'anti-smacking' private members bill should not be rammed through Parliament in the context of such widespread opposition in society. [The article does not currently appear to be online.] Trotter says that when something like 80% of New Zealanders oppose the bill, it's bad politics and bad law to push legislation through just because you have assembled a slight parliamentary majority in favour.

Trotter is probably right. The proponents of the bill have failed to convince New Zealanders. This is because the Greens and their allies never really attempted to focus their campaigns on ordinary people. Instead they have taken an elite political approach that epitomises modern activist politics - that of lobbying those in power rather than the public. Trotter suggests that previous agents of social change were about more participatory and democratic means: 'the anti-Vietnam War movement, the anti-apartheid movement, the anti-nuclear movement and gay-rights movement. As their names suggest, they were all exercises in mass democratic action - and took years.'

NZ politics now takes place in an elite way, in which single-issue campaigns are increasingly carried out in a disengaged way from society. It's a hierarchical and anti-democratic way of trying to push for social change. As Trotter, reminds proponents of the bill, 'You cannot legislate people into virtue... they can only be persuaded. And you have not persuaded them.' Of course, there are always exceptions - where there is an overwhelming and urgent case for a government to act against majority wishes to protect the rights of some citizens, but I don't believe this case falls anywhere near that.

Maori Party and others want to erode civil liberties

A disturbing erosion of civil liberties is being promoted by a coalition of social conservative politicians, including the Maori Party. In an attempt to deal with gang problems in NZ, politicians want to use the blunt and authoritarian measure of banning people wearing gang colours in public. National MP Chester Borrows is promoting the bill in Parliament to outlaw this personal expression. He's being backed by idiot so-called liberals like Christchurch Mayor Garry Moore who has said he's behind the idea '150 per cent'. He wants to impose his own personal likes and dislikes on society: 'Gang patches are disgusting. All power to the police'.

All this follows on from Maori Party co-leader, Pita Sharples, whipping up anti-gang feeling. He wanted to look at all gang insignia being banned, and he threatened to name and shame gangs and their members. Such an approach is reminiscent of Deborah Coddington's publishing a book of the identities and details of convicted sex offenders. Disappointingly, Sharples has been cheered on by other Maori leaders such as Willie Jackson.

Social liberals win drinking vote

It's good to see the Raise the Drinking Age bill defeated - you can see how individual MPs voted here. As mentioned in an earlier post, this issue provided a fairly good measure of the social liberal or conservativeness of the parliamentary parties, with some split along these lines. Below is a characterisation of the parties based on how their MPs voted on this 'conscience' issue:

Greens 100% liberal
ACT 100% liberal
Labour 70% liberal vs 30% conservative
National 58% liberal vs 42% conservative
United 33% liberal vs 67% conservative
NZ First 100% conservative
Maori 100% conservative
Progressive 100% conservative