The Maori Party is *not* on the left

The following post is a work of thought in progress, but I am interested in balanced and intelligent feedback on it. Any critique should bear in mind that I am not a "details" person (as should have become obvious by now) but more interested in themes.

On this post, any feedback in comments which doesn't meet my view of what is "balanced and intelligent" will be deleted.

I have been bemused a little by the assumption some people make that the Maori Party sits on the left side of the spectrum of New Zealand Politics. This is a reasonably broadly held view, but it is incorrect.

Think back to one key basis of politics. Left wing politics is part of the Enlightenment tradition. Socialism and social democracy, in tune with liberalism, were and are about breaking down the established order of power - bringing about the demise of aristocracies, of feudal power structures and so on.

Their eventual goal was and is the empowerment of the individual, either in a collectivist setting or in an individualist one, and their liberation from traditional power structures. Family and blood and fealty were and are to be replaced with the authority of the law and democracy.

The idea was and is that logic and rationality can be applied to human problems and that the power of thought and human institution-building can make our lives better than they would otherwise be. That abstract logic and procedural fairness make for a more just society than arbitrary and inherited rights to decision-making.

The mission of classical conservatism has been different. It has been to uphold the established order; to retain and entrench the position of tradition and privilege and existing power. The National Party has important elements of this in its tradition and programme, though on social issues it is more liberal than it once was. Because the analysis above was so powerful, most "conservative" parties are substantially liberal. The only inherited power they really tend to fight for these days is economic power - not many people who call themselves conservative really deserve to be labelled truly reactionary these days. This just goes to show the strength of that Enlightenment drive, from the death of the Divine Kingship principle right on down.

How does Turia's party fit into this dynamic?

It seems to me that the Maori Party's ambition is to work back towards an illusory golden past of Maoridom, where individuality is subsumed under collective whanau, hapu and iwi identities. This is highlighted by the constant references to whanau, hapu and iwi in their speeches; by their hostility to the inevitable effects of modernity and the Enlightenment on Maori society; by their desire to see social services dominated by a Maori "Aristocracy" (also known as iwi-based service agencies) rather than the universal services provided by the welfare state.

A more conservative - in fact reactionary - approach to politics is hard to imagine. If a pakeha-based party was out campaigning for the restoration of the great landed estates as there were in England; supporting the putting of economic and social power back in the hands of the elites; undermining the national institutions of common citizenship that bind us together - that party would be laughed out of political existence within minutes.

So when you hear stories of Pita Sharples saying the welfare system is bullshit and should be abolished because it "keeps people in dependency" please don't think he's joking. When you hear Tariana Turia saying she believes the State is illegitimate and that the only valid collective identities are those of kinship and blood, don't believe she is joking. Neither of them are.

That party stands for the antithesis of left wing politics, and of liberal politics. It seeks to turn around Maori society and take it back to some non-existent glorious past, and in so doing create a new privileged elite that can exert the kind of social control of the past. These are not its policies -  the policies are more middle of the road than this analysis allows; I am talking about the values and the direction they want to go.

It has nothing to do with the challenges that truly face Maori society in the 21st century. It has no answers to poverty or disadvantage or structural racism or the fight for social and economic equality. It has nothing to do with the left. On that basis, the miracle of Turia's time in the Labour Party is that it lasted so long; not that she left. The stunning ineptitude of most of our media means that the party has been pained as Labour friendly, when it is the opposite.

Now, I may get pilloried for this post on the basis that I am not Maori and that I shouldn't be commenting on such issues.

Crap.

I am not Maori but I am a social democrat, and I understand the currents of political thought that came out of the Enlightenment. I see how hostile the Maori Party's ideology is to that progressive tradition. As a New Zealander, I have no time for a group which actively seeks to take my country backwards.

I know some wet urban liberals who are thinking of voting for the Maori Party. I just hope they realise that if they do, they are voting for a party of the conservative right, which would be much more comfortable in coalition with parties that shared its hostility to the State and to national collective institutions - National and ACT - than it would be dealing with the progressive elements in National and with the bulk of the Labour Party.

Sadly the realities of politics may mean that my party has to deal with these people post election, just as it may mean we have to deal with NZ First, but even NZ First is not as bad (from my point of view) as the Maori Party. At least they fall within a recognisably relevant set of issues - fear of cultural change, populism, economic and social nationalism and so on.

Anyhow - interested in your comments, bearing in mind the warning above.

Comments

[Peter Cresswell (Not PC)]

Jordan, you said, "I have been bemused a little by the assumption some people make that the Maori Party sits on the left side of the spectrum of New Zealand Politics. This is a reasonably broadly held view, but it is incorrect."

Leaving aside my own objections to the left-right spectrum -- and my objection to the idea that the "eventual goal [of socialism] was and is the empowerment of the individual" -- I agree with you that the Maori Party is promoting an antediluvian oligarchy of the brown anointed, as I say here* on my own blog. While I disagree with you that the promotion of such an anointed elite is not 'leftist,' it's encouraging that the Labour Party is at least opposed to the notion of supporting 'rangatiratanga' in this form.

*http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/05/rangatiratanga-at-whose-expense.html

[tim barclay]

I have always though the blind allegiance of Maori to Labour to be somewhat unnatural. Welfarism is not supported by a lot of opinion in maoridom because it destroys lives. The moral (i.e.bedroom) liberalism of the current Labour Party is probably the main catalyst for maori being sceptical of Labour. As for the aristocracy thing I have always thought Labour would find this difficult and perhaps explains why the treaty process has ground to a halt. Maori opinion is essentially feudal in outlook and on that score National and Labour are at one. But Maori are very keen to plunder the state (i.e.the tax payer) and on that Labour is a very willing hand maiden if they can devise a tax policy that soaks the rich.

[Pete]

For once I find myself in agreement with Jordan. The Maori party is a dangerous distraction to Maori. If they wish to become an effective voice for Maori, they must drop the dream of reverting to some mythical model of Maori govenrment that never existed and would not work if it did. One option would be to study a useful equivalent, such as the Scottish National Party. In the meantime, Labour is better off without them. However,as a timely reminder - no NZ party is doing a useful job in working out where Maori fit in New Zealand in 2005.

[stephen]

In the cased of Tainui at least, I wouldn't even put "aristocracy" in quotes.

A quick dredge through their site is very unenlightening. Lots of references to self-determination (and yes, to whanau, iwi and hapu) but little else except a feel-good appeal to traditional Maori values, which are defined so vaguely that all can identify them.

http://www.maoriparty.com/tikanga.htm

I personally am particularly bothered by "Wairuatanga", where it is revealed that an explicit goal of the party is "to break down secular and non-secular divisions". This section can be read as an attack on the secular state and a backdoor attempt at establishing Maori religion as State religion.

Overall, their tikanga read like a manifesto for a kind of guarded Maori sovereignty party, without any concrete description of what that might be like. It's all things to all people at the moment.

I hope you're wrong Jordan, but I think you're right. The saving grace is that you can't get along without committing to a policy forever, and at that point the illiberal elements will be revealed for what they are. I'm sure voters of all races will be smart enough to make their own minds up at that point.

[Jordan]

I am not at all sure that this is a debate that is in any way "settled" in the Labour Party. My article is provocative. I am sure there are Maori Party activists who *are* on the left, and that the vast majority do not buy into the arguments I write above.

[RWDB]

Jordan,

"The mission of classical conservatism has been different. It has been to uphold the established order; to retain and entrench the position of tradition and privilege and existing power."

You have previously said that Hitler was right wing/conservative. In pre-WW2 Germany, the top of the power structure was (in Hitler's view) the Jewish capitalists.

As I'm sure you're aware, Hitler didn't uphold the established order, he sent them off to the gas chambers.

Is this a concession from you that Hitler was indeed a lefty?

[Richard]

Jordan, I couldn't agree more. I'm disappointed by how many so-called "liberals" are willing to embrace cultural conservatism when the culture in question is non-Western. It's a betrayal of all the Left stands for.

[Whig]

It's interesting that much of the Maori Party's rhetoric bears a distant relation to ACT's mantra of individual freedom, choice and responsibility. The key difference is that they want to use that independence to bolster their feudal aristocracy, and they want whitey to pay for it. I simply can't see National as being desperate enough to concede those conditions. Labour on the other hand...

[stef]

The left has been struggling with how to accomdate the new social movements for quite sometime.

We have a knee jerk reaction in supporting the underdog and then sit in bewilderment when it bites us on the ass.

For instance on the left are happy to say:

Israel bad, palasteninans good despite the fact that both sides have both saints and sinners.

The nothern european countries were welcoming to people from africa and the middle east but are now concerned that the freedoms that they extend to others is being used as a way to push an anti freedom agenda.

Free trade is bad.But how else should the third world feed itself if we won't trade with it?

All political movements have trouble navigating new social movements. If they embrace them too much then they risk becoming irrevelant to the pricipals that the core supports however if they refuse to embrace them at all then they risk becoming politically irrevlant as the political climate changes.

[Stephen Cooper]

Thats a nice try RWDB, but Hitler was trying to assert the dominance of "Aryan Race" over Jews who were "acting like sappers" - Hitler intended to establish a new order.

So in a sense, he was a radical conservative - not to draw to close a parralel between that phrase and certain NZ PM.

[RWDB]

Stephen Cooper.

"Hitler intended to establish a new order."

Exactly. Or, in other words:

"break down the established order of power"

which is Jordan's exact definition of socialism:

"Socialism and social democracy, in tune with liberalism, were and are about breaking down the established order of power"

stef.

"Free trade is bad."

How can the freedom to swap what you have with others possibly be bad?

[oliver]

I strongly believe the Maori party represents a current of Maori quasi-fascism that has never properly surfaced itself in the mainstream. "Fascism?!" I hear people yell: well, let's start with some definitions here.

To quote Jordan, there exists "fear of cultural change, populism, economic and social nationalism" within the party. Those are some of the most fundamental elements of fascist movements, and indeed, another is the artificial glorification of pre-European Maori society.

True, there appears to be respect for Westminster democracy from the Maori party, but this same respect existed within the early Italian fascist movement, and indeed in some cases within the German National Socialist party.

Some intellectuals have disputed that minority fascism can even exist, though they are loathe to admit that Fascist Italy was a saint to it's minorities compared to the United States until the late 1930's, when Hitler's grasp was around Mussolini's throat.

The Maori Party's current antipathy toward the State is not necessarily due to any strand of (modern) anti-statist view point, but rather can be seen as attempts at making Maori society able to reach it's former glories (a la Mussolini vs the Italian state and Hitler vs established politicians and the 'economic order').

I'm not really thinking very logically currently, largely due to the bits and pieces of analysis my mind is drawing up, but I last year was in the process of writing an essay on what shape and form Maori fascism would take if it was to surface, something I really ought to finish considering the above developments ...

[stephen]

Thank God oliver brought it up first. One of the things that struck me straight away was the Blut und Boden element to their "tikanga". But any race-based party is going to end up going down that road.

Anyone know the Maori word for voelkisch?

[Jordan]

RWDB - no, because again, Hitler wanted to replace what he saw as capitalist elitism with the overwhelming notion of the "volk" or people. It was just a bigger family, a national unit. And within that national unit, there would be hierarchies. The security services, the party, then racial divisions, with exclusions of people who did not fit - Jews, blacks, homosexuals, disabled people etc.

Social democracy accepts only one form of hierarchy: that created by a democratic political system. It is based on formal equality in a political sense, and enough substantive equality of outcomes that all can make meaningful use of their legal equality. It is inclusive of all, does not divide and cast out. It is internationalist, not nationalist. The analysis is on class and other external factors, not on race or family or other personal attributes.

I really have to repeat that national socialism has nothing to do with the left. The only similarities are those which it shares with totalitarian communism, which no social democrat of good conscience - and, I would argue, no true socialist, could ever support or endorse.

[Jordan]

Richard - careful there. I do not buy into the argument that cultural sensitivity makes you into some meaningless vacuum of tolerance. I found Marcuse's ideas on repressive tolerance interesting in this regard.

I think strong multicultural societies - as opposed to sectarian ones, or those with a patina of integration but substantive exclusion - are best built on the Enlightenment settlement of social democracy. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I? There is some truth to the arguments of some of the communitarians abou accepting difference, but for me it cannot be allowed to undermine the equality of all under the law.

[Keith Ng]

Where the Maori Party's and Labour's interest intersect, though, is that both are against the Order of the Rich White Men.

The Maori Party do not want to see the conservation of the colonial power structure - but how should they see the society offered by Labour?

I guess it's a bit like Islamists during the Cold War. Do you fight the Godless Socialists, or the Corrupt Imperialists? The answer was/is simple - whichever one will help them more towards their end goal, which is to get rid of the both of them!

[Keith Ng]

Oh, yeah, they're definitely *not* on the Left. But then again, these days, who is?

[stephen]

I should point out that the Maori Party seem quite relaxed as far as blame and finger-pointing go, so they lack the essential feature of unhealthy nationalism, namely a demonised other. So I wouldn't want to say that they are in any way _currently_ Nazi-like - more, that's a potential path they could take, given their current public statements.

[RWDB]

Jordan.

Are you saying that the Soviets were on the right?!

The following sounds a lot like the Soviet Union, yet you present it as if it is evidence of being on the right: "And within that national unit, there would be hierarchies. The security services, the party, then racial divisions, with exclusions of people who did not fit - Jews, blacks, homosexuals, disabled people etc."

[Adolf Fiinkensein]

Far too bloody esoteric Jordan. The MP is neither of the left nor of the right. Why do you want to complicate something simple? They are a group of people who realise they have been had by Labour and who now want to be seen to have a real say in how things are decided and done. Some,like the lefties, are ratbags and some are in it for a quid but I daresay most just want to get some recognition of their 'place in the order of things.' It's called MANA. Not of the left or the right, just of the people and likely not the dire threat portrayed by the Righties. Lets face it, it's pretty hard to find 20,000 genuine radicals or shit stirrers in the whole country so you will find most of them are pretty ordinary people. Now Destiny is an entirely differnt story............

[Jordan]

The Soviets talked a lot about being left wing, but they perverted the "left" into areas that the left should never go. Stalinism did this, to be sure.

That's why so many solid leftists rejected the Soviet Union as a model; and why it is such a shame that so many people of good conscience (e.g. George Orwell) were prepared to overlook great evil in trying to find some ideological good that had been made impossible to achieve by totalitarianism. They kept forgetting the point at the core of all sensible left analysis: that without democracy, there can be no socialism (that's Rosa Luxemburg).

RWDB, as I said, there are many undesirable shared attributes between the Soviet tyrrany and the Nazi tyrrany. If you keep on joining surface symptoms but ignoring the underlying ideological causes, you'll keep on thinking they're the same thing. You're free to do it, but do not expect me to make the same mistake.

[Adolf Fiinkemsein]

Bugger. That should be 'neither nor'

[Jordan]

I can edit it if you want... and you do mean esoteric? ;)

[RWDB]

You didn't answer the question. Was the Soviet Union on the left, or the right?

A one word answer will suffice.

[BerlinBear]

An interesting post Jordan, and one that's got me considering things I hadn't before. Thanks. I'm not 'in the loop' enough to offer any insight or even a properly formed opinion on the values or philosophy behind the Maori Party. However, what I've found very interesting in observing this so far, is that they seem to have garnered a fair amount of support *without actually having any policies yet*. I find this amazing, and odd. How can you decide to vote for a party, much less to join a party, before you know what they stand for in terms of policy? And, of more relevance to Labour and National, how can you decide whether or not you're looking at a potential coalition partner, if you have no idea which direction they want to take thing, policy-wise?

Or has all the policy been announced and I've missed it? All very strange.

[Jordan]

The Soviets proclaimed themselves on the left. The Nazis proclaimed themselves on the right.

Both had in common the fact that they were totalitarian monstrosities which destroyed millions of people's lives.

[RWDB]

"The Nazis proclaimed themselves on the right."

No they didn't. They proclaimed themselves on the left.

Here's Hitler in 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

But I'm not asking what side anyone proclaimed themselves on, I'm asking what side the Soviets ARE on.

Please can you just answer the question? It's hard to take your views on political classification seriously if you cannot even classify the Soviet Union.

[sagenz]

Interesting post Jordan.
Two themes. Maori have determined that they need self determination to restore their mana or self respect. As Pita Sharples and John Tamihere and many other modern Maori have identified the welfare state saps strength and determination, it does not restore it. 80 years of being patronised by Labour had to end sometime. The cost of social welfare on self respect for all people, not just Maori
In my mind it is now important to distinguish between continuing demands for settlement justice, wailing for individual welfare and the move towards a hard headed business approach to farming the government for money using whatever means available.

The first must be addressed, Labour is comfortable with the second and does not seem to have understood the rise of the third. Ngai Tahu is a good example.

From the history I have read Maori were strongly entrepreneurial and traders when European first arrived. It is the welfare state that has suppressed dissent and undermined the will for self determination. Was that a price worth paying to get us to where we are now? That is now changing. It is a good thing that Maori recognise their future success lies in themselves not in ongoing reliance on patronising Labour generosity through the welfare system.

I would characterise your social deomcrats as placing community before the individual. I would note that Communism & National Socialism had the same aims and quasi religious belief base.

Your much vaunted Sweden is also the gutless country that remained neutral against the Nazi threat. Their "community" remained more important than the principles of individual self determination that conservatives hold dear.

As a last point if you think conservatives stand for maintaining the existing order why do you not wholeheartedly support America in overthrowing the tyranny that was Iraq. Never mind WMD, it was right on its own merits.

It is individuals who have fought tyranny.

[Idiot/Savant]

I think you're probably right, but at the same time I'm not quite sure why devolved funding is evil. If it works, and its well-run, then what is the problem? Surely the goal is helping those in need?

I'm also hopeful that no matter what they may think about tribal aristocracy, democratic accountability will pull the Maori Party progressively leftwards. Because if they manage to get funding devolved, yet the iwi agencies don't actually deliver (or are too transparent in their entrenchment of existing privilege), then they will suffer at the ballot box for it (that's quite apart from the scourging they'd get in Parliament).

[Peter Cresswell (Not PC)]

Good comments Phil, you've hit several nails there and all right on the head. :-)

[dave]

Jordan,
If the Maori party philosophy is more to the "right", why then are its supporters more left-leaning? Are they being conned? Perhaps is it blind allegience. Personally I don’t think Maori *fit* into the left/right spectrum because of culture. Social democrats put community before individualism but the Maori party puts culture before community, then individualism.

Although you may say that the Maori Party are not left, the party does evolve from the left - after all Matt McCarten did resign from the Alliance to be the stragetic advisor in for the Party. Maori politics has often been seen as "left" because Maori are generally less-well-off and less-educated than Europeans. The Maori Party is to the right of that philosophy without going over the centre line.

Also, the Maori Party is targeting votes from Labour's Right, while Labour is moving more to the centre. Gains from the Maori Party will come at Labour's expense, including urban liberals - which is perhaps why you wrote your post.

[oliver]

QUOTE
I would characterise your social deomcrats as placing community before the individual. I would note that Communism & National Socialism had the same aims and quasi religious belief base.
END QUOTE

The Night Of Long Knives eliminated the majority of traditional leftists within the Nazi Party (with the murder of a lot of members of the Sturmabteilung, which had a very strong socialist current). It's ridiculous trying to compare, for example, Cuban or Chinese socialism with National Socialism in Germany. Anyone who is learned enough to be familiar with Fascism and not to analyse phrases simply by looking to see if they look like other ones, knows that fascism is fundamentally different to socialism. Corporatism is very different to Soviet-esque state capitalism.

QUOTE
Your much vaunted Sweden is also the gutless country that remained neutral against the Nazi threat. Their "community" remained more important than the principles of individual self determination that conservatives hold dear.
END QUOTE

Wow, that's intelligent analysis, considering the absolute shit you even know about Swedish history before and during World War II. If Sweden hadn't allowed German units to be transferred along railway lines along the edge of it's border, it would have been anihilated by the Nazis. That would show they were full of guts being stupid enough to destroy their country for no good purpose, eh ? Additionally, if the Nazis had occupied Sweden, they would've gained access to massive amounts of raw materials, a large base of man power, and also much easier transferral of troops to Finland and thus aiding the destruction of the Soviets.

[sagenz]

oliver - Finland and Norway. They can look back with pride.

Vichy France, Sweden, Switzerland - They can only look back in shame.

Fighting for liberty & freedom is more important than buying off the enemy.

Read some history yourself.

[Craig Hall]

By staying neutral, Sweden avoided a lot of mainly Swedish people dying, and also were able to allow a reasonable number of Jews to escape there from other occupied countries in the general area.

The Soviets were left-wing, the Nazis were right-wing (despite their rhetoric, they most definitely supported capitalism and corporations as an efficient means to an end). However, the left/right wing axis looks more like a circle than a line, because both wings tend towards totalitarianism. In a dictatorship, or similar, I don't think it really matters much whether those in charge are nominally 'left' or 'right' wing, because rights are trampled on regardless.

Additionally, when looking at left/right politics, there are economic rights (capitalism or socialism, for example), and then there are personal rights (libertarianism or conservatism), making things look more like axes than lines. Fascinating stuff, but not really on-topic, so I'll leave it there.

[sagenz]

Craig - Britain could also have avoided a lot of British people dying. It is the willingness to fight and take the harder short road for self determination that is the point. Appeasement and taking welfare are the easy option. It is hopeful that sufficient Maori leaders realise that both paths lead to failure in the long term

[RWDB]

"The Soviets were left-wing, the Nazis were right-wing (despite their rhetoric, they most definitely supported capitalism and corporations as an efficient means to an end)."

So a government that tolerates the existence of corporations, even with heavy state control as the Nazis did, is on the right? That would make the Greens right-wingers!

"However, the left/right wing axis looks more like a circle than a line, because both wings tend towards totalitarianism."

Rubbish. All the great totalitarians of history are on the left (or the centre). The extreme right (libertarianism) tends towards anarchy, surely the exact opposite of totalitarianism.

[stephen judd]

"How can you decide to vote for a party, much less to join a party, before you know what they stand for in terms of policy?"

It's easy, if the party stands for furthering the interests of your group. (Not to harp too much: NZ's mainstream parties have never had to have explicit pro-Pakeha policies, that's been implicit from their composition).

Anyway, to have policies you have to have some sort of consensus on outcomes, and I'm not even really seeing that.

[Tom]

Any attempt to define Nazi Germany as "right" or "left" is facile, since it was neither of these things in the traditional sense of how we define them. Nazi Germany was a fascist state, and one thing that people always forget is that fascism has its own internally ordered and coherent ideology that is of neither the left or the right.. It was the 1920's "third way."

I think that 30 years of nuturing a contradictory approach to Maori has created a schitzophrenia in Maoridom. On one hand, many believe all the liberal guilt rubbish that they are permanent victims robbed of their mythical noble savage dreamtime. On the other hand, they have been fed a constant diet of their racial and cultural uniqueness and superiority in these islands.

The outcome is the insufferably smug, condescending and imperial Tariana Turia, an impermiably arrogant permanent victim much given to the royal "we".

The Maori Party displays many fascisti-like tendencies, including I fear a potential readiness to use violence to further their political ends ("I cannot control our peoples reaction" sighs the wounded Taria). To me they are not so much a fascist party yet though, more a reactionary movement with a thinly veiled racism. The model these people like is Fiji, where a good for nothing layer of useless tribal chiefs and hangers on expect the Indian minority to pay for their life of privilege. I would say that the idea of a regal Maori class of "super citizens" plundering the rest of us under the fiction of treaty partnership (you know, 50% of all taxes to Maori type bullshit) rather appeals to Turia and Sharples.

They offer nothing to the New Zeland electorate. As a Labour party member for 20 years I say goodbye to bad rubbish, I think these fools have cost Labour many many more votes than they ever gave the party. A reactionary, racist party of victim cultists will soon be exposed in Parliament for the negative force they actually are.

[Jordan]

I should note too that this post attacks the principles I see driving the Maori Party. I am quite relaxed about the current role of non-government providers helping with public services, and that includes Maori providers, so long as they are held to the same standards as all others.

The restoration of Mana and saying that having people stuck on benefits sucks, are quite reasonable things to argue and fight for. Restoring the mana of Maori does not mean stepping back in time. People like John Tamihere, whatever his faults, do not propose to try and drag Maoridom back to the past so far as I can make out.

RWDB - are you blind? The Soviets were left. The fascists were right. That's exactly what I said above. How can I be clearer? The fact is neither bears any relationship to democratic politics (except insofar as they tend to replace it if it is allowed to decay), so I really don't see why they are of such interest to you.

[Greg Stephens]

I really can't be bothered reading through all the other comments, but here is my 5cents worth:

A number of Maori party policies (if they ever release them) will be similar to the position of Donna Awatere-Huata. That the state should devolve power to the community, in this case the iwi. That is neo-liberal sovereignty at work.

Tino Rangitiratanga-devolution-mainstreaming-assimilation is not a left/right axis, it is the third axis of New Zealand politics (economic and social issues being the other two). All sides can support it, or not support it just as ACT and Labour MPs can both be socially liberal and socially conservative. The position the Maori Party are taking is one of full tino rangitiratanga without consideration of either of the other two axis. Hence they are hard to classify.

[Milou]

If people were able to look past the totally insufficient left-right continuum, better analyses could be made. While trying to classify political beliefs is very hard, I think the left-right libertarian-authoritarian framework found in www.politicalcompass.org is superior (though not without faults). Trying to place either the Nazis or the USSR as either 'left' or 'right' leads to grossly oversimplified analysis and tends to show the analyser's bias more than anything. As for all totalitarians being leftists - that works if you conflate the two axes, and assume that Libertarianism and being right wing are synonymous - which they are not. That analysis also cannot tolerate the existance of libertarian socialists/anarchists - so its use is severely limited.

[Matthew Mawkes]

Absolutely spot on, Jordan.

I have Maori roots (Ngati Porou) but have found myself at odds with Maori Party politics. I think their view of Maoridom is indeed illusory. As far as I'm concerned (and I'm a self-confessed socialist) the only way to advance our whanau and hapu is to REJECT the past and its traditional power structures.

We will not lose our identity by living in the modern world.

[Paul]

I love that fact that what was a point about Maaori in the New Zealand Political scene, we managed to have the right talk about who was Hitler, what was Soviet politics about etc.

If you are all so bloody keen to use foreign analogies for describing New Zealand politcial actions, then at least make it meaningful.

With regard to Tino Rangitiratanga, could we not use a very easy comparative tool and look at Bristish Columbia. Queen Vicky wrote many treaties with local Indian nations all over Canada, at about the same time as this was happening in NZ. Since then, they have moved on, and now a Canadian form of self governance is happening harmoniously withing BC political life. Please read about Nisga'a Nations achievements at http://www.prov.gov.bc.ca/tno/

Sure this is paraphrasing a complex story a little. But a very easy and more useful insight to what is our problem, not a hideous WW2 plan with little or no relevance to Maaori in NZ.

And why are we all so surprised that Maaori are conservative in their political nature, they after all gave their trust in a Soverign foreign Queen, and have politically from grass roots level to national level essentially centralist, conservative.

[RWDB]

Jordan.

"The Soviets were left. The fascists were right."

Let's compare.

Soviets: Highly regulated economy.
Nazis: Highly regulated economy.

Soviets: Discrimination against minorities (eg homosexuals), execution of undesirables.
Nazis: Discrimination against minorities (eg Jews), execution of undesirables.

Soviets: Strong party hierachy.
Nazis: Strong party hierachy.

Soviets: Militarist, imperialist.
Nazis: Militarist, imperialist.

Hmm, quite similar. Yet one is left, the other right. How? Do explain.

Paul.

I'm not making an analogy, I'm discussing a inconsistency in Jordan's logic.

[spector]

Jordan said: "RWDB - are you blind? The Soviets were left. The fascists were right. That's exactly what I said above. How can I be clearer?"

Spector said: Another thing that people tend to forget is that the NAZI Party was called the National SOCIALIST party. Goebbels himself (just before he killed himself and his whole family) wrote "We are anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeoisie, we will be remembered as the brown shirted communists"

The Nazis wanted state control and crushed free enterprise... one of their criticisms of the Jews was their control over Germanys finances.

So if anything, Fascism is closer to Communism than it is to Capitalism.

But the reality is that Stalin, Hitler, Mao et-al all used whatever social theory was convenient to give themselves a personal power base over their populations. Stalin couldn't give two shits about Socialism... he just wanted power.

So to compare Labour to Stalinist Russia is equally as ludicrous as comparing National to Facsist Germany.

[circlequill]

It is interesting that Jordan, when confronted with a problem, tends to come up with the same equation every time. That equation is that socialism = Enlightenment.
Personally, I find this reaction to be as obnoxious as Ayn Rand's repeated defense of unrestrained capitalism via the logical tautological statement A = A (I believe this was Atlas Shrugged).

We should be critical of Labour and demand better performance. Here's my short list of ways Labour has failed us:

1. in its budget, it doesn't lower taxes for the poor in the face of the economic downturn. Lowering taxes for the poor is like raising the minimum wage, and by making work pay it lures able-bodied people off welfare and into productive activity.
National misses the boat too, as it wants to waste money on tax cuts for the rich, which will do nothing to reduce welfare rolls. The Greens, however, call for the first $5,000 of income to be tax-free, and they would pay for it with a carbon tax. The Greens are the most sensible of the lot on the issue of taxation. I would go as high as the first $20,000 tax-free, and would initiate a higher tax rate at $80,000 (and make a few other tax changes) to pay for it.

Now, I realise that lowering taxes and reducing government influence over the poor is anathema to many so-called socialists, who do enjoy people associating government cheques with their political party. To increase individual poor people's self-respect and productivity, however, lower taxes are the way.

Similarly, the Labour-appointed Reserve Bank chief is keeping interest rates high and harming the economy. Kiwis are out of work as a direct result of the Bank's policies, and I blame Labour's appointee for that.

2. Crime. Many "ordinary" Kiwis recognise that violent crime is not punished sufficiently and the public not protected in this country. When someone can run around with a samurai sword, hacking people up, and still have the possibility of parole at some point in the future, the system is failing us. New Zealand doesn't need to adopt the death penalty like the U.S. has, but it should seriously consider extending mandatory sentences and initiating a three-strikes law like California and many other U.S. states have (three felonies and you get life in prison without parole).

The criminal system is far too lenient on criminals and does not protect society. One can only blame Labour for not using its time in office to do a thorough overhaul of the sentencing system to come up with a solution that protects the victims.

3. Child-beating. New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse in the developed world, and Unicef has stated that New Zealand's parental smacking exception to the crime of assault should go. I couldn't agree more. Just as I believe there should be harsher sentences for criminals to protect victims, I believe there is no excuse for an adult to beat a child. Self-defense against a violent child is always allowed, but allowing beating as discipline is a barbaric mentality that needs to be abolished. I blame Labour for not taking the lead on this subject.

4. University employee wages. University employees are trying to get their wages raised over three years to the point where they are commensurate with similar employees in Australia. Labour has stated that the government will not allocate funds to pay for this. What a stupid position! University employees are the ones who drive innovation and knowledge in New Zealand society. By increasing wages, it will attract a higher calibre of university employee from places like Australia, America, and Europe, (university wages are much higher in all of these places) and will reward the years of work put into earning a Master's or Ph.D. Raising university wages will increase the standard of living for all of New Zealand. What is Labour thinking of?

Labour fails to lead, and if failure to lead is what Labour's brand of socialism means, then I'll have none of either.

Copyright 2005 Andrew Straw

[Jordan]

what the hell?

Michele if you want to post articles, post links... I've deleted the comment.

[peterquixote]

jordanblather

[Insolent Prick]

That's not the fucking point, Jordan.

It doesn't frigging matter where on the spectrum the Maori Party is. The Maori Party are a bunch of confused, gravy-train riding "wreckers and haters", as Helen Clark herself has called them. What does matter is who they are going to support post-election.

Likely scenario is that the Maori Party will have at least 3 seats after the election. They have ruled out any agreement with National. Which means the only party they will support is Labour.

And to form a Government, Labour will need them. Which means, in turn, that they will have to pander to the Maori Party by pandering further to separatist interests.

A vote for any party on the Left, including Labour, is a vote for the Maori Party to wag the dog. As much as you try to use pseudo-intellectual babble to distance Labour from the Maori party, they are all from your tribe, Jordan. And it's pretty certain that on election night, Aunty Helen will start opening her purse to bribe Tariana for her support.

[Paul]

IP you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about,

the Maori party is about forwarding the needs of Maori people, and since neither of the main party has been able to do that for the last 100 years or so, this is their option and right.

it's called democracy, and it's a pretty bloody good system.

Seperatist my ass, and I defie you to show me anywhere in their policies that would impact on YOU in any way shape or form that the major parties aren't doing so now.