For the Future

I was watching the video of Michael Cullen at the Drinking Liberally gig in Wellington last week (where I was standing was a bit out of hearing range at times), and thinking about why people bother with progressive politics.

After all, sometimes it would seem much easier to adopt a selfish approach to life. When you're only looking after yourself, only caring about yourself, and when your politics is shaped around that point of view, then things must seem much easier. There would be none of the difficulties involved in having due regard for other people.

What Labour has shown in the past nine years, though - and what National has proven through their collapse into Labour-like policies - is that Kiwis don't buy that form of politics. A modest social-democratisation of the public realm and of people's attitudes has occurred, and New Zealand as a result is a more progressive country.

That's a solid achievement, but it is only a beginning. Cullen's spiel reminded us that there is one foundation stone for democratic socialists: equality. Not the dull grey sameness of communism or radical socialism - who would want that?! But a fundamental belief in the moral equality of all people and that public institutions and policies ought to acknowledge that.

He made a second point which was about timescales. The short-termism of the modern right (which contrasts sharply, I might note, with the traditional conservatives) versus the long timeruns that social democrats have been working in. There are clear political penalties to that approach (look at Labour's polling for the evidence) but there is little question that in objective terms, the long run is where it's at.

So, after three terms, and some success in building a more progressive economy, what are the great challenges facing the left - and in fact, facing the country?  I think there are three that stand out:

• Economic productivity and diversity of markets - productivity is up, at last, after the great shift of people off of benefits into work has been absorbed, but long run the growth of productivity is vital. The only way to do it is to apply more capital in business, and to organise work better - a challenge for everyone. Coupled with that is making exporting easier and getting into more markets. Progress has been made on all these areas, but more is needed, faster.
• The equality agenda - Working for Families, adjustments to retirement incomes, a stronger minimum wage, better leave provisions, early childhood education, paid parental leave, fairer workplace law - all have provided some boosts to building a fairer, more equal society. But - beneficiaries are worse off in relative terms than they were. Poverty has not yet been ended. So there is more to do.
• Sustainability and the environment - we need a sensible conversation in New Zealand about what our environmental limits are, and what our role is globally in standing up for the need to tackle climate change. We also need workable policies to drive this change, and a new politics that engages the public in the debate - and secures support for the measures needed - to drive change. If we don't, we are leaving coming generations in one hell of a mess.

All these things are inter-related. You can't have a strong economy without a fair society: the higher rates of growth under the Labour government than under the National government are ample proof of that. You can't build a more equal society without economic success: hard times mean investments in public services slow down, and redistribution gets harder when someone's losing. And you cannot have either a strong economy or a healthy society without living in balance with the planet. It just isn't possible.

These are why I bother with politics. They are big themes that have real, positive impacts on the lives of all our people. Coming to understand them makes all the unpleasant aspects of party politics more than worth putting up with. Any reasonable-minded person would acknowledge they're worth engaging with and worth sorting out.

Now the challenge we face in the Labour Party is clearly communicating that this is where we want and need to go. Easy, right? :-)

---

Update - DPF has blogged derisorily on this post. I do not think all right wingers are selfish. David himself is an example of a perfectly reasonable, altrusitic indivdiual with whom I have dealt in many different situations over a number of years. He has spent a great deal of energy and effort working for other people. I admire him for that, and so should you, dear reader.

Not surprisingly, we don't discuss politics much. I don't think my post is at all derogatory of right wingers. It is simply a statement of fact that centre-right, liberal politics of the sort practiced by the National Party and ACT is inherently selfish. The policies are about increasing the incomes of those on high incomes but constraining those of the poor; lowering taxes; inserting market relations into as many areas of society as possible, et cetera.

I have no doubt that right-wingers advocate these policies for genuine reasons. For them it is axiomatic that less state and more market = more economic success and more freedom. They are not making that belief up: it is why they are right wingers.

I am a left-winger. For me it is axiomatic that all people are morally equal and that that has economic implications as well as social ones. In building a more equal society where people's relations are as people or as citizens - not "marketised" - the role of the state is very important. A shrinking of the state is most likely to be a reduction in freedom. And economic success requires the sort of social capital that only a social democratic state can provide the conditions for.

Because these perspectives come from different foundational assumptions they can never be reconciled. That's fine. I don't want social democracy OR conservatism to be the only ideology. The power and energy that arises from the difference is the dynamic that makes our politics interesting.

I know sometimes I can seem one eyed and overly critical of the right. But that's simply a function of blogging in a hurry, with time at a premium. I can't be bothered with the endless qualifications that ought to be implicit anyway.

Comments

[Eric Olthwaite]

"through their collapse into Labour-like policies"

So Labour's policies are something folk "collapse" into?

Freudian slip? :-)

[ben]

What planet are you on Jordan?

There would be none of the difficulties involved in having due regard for other people.

I imagine most people who say rights matter, believe in giving all people rights, and being reluctant to breach them, do so because they believe a failure to do this ultimately hurts everybody but the politically and economically powerful. Your entire world view depends on the notion that anyone who advocates for rights is rich. Dead wrong.

What Labour has shown in the past nine years, though - and what National has proven through their collapse into Labour-like policies - is that Kiwis don't buy that form of politics.

Labour is polling 29%.

The short-termism of the modern right

Oh please. Cullen has just delivered a budget that spent the last of what was a huge surplus, violated any number of principles he himself promoted in years past, and all this six months before an election. Please.

There are clear political penalties to that approach (look at Labour's polling for the evidence) but there is little question that in objective terms, the long run is where it's at.

Again, completely backwards. It is the government that does not intervene and insists on respecting rights and property that has the hard political sell. Spending other people's money trying to solve problems is the easiest political sell.

You can't have a strong economy without a fair society

By that definition, the United States is among the fairest societies. Its per capita wealth and income far exceeds NZ's. Do you really mean this, or did you not mean to make your vague generalities testable?

Jordan, you so completely miss the limits of what governments can do, and just how tied a democratic government's hands are to shape a society. For all the gigantic expansions in education, health, and welfare spending, New Zealand continues to have poor people and underfunded schools and a grossly underperforming health system. What possible explanation can there be for this besides government actually isn't very good at organising these services. And yet your great idea is more of the same.

Please.

[unaha-closp]

Alternative suggestion - All politics are selfish, all votes for you are on the basis of benefiting from your spending more than being hurt by your taxation.

The key left-wing voting blocs are recipients of government largess. You seem to be arguing that these people are unselfishly voting for a better society, they are not.

[Comrade MOT]

People are morally equal, but it is silly to try to make everyone financially equal is silly. As you said yourself, right wingers are not nessicarily selfish, then why make this statement:

"After all, sometimes it would seem much easier to adopt a selfish approach to life. When you're only looking after yourself, only caring about yourself, and when your politics is shaped around that point of view, then things must seem much easier. There would be none of the difficulties involved in having due regard for other people."

It certainly suggests that you think right wingers are selfish, and it is simply not true. As a student, I get awesome benefits from labour, but I think it's wrong, and did not and will not vote for it.

[Whaleoil]

Shouldn't you have been in your electorate campaigning rather than drinking liberally in Wellington?

Are you going to go to Hunua ever?

[Clint Heine]

Generalising gets you in trouble every time Jordan. It would be like me saying that all left wingers were feeble minded because they need the security blanket of a huge Government to tell them how to go about their lives. Possibly I could say that most left wingers like to tell others what to do, how to think, what schools to send your kids, that you are not allowed to earn more than others....

But that would be silly right?

[hahaha]

hahaha. what an absurd post. the 'response' to DPF is almost exactly the same point reiterated. considering the polls now have National close to 50%, are you implying that over the last year where Labour have slipped in the polls, some 15% (the difference) of New Zealanders have suddenly decided to stop caring about others and 'be more selfish'?
Please don't post again. you embarass our side.

[Rocket Boy]

You don't seem to have any positive comments so I will add one.

Good post and hard not to agree with the idea that the Left is more concerned with society and the Right is more concerned with the individual. I also think that is 'easier' to be right wing as you only have to think about one person - yourself and the answer to almost every problem is either 'more police', 'longer jail sentences', 'the free market' or 'bombing them'.

[anon]

Rocket Boy says: "I also think that is 'easier' to be right wing as you only have to think about one person - yourself and the answer to almost every problem is either 'more police', 'longer jail sentences', 'the free market' or 'bombing them'."

But if you are left wing, you never have to think about anyone - just "society" however you define it - and there is only a single answer: "increase funding".

[Neil]

Or maybe people are innately tribal and can't help taking sides and hurling abuse at their opponents.

There's no gurantee that any explaination of political views has to be in any way based on rationality. Which is why I do agree with your final point about the dynamic between completing views being important. We are all self-serving to an extent even when we think we're not. Liberals get secondary gain from being seen to "care".

[burt]

"I know sometimes I can seem one eyed and overly critical of the right. But that's simply a function of blogging in a hurry, with time at a premium. I can't be bothered with the endless qualifications that ought to be implicit anyway."

Trust me, I know what I'm doing !

[James]

If you aren't Selfish you aren't alive ...period.All living beings are self interested if they wish to remain alive....any other view is suicide.

You are such a deluded cock Carter.....come around Hunua and knock on my door.....be afraid!

[Clint Heine]

Rocket Boy - are you serious? Maybe you just have never met anybody from the right. I would hate to think your opinion comes from an educated background.

Supporting the right does not mean one looks out for oneself. It is the belief that people are better served without an overbearing Government deciding how much of our wages we keep, what schools we go to, what quality of healthcare we receive etc. It is far fairer because we believe everybody should have the opportunity to be the best they can be.

Socialism punishes success while Capitalism rewards it.

[B Whitehead]

"A shrinking of the state is most likely to be a reduction in freedom."
So I presume that full state control would give us maximum freedom then -eg like the Soviet union,Albania,Cuba etc.
Are you suggesting we haven't got enough rules,bans & regulations as it is?

[sagenz]

Jordan - Look to inspiration to Australia for a definition of market democrats and you will find it much closer to Nationals view of New Zealand than your own rather pathetic attempt to label right wingers as nasties. Read kiwiblog for the post and the report and comment on it. It comes from a Labour politician and is about as close to my own views as I have yet found. Whether they will execute remains to be seen. Having voted Labour in 1987 I can safely say that I would vote for any politician Labour, National, Conservative, Liberal, Green, Maori party who sincerely espoused those views.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/06/the_rudd_government.html#comments