The perils of politics at a young age

Most people who choose to get involved in active politics, do so when they are in their 30s or 40s or later.

Some of us do it younger: we come into parties at university.

And since 1996 or so, we have the added burden that much of our political interaction has been mediated not, in the old days, at Young Farmers or Debating Club or Union Branch meetings, but rather on the Internet.

This poses significant issues, and so if you are a young person and considering getting involved in politics in any serious way, my advice is: don't!

OK, so I am mostly being tongue in cheek. But there is a serious point.

I consider my own case. I joined the Labour Party in 1997, and was active in debating things on newsgroups and email lists from that time.

Like many young newcomers to progressive politics, I was a firestarter - I always ended up taking extreme positions, debating extremely vigorously, in black and white tones. I could not have imagined anything more ridiculous than ever being interested in politics, I thought that Tony Blair was the latter day equivalent of Atilla the Hun, and was outraged and angry at how right wing our country was, and pleased to be pushing hard in a more progressive direction.

Fine, of course, except that as mentioned a lot of that was mediated electronically. Which means that now, as an older, wiser, much more moderate and middle of the road kind of guy, I am for the rest of my life going to have my words from the past thrown back at me (and sometimes, some additional words I never uttered made up for me and chucked into the mix on the side!).

So I'll have said all the caricatureable things someone on the fringe of Labour/Alliance political views (as I then was) in forums where people will be able to copy-paste them, and insinuate that they're my current views or seriously held.

WHAT is the way around that for younger people? The first point is, if you're taking the piss or into exaggeration to make a point or attack an opponent, don't do it electronically. Save it for a political debate or the pub.

The second point is, be really clear about your right to express your views and be open about the fact that they are, inevitably, going to change over time.

I don't know anyone really who has the same political views at 30 as they did at 20, or the same ways of expressing them. Nobody should have to apologise for silly things they said five or ten years ago and I hope nobody would expect them to -- it would be obvious what sorts of remarks are those of an angry young activist, and the more obviously relevant views of someone taking politics seriously.

Of course, those points are only really relevant if you are interested in electoral politics. If not it doesn't tend to matter as people are unlikely to dredge up the past. In my case, I've seen some already and no doubt there'll be more.

That's fine. It doesn't phase me in the slightest. I know that quotes out of context can be used in all sorts of nefarious ways, I've done it myself. It's part of the political game. Given that practically everyone from my generation on is going to have to deal with the same problem, it's hardly a big deal.

So, to all those (multitudes of) young readers of the blog: if you want to let fly, try not to do it with your keyboard. And never back away from your right to be up front about your views changing over time. That's healthy and doing it openly is no bad thing.  If you really wanted to play it safe, after all, you wouldn't be interested in politics at all. Or, you'd never say anything at all, and that wouldn't exactly lead to success!

Comments

[Whaleoil]

"I don't know anyone really who has the same political views at 30 as they did at 20, or the same ways of expressing them. Nobody should have to apologise for silly things they said five or ten years ago and I hope nobody would expect them to -- it would be obvious what sorts of remarks are those of an angry young activist, and the more obviously relevant views of someone taking politics seriously."

Except John Key...he has to maintain his position on absolutely everything doesn't he jordan, otherwise he is a flip-flopper. Surely you're jesting now that people shouldn't have to apologise for how they felt about the....oh the Springbok tour...or perhaps the War in Iraq....oh no....now we can take the Jordan defence ands say that was then and this is now.....god you're pathetic.

[WhattheF%$#]

What an odd post....I smell a confession coming Jordan. Have you said something naughty? Like you infamous "I could never be in Business" remarks. Are you preparing abandan your rather doomed quest for parliament? And as Whaleoil says, I expect you to be as leniant with Key as you are with "So you do not want to see smacking banned?" "Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature." Clark....

[Insolent Prick]

Curious post, Jordon.

I happen to agree that views can change over time. But what actually counts is how much you acknowledge your previous view as foolish, and how much you are prepared to reveal about your present world view. It is interesting, for example, that you once said that you could never be involved in business, and that you found trade to be immoral. You say that you were young and silly once, and said extreme things. Fair enough. But do you believe the same thing today? Was that one of the silly things you said, Jordon?

And if you do retract that earlier position, Jordon, how is it that you have yet to work for any private company, in the many years since you made that statement? Is it possible, Jordon, that you haven't actually changed your view of business and trade, at all?

When people look back and think about some of the plans and intentions of Helen Clark when she was 20, she's managed to achieve many of them, without ever admitting in the last thirty five years that they were part of her core values.

[Jordan Carter]

Some of these comments are quite strange. John Key has been a member of Parliament since 2002. He has got major issues in terms of consistency on quite important policy issues - what countries New Zealand goes to war with, for instance, or whether he actually thinks that global warming is a hoax or a fact.

In 2002, I was a party activist one year out of uni, age 23. Today, age 29, I'm a first time candidate in a safe Nat seat. I am not seeking to be Prime Minister.

In 2002 Key was a fresh MP, and in 2008, he is the leader of the major opposition party who wants to be Prime Minister.

Somewhat different standards of consistency apply, any logical person would think. Don't you agree, Cameron and whatever-your-name-is?

IP - indeed. It was a silly thing to say. I'm not interested in money or profit: I don't derive any satisfaction from working for shareholders or an overseas corporate owner. That is why I've stayed away from such work. I've found gainful, interesting and relevant employment in the non commercial sector. Saying "business and trade" was immoral or whatever was silly, and I shouldn't have said it, because I don't believe it now and I didn't believe it then. What I do believe now and did believe then is that I'd rather do something I consider more useful, which is working for people.

I'd also invite you to apply the reverse logic. If someone had never worked in the non-profit sector, would that mean they thought it was immoral? I doubt it. Ditto government.

The point I was making is that anyone involved with debating things online is going to be in a much more open position with regard to changing views than someone who never did that. That's fine, as long as people accept and understand that views change, and that people grow up.

As for my views, I've written a hell of a lot about them on this blog since I started it in 2004. People have ready access to my views on almost any political topic that exists. If someone brings something I've said to my attention and has a reference for it here (or anywhere else, as long as we're talking about a public reference to something anyone can find online), I'll either endorse it or in rare cases, explain why my view has changed.

I think that's the only reasonable approach to take if you're sticking your neck out in public life. I think it will become the default mode of operating for all future generations of people in public life.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, finally, with your reference to Helen. I certainly don't know what she was thinking when she was 20, as I was not alive.

[B Whitehead]

Insolent Prick makes a lot of good points,
It appears you are haunted by comments you have made in the past.
We all make mistakes & have to deal with the consequences(this is how it should be).The question is, do you stand by these comments or do you acknowledge them to be ill-founded.

[B Whitehead]

Jordan, Thank you for the clarification on your past statements, (even thou there's contradictions in it).

[Clint Heine]

I am assuming this post is supposed to be something for you to point at when you have some old ghosts pop up during the campaign.

NZ isn't that right wing either. From the outside it's pretty centrist at best.

[Cactus Kate]

Tony Milne still won't support you Jordan

http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2008/06/youth-candidate-review-labour.html

[Cactus Kate]

Tony Milne still won't support you Jordan

http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2008/06/youth-candidate-review-labour.html

[Tony Milne]

Cactus, I'll trust me to speak for myself ahead of you any day thanks! My view of what an exceptional candidate is and yours are clearly different.

Labour is very lucky this particular round of list and candidate selections, in that we do have several very talented younger candidates (you missed several off your list such as Grant Robertson).

I support Jordan 100% Cactus, becuase he is (and will) make a substancial difference to NZ for the better.

[libertyscott]

Jordan, if you don't like money or profit, then declare you'll be an MP for free. After all you don't want to be selfish do you? You also shouldn't be seeking to take more money off of people either, after all you don't like money.

Or could that just be nonsense? Money is ok when it is taken from others by force by the state, not when people earn it through being intelligent enough to supply goods and services to people who choose (that word choose is important to understand) to do so.

[Cactus Kate]

Tony
"Exceptional" in the Labour Party obviously doesn't have a high bar. If you are supporting Jordan, then why on earth aren't you standing yourself again?

I challenge you to compile profiles of these supposed "very talented" younger candidates telling us just how they can possibly contribute to adult politics.

I left off Grant Robertson as he's looks at least 45. And I thought I had already covered enough ground on the white gay male for one afternoon.

[George Darroch]

As Keynes famously said, "when the facts change, I change my mind". I'm more respectful of people who change their minds in the face of things they did not know than those who don't. They are a hell of a lot better than people who dogmatically hang on to a position despite everything.

Cactus - I won't speak for Tony, but it's a brave person who runs for Parliament in the current environment. Too much shit throwing and not enough debate on the issues.

[Tony Milne]

Kate, for one you might want to actually meet the people your talking about before you judge whether they will make a valuable contribution to our house of representatives. Judging someone solely on their CV or sexuality probably isn't the best way (and certainly isn't the only way) to work out whether someone will be a good MP. Having sat on job selection panels before I can tell you that I've seen many an exceptional CV, only to have the real life person behind that CV disappoint. And likewise, I've known people who start with ordinary CVs who have gone on to do some extraordinary things. Vicky Buck is a good example. She was elected to Council at 19 and Mayor at 34, and was one of the best Mayor's ChCh has had.

I no almost nothing about you Kate. But from your post on National and Labour's younger candidates you seem to view the world through a rather narrow lens.

I won't take you up on your challenge because I disagree with the premise you have developed, that a person's 'profile' will determine their strengths and weaknesses as an MP.

[Tony Milne]

That should be "I know" not "I no".

[Jordan Carter]

Cactus Kate, don't be an idiot because you aren't one: your profession doesn't permit it.

I'm perfectly relaxed if people want to choose to spend their lives chasing money. I'm perfectly happy not taking that route. Is that unusual? No, it's not. It's a very ordinary, mainstream mode of behaving.

Would I work for free? No, I wouldn't. I simply said that I would be pretty bored being in a job whose sole purpose is making money for other people. I doubt that there are many (hopefully any) people who would do a job for just that purpose.

What I find interesting is how disturbing some people find that. Says a lot about them. It's called "altruism" folks, and it's very common.

[Cactus Kate]

Boys

Jordan - what on earth are you talking about? There's plenty of stupid lawyers, my bank manager tells me however that I appear not to be one of them.

When you both sit in judgment of others who do like to earn their way in life and you steal more than 50% of their income back in taxes (PAYE, GST, Alcohol and Petrol tax etc..) to redistribute how YOU see fit - then yes I am interested about every aspect of your life, values and background and Tony I am, just as every taxpayer is - allowed to scrutinise everything about a person standing for Parliament. As I will never get to meet these candidates, along with probably 95% of the people who vote for them - yes, we do have to judge people by what they write about themselves on their CV, publicity material and website.

I note the 4 young candidates from National represented four groups of female, Pacific Island, Maori and white male. The Labour candidates were all white and as diversified in background as Symonds Street roadmarkings.

Sexuality - Up until a few years ago, you were both discriminated heavily against I imagine based on your sexuality. Until you both blogged at length about your sexuality I would have had no idea that you didn't prefer women. You have used it as a selling point for your political propulsion. Now you seek to place your values and judgment on others and discriminate against people based on something else that other people can't control - their earning potential, skills and ability to earn income. Is it relevant? Yep. The only homosexual candidates I support are ones that are Capitalists and believe in low flat tax.

Your work experience - You are stealing more than 50% of the income of people and redistributing it to special interest groups that YOU see fit to distribute to as an MP. Is the taxpayer right to scrutinise your ability to judge what they do for a living? Hell yeah!

You are both being very precious here based on the sad fact that neither of you are good enough to represent the majority of New Zealanders who are screaming at the margins for tax cuts and fair government that seeks to stay out of people's lives, not become a Mummy or Daddy figure to them.

Unless National severely blow this campaign, Labour are going to get caned at this election and you are not going to enjoy the whipping. Labour have created an environment of dependency, welfarism and poverty. Not at the lower end, but of the middle classes.

You shall get what you have coming your way - with or without Jordan's silly comments.

[Clint Heine]

Game set and match!

[Hunuans4truth]

Dear Jordan,

The other day I heard you had been selected as the candidate in Hunua. This came as a surprise to me, but it will be even more surprising to the people of Hunua when they discover you are their candidate.

Firstly, do you intend to actually step foot in Hunua, and if so, when? The rest of my questions sort of hinge on this one. It would be unfair to apply such a high level of scrutiny to you if you continue to be a candidate in (an unrecognised) name only.

If you do intend to enter the electorate, I think you have a responsibility to engage in a dialogue with people regarding your real values. To kick off this dialogue, I have prepared a series of questions for you to answer.

Do you support the politicisation of Parliamentary Services?

In 2004 you wrote of the need to "rip away" the "non-political" "fig leaf of Parliamentary Services"

Do you still consider yourself to be on the "radical edges" of the Labour party, working to achieve a "worker's paradise"? If not, have your views really changed or are you practising the "gradualist strategy" you wrote of in 2002?

These quotes are taken from an edition of "Future Lefts", the Young Labour newsletter you edited.

Would you encourage the international community to take military action against Israel to enforce UN resolutions?

In a 2003 edition of the Socialist Worker Monthly Review you wrote that world opinion "on the Palestine/Israel conflict … [should be] enforced with ... the vigour Iraq is currently facing"

Do you stand by your statement in 2004 that "war is working people fighting each other, at the bidding of the fat cats,"?

Do you stand by your statement in 2004 that "the United States armed services are predominantly people we might call 'white trash',"?

Do you stand by your classification of the United States as an "empire" that "calls itself a democracy,"?

Do you stand by your statement in 2004 that the Republican party "has been built on racism among working class whites" with a "get your bitch ass in the kitchen and cook my eggs and pop my sprogs" mentality?

In 2004 you supportively linked to an article in the New Left Review, quoting the excerpt below:

Washington's military-imperialist thrust into Central Eurasia, at first deplored by right-minded pillars of the status quo as an over-reaching adventure, has become the basis of a new world consensus: the hegemon must not be allowed to fail. The first, elementary step against such acquiescence is solidarity with the cause of national liberation in Iraq. The US-led forces have no business there. The Iraqi maquis deserves full support in fighting to drive them out.

Later that year, you wrote "[I] find myself wishing the insurgency [in Iraq] every success". Do you support the insurgency in Iraq and are you sympathetic to the views expressed in the excerpt above?

Do you stand by your statement in 2004 that "Iraq's economy will likely become a branch of Wall Street with economic policy determined by the invaders not the Iraqis,"?

Do you stand by you statement in 2004 that America's national interest has been "constructed as inimical to global interests for quite some time,"?

These quotes are taken from various postings on your blog made in 2004.

You have a record of making statements that would suggest you have a radical agenda cloaked beneath a "gradualist approach". Are you going to stand in Hunua as Jordan Carter the radical or Jordan Carter the moderate? Your views seem to be completely out of step with those even of the party that nominated you. I think it is imperative that you clarify, withdraw, re-affirm or distance yourself from comments you have made in the past before you can credibly stand for election.

This open letter to you was circulated in right-wing circles but to my knowledge, no reply was ever received. Why was that Jordan? Will you answer these questions now? Hunuans want truth and honesty, not faux shadowboxing from your Jordan.

[Tony Milne]

Kate,

Were you looking for a response to the above? Because you've projected onto me values and beliefs that bear little resemblance to what I actually believe. Most of my immediate family earn below the average wage, quite a few of my friends (including my partner and I) well above it. My partner works in the private sector. My in-laws own a large dairy farm in Kaikoura. I prefer to take a broader view of the world in which no'one is turned into the devil for the choices they make in life. Most people are muddling alone in the world without needing other people tearing them down.

I've yet to discover a way to use sexuality to propel me into politics - but if you know of a way, I'd be happy to hear it! I prefer not to use sexuality as a tool, but nor will I allow it to hold me back in any way from what I want to achieve in life.

I wasn't aware I was stealing 50% of everyone's income (my bank account doesn't seem that large). Every three years the NZ public have an election in which they vote for parties based on different policy priorities. In that regard, it is the party policy platform that should be scrutinised. Of course, individual candidates should be scrutinised, but voters will largely vote for the candidate because of the party label next to their name. Some will decide based on the publicity material the candidate puts out. But you were going a step beyond making a judgement about who to support. To say, as you have, that someone will or won't make a valuable contribution to politics based soley on their CV is shortsighted. That was the point I was making.

I have very little (in fact, apart from my one vote, almost none) influence over what will or won't happen in October or November this year Kate. What I do know is that regardless of what happens the sun will come up and I'll still need to put the rubbish out on Monday nights.

[Clint Heine]

And NZ will put the rubbish out the day come election day. Don't forget that Tony.

[Clint Heine]

ahh scratch the words "the day". But we all know what I mean.

[Gekko]

" If someone had never worked in the non-profit sector, would that mean they thought it was immoral? I doubt it. Ditto government." Actually your doubt is presumptive and in error. I have never worked in the public sector and believe that anyone who chooses to do so is immoral. Ditto government. Yes, the reverse logic works perfectly well it appears - thank you for pointing that out.

[Felix]

Gekko:

Am I to take it from your comment that you believe that "non-profit sector" means the same thing as "public sector"?

I find that very sad.

[Felix]

And if you do know what "non-profit sector" means and think it's immoral, that's beyond sad.

[Gekko]

So you don't disagree with the sentiments on public sector then?

[Gekko]

Felix I did not mention the 'non-profit' sector in my reply, and was quite specific about what I do find immoral. It was difficult to quote Jordan without providing his full sentence (and still have it makes sense) and for that reason I stated which part of his presumption I disagreed with. Incidentally I notice that you didn't disagree with my assertion, but only with your own invented beliefs of what I think of the non-profit sector.