|
|
The |
|
The convention among
medieval politicians was never to criticise the king directly. This was a sensible precaution,
since the fate of those who spoke out too freely against their medieval
masters tended to be rather grisly. The safer option was
always to aim one's critical blows at the king's counsellors. Since God's anointed
could not possibly bear his subjects ill-will, it could be only the
pernicious influence of those around him that was bringing the kingdom to
ruin. Were I a member of the
National Party caucus, this would be my principal line of attack. As poll after poll
shows National's electoral support plunging back towards the stygian depths
of 2002-03, the necessity of separating King Don from his "evil
counsellors" could hardly be more urgent. Of the right-wing
courtiers currently advising Brash, Murray McCully is undoubtedly the worst. His understanding of
the Take the issue of race.
McCully clearly believes the In this view he is, of
course, wildly mistaken. In the 30 years since Hanna Barbera gave us dancing
Cossacks, Pommie unionists and pugilistic Polynesians, a generation of Pakeha
New Zealanders has grown up in an atmosphere mercifully free of the
ingrained, almost casual, racism of Muldoon's RSA generation. These new Kiwis were
only six years old when the 1981 Springbok Tour divided Mum and Dad from
Grandma and Grandpa, 10 when David Lange addressed the Oxford Union and 19
when Nelson Mandela became the first president of a democratic As young adults they
danced to the music of OMC and Nesian Mystik. They have never vouched
for an acquaintance by calling him "a white man" and the names of
their children's All Black heroes are as likely to end in a vowel as a
consonant. In the all-white
Auckland suburbs from whence Murray McCully draws his knowledge of the 21st
century New Zealander, the crude racism of yesteryear may live on, enriched
no doubt by the enlightened attitudes of unreconstructed Afrikaner émigrés -
the same delightful bunch who only recently likened indigenous New Zealanders
to apes. Meanwhile, out in the
real world, where young Pakeha work, drink and play alongside Maori, McCully's woeful
ignorance of where "Middle New Zealand" truly lies also means he
has been unable to fathom the real reasons behind the enormous success of
Brash's Orewa speech. Pakeha had become
alarmed by what they saw as a dangerous drift towards Maori separatism. Brash's eloquent
defence of the principles of racial equality, needs-based public assistance
and "one law for all" was in tune with Middle New Zealand's
aspirations for the future. They reached out
eagerly for the reassurance Brash appeared to be offering: that they had as
much right to "a place to stand" in these islands as the tangata
whenua and the nation would never move forward until everyone agreed to put
New Zealand's history at its back, not in its face. Except for a handful of
unreconstructed racists, Orewa was never about "sticking it to the
Maoris." On the contrary, it reflected Pakeha New Zealanders'
frustration that, in spite of everything done to redress the wrongs of the
colonial past and uplift Maori culture, they were still branded as
"Tauiwi" - strangers in someone else's land. Orewa was about
engaging with, not dismissing, Maori. McCully never
understood this. His vision of Instead of extending
the dialogue opened up by the Orewa speech, McCully convinced Brash it was
time for his party to circle the intellectual wagons. Ahead in the polls,
National did what it has always done when things are going well. It rested on
its laurels and stopped thinking. Thus was an
extraordinary opportunity to create a new, 21st century National Party
allowed to pass. In the British,
Australian and New Zealand Labour Parties, a preoccupation with globalised
consumer culture and the obsessive pursuit of identity politics has almost
entirely supplanted the grand old socialist cause. This has left the field
wide open for political movements based on the classical liberal
prescription: individual liberty, equality of rights, private property and
the rule of law. (If you doubt its potency, just look at what's happening in At Orewa, the liberal
torch, scorned by ACT's "perkbusters," passed into Brash's hands. He was the perfect
choice. As the son of one of the leading exponents of liberal theology in the
New Zealand Presbyterian Church, Brash inherited a powerful ethical sense. Nowhere was this better
illustrated than in his campaign to win a pardon for Peter Ellis in the Civic
Creche case in When he broached the
issue with me over lunch, I was struck by the man's sincerity and by his
almost innocent faith in what steadfast moral purpose could achieve. As governor of the
Reserve Bank, his companion faith in the power of rational argument had seen
him win the battle against inflation. When he became the
Leader of the Opposition I briefly entertained the hope that, at last, the
National Party had found a politician equal to the challenges of a new
century. If Brash had been
permitted to follow his original plan and had spent the 12 months after Orewa
leading the nation in a thoughtful discussion on crime and punishment, work
and welfare, wealth creation and redistribution, and New Zealand's place in a
post-9/11 world, it is almost certain the December polls would be telling us
a very different story. Sadly, McCully and his
ilk had no faith in the electorate's ability to participate in such an
exercise. They convinced him the fine wine of reason would be wasted on the
average What the punters wanted
were bloody chunks of racial, social and sexual prejudice - the more the
better. Never has a more cynical political menu been entrusted to a more
unlikely maitre'd. The Leader of the
Opposition's latest volte face over the Civil Union Bill says it all. On
Radio Rhema we heard the true voice of Don Brash, son of the Presbyterian
moderator who penned the celebrated pamphlet refuting Christian
fundamentalism's condemnation of gays and lesbians. "I will not
prostitute my conscience for any vote," he said. "And if that means
voting for or against something which is popular, then so be it." How
sad it was to witness Brash's political surrender to the morally bankrupt
arguments of a tawdry coterie of Karl Rove wannabes, who clearly see a
referendum on gay marriage as National's big chance to turn If they could but see
him as he truly is, National's caucus would recognise in Brash the ideal man
to expose Labour's increasing willingness to embrace the politics of economic
regulation, social engineering and authoritarian legal reform. But instead of
championing the "ancient rights and liberties" of free-born New
Zealanders - a philosophy Middle New Zealand could whole-heartedly endorse -
National has opted to compete with ACT, United Future and NZ First for the
votes of suburban reaction. The spectacle of Phil
Goff, Tony Ryall, Stephen Franks, Peter Dunne and Dail Jones all auditioning
for the roles of Titus Oates and/or Joseph McCarthy would be funny if it
weren't so deeply injurious of the public good. There are so many
worthier roles for National's leader to aspire to. On defence and foreign
affairs, Brash could be Churchill to Clark's Chamberlain; on economic and
social policy he could play McCully will, of
course, say "No." But why should that prevent Brash from saying
"No" to McCully? It's never too late to do the right thing. Chris Trotter is editor
of NZ Political Review |
