Retreating In Good Order: Kim Dotcom’s Fraught Entry Into Party Politics

13
4

image001

THERE’S SOMETHING VERY STRANGE about the Right’s reaction to Kim Dotcom’s “Internet Party”. On the face of it, the extraordinarily successful German IT entrepreneur, who saw his highly profitable business destroyed by brutal state intervention and decided to fight back, should be hailed by the Right as a hero. That he has, for the most part, been pilloried by New Zealand right-wingers tells us two things.

First, it speaks to the ideological weakness of Right. And second, it reveals the extent to which the Right’s positioning on political issues is determined almost entirely by the extent to which they either advantage or disadvantage the National Party. Obviously the second point is inextricably bound up with the first, leaving precious little opportunity for independent (let alone coherent) right-wing political analysis.

This is what makes Derek Handley’s contribution to The New Zealand Herald’s “Dialogue” page (NZH, 17/1/14, page A29) so refreshing. A former New Zealand Herald Business Leader of the Year and inductee to the “Silicon Alley 100” – New York’s most influential technological innovators – Handley is also one of the founding members of Sir Richard Branson’s “B-Team” – a group dedicated to future-proofing capitalism against its own worst impulses.

In this future-focused spirit, Handley writes:

“What we desperately need during the debate on who earns the right to run our country is clear and breakthrough vision about very important long-term things: about the future of sustainable farming, the future of energy; the future of drug policy; the future of the Internet.

We need true vision about where New Zealand needs to boldly head, beyond Sunday’s front page and into the next 10 years – cycleways and smacking don’t qualify.”

Handley’s carefully aimed thrust at both small and large “C” conservatives signals his disillusionment with the New Zealand political scene:

“The common consensus among voters I know across all parties, is that there isn’t an ounce of vision within 1,000 miles of the Beehive.”

Handley’s opinion piece doesn’t so much endorse Dotcom as hail the Dotcom-made opportunity to shake up a government that has “increasingly grown comfortable in a quasi-arrogant swagger”:

“New Zealand needs leaders with the courage to do things differently, say things differently and have visions bigger than their terms [of office]. The choices on offer at the moment struggle in all departments and like him or loathe him, Kim Dotcom is going to have a crack at changing some of the conversation.”

Compare this generous and largely positive view of Dotcom with the view presented by the right-wing cartoonist, “SonovaMin”, who depicts him as an obese giant, seemingly unaware of the crushed and mangled victims he is leaving in his wake.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Clearly, the National Party and its followers see nothing positive in Dotcom’s plans to enter the political arena (not even the Internet Party’s potential ability to siphon off votes that would otherwise go to the Left – especially the Greens). Presumably, this is due to the widespread perception that, ideologically-speaking, Dotcom is of the Left and hell-bent on exacting personal vengeance from the Prime Minister, John Key. Against this threat the Right is expected to close ranks and rid the National Government of this meddlesome German IT entrepreneur – by any means necessary.

The Whaleoil blog’s contribution to this process, while undoubtedly impressive, raises a number of interesting side issues.

For example, it is now pretty clear that Dotcom reached out to a great many individuals and organisations as he set about the fraught business of establishing a political party. Some of these – The Daily Blog Editor, Martyn Bradbury, being the most conspicuous – are quite unmistakeably left-wing. Others, like Russell Brown and Wallace Chapman, are of considerably more moderate political persuasions. Still more were unabashedly of the Right. Indeed, it is highly likely that Whaleoil’s Cam Slater received Bradbury’s “White Paper” from friends and colleagues who had stumbled across it in the course of their own dealings with Dotcom.

Not surprisingly, Slater highlighted Dotcom’s left-wing connections and neglected to mention that Bradbury’s had been but one of many “pitches” for the Internet Party’s business. No doubt his reasoning was the same as those who, nearly twenty years ago, took care to brand the fledgling Association of Consumers and Taxpayers (ACT) as an organisation of the Far Right. First impressions tend to stick. Dotcom will have to work very hard to wash off the red paint in which Slater has covered him.

Other commentators have watched the events of the past 72 hours: Whaleoil’s scoop and its fallout; the cancellation (upon the Electoral Commission’s advice) of Dotcom’s “Party Party” at Vector Arena; and dismissed the whole Internet Party exercise as “amateur hour”. My own view, however, is that Dotcom’s responses have been highly professional.

When confronted with an attack as fierce and fulsomely documented as Whaleoil’s, ordering a retreat in good order is the only intelligent option. There was little to be gained by Dotcom going into battle on Slater’s own, carefully chosen, ground. Nothing would have served the Right’s purposes better than a full-scale argument about how “Left” the Internet Party was going to be. Dotcom’s only sensible option was to retreat and re-group – and he took it. Once the fog of battle has cleared, his Internet Party will have to be re-launched and re-branded.

It is difficult not to speculate that Derek Handley’s “Dialogue” piece may be the first shot in Dotcom’s and the Internet Party’s counter-attack. To receive such a glowing testimonial from a former “Business Leader of the Year”; an Adjunct Executive Professor at AUT; and a friend and colleague of Sir Richard Branson – arguably the world’s coolest capitalist – has undoubtedly done much to re-cast Dotcom as someone whose talents are capable of impressing more than the usual left-wing suspects.

In a recent commentary published in The Press, I made the observation that:

“Business, commerce, capitalism itself: the younger generation doesn’t damn these things as bad in themselves. It’s the evil capitalism enables that they condemn. Like the Bible says: “The love of money is the root of all evil”. Dotcom’s singular gift is his ability to turn money into fun – and then share it.”

Capitalists like Handley understand that Capitalism is at risk of degenerating into an authoritarian crusade by the 1 percent against the 99 percent. They see that in many countries politics has already become a never-ending campaign of repressive austerity which threatens to deprive the economic system it is supposed to serve of all moral and political legitimacy. If this future (not to mention the future in which climate change puts an end to civilisation altogether) is to be avoided, then “intelligent” technology will have to replace all the remaining human aspects of production, and the resulting cyber-wealth distributed equitably among a global citizenry for whom “work” and “play” have become practically indistinguishable.

In short, the future as prefigured in Dotcom’s Coatesville mansion. A future the New Zealand Right, motivated by its visceral desire to impose a National-led regime of repressive austerity on the weak and vulnerable, wants no part of. But a future by which the New Zealand Left could all-too-easily be seduced.

 

13 COMMENTS

  1. Chris you postulate about the so-called right and their distaste for Mr Dotcom. There is no perception KDC is to the left, nothing could be further than what I imagine him to be, in fact I doubt he cares remotely abousociety only in as much as it suits his capital needs and preserves his freedom from incarceration. It is my experience that he has been disliked and mistrusted in the centre and on the right only since the publicity around the structure and behaviour of his company Mega. Without going into that too much here, as it’s well documented I believe most of the conservative people I know have no truck with what they perceive to be the manner he not only flagrantly breached copyright laws, but that he made millions doing it, consistently failed to take down copyright on request and had or has no intention of ever remunerating copyright holders or the artists. In other words he’s perceived of as guilty and the only way he can redeem himself is if and when he goes to the US to face his accusers.

    As for a resident and non citizen setting up a party, it is perceived by people to be a vanity party. There may well be policies of worth, but essentially it’s the Kim Dotcom Party. The disrespect shown to Bradbury and Thompson re their attaching themselves ( or wishing to be attached in Bradbury’s case)to the party is because it’s deemed as hypocritical and greedy(Bradbury) and out of character for a supposedly principled socialist (Thompson)

    As for Mr Handley, a director of Sky TV and a company that lobbies for geoblocking, how did that nifty little directorship pass the disclaimer litmus test in the Herald’s article. I’d call Handley the worst sort of authoritarian capitalist on the geoblocking score.

  2. If people like Mr Bradbury or Alastair Thompson had not been involved with the set up of the new party then the right might have had a more favourable attitude towards it.

    Even given that. if there was a person of some significance on the right publically involved then right wingers might have taken a different approach.

    You are correct that some on the right are not happy with the lack of vision at the moment displayed by right leaning political party’s. Kim Dotcom’s party may well have filled this void but not if it perceived as a tool by leftist opportunists to try and split the right vote to allow a left wing victory at the next election.

    • There was “a person of some significance on the right” involved, John Banks. He was however quite happy to take Dotcom’s money without lifting a finger to help when Dotcom was imprisoned under a fairly flimsy legal pretext.

      The right are comfortable with a lack of vision or they could not tolerate Bill English’s non-performance as a finance minister. The sad thing is that this has tended to lower Labour’s aspirations, as the claim “We’re infinitely better than National” has been true without predicating particularly wonderful outcomes for New Zealand.

      After thirty years of record underachievement the internet is lifting the lid on the dark secrets of NZ economic failures. The Gnats should be afraid, it may be the end of them: no matter how rightwing, no-one loves incompetence.

      • Ummmm… John Banks has had nothing at all to do with the launch of the Internet Party so I don’t know why you bring him up.

        Labour hasn’t been able to articulate that they are infinately better than National to anybody other than their supporter base.

        • Labour hasn’t been able to articulate that they are infinately better than National to anybody other than their supporter base

          No, Gosman, you’re simply unwilling to see it.

          • Well, me and around half the electorate it seems.

            I must admit I did enjoy the new rightie give you a lesson in basic economics on that other thread.

  3. Interesting…

    Your insight;

    And second, it reveals the extent to which the Right’s positioning on political issues is determined almost entirely by the extent to which they either advantage or disadvantage the National Party.

    – could be applied to a good many things that the Right (with the exception of Matthew Hooton) is loathe to criticise, for fear it would impact on the Party they now so closely identify with.

    In a way – and I’m only surmising here – Dotcom’s new Party may be that mythical beast – a political entity that transcends the Left-Right divide.

    If such a thing is possible?

    • Frank – and others – The Internet Party will always be known as Kim Dotcom’s party! It is a wealthy funder behind it, and that leaves too bad a bad taste with it – for my liking. Hence I am suspicious and critical about Dotcom’s motivations. I have sympathy for the man and his family, because of what the authorities did to him. John Key and his government agencies, clearly in close coordination with US agencies and departments, thought they can deal to him in a manner you would otherwise only see in third world kind of authoritarian states.

      It all blew up in their faces, and that is why they hate Dotcom, and Dotcom hates Key and his government, because of what they did to him. There is no love lost, and as the “right” in NZ politics is firmly based in the large National Party, they do of course collectively do all necessary to discredit Dotcom and his party.

      While Kim Dotcom (aka Kim Schmitz, which is his real original name!) has some smart and good ideas about better internet services and access to them, certainly is right on target with criticising the GCSB, the US agency NSA for their surveillance and intrusions of privacy, and also about how big Hollywood players try to keep their monopolies on copyrights, he is otherwise really mostly interested in advancing his business and his own interests.

      Having a party depend on the financial support of such a person raises serious questions. Read up on the man’s background, and how he presented himself years ago, when he started business in Germany. He was certainly more like an ACT Party kind of man then, and I am sure that in that regards he has not changed his convictions and views.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom

      Extract:
      “He rose to fame in Germany in the 1990s as an alleged hacker and internet entrepreneur. He was convicted of several crimes, and received a suspended prison sentence in 1994 for computer fraud and data espionage, and another suspended prison sentence in 2003 for insider trading and embezzlement.”

      Here is a video on his “escapades” in more exciting times. A man may finally grow up and change, but I simply do not trust the man:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NilRYB482FE

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ZBZV8hFb4

      Oh, how it shows again, how wealth and “opportunity” blinds, and how many fools there are out there! It just seems to show where our “modern” societies have ended, basically become corrupted!

      We have the MSM already operating as totally commercialised, consumerist manipulators, now do we want to carry this further, even into politics. The John Banks case should serve as a warning to all.

      • A man may finally grow up and change, but I simply do not trust the man…

        If we can’t accept a person can “grow up and change”, and keep whacking them over their head with their past – then there’s not much point in rehabilitation, is there?

  4. In fact there already is a political party with a completely adequate long term vision for NZ including IT – the question is why kim and others choose not to support it. If they are waiting for any of the other political parties to come round they will be waiting for as long as it takes for a leopard to change its spots.

  5. I partly agree and partly disagree with Chris’ assessment of Kim Dotcom’s “Internet Party”.

    As for Handley in the NZ Herald article, he writes this:
    “People buy vision – it’s why they follow business icons like the late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs; it’s why they vote Obama; it’s why America went to the moon (despite Colin Craig’s take). The common consensus among voters I know across all parties, is that there isn’t an ounce of vision within 1000 miles of the Beehive.”

    Just reading the line “people buy vision” betrays the man’s mindset and interests, same as Chris’ reference to Handley in his post above:

    “A former New Zealand Herald Business Leader of the Year and inductee to the “Silicon Alley 100” – New York’s most influential technological innovators – Handley is also one of the founding members of Sir Richard Branson’s “B-Team” – a group dedicated to future-proofing capitalism against its own worst impulses.”

    Handley may be a great “innovator” and business person, but “future proofing capitalism against its own worst impulses” shows he is – like Branson – a believer in capitalism, free enterprise, hands-off business environs and a friend of big business.

    When I read what he writes about Obama using the social media to win an election, I have mixed feelings, as Obama has lost a lot of public trust by computer system hiccups related to his medical care program. So the internet, computer systems in general, and “social media”, may have great benefits at times, but they also can show disastrous flaws that swiftly ruin any credit initially gained.

    Referring to the glorious Steve Jobs and Apple, yes fine, but Apple has workers in China work for slave like conditions, if compared to workers’ rights here and even in the US, and also has had some bad history re environmental neglect. The success of Apple and other big corporations and companies has over recent years and decades also been built on the backs of outsourced and off-shored labour.

    Now, back to Dotcom, I do not agree that what he did was a “retreat in good order”. It rather looked like panic and reacting in disarray. To cancel such a greatly announced and much advertised huge party at Vector Arena, and only a few days before it is meant to take place canceling it, so thousands keen to attend get disappointed or worse, that is not an “orderly” retreat in “good order”. I feel Dotcom is being poorly advised, even though he seems to also have received advice from Mai Chen.

    He could have simply re-arranged affairs for that party, and instead of using it as the launch pad for his new ‘Internet Party’, he could have changed the theme and simply still have held it as his birthday bash, only announcing that a party will also be formed and registered in the coming weeks or so. He could also have asked for a humble cover charge at the doors, covering for some of the expenses, and he could have avoided being seen as ‘treating” his fans and followers, who would attend the event.

    But he did not do that, as he was ill advised. Indeed all this should have been done well before, and it shows, there are indeed amateurs at work. Dotcom is first of all an entrepreneur, an innovator and businessman, so all he does has to be seen in that context. He is out for revenge to the New Zealand political establishment, primarily John Key and National, being the present government. He is disappointed with John Banks, who he expected “favours” from, so all the justified talk about inappropriate handling of donations split in two and wrongly declared as “anonymous” must be seen in that wider context, that Dotcom also though, the guy could “help him”!

    Chris is right that there is a total lack of vision in New Zealand politics, but while Dotcom may deliver interesting, exciting challenges, also appeals for some common sense innovations and for the better protection of privacy, he is ultimately doing most of this, to also advance his personal and business interests!

    Richard Branson in the UK is of the same mindset, and not all has been nice, good and “glossy” what I have read about his business dealings and his involvement with politicians.

    The ‘Internet Party’ may still be launched, and it may still be shaking up the potential voting for the coming general election, but it is not a given, that Dotcom and his likely candidates will make it into Parliament, especially since the sudden cancellation of this event for his birthday (20 Jan.).

    I suggest that those cheering him on and glorifying the man read and study up on his background. He is more a free market fan and libertarian also, than any person who is honestly concerned about “public” broadcasting, about social issues and “left” political interests.

    It seems though we are returning to medieval times, where “heroes” (or favourable “aristocrats”, large landlords and estate owners) can buy their support by the public, by charming them and offering them great new benefits or presents, like free broadband. Now, come on, Dotcom earned his money somehow, and it has been controversial at least how he did, and he will make sure he earns lots of money in future.

    If anyone want to embrace him and his ideas, be careful, you may next suggest we have a man like Branson run the country. John Key is a vague shadow of such a character, and we can see what he stands for.

    And for Whaleoil, what a cheap shot, digging out an outdated, irrelevant draft for the party, and trying to associate “left” players with Dotcom, questioning their integrity. I think Slater just tried to regain some reputation and credit, after having (so far) failed abysmally to force Brown to stand down.

    For Thompson from Scoop, he did nothing that wrong, as journalists may change careers, and working on forming a party that does not exist yet, that is not a crime either. The party does not yet exist, and where did he write that supposeldy “warmly” about Dotcom, please?

    I would caution those on the left though, to warm up too much to Dotcom, he is NOT one of US! Falling to the rather consumerist mindset of so many in the wider public, where “buying” things, including “innovation”, is the rule of life now, that is a worrisome trend. You cannot “buy” everything, and loyalty may stop once the “payments” stop.

  6. I have a more simplistic view of KDC and the Internet Party. That is 800,000 people did not vote at the last election. Reading mainly social media posts I have noticed KDC has struck a chord with the disengaged, there are many who openly admit they ‘never vote’ but will do so for the Internet party. Is this because they feel short changed by the mainstream political party’s, and are willing to go into bat for the under dog? I am genuinely interested in their reasoning.

    I have seen nothing from any opposition party that will inspire this group that never voted, actually I feel some Labour MPs have behaved very poorly in their criticism of KDC and his motivation.

    Perhaps I too would be skeptical if it wasn’t for the likes of Bomber ,Campbell and others i respect joining the team. 
    Without meaning to sound egotistical, I would even consider contributing policy ideas that are lacking from other left party’s. If they were thinking of running a candidate or two outside of Auckland? This party has a strong possibility of achieving the 5 % threshold, and that makes it exciting. I might go as far as considering throwing in a nomination for standing in a Maori seat or general seat to help the cause. In the interim I will watch with interest as things develop.

  7. hello..

    ..i asked a question of chris trotter about 48 hrs ago..

    ..that seemed to not get thru moderation..

    ..i am puzzled..

    ..as i only asked if mr trotter was in the past/currently/on future-promises..

    ..of paid employment in any shape or form..

    ..from kim dotcom or any entity he is involved with..?

    ..thank you..

    ..phillip ure..

Comments are closed.