WHAT AN EXTRAORDINARY COLUMN from John Armstrong! There have been many this year, but his latest (10/9/14) stands out because of the cynical amorality underpinning the writer’s political analysis.
“The Greens face an old dilemma”, opines the NZ Herald’s Chief Political Commentator, “remain pure but powerless. Or go centrist and compromise and get things done.”
A dilemma? Only if you believe that remaining true to your ideals is in any sense disempowering.
But there is absolutely no historical warrant for the suggestion that strongly held beliefs lack power. In fact, history testifies to precisely the opposite conclusion.
“Here I stand!” Martin Luther told the Holy Roman Emperor, “I can do no other.” How different the history of Protestantism would have been if he had not. “Keep your eyes on the prize – hold on!”, sang the civil rights protesters in the face of the most appalling racial violence. How different the history of the United States would have been if they had decided to “go centrist and compromise and get things done.”
Why didn’t Armstrong remind his readers that although political movements like the Greens often have to wait many years to see their ideals accepted and their policies implemented, principled patience is almost always rewarded? He is, after all, a member of the generation that struggled to end New Zealand’s contacts with South Africa; withdraw its troops from Vietnam; end nuclear testing in the Pacific; and decriminalise homosexuality. With those (successful) examples before him, why did he feel the need to construct this false “remain pure”/ “get things done” dilemma for the Greens?
The answer almost certainly lies in the context of Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics and the New Zealand public’s alarmingly blasé reaction to its contents. Armstrong, like many of his journalist colleagues, reacted with commendable outrage to Hager’s revelations. Like just about every other Kiwi with a conscience, he was appalled by the behaviour that had been exposed. His feelings of disgust were undoubtedly intensified as he reviewed his own experiences in the Press Gallery and realised just how often and how ruthlessly he and his colleagues had been played.
The problem for Armstrong and others like him was that a clear majority of the voting public found nothing very much to get upset about in Hager’s book. Their opinion of politicians was already so low that the revelations of Dirty Politics, if they were accepted at all, were simply taken as vindication of their long held prejudices. No big deal.
What to do? Confronted with the seemingly indefatigable cynicism of their readers, how should Armstrong and other mainstream media commentators respond? Should they unload upon these morally inert electors the full weight of their journalistic scorn? Should they openly challenge their fitness to cast something as precious as a ballot? Seriously, if these “so what” National supporters are able to absorb, with apparent equanimity, the news that their democracy is riddled with political cancer, then should they even be called citizens?
It’s happened before, this unexpected and, therefore, shocking disjuncture between the judgement of journalists and the perceptions of the public. The most famous example is the US news media’s reaction to the police riot that erupted at the Democratic Party Convention in 1968. Mayor Daley’s brutal Chicago cops not only billy-clubbed and maced and tear-gassed the young demonstrators outside the Convention, they also attacked Convention delegates, trashed one of the presidential candidates headquarters, and beat-up any journalist foolhardy enough to attempt to report their illegal rampage.
Outraged, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger of the New York Times, Katherine Graham, of the Washington Post andNewsweek and many other publishers joined with the heads of the major television networks in telegramming Mayor Daley and protesting that newsmen “were repeatedly singled out by policemen and repeatedly beaten … the obvious purpose was to discourage or prevent reporting of an important confrontation between police and demonstrators which the American public as a whole has a right to know about.”
Except, the American public didn’t want to know. In the words of historian, Godfrey Hodgson:
“Almost to a man, the journalists had been shocked by what the police did. To their astonishment, the polls showed that a large majority in the country were shocked by the demonstrators, and sympathetic to the police. Nine out of ten of the seventy-four thousand letters sent to Mayor Daley in the first two weeks after the convention, commended the police. And bumper stickers blossomed across the country: WE SUPPORT MAYOR DALEY AND HIS CHICAGO POLICE.”
It was to be another six years before the resignation of President Richard Nixon finally convinced a majority of Americans that people in authority are not always worthy of their support; that, sometimes, the journalists are right.
And maybe that will happen here, too. Maybe, in the months ahead, New Zealanders will find out just how deep the cancer has burrowed into the bones of the nation. But, in the meantime, the advertisers are not going to spend money purchasing time and space in media businesses that excoriate their customers. Like the American journalists of 1968, the New Zealand journalists of 2014 have little choice but to adjust their ethics to fit those of a majority which long ago forgot the meaning of the word.
And that is why, in today’s column, Mr Armstrong counsels the Greens to make the same Devil’s Bargain that he has been forced to accept. Right and wrong, good and evil, in the revised edition of Armstrong’s political gospel, haven’t the slightest purchase in contemporary governance. If you want to “get things done”, then compromise is the only game in town.
The only problem with that advice, John, is that once Russel Norman, Metiria Turei and the Greens start compromising, how will they know when to stop? Purity, once abandoned, is very hard to recover. And, ifDirty Politics has taught us anything at all, it is that power without purity is Democracy’s most dangerous enemy.
Nice Chris. Methinks the rot is deep – How I wish Kiwis would see this neo-liberal nightmare for what it is – insanity dressed as the real world.
Time will tell, I do wonder how many children will be destroyed, how many families broken and how many lives ruined all in the name of an ideology. I thought WW2 and the Cold War would have taught us the result of that folly.
THis is not a “Reply”. I am writing this on Sept 19th, the day before the election. There has been no Blog from Chris Trotter in that time but there was a pretty inoccuous article by him in today’s Otago Daily Times. I wonder why.
Chris has every right to produce blogs or not but it seems strange that he goes missing at the most significant moment in the election campaign. Is he finding it too difficult to defend the recent attempts by Labour to sabotage the Green and IMP votes? It certainly would require a lot of diplomacy.
Despicable . So in the name of ‘getting things done ‘ Armstrong advocated becoming as depraved as the already depraved.
NO.
There are far too many examples of those who have already gone down that track.
Thank goodness for the Ralph Naders of the world , as a small example of those who didnt .
Armstrong’ s is a stance borne of giving up and caving in. Nothing , …NOTHING was ever acheived of any significance by people who held that stance. Not one thing.
Which leads me to believe…that the media is in fact partisan and biased towards National – as people have been saying for years.
Yep. If you pay attention the MSM follow the following pattern to try and hide their bias and not lose all credibility:
1) Attack Labour, the Greens and so on.
2) Allow token centralist or center left article that appears to show sympathy, but throughout it must pull pot shots against center-left parties and their supporters.
3) Attack National, but show real sympathy, and throughout try to subtly white wash National, while attacking the center-left.
4) Allow token centralist or center left article that really favors the center-left maybe 10% of the time, but make a lot rarer closer to the election.
5)Repeat in random order.
Key has always been Armstrong’s poster boy.
Armstrong will do anything to promote Key.
Perhaps there is a worry that the NACTS are in a bit of a worry and might have to deal with the Greens?
Having seen what the Nacts did for the Maori Party the Greens are hardly likely to be tempted.
As the Maori Party know only to well you will only achieve more for your people by being at the table.
But you’ll get sat on your arse real hard and fast if the table falls apart because of ‘corrupted’ joinery , Mate.
Like… self-destruction?
Casualisation of the workforce – tax cuts for the top – a rise in child poverty – third world diseases for mainly Maori children…them there be pretty expensive trade-offs for a few (wishy-washy) crumbs for MP
That was a good read Chris.
The NZ MSM have so compromised their own journalistic, and therefore personal ethics and morals, that objective reporting of ‘actual’ news seems to pass them right on by nowadays.
MSM have lost the plot.
If they were real journalists, then they would report the real news – no holds barred, and anything else should be cast aside.
Their own personal opinions should have no hold over the publishing of ‘news’. It is their duty to report the facts. But they don’t – they appear to have forgotten the reason they go to work for MSM each day. And they appear to have forgotten how to ask real questions without all the PC crap.
Whatever happened to Genevieve Westcott? She used to report the news – and investigate the dodgy stuff too, and ask the real questions!
Life wasn’t about PC then huh. All PC does is make people speak with a forked tongue and hide the facts, and the news isn’t about being PC – it’s about reporting the facts.
Look at the reporting on stuff today about the Malaysian businessman and his apparent coming back to NZ to face the criminal charges of attempting to rape Miss Billingsly. What are the press doing with this – just writing that FJK doesn’t know what’s happening, MFAT won’t comment, and nobody seems to know whats happening – why don’t they know?
Why don’t MSM ask the real question: Malaysia are waiting for a formal request from NZ, before they will send the culprit back to NZ to face charges – Has the formal request been sent from NZ govt to Malaysia?
MSM need to ask this question, and then publish the answer. And more about this matter – FJK ‘should’ know!! But he doesn’t appear to care – according to his usual blase “don’t know” answer. It’s just not good enough is it!
Purity and truth before compromise of beliefs.
Opinion.
I think you are being a little harsh on the New Zealand public and assume everyone has been paying attention to Dirty Politics and its implications, as they get up, go to work, raise their families, watch the rugby, and listen to the the thousands of incoming messages everyday from every possible source.
Sure, the `so what’? cynical response exists but there are other potential responses to the Dirty Politics saga. A big group are probably the `I’m confused, don’t know what to think (if I think about it at all)’ group. We need to find ways of cutting through the noise, communicating the implications of Dirty Politics in plain English, join the dots for this group, provide them with relevant images (like the Herald cartoon today). I hope the communication strategists on the left are thinking about how to do this right now.
Quite simply done….use the old student method of ‘boxing ‘ information. A central box with 5 or more most relevant points, from this spokes running out to other boxes…from that connect the arrows.
This can be done using pictures so people can see the individuals concerned , under that a timeline horizontal scale.
A key denoting those that have administrative / judicial import regarding any inquiry ….and short brief on the difference between an internal party inquiry and a Royal Commission of inquiry.
That way , in visual and written form it is easily followed. This could be done like it used to be in many newspapers. Though I must admit…that’d be a hard ask finding any independent media these days . 🙂
I hesitate to describe Armstrong as the Nats’ bitch, as others have done, so I’ll just say it does appear he’s stapped himself to the Nats’ mast.
Actually i would agree with John Armstrong’s analysis of power. That in order for greens to attain power they would go centrist. In fact that is in what the greens have done over the past 10 years, by shifting to the right and supporting neoliberal policies, and using well crafted propaganda they have increased their electoral vote. the population is opposed to neoliberal policy, but business is not, and they are willing to fund the green party with money when they adopt neoliberal policy.
Now is it the right thing for the green party to become centrist? Obviously not. But i don’t see Armstrong support that, just saying that that’s what the green party should do if they want power. Which is a correct analysis from what i can see.
As far as making the analysis that the greens ‘should’ make the devils bargain, well they can’t do that because they have already done it.
What the green party should do if they were interested in helping the population, would be to denounce themselves as propagandists with anti social policy, since that would be honest. Then they could remove themselves from power and go on to do something useful like becoming a political activist, a job that undermines power instead of playing into it’s hands.
theres a general perception, of which I had too that greens would spend money on a lot of projects that wouldnt be practical and indept he country, I had a perception that the greens are ethical yet unwise and wouldnt vote for them on that account, till I saw the countries dept went from $20 billion to $60 in the time keys government has been in, and the dirty politics book, thats got to be the tip of the iceberg, I now would far rather ethics and some one that motives are citizen, environment orientated as opposed to, abuse of power for self gain and bowing to global corrupt criminal corporations
How well has going “centrist” served the Labour Party?
When there is a hunger for real change and Labour’s fortunes continue to go down?
When going “centrist” inevitably led to Roger Douglas’ neo-liberalism?
Rejecting this establishment Kool Aid has arguably delivered more for the Left.
Rejecting the pressure to become more “centrist” to gain influence. Instead, by sticking to his principles, despite working from a minority position, Rod Donald forced MMP out of a reluctant Bolger government.
Rejecting the pressure to become more “centrist” to remain at the top table, Hone Harawira left the Maori Party over their sell out over the seabed and foreshore.
David Cunliffe for Labour, recently apologised to Maori over the seabed and foreshore legislation. Would such an admission of wrong doing have occurred if Harawira had kept his mouth shut and gone along with the rest of his colleagues in the Maori Party?
The answer is, no.
Will the Green Party achieve any of their principles by dumping them and becoming more centrist?
The answer is the same, no.
I think John Armstrong can be categorised as belonging to what used to be called the “yellow press”.
Establishment journalists like John Armstrong, see it as their job to attack principled Left parties that challenge the accepted wisdom that money and power trump principle. Establishment journalists like John Gower endlessly editorialise about how these parties need to move more to the centre. Establishment journalist John Armstrong’s shallow argument that the Greens need to become more centrist, fits well with an establishment serving “yellow press”.
John Armstrong may even believe this rubbish, but it’s a lie.
Sadly the lame stream media is part of the propaganda machine these days, the tacky tabloid reporting & celebraty worship is part of the predictive programing we are bombarded with everyday, the msm ‘news’ is an insult to our intelligence, its like they want the public to be dumbed down like a generation of peter grifin’s or homer simpson’s with a narrow narcisistic world veiw with intrests only in sport, beer & boob’s, they want us all to conform & feel disempowered. Just keep drinking the fluoride & ignore the open air prision that has become of NZ the foreign owned corprate entity. Silence is not consent &freedom of choice is paramount. I no longer vote green but I’m comforted in their ability to stand up & stay true to their beliefs. People before profit, they won’t sell their sole for $$$.
Good analysis again, Chris. I think Hager’s book created an initial splash, but even if the ripples appear to be dying, something has been set in motion that has yet to be played out. But in thinking about the New Zealand public’s seeming indifference to the book’s revelations, an understanding of human nature might offer an explanation. It would not be easy for so many people to have to admit that their supremely popular Prime Minister has overseen corruption on this scale. To make such an admission means admitting that you have been fooled, and nobody likes that either. So, when faced with the facts, rather than admit “I have been taken in and I look foolish now” it is more comfortable to be in denial and say, “there’s nothing in it, its all made up smears, the emails were stolen so they are invalid, its a conspiracy, everybody does it” and so on. But the fire is burning slowly…
I attended Nicky’s book launch as did John Armstrong.I read the book as I believe did JA. The problem is as he said to me, people seem to either love him (John Key) or hate him. I said loathe and despise him.
The problem that John Armstrong and several of he and his gallery colleagues have, is they’ve been craftily manipulated and conned by Key, and having to admit to this is the utter professional humiliation, despite their having lost their critiquing objectivity.
Even Press gallery journalists talk of the inherent tribalism that prevails there akin to something like teenage peer group pressure.Don’t know what the answer is but one is to kick the “conner” out of his lofty dirty tricks” office and challenge this subjective tribalism, then we might get some objectivity back in reporting from the Gallery.
Others would call it growing a pair.
In a previous article Chis Trotter was suggesting that a Labour/Green/ NZ First coalition was a good move because it could win power and that is the point of politics. Compromise then was hailed as “Good”. To day we are told that the Greens need to remain pure rather than compromise because compromise leads to corruption, which is “Bad”. So which are we to believe? For my part I believe that a party must remain true to its principles because power must not be an end in itself. If power is its own justification, the inevitable end is dictatorship. So where does that leave the concept of Labour/Green and NZ First, in which only the Greens stick by their principles? Nowhere that I wish to go.
What the point of politics is sounds like the stuff that Jamie Whyte and his people would try to get their heads around. Is it to win power, is it to enact one’s deeply held philosophical beliefs or is it to do the first of those so the second is possible?
His mob believe in parental choice in schooling which means getting rid of school zoning but they won’t carry out their beliefs because they would not win their Epsom electorate. Some call that pragmatism some call it hypocritical. Call it what you will. I call it a bloody cheek when sanctimonious pricks with that attitude have the nerve to even think about using a word like “integrity” when talking about anyone let alone other politicians and parties.
And I apologise for using the word ‘integrity’ in a column about John Armstrong.
You could look at it that way ,DENNIS, however for a start…the Greens do not have the same neo liberal ABC’s to contend with as Labour at the moment , yet the commonality of much of the Left and NZFirst ‘s policies outweighs the differences…..
And these commonalities are far more weighty regarding many core issues than are the differences.
Fortunately the Greens have not been tainted by the neo liberal presence. And while they do not have to compromise one jot its interesting that Mr Peters is now willing to work along side the Labour / Greens…
We could well see the power of the neo liberal ABC faction very diminished with that line up. As well in confidence and supply IMP will be there in presence as well…after all..WHO would not want to see happy , well fed kids doing well at school???
As for IMP….even though they have year upon year of collective political and activist experience behind many of their candidates…it will give the opportunity to allay the erroneous public perception of the ‘boogey man ‘ that the MSM have viciously labelled them with . This can only be good.
( Thanks Brook Sabin and Michael Parkins …..for nothing. )
Make no mistake…politics is a war. But instead of the evil methodology employed during an actual war…it is SUPPOSED to be conducted fairly.
Something which the National party crossed the line in and became political mercenary’s….deliberately defying all convention and values and ethics.
Also remember the messenger : Key – lover Armstrong would bring such a message. Its no surprise at all. Planting seeds of doubt and dissension is his game.
He also makes the premature assumption that it will be a National win. He also fails to mention the general disgust at Nationals tactics by even the National party voters themselves, – coupled with a huge number of people who are now being mobilized to vote who wouldn’t have before precisely because of that skulduggery….and it wont be for National either.
Rest assured….the Greens do not have to compromise a thing and Armstrong is reaching for straws.
You can sell your coat or sell your soul. Compromise can be made in Heaven or made in Hell. The issue here is an exercise in semantics. The compromise Armstrong had in mind was the one made by the Maori Party. It might take a while to notice your soul was still in the inside pocket of that coat you flicked off so insouciantly.
Chris, I admire your work so much, but just to say that the American public was deeply affected by Chicago at the time of the ’68 convention – so much so that when there was no pulling back from the war in Vietnam, Nixon got in. Your analysis there isn’t quite right.
I so applaud the Greens for coming out against the charter school policy. US education has been thoroughly wrecked by that privatization. It wasn’t great even before that, and having had kids both in US schools and NZ schools in the ’90’s the NZ public school system was far superior. Privatization has been a dismal failure in the US; don’t copy a dead policy! (I do think this one is important to voters; bravo, Greens.)
Chris
I look forward to reading what you have to say about the host of others who
have echoed my thoughts since my piece ran. All I was doing was highlighting
the obvious — that, despite their healthy poll rating, the Greens are going
nowhere at this election. They are doing everything right (apart
from being sold a pup with their advertising which lacks the flair and bite of
the last two campaigns). The Greens can stay pure. They can go centrist. It is their absolute right to do whatever. But after all the effort and hard work they have put in put in over the last three years, it would be naive to think they are not discussing
how to respond tactically over the next 5 days and strategically thereafter.
Russel Norman has said as much. I was merely the first to say the obvious. I thought it was a bit unfaitr to shoot the messenger. And here is question for the historian
in you: is this the worst campaign Labour and the left overall have run from
Opposition since th 1951 waterfront strike election?
The Neo-liberals’ paleo-feudal agenda has reached a successful conclusion. The polity has been reduced by socio-economic distress to the point of dejected apathy; and the silence that stands for consent has been attained. The fat cattists and klepto-dictators have won.
I don’t blame the ‘good Germans’ of the South Seas, not really. There were signs of this already in 1981, though the ones that still had a voice and used it were enough yet to achieve something. I did wonder at the time, though, whether we were not teaching the Police something that we might not have wanted them to learn.
I did not then realise that perhaps we were teaching politicians something that might be used against us. That has been the programme of the Paleo-feudal klepto-fascist fat cattists and their mates. All the machinery of State order – security intelligence, police, jurisprudence, and corrections have been designed specifically to keep down the law abiding – the law abiding abandoned by every advocate to whom they looked for leadership, advice and counsel; the law abiding given over to predatory capitalism of the most rapacious kind; the law abiding who have endured these thirty years a systematic fleecing by corporate profiteers abetted by governments with hands out for their own thirty pieces of the sun.
‘Fleecing’ did I say? ‘Flaying’ more like. Even the tyrant Emperor Tiberius knew better than modern governance – dictatorships of temporary majorities as Fritz Hayek put it – where to draw the line.
But now, if the people were to rise up as one to call a halt to the ongoing theft of their wealth, worth and even their very lives (I do not exaggerate, as New Zealand’s industrial safety record and the attenuation of ACC attests), they will, as already has happened in Eastern Ukraine, be labelled terrorists, vermin, low lifes and criminals…
Comments are closed.