Why Winston Peters is the Kiwi Bernie Sanders

29
8

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 9.08.28 am

Not so long ago, national headlines were made by Attorney General Chris Finlayson’s ribald and offhand comment that Winston Peters was the New Zealand iteration of one Donald J. Trump – the man presently leading the Republican field in the U.S. Presidential Primaries.

I had to hand it to one of my Party comrades who came up with the rip-snorting riposte: “So what, you think he’s going to demolish everyone else in the next election, then?” … but my own ardently leftist instincts for once decided to eschew witty repartee in favour of making a somewhat bold pronouncement in return.

Winston Peters is the Kiwi Bernie Sanders.

Consider the similarities: they’re both physically aging figures who yet manage to move with the levity and rhetorical grace of youth. They run things around Establishment and big-money opponents who’re often men and women closer to being half their age. They represent the fight-back and strike-back of a democratic and state-lead economic politics of the sort commonly practiced throughout the Western World for much of the latter half of the 20th Century (before we ditched it all and traded in our functioning social state for the hill of magic beans wrapped up in a Pandora’s Package promised by Neoliberalist reform).

They stands for the ordinary, common man – his hopes, his dreams, his aspirations. They resolutely oppose what Sanders terms “Wall St Bankers”, and what Winston derisively refers to as “Financial Derivatives Trading Wide-Boys” – in Winston’s case, the one in particular who’s presently propping up New Zealand’s government almost single-handed … one Hauraki interview at a time.

They’re also wildly – perhaps surprisingly – charismatic, and capable of energizing audiences young and old to stand up, be counted, and vocally denounce the old economic order which holds us all down.

Perhaps due to this, into the bargain, they’re often eschewed, ignored, and ridiculed by more Establishment-oriented media and broadcast figures.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

But there are some differences, too.

Despite Winston’s enduring popularity (some would say arguable political “sainthood”), he presently commands less than ten percent of the popular vote – impressive, but hardly the stuff of single-handedly remaking our political discourse. And regardless of Sanders’ sudden surge in appeal, it seems still *FAR* too early to tell whether he’ll be able to have anything like as much impact upon his own nation’s upcoming shape of government as Winston seems almost certainly assured to be able to exert here in New Zealand.

Further, whereas Winston is shamelessly rather “old-school” in some of his attitudes (albeit often for liberally-defensible reasons … which is often what I find myself seeking to explain), Sanders is a dyed-in-the-wool uber-liberal: a man whose Civil Rights record spans more than half a century, encompassing a time when Winston was serving a government which famously advocated for the necessary separation of politics and sport.

This last point is often where people start quibbling with my Peters-Sanders analogy. They draw attention to the allegedly yawning gulf between Sanders’ liberal embodiment, and Winston’s “‘mere’ appeal” to liberals.

And to be fair, it’s a counter-point I have some time for. I still recall being the only man in a bar not yelling abuse at the screen when Winston spoke against passing Equality of Marriage without a Referendum back in 2013 (although it helped that he was quoting me in his speech; and that having first articulated the Party’s position on the issue way back in 2012 with a Policy Remit to that year’s Convention, it was effectively *my* position that he was representing – I’ll explain all of that in a future post some other time). I somehow can’t imagine Sanders doing that – his commitment is to economic democracy without necessarily *all* the trappings of democratizing social policy as well.

But then I read a most interesting article on Wednesday morning about how Sanders’ was starting to broaden his appeal out to encompass conservative (and, indeed, Conservative) segments of the electorate as well as and in addition to his more natural and traditional liberal constituency.

Alternet quotes Sanders: “Sanders has been extraordinarily clear about the kind of shift he’d like to effect: Republicans “divide people on gay marriage. They divide people on abortion. They divide people on immigration. And what my job is, and it’s not just in blue states. . . [is] to bring working people together around an economic agenda that works. People are sick and tired of establishment politics; they are sick and tired of a politics in which candidates continue to represent the rich and the powerful.”

That’s powerful stuff.

And it’s also (with the obvious exception of the immigration bit) what New Zealand First rhetoric under Winston is all about: uniting people, rather than segmenting them, behind a rational, somewhat radical anti-neoliberalist and NATIONALIST economic agenda.

It’s why we *have* Referendum positions on issues like equality of marriage or the legalization of marijuana in the first place. Because while we recognize the merits of doing either, a lot of New Zealanders don’t necessarily agree (rightly or wrongly) – thus creating space for (distracting) debate … whether we like it or not.

Meanwhile, parties like National get to use spurious logic and diversionary tactics to advance fallacious causes like the Flag-referendum in order to take our eyes off the prize and our attention away from serious issues like the signing of the TPPA and the ongoing deterioration of our economy. It’s hard to demand meaningful change as a polis unless we’re united, rather than disparate and tearing ourselves apart over other issues.

So this, I think, is the great shining strength of New Zealand First – that we’re able to bring people together from a whole raft and diversity of differing backgrounds, social positions and even political standpoints to fight for the *same overarching economic vision*. Where Labour seems to be set to continue imploding and The Greens appear to be pre-occupied slowly inching into upper middle class and businessman segments of the electorate … New Zealand First alone has a genuine movement that’s capable of reaching Kiwis from minimum wage urban factory and shop workers out to neglected farmers and other struggling out in the Regions, and quite literally from Cape Reinga in Northland, to Invercargill in the depths of the South.

And that’s something special – not least because it gains for the Opposition the ability to actually hew into National’s support and win over people – voters – from across the Aisle. We don’t get to change the Government if we’re merely trading votes amongst ourselves, here in the nominal Left and Center … and that’s exactly what the Alternet article talked about the Sanders Campaign starting to do with marked success.

So too, with another important idea the piece talks about: that of waking up and energizing voters to the idea that “their economic distress was something for which voting could make a difference.

Whether it’s because we’ve been denied economic good governance for so long (it’s been nearly a decade since the Great Financial Crisis began – and more than thirty years since the onset of Neoliberalism here in ’84) – or just because Key’s political managers and spin-doctors are doing such a good job at presenting both the government and the economic decline it presides over as “inevitable” … I genuinely believe that a fundamental reason why large numbers of Kiwis utterly fail to turn up at the Polls year after year and election after election, is simply because they’ve stopped believing not just that their vote counts – but, more insidiously, that their vote is actually able to meaningfully *do* anything regardless of which Party it goes to, to create and effect change.

The explanation in answer to the question of why the “Missing Million” is yet to materialize in polling booths, in other words, is that they can’t meaningfully connect many of the policies of other parties being promoted to an improvement in their own circumstance … or they simply don’t trust those whom they’re being enticed to vote for to actually deliver meaningful change.

Where Winston and Sanders are different, however, is they appear to have a unique ability to connect voters with their vision – to bring complex economic truths down to simple, easy-to-understand kernels that make real improvements in our lives and our Nation seem to be a genuinely graspable reality rather than a chartable abstraction.

That’s powerful. That’s important.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is – beyond the obvious surface-level exterior similarities in political persona and packaging … beyond even the core, fundamental coterminities between their policies and politics … the core overarching symmetry between Winston and Bernie (apart from the fact they’re both first-name brands) is their ability to connect with people (even from outside their ‘natural/home/core constituencies’), to energize people, and to make the real change we so desperately need seem possible.

That’s why, as something like half my friendslist start frantically online banner-waving for Bernie all across social media and the internet (perhaps as part of some sort of cargo-cult mentality of desperation that doing so will help bring about a similar ‘moment of hope’ here) … I’ll keep pushing my Winston-Bernie comparison to any who’ll hear.

Because, as Winston says (and Bernie would no doubt like to): “Help is on its way!”

29 COMMENTS

  1. Their is also another similarity between the two and that is they both make promises that involve giving people free stuff but as a result are unaffordable or would result in huge increases in taxes.

    [Stephen, your subsequent comment was crass and unacceptable. If you think ad hominems are an acceptable debating strategy on The Daily Blog you are mistaken. Your posting privileges are withdrawn permanently. – ScarletMod]

    • STEPHAN (FRANKS)maybe? said;

      “promises that involve giving people free stuff but as a result are unaffordable or would result in huge increases in taxes”.

      STEPHAN who gets our taxes as “subsidises????
      Warner, Rio Tinto,Arab business sheep dealer, and many more to name.

      The poor Kiwi taxpayer is now being fleeced by your rich overseas mates eh?

    • Really, Stephen? Are you still resentingt paying taxes so you can enjoy living in a modern society?

      Tell me, my little free-market, chum, who do you think paid for the roads you travel on; the aeroplanes (originally) you fly in; the hospitals that treat you; the schools you were (seemingly) educated in; the force and judicial system that protects your life and property; and of course, the telecommunications network that you use to post your neo-liberal garbage on TDB?

      (Clue: it weren’t pixies.)

      Instead of complaining all the time, just be thankful you weren’t born in Somalia. There are no taxes in that country (or bugger all).

      Not much infra-structure either.

      Stop trying to bludge off other people and be grateful for what previous tax-payers have created for their, yours, and our, benefit.

  2. Im not convinced Winston Peters is anything other than a power hungry charlatan who trims his political sails to meet the prevailing winds, I doubt his appeal extends beyond middle aged unemployed racist men who still live at home and xenophobic pensioners wondering how to get to lunch time without filling they’re adult nappies or falling off they’re zimmer frames. I well remember Peters decrying Bolger as unfit to govern and then giving him another 3 years a prime minster, al also remember him attacking the canons of commerce and they’re evil incfluence in politics – all the while taking money and helicopter rides from the rich and powerful Vela brothers – in exchange for political favours. So much for concern for the ordinary man – hes an elitist charlatan demagogue.

    Sanders is undeniably authentic, he lives what he preaches and has never taken a dime from the corrupt men of Wall street who own Hillary, Barack and the stable of republican wannabes – excluding the hair of course who has his own billions to blow on his narcissistic dreams of being the one and only one.

    Trump at least is authentic, strong to the weak, weak to the strong and spellbound by gold and the power it engenders, a more loathsome individual would be hard to find.

  3. what an insult to sanders..

    a little while back i mused on who wd/cd be our sanders..and i said that if peters adopted strong anti-poverty policies he/ might have some chance at a mutated version of that current phenomenon..

    ..but to attempt to draw such clear comparisons between the two is a joke..

    ..peters is a tory..and always has been a tory..

    ..and to imagine that sanders would prop up the republicans..(as peters has done with our tories..and has promised to possibly do again..)..is laughable..

    ..and to dismiss the reactionary-history/policies of nz first as a desire to fufill the will of the people by referendums on issues such as marriage-equality..is a total contrivance..an attempt to gloss over what a tory-reactionary he really is..

    sanders by his history/record shows a credibility-line stretching back decades/right through his political-life..

    ..peters by his history/record shows an opportunistic tory – a man whose history/present is studded with stinking racist/reactionary turds..

    ..as i said..saying peters is like saunders..is an insult to a man of proven high integrity..

    ..whereas peters is..?

  4. Really?
    How does Winnie going into coalition with National in 1997 fit into your theory?
    I didn’t realise Bernie Sanders supported the Republicans.
    I know Sanders has some dodgy views on Israel…probably some similarities there with Winnie’s horrid foreign policy (shameful).
    If USA was under a proportional system Sanders would happily rule out going into coalition with the Republicans – Winnie doesn’t have the guts.

    Winston Peters is NZ’s Nigel Farage – a nasty, annoying, race-baiting politician who is only relevant because Labour is so far to the right.

    We can do better than reimagining Muldoonism. Greens and Mana’s policies are far better than New Zealand First’s. I think this blog needs to rethink what it is trying to achieve.

  5. Sorry, that should be Winnie going into coalition with National in 1996′ … not 1997.
    I think my brain malfunctioned when I read the title: ‘Why Winston Peters is the Kiwi Bernie Sanders’. It was as if my head had been hit with a sledgehammer of stupidity.

    • So John Key is forgiven now as pure driven snow whereas he lies like an eel???

      Winnie has proven what it takes to beat the lying Keyster so be warned we will need Winnie come 2017 or before as NZ First was the only party dismissing the TPPA as a corporate takeover REMEMBER SO WHAT DID YOUR PARTY DO?

  6. Even allowing for the fact that he is your leader…..are you serious?
    Although sometimes Winston has good ideas, they are rarely original and often are the product of the latest bandwagon which he has jumped on. He is basically a reactionary politician.
    Sanders advocates broadly a moderate shake up of the American economy, and to a lesser extent the bloated American dream, to regain some international respect and domestic sanity. This is progressive politics.

  7. Now you’ve taken it too far.

    If Winston is the antidote to National in the way that Bernie Sanders is the antidote to the Republicans in the USA, then how on earth do you explain Winston’s past behaviour of propping up a National Government Curwen?

    You need to answer that question if you can.

    Because all of those of us who would vote for Winston in the next general election will be asking it.

    We want to know if a vote for Winston is a vote FOR of AGAINST National.

    Winston won’t answer the question which leads one to believe he’d do a deal with National like he did back in 1996. He’d give us another three years of the same National government.

    And I’m pretty damn sure you can’t answer the question either.

    So no. He’s not like Bernie Sanders at all is he?

  8. We don’t hear much of Winstons achievments because the media dosnt report them, while the Herald and TV channels are National owned the public is being cheated,we have the TDB but it needs to get a bigger budget,all the big money from National business supporters makes sure that Key is always the favourite,lies and false flags the lot.

      • ok elle..i will do it for you..

        i will always respect peters for two of the political-battles he fought..and won..that have benifited many..

        ..one has been his resolute support and successes in getting adequate support for those 65 and older..

        ..how we now have some of the lowest rates of elder-poverty in the world..

        (and i would think that a guaranteed basic-level of support for all who need it..would be set at that already proven level of adequate-support..but i digress..)

        ..for me peters’ best-moment was when he turned the neoliberal tide/war against everyone around..

        ..when as part of his coalition deal with the tories in 1996..he wrestled free health care for six year olds and under..

        ..he was the one that stopped the laying waste of support/help for the poorest/sickest/weakest/young in nz..followed/practiced until that time by the neoliberal purists in both national and labour..

        (with of course roger ‘user-pays’ douglas as their ideological-figurehead..should we all pause here for a brief irony-overdose..?..given the life-long troughing-record of this failed pig-farmer..?..)

        ..and the historical-record will take note of peters for achieving that that..and it is something he can wear with pride..

        ..so there are two things for you..elle..

        (more recently i will also give him a tip of the hat for dealing so emphatically to the tories..in the northland bye-election..)

        ..so there ya go..

  9. I think the primary similarity between Sanders and Peters is that they are both opposed to neo liberal monetarist policy’s.

    This is why the experiment with coalition with Bolgers neo liberal govt failed. It was chalk and cheese. And totally incompatible.

    Both Sanders and Peters advocate the Keynesian economic model.

    As such , they will naturally find themselves opposing any party that advocates neo liberalism. I also suspect Peters felt he could work from the inside and soften some of the excesses of Bolgers dismantling of our society because of Bolgers adherence to neo liberalism. Perhaps also , – at that time and to an extent even now – Labour was still dominated with neo liberal politicians. So the choice was limited in which party he could be most effect change.

    That would explain perhaps the long time in ruminating which party to support.

    Perhaps that was Peters great mistake.

    I would say Peters is socially more conservative than Sanders.

    On financial policy , however …. they appear very similar.

    One thing that I’ve always liked about Peters is his advocation of the ‘ Binding Citizens Referenda’ . Not many politicians or party’s like that at all ,and for Peters to advocate that means he is in fact , willing to let the people have an enormous impact on how legislation is determined in this country.

    The Binding Citizens Referenda is a powerful tool enabling the general populace have a direct influence on the self determination of this country. It does have its flaws such as a minority that misses out – but then so to does the current system.

    And one thing the current system does is negates the public input except once every 3 years …the BCR would ensure the public had ongoing input – and avoided the tendency we have now for the public to be denied that voice and major decisions being left up to a small group inside Parliament.

    Such as has happened now with the totally undemocratic signing of the TTPA.

    For any govt or party to reject the public’s input via such vehicles as the BCR demonstrates a fear of loss of autocratic power by politicians.

    But we don’t want them to have autocratic power.

    It is not their place to have such autocracy.

    Or any such notion at all whatsoever.

    I find these days that every time I write about Peters it is balanced by the fact that he also supported John Keys call for supporters of National to vote for Labours Kelvin Davis to dislodge Hone Hawira – under the thin excuse he didn’t like ‘ race based political party’s ‘.

    That I find tenuous to say the least as Mana’s policy’s were far from ‘ race based’ and in fact universal and would have benefited all peoples – particularly the poorer sectors , the aged , the very young , the low wage worker – even those in the middle classes.

    We would have had children fed , many social policy’s put through , and a definite opposition to the secretive TTPA.

    I found the beat up on Mana obscene to say the least.

    And from Peters perspective – an active hand in demolishing a party that actually had far more in common with NZFirst’s policy’s than Keys anti democratic neo liberal govt .

    Another thing is personal loyalties – the fact Peters is on good terms with Kelvin Davis , and people such as Shane Jones ….seems to have obscured the inherent neo liberal ideology’s these individuals advocate.

    And due to Hone seeming to be a social pariah in some circles of the NZ public’s psyche …it appeared for better or for worse that Peters decision to back Key in Te Tai Tokerau was made for public perceptions sake rather than hard edged reality regarding policy.

    I supported such as Peters and Jim Anderson and the Alliance back in the 1980’s and 1990’s …looking back it was the Keynesian economic system that I was actually supporting…back then the whole neo liberal genera was still to be adequately labelled and categorized… but we were definitely feeling its negative effects.

    So I would still maintain that the primary similarity between Peters and Sanders remains that of economic ideology and policy’s. Not necessarily that of social policy.

    However… it is often out of economic well being that attention and resourse’s can then be put into debate and policy changes – if there is that genuine need.

    In that I believe it is the correct order – sorting out the populaces economic well being first and from there determining those area’s that need changing.

    To try and do so before that appears merely as ‘tinkering ‘ …particularly in light of children dying in cold homes and in poverty because the adults are unemployed…

    As is happening now with greater frequency under this govt.

    In the old days that used to be called ‘ getting the cart before the horse’.

    Economic policy first.

    And from abundance the freedom for society to make the necessary adjustments it deems need changing.

    So in general I still support Peters to a point – but as far as similarities between Sanders and Peters goes – I believe it is far more to do with economics and the Keynesian model than left leaning social policy.

    • Interesting piece Wild Katipo. Yes, some similarities with economic views, but I place NZ First in line with UKIP more if we bring in social policies and foreign policies. NZ First was recently suggesting detention centres. Also, UKIP were very much for renationalising some things such as railways. For me and most of my friends NZ First are too racist. Also, it’s about context and USA are so right wing that Sanders offers them a decent lurch to the left. NZ First wouldn’t lurch NZ to the left quite so much.

      One point regarding Binding Citizens Referenda – we’d still be smacking our kids and violent abusers of children would be slipping through our justice system through the ‘disciplining’ argument. Referendums are notorious for being highjacked by simpletons with simple messages. In Slovenia in 2012 gay marriage was rejected even though most people wanted it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenian_Family_Code_referendum,_2012). People tend to ignore referendums unless they are directly affected. We had a referendum in 1999 and Kiwis wanted longer tougher sentences for criminals – this will solve nothing and is pretty much the worst thing a justice system can do.

      I couldn’t think of anything worse than binding referendums. It’s one of NZ First’s policies that really scares me. The Treaty would be gone by lunchtime. People like Bob McCroskie and Garth McVicar will be bringing their fantisies to life.

  10. Winston is both good and bad. But at least he has some ideas and not afraid to think outside of the box and he is hardworking on the streets not just in parliament.

    He looks good because the other parties appear ineffectual and appear to be manipulated by the Natz and the media, while Winston has some good methods to avoid that.

    The policies of the Nats and Labour as so similar – there seems to be virtually no real new ideas coming out of Labour. Labour are the Natz from 1984 but the Natz are now the ACT party that used to only get 5% of the vote but now under the hijacked Natz brand are putting all the ACT policies into NZ and Labour seems to be weakly agreeing.

    Winson is effective and more importantly a safer place for the conservative to vote for than the Natz.

    At least he is not keen on selling the country off and against TPP and you believe him when he says that, not “sort of” “might do that” like some of the other parties.

    In my ideal world,

    Winston would take the Natz votes and stop the sell off of our country via TPP etc.
    Labour would go back before 1984 and have real labour policies and an independent foreign policy and Labour voters would start voting for them.
    Greens would look at Norman’s final speech about the erosion of democracy in this country and take urgent action on this issue and dirty politics (and with Labour) and start to take a larger share of the votes.
    Internet Mana would come back, Hone gets his seat, and parliament starts getting some new ideas (apart from increased taxation) to grow our economy digitally and to have some different ideas to populate parliament with.
    The Natz would lose big time and start being investigated by the SFO and their bullying antics would be subject to investigation.
    Act would be out of parliament completely.
    United Future out of parliament completely.
    Maori would stop taking bribes from the Natz and actually do something real for Maori – not supporting the Natz on neoliberalism would be a good start.

  11. Hmmm, I think your analogy might be a bit off here, Curwen.

    I recall the National-NZ First coalition (1996-99), and my memories of that time are not good ones.

    But I appreciate looking at it from your perspective.

  12. “Winston Peters is the Kiwi Bernie Sanders”. People, people, PEOPLE! Surely we all know it is the other way around, Bernie Sanders is the American Winston Peters. Sheesh.
    It is entirely possible Winston Peters is a couple of hundred years old, and the painting of his aged self in his attic, has about crumbled to dust by now.

  13. Both Winston and Bernie put people before politics and they both care a great deal about healing and supporting their countries. Winston may be a bit more conservative but they both ring true and clear with the people.
    Even the brain dead, somewhere deep inside know when they have been lied to and what the truth is. Too bad that our mostly unethical and spineless politicians and bought biased media have already judged Winston and rarely given him air time. When they do, they cut him off and laugh at him. Parliament is a waste of time comedy show.

    Bernie may likely win because the US public is waking up and they have had enough of the same ole same ole BS and they know Hillary is a
    corporate owned liar.

    Too bad there are not more aware in this country.

    Thanks Curwen, well thought out and a nice contribution to TDB.

  14. Hang on a minute….
    Former National Party Cabinet Minister Winston Peters?
    Former National Party coalition partner Winston Peters?
    The same Winston Peters who idolised, and attempted to emulate his great hero, Robert Muldoon?
    That Winston Peters?
    A champion of workers rights and social justice?
    Really?
    That is about as believable for me as someone attempting to claim that M J Savage was a NAZI.
    Surely you’re joking?
    Tell me you’re joking.

    What I find more believable is that Winston Peters would still be a National Party MP now if they didn’t operate an unwritten policy of never allowing anyone of Maori descent to become their leader.

    There is currently nobody in NZ Parliament who fits the description of NZ’s Bernie Sanders.
    That position remains vacant with absolutely no likely candidates visible on the horizon.
    Certainly not Winston Peters.
    You’re having a laugh. A very weak joke.

Comments are closed.