Lacking the Power of Decision: Andrew Little misses the rhetorical mark in Whanganui

20
1

unnamed-1

YESTERDAY*, IN WHANGANUI, Andrew Little addressed the local branch of Greypower. I was alerted to this altogether unremarkable fact by the Leader of the Opposition’s Political Director, Neale Jones. He thought I might be interested in the content of Little’s speech. “It ties together the various strands of overseas speculators, foreign ownership, farm sales, TPPA, refugees and climate change into the idea of a New Zealand that engages with the world without fear and on its own terms.”

As you might imagine, I began the speech with high expectations, but, by the time I had ploughed through the first couple of pages, my mood had subsided to one of mild interest. It’s not that it was a bad speech. Indeed, it stands comparison with most of the speeches crafted by ministerial staffers working in the Beehive. Sadly, that is not a very high bar to clear.

Only one passage from Little’s speech stuck in my memory. It was the paragraph describing David Lange’s speech to the Oxford Union in 1985:

“In the face of the scorn and derision from the most powerful nation in the world, Lange stood up against the madness of mutually assured destruction. He showed that a small country could forge its own path, even in the face of much more powerful interests who wanted to hold it back. He showed us that New Zealand could be an example to other nations, that we aren’t bound by the inescapable flow of history. That we don’t just have to accept the world that is. That we have the power to shape our own destiny. That we could, in his words, ‘restore to humanity the power of decision.’”

Like so many of David Lange’s (Margaret Pope’s?) best lines, “the power of decision” positively vibrates with political meaning. Little’s speechwriters recognised this, but were unable to unpack the significance of the phrase in a way that caused their boss’s text to come alive. Instead they opted to, rather mechanically, link the idea of decision-making to Labour’s stances on overseas speculators, foreign ownership, farm sales, the TPPA, refugees and climate change.

“The New Zealand I’m proud of doesn’t shirk from our responsibilities. We’re better than this. We’re meant to be the country that stands up for what’s right. Labour stands for a New Zealand that reclaims its place as a global leader, and as a country with a conscience. A country where we chart an independent path again, because it’s the right thing to do.”

Worthy, worthy sentiments, to be sure, but expressed in prose so leaden that you can almost feel the choking weight of them on Little’s vocal chords.

This was, remember, a speech to Greypower – an audience in whose lifetime the speeches of leaders as striking as Churchill, Kennedy and Martin Luther King were to set ever higher benchmarks for effective political communication. An audience which could also hear, in their mind’s ear, Norman Kirk’s gentle eloquence, the rasping menace of Rob Muldoon, and David Lange’s soaring flights of imaginative inspiration.

Words, well-chosen and creatively arranged, possess enormous power. What’s more, they’re all a politician’s got. The musician has his instrument; the artist her paints and brushes; but the person who seeks to move his or her fellow citizens, in whatever political direction, must rely, almost entirely, on the power of the spoken word.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Though many would snort with derision at the very suggestion, John Key is a master wordsmith. His tortured English syntax, mispronounced words, and fragmented – often meaningless – sentences are perfectly matched to his political purpose. As a conservative New Zealand prime minister, he neither seeks to inform, nor inspire, his followers. Ideas only lead to division – and conflict. Key’s mission is to reassure his listeners that he is as uncomfortable with big, fancy notions as they are. He communicates in that curiously disjointed and indirect style peculiar to the “Good Kiwi Joker” – and they love him for it.

Which is not to say that, when the need arises, he isn’t capable of letting fly with rhetorical zingers like “screaming, left-wing, conspiracy theorist”, or, “Kim Dotcom’s little henchmen”. No matter how mangled, John Key’s words are always well-chosen and fit for purpose.

In Opposition, however, the overwhelming priority is not to obfuscate, but to make the clearest possible case for a change of government. That’s why it is simply not enough to talk about the power of decision: the job of the Opposition leader is to demonstrate it. If Little, in his speech to Whanganui Greypower, had limited himself to setting forth his own and his colleagues reasoning behind just one recent Caucus decision (on overseas Chinese property speculators, for example) his speech would have been much more impressive. When people are permitted to hear the arguments; when they, too, are invited to confront and make the important moral choices; then not only is “the power of decision” made manifest in the ranks of the Opposition, but people discover, to their own delight, and in a way that binds them emotionally to the speaker and his party, that they can do it too.

The power of decision is a magnificent theme to explore in a political speech. Such a shame, then, that, in his address to Whanganui Greypower, Andrew Little, and his speechwriters, proved themselves unequal to the task.

 

* Thursday, 10 September 2015.

20 COMMENTS

  1. Beg to differ, Chris Trotter, this is exactly what we need and could have come from the chap who should win the UK Labour leadership Corbin ? Or Bernie Sanders in the USA. The sentiments expressed are just what we need for this country to regain some credibility and set us up for the future. I don’t want my grandchildren to try and live without decent jobs and in a country where working people cannot earn enough money with one job.

    • I agree Dorothy and I for one am sick of John Key’s “Acshully I have consulted with David Farrer to the nth degree of data mining and focus group polling and so that I now know that to get the outcome we want I am going to say this in public, even if I don’t know if it is true or I said the opposite last week or I contradict myself next sentence.”

      This is a joke of democracy that JK is giving us. Articles like Grant Mclachlan’s http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11510969 show how morally bankrupt JK is. Eventually kiwis will get sick of JK shiftiness and the sycophants that he has surrounded himself with.

      I liked Andrew Little’s speech -it showed a refreshing return to fundamental values. Chris you are too harsh.

      • “This is a joke of democracy that JK is giving us.”

        JK has killed off all democracy and we now are living in a fascist state very near the level of 1933 Germany, as JK and his terrorists have carefully initiated all the controls of that dark German era and lay there now in place for the final “solution”.

        Total subversion of the people.

  2. Hmm… I think you’re both missing the point.

    The difference between saying it and meaning it/owning it.

    This ploddy ploddy stuff ain’t gonna unseat Dear Leader next time round…

  3. Chris, I think I understand your dilemma.

    Whilst it’s clear to most of us that Little is a ‘charisma-free zone’ who couldn’t even win a seat in his home town let alone an election, who have you got waiting in the wings to takeover if the Party rolls him?

    Grant is pleasant enough chap and would likely do a little better than Andy but is he an election winner? Unlikely in my opinion – too many obvious negatives there.

    Got any better ideas? Davis? Ask Tamihere to come back and lead you?

      • 1/ A Wellington ‘luvvie’ – had little interaction with the the wider public

        2/ Another weak CV like Andy Little’s.

        3/ Gay, thus likely to drive away what remains of Labour’s support within the more conservative elements of the PI community in South Auckland.

        • That seems a bit bigoted, Andrew. I don’t see how a person’s sexuality is connected (!) to his or her intellect.

          I doubt very many people care about that anymore. You need to stop living in the 19th century.

          • Not me Frank, I don’t care what a person’s sexuality is, just as long as he or she can do the job.

            I’m just the messenger here: Labour has a crucial support base in South Auckland among people who attend churches and consider homosexuality the work of the devil. If you wish to retain their vote it may be best not to push that issue…

        • Agreed. Robertson, like Little has never had a real job. Lange and Kirk had plenty of real life experience, and so could relate to people far better than anyone in the running currently. At some point someone with that ‘common touch’ will lead Labour, and they will once again be worth voting for.

          • You guys keep on saying these people ‘never had real jobs’…

            How do you know what the work they did entail ?

            How do you get to say there wasn’t hard decisions to be made and schedules to keep?

            How do you know?…were you there?

            Did you have any inside perspectives ?

            You two talk through a hole in your arse’s – your full of it.

            So why should we even give any credence for a thing you say.

  4. Baby steps, Chris, baby steps. While I’m not a tribal Labour supporter I do want them to be a strong opposition, and they are building up to that. John Armstrong’s latest column is actually quite complimentary towards Little. So its still ever much a work in progress. Will he get there?

    • I’m with you on the first bit – NZ deserves a stronger opposition to at least keep National on their toes.

      But I don’t see the progress. Maybe you point out the areas where progress has been made?

      • Nope. I thought not.

        Labour has just reappointed Annette King as deputy. Just short of 70 years old, she’s all they’ve got left.

        This dearth of up and coming talent is the natural outcome of the Clark years. In order to stay on top she factionalised the Party. Divide and Rule was the order of the day.

  5. I have been disappointed by Andrew Little so far, same as for the Labour caucus, who seem more “united”, or less in disagreement, but who are not that refreshing and convincing as I had hoped, apart from the odd individual.

    But as it is, what alternatives are there?

    It is looking grim for the future of this country with the limited choices we have.

    Turning on the old TV in the morning, seeing all this shit that they broadcast, endless infomercials and now even The Nation (in denial) setting rugby and the team coach before politics, that is close to sending me signals to make an end to my humble life.

    Damned, is this what “New Zealand” is all about, some silly flag debate, some missed flag candidate, and now all geared to follow a rugby world cup at the other side of the globe?

    Key still gets endless tolerance and airtime, and gets away with murder, Andrew Little has his little limits, and Russel Norman prefers the activist role with Greenpeace now, and the rest of the opposition are mostly timid, and politically correct, so they are too mindful all the time, to not upset the MSM, the brainwashed public, the government even, I observe, well, we may as well bring in the final enabling act to abolish democracy, as it seems to be no longer wanted and needed.

    I say this in mind with the fact that there is almost NO protest, NO action, NO realisation by the populace, that we are taken for a ride, are dumbed down beyond belief, and put up with lies, manipulations and vague threats, so people shut up rather than stand up for any principles or human rights.

    Shame on this society, shame.

Comments are closed.