Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.
The Editor doesn’t moderate this blog, 3 volunteers do, they are very lenient to provide you a free speech space but if it’s just deranged abuse or putting words in bloggers mouths to have a pointless argument, we don’t bother publishing.
All in all, TDB gives punters a very, very, very wide space to comment in but we won’t bother with out right lies or gleeful malice. We leave that to the Herald comment section.
EDITORS NOTE: – By the way, here’s a list of shit that will get your comment dumped. Sexist abuse, homophobic abuse, racist abuse, anti-muslim abuse, transphobic abuse, Chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, Qanon lunacy, climate deniers, anti-fluoride fanatics, anti-vaxxer lunatics, 5G conspiracy theories, the virus is a bioweapon, some weird bullshit about the UN taking over the world and ANYONE that links to fucking infowar.
I’ve watched the articles of this website occasionally rail against “Feelings” intruding on the otherwise mechanical processes of politics and had some difficulty reconciling exactly what is meant (and by extension agreeing, if agreement actually accounts for anything). The question is valid, whatever the position. My own ramblings and rages at life very quickly approach the same question and the limitations of language, or perhaps just my ability to express intent accurately in words doesn’t help get clarity on the discussion. So…
In an era of neoliberalism,
which I’m not sure is it’s true name,
because it seems to be the struggle of politics, itself,
to exist in a dualistic/pluralist world,
within the context of our era,
while also arguing against itself and dualism/pluralism
by refusing to acknowledge that the argument even existing reveals the end of the same era
(didn’t I say articulation is difficult?)…
So… In an era of neoliberalism, which on one hand
seeks to either remove or commodify emotion, caring, love, community,
and on the other deny its existence or utility in modern politics
and especially financial pursuits,
luckily for us,
when approaching the question of “feelings” in politics, most of the heavy lifting has been done in the final stages in the last century.
Exhibit A, a dialogue between James Baldwin and Hannah Arendt about the place of various forms of love, within politics. Readers can find the essay ‘The Fire, next time.” and the dialogue that followed easily online, and its off-shoots, and be amused at how in an age of google, even neoliberal governments can’t help but play-out 50 year old arguments without realising it. Neoliberal governments, who don’t realise what neoliberalism is… what can anyone say?
But let’s get to the effing point already. Politics and love, in my opinion… not possible. I’m not a disciple of anyone in particular and not Hannah Arendt, nor against her thinking, but I agree via personal experience that love and politics are two different world views – existing together much like oil and water. Her fear that Love will quickly destroy democracy is probably right, but her fear also probably stems from a 20th century perspective that there is no alternative to capitalism other than “our friend” communism. The argument that we cannot go forward because that would entail leaving behind the comfort of the present and unavoidably pick up a thus far failed portion of the past, is a bit weak. I can’t claim higher intelligence with that statement, because the passing of time has done all the work. Perhaps I should get to the point.
In reconciling emotion, feelings, neoliberalism, community, communism, utilitarianism, and the challenging hurdle of “examining what is actually in front of us”, could we not just think in terms of resource management? Within an Island economy, even in an age of rapid global trade, everything becomes useful. Why then do we discard so much, motivated by irrational disdain and derision, and in doing so, devalue and undermine institutions of higher education, vocational pathways, our professional organisations, our legal framework, our critical reasoning and faith-based faculties? Why play along in such compliant silence? Not one peep.
Picture me now clapping my hands violently beside the head of those within the collective who are nodding off under the opiate-like warmth of neoliberal smoke. Neoliberalism, it has been said, tells us that any failing of the system is actually a failing within ourselves. If neoliberalism sets up a context that seeks to separate us from our “feminine” qualities, our emotions, our intuition, and convinces us to forcibly eject them into the darker recesses of our psyche, asking us to feel the guilt of separation, and qualify ourselves as broken and useless, then why are those of a neoliberal streak so horrified by alternatives? The illusion is easily shattered. Imagine being asked to imagine yourself into neurosis… and then wake up.
Could we choose a new perspective for policy? Could we choose to not subordinate ourselves to neoliberalism because, to the necessarily and sensibly cold mechanics of politics, we are the only resource anyone has? Could we implement a policy of assessing “unit” characteristics, before pronouncing value? Could we identify applications and opportunities for development of those same raw resources? Could we admit that there is, in reality, more potential value in any given “unit” than that contained within one gram of uranium? In doing that we would absolutely have to engage our “feeling” capabilities, but we won’t be able to solely rely on them, or be forced to admit it. And could we reconsider our tendency to vote for people whose actions argue against their own ideology? Can we eat our neoliberal broccoli and finally be allowed to leave the table?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/529108/a-financial-crunch-is-coming-treasury-warns
Not for Treasury though!
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/529258/central-otago-residents-weigh-in-on-what-they-want-to-see-for-region-s-
How many regions will start to act as people reluctantly acknowledge the long-term collapse of the politicians capabilities and vision for our country, which is different from theirs.