Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Sacha,
Opinion poll support since the government started talking about privatising publicly-owned assets suggest you'd better practise that surprised face.
I have been with everyone I know. Sometimes it actually works. And I continue to be surprised because the idea seems so dumb. But OK, perhaps I'm out of touch on that. Also, perhaps Labour these days doesn't even think it's dumb. If so, they just eroded one of my main reasons to vote for them. And I'm one of those horrible swing voters.
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to glennd,
I think he's probably also a bit conflicted, which doesn't help. I'm conflicted myself - not entirely convinced that Libya will be better off without Gaddaffi to the point that it's worth the destruction involved in getting rid of him.
But that's the annoying thing - some choices are binary - you have to either go all in, or not at all. On balance, Gaddaffi has to go, means hard military action, and no-one but the US can mobilize that fast enough to make a difference (in this case). Obama did what he thought necessary. He will seek approval after the fact, most likely, and probably get it.
But only time will tell if the action will help Libya. There is no certainty in this matter. Yes, someone who actually aspires to being a war president knows how you go about it, all the beating up support, demonizing the enemy etc that is supposed to go on to sell a war. But I don't think Obama does aspire to that. He simply feels the responsibility that comes with his enormous power.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Rex Widerstrom,
Chicken or egg though?
Always the egg!
Undeniably an idea needs sympathy to grow. But it needs strong expression to even be born. So powerful statements of position, uttered at the right time, can cause things to happen that might otherwise not have. And the selling of a political change is more than one expression, it's repeated powerful expressions, preferably coordinated. To wait for the sympathy will be to wait forever. I could wait for a pohutukawa to grow in my garden, this is NZ, eventually it will probably happen. Or I could plant one, and look after it.
-
that it was a cynical political ploy, and that fact, more than the specific details of its race-baiting rhetoric, is what really made it deleterious to NZ political discourse.
To be fair, Labour's response was also an attempted cynical ploy, which simply backfired. They were pandering to racism. I put my own hand up as guilty of buying into the irrational fear of losing access to beaches, and it took Tim Selwyn of all people to convince me that I was guilty of backing something akin to land confiscation. This was via writing, not because I was impressed by his stupidity with an axe. But after that happened and he was charged with treason, I actually felt really bloody uncomfortable with Labour.
The reason it backfired on Labour was because Maori were a traditional ally of theirs until then. After that, a wedge was driven.
It was actually a foolish move (in hindsight) by Clark. She didn't understand that racists don't sweat the details. So far as they were concerned, Labour still pandered to Maaris, even after seizing into undisputed governmental control the entirety of the NZ coastline (they felt it was theirs by right anyway, so it was hardly stealing). Also, she did not grasp just how galvanizing that action would be to Maori, and how a Maori party that fundamentally opposed her could even come into being.
Perhaps she was a little inspired by her success in crushing the Green Party's whole hysteria about GE. But Greens are far more tightly bound to Labour, so this was possible (and IMHO the right thing to do too).
Re: Narratives. The political right are not the only ones with narratives that aren't always based in fact. There's a strong appeal to conspiracy in much of the Left, too. The conspiracies could actually exist (that's how conspiracy theories work), so it's a drumbeat that does work. Also, egalitarianism runs deep in the NZ psyche - so pointing out the rich getting richer and the poor poorer under National will always work in proportion to how outrageously it seems to be happening. A major drumbeat connecting those three ideas, that National are conspiring to enrich their mates because of a sense of entitlement they developed by association with the wealthy classes that form their leadership, is still the easiest line of attack. It's slid off Key so far because he has mostly done fuck all. But he's clearly lining up to do a lot. The drums aligning patriotism with national ownership against loss of power to foreign interests at a time of disaster, declining employment, and reducing incomes for the poor will still get NZ feet tapping.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Sacha,
I'd like to wish that true, but one of Lew's central points is that National don't seem at all worried that anyone is going to stop them.
They might not be stopped but I'd be amazed if the action is the least bit popular.
-
I am however quite amazed at the politically risky way Obama has been doing this when there are more straightforward means.
Yes, perhaps he has a conscience.
but if he had got the vote during the couple of weeks he was apparently worried (while the rest of NATO did what they did) then his ass would be iron-clad covered now.
You're talking about those weeks during which the entire world had not made up its mind? There's a reason that didn't happen - there was not enough information.
But as I said before, I doubt that Congress (well maybe the Kucinich left will hold out to make a statement, but I expect the Republicans will back him by some majority) will screw the President once war is actually engaged and will approve continuation.
Indeed. It's what he himself did, despite opposing the Iraq war verbally. America backs its troops, anything else causes a strange (to a foreigner) sense of guilt and shame. For once, it might even back them to do something good.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Sacha,
Well, a debt-fueled economic expansion was exactly what National were constantly demanding right up until the credit crunch. But again they were arse-backwards. There is a time to pay off debt - when you're experiencing massive growth. Which was what Cullen was doing, which is why we don't have a public debt crisis at all.
I'm not sure where they get the idea of borrowing during boom and tightening during crunch. It's hard to think of any policy that could possibly create more extreme fluctuations in the economy. The only people that would think to do such a thing are CEOs who have become incredibly greedy for their huge derivative payouts - if the company goes bust...boo hoo they lose their job. If it makes a good profit, they're unimaginably rich. The upside justifies the downside - to them, because they'll still be fucken rich anyway, having been on CEO salaries. Sucks for the shareholders and all the other staff, of course, but such people are an irrelevance in the power stakes.
But it's not going to work for a nation. The ruling party doesn't get massive payouts if they increase national volatility. So I struggle to think of any reason at all that they do it, short of conspiracy theories, or blind stupidity caused by fallaciously translating success in business to success in national stewardship.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Lew Stoddart,
It was an epochal moment in Aotearoan politics, and one which still informs the discourse after seven years and two elections.
Indeed. It could be called "National's Famous Bluff". Considering that they just last week undid every consequence of it, and are now in bed with the elected representatives of the very sentiment that Brash attacked.
-
I'd love the Left to do this, except in a progressive fashion, but it's not an easy proposition
Indeed. It requires the popular sentiment in NZ to be progressive, and currently, I don't think it is. It makes me a bit sad about my country, but it doesn't change my own mind about what is right and wrong.
However, there is one thing that I think National misjudge - selling assets will be very unpopular. This absolutely MUST be hammered by Labour, and all the Left, and anyone on the Right who feels bitter about spending years paying for something only to see it sold off into private hands so that we can buy the services back with our after-tax dollars. The drum beat should begin before it happens. With luck, that could actually avert disaster. Which is another responsibility of Opposition - if not in power, at least pulling the important strings. Once that even begins to happen, the worm has turned.
-
Not sure what you mean as that being the function of a president.
The only reason to have the Commander In Chief reside in one person is because it makes decisive action possible. Practically everything else about the whole idea of a President sucks. But occasionally, very occasionally, it can actually be used for something good, to act fast when fast action is needed.
If Congress decide to stop any ongoing war, I expect Obama will stop, which will be as easy as ordering it so, since that is his power, and there are no Americans on the ground. As Steve Parks said weeks ago, the exit strategy is "stop bombing". It's hardly like it needs to be spelled out.
Every other US president in recent years has gone through the legalities of getting congressional approval for any US war, internationalist or not.
It's the "or not" which brought the presidency into disrepute, not the congressional approval, which was given, and was also very much a fucked idea. Congress can still be dickheads who are wrong about things.
I think you're letting your hate for Obama get in the way of judging the Libya intervention on its actual merits. Perhaps it will damage him politically. If so, shame on America.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 615 616 617 618 619 … 1066 Older→ First