Caleb Anderson: Can Luxon Avoid the Ideological Quicksand?

Chris Luxon's determination that coalition discussions will not mirror the customary circus has set the media in a spin.  There is a real sense in which the media lost the election (not the political left), and they are palpably angry.

To his credit, Mr Luxon has maintained a consistent line that it is in New Zealand's best interests that this process continues with some decorum.  He has asserted that trust between the negotiating parties is critical to satisfactory outcomes.

The fact that the other negotiating parties seem to be coming into line suggests that he may be on to something.

In spite of continual badgering from political reporters, he has stayed on script, and has given every impression that he will control the narrative. He has shown extraordinary discipline in the face of questioning that has oftentimes been inane, aggressive, childish, and politically motivated.

It has been amusing to hear reporters claiming that his refusal to engage in their gotcha games is undemocratic.

The media's desperation to regain control, to spin, to obfuscate, to ensure the new government is off to the worst possible start, is likely to heavily characterize the coming months.

But the outgoing government will leave New Zealand broken and divided.  It is difficult to recall a time when New Zealanders were this distrusting of their government.   In the minds of many our democracy has hung in the balance.  

Mr Luxon will need to give a great deal of thought to the two gargantuan threats to stability and democracy  ...  treaty partnership and media bias.  

While he has seemed to have largely avoided these issues thus far, it is likely this was by design.  

Of all the issues this government faces, none are more fundamental to the health of our democracy, and none are more freighted with the potential to deepen the divide, fuel unrest, and undermine much-needed progress across multiple fronts.  

Mr Luxon's caution is warranted. These problems will not be solved by bullishness and nor will they be solved overnight.

Early indications are that a thorough analysis will be undertaken of the recipients of government largesse.  It will not have escaped the attention of even casual observers that most of the drivers of treaty partnership and media collusion are publicly funded, and generously so.

From very early on the National Party, and its likely coalition partners, have indicated a determination to look at funding flows, to see if these are reasonable, to ensure that these are tied to measurable outcomes, and to make sure that those receiving these sums are accountable for them.

We can expect to see the tap slowly turned off in some areas, and slowly turned on in others.

Imagine what might be achieved when proper scrutiny is exercised over the allocation of public funding.  Maybe some of the "wreckers and haters", as Helen Clarke so memorably called them, will be less prominent.

Imagine a Public Interest Journalism Fund based not on the promotion of treaty partnership (as defined by the left), but on the expectation of political neutrality.  

Imagine media organizations being audited (by an independent and eminently qualified body) for their neutrality, for their commitment to presenting both sides of an issue, with funding returned to the government when this neutrality is not sufficiently evident.

Imagine funding being withheld from universities that do not act decisively in the protection of free speech.

There is a dangerous underbelly of radicalism which is feeding into many of the issues this government will soon need to face.  A relatively small number of influencers seem willing to take by force, or public disorder, that which they think is their right.  These people are likely to have the sympathy of most mainstream media.

These individuals are linked with radical left-wing movements overseas. They have a tailor-made message for the disaffected and have managed, by degree, to infiltrate, our universities and institutions of state.  

We are dealing with people who are angry, deaf to reason, narrow in their thinking, and incapable of critiquing their worldview.  

We are dealing with something akin to a cult.  

Overtly punitive responses will simply be taken as proof positive of oppression, and as justification for the sorts of actions we have never seen before in New Zealand.  

The new government has tools at its disposal should it wish to use them.  These tools are vastly preferable to stepping onto the ideological quicksand onto which the left (including the media) has so frequently goaded the right.

The challenges awaiting Mr Luxon are myriad, complex, and deeply rooted, but this is a ship that can be turned.  

But caution must not be thrown to the wind. There is too much at stake and things could go very wrong ... very fast.

And as a small aside.  When his first cabinet is scrutinized for its diversity, and inevitably pronounced as having fallen short, how nice it would be for a National leader to say, for the first time in a very long time, that their cabinet was not selected on the basis of quota, but on the basis of competence alone ...  or maybe that is just a bit too much to ask.

Caleb Anderson, a graduate history, economics, psychotherapy and theology, has been an educator for over thirty years, twenty as a school principal.