The Beatles had to make it in America to make it big. And, of course, they did. Nothing much has changed. To make it big, to become "bigger than Jesus", as John Lennon once so eloquently put it, Ardern also must make it in America. Even though she has ripped apart America's approach to gun control, abortion, lack of regulation of the Internet, its economic policies which, in her view, have created a great evil of inequality, and most other things the US stands for, Ardern will not to be deterred.
She found a sanctuary behind the ivory walls of Harvard, where like-minded folks have provided her a support group & therapy sessions in the form of academic seminars. She has had time to hone her message. On that note, Ardern has just announced she will head a new think tank called Field that, in her words, "will seek to support and connect global political leaders who embody .. the strength of kindness and empathy; who will speak to people with hope and optimism rather than fear or blame, and want to unite, rather than divide".
What is "empathy"? It's nearly indistinguishable from the message of "love thy neighbor", espoused religious leaders. So how can Ardern's message possibly be dangerous? Because we need competent leaders who run nations in ways that make them prosperous and which protect the rights & freedoms of the citizens, who should be left to decide on their own moral values & how best to seek fulfillment. Politicians need not have led particularly virtuous private lives themselves. That's the point. We don't want Popes, Imans, Monks, Rabbis or Archbishops leading countries on the basis of claims that they have higher moral virtues. We need leaders who run the economy well, allow us to flourish and let us choose our own beliefs. This forms the basis of separation of Church and State. It was only when this break-through was made that economies were able to progress & well-being flourish. Due to the decline in religious attendance and beliefs, our former PM is, in my view, trying to replace the prophets of the past, by copying and rebranding their messages, like empathy toward fellow humans and to love one another. But that is not the job of political leaders. Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke warned of the dangers of politicians exercising authority in the realm of individual conscience. Ardern seems to think that copying the "comms" of the world's Great Religions, relaunching & marketing them as her own brand, can bring her global appeal. The world should be wary.
What was Ardern's record in NZ in terms of healing division and getting Kiwis to love one another? Isn't she the leader who turned vaccinators against anti-vaxxers, who fired nurses whose personal beliefs led them to not want to take "the jab", who labelled those who disagreed with her for not wanting to be part of her own team of five million as folks best ostracized from society, whose policies resulted in an unprecedented violent occupation of Parliament's grounds, who turned farmers against environmentalists, poor against wealthy, who presided over a rise in burning anger in NZ society that burst open in an epidemic of youth crime, who sent race relations, which had been on the mend, back a hundred years, who left the country in a state of economic & social collapse that will take a decade to fix, who precipitated over an unprecedented exodus of Kiwis from their homeland, whose government printed & spent endless amounts of money leaving us only with high inflation, a pile of debt & broken infrastructure, who promoted incompetent people into high positions because other factors took precedence over meritocracy, and who then personally bailed out of NZ when her own popularity ratings plummeted to shack up at Harvard & lecture the world about how much Kiwis loved her and how much she loves us? Give us a break.
What is "empathy"? It's nearly indistinguishable from the message of "love thy neighbor", espoused religious leaders. So how can Ardern's message possibly be dangerous? Because we need competent leaders who run nations in ways that make them prosperous and which protect the rights & freedoms of the citizens, who should be left to decide on their own moral values & how best to seek fulfillment. Politicians need not have led particularly virtuous private lives themselves. That's the point. We don't want Popes, Imans, Monks, Rabbis or Archbishops leading countries on the basis of claims that they have higher moral virtues. We need leaders who run the economy well, allow us to flourish and let us choose our own beliefs. This forms the basis of separation of Church and State. It was only when this break-through was made that economies were able to progress & well-being flourish. Due to the decline in religious attendance and beliefs, our former PM is, in my view, trying to replace the prophets of the past, by copying and rebranding their messages, like empathy toward fellow humans and to love one another. But that is not the job of political leaders. Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke warned of the dangers of politicians exercising authority in the realm of individual conscience. Ardern seems to think that copying the "comms" of the world's Great Religions, relaunching & marketing them as her own brand, can bring her global appeal. The world should be wary.
What was Ardern's record in NZ in terms of healing division and getting Kiwis to love one another? Isn't she the leader who turned vaccinators against anti-vaxxers, who fired nurses whose personal beliefs led them to not want to take "the jab", who labelled those who disagreed with her for not wanting to be part of her own team of five million as folks best ostracized from society, whose policies resulted in an unprecedented violent occupation of Parliament's grounds, who turned farmers against environmentalists, poor against wealthy, who presided over a rise in burning anger in NZ society that burst open in an epidemic of youth crime, who sent race relations, which had been on the mend, back a hundred years, who left the country in a state of economic & social collapse that will take a decade to fix, who precipitated over an unprecedented exodus of Kiwis from their homeland, whose government printed & spent endless amounts of money leaving us only with high inflation, a pile of debt & broken infrastructure, who promoted incompetent people into high positions because other factors took precedence over meritocracy, and who then personally bailed out of NZ when her own popularity ratings plummeted to shack up at Harvard & lecture the world about how much Kiwis loved her and how much she loves us? Give us a break.
Sources:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/06/18/jacinda-ardern-to-lead-global-fellowship-of-progressive-leaders/
https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/jacinda-ardern-heads-new-empathy-and-kindess-program-for-global-political-leaders/
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/06/18/jacinda-ardern-to-lead-global-fellowship-of-progressive-leaders/
https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/jacinda-ardern-heads-new-empathy-and-kindess-program-for-global-political-leaders/
Professor Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. He has previously worked at the Reserve Bank, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics. He runs the blog Down to Earth Kiwi from where this article was sourced.
10 comments:
Bigger than who?
She is certainly on track for the UN in 2027 - and NZ will endorse her - it is protocol to do so.
I’m sure Jacinda is well aware she had become very disliked in NZ but her ego must be so huge to agree to a movie being made of her. Unfortunately people will watch it. There should be a poll done afterwards asking “did you agree with the contents of the movie?”
Throughout the course of known history there have been a continuum of 'leaders' who have espoused the ethos of the embodimemt of kindness and empathy, that speak to people with hope and optimism rather than fear or blame, and want to unite, rather than divide.
Those folk are known today as either cult leaders, dogmatists, tyrants or dictators of whom have seen literally billions perish under their collective historical rule.
And like these 'leaders' Ardern is as much a sham as them. She is the antithesis of kindness, empathy and optimism and in fact she embraced fear, blame and division.
This evidence is before our very eyes.
Remember her words when Barry Soper asked if she was indeed creating two classes of citizens in New Zealand?
Her reply was "Yip, yip, it is what it is."
Unity the Ardern way.......
Robert, perfectly written, although I personally feel you are being far too nice on that terrible nasty Ardern. The worst pm ever. She has evil intents which has resulted in this countries currently position. She will be judged and karma eventually catches up with evil people such as Ardern and her ilk.
You are dead right.
This woman is on a crusade and the longer we talk and write about it the longer the very unfortunate myth of Ardern will endure.
Will her fall from grace be even greater on the world stage than it has been here in NZ?
This woman is on a crusade and the longer we talk and write about it the longer the very unfortunate myth of Ardern will endure.
Foreigners and visitors to New Zealand seem to have long recognised the factors Professor MacCulloch uses to describe Ardern's legacy that many of us have only now started to recognise.
New Zealand is an increasingly poor and divided country. These issues worsened very substantially during Ardern's period in Government. My own family members and friends often comment after returning from overseas that they just didn't realise how poor this country is. Poor in so many ways.
I note that many of the main players in the world of social media were conspicuous only by their abscence at Ardern's recent Christchurch Call conference. Zuckerberg wasn't there, nor Musk. Perhaps her star has now faded in this world, if indeed it ever was bright.
Ardern may well have the naivety to believe she can manouvre herself into the top job at the UN. The international support for her will be as minimal as it is for this current crusade of hers.
Their is absolutely no reason why a woman should not be the Secretary General of the UN . But the first will definitely not be a white Anglo Saxon woman fom a small and only moderately successful remote Western Democracy.
And certainly not someone whose c/v consists of nothing but small country politics and a disastrous brief period as it's leader. Certainly not someone who became the most reviled politician in that countries history. Certainly not someone with absolutely no career experience in private industry. Candidates for the top UN job need a bit more substance and background, a bit more well earned gravitas.
Can anyone imagine the Islamic states supporting such a candidate as Ardern? Or most of Africa or South America, Russia ,China ? Can you imagine anyone of those countries bowing down before her ?
Perhaps Ardern, like Clark before her hasn't realised the era of white supremacy and colonial rule is well over. The first woman to lead the UN will definitely not have white skin, will definitely come from a developing or recently developed state from outside the White Anglo Saxon world.
For Ardern or Clark to believe they are superior to all these other possible candidates is naive bordering on the racist.
As Granma Clark would say after lowering her voice an octave or 3, "thats a lesson in real politik ".
You put the charges very well professor. Without question Ardern’s Covid era Prime Ministership was the lowest point this nation ever sank to. We cannot go there again and retain any flavour of a civilised society. I hope we have all recognised from her era just how close we came to social collapse.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.