What was interesting though was the interview with former attorney general Chris Finlayson. In this brief interview, Finlayson commented lamentably on the rise in support for the ACT Party and NZ First on the back of growing concerns about where the treaty might lead. Most notable was Finlayson's comment that voters who opted for NZ First in the last election were bewildered and frightened of the future.
Finlayson's comments have a wider application than the narrow context of this interview. His comments indicate a pervasive disdain for voters who question the promulgated vision for New Zealand, and who dare to question people like him.
Who, then, are the "people like him"?
These are the people, of course, who know best.
In short, Finlayson's comment reflects the persistent views of political elites across the West that their duty is not to accede to (or even seriously consider) the wishes of those who elect them, but to impose upon them their own particular worldview. Finlayson's comments around bewilderment and fear, were akin to Hillary's deplorables, the great unwashed who voted in favour of Brexit, or those who support Donald Trump.
Disproportionately, those who voted NZ First (and ACT to a lesser degree) have a conservative worldview, as do those who support Trump (some of whom do not like him at all), or who voted in favour of Brexit. They are concerned about the erosion of Western values, about the assault on free speech (or markets), about the invasion of immigrants who, sometimes (especially the second generation) appear to have no respect for the values of the country that has opened its doors to them, about the selective re-writing of history and the denigration of all that is Western.
When researchers have drilled down a little they have found that conservative-leaning voters are much more diverse and well-educated than left-wing stereotypes allow. They cross all income groups and professions. This is not what mainstream media want you to know, this does not fit the "bewilderment" (or deplorable) narrative.
Conservatives generally (while not perfect) are cautious folk, they value their history, believe people should work, they pay their taxes, are generally law-abiding, and believe in the collective wisdom of those who have gone before. They believe in the Western experiment, its significant cultural legacy, and the opportunity and freedom this produces.
The characterisation of conservatives as shallow and poorly educated is a myth, calculated to avoid addressing their arguments. It reflects the sort of political tribalism (and polarization) that threatens to undermine faith in the democratic order.
There is a view in social psychology that functional systems should be tinkered with only with great caution. If a system (or society) is functional, and far-reaching changes are made, there is a much greater chance of making things worse than better, sometimes irreversibly. The conservative worldview reminds us that functional systems should be played with only with great caution, conservatives know this, they know, often instinctively, that political (and social) experiments can have catastrophic consequences, and that it is very difficult to turn the clock back.
There is growing evidence that on treaty (and other) issues, our political elite has no interest in listening to the genuine and well-founded concerns (and inherited cultural wisdom) of many New Zealanders.
Most disturbing is that their determination to misinterpret the treaty, to deny accession of sovereignty, to grant rights to some, and deny them to others, has its adherents, in some form or other, across the political spectrum. The left is no longer accountable to the right or the right to the left. Political difference is, in part, an illusion.
Concerning the treaty, our main political parties have, by and large, joined hands over what would once have been an unbridgeable abyss, and they have been doing this for decades.
Caleb Anderson, a graduate history, economics, psychotherapy and theology, has been an educator for over thirty years, twenty as a school principal.
14 comments:
Finlayson and his likes are curious. Vanity, ego, continued lucrative professional work for monied maori, and the desire not to alienate pandering life contacts preclude any significant admission of error or misjudgement. However he does maintain that the Treaty was with the Crown, hence there is no essential case for many of the supposedly Treaty based pandering statements and consequent actions by Councils and others.
Does Finalyson explain why NZ First voters should not be afraid?.A country dominated by the likes of Muhata, Morgan, Tamahere,Waititi certainly frightens me. ?the mystery is that vastly more are not greatay concerned?
'Frightened of the future' This is a future they don't want us to have a debate on but they will expect us to pay the bill.
Excellent Mr Anderson, and as accurate a description of my thinking, as a cultural chauvinist, as you will find in a day's march. Each piece of commentary such as yours is another chance to comfort those who worry that no one thinks as they do, and another sharp implement to shove up the fundament of those who would turn this country into a Neolithic fiefdom. I long for the days when New Zealand had more conservative newspapers so that a greater proportion of this country's people could read your views. Fat chance however with the Marxist rags we are currently cursed with.
Was Finlayson ever elected by the people or was he a party appointment?
I mean he wouldn't want to represent constituents. It's below him.
And what a surprise ,he doesn't like 'populism' .
One of the things I found interesting, telling and disturbing all at once in that ABC documentary was how the reporter described one aspect of the situation with a fair amount of accuracy, and acceptance, but obviously no idea what that means in practice. She talked about how there was a "special" place for Maori in New Zealand. This is of course the current status quo bequeathed to us most recently from the former government of Jacinda Adern, but reaching back to the creation of the Treaty Tribunal as well. She alluded to this "specialness" as a right conferred on Maori by the Treaty itself. She unquestioningly accepted this as a fundamental given, not as a core current point of contention in NZ.
Thus, she similarly took the desire by many, (and specifically ACT) to question whether any group should be singled out for preferential treatment solely along racial lines—as a clear case of attacking the rights of people who belong to that race.
What I cannot fathom is how this "specialness" is claimed on the basis of Maori forming a partnership with the Crown via the Treaty, reinforced by the idea that Maori never ceded sovereignty to the Crown. The Crown, nowadays refers to the representative government of New Zealand that exercises sovereignty on behalf of the electorate in which sovereignty is sourced. New Zealanders, by default, cede their individual sovereignty to the government on the understanding that governments serve at the pleasure of the people who vote them in or out. In other words, WE are the Crown. But who are WE? Does that include Maori or not? If not, why are Maori exercising their individual sovereignty to vote in elections for the NZ government? And, why are they claiming "specialness" WITHIN NZ, a society they claim they never agreed to join?
If yes, WE does include Maori, then by default Maori accept that NZ, like other modern western societies around the world, has legally rejected the practice of allowing their citizens to be treated unequally (either better or worse) on the basis of racial identity (among other identities as well).
If I had the chance to ask the ABC reporter one question, it would be to ask her how this idea of racial "specialness" she so easily took for granted, actually works in practice within a pluralistic democracy.
Finlayson & Key headed a cabinet of Traitors to the 83% of us who aren’t Maori, by secretly sending Pita Sharples to sign the UNDIP.
Maori have never been indigenous, they proudly (rightly) name the 7 Waka they came to NZ on.
Apparently Finlayson stood to get elected 3 times and failed.
Even his Electorate didn't want him.
He was a List MP for the Nats.
Simple definition of a traitor: noun. a person who betrays another person, a cause, or any trust. a person who commits treason by betraying their country. So, by definition, Finlayson certainly betrayed the trust (and more) of his fellow New Zealanders by pandering to one particular section of the population at the expense of the majority. To be fair, the vast majority of Maori descendants never asked for this as they want to simply live in harmony with their neighbours and were like most of us in being colour blind. People like Finlayson and Key for that matter have essentially acted as the useful idiots for those who would drive (have driven) a ruddy great wedge into our society. Key was rewarded with a knighthood, Ardern with her Dame-ship (wish she would use it to sail away and not come back). They are the ones who assisted the racism/apartheid facing New Zealand and should be brought to book for it. Trouble is our current crop of politicians are simply not up to doing what is needed.
An excellent column and comments. I can't add much other than the unelected Findlayson's views don't warrant a moment's consideration, for he and his ilk have done immeasurable harm to our social fabric and cohesion.
And, as for our two main political parties corrupt views of the Treaty, it's all been aided and abetted by an equally corrupt Fourth Estate who all, in varying but generous measures, deserve our opprobrium.
Anonymous 2: well argued!
People quote UNDRIP - aspirational and not legally binding. Applying this has no legal base - unless it is put into NZ law ( which Willy Jackson was pushing fast before the 2023 election) .
It deprives all NZers of their rights under the UNDHR and ICCPR ( both legally binding). Citizens are fully justified in accusing the National Party of refusing to respect their rights.
National will block ACT's Bill - and would probably block NZF's plan to remove Treaty references from NZ legislation. National and Labour are now united in their commitment to Maori superiority/ ultimate tribal rule and the demotion of 83% of NZers to second class citizen status.
Finlayson - a despicable vassal of Iwi money - has grave responsibility for this fiasco.
Think of all the list MPs who have held Cabinet positions and push their own ideology on the country (Finlayson and Robertson among others) Maybe only elected members should hold cabinet positions? That way, Party hacks can only get minor positions. If voters think a candidate is not worthy enough to be elected, he can't do any damage
Fudgie Boy Finlayson is most definitely a traitor to our nation.
Reinstate the laws against sedition [that takes care of brown supremacist part-Maori] and treachery [that takes care of people like Atdern, Finlayson, Key et. al.] and enforce them strictly.
Finlayson had his nose comfortably in the gravy train before he wangled his way into Parlt. as a non-elected member. He represented the interests of his iwi partners in crime and has done nicely. Do not expect any idealism or wish to work for the common good from him.
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.