Another week, another set of examples of ‘woke left’ entitlement.
What I mean by this entitlement, is an increasingly explicit belief that only they (the woke left) have the right to speak freely, to exercise influence, to have power, and represent the community.
Ironically, these are the same groups and people who talk a big game about power and how bad it is. Woke leftists (and even some that we could describe as woke right) have been quite successful around this, having for decades, argued that power is bad. We still see this in the latest New Zealand history curriculum where the third overarching theme is that our history is shaped by the use of power. This is an explicitly Marxist concept – stating that human history is solely driven by a struggle for power and dominance. History is not about relationships, nor seeking truth, or many other human drivers. The implication within this statement is that power is bad, or at the very least, it has been exercised by groups other than themselves (the woke left).
My observation is that many well-intentioned people and groups, often from the centre or right of politics, have drunk the cool-aid of this thinking and ‘abandoned the field’. They naively agreed that ‘power is bad’ and left their positions in professional groups, school boards, charities and the like. And guess who filled the vacuum? The woke and radical left, laughing all the way. Fundamentally, they do not believe power is bad – woke leftists only believe power is bad in the hands of other people.
The scornful reporting of recent government appointments highlights this very clearly. Criticism and disdain are the orders of the day when anyone is appointed who is not a left-wing activist.
The first example was the appointment of Philip Crump to the Board of NZ on Air, responsible for funding decisions in the broadcasting and creative sector. Philip is a lawyer, writer, and commentator – probably most famous for his Cranmer’s Substack, where he wrote on political and cultural issues from a centre-right perspective. Predictably, many on the left have tossed their toys. For them, his being anything other than a radical leftist is unacceptable. The sub-narrative is plain to see – only those leaning left should be on the board of NZ on Air.
Similarly, the outcry when Dr Stephen Rainbow and Dr Melissa Derby were appointed to the Human Rights Commission. Both are well qualified and able, but again, not left-wing enough for the luvvies. The hostile media campaign against them highlights a deep entitlement to running these organisations. For the left wing, when it come to the Human Rights Commission, this is their ‘woke’ organisation and not actually an organisation for all New Zealanders. Consequently, appointments are either praised or attacked depending on a person’s left-wing credentials (or lack thereof).
Then there was the predictable cry of disdain when Richard Prebble was appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal. Just like the Human Rights Commission, the woke left believe this is ‘their’ organisation. Be it the Tribunal or Commission, such organisations do not exist for society as such, but only to promote left-wing views. These organisations are to be co-opted politically; part of the ‘long march through the institutions’.
It's not unique to New Zealand of course. In recent days, there has been outcry directed at Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post. His crime? Well, he instructed the Washington Post newspaper to not endorse any presidential candidate. On a point of principle and with a desire to restore trust in media, he thought it best that the newspaper report the news and not try and create it – or at the very least, not to act so blatantly partisan. That so many board members and staff at the Washington Post have resigned as a consequence of this ‘neutral stance’ tells you all you need to know of this media organisation (and others) – they are not there to report news, but to make the news in their left-wing image.
It is worthwhile sharing a quote from Jeff Bezos regarding his decision. I think it is insightful but clearly at odds with what many of the ‘woke’ believe:
My observation is that many well-intentioned people and groups, often from the centre or right of politics, have drunk the cool-aid of this thinking and ‘abandoned the field’. They naively agreed that ‘power is bad’ and left their positions in professional groups, school boards, charities and the like. And guess who filled the vacuum? The woke and radical left, laughing all the way. Fundamentally, they do not believe power is bad – woke leftists only believe power is bad in the hands of other people.
The scornful reporting of recent government appointments highlights this very clearly. Criticism and disdain are the orders of the day when anyone is appointed who is not a left-wing activist.
The first example was the appointment of Philip Crump to the Board of NZ on Air, responsible for funding decisions in the broadcasting and creative sector. Philip is a lawyer, writer, and commentator – probably most famous for his Cranmer’s Substack, where he wrote on political and cultural issues from a centre-right perspective. Predictably, many on the left have tossed their toys. For them, his being anything other than a radical leftist is unacceptable. The sub-narrative is plain to see – only those leaning left should be on the board of NZ on Air.
Similarly, the outcry when Dr Stephen Rainbow and Dr Melissa Derby were appointed to the Human Rights Commission. Both are well qualified and able, but again, not left-wing enough for the luvvies. The hostile media campaign against them highlights a deep entitlement to running these organisations. For the left wing, when it come to the Human Rights Commission, this is their ‘woke’ organisation and not actually an organisation for all New Zealanders. Consequently, appointments are either praised or attacked depending on a person’s left-wing credentials (or lack thereof).
Then there was the predictable cry of disdain when Richard Prebble was appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal. Just like the Human Rights Commission, the woke left believe this is ‘their’ organisation. Be it the Tribunal or Commission, such organisations do not exist for society as such, but only to promote left-wing views. These organisations are to be co-opted politically; part of the ‘long march through the institutions’.
It's not unique to New Zealand of course. In recent days, there has been outcry directed at Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post. His crime? Well, he instructed the Washington Post newspaper to not endorse any presidential candidate. On a point of principle and with a desire to restore trust in media, he thought it best that the newspaper report the news and not try and create it – or at the very least, not to act so blatantly partisan. That so many board members and staff at the Washington Post have resigned as a consequence of this ‘neutral stance’ tells you all you need to know of this media organisation (and others) – they are not there to report news, but to make the news in their left-wing image.
It is worthwhile sharing a quote from Jeff Bezos regarding his decision. I think it is insightful but clearly at odds with what many of the ‘woke’ believe:
“We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.”
So while frustrating at one level to see all this outrage and entitlement by the left-wing, it does also serve a useful purpose. It exposes these individuals, reporters, and media outlets for the partisan and biased people they are. By shedding light on their own compromised motivations, we in turn are entitled to push back and call them out, while also working towards a more representative society.
*Note. An earlier version specifically referenced a Spinoff article. On reflection, this was an unfair characterisation insofar as the article referenced a range of views around an appointment and was not specifically challenging it.
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
I am longing for the day when new blood and attitudes permeate the RNZ Board which so far has sailed on adhering to Willie's agenda.
Anyone with a reasoned critical thinking mind can see that our very own MSM are so partisan to the left that if they got any closer to thedge they'd fall.......Bezos is on point the media needs to be accurate to be believed accurate anything else is propaganda.
The great frustration and sadness is that nothing has changed after one year in government change. What is/isn't happening?
I think S O'C's view of the world is as simplistic as that of any radical leftie, and he just sounds grumpy. After he was selected for Tamaki back in 2011, after the previous incumbent was diagnosed with terminal cancer, a friend with strong Nat connections said he got the role partly because his work as a trainee priest (not ordained) had him working with food banks / the poor. As an MP, was good on topics like China and, more recently, the persecution of women in Iran. I hope he uses the rest of his time now on more fruitful pursuits than whingeing about cartoon cutout of the 'left'.
The success of the woke Left in NZ is astonishing... and very dangerous for the future.
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.