There was a time when I would have thought: “Shame. Why can’t these people not be more progressive, more empathetic, more caring of the less well-off and the downtrodden?”
But over time I have come to realize that the progressive position has little to do with helping the average person; in fact, progressive positions are often detrimental to that goal. And it turns out that anyone who dares to question the current progressive orthodoxy no matter how asinine it is, automatically becomes a “right-wing extremist”.
So, to borrow a line from Jeff Foxworthy,
You might be a right-wing extremist if you think sex is dichotomous, not a continuum.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you think a woman is an adult human female.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you think women should not have to compete against men in sports.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you find terms like “chest-feeding” or “pregnant person” ridiculous.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you believe that we should be a country where everyone has equal rights rather than some having different rights based on ancestry.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you believe that science is universal, ever evolving and not bound to a place or time.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you believe that free markets are good things that have helped millions around the world escape dire poverty and that, despite limitations, capitalism is far superior to socialism for improving the well-being of humans.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you think that Jacinda Ardern was an authoritarian leader who took an axe to our civil liberties in the name of protecting public health.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you believe that universities should be about a quest for truth and should not be forcing political indoctrination on to students.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you believe that the media has an obligation to report news fairly.
Everyone talks about how polarized the US is. What they do not understand is that every country is polarised because different people believe in different things, have different values and espouse different policy priorities.
The reason that the US appears polarized is that people with different views have similar access to media outlets.
This is not true for New Zealand where one set of views have no difficulty getting heard while another set struggle to find an outlet.
Absence of different views does not imply the absence of polarization.
Since 2020, when I was released from jail (oops, sorry; I meant to say stepped down from being department head) I have written nearly one hundred columns and done numerous interviews. Many of my columns and/or interviews have appeared in mainstream outlets like New Zealand Herald, Stuff, RNZ, Newsroom, NBR, The Conversation, and so on. (I even had a piece in the New York Times.)
Now if you look at these columns there is a discernible pattern.
When I wrote about non-political issues or things that were broadly supportive of the previous Labour government, these columns routinely appeared in mainstream outlets.
But when I wrote columns criticising progressive shibboleths, these columns appeared only in alternative outlets like The BFD or bassettbrashandhide.com.
Does that make sense? Clearly, I know how to write columns. Do I suddenly become stupid when I write columns that argue against the progressive consensus?
I have been highly critical of our government’s response to Covid; to an extent because these policies displayed little foresight, ignored much existing evidence and were used to circumscribe fundamental rights.
I have published a critically acclaimed book from a well-known international publisher on the topic. I wrote columns with leading scholars like John Gibson (FRSNZ) of Waikato who has published in scholarly journals highlighting many deficiencies in our Covid approach.
None of these columns ever made their way into a mainstream outlet here. Forget Gibson or me, media anointed local “experts” with questionable credentials were allowed to pontificate ad nauseum while world-renowned scholars from Stanford or Oxford were dismissed as cranks.
To an extent, this was an ongoing process with the increasing left-ward tilt in academia and media.
But I think the process became turbo-charged in New Zealand with the coopting of the media by the previous Labour government via the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF). At heart, the PIJF is a good idea. It is in our social interest to have a vibrant media. But in accepting this money, the mainstream media agreed to endorse a particular political view to the exclusion of others. They have continued to express that allegiance even after that government was thrown out via the popular vote.
The current progressive movement has little progressive about it. These are left-wing authoritarians determined to foist their warped sense of priorities on the rest of us.
The Covid lockdowns were a boon to white-collar workers and wreaked havoc for blue-collar workers. They have had severe adverse consequences for children who lost out on their childhood vaccinations and their education. The negative effects were disproportionately pronounced for the less well-off. Shutting down small businesses while allowing big supermarkets to operate was a stupid idea. All of this will significantly exacerbate inequality in the years to come.
This was clear then as it is clear now. Any true progressive would have recognized that. But saying this during the pandemic would have earned you the sobriquet of being a right-wing extremist.
So, yeah, I am fine with being a right-wing extremist if that is the price for common sense; better than being what passes as progressive these days.
Ananish Chaudhuri is Professor of Experimental Economics at the University of Auckland. Besides Auckland, he has taught at Harvard Kennedy School, Rutgers University, Washington State University and Wellesley College. This article was first published HERE
So, to borrow a line from Jeff Foxworthy,
You might be a right-wing extremist if you think sex is dichotomous, not a continuum.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you think a woman is an adult human female.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you think women should not have to compete against men in sports.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you find terms like “chest-feeding” or “pregnant person” ridiculous.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you believe that we should be a country where everyone has equal rights rather than some having different rights based on ancestry.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you believe that science is universal, ever evolving and not bound to a place or time.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you believe that free markets are good things that have helped millions around the world escape dire poverty and that, despite limitations, capitalism is far superior to socialism for improving the well-being of humans.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you think that Jacinda Ardern was an authoritarian leader who took an axe to our civil liberties in the name of protecting public health.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you believe that universities should be about a quest for truth and should not be forcing political indoctrination on to students.
You might be a right-wing extremist if you believe that the media has an obligation to report news fairly.
Everyone talks about how polarized the US is. What they do not understand is that every country is polarised because different people believe in different things, have different values and espouse different policy priorities.
The reason that the US appears polarized is that people with different views have similar access to media outlets.
This is not true for New Zealand where one set of views have no difficulty getting heard while another set struggle to find an outlet.
Absence of different views does not imply the absence of polarization.
Since 2020, when I was released from jail (oops, sorry; I meant to say stepped down from being department head) I have written nearly one hundred columns and done numerous interviews. Many of my columns and/or interviews have appeared in mainstream outlets like New Zealand Herald, Stuff, RNZ, Newsroom, NBR, The Conversation, and so on. (I even had a piece in the New York Times.)
Now if you look at these columns there is a discernible pattern.
When I wrote about non-political issues or things that were broadly supportive of the previous Labour government, these columns routinely appeared in mainstream outlets.
But when I wrote columns criticising progressive shibboleths, these columns appeared only in alternative outlets like The BFD or bassettbrashandhide.com.
Does that make sense? Clearly, I know how to write columns. Do I suddenly become stupid when I write columns that argue against the progressive consensus?
I have been highly critical of our government’s response to Covid; to an extent because these policies displayed little foresight, ignored much existing evidence and were used to circumscribe fundamental rights.
I have published a critically acclaimed book from a well-known international publisher on the topic. I wrote columns with leading scholars like John Gibson (FRSNZ) of Waikato who has published in scholarly journals highlighting many deficiencies in our Covid approach.
None of these columns ever made their way into a mainstream outlet here. Forget Gibson or me, media anointed local “experts” with questionable credentials were allowed to pontificate ad nauseum while world-renowned scholars from Stanford or Oxford were dismissed as cranks.
To an extent, this was an ongoing process with the increasing left-ward tilt in academia and media.
But I think the process became turbo-charged in New Zealand with the coopting of the media by the previous Labour government via the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF). At heart, the PIJF is a good idea. It is in our social interest to have a vibrant media. But in accepting this money, the mainstream media agreed to endorse a particular political view to the exclusion of others. They have continued to express that allegiance even after that government was thrown out via the popular vote.
The current progressive movement has little progressive about it. These are left-wing authoritarians determined to foist their warped sense of priorities on the rest of us.
The Covid lockdowns were a boon to white-collar workers and wreaked havoc for blue-collar workers. They have had severe adverse consequences for children who lost out on their childhood vaccinations and their education. The negative effects were disproportionately pronounced for the less well-off. Shutting down small businesses while allowing big supermarkets to operate was a stupid idea. All of this will significantly exacerbate inequality in the years to come.
This was clear then as it is clear now. Any true progressive would have recognized that. But saying this during the pandemic would have earned you the sobriquet of being a right-wing extremist.
So, yeah, I am fine with being a right-wing extremist if that is the price for common sense; better than being what passes as progressive these days.
Ananish Chaudhuri is Professor of Experimental Economics at the University of Auckland. Besides Auckland, he has taught at Harvard Kennedy School, Rutgers University, Washington State University and Wellesley College. This article was first published HERE
11 comments:
Excellent article! Thank you.
Back in the days when I was silly enough to read Stuff I thought that Ananish Chaudhuri was very left wing. But it appears from what's written here that he was both complimentary and critical of the last government. Stuff only published the complimentary articles because only they accorded with Stuffs own political bias and promotion of Labour, the Greens and TPM. That raises a very important point. What other news and opinions have they censored? What else has been hidden from us?
Me too Ananish, me too. The fight back has begun.
Thank you for your well written and perceptive article.
My interest is in Progressive Education as distinct from progressivism in politics and society. They have the the same basis of promoting secularization and anti traditional family and values.
We on Breaking Views have most likely experienced some cancellation somewhere in the prevailing 'progressive '( actually regressive) climate.
Progressives condemn traditional values as repressive and wrong but that is exactly what they themselves are . My personal battle is to expose the deceit of progressives in trying to hide the fact there is now a return to the methods and ideas of traditional education because recent cognitive and neuro science recently have proved them to be correct . But recognizing something from the past is superior is anathema to progressives so the ' the reinventing the wheel ' aspect has to be ignored. The past contains all that progressives hate.
Actually from my perspective just about everything progressives promote ends up being a disaster. It is linked to Marxism which actually has the same basis as progressivism and has a reputation for invariably making things worse.
I thought I was just right wing, but no I'm definitely a right wing extremist!
Thank you Ananish
Why is it that so many people have difficulty accepting simple truths.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand the difference between right and wrong or that traditional family values have stood the test of time because they are incorruptible. Without them, society becomes a rudderless hulk that will drift along until it no longer can support it own weight and sinks below the surface, never to reappear.
Consequently it is not hard to accept a major takeaway from the recent elections in this country and in the US being an overwhelming rejection of the Woke society that pretends to be “all things to all people” but is in fact a vehicle for moral collapse .
You can’t have it both ways.
You can be a right wing extremist if you like, but you are a useless writer. Your stupid right wing extremist list is simply the laziest, most dishonest, take a strawman type of extreme positions for those you seek to ridicule. Righting like that is bringing the US here by creating the same kind of divisions. How you avoided scattering a few woke through your piece is something of a mystery. Saved for next time maybe.
COVID? Aren't you some kind of professor - but no clue about simple facts? Such as in 2022 NZ had the lowest death rate of any of 180 countries. Then you and your economics friends pressure on the government caused some of the controls to be lifted. And do you know what you achieved Mr Chaudri? People started dying. Your government supported businesses started up at the cost of 6000 lives. You criticism zJacinda Ardern but what decision would you have made that would have gained wide support - business or lives- you can't have both?
And last are you aware of Teddy Roosevelts' description of the man in the ring ' the man who instead of being on the sidelines criticising, is actually in the ring trying his best to confront a challenge, failing sometimes, but picking up and carrying on. While the man sitting by watching is just a coward.
But here you are Mr Chaudry - the great writer with all the answers - here's your chance. It is zMarch 2020, you are responsible for NZ 's health. You are alerted that an unstoppable virus is on its way. It will be deadly and unlike anything you have faced before. What would you do Mr Chaudry? What is your strategy for managing this pandemic?
There have been a number of research papers including those from prestigious universities like John Hopkin's and Oxford.Their conclusions have been challenged but they conclude harsh closures generated very high costs but produced only negligible health benefits. " We know how many people died with health measures in place but we can't know how many people would have died without those measures in place". The modelling done to predict the number of possible deaths of covid were way out in being grossly increased compared with what actually happened.
This clearly is not a simple discussion.
Who let Richard out?
Hi Richard,
An intriguing thought,...what might be an appropriate response from government, "alerted that an unstoppable (dangerous) virus is on the way?"
One way that has been recently demonstrated was that government should immediately gather the wagons in a defensive ring, putting out vigorous "information" that government is in control and will save the plebs provided they join the "team of 5 million" and follow instructions implicitly. The daily instruction will come from a select team of experts, obviously clever enough to be beyond criticism.
Anyone who chooses to not be part of the team will be, err, excommunicated,..& more!
An alternative path might have been a path often travelled during national emergencies,...ie the formation of a cross party "war" cabinet, who would concentrate only on the emergency, leaving other routine governing activities to the elected government.
In other words, the government of the day would be saying that,..."we don 't know everything...this emergency is beyond usual politics". There would be a panel of diverse experts enrolled to give public advice to the war cabinet with deliberate policy to allow the fullest range of opinion yes with possible mavericks to keep the panel of experts degenerating into "group think".
Effort would be made to counter any thought that government will be able to protect all. Maximum effort would be made to encourage individual social and economic resilience.
There Richard....not rocket science, well tested in the last world war, no guarrantee of perfection, and certainly a counter to the obvious tendency of governments ( of all types) wanting to ensure that a marvellous crisis is not wasted but could be used (manipulated) to promote the reputation and assured future of the incumbent government.
The fouth estate would operate in its usual role of examining and where needed criticizing all the actions of the government and their civil servants.
The biggest crticism of our covid government in my opinion, was its very active encouragement of the thought that..."don't worry your little brains...we will look after you,...from cradle to grave" ie it treated everyone as infants.
The PIJF should have been correctly named the Media Corruption Fund because that is what it was/is.
I'm happy to be known as a right-wing extremist, if that's what being a normal, independent-thinking, self-determining person is, these days. Great article.
Post a Comment