Entry 1406, on 2012-06-28 at 21:39:17 (Rating 4, Politics)
There is a well known "law" which is often mentioned in Internet discussion forums called "Godwin's Law". It is the humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1989 which states: "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." (The number 1 here is a more technically correct term for 100%)
The law is also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies and is sometimes extended with the rule that anyone daring to mention the Nazis automatically loses the argument he is involved in.
For me there are times when the temptation to include a Nazi analogy is just too strong and if you search this blog for terms like "Nazi" you will find many posts. More recently I have at least made an effort to note that those statements possibly contravene Godwin's Law!
I am not an absolutist when it comes to following laws, and that includes both real laws and humorous observations which have been called laws such as Godwin's. I think it is useful to be aware that by making analogies with Nazism you might be reaching a point where you could be accused of hyperbole or making an appeal to an inappropriately emotional statement instead of facts, but I also think Nazi analogies are sometimes useful.
So it's important to think about Godwin's law when you are writing or otherwise communicating on a subject. I wonder if New Zealand Labour politician, Megan Woods, knows about it. She recently tweeted the following message: "Hitler had a pretty clear manifesto that he campaigned and won on ... does this make what he did OK?". This was in relation to the National government's habit of using the fact that it won the last election as an excuse to carry out any policy it wants, no matter how unpopular that policy might be (specifically related to partial asset sales in this case).
In fact, despite the possible contravention of Godwin's Law I think this message has a lot of merit. She actually makes a good point and I think her subsequent apology was totally unnecessary. Of course from a political perspective it is often useful to not say what you really think even when that opinion can be successfully defended. And sometimes it's just better not to mention subjects such as Naziism!
But getting back to the underlying question: does a victory in a democratic election give a government the right to carry out unpopular policies, especially if those policies were well indicated in the campaign? I think there would be a case to say the answer is yes: the Nats have a perfect right to carry out the sales because that is effectively what people voted for.
But on the other hand people vote in elections for many different reasons and, probably of more relevance in this case, they fail to vote for different reasons as well. National's victory at the last election was more the result of apathy from the left than enthusiasm from the right. So there is also a good case to say that there is no good mandate for the sales.
Whatever your opinion on the subject the comparison that Woods made between asset sales and invading Poland clearly involves a huge escalation in the severity of the action being considered. But sometimes an extreme example makes the underlying principle more clear and I think there was nothing at all wrong with the tweet. Woods also tweeted: "Point is that simply stating something before an election does not make it right! Example is extreme but exposes logic". Exactly.
In fact if you look at the wording there is no suggestion that the Nats are acting like Nazis so the complaints that many people have against it are ridiculous. But as I said above, references to the Nazis do seem to unleash criticism based more on emotion than rationality so for that reason alone it might have been best to avoid it.
In some ways I think the asset sales might be quite a good thing. Despite the fact that National itself has good voter support all of its support parties are dead or dying (and rightly so because they are universally awful). National will almost certainly lose the next election because of its arrogance on subjects such as asset sales and it is unlikely to get back into power quickly because of its lack of partners.
If we can survive to the next election with out the Nats messing the country up too much we should be able to expect 9 years of decent center-left governments. I agree that long term predictions like this are fraught with difficulties and who knows what international or local political disasters might interfere with that simplistic prediction but I still think it is a point worth reflecting on.
And now just to finish off this discussion I want to violate Godwin's Law by making another observation: there are similarities between prime minister John Key and Hitler. Both were good at manipulating the population into believing their ideas even though they had little real merit. Both used the dire condition of their respective country's economies as an excuse to introduce ultimately counter-productive policies. And both used harsh actions against unpopular minorities as a tool to gain endorsement from their more totalitarian base of supporters. Yes, I think Megan Woods had more of a point than even she realised!
Comment of a true loser: "Point is that simply stating something before an election does not make it right!" Oh how lamentable that National went to the electorate beforehand, stating their intentions. How dare they! Dear Labour/Greens - learn a lesson!
If we can survive to the next election with out the Nats messing the country up too much - oh, is that why they are still on 47% support? How's Labour doing, by the way?
Both used the dire condition of their respective country's economies as an excuse to introduce ultimately counter-productive policies. - oh and our growth seems to be increasing....Godwin boy!
And both used harsh actions against unpopular minorities as a tool to gain endorsement from their more totalitarian base of supporters. ..is that Christians or Maoris? Who is their support partner?
As I have said many times: elections are won and lost for many reasons. The majority have clearly stated they don't want asset sales. The point is entirely true: simply stating a position before an election doesn't make it OK.
The latest polls indicate the Nats and their supporters being equal with Labour and its supporters. the trend is clear: National will lose.
Can't quite follow the rest of your "logic" there. I guess Megan Woods did fail, but only because of the hypocrisy of politics. Otherwise her point was totally valid.
Regarding the link to Kiwiblog: I'm not interested in the mindless crap in right wing blogs. Want me to start quoting "No RIght Turn"? Come on, get real!
Comment 4 by SBFL on 2012-07-06 at 10:03:36:
OJB said "simply stating a position before an election doesn't make it OK....from his personal point of view.
Of course OJB refuses to give credit to a National government that went before the public stating asset sales 9 months before the election.
They got voted back in (in 2011), MILES ahead of Labour who VISIBLY opposed asset sales. I'd say that's a "yes", wouldn't you? To quote Micheal Cullen: "We won, you lost, eat that"
Comment 5 by OJB on 2012-07-06 at 11:08:45:
I think it was better that the asset sales were indicated well head of the elections rather than being carried out against the stated policies or totally announced. National get credit for that. But I still think they are a bad idea and according to polls so do the majority of New Zealanders.
People vote for a party for many reasons - many of them not very good - so just winning an election shouldn't be used as an automatic mandate for any policy, no matter what John Key or Michael Cullen think!
Comment 6 by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 09:13:01:
Okay kudos to your acknowledgements here. But if a party puts forward the proposal before the poll, then the result in its favour can only be a mandate. Not that you or anyone else has to like it. It's true that people would have voted in their favour for other reasons on the balance of benefits but it does mean they see the unlikeable issues as minor enough to swallow them. Ultimately they accept the eventual mandate by voting for them.
Anyway you could give more credit in your posts for "upfrontness" of National. I don't recall Labour doing this much in their last governmental phase (1999-2008). Regardless of right and left, surely good governance is of interest to you? I won't gloat that National are "doing it first", but its a pattern I think we would all like to see repeated. Surely.
Comment 7 by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 10:18:03:
Yes I agree National have a mandate to govern and in the end they can make whatever policies they want (as long as John Banks and Peter Dunne aren't too offended by them). But it is clear that whatever the reason was people voted for National it wasn't for asset sales in most cases because that is a deeply unpopular policy.
They should be reasonable about this and have another look at the supposed advantages. Maybe they would change their minds which I think would earn them a lot of support.
Of course good governance is of interest to me, just like it is of interest to everyone. No one (well very few people anyway) wants a bad government. We just disagree on what good governance is. Selling off some of our best performing assets is not good governance in my opinion.
Comment 8 by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 10:29:35:
If it was so "deeply unpopular" then why did people still vote for them? Maybe not as "deeply" as the left would like to think.
National have been up front about the advantages, you should listen to parliament more, let alone the media interactions.
You are confused between governance and policy. In your eyes bad policy must mean bad governance, that is your failing. Tut, tut.
Comment 9 by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 10:51:53:
They voted for many reasons, a significant one being that John Key is a great con-man. He sucked so many people in and Phil Goff just couldn't compete with his popularity. I think it was very little to do with actual policies.
National are never up-front about anything. They distort the facts, refuse to comment when it doesn't suit them, and use a lot more propaganda than real discussion. They are politicians, after all!
Can you have good governance when your policies are bad? I'm not sure what the meaningful distinction here might be.
Comment 10 by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 11:07:08:
Haha, so weak, so desperate. "John Key is a great con-man" Hahaha.
National are never up-front about anything. But we just proved otherwise! Now you are backtracking. Badly.
What you perceive as bad, other may disagree. This is democracy. Accept it. As for good governance, for a general election, its about being upfront about your intentions. National did it. Labour not. Listen and learn.
Comment 11 by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 11:19:07:
Well it is true. Look at the political advertising: Key was everywhere. Even Act advertised themselves as being a way to get John Key in as PM. It was a great marketing scam and Key is a con-man and a very skilled one, like most successful politicians.
OK, maybe *never* upfront was a bit strong. This is what I meant: they were up-front about selling the assets but extremely misleading about the benefits of doing so.
I actually don't fully accept democracy because it often doesn't work. Most people vote for really bad reasons and are very ignorant about the issues. I do accept that we have democracy and it works OK most of the time but I don't think we should just blindly go down a path because it is the result of a so-called "democratic process".
Comment 12 by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 11:33:04:
Your jealousy of Key is pathetic. Grow up.
So we agreed National was upfront. Now you say they were "extremely" misleading. How so?
So you don't like democracy. Pray tell me, what system should we have?
Comment 13 by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 11:44:14:
Whatever, I can see you don't really want to confront this issue.
They consistently over-represented the value of the sale of the assets and down-played the ongoing income from them. They pushed the unsupported claim that average New Zealanders will buy the assets. They work in catch-phrases and propaganda. Again, just standard politics but we should all realise this.
Democracy is the worst form of government... apart from all the rest.
Comment 14 by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 12:00:21:
OJB said "They consistently over-represented the value of the sale of the assets and down-played the ongoing income from them."
You don't know this because it hasn't happened yet.
OJB said "They pushed the unsupported claim that average New Zealanders will buy the assets."
You don't know this because it hasn't happened yet.
OJB said "Democracy is the worst form of government... apart from all the rest."
Now who doesn't "really want to confront this issue".
Comment 15 by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 12:17:32:
In fact by their own estimates (and others) the amount they are likely to get has decreased so we don't know for sure but we have a pretty good idea! The average New Zealander can barely survive on their current income. How could they afford to buy shares? They can't, and we all know this.
My point about democracy is that it is probably the best system we have but we should be aware of its problems. We shouldn't just say a certain thing (like asset sales) is OK because it came about as a result of a democratic vote. We need to look beyond that simplistic approach.
Also that quote (attributed to Churchill) is one of my favourites and I use it as much as possible! :)
Comment 16 by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 12:25:04:
Now who's splurging the rhetoric?
You should be happy that society had a chance to vote on this in advance of the poll, but you conveniently overlook this point because the party being honest isn't the one you've pledged your heart to.
Rather than being so boringly one-sided consider acknowledging the other side once in a while, even if only for governance issues.
Comment 17 by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 12:36:16:
SBFL said: "Now who's splurging the rhetoric?" I don't know. Who is?
I have already acknowledged that stating the policy of asset sales ahead of the election was a good thing. But the asset sales themselves are a bad thing. I have made my position on this very clear - not sure what more I can say really.
Good governance: saying what you will do ahead of time. Bad governance: selling valuable assets. The bad is much badder than the good is good, I think!
Comment 18 by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 12:50:39:
Read your comment further above re "The average New Zealander..". Need I have to point this out?
So you agree with the good governance of National now? Glad to hear it.
Again you demonstrate the lack of understanding between governance and policy. Clearly lefties are slow learners.
Comment 19 by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 13:01:06:
Are you on the booze again? You said a while back you only comment here after you've been drinking! :) Your arguments seem to be getting rather confused. Please clarify.
Comment 20 by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 13:13:30:
Not this time, but that fact you point it out encourages me!
(1) Re rhetoric. Straight from Winston's mouth at comment 15 "The average New Zealander can barely survive on their current income. How could they afford to buy shares?". But I already pointed directly to this quote.
(2) OJB said: "I have already acknowledged that stating the policy of asset sales ahead of the election was a good thing.". I replied "So you agree with the good governance of National now? Glad to hear it.". Straightforward. No drink.
(3) OJB said: "Good governance: saying what you will do ahead of time. Bad governance: selling valuable assets." This is one and the same. So yes, as I said, "Again you demonstrate the lack of understanding between governance and policy. Clearly lefties are slow learners."
Now hurry up and come up with a better retort this time before I go to bed!!
Comment 21 by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 13:46:21:
The statement that the average New Zealander cannot afford to buy shares is a fact rather than rhetoric. It just cannot happen. My family is well above the average income and we struggle enough! It's just a mindless piece of propaganda dreamed but by the ideologues at National along with all their rich, evil friends in big business - see, that's real rhetoric!
Good governance on that, very bad governance on many other issues. Overall: bad. (and please don't argue over the semantics of the word).
Comment 22 by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 13:59:12:
Yes, you're doing an outstanding job of turning up the rhetoric!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE