Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Am I Extreme?

Entry 2257, on 2023-01-25 at 14:24:40 (Rating 3, Politics)

I like debating politics, both on-line and in person, but especially on-line. The reason I prefer that is because I can do quick bit of research before replying to an opponent's point, and that increases the chance that I am correct. Also, I like debating religion, science, and many other topics as well, but politics bas been the big one, recently.

In recent times I have primarily been debating people on the left, because I think leftist politics has recently become extreme, and is no longer rational, but I have had some fairly robust (shall we say) discussions with people on the right as well. Because of this, people wonder where my allegiance falls. Am I a liberal or a conservative?

Well, first of all, these labels, especially "liberal", are very much open to interpretation. A classic liberal and a modern liberal are very different, and this is primarily because of the massive deviation the left have taken into critical theory inspired by postmodernism. A modern "liberal" might be almost unrecognisable from one of 10 or 20 years ago.

I do agree that the extremes of conservatism have also gone a bit off the path of rationality, but the difference there is that it is primarily just the extremes where irrational ideologies exist, where they have infected the core of the left to a greater extent.

So when I am asked if I am a conservative or a liberal I find it hard to answer. I usually say that, if I was forced to choose a label, I would say I am a libertarian, and many people identify that as a form of conservatism, but I disagree.

In fact, until they headed down the path of extreme "wokeism" (a convenient label for people dedicated to what they see as social justice, often through the mechanism of critical theory) I usually voted for New Zealand's party of the center-left, Labour. It was primarily the despotic and irrational actions of Labour's ex-leader (I love saying that), Jacinda Ardern, which drove me away from that party, so I am prepared to consider them again now that they have a more moderate leader (but I can't forget what they have done and probably won't vote that way this year).

And I have never voted for our conservative party, National. Actually, that might not be 100% true because I might have done that the very first time I voted 40 years ago, and before I knew anything about politics, but practically speaking I have avoided them. At the last election I voted for our libertarian party, Act, but I have voted for TOP, Labour, and maybe even the Greens in the past (yeah, I'm sorry, I won't do it again!).

In New Zealand, we have a proportional representation system where - with one exception, the last election, which Labour won convincingly - one of the two large parties have to team up with one or more smaller parties to gain the majority needed to govern.

This process has both good and bad points, and the election before last was controversial in that it gave power to Labour (center-left), even though National (center-right) got more votes, because New Zealand First (populist) teamed up with Labour, contrary to convention. That was how ex-PM Ardern got started, and it caused a lot of trouble for that party which didn't get enough votes to win any seats at the next election.

But, in general, I think MMP is a good thing, because in almost every case it restricts the power of the big party in power. There is no doubt that NZ First moderated some of Labour's more crazy tendencies, and that we see those displayed now that Labour is ruling alone. And the popularity of those policies has become obvious with the massive loss of support for Labour, leading to the PM recently resigning.

Our proportional system, MMP, also gives alternative parties a chance to gain some influence. So someone with libertarian tendencies, like me, can vote for the smaller Act party which will team up with National and most likely win the next election. If we had our old system, First Past the Post (FPP) National would govern alone, and, as I said above, that generally doesn't end well for anyone.

When I said "libertarian tendencies" above, I really meant it. I am far from being a pure libertarian, and support ideas from many political ideologies. Let's have a look at a few issues, traditionally favoured by the left or right, and see how I support or reject them...

Tax. I would prefer to have a low tax economy, and to fund essential services through other mechanisms, such as people paying for services they need from private companies. But I am far from a supporter of privatisation of everything. Our health system is a mess, thanks to political bungling, but when I look at alternative systems, like the one the US has, I have to wonder whether ours is somewhat less bad that theirs. The US certainly has a very high quality system, but only if you can afford it.

Central control. Leftist governments tend to like take control over whatever they can, where others prefer to delegate that to local organisation or companies. There is no doubt that, in theory, centralisation can produce efficiencies, but in practice the opposite can easily be the case, so I tend towards rejecting too much central control. If it is done well, it is great because everyone benefits, but when it is done badly, everyone suffers. At least with more local control, there is a range of approaches which avoids this.

Minority rights. I reject the idea of minorities in this context. Everyone belongs to some minority. For example, I am an older, white male, which is seen as the least minority group possible (remember that minority is often used to indicate perceived disadvantage rather than simple proportionality) but I am also a science and technology enthusiast, and I don't see a lot of representation for that group in politics. So I look at everyone as the same, meaning I think gay people should be able to marry if they want to, but I don't think indigenous people should get any extra privileges.

Government. I don't think anyone would suggest that democracy is perfect, but from a theoretical perspective, as well as from the lessons of history, it does seem to be the best system we have. Of course, there are plenty of types of democracy, and I would like to see ours be more direct and less representational, but the concept of one person voting for their favoured representative is good enough for me. So I totally reject some of the modern ideas of giving minorities special privileges in controlling the country and its assets. In New Zealand this means I reject the Maori seats, co-governance, and guaranteed indigenous representation on councils, boards, etc. If Maori make up 16% of the population they can vote 16% of their own into parliament, and that is roughly what happens. What is the need for anti-democratic exceptions in this case?

Individualism versus collectivism. You won't be surprised to hear that I land very much on the individualism side of this one. I think we should show some commitment to helping our fellow citizens, but in the end, it should be up to the individual to help themselves more. This is the classic, libertarian personal responsibility argument. I think there is no doubt that, as people are helped more and more by the government, they become less and less able to help themselves. I'm not advocating for no social welfare, etc, but I am suggesting we should try to minimise it.

Other controversial social issues. I don't think trans people are really the sex they think they are. With very few exceptions, a person's sex is determined by their genetics, and a male who has transitioned to (what they see as) a female should not compete in women's sport. I can see a case for making some concessions to help them, but we've gone too far. And then there's abortion. The libertarian view is for maximum personal freedom, but only until it starts affecting other people. Clearly abortion affects another peron in the worst possible way, so it should only be used in extreme cases.

Well that's probably enough to make it clear where my beliefs lie on the political spectrum. I really believe they are rational and moderate. The problem is that, as the right, and even more so the left, head off to the extremes, moderate people start looking like extremists in the opposite direction. But the right think I'm an extreme lefty (supporting gay marriage, some government social programs, etc) while the left think I'm far right (rejecting co-governance, central control, etc).

Well, I can't be both, can I? Most likely they're the extremists, and I've got the balance more or less right.

Comment 1 (7363) by Anonymous on 2023-01-26 at 11:51:07:

"Central control. Leftist governments tend to like take control over whatever they can" - yeah, probably a fair representation. However, rightist Governments favour Market control and that is just as bad but in different ways. As usual, a blend of approaches is the correct approach. Market control, for example, has led to shareholders deciding that it doesn't;t make sense to continue running he Marsden Point refinery. That worked out well eh?

"Individualism versus collectivism" - well you know full well that this is a nuanced issue that can't be summarised in a paragraph. Individual responsibility is only valid when all contestants are lined up on the starting line with the same opportunities to win...

By the way, drop the fully justified text everywhere - it's not great...

Comment 2 (7364) by OJB on 2023-01-26 at 12:19:10:

Whether markets are "just as bad" or not is debatable. Both models have their faults, which is why I have a nuanced view on this. The government were happy with the closure and could have made the refinery a strategic asset. That's the sort of market intervention which can be helpful.

Of course I know it is nuanced; I thought I made it pretty clear in the post that I prefer to look at these issues on a case by case basis, and try to avoid ideological bias. Naturally, I don't always succeed, but at least I'm aware of the tendency we all have.

The idea that not everyone has the same opportunities is partly true, but it is very often used as an excuse for people who just don't make the effort, have poor attitudes to helping themselves, or are part of a counter-productive culture. Unless we agree that this is reality, no progress can really be made because the handouts just make self-improvement unlikely.

Yeah, I'm not 100% on the full justification either. I'll see if I get any other feedback about it, and maybe change it in future.

Comment 3 (7365) by OJB on 2023-01-26 at 12:26:05:

I've also been reading a bit on the refinery closure, and it looks like the government had a lot do do with it, although the final vote was by shareholders, but who they are is not specified. At the very least, the government did not try to stop it, most likely they at least encouraged it, so maybe that wasn't an entirely market-driven decision? I really can't tell reading the news reports.

Comment 4 (7366) by Anonymous on 2023-01-26 at 14:24:26:

Come now, you'd be calling them communist if they "intervened" in the market wouldn't you?

Comment 5 (7367) by OJB on 2023-01-26 at 15:46:25:

The whole point of this post was to show that I don't follow any particular ideology exactly, although I admitted to having "libertarian tendencies". I prefer classic Keynesian economics, which favours intervention in markets to steer them in the desired direction. Obviously the argument then becomes how much intervention is appropriate, and in what direction, but hey, no economic theory is perfect!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.