Entry 2153, on 2021-09-21 at 21:36:59 (Rating 2, Politics)
I recently listened to a podcast featuring the leader of the opposition here in New Zealand, David Seymour. OK, that was a smart comment, because the official leader of the opposition is National Party leader, Judith Collins. But Seymour has been so much more effective recently, that he might as well be given that title.
Look back through this blog and you will see I was initially very skeptical of libertarian politics, especially the economics aspects of that political system. I still don't think a pure libertarian approach to economics is workable, but I do support that philosophy a lot more than in the past, and I almost completely support it from a social perspective.
Listening to the interview was like a revelation to me. Seymour suffers to some extent from an ideological belief in free markets and other aspects of the libertarian agenda, but he is practical about this, and in every case he seemed honest and thoughtful. It is as if his name fits his thoughts: he can "see more" of what is really happening and what needs to be done.
Compare this with the simplistic platitudes uttered by most other politicians, especially our dishonest, embarrassing prime minister, and it is like a breath of fresh air. What other politician discusses political decisions in terms of epistemology? How many other politicians, and for that matter how many voters, even know what it is?
So it seems to me that Seymour is a politician for grown ups, where the prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, is more for stupid people and children who want a mother figure and can't be bothered thinking for themselves, and that probably explains why she is so popular with younger voters.
I know this is a harsh appraisal, but I see it all the time with the PM's supporters. I hear "oh, she's so nice" and "she's doing what's best for us", as if her supporters were pathetic children who just want to be told what to think and do.
I understand why that is a very tempting attitude to take. How many people really want to go to the trouble of analysing political policies? How many want to look past the friendly exterior of politicians to see what they are really like underneath? How many want to look at actions in objective terms rather than concentrating on personalities? Apparently, not many.
To be fair, there are rational reasons to support the left as well. Many people make a case for big government and control from the top, and that's not totally wrong. It really depends on your priorities. I put a high value on freedom and self-reliance, but many others don't. So the main point I'm making here is that those rational arguments are used by a tiny fraction of the supporters of the PM. The vast majority have no idea why they support her, beyond the opinion that she's "nice".
Of course, she isn't nice. She's sneaky, dishonest, and ignorant. But apparently she is sneaky enough to convince many people that she is the right person for the job. Fair enough, in a democracy I have to accept that, but I don't have to like it!
I had a look at Seymour's background, and I found something I approve of. He has two degrees from the University of Auckland (an institution which is number one or two in New Zealand, depending on how you measure it): a Bachelor of Engineering in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, and a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy.
It is hard to imagine a better combination for a well-rounded, thinking person, in fact you could make a case to say it is even better than my my double-degree in psychology and computer science! You know, I really regret not studying philosophy at university.
The reason I like this combination is that philosophy presents the big picture, encompassing the most basic understanding of existence, including where knowledge comes from (there's that link to epistemology), and engineering concentrates on the details, and on practicality, precision, and accuracy.
Let's compare that with the prime minister. She has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Waikato (not New Zealand's finest institution), specialising in Communications. You may not even know what that is, but according to the description of the subject, it includes "...learn[ing] to meet strategic goals of corporates and drivers of social change". In other words, it's all about propaganda!
I often call these "communications" experts professional liars. Note, that I have used this phrase for years, and it pre-dates Ardern being our PM. But her skill in communicating, and her gross incompetence in achieving anything positive might be based on this underlying disposition.
This blog post is primarily a comparison of two very different politicians, and I often say I prefer to avoid ad hominems by concentrating on criticising actions rather than people. But people's underlying philosophy is usually a good indicator of how they might act, so I ask for forgiveness in this instance!
I will briefly mention the policy areas where (in my opinion) Ardern gets it wrong and Seymour gets it right: racial divisiveness and identity politics, hate speech laws and repression of alternative opinions, punitive laws to redistribute wealth and power, and concentration of control in central government instead of local government or business. I think Seymour is on the right side of all of these issues, but each deserves a post of its own, so I won't go into details here.
I think Seymour represents more of what we need in politics: intelligence, practicality, and honesty - at least in most cases; he is still a politician after all! The PM on the other hand, gets all of that wrong. Maybe Ardern should speak less and think more... and see more too!
Comment 1 (6856) by Anonymous on 2021-09-22 at 13:17:41:
Sigh. Grow up, there are voters on both sides of the spectrum that vote for personalities, not issues. So what?
Comment 2 (6857) by OJB on 2021-09-22 at 22:28:12:
Of course there are voters on both sides who vote that way. John Key was successful because of his BS personality, just like Jacinda. I just think it is unfortunate that voters are so influenced by personality rather than anything more substantial.
Comment 3 (6858) by Anonymous on 2021-09-23 at 13:21:23:
So shouldn't those voters be the target of your vitriol? So was David Seymore appearing on Dancing with the stars personality politics?
Comment 4 (6859) by OJB on 2021-09-23 at 15:20:22:
Yes, I am equally critical of all people who vote for bad reasons, no matter who they vote for. And I was wondering if you would mention the unfortunate "Dancing with the Stars" incident :) I'm thinking that would be more likely to put people off voting for him rather than encouraging them to!
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
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.
BLOG PAGE