Whyte Power: Act and the winner takes all society

David Seymour and Jamie Whyte. H/T Wikipedia.

You can’t make this up: 

Yesterday I published the speech that I gave to the ACT Party Waikato Conference on Saturday. It concerned a fundamental principle of Western civilisation. 

I said that all citizens should be equal before the law. 

I realise that in some countries, such as Afghanistan, that might be a controversial idea…  

But in New Zealand today, you might expect the principle of equality before the law to be uncontroversial. You might expect that a declaration of commitment to it would be greeted with quiet equanimity, perhaps even a yawn. 

Not so. My declaration has triggered vitriolic hostility.

And so it should. The argument is absurd. In Whyte’s world substantive inequality is not the residue of settler colonialism, but a failure – on the part of Māori, of course - to commit to equality before the law. This is where equality before the law is not a substantive standard, but a formal one. Theoretical purity is more important that actual circumstance. 

@MorganGodfery for a phd in philosophy there's almost an intellectual cowardice in his unwavering, dogmatic adherence to select principles
— book hatin goodall (@AdamGoodallYes) July 29, 2014

Redneckery’s appeal is in its simplicity. One believes that the history of racism is something that happened – not something that is happening. If the redneck accepts that then there’s no need to acknowledge – let alone examine – how conditions yesterday shape circumstances today. Instead a neat line is drawn between the past and the present. Thus Whyte is prepared to admit some injustice – the sort that fits his dogmatic view of “property rights” – yet he rejects any form of continuing injustice. Utopia is so close! If only the maoris embraced equality before the law! 

Every ideology is built on stilts. The idea that, if all you unseeing others committed to living The Ideology, then utopia will arrive. It’s a particularly nasty form of white male syndrome – the need to universalise everything. Everything. 

You’ll know I’m quite serious when I say white male syndrome. Only last week Colin Craig – a self-described conservative – was pitching to the same audience. That is, the redneck and his supposed desire for equality in liberal democracy. Whyte is appealing to the same audience. But the argument is not, in fact, an argument – it’s a strategy. White men are practising identity politics. 

Not explicitly so. They dress it in the myth of the level playing field. I wrote about this last week. People of privilege push the idea that “all people are created equal and any deviation from that principle constitutes the real injustice”. The idea goes something like this: “injustice is not the fact that you are poor, dumb and incarcerated, but that you need and receive targeted rights because of it”. Formal inequality – that is, anything that isn’t one size fits all – is the real injustice. Substantive inequality? Nope - no injustice there, apparently. 

This is white male syndrome. It’s a rearguard action designed to protect actual privilege – the one of the white kind. If disadvantage is a matter of personal responsibility – the fault of the poor sod stuck in her feckless and self-defeating ways - then no response is required from the privileged. This is what Whyte is arguing for. Not so much a winner takes all approach – the game is rigged, after all - but the pre-determined winner keeps all. In New Zealand, the game was played 174 years ago. The winners took all and Jamie Whyte – who’s on the winning team – will make damn sure they keep it all.

RWC Protest: A few thoughts

From today’s Sunday Star Times;

DISGRUNTLED Maori have warned that Rugby World Cup celebrations could be disrupted if their grievances – including those over the foreshore and seabed – aren't addressed.

I believe this is a tangible threat. Maori are beginning to grow impatient, certainly the younger generations are frustrated with the pace of change. The older generations are willing to accept, and are indeed accustomed to, sluggish progress, whereas young Maori are accustomed to a world that moves fast, a world where change is rapid.

The government would be wise to treat this threat as genuine. It would be incredibly reckless to disregard this as mumbo jumbo coming from the mouths of a few disaffected brown people. The possibility of mass protest is very real. The protest organisers will, I imagine, have little trouble mobilising thousands of protestors given the high unemployment environment, likely welfare changes and passage of the MCA bill. As Maori households continue to struggle political awareness will increase. The challenge is to channel that awareness into mass political action which admittedly is easier said than done. It is worth keeping in mind though that for Maori households, and of course many non-Maori households, it is painful knowing that you struggle but not as a consequence of your own actions. It is painful knowing you struggle due to incompetent economic management and a failure, on the government’s part, to neutralise the worst effects of their economic policy, for example the rise in GST. In my opinion poverty and deprivation, i.e. the current economic conditions, should be enough to amplify political awareness and facilitate political change.

Maori have identified an opportunity to push the government hard and they have a powerful weapon – leverage. Protest action, or the threat of, will deter more than a few overseas spectators. The government literally cannot afford to let this happen. The government looks to the RWC in the hope that it will stimulate the economy and help kick start growth. A significant decrease in spectator numbers will have a profound negative effect on the economy, after all the tournament is already forecast to make a loss. Therefore, it would be reckless for the government to disregard the threat of protest action.

The government also cannot afford to contain any protest. Given the authoritarian nature of the current government I can imagine the creation of “free speech zones”. Free speech zones are an undemocratic American creation used to contain protests. They are used to keep protestors out of the public eye, make them invisible. Of course such undemocratic behaviour would never be acceptable in New Zealand, or at least I hope it would never be acceptable, therefore the government would need to search for different means. How about kettling? This would be the worst response. There is no better way to turn a peaceful protest in to a riot. Maori respond in kind to physical confrontation. Without doubt things will turn very, very ugly. This would have the flow on effect of mobilising many more Maori. Violent clashes during such an international showpiece will do nothing for New Zealand’s reputation as a safe and stable tourist destination nor will it do anything for New Zealand’s standing in the international community.

Ultimately, for the sake of the economy and our international standing, the government cannot allow any protest during the RWC. Therefore, the protestors will have a significant amount of leverage.

However, the protestors should consider this. The international media are not going to pay any attention to an insignificant minority making some noise during an insignificant sporting tournament. The likes of the colonial Stephen Jones are not going to cover any story that is not related directly to what is happening on the rugby field. The international media present will be, by and large, sports journalist from Europe and covering political demonstrations in New Zealand will not be part of their brief or expertise.

There is also the threat of clashes between Maori and die hard rugby fans. Do Maori really want a repeat of the Springbok Tour? Is it really fair to divide the nation during what is meant to be a triumphant moment in New Zealand history? Is it not better to hold ones protest at the ballot box? Vote this scum government out?

Protest during the RWC will create anti-Maori feeling that will last a decade or more. Having said that equality and justice is more important than what others think of you. Sadly, New Zealanders fail to realise their own privilege, even if they did I am unsure they would have the courtesy to extend that privilege to the underprivileged. New Zealand is not an egalitarian country. We are a country divided, divided along class lines, divided according to ethnicity and divided along ideological lines. We are not equal, we are unequal. We are a country where the privileged are determined to preserve what they have over the rest of the country. Whether that be weakening work rights or failing to acknowledge the interests of the indigenous people. The privileged operate under the assumption that their rights are paramount and exclusive. Perhaps it will take mass political action during the RWC to effect change for the underprivileged, perhaps it will take mass political action during the RWC to win the rights that the privileged enjoy.

The government should not ignore the warnings. Maori will wreck the government’s precious tournament. All Maori ask for is equality.