I am not going to cock-crow this as a "win". I am disappointed that the "last post" for the debate was the article from Sunday Star Times on morality in this country.
The point that needed to be made, and which was alluded to in the SST article, was the connect between morality and politics. It is the point which Eric and the others said leads to a circular argument. It is a connect that both they and I overlooked. The reason (20/20 hindsight here folks) why I didn't realise this earlier was the insistent argument being put up that the dynamics of a group do not represent the individuals that make it up.
I was thinking through the implications of the statistics from the "morality survey" that SST published and particularly rethinking my post that the elections were already decided with a National Party win.
Well, the connect is there, for all to see.
The main reason why there will be a change in government has little to do with taxes, with morals and morality as such. It is a perception. From the SST article -
A spokeswoman for Prime Minister Helen Clark dismissed the response as "out of sync" with other polls and with as much validity as talkback radio.
OK Helen, you are entitled to your view too. But THAT little statement I think is going to come back and bite you in the bum.
On the other side of the divide, and Robert and Eric will be pleased that the right wing has much the same view here as it does in the US, we have Bill English.
Now Bill is an interesting cove, one of the virginal "former leader of the National Party" cast out into the comparative wildernesses of the second row before he could take the Party into a General Election.
Here is Bill's take on the survey -
"People don't think the government should be used to push a moral point of view on them. The media make the mistake of thinking a conservative view is an intolerant view. I'm regarded as conservative and I don't care what people do, but don't make me like it."
I will say it again, there is the connect for all to see...
Eric and Robert and the rest will again blame me for a "circular argument". It is not, it is very linear...
* A good sized majority of NZers think that there is a place for morality in the governance of our country. There is probably a good level of disagreement on what morality.
* "Two-thirds of our sample said morality issues would affect the way they voted on September 17 and more than half rated the Labour government's performance on moral leadership poor, very poor, or terrible. "
* "Nearly 60% of respondents believe the government has lost sight of family values."
So following from that expectation -
- * Government is a process.
* There is a general expectation that the process of Government will produce results acceptable to the majority. This is the first point confused by Eric, Robert and the others. They let the people get in the way of realising that this is the case.
* There are governments (note the small 'g') which produce law and consequences that are totally immoral. This is why the examples of Hitler's Germany and similar administrations become valid.
* It is not that Government has failed. The process is likely unchanged.
* IT IS THE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE PROCESS THAT MAKE FOR MORAL OR IMMORAL GOVERNMENT.
So, to Eric, Robert the rest of the gang, that is where I believe our disagreement is born.
The electorate can have an expectation of moral government. They elect a group who they see as having similar moral values.
If those elected then implement policy and law which was not revealed, or which was misrepresented during the election campaign, then the government is immoral (because it has be born from a lie, it continues in a lie, and being immoral once can be immoral again any number of times and in any number of ways).
That is why I believe Labour will not get a third term in the coming elections. They are moving away from, or have lost contact with, their electorate. They are perceived as having promoted "immoral legislation" with the Civil Unions Act (despite that Act having been a matter of conscience and not promoted as Government legislation) and to have acted against the wishes of the electorate with their unilateral decision on the seabed and foreshore debate. They are seen as no longer following the path, the values, the morals that they set down at the last elections.
That is why I believe that National will win the coming election.
And looking forward from there, the seeds of National's demise are already sown. I agree with Bill English (and so will Eric and Robert) that "the government should [not] be used to push a moral point of view...". But, Bill, that does not excuse the Government from acting morally.
As I said earlier, the missing link that all overlooked in the debate at "Eric Grumbles" and "Robertopia" was that human element. Once a government is elected, the group paradigm that I have been arguing takes over and the output of government then reflects the people within it.
So, Eric and Robert, I agree to this extent -
BECAUSE MOST POLITICIANS ARE LYING AND DECEITFUL OPPORTUNISTS (AND TO THAT EXTENT AT LEAST ARE IMMORAL PEOPLE) AND BECAUSE GROUP DYNAMICS WILL REFLECT THE IMMORALITY OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE GROUP, THE OUTCOME OF GOVERNMENT IS ALSO IMMORAL.
You can add "thieving" in there if you wish. I won't disagree. It will not stop me from being a "collectivist" or whatever other label you wish to apply.
(Note - one of the problems of working is that between thought and keyboard tends to get disconnected at times. At the time I editted this, there were no comments. I don't anticipate the changes will alter anyone's perception of the argument other than the fact that I have removed and changed one or two bits that were contradictory.)
No comments:
Post a Comment