Posts
In our recent widely-publicized, poorly-read April Fools acid attack on each other I accused Paul of being boring, and he accused me of being wildly inconsistent (as well as boring). It's a charge that sticks, as Paul pointed out, I've got no problem with hating on the 'consenting' prositute while supporting the 'consenting' incestual relationship. In some of my posts, I sound like a liberal, tree-hugging Pollyanna-esque socialist, while in others I come across as the lovechild of Sarah Palin and Augusto Pinochet. To me, this doesn't seem like a problem - the political left and political right are both full of flaws. Any good society needs both left-wing and right-wing views, the right to give it a budget, and the left to give it a conscience. While this may be a pathetic attempt to justify my own inconsistency , a combination of left and right wing views isn't a fail, its evidence of someone who has thought each issue through clearly, and come to an issue-by-issue decision of which 'side' has the better argument. Just whatever you do, don't call me a 'centrist'.
There are only two valid uses for the term 'political centrist'. It's used to describe people who are apathetic about politics generally, and also used to describe people who believe that politics shouldn't be about 'arguments' and 'idealogy', but by 'common sense' and the views of 'the ordinary bloke'. Unfortunately, these two groups make up the vast majority of the population in any modern Western liberal democracy. And while AWordOnFailure is not a blog that endorses dictatorships (yet), none of these people deserve the right to vote.
First, the 'apathetic' centrist or more appropriately, the 'apePathetic centrist'. These people are given the term 'centrist' by political analysts and the media by the sole virtue that they stubbornly refuse to have an opinion on anything political. EVER. Their usual response to the question 'Who will you vote for?' will be either 'it doeznt mattr 2 me hu wins, ay' or 'fkuc, politicz is 4 fagz' or 'i dunno, dnt hav time 2 fink abt it, lulz'. I spent a very depressing year working for a political survey company, and this would be the majority of responses I would hear. It baffles me how people can view politics - the process that apportions how much of your money you keep, the limits that are placed on your freedom to do what you want, and what kind of things are so essential you should get them for free - as something that has no relevance to their daily lives. Everyone should have a view on whether tax is good or not, shouldn't they? Or whether the government or YOU should pay for your tertiary education?
It makes me sad that these people have the same number of votes as I do, because if they are kind enough to drag themselves away from their middling,pointless lives once every three years to go vote - their votes are normally based on decisions as nuanced as 'im not voting 4 Helen Clark, shez a lesbo' or 'hahaha, Rodney Hide was on Dancing with the Stars, what a crakup eh?'.
These people undermine the very principles of a thinking democratic society, and yet (probably because there are so many of them) the media doesn't admonish the fact these people are muppets, and seek to educate them on policy - it caters to them in it's political coverage, declaring that these people represent the 'centre', and turning politics into something they can enjoy, like a fun race over which party is winning in the polls today.
But, as appalling as these people are, there is a worse kind of so-called centrist - the populist centrist. New Zealand has been cursed throughout history with many of these people oozing their way into top political jobs. Think of Prime Minister Piggy Muldoon, or everyone in the NZ First, (Asians Never) Party. In claiming they represent the centre, these people have a simple mantra, 'Politics is being ruined by high-falutin' Politically-Correct academics, and should focus on policies that are 'common sense', and supported by the 'ordinary bloke', not the 'elite''.
Politics isn't about common sense, its a contest between two competing sets of values. When you vote, it's often said you are voting for what is 'best' for the future of your country. You're not. You're voting for what you think the defintion of 'best' is. For politicians to claim that they are not acting in the interests of some wanky intelligentsia, but on the salt-of-the-earth, readily agreeable common-sense policies of 'the mainstream', is disingenous at best and dangerous for a healthy democracy at worst. One man's 'common sense', (say, I think it's 'common sense' that everyone should be provided with basic socio-economic rights) is another man's epicfail. What's more is that this depiction of 'common sense' is innately conservative, attempting to change some unsavoury aspect of society, such as the inability of gays to have access to the rights afforded by marriage is often seen as the opposite of common sense - 'political correctness gone mad! LULZ'.
There's a difference between being 'centrist' and being moderate. Being moderate means you normally agree with the principle and values embodied by one side of the political spectrum, but you are also convinced by some of the arguments/values held by the other side. Being centrist either means you have no idea how politics works, or you are convinced that their is no other side - opposition to your common sense views is the work of a bunch of out-of-touch academics, who are probably gay. The fact that it's an acceptable political position is disgraceful.
Alex
There are only two valid uses for the term 'political centrist'. It's used to describe people who are apathetic about politics generally, and also used to describe people who believe that politics shouldn't be about 'arguments' and 'idealogy', but by 'common sense' and the views of 'the ordinary bloke'. Unfortunately, these two groups make up the vast majority of the population in any modern Western liberal democracy. And while AWordOnFailure is not a blog that endorses dictatorships (yet), none of these people deserve the right to vote.
First, the 'apathetic' centrist or more appropriately, the 'apePathetic centrist'. These people are given the term 'centrist' by political analysts and the media by the sole virtue that they stubbornly refuse to have an opinion on anything political. EVER. Their usual response to the question 'Who will you vote for?' will be either 'it doeznt mattr 2 me hu wins, ay' or 'fkuc, politicz is 4 fagz' or 'i dunno, dnt hav time 2 fink abt it, lulz'. I spent a very depressing year working for a political survey company, and this would be the majority of responses I would hear. It baffles me how people can view politics - the process that apportions how much of your money you keep, the limits that are placed on your freedom to do what you want, and what kind of things are so essential you should get them for free - as something that has no relevance to their daily lives. Everyone should have a view on whether tax is good or not, shouldn't they? Or whether the government or YOU should pay for your tertiary education?
It makes me sad that these people have the same number of votes as I do, because if they are kind enough to drag themselves away from their middling,pointless lives once every three years to go vote - their votes are normally based on decisions as nuanced as 'im not voting 4 Helen Clark, shez a lesbo' or 'hahaha, Rodney Hide was on Dancing with the Stars, what a crakup eh?'.
These people undermine the very principles of a thinking democratic society, and yet (probably because there are so many of them) the media doesn't admonish the fact these people are muppets, and seek to educate them on policy - it caters to them in it's political coverage, declaring that these people represent the 'centre', and turning politics into something they can enjoy, like a fun race over which party is winning in the polls today.
But, as appalling as these people are, there is a worse kind of so-called centrist - the populist centrist. New Zealand has been cursed throughout history with many of these people oozing their way into top political jobs. Think of Prime Minister Piggy Muldoon, or everyone in the NZ First, (Asians Never) Party. In claiming they represent the centre, these people have a simple mantra, 'Politics is being ruined by high-falutin' Politically-Correct academics, and should focus on policies that are 'common sense', and supported by the 'ordinary bloke', not the 'elite''.
Politics isn't about common sense, its a contest between two competing sets of values. When you vote, it's often said you are voting for what is 'best' for the future of your country. You're not. You're voting for what you think the defintion of 'best' is. For politicians to claim that they are not acting in the interests of some wanky intelligentsia, but on the salt-of-the-earth, readily agreeable common-sense policies of 'the mainstream', is disingenous at best and dangerous for a healthy democracy at worst. One man's 'common sense', (say, I think it's 'common sense' that everyone should be provided with basic socio-economic rights) is another man's epicfail. What's more is that this depiction of 'common sense' is innately conservative, attempting to change some unsavoury aspect of society, such as the inability of gays to have access to the rights afforded by marriage is often seen as the opposite of common sense - 'political correctness gone mad! LULZ'.
There's a difference between being 'centrist' and being moderate. Being moderate means you normally agree with the principle and values embodied by one side of the political spectrum, but you are also convinced by some of the arguments/values held by the other side. Being centrist either means you have no idea how politics works, or you are convinced that their is no other side - opposition to your common sense views is the work of a bunch of out-of-touch academics, who are probably gay. The fact that it's an acceptable political position is disgraceful.
Alex
No comments:
Post a Comment