KiwiCoromandel

Simply the best Chris Trotter After the extraordinary debacle of the Katherine Rich dismissal, it is time the New Zealand Right faced up to the prospect of permanent marginalisation. Many National Party members, including some MPs, privately concede the Rich affair may have cost them the next election. The British Conservative Party is already marginalised: a braying anachronism nobody takes seriously any more. If the New Zealand Right, in general, and the National Party, in particular, wish to avoid a similar fate, fundamental questions must be answered - and quickly: • What does it mean to be a right-winger in the 21st century? • What issues offer the Right some hope of regaining electoral traction? • What shibboleths must the Right abandon to secure an electoral majority? On the face of it, one might have thought the 21st century would be dominated by the Right, much as the 20th was dominated by the Left. After all, the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s gave capitalism more or less free rein across the entire planet. With its lodestar suddenly transformed into a black hole, the Old Left lost its bearings. The inchoate ravings of the "anti-capitalist" New Left were a poor substitute for the lost resources and organisational expertise of actual socialist states. And yet, in spite of these considerable advantages, right-wing hegemony has not been achieved. In most of the developed world, an attenuated social democracy still holds sway. Those parties of the Right foolhardy enough to threaten its existence soon find themselves on the electoral margins. The obvious and important exception to this rule is the United States. There, the Left has been driven to the political margins and is in danger of becoming electorally irrelevant. This is primarily because the US has never spawned a genuine "labour party." The Democrats who assumed that role during the Great Depression could not sustain it without compromising the party's electoral base in the racially divided south. The other factor favouring the American Right is the US' extraordinary religiosity. The social upheavals of the 1960s and '70s may have changed the tenor of American popular culture but they failed to shake the nation's deeper cultural foundations. America's fundamental moral sensibilities continue to reflect that militant and evangelical strain of radical Protestantism which has shaped its history since the early years of the 19th century. Such is America's influence in the wider world, however, that many right-wingers operating outside the US are convinced the only way to win elections is to emulate the strategies and tactics of George W Bush's triumphant Republicans. Ignoring all those factors making the American experience exceptional, such people noisily argue for capital punishment, the abolition of gun control, imposing restrictions on abortion rights and outlawing homosexuality. This "God, Guns and Gays" formula for right-wing success is rapidly becoming the staple fare of talkback radio hosts and simple-minded leader-writers across the country. Few on the Right seem to appreciate how alienating it is to moderate New Zealand opinion, nor how much it contributes to the notion that the right-wing political universe is populated exclusively by "nutters." Twenty years ago, the left-wing extremist who slavishly toed the Moscow party line would be told to "Go back to Russia!" Today, the New Zealand Right's shameless borrowing from Republican Party strategists is in danger of prompting the question: "Why don't you just bugger off to America?" So, if applying to become the 51st state of the Union is ruled out as a viable political option, what should Kiwi conservatives be striving to conserve? First, let's clarify the distinction between Right and Left. The right-winger believes in government by aristos - the best; the left-winger believes in government by demos - the people. In practical terms, the two positions are not so far apart as they might appear. The intelligent left-winger is not hostile to "the best;" he simply believes that if access to political power is not arbitrarily restricted to a favoured few, there is a better chance of finding out who the best are. Nor is the right-winger necessarily hostile to the people. He realises the best will always constitute a tiny minority and if they are to rule non-violently, it will be only by convincing a majority of the people they are the best qualified to do so. Historically, aristocracies (rule by the best) are associated with the hereditary control of political institutions, economic wealth and the apparatus of organised violence. That such a patently unfair political system endured for close to a millennium was largely due to the developmental advantages of aristocracy - diet and education, especially - creating offspring who probably were the best human specimens their societies could produce. In the immortal words of Monty Python: "You can tell he's a king - he's not covered in shit." It was only when the rising middle classes won access to similar advantages that the hereditary principle of aristocratic governance became untenable. Officially, merit was the governing principle of these new bourgeois societies. With the accident of birth no longer conferring automatic political privileges, men had to earn the right to lead their fellow citizens by demonstrating superior talent and/or character. Michael Shaara, author of The Killer Angels, makes this case with considerable eloquence in the conversation he puts into the mouths of a Yankee colonel and his Irish sergeant on the eve of the battle of Gettysburg: "No two things on earth are equal or have an equal chance, not a leaf nor a tree. There's many a man worse than me, and some better, but I don't think race or country matters a damn. What matters is justice. 'Tis why I'm here. I'll be treated as I deserve, not as my father deserved. I'm Kilrain, and I God damn all gentlemen. I don't know who me father was and I don't give a damn. There's only one aristocracy, and that's right here" - he tapped his white skull with a thick finger - "and you, Colonel laddie, are a member of it and don't even know it." New Zealanders will respond to this argument with considerable enthusiasm. People call us egalitarians but we are not. Like Kilrain, our ancestors were determined to break free from a country judging people, not by the quality of their minds or the content of their characters, but by who their parents were. New Zealanders have no time for hereditary aristocrats. They have huge admiration for men and women who make something worthwhile of their natural talent. The rugged individual, the "man alone" trusting in his own judgment, relying on his own skill, suspicious of collectivism and hostile to bureaucracy: of such stuff are our heroes and heroines made. But it is not all they are made of. They also reflect the tradition of the "good mate" and the "decent bloke" - traditions of unforced compassion, self-sacrifice and an eccentric and rather prickly sense of honour. If those on the New Zealand Right cannot fashion a winning political formula out of this raw material, they do not deserve to govern. And they don't. National, ACT, NZ First and United Future have failed to amass anything even remotely resembling the "natural aristocracy" required to woo the demos from its collectivist folly. On the contrary, all pander shamelessly to the people's basest instincts. The Kiwi "battler" down on his luck and in need of a helping hand will search the Right's manifestos for evidence of a good mate's compassion and a decent bloke's sense of honour and self-sacrifice, but he will not find it. All he will encounter is a sad collection of finger-wagging wowsers, snivelling and whining that there are too few of their fellow citizens behind bars and too many on welfare. The voter looking for Man Alone's self-reliance and independent judgment will also search in vain. Those on the New Zealand Right not happily ensconced in the pockets of the rich have already sold their souls to the Americans. It was not always so. Sir Keith Holyoake, even at the summit of his political success, never forgot how the depression-ravaged workers and tobacco-farmers of Motueka spat upon the Right's candidates in the bleak election of 1932. The "natural aristocrats" he gathered around him in the National government of 1960-72 - men like Ralph Hanan, Brian Talboys and Tom Shand - understood that if "rule by the best" is to be accepted by the people, then the Right's politicians must really be the best. True aristos lead, they do not follow, and nobility's greatest obligation has always been to serve the people even as they rule them. Chris Trotter is editor of NZ Political Review

good on him..it really means sweet F.A as the british tabloid media will say what it wants anyway...they`ll just find another way to say it...... fav cat stevens album..." tea for the tillerman " :bigsmile: B00004T9VY.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_

yep sg...it`s a fucking ripper..thats the north end...i lived there from about `83 til about 1989 and then moved inland about 10 ks.........i spent a lot of my younger years there mostly while on holiday from boarding school...my grandfather (my dad`s father) built one of the first houses there in the late 1950`s........very cool memories...... :bigsmile:

no i haven`t, red me old mate..but i feel as if i have and i`m quickly getting the hang of the local customs.....

one for you red..... The Difference Between Liberals, Conservatives and Texans Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do? Liberal Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what kind of message does this send to society and my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion. Conservative Answer: BANG! Texan's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click... (sounds of reloading). Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?" Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..." BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click. Daughter: "Nice group, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"

indeed....

nice...self contained...light...

some habits are very hard to break.... :(

he certainly has whatever is apparently required to make a major asshole...but i can`t help thinking that a lot of it is pretend/put on..to make the show more interesting...god knows it needs it..... :rolleyes:

it is fairly cool... :bigsmile:

:bigsmile:

waihi beach, close to where i live.....:bigsmile:

very cool...ah, those were the days.....rick wakeman, keith emerson..broken musical instruments.......

ahem!!!!! :rolleyes:

she`s very brave in the face of such adverse circumstances........ :(

nice........very fast...... :) :good job:

she raises some very good points...my 79 year old mum has had a hip operation and suffers badly from arthritis......i have tried to convince her that marijuana would indeed be a far more effective pain reliever than a lot of the stuff (like panadeine) available from the doctor or chemist...she agrees..the only thing stopping her is that, at the moment, it is illegal..... :)

yep..i`ve heard that version.......... :)

sarah brightman from the original London cast of " phantom of the opera " mate.... :)

depends what you want to call " living ".....no doubt some form of life extension process is possible and like a lot of elitists/scientists, the gentleman in question is actually afraid of death, as are most normal humans.......and would like to extend his life process by any means possible...listen to this shit....... " Improvements to our genetic coding will be downloaded via the Internet. We won't even need a heart. " ...downloading body parts via the internet and not actually having a beating heart is not what i would call " living "..even if technically you could call such an obscene scenario life......no doubt the rich and the powerful (who know as we all know that you can`t take it with you) will drive the market for this sort of thing...but as ken says..." i don`t want to live forever "....who in his right mind would?? Who wants to live forever..... There's no time for us, There's no place for us, What is this thing that builds our dreams, Yet slips away from us. Who wants to live forever, Who wants to live forever, .....? There's no chance for us, It's all decided for us, This world has only one sweet moment Set aside for us. Who wants to live forever, Who wants to live forever, .....? Now touch my tears with your lips, Touch my world with your fingertips, And we can have forever, And we can love forever, Forever is our today. Who wants to live forever, Who wants to live forever, .....? Who waits forever anyway?

work hard.....play hard .....but don`t worry mate....it definitely gets more painful as you get older..... :bigsmile:

checked it out...nice site...some very relaxed sounds..i enjoy hearing new music no matter what the style....... :)

wow!! very nice...i`m going to get one...... :yup:

brilliant stuff.....i`d love one.... :)

i`ve beeen using limewire 4.2.6 pro.....a very nice, fast client...i`ll try this....i wish that java wasn`t part of the equation though........