Lets play bash the populist

Following New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown's comments about the latest figures on Asian immigration, the Press has come out with the usual self-righteous cliches that the mainstream media likes to use to confirm its adherence to fashionable middle-class views.

What's particularly depressing about this is that the Press isn't a dogmatically liberal paper by New Zealand standards. Like CNN with Lou Dobbs, the Press at least manages to allow for some unfashionable views by publishing populist and traditionalist letters to the editor on a fairly regular basis. By contrast, I can tell you from personal experience that the type of material I publish in this blog wouldn't stand much of chance of getting into the Sunday Star Times or Dominion (the later being NZ's equivalent of the LA Times).

The Press's official editorial piece on the topic, entitled "Contribution, not colour, is the best judge of a migrant" (Saturday, April 5 not online) starts reasonably, but soon gets sanctimonious:

"Playing the race card has become something of an election year ritual for New Zealand First. So much so that the only uncertainties this year were when the card would be produced and which NZ first MP would deal it. These questions were answered this weak when the party's deputy leader, Peter Brown, cited a Statistics New Zealand forecast that Asians would outnumber Maori by 2006 because of short-sighted immigration policies. This was anathema to Brown, who argued that Asian migrants would not integrate into New Zealand society and that this would create division, friction and resentment. Not only are Brown's views plain wrong, but the majority of voters will not be duped by this cynical tactic on polling day."

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't periodic immigration restrictionism had a pretty good track record of hastening rather than blocking integration ( as far as is practical when immigrants are from totally alien cultures). One reason why the grime predictions in Enoch Powell's famous "rivers of blood speech" didn't happen was because the UK government wisely decided to reduce immigration from Britain's former non-white colonies during the late 60s and early 1970s.

In New Zealand, the relatively high unemployment rate among East Asian immigrants is finally starting to sort itself out precisely because Labour's tougher English language requirements have lowered East Asian immigration in the last few years, thereby reducing tensions with established immigrants and giving employers time to absorb the labour influx.

You also have to wonder why the Press feels the need to take such a strident line against Brown if it believes his populist stance is unlikely to have much influence on voters anyway.

The Press also suggests Brown has no right to a view on Asian immigration because he is an immigrant, and that it is "richly ironic" that he should be questioning Asian immigration. I'm sorry but, I don't get the irony. Immigrants are entitled to have an opinion on immigration just like everyone else. Many people have come to New Zealand precisely because it's a lightly populated country which has traditionally been cautious about immigration. What's "richly ironic" is that the Press seems to advocating colour blindness on the one hand (people from all cultures should be able should be able to come) , and snobbish nativism on the other (only native whites and indigenous Maori's should get to debate immigration policy).

Then of course there's the further irony that it's a British immigrant who is being attacked for questioning non-western immigration, in what is arguably the most British country outside Britain.

While the writer of the article does make a point that NZ first has tended to exaggerate Asian crime levels, and should be precise when talking about immigrant groups, they drop another howler in talking about immigration and education by citing an Afghan refugee as a "prime recent example" of a high achieving Asian student. Now I've got nothing against giving credit where credit's due, East Asian students in western countries do have an excellent academic record, but Afghans? I'm sorry but this isn't a "prime example," of academic success, it's a very atypical one. According to the field of psychometrics, East Asians have an average IQ of 105, Afghans a likely average IQ of about 83.

If the Press can't recognise that Afghan and East Asian levels of academic achievement are wildly different, then you have to question whether the paper should be assessing the relative contributions of perspective migrant groups.

A tale of two rights

Say what you like about libertarians, but don't question their optimism.

At this year's annual conference, Act list MP Heather Roy has told delegates that they must achieve 8 percent in this year's national elections. Meanwhile the party is also considering bringing right liberal icon Roger Douglas back from the political sidelines.

Given the current state of the party in opinion polls, and the shift to the centre by the National Party under John Key, this seems a pretty tall order to say the least. Even in its 1990s hayday, Act only managed to gain about 6 percent support and it would no longer have any presence in parliament were it not for Rodney's Hide's Epsom seat.

The lack of realism among party faithful is highlighted by the fact that many of them would like to get rid of the populist Hide, even though he is the only member of the Party who has any significant level of public support.

Despite being consistently unpopular with mainstream voters, the party continues to attract a loyal following among the intelligentsia and the business sector. For a party which got under 2 percent of the popular vote in the last election, Act has no shortage of supporters in the NZ blogosphere and on campuses throughout the country.

Like the Libertarian Party in the US, Act has a strong following among educated males in their 20s and 30s, who are suckers for the rugged individualist rhetoric of libertarian ideology. Furthermore, the party seems to have plenty of campaign funding and a relatively strong media presence, with supporters like Business Rountable commentator Roger Kerr. If it can't get more than 2 percent support with all these factors in its favour, then you have to be pessimistic about its chances of getting 8 percent support this time round.

If Act is the try hard of New Zealand politics, then populist/conservative New Zealand First must be the promising underachiever who never fulfills its potential. Compared with it right liberal counterpart, New Zealand First has almost no support on the Internet, is usually ignored by the media (unless Winston Peters is making a controversial statement about crime or immigration) and appears to receives far less in the way of donations.

On college campasses there are few NZ First supporters, and the party doesn't even field candidates in many parts of the country.

However, despite these limitations, it consistently does better than Act in national elections, and on a good day is capable of winning 10 percent of the vote.

Thus the problems of the new right, are the opposite of those of the old right. The new right has a strong infrastructure and ideological base, but lacks popular support, while the old right has plenty of potential voters, but has almost zero support among the chattering classes and lacks a strong party infrastructure.