In the 18th Century the petit-bourgeois were held in relatively high standing by classical liberals like Voltaire, but for today's intelligentsia the self-employed lower-middle class have about as much status as the untouchables in the Indian caste system.
Take for example, this quote about Hitler in a recent observer column by Robert McCrum. In writing on the recent films spate of historical films about the Nazis he states:
Finally and most chillingly, there's what Hannah Arendt called the 'banality of evil', the petit bourgeois provincialism of the Fuhrer, whose astounding ordinariness, junxtaposed with the Nazi inferno, continues to mesmerise genereations of biographers and historians."
Given that the 20th Century witnessed history's greatest mass murder of petit-bourgeois under Joseph Stalin, with his persecution of the Kulaks, one might think educated liberal snobs might ease up on comparing them to Hitler.
To be fair, McCrum does mention Stalin's crimes, quoting biographer lan Kershaw, but conveniently avoids any awkward details of Marxist intellectuals knocking off Ukrainian small farmers.
"Stalin was a fair greater mass murderer, but Hitler's programme was planned and executed in a hideous parody of organised government.
Mind you, liberal petit-bourgeois bashing even extends to knocking former left-liberal icons like Ralph Nader, a son of a shopkeeper, demonised by Democrats supporters for daring to run against the party in 2000 and 2004.
Putting the liberal obsession with knocking the petit-bourgeois to one side though, I don't see what's so "astoundingly ordinary" about Hitler. If anything the guy was extraordinary un-ordinary in his particular combination of personal traits.
For a start, there's the combination of Iron Cross-winning tough guy and bohemian arts student, which doesn't exactly make him easy to stereotype. Then there's the junxtaposition of his banal, derivative painting with the advant-garde futurism of his Nazi party designs like the Swastika, adopted from an Eastern design, and his mastery of the latest propaganda techniques - staid traditionalist on one hand, trendy visionary on the other.
Further highlighting Hitler's individuality was his hatred of democracy and consensus on one hand and his dislike of aristocratic elites on the other. And on top of this there's his hatred of smoking, eccentric appearance, vegetarianism and post modern love of animals - traits more associated with a liberal university lecturer than a merciless Fascist henchmen.
Perhaps the greatest mystery is how a hypochondriac pill-popper was able to hold him nerves together during over 40 assassination attempts (as well as flash rockets, perhaps those Germans were making some super drugs to).
Hence Hitler's warped uniqueness may well have been a factor in why he was able to go so far. The German people were expecting a Franco or Mussolini when they voted him in, but instead got some sort of demented combination of Jim Jones, Pol Pot and Staachi and Staachi.
The banality of evil might be good phrase to describe conventional henchmen like Stalin and Sadam, but I don't see how it applies to a true totalitarian eccentric like Hitler.
Showing posts with label conservative populism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservative populism. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Possible directions for New Zealand First
With New Zealand First now contemplating whether it can go on without Winston Peters, it's a good time to reconsider whether its political fortunes can be rectified.
The most glaring problem is the party's brand of populist Keynesian conservatism doesn't seem to have much appeal to younger voters or political activists, as highlighted by the near total absence of any pro-New Zealand First bloggers on the Internet.
Among the policy options and strategies that could be be considered include:
1. re-marketing the party as a European-styled, pro-federalist party
2. establishing a strong position on the Islam question
3. abandoning high-growth Keynesian economic policies and focusing on more moderate and sustainable growth with a greater environmental focus
4. highlighting the connection between low immigration and preservation of the environment.
5. taking a bold scientific-conservative approach in education
6. supporting a pro-Australia policy in areas like defence and economic cooperation
Linking federalism with conservative populism is proving a successful strategy in Continental country's like Italy, and in New Zealand's highly centralised political system, there is plenty of opportunity to take up federalist causes. A good example of such a cause, being the desire of many South Island West Coasters to be able to decide resource management issues for themselves.
Changing the party name to something like the National Democrats would also help in giving a fresher, more contemporary image, and contrast its populist stance with the increasingly undemocratic approach of Labour and National.
The Islam question may not be of major direct significance for New Zealand, but that's not to say New Zealanders don't hold strong views about it. New Zealand First should be taking the lead when it comes to articulating a coherent, conservative political position on assimilation of Muslim immigrants and dealing with the Islamic world.
Given that many of NZ First's policies have a decidely Australian feel, particularly in relation to economic matters, it makes sense for the party to cultivate closer trans-Tasman relations, an excellent starting point would to promote a new defence agreement with Australia in which New Zealand agrees to pull its weight in regards to air defence.
In the last election New Zealand First had a great opportunity to take Labour, National and the Greens to task over their support for the environment and immigration growth but not once did Peters make the point that population growth and conservation and incompatible.
Perhaps the main reason for this is that New Zealand First's attachment to unrealistically high economic growth rates means they've decided to keep quiet over environmental issues, and are thus missing out on taking a distinctive position on an issue of major importance to voters.
New Zealand First could seize the initiative in education policy by lowering university tertiary tuition fees and raising entrance requirements for university courses, while introducing IQ tesing in primary schools. This would allow us to offer a truly meritocratic education system and give us a competitive edge over English-speaking countries still bogged down by "no child left behind" egalitarianism.
Such a policy might even persuade a few Act voters to back the party.
Finally, another option is to abandon party politics all together, and establish public interest lobby groups in relevant policy areas like immigration and asset sales.
However, that would make New Zealand about the only western country with proportional representation that doesn't have a populist conservative/nationalist political party.
The most glaring problem is the party's brand of populist Keynesian conservatism doesn't seem to have much appeal to younger voters or political activists, as highlighted by the near total absence of any pro-New Zealand First bloggers on the Internet.
Among the policy options and strategies that could be be considered include:
1. re-marketing the party as a European-styled, pro-federalist party
2. establishing a strong position on the Islam question
3. abandoning high-growth Keynesian economic policies and focusing on more moderate and sustainable growth with a greater environmental focus
4. highlighting the connection between low immigration and preservation of the environment.
5. taking a bold scientific-conservative approach in education
6. supporting a pro-Australia policy in areas like defence and economic cooperation
Linking federalism with conservative populism is proving a successful strategy in Continental country's like Italy, and in New Zealand's highly centralised political system, there is plenty of opportunity to take up federalist causes. A good example of such a cause, being the desire of many South Island West Coasters to be able to decide resource management issues for themselves.
Changing the party name to something like the National Democrats would also help in giving a fresher, more contemporary image, and contrast its populist stance with the increasingly undemocratic approach of Labour and National.
The Islam question may not be of major direct significance for New Zealand, but that's not to say New Zealanders don't hold strong views about it. New Zealand First should be taking the lead when it comes to articulating a coherent, conservative political position on assimilation of Muslim immigrants and dealing with the Islamic world.
Given that many of NZ First's policies have a decidely Australian feel, particularly in relation to economic matters, it makes sense for the party to cultivate closer trans-Tasman relations, an excellent starting point would to promote a new defence agreement with Australia in which New Zealand agrees to pull its weight in regards to air defence.
In the last election New Zealand First had a great opportunity to take Labour, National and the Greens to task over their support for the environment and immigration growth but not once did Peters make the point that population growth and conservation and incompatible.
Perhaps the main reason for this is that New Zealand First's attachment to unrealistically high economic growth rates means they've decided to keep quiet over environmental issues, and are thus missing out on taking a distinctive position on an issue of major importance to voters.
New Zealand First could seize the initiative in education policy by lowering university tertiary tuition fees and raising entrance requirements for university courses, while introducing IQ tesing in primary schools. This would allow us to offer a truly meritocratic education system and give us a competitive edge over English-speaking countries still bogged down by "no child left behind" egalitarianism.
Such a policy might even persuade a few Act voters to back the party.
Finally, another option is to abandon party politics all together, and establish public interest lobby groups in relevant policy areas like immigration and asset sales.
However, that would make New Zealand about the only western country with proportional representation that doesn't have a populist conservative/nationalist political party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
