The world needs more leaders like FDR and Michael Joseph Savage, but these days such people are either too nice to run for office, or go through political party machines & emerge as someone rather different. Political bomb-throwers like Trump & Corbyn fill the void as a result.
Not helping either is the enshittification of legacy media, brought on by Big Tech hijacking its revenues, and Big Tech's algorithms promoting outrage & polarisation for more clicks. Monopoly-busting agencies need sharper teeth to rein them in or break them up.
I meant to clarify that politicians from blue-collar backgrounds have been shrinking, while career politicians (whether "Brahmin Left" or "Merchant Right") have been on the increase, making parliaments/congresses less representative overall.
While it is satirical, I think Cyril Northcote Parkinson's idea of how to select a political leader could be effective in the real world:
"Wanted: Prime Minister of Ruritania. Hours of work: 4 A.M. to 11.59 P.M. Candidates must be prepared to fight three rounds with the current heavyweight champion (regulation gloves to be worn). Candidates will die for their country, by painless means, on reaching the age of retirement (65). They will have to pass an examination in parliamentary procedure and will be liquidated should they fail to obtain 95% marks. They will also be liquidated if they fail to gain 75% votes in a popularity poll held under the Gallup Rules. They will be invited to try their eloquence on a Baptist Congress, the object being to induce those present to rock and roll. Those who fail will be liquidated. All candidates should present themselves at the Sporting Club (side entrance) at 11.15 A.M. on the morning of September 19. Gloves will be provided, but they should bring their own rubber-soled shoes, singlet, and shorts."
Anyone who does volunteer would be a candidate I could get behind. As Parkinson put it in his preface to the satirical job ad:
"In other words, the successful candidate must be the most energetic, courageous, patriotic, experienced, popular, and eloquent man in the country. Only one man can answer to that description and his is the only application we want. The terms of appointment must thus be phrased so as to exclude everyone else."
Have a read of George Monbiot's and Peter Hutchison's "Invisible Doctrine - the Secret History of Neoliberalism". This will take you to the heart of our global malaise and help create a sound base for further analyses and exploring possible ways forward.
The focus on Trump defocuses on the absence of advocacy for a substantial sector of the US polity. Is Trump the person the issue, or is it that the Democrats walked away from their traditional constituency?
To my mind, the left focusing on narrow identity issues is a straightforward walking-away from effective power towards inwards-looking purity politics. We have it here too. Their withdrawal leaves a hole, or rather a constituency, available for any political chancer.
We here In NZ are in a very different circumstance though, one that fortunately lacks pointless distracting focus on one individual. We have a number of substantive political topics being thrashed out, in public. Foremost of these is the constitutional place of the Treaty today.
I’m an ACT voter. From my perspective the fact that both te pati Maori and the Treaty Principles bill, among other such initiatives are front and centre shows rude health in our politics. This issue has moved from the ‘smokey back rooms’ of the judiciary and civil service into the public domain, which is where it should always have been.
‘Division’ is a concern for some, although I’m less fussed. I remember ‘81 and the Springbok Tour. Before that I remember the abortion debate. These were public conversations and these were divisive, but they moved us forwards. (Outside of that there was the ‘51 waterfront strike. Now *that* was divisive!)
I don’t think ‘narrow’ leadership is a central issue here in NZ and I think that’s great. Where is the conversation? With Seymour, Winston, TPM, tens of thousands of hikoi attendees, the legacy media, the Platform, Hobson’s Choice, the Free Speech Union and social media that enables many of us to talk directly.
Plus, we get Trump entertainment. What’s not to love!
A multi-party MMP-type system has its flaws, but far less flawed than the outmoded FPTP systems of US & UK. What NZ needs now is political finance reform like the Aussies are proposing - we only have to look at the US as a cautionary tale for politicians effectively being purchased instead of elected.
Good point, Mike. Some see the UN as too ineffective, failing to provide security. On the other hand, some worry that it will be too effective, leading to 'one world government'.
The veto powers of the 5 permanent UNSC seat holders are a relic of 1945. Back then, FDR's New Dealism & the Marshall Plan were America's dominant doctrine, and a Trump White House was still decades away. Taiwan also held the Chinese seat until the PRC replaced it in 1971.
Education teaches us inclusivity in associating with learners from different backgrounds and cultures, it teaches us objectivity from the research done and gives us a basic minimum understanding of the different academic fields through interactions in institutions of learning and reading. Am concerned by the thought that individuals with low level education can effectively carry out policy making, oversight duties and budget appropriation once they are elected into office, despite their charisma. If any one has literature to the contrary, I would love to learn.
Solid article, Grant. Its good to see commentary around peoples' expectations of leadership.
It feels like a lot of perceptions around leadership are subjective.... i.e. people bestowing their own ideals of leadership onto someone who is ideologically aligned. They're often willing to forgive a lot of missing attributes that they wouldn't from a politician on the other 'side'.
The disruptors discussion is fascinating. I'm in an area (campaign strategy) that has gone down this road and/or rabbit hole lol. Essentially for policy to properly resonate it has to be framed to form strong emotive reactions. Its sounds really obvious but most politicians I encounter think their policy is so great that everyone should just cheer it lol.
Disruptors can emotively connect to the nth degree instinctively... for better or worse. It doesn't mean they'll control everyone but it usually looks organic and is a big advantage.
Thanks for the comments, Paul! Yes, Trump for example is an entertainer who has an instinctive grasp of his audience. Reason isn't called for, as he has the ability to produce 'strong emotive reactions', as you put it. It's a sad fact that the people who'll decide elections are largely those who react the least rationally, or most emotively, to the leaders on display. Cheers.
How leaders are chosen suggests to me examples that include the British “establishment”; the Washington “swamp”; and the Chinese (communist) “party”. One great leader (Winston Churchill) was excluded from the British "establishment" for many years after reaching high office
during WWI: that same establishment restored Churchill to the pinnacle of power after WWII began and his leadership became essential.
How political parties are chosen: Choosing political parties all boils down to the “electorate” and how they are “chosen”!
I quote from your post:
“…Elections rely on the wisdom of the crowd, but many people are not making very carefully researched – let alone “wise” – choices when they vote…”.
And:
“…There’s no job description or person specification for putting oneself forward for election. Other than normally a minimum age and a citizenship qualification, almost anyone can have a go…”.
A mere age “qualification” is no qualification at all, especially at the age of 18, much less 16!
Finally, you noted this:
“…Winston Churchill was great in wartime, but not so popular afterwards…”
To which I would add because he was a conviction politician and knew it was necessary to control the Soviet Union: but the British people were tired of war and wanted an end at any cost/price. And that led to nearly 50 years of a potentially devastating/existential “cold war” and the division of Germany and of Europe by the “Iron Curtain”: democratic vs dictatorship European “states”. Millions more murdered by Soviet rule (e.g. Poland and Ukraine).
In all probability a politician without conviction might have retained power by promising an end to war while holding onto power?
Given his direct experience with Stalin, among others, it's worthy of attention. He'd be disappointed to see how things are going in DC, London and Moscow these days! Cheers.
Thanks for the link, Duncan... it's a long time since I read the speech. I was born during WWII and have been a lifelong admirer of WSC... and read ALL his books (but did not enjoy his only novel!). His encyclopedic knowledge and rhetoric are superb.
The world needs more leaders like FDR and Michael Joseph Savage, but these days such people are either too nice to run for office, or go through political party machines & emerge as someone rather different. Political bomb-throwers like Trump & Corbyn fill the void as a result.
Not helping either is the enshittification of legacy media, brought on by Big Tech hijacking its revenues, and Big Tech's algorithms promoting outrage & polarisation for more clicks. Monopoly-busting agencies need sharper teeth to rein them in or break them up.
PS. I forgot to mention that NZ's parliament has an above-average number of multiple-home owners:
https://democracyproject.nz/2024/05/24/bryce-edwards-mps-own-2-2-houses-on-average/
Members of the US Congress have 5x the wealth of the average American household:
https://rollcall.com/2018/02/27/wealth-of-congress-richer-than-ever-but-mostly-at-the-very-top/
And in Britain, 23% of all MPs were privately educated, while it's only 7% for the wider population:
https://www.publicsquare.uk/2024/07/12/what-a-house-of-commons-with-fewer-privately-educated-mps-could-mean-for-the-uk/
Let me be deliberately obtuse for a moment... Doesn't that mean that the better, more successful members of society make into the leadership roles?
I meant to clarify that politicians from blue-collar backgrounds have been shrinking, while career politicians (whether "Brahmin Left" or "Merchant Right") have been on the increase, making parliaments/congresses less representative overall.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/24/18009856/working-class-income-inequality-randy-bryce-alexandria-ocasio-cortez
https://www.ft.com/content/9285155c-6351-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0
True, but that just restates the issue. I'd agree, however, that more 'blue collar' representation would be good.
The union-busting policies of Reaganomics, Thatcherism & Ruthenasia etc certainly didn't help.
While it is satirical, I think Cyril Northcote Parkinson's idea of how to select a political leader could be effective in the real world:
"Wanted: Prime Minister of Ruritania. Hours of work: 4 A.M. to 11.59 P.M. Candidates must be prepared to fight three rounds with the current heavyweight champion (regulation gloves to be worn). Candidates will die for their country, by painless means, on reaching the age of retirement (65). They will have to pass an examination in parliamentary procedure and will be liquidated should they fail to obtain 95% marks. They will also be liquidated if they fail to gain 75% votes in a popularity poll held under the Gallup Rules. They will be invited to try their eloquence on a Baptist Congress, the object being to induce those present to rock and roll. Those who fail will be liquidated. All candidates should present themselves at the Sporting Club (side entrance) at 11.15 A.M. on the morning of September 19. Gloves will be provided, but they should bring their own rubber-soled shoes, singlet, and shorts."
Excellent! Any volunteers?
Anyone who does volunteer would be a candidate I could get behind. As Parkinson put it in his preface to the satirical job ad:
"In other words, the successful candidate must be the most energetic, courageous, patriotic, experienced, popular, and eloquent man in the country. Only one man can answer to that description and his is the only application we want. The terms of appointment must thus be phrased so as to exclude everyone else."
Have a read of George Monbiot's and Peter Hutchison's "Invisible Doctrine - the Secret History of Neoliberalism". This will take you to the heart of our global malaise and help create a sound base for further analyses and exploring possible ways forward.
A good recommendation... only it was never secret. The neoliberals were very 'public' intellectuals.
https://grantduncanphd.substack.com/p/neoliberalism-what-is-it-or-what
The focus on Trump defocuses on the absence of advocacy for a substantial sector of the US polity. Is Trump the person the issue, or is it that the Democrats walked away from their traditional constituency?
To my mind, the left focusing on narrow identity issues is a straightforward walking-away from effective power towards inwards-looking purity politics. We have it here too. Their withdrawal leaves a hole, or rather a constituency, available for any political chancer.
We here In NZ are in a very different circumstance though, one that fortunately lacks pointless distracting focus on one individual. We have a number of substantive political topics being thrashed out, in public. Foremost of these is the constitutional place of the Treaty today.
I’m an ACT voter. From my perspective the fact that both te pati Maori and the Treaty Principles bill, among other such initiatives are front and centre shows rude health in our politics. This issue has moved from the ‘smokey back rooms’ of the judiciary and civil service into the public domain, which is where it should always have been.
‘Division’ is a concern for some, although I’m less fussed. I remember ‘81 and the Springbok Tour. Before that I remember the abortion debate. These were public conversations and these were divisive, but they moved us forwards. (Outside of that there was the ‘51 waterfront strike. Now *that* was divisive!)
I don’t think ‘narrow’ leadership is a central issue here in NZ and I think that’s great. Where is the conversation? With Seymour, Winston, TPM, tens of thousands of hikoi attendees, the legacy media, the Platform, Hobson’s Choice, the Free Speech Union and social media that enables many of us to talk directly.
Plus, we get Trump entertainment. What’s not to love!
Very good comments, thanks John! Why be afraid of 'divisive' debate? Avoiding it doesn't make the debate go away. Better to have it out.
A multi-party MMP-type system has its flaws, but far less flawed than the outmoded FPTP systems of US & UK. What NZ needs now is political finance reform like the Aussies are proposing - we only have to look at the US as a cautionary tale for politicians effectively being purchased instead of elected.
Yep.
Out loud. In public. No violence.
Perhaps the role of the UN and its agencies may have a lot to do with voter cynicism...
Good point, Mike. Some see the UN as too ineffective, failing to provide security. On the other hand, some worry that it will be too effective, leading to 'one world government'.
Is it because the UN is too weak, or too strong? Any better alternatives to suggest?
Better to have the nuclear-armed powers sitting around the same table than not, I'd say...
The veto powers of the 5 permanent UNSC seat holders are a relic of 1945. Back then, FDR's New Dealism & the Marshall Plan were America's dominant doctrine, and a Trump White House was still decades away. Taiwan also held the Chinese seat until the PRC replaced it in 1971.
Education teaches us inclusivity in associating with learners from different backgrounds and cultures, it teaches us objectivity from the research done and gives us a basic minimum understanding of the different academic fields through interactions in institutions of learning and reading. Am concerned by the thought that individuals with low level education can effectively carry out policy making, oversight duties and budget appropriation once they are elected into office, despite their charisma. If any one has literature to the contrary, I would love to learn.
Solid article, Grant. Its good to see commentary around peoples' expectations of leadership.
It feels like a lot of perceptions around leadership are subjective.... i.e. people bestowing their own ideals of leadership onto someone who is ideologically aligned. They're often willing to forgive a lot of missing attributes that they wouldn't from a politician on the other 'side'.
The disruptors discussion is fascinating. I'm in an area (campaign strategy) that has gone down this road and/or rabbit hole lol. Essentially for policy to properly resonate it has to be framed to form strong emotive reactions. Its sounds really obvious but most politicians I encounter think their policy is so great that everyone should just cheer it lol.
Disruptors can emotively connect to the nth degree instinctively... for better or worse. It doesn't mean they'll control everyone but it usually looks organic and is a big advantage.
Thanks for the comments, Paul! Yes, Trump for example is an entertainer who has an instinctive grasp of his audience. Reason isn't called for, as he has the ability to produce 'strong emotive reactions', as you put it. It's a sad fact that the people who'll decide elections are largely those who react the least rationally, or most emotively, to the leaders on display. Cheers.
Another most thought provoking post thanks Grant.
How leaders are chosen suggests to me examples that include the British “establishment”; the Washington “swamp”; and the Chinese (communist) “party”. One great leader (Winston Churchill) was excluded from the British "establishment" for many years after reaching high office
during WWI: that same establishment restored Churchill to the pinnacle of power after WWII began and his leadership became essential.
How political parties are chosen: Choosing political parties all boils down to the “electorate” and how they are “chosen”!
I quote from your post:
“…Elections rely on the wisdom of the crowd, but many people are not making very carefully researched – let alone “wise” – choices when they vote…”.
And:
“…There’s no job description or person specification for putting oneself forward for election. Other than normally a minimum age and a citizenship qualification, almost anyone can have a go…”.
A mere age “qualification” is no qualification at all, especially at the age of 18, much less 16!
Finally, you noted this:
“…Winston Churchill was great in wartime, but not so popular afterwards…”
To which I would add because he was a conviction politician and knew it was necessary to control the Soviet Union: but the British people were tired of war and wanted an end at any cost/price. And that led to nearly 50 years of a potentially devastating/existential “cold war” and the division of Germany and of Europe by the “Iron Curtain”: democratic vs dictatorship European “states”. Millions more murdered by Soviet rule (e.g. Poland and Ukraine).
In all probability a politician without conviction might have retained power by promising an end to war while holding onto power?
Regards, Peter
Thanks for the comments, Peter! It inspired me to go back and read Churchill's "Sinews of peace" speech.
https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1946-1963-elder-statesman/the-sinews-of-peace/
Given his direct experience with Stalin, among others, it's worthy of attention. He'd be disappointed to see how things are going in DC, London and Moscow these days! Cheers.
Thanks for the link, Duncan... it's a long time since I read the speech. I was born during WWII and have been a lifelong admirer of WSC... and read ALL his books (but did not enjoy his only novel!). His encyclopedic knowledge and rhetoric are superb.
Cheers, P