Feb.23 | The Blob, politics-as-comms, judicial policy-making and "argumentative grit"
The agglomeration of elite opinion | When narrative style dominates policy substance | Make It 16 sets a dangerous precedent | The "worshipping mentality" helps us see beyond the zeitgeist
Beware the Blob
The agglomeration of elite opinion suffocates genuine debate
What do Climate Karanga, Podiatry NZ, and the Free Store Wellington have in common? Probably very little, apart from their common commitment to co-governance. They are among 50+ NGOs who signed an open letter, duly and dutifully amplified by media, urging the government to continue its work to implement the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights after Minister Willie Jackson signalled this work might be paused. It represents the emergence of a phenomenon known as the Blob—a gelatinous agglomeration of elite opinion that suffocates and skews public debate. The Blob takes its name from a 1958 sci-fi movie about a “carnivorous amoeboidal alien” that absorbs everything in its path. In the UK, the term refers to the mutual embrace of civil servants, quangos, NGOs, and vested interests. Click here to keep reading
Has politics become all tip and no iceberg?
We all lose when narrative style dominates policy substance.
Recently I appeared on The Common Room to speak about the problem of politics-as-comms and the dead-end of rhetoric that can’t change reality—something the current government is particularly prone to.
More positively (I hope), I also shared three ways we can put some substance back in the public square. Check it out below.
Make It 16 sets a dangerous precedent
The Supreme Court’s decision on the voting age shows the perils of judicial policy-making
The Bill of Rights Act says that everyone aged 18 and over has the right to vote. The Supreme Court says that setting the voting age at 18 is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Astute readers may have noticed a contradiction, one that arises out of the Make It 16 decision issued by our highest court late last year. It’s the result of a tangle of legislation and judicial logic which, when unravelled, is a good illustration of why the courts shouldn’t be asked to resolve contentious social and political issues like this. Click here to keep reading
These are not legal questions; they are questions of social science and policy, and this is not how policy should be made—on the basis of a solitary and uncontested study containing no New Zealand participants, provided by a Commissioner who has been advocating for a lower voting age since at least 2018, supported by the assertion of a mid-ranked academic at an overseas university.
In praise of “argumentative grit”
Rowan Williams argues that "the worshipping mentality" helps us see beyond the zeitgeist
Why should you endorse religious freedom if you’re not religious? Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, gives a pretty good answer in his recent Reith Lecture. It’s part of a series on what President Franklin Roosevelt described as four freedoms that are “fundamental to democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear.” Delivering the lecture on freedom of worship, Williams opened with the example of environmentalist nuns. Click here to keep reading