OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Schadenfreude

Entry 1392, on 2012-05-22 at 12:52:45 (Rating 4, Politics)

I have some admiration for the philosophy behind libertarianism and I think it's good to have every political perspective represented in a democracy, especially one which has proportional representation like New Zealand. But I still can't help but feel a degree of satisfaction as I watch the Act Party self-destruct and sink without trace in the world of politics.

The word that describes it perfectly is "schadenfreude" (if you don't know here's the definition: pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.) Yeah, I know, it sounds sort of mean, and I have already said above I have some admiration for their political perspective, but it's still true.

Act deserves to die though. The party has been a joke for years. They campaigned for greater responsibility and delivered the opposite, they wanted to avoid internal power struggles and got the worst of any party, they criticised other parties for playing politics and did far worse themselves, they denounced ideological policies and are most ideological party in the country.

They have had no credibility for a long time and the party has been effectively dead for years and only survived by being a parasite on the National Party at the last election. They represent the worst of everything politics offers and unbelievably things just keep getting worse for them, hence the schadenfreude.

The latest debacle involves donations from a complete nut job, called Louis Crimp, from my old home town of Invercargill. I feel a bit sorry for this person actually because he is obviously suffering from some cognitive or social deficiency. His interview on TV last night was just bizarre.

But that's the sort of person who supports a party like Act. Very few normal people would still want to have anything to do with Act, except when engaging in something like the corrupt and cynical political ploy which played out in Epsom at the last election.

Free speech is important but if you are going to make a point around controversial politics, especially involving race relations, it's essential that you first get your facts right, and second don't look like a rabid nutter! Unfortunately Crimp didn't follow either of these guidelines.

If the government really spent half a billion dollars per year propping up the Maori language then I think that would be worth discussing. But getting the number wrong then ranting on about "savages" is not the way to win people over to your side of the debate. Quite the opposite is true.

So those of us who support a more moderate political position should thank Crimp for exposing what many Act supporters are really like. And yes, there are many more like him I'm sure. I know one Act supporter personally who would share a very similar position on Maori issues.

So not only is Act shooting itself in the foot now but its crazed supporters are also firing randomly and killing it off even more rapidly through "friendly fire". Ah, the schadenfreude!

Comment 1 (3100) by SBFL on 2012-05-22 at 13:21:29: (view recent only)

The death of ACT may well bring life to the Conservatives. Be careful what you wish for OJB!!!

Comment 2 (3105) by OJB on 2012-05-22 at 18:52:52:

Most people already know what a bunch of nutters the conservatives are, so does John Key. Any party based on silly religious ideas will never get far in New Zealand. Act were quite skillful at disguising their essential nastiness by seeming reasonable. I don't think the Conservatives will be able to do that.

Comment 3 (3147) by SBFL on 2012-06-14 at 11:05:24:

Oh OJB, you are a bigger fool than I thought. If your like write off the Conservatives as a bunch of religious nutters then you have already made your first mistake.

You seemingly have already fallen to make silly conclusions based on...?
Oops. Bad, bad, man.

Comment 4 (3153) by OJB on 2012-06-14 at 23:48:41:

I guess the true agenda of the conservatives will become more apparent at the next election. They will probably try to hide any religious ideology behind more reasonable sounding rhetoric but I think the truth will become apparent eventually, just like the ideology behind Act sneaked past their more reasonable public persona.

Comment 5 (3160) by SBFL on 2012-06-16 at 08:20:17:

What was the sneakiness behind ACT that you speak of? Was it religious, or something else? Be careful of the apples and oranges.

But I laugh that you worry so much of the Conservatives bringing a religious bent. Thus seems you concern yourself more with religion over economics.

Comment 6 (3164) by OJB on 2012-06-16 at 11:43:47:

Act tried so hard to look reasonable and fair but behind the scenes they pursued an extremely ideological libertarian agenda. The sort of thing which we started down the road of in 1984 but stopped after we realised it would never actually work.

The only objection I have to basing philosophy and/or policy on a religious background is that religion isn't true. It's fake and has no place even as a basis for any modern policy making. When you base your whole world view on something which is untrue where will it lead?

Comment 7 (3173) by SBFL on 2012-06-30 at 06:31:20:

Blah, blah, you state nothing of substance here. The public are well aware of what ACT stands for politically (even if only their full page newspaper ads), even if you don't like it. Everyone knows they are to the right of National. Whatever was started in 1984 (actually Rogernomics came a few years later) was implemented by Labour and progressed by National post 1990. Only extreme lefties still want to turn this back, despite being a movement that kept us competitive in the world economy.

Re 2nd paragraph - so again you digress. You have your view on religion, I know it. But it seems to also cloud various viewpoints, and put people/groups into pigeon-holes.

Comment 8 (3179) by OJB on 2012-06-30 at 12:15:36:

Part of the libertarian agenda has always been an almost emotional appeal to fairness and freedom where the real outcome of their policies is the exact opposite. They condone less government control but the result is much more from corporations and business. Many people are sucked in by their apparently attractive rhetoric however.

The evidence indicates Christianity isn't true: the Christian God does't exist and Jesus (if he existed at all) was just another human. The Bible has some good stuff in it, and a lot of bad stuff. Basing anything, especially a political party, on something which isn't true can never be good.

Comment 9 (3187) by SBFL on 2012-07-03 at 10:05:59:

Quite ironic that you say the libertarian appeal is almost emotional. More government control was rejected in the last two elections. In case you hadn't noticed, nanny-state is out of fashion.

Comment 10 (3196) by OJB on 2012-07-03 at 15:21:47:

Control goes in and out of fashion and it is more the amount of control which is the issue, not whether it exists or not. Also I am debating what is the right thing to do, not what is popular. The financial disasters of the world are caused by out of control capitalism. It must be controlled some way. Pure capitalism simply doesn't work.

Comment 11 (3203) by SBFL on 2012-07-06 at 10:30:44:

It seems that leftist control/power is not in vogue at all. And this makes perfect sense because the public doesn't want to be told what is right for them by a bunch of leftist academics who think they know best. Pretty sure they would trust the unpredictable market better than your know-it-all mates....

Comment 12 (3209) by OJB on 2012-07-06 at 11:19:12:

Well I guess we'll have to wait to the next election to see who people trust and don't trust. The fact that the latest polls show the left political parties (Labour/Green) are practically equal with National indicates they have a reasonable level of support, would't you say?

Comment 13 (3219) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 09:37:57:

Interesting you're now ready to acknowledge Labour can't foot it with National.

Earlier you said "The financial disasters of the world are caused by out of control capitalism. It must be controlled some way.". So you agree capitalism is the way, albeit being controlled? Also interesting. Seems you have lost faith with socialism.

Comment 14 (3240) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 11:25:59:

No Labour can't compete with National by themselves. The right has grouped under National now that Act has died. The left has split into mainly Labour and Green, basically because Labour did such a poor job in recent years. I'm not a Labour supporter, by the way. You seem to imply that I am.

Yes, I think capitalism is probably the best of a bad set of options. I have never been what you would really call a pure socialist (whatever that is) at least in the way it was practiced in the USSR. I am more a capitalist with significant controls inspired by socialism. Look back at most of my blog posts and you will see this. I am actually very moderate politically.

Comment 15 (3244) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 11:40:38:

So you acknowledge that Labour as the main CL party no longer foots it with National the main CR party. OK.

Look at the history of the polls. Other than a spike in 2002 (to the detriment of National) ACT has never registered more than a few percent. So we know National has not taken ACT votes to reach where they are today. Can only be from Labour, as all polls and pundits have verified since 2008.

Knowing your blog posts you are most certainly not moderate. But I am intrigued that you now admit to being in favour of capitalism, albeit "controlled". One day we'll make you CR, it comes with experience and knowledge. Never fear, it's okay....

Comment 16 (3247) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 11:51:18:

Yes, currently Labour cannot compete with National. That will change if past events are any sort of guide. What is the problem here? I am not a Labour supporter, OK.

In fact I believe most experts agree that National has remained fairly constant and Labour has both lost votes to Green and had their "supporters" just not even bother to vote at all. So the current success of National is more to do with apathy from past Labour supporters than anything else.

Can you find a blog post where I advocate for pure soviet style socialism or anything remotely similar? I would be surprised if you can. I simply advocate against extreme capitalism, free markets, etc.

Comment 17 (3251) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 12:04:39:

You may not vote Labour but your are a supporter of sorts. Or do you deny your own posts?

And why is there apathy towards Labour then?

I said you were not a moderate, not that you were a soviet. You are the one pointing this out.

Comment 18 (3256) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 12:24:56:

I am a supporter of the center-left so in a way I support Labour since that is supposedly where they exist. But I am more supporter of the Greens now although I do not agree with some of their more extreme environmental ideas (I'm not anti-GM for example). I do not think that someone who more often that not votes for a different party could be called a "Labour supporter" though.

There is apathy towards Labour because after 9 years in power they got arrogant and stale. And they don't really know where they should be politically. After being hijacked by the neo-liberals in 1984 they still haven't fully got back to their real roots. Also their leadership is rather uninspiring.

A soviet-style socialist would be an example of an extreme left-leaning person, would they not? If not, in what way am I extreme?

Comment 19 (3260) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 12:39:47:

So you agree with my analysis...You may not vote for Labour (that often) but you are a supporter of the centre-left. I'm fine with that and where I always thought your stood. No big deal.

Helen would be upset with your view of Labour today though. But your are right, they are arrogant and stale. They still seem to be. At best these days they achieve the "petty". Their leadership is rather inspiring. Why do you still support their viewpoint again? Oh yeah, fundamental ideals and all that...

Do you seriously consider yourself a moderate?

Comment 20 (3264) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 12:52:13:

Yes, I support the center left. If that includes Labour then I will consider them, if not I will look elsewhere. More specifically I will look at the policies being offered and vote for the party with the best policies, but that is unlikely to be National, and very unlikely to be Act!

I don't necessarily support Labour's viewpoint and I haven't voted for them recently. I vote for the center-left. I am not a Labour supporter!

Yes, I seriously consider myself a moderate, with a bias to the left.

Comment 21 (3268) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 13:02:04:

Well the Greens aren't centre-left and you would never vote for the Maori Party nor United Future so I guess that means you voted for Winston First in 2011 !!

Oh dear....I would almost prefer you voted Labour!

Comment 22 (3272) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 13:32:50:

Oh how amusing you are today! In fact I think there is some merit in many of Winston's policies but there are some pretty scary people in his party so I don't know if I could vote for him!

And I think the Greens, as they are now, are center-left. As I said earlier, they do have a few nutty extreme Greeny values but on balance I think they have a good mix of policies.

Of course where on the political spectrum different people or parties fall is very much open to interpretation. To someone fairly right of center (such as yourself) the Greens probably do look well to the left but it's all relative.

Comment 23 (3276) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 13:46:42:

Wow, I thought you might say that (that you think the Greens are CL). Don't take this the wrong way but I like the direction the Greens are taking (more centrist, more practical, more open to working with other parties). It's sensible politics, and I would do the same if I was Russel Norman. Why not at least do a MoU with National and gain something? It seems silly not to. Of course their economic policies are still wacky, but everyone can resonate with the environment.

Comment 24 (3279) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 13:54:53:

Have a look at this. I'm not sure how rigorous the methodology they use it but it is an objective source which must be better than our opinion, at least. Also, try doing the quiz yourself and see where you lie not he spectrum.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.