Game of Thrones provides a political archetype for the ages

I don't watch much television. In fact, I watch no broadcast TV at all, finding it so execrable these days that I would rather tear out my fingernails with pliers than sit through any of the dross that passes for content on the main networks. I am, however, a serial monogamist when it comes to online streaming, watching just one series from beginning to end at any time.

Most recently, I have enjoyed Season 8 of Game of Thrones. Well, 'enjoyed' might be too strong a word because, like most reviewers, I think the writers of Season 8 literally lost the plot. I blame George R R Martin, the author of the books on which the series is based, because he fell behind the storyline of the dramatised version with his books, leaving it to some second-rate Hollywood scriptwriters to imagine how the story might end.

Even if you're not a Game of Thrones aficianado, by now you'll know how the story played out. The Mother of Dragons, Daenerys Targaryen, Queen of the Andals, etc, turned out to be not quite the benevolent monarch that she originally appeared.

Daenerys started out as the unwilling bride of the chief of the Dothraki, a sort of Mongol horde in the eastern continent of Essos, and after the death of her husband and being cast out of the tribe, she builds a loyal following and sets about freeing the slaves in various realms, deposing brutal and corrupt leaders and settling ancient disputes. She presents herself as a kinder, gentler leader, who is only interested in the welfare of her people, not unlike some of the progressive leaders around the world today.

Of course, history tells us the road to political hell is paved with the good intentions of progressive leaders, and so turned out to be the case with Daenerys Targaryen. Her final goal was to conquer and set to rights her ancestral homeland of Westeros, the land where the titular game of thrones is played out. No sooner had Daenerys conquered Kings Landing, the capital of Westeros, and its evil Queen Cersei, than she decides in a fit of pique to exterminate every man, woman and child in that city - in other words to commit genocide.

I am not sure whether it was intentional, but the writers of Game of Thrones created in the character of Daenerys the perfect archetype of the benevolent leader-turned-tyrant. Rising to power with overwhelming public support, particularly from the downtrodden, such leaders soon begin to equate the people's interests with their own. They believe only they know what is best for everyone else and they see any threat to themselves as a threat to the people. They regard any resistance to their increasing authoritarianism as an evil that must be expurgated from their domain, and soon pass draconian laws, which inevitably lead to shootings in the streets and ultimately to the mass killing that was the resort of Daenerys Targaryen.

The lesson is never trust a kinder, gentler leader.

Life After Trump

It is only 18 months into his term but the forty-fifth President of the United States has had such a impact on politics that already people are discussing what the post-Trump world will look like. It now seems likely that Donald Trump will stand for a second term in 2020 and he will be re-elected unless the Democratic Party finds itself a better candidate than the awful Hillary Clinton and a better campaign strategy than insulting half the electorate with terms like 'deplorable'. It is possible that Trump will be impeached before he gets the chance to stand again but that seems unlikely given the trivialities the Muller inquiry has come up with to date and the fact that both houses of Congress are in Republican hands.

The post-Trump world will have a different international order. The United States is becoming more isolationist under Trump with his anti-immigration stance, scuttling of trade agreements and criticism of NATO. On the other hand, he looks like he is succeeding in his efforts to bring North Korea in from the cold and his rapprochement with Putin probably lessens the likelihood of conflict with Russia. I think Trump is actually less of a warmonger than most recent presidents and that he is unlikely to start any new conflicts, so it may well be a more peaceful world than has existed since 9/11.

Trump's most positive legacy may be his rejection of the international climate change racket and his removal of renewable energy subsidies and bans on fossil fuel exploration. These are already having a positive effect on the US economy. Add in his tax cuts and broader deregulation and you start to see why the US economy is experiencing GDP growth exceeding 4% for the first time since 2014. On the other hand, Trump's protectionist trade policies will constrain both imports and exports and the negative impacts of these may send the whole world into recession, particularly if (as many analysts expect) there is another global stock market crash.

The biggest effect of the Trump years may be on politics itself. We have seen a massive polarisation and radicalisation of politics, particularly in the United States, and so entrenched are the left and right that, as a libertarian and individualist, I feel like a civilian caught between the cannon fire of two armies bent on mutual destruction. The most noticeable effect in the last few years is the resurgence of identity politics, with both sides pushing their particular grievances groups' victimhood. Not since the early 20th Century has your race, religion or some other collective characteristic been such a determinant of your worth in so many people's eyes. Trump hasn't been the sole cause of this collectivist groupthink but his derogatory labelling of Mexicans and people from Islamic majority countries has legitimised what ought to have no part in mainstream Western politics.

I remain an optimist about the future of Western society, notwithstanding the polarisation for which Trump is at least partly to blame. America has seen far worse political tensions in comparatively recent times and for all the doom and gloom, our lives continue to get better every year. I think Trump is an aberration, not a trend, and life after him will be just fine.

The Mass Customisation of Politics

Business in the social media age is all about mass customisation. Industries such as telecommunications, banking and transportation have figured out that the key to success is to have economies of scale while allowing individuals to have products and services that are tailored to their needs. The commercial behemoths of old that insisted on one-size-fits-all have fallen by the wayside as new businesses exploit flexible manufacturing and service delivery models to accomodate individual consumers' needs.

Politics in the 21st Century is the same. Voters are increasingly unwilling to be boxed into traditional political definitions - left, right, socialist, nationalist. etc. Ironically, this is happening at a time when political labels such as 'extreme', 'Fascist' and 'Nazi' are being bandied about with increasing abandon and usually without justification. 

Many people, myself included, have a political philosophy that does not sit comfortably with most established party manifestos. We are a little bit left, a little bit right, and a whole lot completely outside the spectrum. This is not the same as being purely pragmatic - we have a philosophy that is well thought-out and articulated and are prepared to vote to maximise its realisation. We have little in common with the David Camerons and John Keys of this world who don't believe in anything much and who are willing to do whatever it takes to stitch together a coalition to keep them in power. We may vote for the lesser of evils but it doesn't mean we will accept the bland and uncommitted.

So how do we achieve mass customisation in politics when many countries seem to be locked into a traditional left-of-centre/right-of-centre, two-party paradigm? Partly it is achieved through breaking down the paradigm, and we have seen this with the rise of third parties in many Western countries. The other way it can be achieved is through localisation of politics.

Politics in many countries in recent decades has been characterised by greater centralisation. The European Community is the most obvious example and in the United States we have seen the growth of the federal government at the expense of the state or local government. The problem with this is that it means greater homogenisation and less opportunity for people like me, whose views don't fall into the traditional political buckets, to have our views represented. Localisation of political decisions means we can enjoy, at least at a local level, a more flexible set of policy setttings, and if we are not happy with the decisions of our local government, we can seek out somewhere more compatible with our political views.

It was the intention of America's founding fathers. particularly Jefferson and Hamilton, that the US Republic would be a place where different communities could experiment with different political and social settings, subject only to the universal rights enshrined in the Constitution. America today has become a highly centralised bureaucracy with the Federal Government interfering in every area of Americans lives from health care to what children eat in their school lunches. The complete dominance of US politics by the two major parties means that people who don't fall into the traditional Democrat and Republican camps have no real alternative, except that last year they chose a rebel Republican in Donald Trump to be president. Trump's support came from the disaffected middle and working classes, who rejected the big statism and identity politics of the Democrats and the social conservatism and crony capitalism of the Republicans, and is therefore understandable in terms of the mass customisation paradigm. Brexit was similarly a rejection of the traditional political choices.

Those who insist on seeing today's politics in terms of past dichotomies will continue to be surprised and bewildered by voters' choices. I think that the rejection of tradition political boundaries it is a very positive development but it needs to be accompanied by a decentralisation of political power if voters are to have genuine choices.

Campaign finance laws are a subversion of democracy

I watched with interest last week as Gareth Morgan's The Opportunities Party took Television New Zealand to court seeking to overturn the network's decision not to invite Morgan to the televised election debate between the leaders of New Zealand's minor parties. I have nothing but contempt for Morgan because of his naive support for the evil North Korean regime (as Liberty Scott blogged about here) and his ill-informed comments on a range of other subjects such as Israel and terrorism. He has what is perhaps the stupidest policy ever to come out of a New Zealand political party, that of taxing non-income earning assets based on a nominal rate of return, which would mean income-poor people such as the elderly would have to sell their homes.

The fact that Morgan is a fool does not mean he shouldn't have the same opportunities to promote his stupid policies as the other political parties, and this raises the issue of the legal constraints on political funding in this country and in much of the Western world. You can be as dumb as Gareth Morgan and still appreciate that the existing major political parties have a vested interest in keeping small parties from promoting their policies. Incumbent governments, particularly those of a left-wing bent (who believe, perhaps falsely, that they are less likely to attract wealthy benefactors), restrict challengers' access to state and private media and impose campaign funding restrictions that benefit themselves.

In New Zealand we have laws limiting and requiring disclosure of campaign contributions, although the authorities here have been reluctant to prosecute breaches, as for example when the incumbent government broke the law in the 2005 Labour Party 'pledge card' case. We also have state funding for campaign advertising on television and other media and this is allocated on the basis of support for the parties at previous elections, which significantly handicaps any new or emergent party. These laws are made worse by the discriminatory treatment of smaller political parties by media organisations such as Television New Zealand (which, incidentally, is state-owned).

The campaign finance laws in America are particularly onerous, as exemplified by the jailing in 2014 of conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza for making an undeclared political donation, and the US Government's attempts to stop organisations contributing to political debate, which was thwarted by Supreme Court in the Citizens United case. The court decided in that case that campaign contributions are a form of political speech and organisations have the same right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment as individuals. The American television networks also treat smaller parties with disdain, which was particularly evident in the US Presidential campaigns with the discriminatory treatment of the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson and Green Party's Jill Stein.

The argument in favour of political funding laws is that they even out the playing field because otherwise a few rich people could heavily influence an election by buying up huge amounts of advertising in the mainstream media. I think this overvalues the role of the mainstream media in elections, particularly in this day when one Youtube commentator can have more viewers than a television network, and it is patronising of voters, who are far less influenced by media campaigns than people think (witness the fact that Donald Trump won the presidency with a fraction of the television advertising spend of Hillary Clinton).

I think the United States Supreme Court got it right for once - political donations are a form of speech and any impingement of them is a restriction on free speech and on freedom of association. I don't think the state should be limiting or contributing to political promotion and that current campaign finance laws are a subversion of democracy and individual rights. Furthermore, I don't believe anyone should have to publicly disclose political donations because this is a breach of the right to privacy. We have the right to vote in secret and this should extend to the contributions to those for whom we may vote.

2011 in Review

2011 has been an interesting year.

Early in the year we had the second severe earthquake in Christchurch and this one killed nearly two hundred and left the city with massive destruction. The earthquake was instructive not so much in terms of what it taught us about the impact of such a seismic event on buildings and lives (which was pretty predictable) but in what it taught us about the behaviour of our Government in such a situation. The dust had barely settled before they had deployed troops and armoured personnel carriers on the streets of Christchurch and were arresting and prosecuting property owners for attempting to gain access to their own properties. Clearly John Key's Government has no respect for individual liberty and property rights.

A month after the Christchurch earthquake, Japan suffered a much more devastating one combined with a tsunami that killed more than fifteen thousand people. In spite of its much greater impact, Japan is well advanced with its reconstruction effort.  In the meantime, our national and local governments continue to dither and obstruct those who want to rebuild their lives in Christchurch.

During the year it became blatantly obvious that "spend and hope" economic policies were never going to lift the Western world out of recession. Certainly it is hard to see how more of the same medicine that caused the crisis will cure it. In New Zealand our Government is spending $18B this year more than it takes in revenue, despite increasing consumption taxes and many government charges. Our minister of finance promises we will return to government fiscal surpluses by 2014 but given his projections are based on 4% economic growth and our current rate is about 1%, this seems like very wishful thinking.  In the meantime, various ignoramuses camped in parks around the world, under the "Occupy Wall Street" banner, have chosen to scapegoat bankers as the cause of all the world's problems in a slanderous campaign that is reminiscent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that the Nazis used to rally political support in the 1930s.

Governments around the world continued to erode the rights of their citizens with ever more instrusive security and surveillance laws in the name of the so-called War Against Terror.  The least you can say for the panjandrums involved is that they are relatively indiscriminate in their abuse of citizens, as this report of the US TSA's actions attests.  The US Government finally killed Osama Bin Laden but if the Al Qaeda leader's aim was to destroy the liberties that Westerners enjoy, then he has certainly achieved what he set out to do.

Late in the year we had an election and New Zealanders chose to re-elect John Key's National Government in coalition with a motley bunch that including a former National Party minister who was standing for a party whose principles he clearly does not believe in, a former Labour Party minister who jumps in bed with whichever party will give him a seat in cabinet, and a party based on the racist principle that Maori deserve preferential treatment in our society.  I cannot see John Key's appeal as he and his government seem to me to be entirely without any political principles.

The political finale of the year was the death of Kim Jong Il, the nutcase who has ruled North Korea since the death of his father who was the previous nutcase leader of that country. Kim Jong Il managed to annoint his third son as his successor, the sole selection criteria apparently being that the third one was the only of his sons who was not mentally handicapped or gay. It is a sad indictment on humanity that we still have such tyrants as leaders of a significant number of countries.

And finally, we have this incident to greet us a few days before Christmas - an horrific crime against a defenseless 5 year old girl in a New Zealand campground.  It is no surprise that locals report the perpetrator may be a member of the Mongrel Mob - a predominantly Maori gang whom the authorities treat as a welfare organisation rather than the violent, drug-running, raping bunch of thugs it really is.

On that depressing note, I wish you all a very safe and pleasant Christmas and all the best for 2012.

Roger Kerr - the Courage of His Convictions.

I have just read that Roger Kerr has died.

This was a man with the courage of his convictions, who did not shy away from his strong belief that economic rationalism and free enterprise were the correct path for New Zealand to return to prosperity. He held the unorthodox view in today's society that most people are intelligent and capable enough to make their own decisions on how they should earn a living, care for their loved ones and others in the community, and provide for their own retirement. He believed that we would all be better off without an interfering, authoritarian government bossing us around in all areas of our lives.

Unfortunately we live in a topsy-turvy world where conventional wisdom considers an interfering, authoritarian government to be moral, and leaving people to make their own decisions on what is best for them and their communities is considered immoral. Roger was often on the wrong side of what are considered politically acceptable views in this country and was vilified for it. But he stuck to his guns to the end, posting this blog defending New Zealanders' saving record against politicians who want compulsory savings the day before he died.

Roger Kerr had the courage to espouse his views, unpopular though they may have been. I can think of no other prominent New Zealander who did it so convincingly.

I extend my deepest sympathy to his family and friends.

Time to Return to Reality

The New Zealand All Blacks won the Rugby World Cup on Sunday night, in case you hadn't heard. Like most New Zealanders, I watched and celebrated the win and was pleased that we were able to win it for the second time, matching South Africa and Australia in successful campaigns for the Webb Ellis Cup.

But now is the time for New Zealand to return to reality. The Rugby World Cup won't reduce the $380 million per week that the Government is borrowing to pay for its profligate expenditure (a third more than it takes in revenue). Nor will it restore New Zealand to the top ranks of OECD nations in income per capita (we currently languish at the bottom on the list). It won't help rebuild Christchurch or fund the more than $18 billion of losses sustained in the earthquakes. It won't address the disenchantment of many New Zealanders who feel they are being treated as second class citizens in a country that now treats Maori as a special elite. It won't stop our best and brightest workers emigrating to countries with better opportunities. It won't reduce our terrible youth (and older age) suicide rates. And it won't eliminate the violent crime that results in imprisonment rates that are second only to the USA.

These things will take a greater courage than that shown by the All Blacks in defending their narrow lead on Sunday night. For the All Blacks courage, without detracting from its merit, was a physical courage. Solving New Zealand's problems will require a moral courage that I'm not sure any of our current political leaders are capable of showing. Perhaps the All Blacks' win will inspire them. I certainly hope so.

Science Has Left the Room...

It seems that the climate change debate has gone beyond any semblance of rationality. I can't understand why many scientists, who are otherwise so rational and objective, cast their rationality out the window and resort to shouted slogans and insults when discussing this issue.

For example, the much-acclaimed Pharyngula (the blog name of biologist PZ Myers) today had this to say about fellow scientists who oppose the accepted wisdom of global warming, "..there are two broad categories of denialists, the ones who are sincerely nuts (like Monckton) and the ones know better but are lying to make a profit for their cause (like the odious Steve Milloy)."

He goes on to say, "...the most reprehensibly dishonest 'scholar' of the bunch, Jonathan Wells...got a Ph.D. in developmental biology and should know better but everything I've read by him has led me to the conclusion that he is also profoundly stupid."

I think it only reflects on Myers, who I normally follow with interest and respect, that he should resort to such personal abuse.

Ian Stewart, the English mathematician said, "Religion hinges upon faith, politics hinges upon who can tell the most convincing lies or maybe just shout the loudest, but science hinges upon whether its conclusions resemble what actually happens."

By this definition, science has left the room in the global warming debate and all that remains is politics.