This is the first time I have read one of Simon Wilson's writings since I stopped being a judge for the Voyager Awards some years ago. I stopped because, aside from a few notable exceptions, most of the entries were woeful, and this column is an example of those.
I actually enjoy reading opinion pieces which are contrary to my philosophy or politics so long as a) they are well written and b) they are evidence based. Chris Trotter does it well, but Trotter is an exceptionally good writer; one of New Zealand's best. Trotter is very intelligent. Wilson is not intelligent, unfortunately, and that is why his columns fail. He just can't grasp the issue. He lacks the curiosity to put aside his own prejudice and go into the back of the cave in search of the smell, when everyone else is running out (as Warwick Roger used to say).
More sinister in this particular column, however, is that his attitude has plummeted dangerously close to being patronising. Does he really think Māori, in particular Te Pāti Māori, are so weak and helpless they need merciful treatment from New Zealand's paramount court? The court they campaigned to be members of, participate in, belong to, and, when sworn in, agreed to comply with the rules of?
Is he now advocating that having breached that oath, and not just broken those rules but subsequently defied requests to explain those actions, these members of Te Pāti Māori should be treated differently from members of any other party who may in future do same?
There is a word for that offensive and brutal form of political system. a system which caused many in this country to march in protests objecting to its manifestation in another country, a country that was booted out of the Commonwealth for not abiding by rules.
I am pleased you unpicked his column, David, and even more pleased you alerted him on X. I hope you update those of us who are not on X to his reaction, if he's man enough to reply to you.
But in fact, he is capable of good writing. Once, I think it was in Kia Ora magazine, I read an article about Marfa, Texas, which was so good I flipped back to the by-line and Good God it was Simon Wilson. I even dropped him a line of congratulations, and booked a ticket to fly to Houston, El Paso, then drove to Marfa. That's the only good writing I've ever read of his.
Just checked the X feed (midday). Silence. I doubt he will pick up the gauntlet and there is a word that describes refusing or walking away from a challenge.
And I agree. There are times when he does well. Trouble is that it is rare.
This discussion raises in my mind the confabulation of opinion and reportage of News. I accept a journalist is free in an opinion piece to comment and give an opinion.
I do not need to read that, but I do wish to read about the News , free of the journalist's opinion and commentary. I do not accept that a journalist is tasked with holding the relevant organisation or Government to account, when acting as a reporter. I am old fashioned, I demand fairness, independence and truthfulness from a reporter. Not much to ask?
I have avoided reading Simon Wilson’s opinions for a long time - to me they just amplify the left biased writing in the Herald. I read the global news in other sources - where the reporting is factual rather than emotive or biased. For local NZ news - I struggle to find a source - a quick glance at the headlines and then follow up on Substack. I sincerely hope that the Herald improves under its new leadership.
I have treated as satire his muddled word splattering ever since I had the misfortune to professionally deal with him many decades ago. He was then supposedly reporting on science. It may be coincidence, but he became some sort of 'social issues' reporter soon after the long list of concerns and corrections was put to the Herald's editor. Science journalism immediately improved somewhat, although was still dire (and remains so). So it seems is the 'social issues' coverage.
Wilson is acknowledged to be on the progressive (Left) side of the spectrum and he looks at issues through that lens. There are occasions - very rare - when he does get it right. I could make a number of comments about his style but that would become an ad hominem consideration and I don't like to do that.
The issue I had was that he didn't seem to understand weight of evidence, treating the opinions of a few NGO and fringe activists as equally valid to multiple internationally-accepted peer-reviewed and in agreement studies. This, of course, does a disservice to the non-expert and leads to harmful outcomes (as is the case with poor health and medical reporting).
On reading Simon Wilson's article as you set it out I had assumed that he must be a fairly recent graduate of one of our critical thinking-soaked journalism schools. Then I looked him up and imagine my surprise when I saw his career path. There's nothing quite like a born-again "anything". Very few people in the general population can grasp the distinction between the rules that govern the smooth running of any organisation and the free-for-all that ensues when they are flouted. A recent example I'm familiar with was a committee meeting of a club I belong to when one member was attempting to clarify an issue with no success. When she asked what the Standing Orders said on the subject she was shouted down and told that this was irrelevant. Net result: infuriated members, hurt feelings and mass resignations of key people. Perhaps this is what TPM is aiming for?
Procedural rules are critical - sometimes moreso than substantive ones. The adherence to proper procedures say by the Police in carryiong out a search may mean that prosecution for a substantive offence may fall by the wayside if the serach is not properly conducted and the breach of procedures is egregious.
It is concerning that there is a casual dismissal of Standing Orders in your example. I know that there is a nodding acquaintance with meeting rules by many but I was taught what they are in the US of all places in civics - and the rules, ironically enough, were known as the rules of Parliamentary Procedure.
Damn that’s a fine reaming right there. Quite long, but that merely illustrates how much Wilson got wrong. It took you a while to unpick & destroy his ridiculous article. The dude is a clown masquerading as a journalist. He should hang his head in shame producing something as emotive and lame as that piece. That’s pretty much Joel Maxwell (Stuff) quality, just woeful.
And bad enough that he opines so stupidly on Rules in NZ, but he has the temerity & ignorance to then dip his terrorist supporting toe into the River and Sea. Someone needs to explain to that buffoon that Israel has shipped millions of tons of aid into Gaza and provides it with power & water. The UN is a disgrace.
I have (rather mischievously) left a post on X replying to Simon W promoting his own stuff (we all do it) referring him to this piece and inviting him to comment. We shall see what we shall see.
On the contrary, I reckon any country that can defend itself against multiple & larger foes, all intent on killing every single Israeli, in several wars since 1948, and still prevail is worthy of immense respect. That respect is shared by the many Muslims who serve in the IDF or live in Israel in peace. But it’s a free world, so believe what you want. Thanks for the chat.
The BBC are twisting the truth (no surprise there). According to the Israelis, since Oct 7th , when they were attacked, Israel has delivered 92,000 trucks of aid into Gaza. 1.8m tonnes. Hamas stole much of it. And I’m still not sure how delivering aid to an enemy who attacked you so barbarically is even Israel’s responsibility! That’s not usually how wars work. Easy solution tho, release the hostages & surrender. But Hamas enjoy their people going hungry.
Quite frankly, I am far more inclined to believe the BBC than you, - you sound nasty and cruel if you can tolerate children dying of hunger. I was lucky enough to recently see a documentary about a New Zealand surgeon who has spent the past 20 years of his retirement visiting Gaza to provide heart surgery for children there. The doco focused on the doctor's work, so was not intended as political but it was obvious that Israel has adopted a "let's be as unhelpful as we can and push these people out" approach to Gaza.
Ouch Liz. Methinks you’re missing the point somewhat. Israel operates on injured kids from Gaza. They investigate & apologise if kids are collateral damage. They have the lowest civilian to combatant death rate in the history of wars. They could just carpet bomb Gaza, but they go door to door to reduce civilian casualties. Many young IDF soldiers die as a result. Whereas Hamas sacrifice their own people to play the media and naive people like yourself. They intentionally murdered civilians on Oct 7 and call for the death of all Jews. And you wanna cry foul cos Israel is not feeding them as much as you or the BBC expect? No offence, but you’ve got this all wrong. Enjoy your documentaries, but this shit is real.
It is only your opinion that I am naive. What a lot of rot! Don't know where you get your information regarding how kind israel is - it isn't. It is a despicable state which has bombed virtually every hospital in Gaza, advised people to return to areas which it has then bombed. It is obviously intent on completely destroying Gaza. Are you aware that of the 124 journalists killed last year, 70% of them were killed by Israel. Israel is not worthy of anyone's respect.
I wonder if we may be a bit off message here. Boris was suggesting that Wilson had joined the river to the sea brigade and that Israel had shipped aid to Gaza along with other necessities. The issue is a complex one but the question must be asked - how much responsibility does Hamas (and Iran) bear for what has happened. Quite a bit I would suggest given Hamas tendency to use hospitals as bases and civilians as human shields. But Wilson meandered in to this miasma suggesting that the Govt should say something. As I recall Peters has done just that.
On the contrary, I reckon any country that can defend itself against multiple & larger foes, all intent on killing every single Israeli, in several wars since 1948, and still prevail is worthy of immense respect. That respect is shared by the many Muslims who serve in the IDF or live in Israel in peace. But it’s a free world, so believe what you want. Thanks for the chat.
Rules in Form (laws) are created to establish boundaries of acceptable behaviour.
If laws are exceeded, then there are consequences.
In the enactment (policy and procedures) of those rules in form, personal drivers/perception/ judgement & the social morality context naturally will come into play. In this moment a person had a choice to misuse/abuse or act with integrity - this is being human and both choices will have consequences.
Acting in those moments with integrity, displays a higher functioning level of EQ and debating an issue using clear logic and reason (without conflation of issues or emotional response) is the foundation for the Rules in form of the House. If an MP cannot attain that level of functioning, they should not be in that position and don't deserve to be taking tax payers $$ for their sub-optimal abilities.
A competent journalist but driven by ideology without sufficient concern for the facts. A few years back, I was seeking to understand how the ToW meaning morphed into something totally different to what most of us thought it meant. Thus I started reading various commentators, listening to pods where elite Maori expounded on their views etc And to be honest, there were no lightbulb moments. I was discussing this with a journo friend who said you should follow Simon Wilson he does a lot on that stuff and he's really good.
For a year, I followed Simon and listened to various relevant podcasts. Sometimes he was challenged specifically about his views on his interpretation of ToW etc. But at the end of all that, apart from Simon sounding fairly knowledgeable, again I walked away with no new knowledge. At best, a bit more knowledge on legal moves over the last ten years on this subject. Largely, he was his views are an article of faith often in absolute terms. Ultimately, I got frustrated with his critical race theory/social justice leanings and his benevolent disdain for the rest of us.
Thanks for the comment Nicola. You say you wouldn't read anything by Wilson and thats fine. I read him (and others of his ilk) to try and keep up with differing points of view. But would I rely on him or what he writes? No.
It is strange how a substantial portion of the commentariat seems unwilling to understand the necessity of rules and equality before the law. While the intent of Te Paati Maori may have been theatrical, they interrupted the house during a vote, left their seats, and advanced towards members of another party.
Their punishment is substantially harsher than the one Julie Anne Genter received for similar behaviour during a debate, or Peeni Henare did for his part in the haka, but they both apologised and fronted up to the Privileges Committee. Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke has shown some contrition, reflected in her lighter sentence, but (unlike The Green Party and Labour in the examples above) Te Paati Maori have doubled down and refused to admit any wrongdoing.
Ultimately, I worry about the slipping standards of conduct across parliament. While all the examples above are from the opposition, the government hasn't been much better - Winston Peters' choice to reference the satire of Matua Kahurangi as fact being the most recent example of unbecoming conduct from that side.
Last night I was reading historian Peter Turchin's End Times (2023), and came across this passage describing the behaviour of the US Congress in the lead-up to the Civil War:
"Those were cruder times, and intraelite conflict took very violent forms. In Congress, incidences of violence and threatened violence increased, reaching a peak during the 1850s. The brutal caning that Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina gave to Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the Senate floor in 1856 is the best-known episode of such violence, but it was not the only one. In 1842, after Representative Thomas Arnold of Tennessee “reprimanded a pro-slavery member of his own party, two Southern Democrats stalked toward him, at least one of whom was armed with a bowie knife — a 6-to12-inch blade often worn strapped to the back. Calling Arnold a ‘damned coward,’ his angry colleagues threatened to cut his throat ‘from ear to ear.’” During a debate in 1850, Senator Henry Foote of Mississippi pulled a pistol on Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri. In another bitter debate, a New York congressman inadvertently dropped a pistol — it fell out of his pocket — and almost precipitated a general shootout on the floor of Congress. Lincoln was a part of this rough-and-tumble politics, especially in his early career. He often verbally abused his opponents and several times came near to blows with them, once nearly fighting in a duel."
While it seems unlikely to me that intraelite conflict in NZ will reach that level of violence, the increasingly poor behaviour of MPs in the house reflects that our society has many of the structural conditions (popular immiseration leading to mass mobilization potential; elite overproduction resulting in intraelite conflict; failing fiscal health and weakened legitimacy of the state; and geopolitical factors) that in Turchin's Cliodynamic models lead to major political crises.
Much like in economic boom-bust dynamics, it seems that once these conditions are in place there is little that can be done to prevent a 'bust' cycle in the political sphere from occurring. However, it is possible to 'flatten the curve' with proper intervention in ways similar to how Reserve Banks manage the inflation cycle (or, as our previous government attempted to do during COVID for infection rates). From what I understand, Turchin posits that the most important measure is to shut off the 'wealth pump' that enables elite overproduction, which seems similar to the 'soft corruption' that Rob MacCulloch has recently complained about in NZ.
Asserting values like equality before the law, and legitimate punishment for rule-breaking conduct, seems important as well - particularly in shaping the kind of state that might emerge out of a political crisis. If these traditional values disappear from our civic spaces, then the new order that emerges from the crisis will be unlikely to incorporate them.
Thanks for your comment Stephen. Post Civil War politics in the US were confrontational and aggressive as you say.
I think that somewhere along the line there is going to be a reset, both in the political space (although I am not sure how that will happen) and the economic space. The economic reset will come with a number of "radical" but necessary reforms akin to those of Douglas in the mid-1980's.
There will still be a need for rules as constraints on behaviour, and consequences foir breaches. I can only hope they will remain. The alternative will be a disordered society.
This is the first time I have read one of Simon Wilson's writings since I stopped being a judge for the Voyager Awards some years ago. I stopped because, aside from a few notable exceptions, most of the entries were woeful, and this column is an example of those.
I actually enjoy reading opinion pieces which are contrary to my philosophy or politics so long as a) they are well written and b) they are evidence based. Chris Trotter does it well, but Trotter is an exceptionally good writer; one of New Zealand's best. Trotter is very intelligent. Wilson is not intelligent, unfortunately, and that is why his columns fail. He just can't grasp the issue. He lacks the curiosity to put aside his own prejudice and go into the back of the cave in search of the smell, when everyone else is running out (as Warwick Roger used to say).
More sinister in this particular column, however, is that his attitude has plummeted dangerously close to being patronising. Does he really think Māori, in particular Te Pāti Māori, are so weak and helpless they need merciful treatment from New Zealand's paramount court? The court they campaigned to be members of, participate in, belong to, and, when sworn in, agreed to comply with the rules of?
Is he now advocating that having breached that oath, and not just broken those rules but subsequently defied requests to explain those actions, these members of Te Pāti Māori should be treated differently from members of any other party who may in future do same?
There is a word for that offensive and brutal form of political system. a system which caused many in this country to march in protests objecting to its manifestation in another country, a country that was booted out of the Commonwealth for not abiding by rules.
I am pleased you unpicked his column, David, and even more pleased you alerted him on X. I hope you update those of us who are not on X to his reaction, if he's man enough to reply to you.
But in fact, he is capable of good writing. Once, I think it was in Kia Ora magazine, I read an article about Marfa, Texas, which was so good I flipped back to the by-line and Good God it was Simon Wilson. I even dropped him a line of congratulations, and booked a ticket to fly to Houston, El Paso, then drove to Marfa. That's the only good writing I've ever read of his.
Just checked the X feed (midday). Silence. I doubt he will pick up the gauntlet and there is a word that describes refusing or walking away from a challenge.
And I agree. There are times when he does well. Trouble is that it is rare.
This discussion raises in my mind the confabulation of opinion and reportage of News. I accept a journalist is free in an opinion piece to comment and give an opinion.
I do not need to read that, but I do wish to read about the News , free of the journalist's opinion and commentary. I do not accept that a journalist is tasked with holding the relevant organisation or Government to account, when acting as a reporter. I am old fashioned, I demand fairness, independence and truthfulness from a reporter. Not much to ask?
Tom from Wanaka
I have avoided reading Simon Wilson’s opinions for a long time - to me they just amplify the left biased writing in the Herald. I read the global news in other sources - where the reporting is factual rather than emotive or biased. For local NZ news - I struggle to find a source - a quick glance at the headlines and then follow up on Substack. I sincerely hope that the Herald improves under its new leadership.
I have treated as satire his muddled word splattering ever since I had the misfortune to professionally deal with him many decades ago. He was then supposedly reporting on science. It may be coincidence, but he became some sort of 'social issues' reporter soon after the long list of concerns and corrections was put to the Herald's editor. Science journalism immediately improved somewhat, although was still dire (and remains so). So it seems is the 'social issues' coverage.
Wilson is acknowledged to be on the progressive (Left) side of the spectrum and he looks at issues through that lens. There are occasions - very rare - when he does get it right. I could make a number of comments about his style but that would become an ad hominem consideration and I don't like to do that.
The issue I had was that he didn't seem to understand weight of evidence, treating the opinions of a few NGO and fringe activists as equally valid to multiple internationally-accepted peer-reviewed and in agreement studies. This, of course, does a disservice to the non-expert and leads to harmful outcomes (as is the case with poor health and medical reporting).
On reading Simon Wilson's article as you set it out I had assumed that he must be a fairly recent graduate of one of our critical thinking-soaked journalism schools. Then I looked him up and imagine my surprise when I saw his career path. There's nothing quite like a born-again "anything". Very few people in the general population can grasp the distinction between the rules that govern the smooth running of any organisation and the free-for-all that ensues when they are flouted. A recent example I'm familiar with was a committee meeting of a club I belong to when one member was attempting to clarify an issue with no success. When she asked what the Standing Orders said on the subject she was shouted down and told that this was irrelevant. Net result: infuriated members, hurt feelings and mass resignations of key people. Perhaps this is what TPM is aiming for?
Nothing like an evangalising convert.
Procedural rules are critical - sometimes moreso than substantive ones. The adherence to proper procedures say by the Police in carryiong out a search may mean that prosecution for a substantive offence may fall by the wayside if the serach is not properly conducted and the breach of procedures is egregious.
It is concerning that there is a casual dismissal of Standing Orders in your example. I know that there is a nodding acquaintance with meeting rules by many but I was taught what they are in the US of all places in civics - and the rules, ironically enough, were known as the rules of Parliamentary Procedure.
Damn that’s a fine reaming right there. Quite long, but that merely illustrates how much Wilson got wrong. It took you a while to unpick & destroy his ridiculous article. The dude is a clown masquerading as a journalist. He should hang his head in shame producing something as emotive and lame as that piece. That’s pretty much Joel Maxwell (Stuff) quality, just woeful.
And bad enough that he opines so stupidly on Rules in NZ, but he has the temerity & ignorance to then dip his terrorist supporting toe into the River and Sea. Someone needs to explain to that buffoon that Israel has shipped millions of tons of aid into Gaza and provides it with power & water. The UN is a disgrace.
I have (rather mischievously) left a post on X replying to Simon W promoting his own stuff (we all do it) referring him to this piece and inviting him to comment. We shall see what we shall see.
Good things take time, Boris.
On the contrary, I reckon any country that can defend itself against multiple & larger foes, all intent on killing every single Israeli, in several wars since 1948, and still prevail is worthy of immense respect. That respect is shared by the many Muslims who serve in the IDF or live in Israel in peace. But it’s a free world, so believe what you want. Thanks for the chat.
According to BBC news Israel has allowed entry of aid, but has not yet distributed it - a practice of delay which they have refined over many years. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cq8037dd3p9t?post=asset%3A4304571c-27b4-4bf1-8b7b-3145827e8555
The BBC are twisting the truth (no surprise there). According to the Israelis, since Oct 7th , when they were attacked, Israel has delivered 92,000 trucks of aid into Gaza. 1.8m tonnes. Hamas stole much of it. And I’m still not sure how delivering aid to an enemy who attacked you so barbarically is even Israel’s responsibility! That’s not usually how wars work. Easy solution tho, release the hostages & surrender. But Hamas enjoy their people going hungry.
Quite frankly, I am far more inclined to believe the BBC than you, - you sound nasty and cruel if you can tolerate children dying of hunger. I was lucky enough to recently see a documentary about a New Zealand surgeon who has spent the past 20 years of his retirement visiting Gaza to provide heart surgery for children there. The doco focused on the doctor's work, so was not intended as political but it was obvious that Israel has adopted a "let's be as unhelpful as we can and push these people out" approach to Gaza.
Ouch Liz. Methinks you’re missing the point somewhat. Israel operates on injured kids from Gaza. They investigate & apologise if kids are collateral damage. They have the lowest civilian to combatant death rate in the history of wars. They could just carpet bomb Gaza, but they go door to door to reduce civilian casualties. Many young IDF soldiers die as a result. Whereas Hamas sacrifice their own people to play the media and naive people like yourself. They intentionally murdered civilians on Oct 7 and call for the death of all Jews. And you wanna cry foul cos Israel is not feeding them as much as you or the BBC expect? No offence, but you’ve got this all wrong. Enjoy your documentaries, but this shit is real.
It is only your opinion that I am naive. What a lot of rot! Don't know where you get your information regarding how kind israel is - it isn't. It is a despicable state which has bombed virtually every hospital in Gaza, advised people to return to areas which it has then bombed. It is obviously intent on completely destroying Gaza. Are you aware that of the 124 journalists killed last year, 70% of them were killed by Israel. Israel is not worthy of anyone's respect.
I wonder if we may be a bit off message here. Boris was suggesting that Wilson had joined the river to the sea brigade and that Israel had shipped aid to Gaza along with other necessities. The issue is a complex one but the question must be asked - how much responsibility does Hamas (and Iran) bear for what has happened. Quite a bit I would suggest given Hamas tendency to use hospitals as bases and civilians as human shields. But Wilson meandered in to this miasma suggesting that the Govt should say something. As I recall Peters has done just that.
On the contrary, I reckon any country that can defend itself against multiple & larger foes, all intent on killing every single Israeli, in several wars since 1948, and still prevail is worthy of immense respect. That respect is shared by the many Muslims who serve in the IDF or live in Israel in peace. But it’s a free world, so believe what you want. Thanks for the chat.
Rules in Form (laws) are created to establish boundaries of acceptable behaviour.
If laws are exceeded, then there are consequences.
In the enactment (policy and procedures) of those rules in form, personal drivers/perception/ judgement & the social morality context naturally will come into play. In this moment a person had a choice to misuse/abuse or act with integrity - this is being human and both choices will have consequences.
Acting in those moments with integrity, displays a higher functioning level of EQ and debating an issue using clear logic and reason (without conflation of issues or emotional response) is the foundation for the Rules in form of the House. If an MP cannot attain that level of functioning, they should not be in that position and don't deserve to be taking tax payers $$ for their sub-optimal abilities.
My 2 cents on Simon Wilson.
A competent journalist but driven by ideology without sufficient concern for the facts. A few years back, I was seeking to understand how the ToW meaning morphed into something totally different to what most of us thought it meant. Thus I started reading various commentators, listening to pods where elite Maori expounded on their views etc And to be honest, there were no lightbulb moments. I was discussing this with a journo friend who said you should follow Simon Wilson he does a lot on that stuff and he's really good.
For a year, I followed Simon and listened to various relevant podcasts. Sometimes he was challenged specifically about his views on his interpretation of ToW etc. But at the end of all that, apart from Simon sounding fairly knowledgeable, again I walked away with no new knowledge. At best, a bit more knowledge on legal moves over the last ten years on this subject. Largely, he was his views are an article of faith often in absolute terms. Ultimately, I got frustrated with his critical race theory/social justice leanings and his benevolent disdain for the rest of us.
Nowadays I wouldnt read anything by Simon Wilson.
Thanks for the comment Nicola. You say you wouldn't read anything by Wilson and thats fine. I read him (and others of his ilk) to try and keep up with differing points of view. But would I rely on him or what he writes? No.
A superb dismissal of a dissimulating journalist's "opinion piece", thanks David
It is strange how a substantial portion of the commentariat seems unwilling to understand the necessity of rules and equality before the law. While the intent of Te Paati Maori may have been theatrical, they interrupted the house during a vote, left their seats, and advanced towards members of another party.
Their punishment is substantially harsher than the one Julie Anne Genter received for similar behaviour during a debate, or Peeni Henare did for his part in the haka, but they both apologised and fronted up to the Privileges Committee. Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke has shown some contrition, reflected in her lighter sentence, but (unlike The Green Party and Labour in the examples above) Te Paati Maori have doubled down and refused to admit any wrongdoing.
Ultimately, I worry about the slipping standards of conduct across parliament. While all the examples above are from the opposition, the government hasn't been much better - Winston Peters' choice to reference the satire of Matua Kahurangi as fact being the most recent example of unbecoming conduct from that side.
Last night I was reading historian Peter Turchin's End Times (2023), and came across this passage describing the behaviour of the US Congress in the lead-up to the Civil War:
"Those were cruder times, and intraelite conflict took very violent forms. In Congress, incidences of violence and threatened violence increased, reaching a peak during the 1850s. The brutal caning that Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina gave to Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the Senate floor in 1856 is the best-known episode of such violence, but it was not the only one. In 1842, after Representative Thomas Arnold of Tennessee “reprimanded a pro-slavery member of his own party, two Southern Democrats stalked toward him, at least one of whom was armed with a bowie knife — a 6-to12-inch blade often worn strapped to the back. Calling Arnold a ‘damned coward,’ his angry colleagues threatened to cut his throat ‘from ear to ear.’” During a debate in 1850, Senator Henry Foote of Mississippi pulled a pistol on Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri. In another bitter debate, a New York congressman inadvertently dropped a pistol — it fell out of his pocket — and almost precipitated a general shootout on the floor of Congress. Lincoln was a part of this rough-and-tumble politics, especially in his early career. He often verbally abused his opponents and several times came near to blows with them, once nearly fighting in a duel."
While it seems unlikely to me that intraelite conflict in NZ will reach that level of violence, the increasingly poor behaviour of MPs in the house reflects that our society has many of the structural conditions (popular immiseration leading to mass mobilization potential; elite overproduction resulting in intraelite conflict; failing fiscal health and weakened legitimacy of the state; and geopolitical factors) that in Turchin's Cliodynamic models lead to major political crises.
Much like in economic boom-bust dynamics, it seems that once these conditions are in place there is little that can be done to prevent a 'bust' cycle in the political sphere from occurring. However, it is possible to 'flatten the curve' with proper intervention in ways similar to how Reserve Banks manage the inflation cycle (or, as our previous government attempted to do during COVID for infection rates). From what I understand, Turchin posits that the most important measure is to shut off the 'wealth pump' that enables elite overproduction, which seems similar to the 'soft corruption' that Rob MacCulloch has recently complained about in NZ.
Asserting values like equality before the law, and legitimate punishment for rule-breaking conduct, seems important as well - particularly in shaping the kind of state that might emerge out of a political crisis. If these traditional values disappear from our civic spaces, then the new order that emerges from the crisis will be unlikely to incorporate them.
Thanks for your comment Stephen. Post Civil War politics in the US were confrontational and aggressive as you say.
I think that somewhere along the line there is going to be a reset, both in the political space (although I am not sure how that will happen) and the economic space. The economic reset will come with a number of "radical" but necessary reforms akin to those of Douglas in the mid-1980's.
There will still be a need for rules as constraints on behaviour, and consequences foir breaches. I can only hope they will remain. The alternative will be a disordered society.