Groupthink

The "right-minded" kiwi

A newspaper editorial is a type of article that expresses the opinion of the newspaper's editor or editorial board on a specific topic. Unlike news articles, which are supposed to be objective and factual, editorials are subjective and persuasive. They aim to inform, influence, or entertain the readers on matters of public interest or concern.

There are a number of reasons why editorials are written.

One may be to provide analysis and commentary on important issues that affect the society, such as politics, economy, education, health, environment, etc.

Another may advocate for a certain position or course of action that the newspaper believes is in the best interest of the public or a specific group of people.

A third may endorse or criticize a candidate, a policy, a law, a decision, or an event that has significant implications for the society.

A fourth may be educate or enlighten the readers on a topic that they may not be familiar with or have misconceptions about.

Finally an editorial may entertain or amuse the readers with humor, satire, or irony on a lighter or controversial topic.

The editorial for the New Zealand Herald for 10 June 2024 addressed the issue of the march in opposition to the Fast Track Approval Bill and broadly to advocate for environmental protection.

It was a balanced editorial. It provided analysis and commentary on an important issue facing New Zealand.

It set out the position of the protesters and why they felt as strongly as they did. One the other hand the editorial made it clear that many New Zealanders would feel reluctant to protect nature at the expense of their personal wealth or living standards. It pointed out that there are a number of projects that are urgently required.

Thus the tension is stated – to advance the economy there will be negative environmental consequences. The editorial suggests that New Zealand needs to find a balance between protecting the environment and developing the economy.

So far so good. However there was a passage in the editorial that was at once patronizing, paternalistic and arrogant. It made an assumption about “right minded Kiwis” that was reminiscent of the divisive language of the Covid era marginalization of anti-vaxxers. It was redolent of Jacinda Ardern’s arrogant statement so often used “I speak for all New Zealanders” when in fact she didn’t.

This is the paragraph in the editorial to which I am referring:

“Ask any number of those who attended and they would support measures to protect this country’s natural beauty, for which we have become globally famous and on which we continue to trade. It is something most right-minded Kiwis would also favour.”

It is the use of the word “right-minded” to which I object. It makes a sweeping assumption about the correct way of thinking. I don’t think for a moment that the editor was using the word “right” in the sense of a position of the political spectrum.

But the assumption is that if you don’t “support measures to protect this country’s natural beauty, for which we have become globally famous and on which we continue to trade” you are not “right minded” and therefore are “wrong-minded”. This is the language of marginalization. Those who support the Fast Track Approval Bill are being consigned to the fringes of what could be considered “proper” or “acceptable” thinking. “Right-minded” tells us as much about what is going through the editor’s head as it does anything else. It may be thought to be an inclusive ter. It is not. It is divisive and judgmental.

I am not suggesting that the desire for a “groupthink” is alive and well in the Herald editorial suite. Rather I think the use of the adjective “right-minded” was as we would say in Latin lapsus styli – a slip of the pen. Or alternative, to continue the classical allusion, the editor, like Homer, nodded.

The sentence could have been modified and lost much of its objectionable nature while still getting the message across perhaps by casting it in this way

“Ask any number of those who attended and they would support measures to protect this country’s natural beauty, for which we have become globally famous and on which we continue to trade. It is something many Kiwis would also favour.”

There was another story which came across my screen on 10 June 2024. It was about the New Zealand rich-list. To my mind a person’s wealth and success are not really newsworthy unless it can be used to demonstrate the benefits of hard work, initiative, individualism, innovation and a certain business acumen coupled with a degree of je ne sais quoi in terms of market savvy.

What has happened is that the Mowbray family is the wealthiest family in New Zealand and tops the rich list. The family founded and developed the toy company Zuru. The company was founded in 2003 by Nick Mowbray who impresses me as a classic entrepreneur and ideas guy.

When he was 12 he designed and created a hot air balloon model kit that won first place in a national science fair in New Zealand. Mowbray's kit soon became more popular, and had started his first mini business of delivering hot balloon kits, made out of a garage in Cambridge, door to door with his brother, Mat. They had sold their kits throughout high school, and eventually decided to attend university. They returned to delivering kits after one year of university.

In 2003 he moved to Hong Kong and at the age of 18 with brother Mat started a toy factory in in Guangzhou, China. The business had some initial ups and downs and after two years Nick and Mat’s sister Anna helped them run the business which was renamed Zuru once it was found that the company’s original name  Guru had been trademarked by a different company. Since then the company has grown, developing more and more toy products and marketing them worldwide as well as branching out into consumer goods. The company is now developing a software based construction process.

Now this sort of success should be celebrated. The trouble that doesn’t happen. Rather Newshub ran the headline “Aotearoa's rich list shows New Zealand is 'a little out of balance' - E tū union organiser and ex-Labour MP Michael Wood”. Rather than praising success he meanly emphasizes that “over the last year the increase in wealth of that very small number of people at the top has increased by $23 billion."

He grudgingly acknowledged that “it was worth celebrating the listed Kiwis who've worked hard to make it to the top” but then went on to observe “they're paying a lower percentage rate generally than the average working person in New Zealand.” because capital gains aren’t taxed.

Mr Wood, of course, is a former Labour MP and Cabinet Minister who lost his seat – a relatively safe Labour one at that. Now as a Union organizer – what a surprise – he carries on the collectivist messaging that characterizes the Left. To understand the fundamental importance of individual effort and, as Ayn Rand put it "to show how desperately the world needs prime movers and how viciously it treats them" and  "what happens to the world without them" Mr Wood might like to try reading Atlas Shrugged. I say “try” because it is not an easy read.

I applaud the Mowbrays. I admire their initiative. I extol their entrepreneurship. I could not take the business risks that they obviously have to get to the position that they now are in. But that is not common for New Zealand nor is it common for the media to express unqualified praise for those who have done well. There is always a “Good on them, but….” And it is the “but” that evidences the Groupthink of the tall poppy syndrome which is an aspect of New Zealand culture that we could well do without and that  Atlas Shrugged condemns.