Am I Wrong About This?

AM I WRONG ABOUT THIS?

For a long time, Elwyn and I have had a growing sense of unease about the direction New Zealand is taking.  

Which is not unusual- it's a common enough reaction to the various disconnects that occur with aging (we were born in 1948 and 1946 respectively).

But in the last 5 years it seems to be more than this, much more.

There are so many social trends that are going in the wrong direction that it's becoming difficult to identify any that are positive.  Here are what seem at present to be the most dangerous three:

NZ has become wealthier during our lifetimes, much wealthier, but relatively we're slipping badly. During the 1960's, NZ was in the top group of countries by GDP/capita (income levels).  Now (2022) we're in the bottom group of OECD nations and falling behind countries that just 30 years ago were destitute remnants of the Soviet Union.  When I first travelled to Singapore in the early 1980's, their GDP/capita was half of NZ's.  Now it is 3 times.  'Relatively' matters.   At the rate we're falling- and it seems to be accelerating- within another generation or two, average NZers may no longer have first world lifestyles or choices (travel for example), and as a nation we'll be ever more subject to bullying by rising autocracies like China- and possibly also by some of our current friends.

Until the 1960's we also had one of the best educational systems in the world.  Now we're falling off the cliff with approaching 40% of children not attending school regularly by our education department's own criteria.  Sure, some of this is a hang-over from Covid restrictions, but the general trend was evident well before Covid struck and it's not looking like there's going to be a bounce back to even pre-covid attendance.  Proficiency in math, science and English is dropping into 3rd world territory.  The short-term effect of this is increasing crime, as disengaged youth turn to gangs, and drugs.  This is spectacularly evident with, for example, ram raid by under 18s up 400% in just 5 years to 191 for the 12 months to July '22.  The longer-term affect is that within a generation, skill levels will decline, making NZ even less internationally competitive in every sector.

But it's not just by income and education that we're losing it.

NZ is now also in the grip of a M?ori separatist movement which, with the support of our current government appears intent on introducing "co-governance" - by which M?ori appointees will share power with elected representatives from the wider population at local, regional and national levels.  Although this has never been put to voters, so is probably a combination of opportunist policy and a hidden agenda, it appears to have significant though not majority voter support at present.  If implemented-and some 'co-governance' is already in place- I believe this will lead inexorably to civil disorder and violence - not to mention economic collapse.  Can you think of any country ever where power and control reserved for an unelected racial minority has succeeded- or even survived for long?  But even if co-governance is somehow wound back, M?ori expectations have been raised to such a level that civil disorder and violence remain likely.

None of these paths to failure are external- we're not being taken down by famine, floods, pestilence, earthquakes, volcanos, invasion by hostile forces, nuclear Armageddon, an asteroid strike or runaway global warming (yet).  They're all own goals.

NZ is like a drunken man stumbling down a slope towards a cliff.

Anyone who tries to intervene gets ignored, then abused, and then cancelled- by some of our children in Elwyn's and my case.

So, what are the causes and why are we doing this to ourselves?

There's no mystery about our falling relative prosperity, it's caused by poor productivity (output per unit input- output of goods and services per hour worked for example). Since the 1960s NZ productivity has inexorably fallen behind that of comparable countries.  Although productivity can be difficult to measure year by year, over decades it becomes obvious which countries are becoming relatively wealthier- and NZ isn't.  We SHOULD be getting wealthier because so many technologies now available make getting things done easier: Containerisation has reduced shipping costs immensely, cell phones provide instant communications, computers outperform an army of clerks, machinery and equipment has become vastly quicker and cheaper.  So where has this tech dividend gone?

What's happened is that narrowly focussed activists make a media fuss about some issue or other: animal welfare, health and safety, employment relations, the environment, discrimination, nimbyism and etc.  Sympathetic politicians then respond with new regulations that address the perceived problem- and unintentionally (but not surprisingly) increase the cost of doing lots of other things.  This is why housing has become unaffordable, why businesses have to charge so much for goods and services, why farmer suicides are up, why our roads are third world and why it now costs so much to raise children. The failure is systemic; there should be careful analysis of the costs versus the benefits before new regulations are introduced, but this isn't happening.  Local, regional and central government public servants- who should be applying the brakes- are unable or unwilling to do so, partly at least because these sectors have been captured by the self-same single-issue activists.      

One of the causes of our educational decline is similar, since the 1960's a destructive ideology has taken a death grip on educational policy.  At the root of this ideology is the concept of 'equity'- which used to mean fairness but has been hijacked to mean equality of outcome.  As our five children went through school, in math there was an about 2 year slippage in what was being taught between our youngest and eldest (11 year age difference). 'Equity' required that less able children should not be confronted with differences, so the curriculum was dumbed down to what slower achievers could manage.  Since then, the rot has gone much deeper with more 'soft' subjects and the use of subjective assessments to fudge disparities.   When confronted with clear evidence of failure the NZ educational establishment has repeatedly declared the reason to be not enough of whatever they were doing that wasn't working- and so the downward spiral continues.  Additionally, feminist crusades have made teaching a risky career for males with the result that teaching is now an overwhelmingly female activity, especially at primary and intermediate level.   Women are as clever as men, but they are not as interested in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and math), overwhelmingly choosing more 'relatable' subjects like art, music, and 'social' subjects.  Unfortunately, the world currently values STEM skills above all others and NZ is losing ground fast.

By the end of the 18th century, northern hemisphere whalers and sealers were setting up shore bases here- and interbreeding enthusiastically with M?ori who had been here since the 12th century.  By the 1830s there were a few permanent European settlements and by the 1850s, Europeans were immigrating to NZ in considerable numbers to take up pastoral farming.  By the middle of the 20th century many of those identifying as M?ori were less than 50% M?ori by ancestry, and often a LOT less.  After WW2 many M?ori (who had served with great distinction) were proud of their contribution and had a strong sense of being NZers first and M?ori second.  For a while it seemed like we were becoming one people. But then, in parallel with the 1970's rise of the anti-apartheid movement (of which Elwyn and I were supporters) and the anti-nuclear everything protests (which we were not), there was a rapid rise in M?ori discontent.  The reasons for this are various: but the main course is poor socio-economic performance, with historical grievances and a M?ori cultural renaissance as condiments.  A significant number of non-M?ori have also taken up this cause on social justice grounds. The problem is that replacing our current representative democracy with rule, even in part, by an unelected racial minority will be ruinous for everyone if history is any guide.

Naïve and entitled thinking is a common element in each of these paths to failure. Too many young and especially young female New Zealanders believe that we can make quite extreme environmental and social justice choices while, somehow, life will go on as before with food on the table, money in the bank, and the personal freedom that only wealthy countries can afford.  To some extent this comes from the sense of security derived from NZ having no threatening neighbours (unlike Australia and VERY unlike Ukraine) and that current generations having had no direct connection with those who experienced either the great depression or WW2.  Young NZers are not wrong to be concerned about environmental and social justice matters, but they are only able to pursue these concerns to the extent they do because their parents and grandparents provided them with the choices that come with prosperity.  Unless there is now a sudden and improbable change in NZ's direction, their children will NOT have these choices.  The lives of future generations of NZers will revert to a daily struggle for survival- with environmental and social justice concerns no longer their priority.

 So, what am I getting wrong here?

Perhaps the assumption that other countries will not also fall off the cliff- each in its own way?  Could NZ still be a good place to be because everywhere else is worse?  This is possible of course, but at least a few countries seem to have more mature voters on average- voters who understand that the choices thy make are not cost free.

Perhaps we don't need all children to have a world class education- and given even half a chance 10% to 20% seem to get there no matter how difficult we make it for them.  But whichever way this is looked at, countries that enable a higher percentage of children to achieve their potential are going to outperform us- and there's still the high crime rate that comes with educational underperformance for us to deal with.

And, is it possible that NZers will meekly accept being lorded over by an unelected tribally based racial minority?  The current non-M?ori generation looks like they have some appetite for this, but are there limits to how long what is probably just white guilt will sustain them?  NZ is becoming increasingly Asian in make-up, and I can't imagine that Indian and Chinese migrants will accept subordinate status for more than a generation or two.

No.  Unfortunately, unless some catastrophic world-wide event intervenes, NZ's slide looks set to continue- exacerbated by younger people with marketable skills leaving while they still have that option.

                        Peter Lynn, Ashburton, New Zealand, August 2022

                                                     JUST SO YOU KNOW

By the classical definition, Elwyn and I are Liberals not Conservatives.  We're not anti-vax, not religious (don't believe in an afterlife), support abortion, (with some constraints) and hold strongly that rewards should be apportioned by merit, not by class race or gender. We're accepting of different sexual orientations, have been for all our adult lives, and believe that there is a role for the State in supporting people who have fallen on hard times- while not supporting welfare as a choice.  Neither of us has any propensity to believe in conspiracy theories.  We both support immigration, while holding that those who choose to shift to here should generally adapt to our culture and laws rather than demanding that New Zealand changes to their world view.  We have strong memories from the 1950's and '60's when UK Trade Unionists brought their destructive Labour relations to NZ. 

There are, of course, some differences in our views. 

Elwyn is more sceptical of human caused climate change than I am though we both regard NZ's policy responses so far as counterproductive- imposing costs which directly impinge on our ability to adapt, (as adapt to a warming world we will have to, in my view), while increasing not decreasing global emissions (for example, by cutting agricultural production here- which just shifts the activity to places with higher emissions).

Elwyn is generally less forthright in expressing her views than I am when people with opposing views are present, but it's a mistake to therefore think that she doesn't hold them just as strongly - or more so.

To the Right of us are Conservatives.  Some of these, probably declining in number, are traditional conservatives who strongly support the status quo ante.  But amongst them are also those whose views are driven by religious beliefs - opposing abortion, supporting traditional gender roles and uncomfortable with homosexuality. This group is not large but does seem to be holding or even growing slightly.  Then there are various conspiracy theorists (anti-vaxxers, those who believe that a secret world government cabal exists, and the like). 

To the Left of us are traditional collectivists (socialists) and , increasingly the new Left which concerns itself very much with the environment and social justice issues.   identity politics but also other si

                                                        FEMINISM

From the 1960's feminism with its various agendas based on "women are victims and men are oppressors" (sometimes true too) took a strong hold on young women, especially those attending universities and living in cities. This has had many beneficial consequences but also some that are destructive- like the fracturing of relationships resulting in a majority of children not now enjoying stable home environments, and so many people of both sexes experiencing loneliness in their older age (denied the closeness and mutual support that Elwyn and I, and so many of our cohort- but not later generations - now enjoy).

                                                        Cancel Culture

Is a practice of those whose beliefs are based on faith not evidence.  Unable to defend or refute contending views, they respond by "cancelling" those they disagree with, refusing to listen to their views, or in extreme cases, from any social interactions at all.  Historically cancel culture has been associated with religions- the Exclusive Brethren for example.  Gloriavale call the practice "shunning".  Recently it's become associated with the progressive or woke Left, who have carried it to extremes not seen since the Reformation with " de-platforming" and vicious denunciation and vilifications of heretics.