For once, to my shock and horror, a national media mogul 'took the words right out of my mouth' (to adopt the phraseology in Meat Loaf's old hit): that is, when TV3's The Nation host Lisa Owen cited Maurice Williamson as the Government's 'fall guy' in the present political landscape. Indeed that rather understates my reaction to Ms Owen this Sunday morning in regards to her (justifiably) lengthy interview with the former National Minister. For she gave him not only a far better 'interrogation' than did longtime presenter Susan Wood on TV1's equivalent 'Q & A' the previous hour, but I would argue a much fairer and more balanced, justifiably sympathetic 'grilling'; for she still spoke a mile a minute and took no prisoners in terms of getting every last ounce of response out of the obviously physically (and emotionally) exhausted but nevertheless quite coherent and persuasive Mr Williamson. Irrespective the long-serving Pakuranga M.P. certainly acquitted himself well and admirably in both instances, and especially so in view of his evidently having gone without shuteye and food ever since his personal misfortune broke on all and sundry last Thursday.
All too predictably, within a lickety-split Maurice Williamson was seized upon by P.M. John Key as the all-atoning fall guy or scapegoat for a Government long since under (often just) fire for two issues in particular, those of 'the Chinese connection' - i.e. of power, money and influence in New Zealand politics; and the National Administration's arguably lax response to domestic violence in God's Own (see for example the ACC's problematic non-dealing with sexual violence claimants in recent years, and, against the backdrop of the apparent marked decrease in crime 'across the board' throughout the land since National took office, seemingly only ever-increasing instances of sexual assault and domestic violence under the Government's watch.)
Hearing well-known political commentators - the Edwards Brothers I'll term them (the blogger Bryce Edwards of the University of Otago's Political Studies Department on Newstalk ZB's Friday evening 'Panel' discussion and Brent Edwards, Radio National's parliamentary correspondent on the public broadcaster's parallel programme at about the same time) - sound off on the matter, I found myself agreeing with Bryce to a point, insofar as he suggested Labour had been responding appropriately thus far - if in an understandably more measured way than usual in view of their own closeted skeletons from yesteryear. But no doubt that was only because I hadn't happened to hear any news reports of their response full stop. For to his suggestion that they were still a little late in getting off the starting blocks upon the matter I couldn't disagree more.
As far as I'm concerned, their one and only useful response thus far has been their complete silence, though all too typically this was soon cancelled out by their rather predictable reversion to good 'ole partisan politics - fully 'accepting' said ex-minister's guilt thus pre-empting the chance of his being proven innocent. Much as they've readily devoured each and every scandal engulfing their political opponents ever since they grabbed Tuku Morgan's undies firmly between both teeth back in early 1997 (or late 1996) and ran with them for all they were worth (or weren't!). Though it could well be argued that National has likewise done as much, and every bit as unscrupulously, when itself in Opposition.
Did it - (apparently) not - ever occur to them that instead of adopting el usual approach of playing up and unduly magnifying each and every inference gleaned from all such instances of indiscretion and alleged corruption then circulating all applicable innuendoes thereupon often and long enough, that there existed a ready if much less politically partisan alternative? That a much slower and more thoughtful, nuanced and considered approach might well have earned them much more credit with the general public? Even - God forbid - the very chance that Maurice might well be, as National Radio's Catherine Ryan commented to her comedian duo before Friday's midday news, actually telling it just as it in fact was - i.e. the full quid.
For 'as we all know' truth is indeed often a lot stranger than fiction, Mr Williamson's story being all the more believable for having certain elements which to a superficial critic might well initially have stood him in an unfavourable light. The very implausibility of his story, or rather the various strands and threads of it - just as a number of witnesses at a crime scene appear to superficial observers to have somewhat contradictory accounts, which, being perfectly human, they do, but that's hardly the point - thus ever so counterintuitively lending the very ring of truth to it (just as Pakuranga's own cheesy but unforgettable Colgate toothpaste smile was declared as doing on the TV ads in olden days!)
But no, like all 'good' political operators - with the slight exception of Grant Robertson, who made the apt if obvious comment that Judith Collins ought to have (long since) done the same, i.e. resigned - they soon swung into routine partisan denunciation and (sheeting home of due) opprobrium. Moreover they chose to characterize Williamson's apparent connection with, and moreover alleged advocacy on behalf of, someone involved in domestic violence in the darkest possible light, as such a thing readily suggested a red flag to a much-cherished constituency of theirs: naturally, as ever, assuming as most such middle-class 'intelligentsia' and identity politics' individuals ever do, that each and every instance of such crime is perpetrated by a man against a woman, when *well-conducted surveys by the likes of the arguably lefter than left University of Otago have long since shown that not to be the case. Indeed in a study they did female against male domestic violence was (at least quantitatively) 'greater' or more frequent than the converse.
In other words, for Maurice Williamson's involvement with any individual implicated in such a crime - convicted as yet or otherwise, which seems to be debatable seeing as Parliament's Speaker once again enforced the sub judice rule upon the parliamentary discussions thereof, though some have alleged said immigrant has already been indicted, only not yet sentenced - one and only one possible interpretation is possible: the MP must have one motive and one only in contacting the police, i.e. to be attempting an intervention on said individual's behalf to get him off said charges. The implication of course is clear: domestic violence is presumably of no great concern to a National M.P. or Minister, though of course no possible rationale for making such a general inference or rather slur upon said politicians as a group is really feasible.
Except of course good old left-wing prejudice against any and every 'Tory' politico, assuming the very worst in terms of male chauvinism, sexism etcetera. Because if you spread such innuendoes and inferences long enough, no doubt some of your mud will eventually stick. (Though I'd readily grant that much the same could be said vis-a-vis the typical line of slurs which right-of-centre politicoes themselves, and their media fellow-travellers, often make about their left-wing opponents. Yes, politics is ever politics, whatever the source thereof!)
Perhaps if they'd rather adopted the following approach they'd have - quite justly and justifiably - earned kudos from one and all, including Yours Truly: praised Maurice Williamson's rapid acceptance of responsibility for making a wrong call and accordingly deciding to quit his ministerial posts without delay, just as Labour's much-esteemed David Parker did himself during Labour's last tenure, to a virtual standing ovation from one and all in Parliament, including the National Party; made the obvious and logical comparison with Justice Minister Judith Collins' own predicament, calling upon her - as Mr Robertson did - to follow suit, and questioning (as they also have) why the Prime Minister seems to be adopting a different and inconsistent approach in the two instances; and perhaps then add that the charge of deliberate interference by Mr Williamson seemed completely out of character for someone well-known and noted for being a very able constituency advocate.
That though the matter certainly 'appeared' to put Mr Williamson in a rather unfavourable light, there could well be a quite innocent explanation for his behaviour which would actually give the lie to the only too obvious insinuation - admittedly pleasing for a Labour Party only too eager for fresh scandals to use against the Government of the day - thus elicited by said situation. Showing a refreshing and admittedly wholly unexpected impartiality and even-handedness which could take the public completely off guard and even, wonder of wonders, thus make them more inclined to vote for them. But doubtless such noble and lofty considerations rarely enter the minds - much less the hearts - of today's politicians. But dreams are ever free.
Disclaimer: 1) Having had my own words and meanings and intentions wrested and misrepresented by media and others, including political opponents and especially officious bureaucrats, over the decades, I concede I can rather easily and readily relate to, and empathize with, anyone else going through the ringer re the same. 2) I'm surprised to find myself thus going out of my way to argue the case for someone who I've oftentimes been critical of over the years, everything from Maurice Williamson's radical laissez-faire free market views to his botched re-introduction of five-ten year driver licences in the late 1990s, through to his recent acclamation by the international 'rainbow coalition' of homosexual activists for his strong stance and memorable speech in support of the Marriage Amendment Act - i.e. Gay Marriage Equality legislation.
As for the usually sensible 'the Two's' (i.e. Pam Corkery and Tim Roxborough) panning Mr Williamson as per his future employment prospects - "no-one'd employ him"; and disparagingly comparing his physical-emotional state on TV today with those of well-composed flood victims in Christchurch, let me say this. Though their comparison with and contrast between those ever markedly-composed sufferers from Christchurch's dreadful ongoing trials and tribulations and the ex-Minister seem rather salient, methinks they'd also be among those only all too ready to criticize the male of the species - especially public leadership thereof - for failing to show such emotions in the circumstances.
Interestingly the very term 'fall guy' immediately sprang to mind upon the announcement of Mr Williamson's resignation last week, as had the song 'Candle in the Wind' soon after the death of Princess Diana 17 years ago - who doesn't remember exactly where they were? - which indeed was itself 'prescient' of a sort, for Elton John almost immediately thereafter reworked his much-celebrated hit into 'England's Rose' for Princess Di's funeral service.
And one thing I hadn't realized and now celebrate, was not only Mr Williamson's good 'ole oh-so-kiwi (generally) common sense approach to this, that and the next thing, but moreover his (apparently relatively uncommon) understanding, appreciation - and that in a practical way - of the real role required of a local, constituency member of Parliament, an electorate M.P.. Which I'd argue is not only streaks - indeed light years I suspect - ahead of most of his own party compatriots and parliamentary colleagues more generally, but perhaps unequalled - anecdotally anyhow - by any other MP save the likes of Te Tai Tokerau's Hone Harewira.
*Indeed in the course of Yours Truly's 'mousebitten' approach to research and gleaning from eclectic sources of all sorts, I just so happened to uncover a similar bit of research info - from a late 70s'/early 80s' issue of none other than that red rag of extreme feminism, Ms Magazine - that is specifically cited and noted by its founding editor, Gloria Steinem. However, as might be expected in the circumstances, Ms Steinem automatically downplayed and attempted to discredit the implications of said research - conducted by herself among others - assuming, as such ideologues ever do, extenuating circumstances (I suppose of ye 'ole provocation variety) for those (women) upon the other (dishing out) end of such abuse. In other words women are never actually responsible for such domestic violence even when they are most assuredly so!
As a lifetime hoarder, various magazines of me and my siblings still inhabit the lower recesses of our abode - everything from Ms Magazine to my beloved Gram's Modern Maturitys and Let's Live (and Thursdays and Mushrooms) through to the ever-perennial NZ Listeners, Times and Newsweeks, not to mention our beloved childhood mags such as Look and Learn and World of Wonders.
No comments:
Post a Comment