Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Why cheer Clark?

David Garrett is a dickhead, as many of his comments have shown he is closer to the "mob justice" view of the world, and has a mixed view of individual rights at best. However, in refusing to participate in the nauseating standing ovation for Helen Clark he deserves credit for having some principle.

Seriously. He may not have a clue on some things, but he is a man who believes in certain things - he didn't enter politics to be cheering Helen Clark.

If you belong to ACT or National you belong to political movements that essentially are opposed to the socialist Nanny State view of the world exemplified by the Clark led Labour Party. Clark is an intelligent, cold power hungry politician, who has spent her whole life working to have the power she centralised around herself, Heather Simpson and strictly controlling government communications led by now MP Brendan Burns. She increased government regulation and theft of people's incomes and property, with only a handful of exceptions, she declared "the state is sovereign" showing her utter contempt for there being any fundamental individual rights.

Clark broke the law and had it repealed so she wouldn't face the consequences, as Labour used government administrative funding to pay for electioneering. She ran a tight ship, a Cabinet comprised of people she largely regarded as far less competent than herself (which is true), and subverted Ministerial authority by having Cabinet papers vetoed by H2 before they got presented to Cabinet. She promoted racially driven policies with "Closing the Gaps", before hypocritically turning her back on them when Don Brash got traction with "One law for all". She warmly embraced giving local government far more extensive powers to spend your money and interfere with what you do. She retained a tight grip on the anti-competitive and centrally controlled state education and health monopolies that all are forced to pay for, whether they deliver what users want or not.

She's off to lead a featherbedded lazy UN organisation, and live off the back of global taxpayers' money (mostly from wealthy Western countries) travelling to many countries, like the Queen of aid and development.

Yes it is bad politics to have sour grapes and not cheer her on. However, it is hypocrisy to pretend you thin she deserves a cheer - I'd have preferred if she spent her life as an academic, and didn't try to run other people's lives. The New Zealand economy, the health and education of New Zealanders, New Zealanders' property rights and their individual freedoms have all suffered because of this woman.

A better approach would be for those politicians who have consistently opposed her politics (and to be fair plenty of National MPs have not), to simply excuse themselves from the House. Let Labour, the Greens, Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne have their love in.

2 comments:

James said...

Gotta disagree with your comments re Garrett....having met him and talked with him its obvious that hes badly misquoted and taken out of context.The bullshit spouted by some on how hes anti liberty etc is amazing.....the crux of the issue is that hes new and has some rough edges that some of the "vets" find disconcerting.

But he's 95% liberal and a good guy whos not set in his ways as some people assume.....he was actually moving away from supporting the gang patch ban and was trying to bring Rodney back after persuading him the other way!

He held different views in the past re death penalty etc ...but then which of us hasn't?

Hes basically a newbie to the finer points of Liberal/libz thought and just needs bringing up to speed.Hes a bit of a lad and someone you can have a beer with.....I think hes an asset to ACT....he won't be boring.Hes almost like Rodney was a few yaers back.

I write to him and send him material and hes very apprciative and wants to fit in....lets cut him some slack.His protest yesterday raises the question....what about the other ACT MP's...?

libertyscott said...

James, well I'd like him to do better than fit in - he does need to repudiate some of his past statements, but I'll take your word to give gim the benefit of the doubt as I observe what else he gets up to.