In 2015 Justin Trudeau announced a Canadian cabinet that was a 50/50 split between men and women. When questioned on why this was done – he delivered the patronising quip, “Because it’s 2015.” Not choosing the best people for the job is an appalling disservice to his country – in the service of his ‘Progressive’ ideology.
In 2017, Jacinda Ardern (Justin’s peapod partner) announced that she, as well, was seeking a 50/50 balance in cabinet – and the same argument applies. However, I add the codicil that if you are stating that you are choosing based on gender then you are implying that merit is not distributed equally among the genders, that you are resorting to a Progressive ideology to fill the seats with “diversity hires”. The turnover and the incompetence demonstrated by members of her cabinet over the past 5 years tends to support this contention.
In 2018 the “Progressive” Paris Authority, on the appointment of eleven women and five men to senior council positions, thus breaching a national 2013 rule designed to bring about gender parity in employment, was fined 90,000 Euros (taxpayers’ money) for hiring too many women. This move was labelled “absurd” by the Mayoress, Anne Hidalgo, and as a punishment for being “too feminist”.
Obviously, this whole debacle could have been avoided if some of the men had self-identified their gender as women (or vice versa): problem fixed! Of course, that idea sounds ridiculous – and it was never about equality anyway, simply a mechanism to replace some people and thus promote the Progressive ideology.
This brings us to New Zealand’s “Green Party”.
The Green Party is overly dominated by Progressive politics. They were the first party to champion an equity-based co-leadership of “one male and one female”, for the same reasons now championed by Trudeau and Ardern. Yet now they are considering making the leadership open to any gender, all 200+ – so gone is the “male and female” idea. Just like the group in Paris, they are making special dispensations and breaking their own rules, again probably because it was never about equality or equity, it is simply a mechanism to exercise power, to replace some people and thus promote a Progressive ideology where “gender” trumps “sex”. Feelings trump reality.
On March 1 1872 President Ulysses S Grant (a Pakeha) signed the Yellowstone National Park Protection Act into law and the world’s first national park was born. Grant was also an effective civil rights executive who created the Justice Department and worked with the Radical Republicans to protect African Americans during Reconstruction. Grant was what we regard as a Conservative.
The 1887 New Zealand general election was held on 26 September and the ‘Stout-Vogel’ government was replaced by a majority conservative government, led by Henry Atkinson. Also in 1887, following suggestions from some prominent Pakeha, the paramount chief of the Ngati Tuwharetoa tribe, Horonuku Te Heuheu, made an agreement with the Crown that the central North Island volcanoes would become a national park. Thus, New Zealand’s first national park was born – also with the blessings of a conservative government. From there the idea of national parks in New Zealand flourished and we now have 13 National Parks.
In 1971, the “Marine Reserves Act” was passed by the Conservative government of Sir Keith Holyoke. This act led directly to New Zealand’s first marine reserve being established in 1975. Cape Rodney/Okakari is a beautiful marine reserve that during its bleak past had been denuded, but is now restored to life and vigour. New Zealand now has 44 marine reserves.
Conservatives have a long and esteemed history in conservation for reasons that seem blindingly obvious – to be conservative is to seek to conserve. Conservation comes in many forms, traditions, architecture, the arts, the scientific method (looking at you “Royal Society of NZ”) and particularly the health and beauty of our wonderful country – just as those conservatives of 150 years ago, and onwards, foresaw. This view reflects what is called “Oikophilia” – ‘the love of home’.
This is unlike the “Oikophobia” – ‘an aversion to those things related to home’. This is demonstrated by both the Greens and Labour in their constant criticisms of New Zealand and their desire to replace Western tradition – those Western traditions and values that gave rise to establishing ‘national parks’. Their efforts remind me of George Orwell’s quote:
“It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a poor box.”
Of course, they would rarely show this face to the voter but rather act it out clandestinely, gradually, through policy.
As such it is disappointing that for over a century and a half and after many conservation efforts, Conservatives continue to cede the ‘conservation ground’ to parties like the Greens. Conservatives have insufficiently pushed back on parties like Labour who accuse conservatives (the National Party is the primary target) of being rapacious capitalists who care little for the environment. This is simply not true and is contrary to fundamental conservative principles, and within the National Party, the “Green Blues” have strong support.
Now we have a situation where the Greens are showing their true colours – they are like ‘watermelons’, green on the outside but red on the inside. Red is their primary colour.
Their real focus is less on rational management of the environment and a conservation of beauty and resources but more on ‘identity politics’, leadership squabbles and travelling the world on a ‘heavy carbon footprint’ junket during a pandemic (“Zoom” exists for a reason, James Shaw and Co.).
It is also apparent that the Greens do not adhere to fixed values. They cannot be trusted to resist Progressive politics and they have little if any regard to being a party based on merit. The same can be said of the Labour Party.
How can either of these parties properly represent the true interests of conservation?
They place ‘identities’ in office rather than people with the ability to create a sustainable economy and protect our heritage. Possibly they are unaware of the ruinous effects that Marxists inflicted on the environments of Russia, China, North Korea and other countries.
Do they honestly think that from their ‘politicking’ there will be some “diversity dividend” that will magically create the solutions to climate change?
What National, ACT and other conservative parties need to do is seize the opportunity while the Greens are in disarray, to declare their successes and commitments more strongly to conservation. They need to reclaim the mandate of being the competent advocates dedicated through a conservative philosophy which of course includes conservation.
This message can then be compared, by the voter, to some of the more ridiculous messages currently being thrown about or considered by the other parties, e.g. reducing NZ dairy herds by 50%.
The messaging can also emphasise that Progressive politics do not lead towards the best people, in the right roles, and committed to the best outcomes. This is particularly poignant in an era where we need the best and brightest to manage climate change. Ideology and ‘diversity hires’ are not a recipe for success.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trudeau-liberal-government-cabinet-1.3304590
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55330297
https://www.nps.gov/yell/index.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1887_New_Zealand_general_election
https://www.perc.org/2019/05/17/socialism-is-bad-for-the-environment/
https://teara.govt.nz/en/national-parks/page-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_in_New_Zealand
https://www.roger-scruton.com/articles/281-conservatism-and-the-environment