sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

A cautionary tale of first principles: embraced in the desperation of crisis; abandoned in the hubris of victory; trending inexorably towards national tragedy

Public Policy / opinion
A cautionary tale of first principles: embraced in the desperation of crisis; abandoned in the hubris of victory; trending inexorably towards national tragedy
ct

By Chris Trotter*

The most startling aspect of the latest two publicly accessible polls is the stubborn refusal of National’s numbers to move.

The most common reaction to the Opposition’s continuing failure to break through the 30% threshold is to lay the blame at the feet of Judith Collins. Certainly the conduct of the Opposition Leader does not contribute a great deal to National’s prospects of recovery. National’s sequestration in the mid-twenties is, however, about a lot more than its leader’s personality. National’s problem (and Labour’s, too, as we shall see) is its seeming inability to work from first principles.

There will be many who dismiss such a diagnosis as quaint. Politics, they will insist, is not a philosophy class, it’s a blood sport, in which principles serve a purely decorative function. The problem, of course, in seeing politics as a real-life version of The Squid Game, is that the absence of principle only makes the conduct of the “game” increasingly problematic. So much so that fewer and fewer people want to play it. Since democracy itself only works when political power and “The People” are joined at the hip, rendering politics unplayable amounts to the same thing as making democracy impossible.

Another way of demonstrating the importance of first principles in politics is to illustrate the difference in effectiveness between a government that works from these principles, and a government that sets them aside. Fortunately, the government led by Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party provides us with a powerful illustration of both these phenomena.

It is important to establish from the outset that Ardern’s and Labour’s principled response had very little to do with the “democratic socialist” ideology which the party’s own constitution still requires it to embody. The first principles this government worked from, following the initial outbreak of the Coronavirus in early-2020 were, however, more than equal to the challenge confronting both itself and the New Zealand people. The shorthand expression for these principles was, simply: “the science”.

Medical science, most particularly epidemiology, closely followed by mathematical science’s statistical modelling techniques, provided Ardern and her government with rational, evidence-based advice on the most effective response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Whether it came from the World Health Organisation, their own Ministry of Health, or the specialist teams assembled by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the flow of this scientific advice was powerful enough to generate political decisions that were at once persuasive, consistent and effective.

The clarity and power of the Government’s Covid response possessed the additional advantage of easily exposing the weaknesses of the political/economic counter-attacks mounted by the Government’s opponents. Obviously, the greatest advantage of all was that “the science” worked.

Moreover, because the science worked, so, too, did the politics. Ardern and her party were rewarded with the most spectacular electoral endorsement in three-quarters-of-a-century. Ironically, it was this almost unbelievable electoral success that seems to have caused them to cease relying on “the science” for their political – and moral – guidance.

Following the 2020 General Election, the Prime Minister and her colleagues made the cardinal political mistake of forgetting who their friends were. In abstract terms, these friends were the principles of medical science and mathematics. In flesh-and-blood terms, they were the likes of Sir David Skegg, Professor Sean Hendy, Dr Michael Baker, and the irrepressible Souixsie Wiles.

When the Prime Minister made the fatal decision to abandon the successful, science-based “elimination strategy”, practically all of the advisers who had guided her to victory over Covid-19 were left in the dark. Ardern and her government had committed the mortal political sin of believing their own spin: first principles – “the science” – had been abandoned for self-serving and opportunistic “politics”.

The consequences are chillingly evident from the Ministry of Health graphs of the Delta Variant of Covid-19’s evolution since 17 August 2021. From the bell-shaped hump of the virus’s rapid advance, and then its steady retreat, under the science-guided Level 4 Lockdown, the eye moves to the terrifying exponential curve of the virus’s explosion following the politically-inspired step-down to Level 3.

As the virus spreads like a bloodstain across the North Island, the Government’s decisions become less and less intelligible – or defensible. Having abandoned “the science” that had guided it to epidemiological and political victory, the Ardern Government flounders from one expedient, politically-driven decision to the next. A cautionary tale of first principles: embraced in the desperation of crisis; abandoned in the hubris of victory; trending inexorably towards national tragedy.

How, then, is it possible that New Zealand’s pre-eminent conservative party – National – is languishing at around 25% in the opinion polls? The most obvious answer: because none but the hardest of National’s hard-core supporters can detect very much at all in the way of principle in the Party’s confusing and often self-contradictory responses to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

A genuinely conservative party, operating from first principles, would have crafted its responses to Covid-19 according to the two core principles of the conservative world view: order and hierarchy. Accordingly, the National Party’s instinctive response should have been to ensure the least possible disruption to the orderly functioning of New Zealand society – and economy – by reposing its faith and trust in the nation’s leading scientists, mathematicians and economists. It would have eschewed any attempt to take opportunistic advantage of the Covid-19 crisis, using all its influence with the business and farming sectors to secure the broadest possible acceptance of the measures required to defeat the pandemic.

The electoral effect of such a strategy would have been very different from what actually transpired in 2020. By aligning itself with the Government’s decision to be guided by “the science” and “the experts” – even to the point of offering to join with Labour in a “grand coalition” for the duration of the pandemic – National would have positioned itself as the Government’s wise and responsible “older brother”. The reassuring image of National “standing guard” over this young, inexperienced and, hitherto, remarkably ineffective Labour-led Government, would, almost certainly, have produced a much more competitive electoral contest.

By defaulting to the core conservative principles of order and hierarchy, National would also have curtailed the rampaging success of the Act Party. No genuine conservative is ever willing to separate the important right to “Freedom” from the equally important obligation of “Responsibility”. To abandon individual and social responsibility in the name of Freedom, is to immaturely transform Liberty into Licence.

Genuine conservatives place little store in the ability of human-beings, unconstrained by the forces of tradition, familial obligation and morality, to produce anything other than chaos and violence. The forceful enunciation of these core conservative beliefs would have done much to weaken the appeal of David Seymour’s licentious libertarianism, and exposed to the judgement of all moderate voters the Act Party’s all-too-evident contempt for the health and welfare of the whole community.

It is the worrying absence of this sort of steadying conservative guidance that has allowed those unwilling or unable to support the Labour Government’s increasingly arbitrary anti-Covid-19 policies, to go searching for answers and allies in all the most dangerous places. In the Age of the Internet, in the oppressive atmosphere of social media, the absence of a calming conservative voice, informed by clear, time-honoured first principles, poses a significant threat, not merely to the coherence and efficacy of government policy, but to the safety and security of society itself.


*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

25 Comments

Perhaps Trotter should go hide under the bed from the covid bogeyman and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

Elimination and never ending lockdowns is not and never has been a viable long term strategy.

The only thing it leads to is a bankrupt hermit kingdom.  He may think North Korea is a role model but anybody with brains knows better.

Up
13

"Terrifying exponential curve"

"Bloodstain"

Err yeah, Covid has killed stuff-all people in NZ, certainly a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of NZers who die every week from all other causes. Now that we have got to decent vaccination rates, ongoing use of the sledgehammer starts to look more and more disproportionate.

As for NZ's public "pop science" lobby, i have found them to be of very low quality compared to overseas scientists who tend to take a more balanced view. Hendy is a physicist and has no medical background, yet constantly lends his voice to weigh in on medical/epidemiological questions, based on his modelling that rarely survives contact with the real world. Plank, Jackson, Wiles are always to be relied upon for a hysterical soundbite. 

The central point, is that no scientist is well-equipped to make the tradeoffs necessary to run society. The kind of world required to keep Covid cases at minimum forever, is one that very few would want to live in. So other inputs are required.

Anyway, the amount of articles along these lines from Chris leads me to sense a deep neurosis.

Up
8

That's it. It's always been about politics, the politics and the science just happen to walk the same path for a while. CT forgets National floated the whole 'grand coalition' idea in 2020 and were shot down. Seymour and ACT during the 2020 election were trumpeting how we needed to follow the science and the evidence, and were telling anyone who would listen that there were workable alternatives, with evidence e.g. Taiwan. "We need to get Taiwan smart" was a key refrain.

Up
3

Do you not understand what is wrong with this comment "Err yeah, Covid has killed stuff-all people in NZ, certainly a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of NZers who die every week from all other causes" ? The reason that Covid has not killed stuff all people is because of the health measures that were implemented?! This kind of illogical reasoning gets thrown around every day and it is absolutely dumbfounding that people can't seem to identify the link.

Up
2

https://www.gov.sg/COVID-19

I mean , or you could look at Singapore where: " Over the last 28 days, of the infected individuals, 98.7% had mild or no symptoms, 0.8% required oxygen supplementation in the general ward, 0.3% are in ICU, and 0.2% has died." 

And of those its basically the over 60 age group that is most at risk, with younger people choosing to take the risk without being vaccinated that make up the rest. With 6.226% ever needing ICU care or have died, and if you remove the 50-60 age range its only 1.726% of the unvaccinated.....

And if your vaccinated, anyone under 70 cumulatively only has a 0.38% chance of ending up in ICU or dying. 

Up
1

No, i get that it's saved lives. We will never really know many though, or quantify the life-years added to the population for every dollar spent (that will now be unavailable to improve the lives of future generations). 

I will repeat what i actually said, which was that where we sit now, the government's current and projected policy track is utterly disproportional.

Up
0

Today's post on Croaking Cassandra goes into this a bit.

Up
0

It's funny to read stuff like this, trying to keep up the partisan support for the imaginary dichotomy. There is no apparent observable difference in the policies enacted by either Labour or National.

I propose we refer to them as a combined group the Nation/Labour Party, choose one half or the other, it really doesn't matter.

Up
6

Yes, they are both globalists in the political science literature - market globalists to be more precise.  The other type of globalist political ideology is imperial globalism (Aussie is more aligned with the latter).

 

Up
5

Who does matter because they have natural coalition partners who cruise on into power on their coattails. Want greens? Vote Labour who will keep them in check. Want ACT? Vote National who will keep ACT in check.

Up
0

so what you are saying is The Greens and Act are just ancillaries of the major parties, leaving us with one big blob of sameness.

Up
1

No, that National and Labour are Greens or ACT light. The two major parties are the blob of sameness with different raisins in them.

Up
0

Ironic. Surely one of the first principles the science tells us is that the Delta variant is more (much, much more) transmissible than the original virus.  In other words, counting/comparing case numbers between the two may have little to do with L4 vs L3 (step x, y, etc.) vs L2.  So it's a bit of a questionable attempt at correlation.

Instead, dump the first graphic as part of the 'evidence' presented and instead give us a visual comparing not case numbers, but deaths and hospitalizations due to COVID.

And then give us a comparison of pre-COVID deaths and hopsitalizations due to respiratory illnesses over a similar time period.

 

Up
5

National/Act still worry me -

They embrace mass immigration - perhaps more so than Labour.

They will open up foreign ownership.

They will cancel the interest/bright line new rules etc.

They are okay with our waterways and ecology being destroyed.

Labour are horrendous too, they encourage and reward us to be victims, not achievers.

Seems to leave TOP, but they are still too weak. 

Up
5

TOP should worry you most of all. A party who's stated policy is to steal by a deemed rate of  return on your house that you have spent a lifetime working to provide for your own family & give it as a UBI to people who can't be bothered getting out of bed.

Up
1

Sorry, I'm not debating your misunderstanding of policy, economics and an equitable taxation system (hint - house prices) when you can get out of bed and study it yourself. 

Up
3

Remember that its still the same house with the same asset value, money is the medium of exchange.

Up
0

Border closures where only a firebreak. A firebreak is not a strategy.

To continue with elimination would have only become more painful. Covid-19 will become endemic, it's time to get on with our lives now.

Up
2

We are islands 1000km from the nearest land mass. The "fire break" broke because that was the decided outcome. 

Up
1

Well said!  The pressure on the Ardern Government's Covid strategy from our "Fifth Columnists" became so intense with the likes of neo-liberal commmentators dominating the NZHerald's pages that even Winston Churchill will have buckled:

   OUR PRO-COVID COLUMNISTS

So much for the New Zealand Herald

Its columnists peddle their wares

There’s Prebble and Joyce and O’Sullivan

And Mike Hosking at work on our fears

 

They tell us to open the borders

(Herd immunity will deal with the threat)

To ignore the advice of the scientists

Whose predictions they choose to neglect

 

And when their hopes are frustrated

By the Government’s sensible actions

They’ll squeal at the thought of a lockdown

And give us their biased reactions

 

The economy they say will suffer

And this should be something to dread

But they want us alive so that businesses thrive

Forgetting we’ll all be dead.

 

 

Up
1

we’ll all be dead

Cute poem, but I think that might be a little bit of an exaggeration.

Up
3

Love a bit of lunch time fear porn 

Up
1

I see Labour dividing the nation over vaccine mandates, wrecking the economy, and raising taxes.  Meanwhile here's a recent youtube journal club style review of a paper showing how the spike protein enters the cell nucleus.  Same molecular biologist does quite and honest and balanced piece on the necessity for vaccination as a function of age group and health status in general.   

Up
2

Not so much abandoning the science but taking into consideration social impact. No one wants a lockdown the likes of what happened (and still happening) in America. Who wants to be locked up at home for months on end, virus or no?

As now shown in the US, the poor are who suffers worst out of lockdowns, with no income, no education, no access to support and sometimes no hope. It's easy to say "believe the science", but science is hard, cold numbers, so it's easy to say we should do "1-2-3" as if it were a numbers game. But people aren't numbers and they are the ones suffering, with livelihoods, marriages, families and homes at stake. The scientists will still have their jobs, but the poor (and increasingly the middle-class as inflation hits them too) are the ones who are the casualties of "follow the science"...

If NZ had followed in America's footsteps, we would have had more draconian measures put into place. Whatever the political leaning, I think the NZ government as it is did everything in a balanced way. To be a good leader means listening to all sides and making a decision that tries to benefit all or as many as possible - that may result in nobody being happy, but it's better than one extreme or the other.

Up
0

what will you do when vaxx is not safe and not effictive? of course, you will do booster shots! if 2 did not help, 3rd one will help for sure. 

on nzherald article that someone got sick fully vaccinated and written go and get jab. when he will die, will they say like: imagine what would happen to him if he did not get vaccine? 

Up
1