Mediaboss Marketing

In an essay entitled Historically Correct, the American academic Prof Ruth Perry explained how the concept of political correctness was weaponised against progressive causes almost from the moment it was conceived. The result, she wrote, was that in an Orwellian inversion, only those who uphold the conservative status quo are exempt from ridicule. This perfect encapsulation of how the right has attempted to put itself beyond criticism would be a startling contemporary insight if it were not for the minor detail of when the essay was published 1992.

I spoke to Perry in the summer of 2018. When I asked her why nothing had changed in the quarter-century since she wrote those prescient words in fact, why the rights strategy seems to have become ever more effective she replied with the frustration of someone who had seen history repeat itself too often.

The pressure on Nandy and the Labour party to 'go high' also comes from a British establishment that skews right

The left not only does not have the funds, she said, it didnt have the tools to beat the right at its own game. It hasnt exposed the rights cynicism and hypocrisy, its use of political correctness as a way, ironically, to shut down debate. It hasnt got its hands dirty. It hasnt stooped to engage in the rights so-called culture wars.

This preciousness was evident in Lisa Nandys latest Labour leadership election campaign speech, in which she criticised Labour under Jeremy Corbyn for letting Brexit become a false culture war. Nandy believes that Labour should have somehow stayed above the fray. But to declare that the Brexit culture war is false, to believe that it is a choice whether or not to engage in it, seems naive. Its like being in a real war, coming under enemy fire and suffering heavy casualties, but refusing to retaliate because you dont agree with the premise of the offensive. Wars are either happening or they are not.

And the culture wars are happening. If anything, whats false is the idea that one can treat them as a sort of political artefact that can be picked up and played with or discarded in order to pursue the things that really matter. If anything, Labour did not spar enough.

Underlying the disdain for culture wars is the mistaken belief that they are happening somewhere else, away from the serious business of high politics. But just as military conflict is a continuation of politics by other means, so are culture wars. The false tussles to which Nandy was referring played out on the ground, affecting peoples lives.

Concerns about immigration were ramped up to a hysterical pitch, rendering the hostile environment not just a government policy but a national climate. Issues of identity became a battleground, creating a sense that the rights of some can only be won at the expense of others. Sovereignty, patriotism and history were pressed into service to paint a portrait of a nation shackled, desperate to break free from the suffocating embrace of progressive demands. A politics that is leftwing, redistributive and pacifist was framed as not just naive and idealistic, but traitorous: a poppy-rejecting, non-Cenotaph-bowing, non-Queens-speech-watching, non-nuclear-button-pressing worldview, one whose support for the beleaguered supposedly came at the expense of the majority.

Comparatively little of this political campaign was carried out explicitly. It was done in disguise, via ostensibly cultural issues. What is half a million pounds to reinstall a floor so that Big Ben can bong? What is a few more million pounds if it means we can get our blue passports back? And on it goes, with the flying of restored Spitfires around the world to promote post-Brexit trade. The Brexit culture war isnt merely a locking of horns on social media between the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and rabid remainers. It has been a coordinated, well-funded and, most importantly, long-term effort that had the left in a defensive position from the get-go, marking out Brexit clearly as the property of the right. It is part propaganda, part PR, and part official government messaging. This is how the discourse is shaped these days.

The left sees such aggressive narrative-building as somehow dirty. It sees the battles that define a culture war as a lowering of the tone, and assumes they require the recruitment of shadowy forces and a loss of the moral high ground. But these are simply the tools that the right has used. The left has a vast arsenal at its disposal if only it finds the right tone, and appropriate levels of swagger and conviction. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs communication strategy, with its strident earnestness laced with humour, is a powerful example. She makes fun of the trolling of her own boyfriend in one breath, and takes apart Republicans in the Senate the next.

This reluctance to take part in what is seen as a grubby game is embodied by the famous (and famously ineffective) Michelle Obama mantra when they go low, we go high. It is where the fixation on courtesy comes from.

But the pressure on Nandy and the Labour party to go high also comes from a British society and establishment that generally skews right. As a result, efforts by the left to fight back are portrayed as outrageous and aggressive while, as Perry said, the right is largely exempted from ridicule.

The answer isnt to avoid playing the game at all, its to do it better. To engage on the absurdity of big bong nonsense as well as on homelessness and the NHS. As long as politics by other means is dismissed as merely the culture wars, the Labour party is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

Here is the original post:
The left cant sit out the culture wars. It must learn to fight them better - The Guardian

If New Zealand had a giant monument at the entrance to Auckland or Wellington harbour it would be a Statue of Equality not liberty, or so said visiting American political scientist Leslie Lipson who wrote a book about our politics in the 1940s.

New Zealanders have long held dear the notion of fairness, and Lipsons reflection remains true today. Our love of fairness extends even to one of our longest-running and most popular TV shows, Fair Go, which goes into bat for ripped-off consumers.

In the US all politicians have to at least pay lip service to defending liberty and freedom, but here politicians of all stripes have to show concern for equality. They must take care to present their policies and beliefs in a way that suggests they will promote fairness. This will be the case again in 2020.

Some say the New Zealand insistence on fairness goes back to our colonial history. Many escapees of industrial Britain embraced a life in a less class-ridden country. Of course the idea that New Zealand is an equal and classless society was always a myth, but this egalitarian ethos endures.

It creates a particular problem for politicians of the right. As a former prime minister, John Key, told US diplomats in a private briefing, New Zealands socialist streak means it can be difficult to push rightwing policies. Key later elaborated: New Zealand is a very caring country. I think New Zealanders do have a heart.

This egalitarian ethos has been particularly resurgent in recent years. The financial crisis a decade ago the biggest since the depression of the 1930s transformed politics and values around the world, fuelling anger and rebellion about inequality.

In 2017 this helped the election of Jacinda Arderns government, made up of parties that channelled concerns about the lack of fairness under the then National-led government. The new government promised to be transformative, rolling out a fairness agenda in programs from KiwiBuild to child poverty reduction targets.

This all presents the National party with a dilemma. There are few votes in criticising the governments fairness agenda in fact the opposition is reduced to complaining that the government has not delivered on its left-leaning program. The two parties are effectively strategically deadlocked, and National lacks any convincing rightwing policies that would address major election issues of housing affordability, infrastructure deficits, and poverty. Even on climate change it has signed up to much of the governments agenda.

As the election nears, National will try to paint itself as better economic managers and Grant Robertson as an irresponsible and incompetent finance minister, but this is unlikely to cut it with many voters.

Nor is the government likely to push any significant new leftwing economic reforms, or even tax hikes, giving National little to scare swing voters with. And theres no way that National can hope to best Ardern in terms of a campaign based on leadership and personality.

So where can it differentiate? National increasingly relies on stoking culture wars and law and order. It is these fertile new hunting grounds that give Simon Bridges his best chance of painting Ardern and her colleagues as out of touch with mainstream New Zealand.

Culture wars are concerned with debates relating to ethnicity, gender, sexuality, human rights, discrimination, free speech and civil liberties. Elements of the political left especially in the Labour and Green parties are increasingly associated with campaigns in these areas, and often their stances are not shared by many mainstream voters.

So far Ardern has navigated her government clear of such debates, knowing such an association could be fatal. For example she still refuses to visit Ihumtao, the site of an important struggle over Mori land rights because of her fear of the association with radicals.

Ardern knows very well to keep her government as clear as possible of contentious social issues. Instead, if Labour and its coalition partners can keep public debate around traditional egalitarian concerns about inequality, housing, health and education, the New Zealand notion of fairness will probably also ensure her government will get another chance.

Nationals best bet might be to provoke an ugly culture war. Expect to see Bridges attempt to start debates on these issues and paint Labour and the Greens as woke elitists, or just soft on law and order. This might be desperate and opportunistic National MPs genuinely dont care that much about many of these issues. But National knows that they are the sort of emotive and divisive concerns that might change votes.

Theres a cultural backlash ready to be fostered as Donald Trump, Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson have found to their benefit. Such debates, whether over identity politics, hate speech, minority rights or gender can be explosively divisive. That could end up being the ugly story of the 2020 general election.

View original post here:
New Zealand voters must prepare for an ugly culture war this election - The Guardian

Is cultural appropriation the new black? It certainly seems to be the hottest trend in the fashion industry: every other week there is a row over the subject.

The latest offender is the Japanese fashion house Comme des Garons, which has been criticised for putting white models in cornrow wigs. In an apology, the stylist, Julien dYs, seemed to suggest that the wigs werent meant to be cornrows a traditionally black hairstyle but a nod to Egyptian pharaoh hair, to which the internet replied: why not use Egyptian models?

Is it problematic for white models to wear cornrows or wigs like an Egyptian? The answer is: Sometimes; maybe; it depends. What constitutes cultural appropriation is complex and nuanced. Alas, the conversation around the subject is frequently anything but.

On one hand, you have a small group of vocal people who enjoy taking offence at everything remember when Lena Dunham suggested that bad cafeteria sushi was cultural appropriation? On the other hand, you have bigots who seem to think it is clever to say things such as: Non-white people wearing suits is cultural appropriation. The concept has lost all meaning and become a straw man to be kicked around in the culture wars.

Comme des Garons doesnt have the most politically correct history. In 2018, the fashion website Heroine noted that the brand hadnt used a black model in a womens presentation for 24 years (although it started using them again soon after).

Parading white models with black hairstyles down the catwalk was spectacularly thoughtless. Or perhaps it wasnt. The frequency of cultural appropriation controversies makes me suspect that some brands are deploying them as a PR tool. After all, no publicity is bad publicity comme les Kardashians are well aware.

Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist

View original post here:
Are rows over cultural appropriation a dastardly PR ploy? - The Guardian

The New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, says she is committed to making the coming general election campaign positive, factual and robust and has pledged to fight the online spread of misinformation.

The general election is scheduled for September and political analysts are already warning that New Zealand needs to be vigilant to protect itself against the kind of culture wars and fake news campaigns seen in the recent US and UK elections, among others.

Addressing her colleagues at a Labour party caucus meeting, Ardern said she intended the tone and values of the coming campaign to be positive and factual.

New Zealanders deserve a factual campaign, one that is free from misinformation, where people can make honest reflections for themselves about what they want for the future of New Zealand, Ardern said.

We want it to be robust, where there is a good exchange between us and other parties, but it is incredibly important for us as the Labour party that New Zealand does not fall prey to what weve seen happen in other jurisdictions.

Domestic media reported that the Labour party intended to sign up to Facebooks transparency tool, the Facebook Ad Library Report, which allows users to view how a political party is spending its advertising dollars on the platform. The Guardian could not immediately confirm this.

In a recent Q&A session with Guardian readers, Ardern said New Zealanders had a low threshold for the so-called culture wars seen around the election of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, and even coming referendums on legalising marijuana and euthanasia should not divide the country.

I agree no one wants to see division, but I do think New Zealanders have shown they can live happily side by side while holding strong and varying views, Ardern said.

Yes these [coming referendums] can be emotional decisions but I trust that New Zealanders will have the debates while remaining respectful of one another and of differing views. In fact I think thats one of the things that sets us apart.

See more here:
Jacinda Ardern calls for 'factual and positive' New Zealand election campaign - The Guardian

A resurgent Bernie Sanders is terrifying the Democratic establishment and has seen Warren lash out and attempt to smear Bernie as a sexist.

This sexism smear is as outrageous as it is desperate, because Bernie was a feminist well before Warren was a Republican.

Sanders vs Warren represents the great Class vs Identity Politics schism on the Left and those woke Identity Politics activists wont tolerate the patriarchy robbing them of another female candidate for President so expect the name calling and tribal social media lynch mobs that make them about as a popular as Donald Trump at a Queer Intersectionist Feminist Folk Festival to erupt if Bernie wins.

These woke Identity Politics dynamics have managed to alienate working class voters on social media to such an extent that they were major factors in the Trump win, the Brexit win, the Scott Morrison win and the Corbyn loss so if Sanders can beat Warren and then beat Trump, Class Left solidarity will have retaken the philosophical high ground on the Left.

This dynamic of woke Identity Politics activism alienating working class voters is one Bryce Edwards notes in his latest Guardian column, where he highlights that because there is so little in way of real policy difference between National and Labour, National will fight the next election using culture wars instead

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

So where can it differentiate? National increasingly relies on stoking culture wars and law and order. It is these fertile new hunting grounds that give Simon Bridges his best chance of painting Ardern and her colleagues as out of touch with mainstream New Zealand.

Culture wars are concerned with debates relating to ethnicity, gender, sexuality, human rights, discrimination, free speech and civil liberties. Elements of the political left especially in the Labour and Green parties are increasingly associated with campaigns in these areas, and often their stances are not shared by many mainstream voters.

hilariously for daring to point out that many woke Identity Politics activists are alienating more voters than they are winning over, Bryce has been immediately decried on Twitter by those very same alienating woke Identity Politics activists.

You cant make this shit up.

I think the identity politics left in NZ are more focused on cancelling voters than recruiting them.

If your starting point as a woke Identity Politics activist is that all men are rapists, all white people racist, Trans Rights over all other rights always, if a woman says it then it must be true and anyone standing up for free speech is a Nazi, then you might want to sit this next election out because that message is pushing people away from our progressive cause, not towards it, as this excellent piece in The Atlantic points out

The Twitter Electorate Isnt the Real Electorate

Social media is distorting our sense of mainstream opinion.

Does Twitter matter? The temptation is to say no. Its user base is small compared with Facebook321 million monthly active users versus more than 2 billionand a quick glance at the trending topics reveals its fractious, claustrophobic atmosphere. Yet as one dead fox proves, it does matter: On December 26, a single tweet by a British lawyer with 178,000 followers, announcing that he had killed a fox with a baseball bat, made the front pages of two major newspapers.

Yes, it was a quiet news day. But Twitter has become journalists easiest and most reliable source of cor-blimey (or OMG, to American readers) stories, because all of human life is there, and its searchable. It is also the worlds wire service: Just look at Donald Trump, who drops his unfiltered thoughts straight onto Twitter, confident that they will be picked up by journalists. For anyone interested in politics, it is the closest thing to a global community center, or a small-ads sectionthe virtual room where it happens.

All of this gives the social networkand its most active usersoutsize power to shape the political conversation. Its influence can be seen in contests currently under way in the United States and Britain: the race to become the Democrats presidential nominee, and the struggle to succeed Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Both risk being distorted by what we might call the Twitter Primary.

British tweeters skew left and toward remaining in the European Union, which reflects their demographic makeup. On average social media users are younger and better educated than non-users, wrote the researchers Jonathan Mellon and Christopher Prosser in 2017. Users were also more likely to live in cities, particularly wealthier areas with younger populations. This phenomenon has been more thoroughly studied in the U.S., where The New York Times has reported that the views of Democrats on social media often bear little resemblance to those of the wider Democratic electorate. Active political tweeters in America were whiter, more left wing, more likely to be college educated, and less likely to say that political correctness was a problem than primary voters as a whole. Given the faux-democratic promise of social media, it is ironic that it has created a new establishment with roughly the same tight demographic boundaries as the old one.

The real danger of identity politics over class politics, as we have seen in the UK election and with Trump, is that when white poor men start seeing themselves not as a class but as an identity, the Right win.

In the NZ context that means 500 retweets by Wellington Twitteratti = alienation not winning. If its popular on The Spinoff, its poison at the ballot box and if Action Station have a petition on it, avoid it like the fucking plague.

The woke wont change their rage politics of alienation, they cant. Social media has given them a sense of power theyve never held before, an ocean of the bullied who can now bully will never hand over their weapons, so the Left need to ignore the Woke, stop alienating white working class men and actually try to win them over.

Take white male privilege. Why would men want to be told they have it (when their suicide rates, mental health issues, low life expectancy, violence and murder rate is so high) and why would they willingly hand it over if they did have it?

Isnt white male privilege being treated with respect? Not getting hassled by the cops? Getting paid properly?

The Woke scream for white men to hand over that privilege, but why would any white male look at the list and agree to be paid less, be treated poorly by the cops or accept sub-standard service?

Wouldnt it be better to say that we want to expand white male privilege to everyone? Instead of attacking those Men, hold up their agency as the right every citizen should enjoy.

Expanding the franchise of democratic agency is something everyone can get behind including those it currently benefits because removing my agency so people who despise me can have more isnt an easy political sale.

Fellow citizens shouldnt fear the Left, the 1% should.

If Sanders can re-establish Class as the foundation for the Left, we can pull back working class voters from realigning with the Right and there might be a chance to avoid the madness of right wing Demagogues.

If Sanders loses, we are doomed to right wing populism. Theres more at stake this election than America gaining its first woman president, it could lose its soul.

See more here:
Bryce Edward's Guardian Column, Culture Wars and why Sanders vs Warren is the Class vs Identity Politics schism on the Left - thedailyblog.co.nz