Did Trump Really Want to Be President?
Cast your mind back to the moment when Donald Trump announced that he was running for President. Like most people, no doubt, you were bemused, entertained and intrigued, but at that point his chances of actually reaching the White House would have been rated at zero. The possibility of a President Trump seemed very remote.
The doubters might well have included the newly announced candidate himself. Indeed, there were, and are, many commentators who believe that Trump never contemplated the possibility of actually becoming President, but launched his candidature as a means of burnishing his image and thereby promoting his business interests, which were apparently in need of resuscitation.
Even if, in his more optimistic moments, he had actually rated his chances, it seems likely that he would have looked forward to the trappings of power rather than the burdens of actually exercising it. His performance since taking office suggests strongly that – armed only with the few improbable campaign slogans that served him well with the voters, and handicapped by virtually total ignorance of how government works and of the actual role of President – he was totally unprepared for turning those slogans into policy or into anything vaguely resembling a programme for government.
He will also have found that, however pleasing to the ego it may be to be greeted by “Hail to the Chief” wherever he goes, it is less pleasant to find that his fumbling efforts at making good his campaign promises are scrutinised, opposed and frustrated at every turn by the machinations not only of his opponents but of all those who believe that he is simply not up to the task.
And he will now realise that there is no hiding place or comfort zone, even though his frequent recourse to campaigning mode suggests that he is desperately seeking one. Everything he does and says – spot-lit and amplified – is now in the public domain and is the subject of analysis and comment not only in the United States but around the world. Because he is someone who has assiduously courted publicity throughout his career, he cannot expect to turn it off when it suits him.
His election victory has, in other words, ensured that he will now be judged at every turn according to criteria with which he is unfamiliar. His role as a reality show television star, his probably inflated reputation as a successful businessman, his unexpected success as a political campaigner, no longer count for anything. He has now launched himself into a completely different orbit – one in which he is quite likely to crash and burn.
The qualities that worked for him in other contexts are now seen as weaknesses and handicaps. The bluster, the braggadocio, the cavalier attitude to the truth, the almost infantile sensitivity to criticism, are all obstacles to the careful consideration of consequences that is required at the top level of politics. And who can predict the toll that will be taken on him by the realisation that his inadequacies cannot be hidden and make him the object of ridicule and derision?
Most worryingly, the quality of his decision-making seems likely to nose-dive further. The appointments he has made to top positions in his administration, the sometimes ill-judged foreign policy decisions he has taken, the fights he has picked with the courts, the wild allegations he has made about those he regards as his enemies, the impact he threatens to have on world trade and the global economy, all point in a direction that suggests that worse is to come.
There will be those who celebrate what they will see as poetic justice, that Trump’s efforts to promote himself have served only to expose his frailties to a wider public. But, for the rest of the world, the implications are less welcome. The “free world” is now led by an incompetent, and we are all the weaker and more at risk as a consequence.
Bryan Gould
19 March 2017
International Women’s Day
Last week – a week that included International Women’s Day – appropriately enough saw the role of women in our society making the headlines. Sadly, those headlines highlighted again the way that women are treated in a male-dominated society – less a matter of celebration than of shame.
First, we learned that the perennial and apparently immutable gap between men’s and women’s pay rates – so that men are paid more than women for doing exactly the same job – is not attributable to inherent gender differences in capability or to the varying roles that men and women fulfil in society but is primarily due to the attitudes of those who determine pay rates – and guess who has the most influence over that issue?
Women are paid less than men, in other words, because men – who predominate in positions of responsibility and constitute a sort of permanent oligarchy – decide that it should be so. As with so many issues of discrimination, it resolves itself into a matter of attitude – the attitude of those whose attitudes matter, in this case, men.
The pay gap is not a one-off issue; it is a reflection of the wider scene, a scene in which women are constantly put down and given less value than they deserve. In the same week, we (or most of us) were shocked at the Facebook boasts of Wellington schoolboys that they had raped unconscious young women, and at the sexual harassment of women teachers by another (and younger) group of schoolboys, also from Wellington.
That was followed by the findings of research into the impact of pornography on those (not always, but predominantly male) who watch it. Kiwis, it seems, are amongst the world’s most avid consumers of pornography, and what the research showed was that it could be regarded as potentially creating an addiction that causes psychological and emotional harm and, in particular, makes it more difficult for consumers to build full and respectful relationships with the opposite sex.
To complete a picture that is far from reassuring, we also had news that the legislation on domestic violence is to be amended to provide for paid leave for a short period to women whose employment is interrupted by damage and injury suffered as a result of domestic violence – a commendable reform in itself, but disturbing evidence of how commonplace domestic violence has become.
These reports are worrying enough indicators of how women are treated in New Zealand – particularly given our somewhat self-satisfied assumption, on the basis of our pioneering history in extending the franchise to women voters, that our society is one in which women are treated as fully equal citizens.
But what is also worrying is that, even when we make an effort to redress the wrongs suffered by women, we still cannot shake off the sexist assumptions on the basis of which that effort is made. I recently had occasion to experience at close quarters just such an instance. A young woman and mother had summoned up the courage to end a marriage in which she had suffered psychological abuse (or what is now sometimes called “coercive control”).
She was offered two opportunities to defend herself against attempts by her former husband to re-assert his control. First, she was required to attend a “mediation” with him – an occasion that proved to be merely an opportunity for him to try to reinforce the dominance and coercive control which had caused the problems in the first place.
And secondly, when her husband took her to court over an issue concerning access to the children, she found herself in a courtroom where not only was the judge male, but the lawyers for the parties (including the children) were also all male, as was of course her husband. They were all in dark suits, and all knew each other; they proceeded as though at a social gathering at a gentleman’s club, and she was totally ignored. The men sorted it out to their own satisfaction. The justice and protection that the law was supposed to provide for a young woman struggling to bring up young children alone was simply not delivered.
We have a long way to go before we can claim that the world’s largest disadvantaged group (I was going to say “minority”, but there are more women in the world than men) are not similarly disadvantaged in New Zealand. The pay gap, attitudes to rape, the popularity of pornography, the prevalence of domestic violence, the unconscious assumption of male superiority, all go to show how much we yet have to do and how deeply entrenched are sexist attitudes. It’s surely time that all you men who profess to love and respect your mothers, wives, daughters and sisters stepped up to the plate and insisted on change.
Bryan Gould
12 March 2017
We Need to Shift the Focus of Health Care
The report released last week showing that more than half a million New Zealanders cannot afford to see their GPs, and that the underfunding of the doctors themselves threatens a shortfall in the numbers of GPs we need, will have alarmed many – and not just those unfortunate families who are denied adequate primary health care.
It will come as a shock to many Kiwis, accustomed as we are to leading the world in so many measurements of social provision, to learn that the primary health care we provide is among the worst in the developed world and that the major reason for that is inadequate funding.
The report is in stark contrast to the government’s claims that the health care available to Kiwis is up to top international standards. How to explain this disparity between claim and reality?
The answer is that the government chooses to measure things that tell a comparatively good story and to ignore other elements of health care that do not appear in such a good light.
The consequence is that the government focuses on hospital, or secondary care, where operations in the operating theatre can be easily counted, and a successful, or any, operation will earn immediate brownie points. What the government fails to recognise, however, is that most cases requiring surgery will arise because of an earlier failure to detect or treat – and detecting and treating at an early stage is the domain of primary care.
If we can get primary care right, then the number of operations will decline, and everyone can congratulate themselves. The need for a high number of surgical interventions and hospital treatments, on this reasoning, is not so much a matter for congratulation as evidence of a failure of primary care, and that is why the report on the deficiencies of primary care is so worrying.
What matters, in other words, in a properly functioning health care system, is that we understand the processes that lead to serious ill-health and that we intervene early enough to prevent those processes from reaching their later and more serious stages. Saving money at the primary care stage is always going to be a false economy.
We know, for example, that poor diet is likely to lead to obesity and diabetes, that damp housing conditions will lead to asthma and even more seriously to strep throat, rheumatic fever and heart disease, that smoking will cause lung cancer, strokes and heart attacks, that skin lesions and sunburns can lead to melanomas. We will have a better chance of dealing with all of these serious conditions if we get to them soon enough.
We need to take an overall view of health issues, focusing not just on the operating table but recognising that other agencies – in housing, social services and education, for example, are also involved, and that the first port of call, the family doctor, is the most important.
We are already doing pretty well with some of these issues. The anti-smoking campaign, for example, the immunisation of new-borns and tiny tots, the screening for heart disease, mammograms to detect breast cancer, are all instances of how we can intervene early and prevent later health troubles.
But we can and should do more, in the knowledge that every dollar spent early can save hundreds of dollars later and, more importantly, can save lives and prevent suffering. That is why we should all be concerned if the essential service provided by our family doctors is either not available because it is non-existent, or is out of reach because it is too expensive.
And we need to be aware of those important health issues that are not susceptible to cure by surgery – such as mental and sexual health problems, and drug addiction, all of which can destroy lives and tear families apart. Again, it is the family doctor who is the gatekeeper to the treatment that is essential to deal with these problems.
It is time for the government to re-think and re-focus its efforts – not to scale down the help available in our hospitals but to reduce the demands made on it. New Zealand should not be languishing in an area where we have traditionally done so well, and where we can and must do again.
Bryan Gould
5 March 2017
Convenient Fairy Stories
Bill English has made a sound start as Prime Minister. He seems to be down-to-earth, and a straight-talker – a welcome change from his predecessor. But, at the same time, he seems to be prone to making statements based on prejudice and anecdote; we have a right to expect better.
He was quick, for example, to rely on allegations apparently made informally to him by employers about their problems in employing young Kiwis on account of their supposed drug use; he preferred this prejudicial evidence rather than look to his own official statistics which tell a very different story.
His preference seems have been to explain away youth unemployment and to make the case for immigration, even at the expense of slandering a whole generation of young Kiwis, rather than to accept that immigrant labour is popular with employers because it is often cheaper as well as plentiful.
He was at it again when trying to explain away the housing crisis and the rising cost and unaffordability of housing. The problem, according to the Prime Minister, is apparently due to the supposed fact that we have been “too keen on the environment.”
It would of course be nice if that were true – that we, and especially the government, had indeed been a little keener on the environment; think clean water and swimmable rivers. His attempted explanation, however, seems to blame rising house prices on local authorities’ wish, quite reasonably, to avoid a free-for-all that creates a bonanza for property developers, but also an unlimited urban sprawl and attendant infrastructure problems.
Saddling local authorities with the blame may be politically convenient, but it is well wide of the mark as an explanation of why the cost of housing has risen so far and so fast. An accurate answer to that question is, of course, of special importance to the Bay of Plenty, and Tauranga in particular, in view of the surge in property prices that has recently occurred here.
We get closer to the true explanation when we consider the recent report that shows that 40% of house purchases in Tauranga are now made by people who already own their own homes – in other words, who are making a speculative investment. They enter the property market, not in order to find somewhere to live, but to make a quick speculative profit.
The problem is, in other words, at least as much one of excessive demand as of limited supply – a level of demand inflated by the speculative quest for profit opportunities so that the market is distorted. And remember that demand is not just a matter of the number of prospective purchasers, but of their purchasing power as well – of how much money they are able to bring to the market.
It is at this point that the role of the banks becomes critical. It is the banks’ willingness to lend virtually without limit that allows the speculators to bring large sums of money to the market so as to outbid the home-seekers. The speculators will be happy to bid up prices in the certain knowledge that, for as long as the banks will continue to lend, the value of their “investments” will continue to rise.
This truth has been at least partially recognised by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Graeme Wheeler’s loan-to-value and debt-to-income ratios have already had some effect in cooling the housing market by restraining bank lending. But he has more to do – and he needs government support to do it. Prices will not stabilise for as long as the banks can make easy profits from the virtually risk-free and unlimited lending of money which they themselves create.
The banks are of course a less tempting and easy target for the politicians, including the Prime Minister, than are local authorities. It will require real political courage to take on the banks – but it must be done.
We must hope that our new Prime Minister will not just take refuge in politically convenient “explanations” but, rather, face up to facts and to the need for the strong action that must be taken. Our young job-seekers, and our young home-seekers, have a right to expect that their interests will be top of the government’s agenda.
Bryan Gould
3 March 2017
A Revival of Fascism?
The epithets “fascist” and “Nazi” are, in some quarters, tossed about so casually as to have lost most of their meaning. But that should not lead us to think that the behaviours they might describe are things of the past. Those of us with longer memories can still scent the whiff of fascism on the wind – and we should not hesitate to say so when we do. This might be one of those moments.
What phenomena might we expect to recognise as evidence of a revival of fascism? We do not need to ponder the question too long.
We would certainly expect to see a regime that exhibits an extreme form of nationalism. It would describe in grandiose terms the role of the country and its government – the Third Reich, for example, was to last “a thousand years”. It would proclaim its determination to enhance the “greatness” of the country, its readiness to be ruthless in pursuing its own interests, and its disregard of the interests of others. It would increase its spending on the military and express its disdain for helping others.
It would be led by a larger-than-life personality who – as with a Benito Mussolini or even, on occasion, an Adolf Hitler – was not afraid to appear ridiculous or buffoon-like if it meant staying in the headlines. The leader would surround himself with like-minded (and sycophantic) supporters, appointed to positions of power in the government on the strength of their subservience rather than their experience or ability.
The policy of the government would be presented, not as the product of careful consideration by a properly constituted legislature, but as emanating from the personal vision of the “leader” – the “Fuehrer” or “Il Duce”.
Policy would be announced in equally personal terms, directly from the lips of the leader and, as often as possible, at rallies and public events, conducted with fanfare and razzamatazz, where the leader was able to renew the tactics that had enthused his supporters in the first place. Those tactics would include the relentless repetition of slogans and catch-cries, of insults aimed at supposed enemies and non-believers, and attacks and threats against those who were seen as standing in the way.
Those supporters would be encouraged to chant their hatred of opponents of the regime and to demonstrate their enthusiasm for the leader. But they would also be encouraged to identify and express their hostility to groups within society who could be seen as different or as unwelcome minorities or as too weak to defend themselves. Fear and hatred would be seen as the proper attitudes to adopt towards those minorities.
The regime itself would use officers of the state to harass them, to “weed them out”, on the grounds that they could not properly be accepted as part of the host community. Religious, political or ethnic differences would be barely tolerated and carefully monitored.
Propaganda, not necessarily based on truth and fact, would be used constantly. It was, you may recall, Goebbels who practised and perfected the technique of the “big lie.”
Foreign affairs would be conducted on a personal basis. Foreign dignitaries would be expected to show proper subservience to the leader. Smaller and neighbouring countries would be treated with disrespect and threatened with reprisals if they did not do as they were told.
The government, which would be represented as merely an emanation of the personal power of the leader, would attack other sources of power in civil society. The courts would be under heavy pressure to interpret the law to suit the government’s interests, and appointments to the bench would be made on political grounds so as to ensure that this was done.
A free press would be seen as a threat, and would be reined in, through a mixture of threats and controls.
The power of government would be allied with, and regarded as barely to be differentiated from, the interests of big business. All major activities, especially in the economic sphere, would be directed to increasing the power of the state. It is not for nothing that “Nazi” was a contracted form of the German for “national socialism”.
Does any of this ring any bells? Does anyone feel a sense of discomfort at the apparent revival of a scourge that brought the world to the brink of destruction?
Is it really so unthinkable that a major modern democracy, one on which the future of the free world – and therefore of the world itself – is said to rest, could lead us back to a dreadful future? If not, should we not speak up before it is too late?
Bryan Gould
1 March 2017.