The meaning of dirty politics

One of the strategies of the right in NZ politics has been to take any complaint levelled against them – of corruption, of malpractice, of conspiracy – and reduce it down until it’s meaningless.

An excellent recent example of this took place on the Open Mike post at the Standard, where political hacking, and thus Dirty Politics, was being discussed. Dirty Politics, to most people in the NZ political sphere, has a pretty specific, well-known meaning. It refers to the actions documented by Nicky Hager by a cast of unethical players on the right, who use smear, innuendo, ghostwritten blog posts and allegedly even blackmail to shut down political opponents and promote a far-right, conservative ideology.

The book didn’t have the killing-blow impact on the general election which many people thought it would. It hasn’t stopped people like Matthew Hooton and David Farrar being used as political commentators in the mainstream media – sometimes even being asked to comment on Dirty Politics as though they have no stake in the game. It didn’t even claim the scalp of Judith Collins – that was another terribly revealing email – though it set the stage for it.

It’s still a powerful weapon for the left. As much as the right have tried to say “but the left do it too” – with their only example being one post which briefly appeared on The Standard in 2008 and was pulled precisely because it was an unethical move – their political machine has been damaged by the exposure. Cameron Slater is no longer a good conduit to get dirt into the mainstream. John Key cannot replace Jason Ede with another “blog liaison officer”. And they’ve relied on that two-track strategy for so long, into their third term (which is when the wheels start to fall off the masterplan anyway), that it could be impossible to build a completely new framework to control the political narrative.

What they can do is co-opt the idea of dirty politics and divorce it from any real meaning at all.

Thus you get Pete George – the derailing mastertroll ofNZ political blogging – leaving 20 comments on one post at The Standard which include contradictory assertions: that dirty politics isn’t serious because it’s what everyone does; that dirty politics is serious because it involves hacking, ergo Cameron Slater isn’t involved in dirty politics because he’s not a hacker; but also that people who tell Pete George to shut up and stop trolling are playing dirty politics.

When called on his behaviour, he complains that Nicky Hager “doesn’t get to control” how the phrase “dirty politics” is used.

I don’t think Pete George himself is a part of the Slater/Ede/Collins/Odgers dirty politics machine, but he’s a useful weathervane of how effective their strategy is: defining dirty politics as everything and nothing to render it powerless.

From being a significant piece of investigative journalism which shone a spotlight on the forces which are trying to turn NZ politics into a nasty, back-stabbing, big-money game, the aim is that “dirty politics” will enter our lexicon as just another way to say “people in a political debate calling each other names.” In the long run, it’s part of the strategy of turning people off politics so they don’t agitate, don’t organise, don’t vote.

How do we stop it? It’s a big project, turning around a well-resourced, widely-heard narrative. But we can be very clear in our meaning when we talk about dirty politics. We can keep pointing out when it happens and naming it for what it is. And with online platforms it’s much easier to get those messages out to a wider, less political audience.

And we don’t let the right de=fang Dirty Politics.

4 Replies to “The meaning of dirty politics”

  1. Can you be more specific on your proposed strategy for dealing with it? Nice to see anti-Green Pete George named for what he is. He makes incredibly strenuous efforts to appear neutral. God knows how he does it – maybe he believes that he is what he portrays himself as being. Pete is very careful how he expresses himself on race issues too. But every now and then his tone of a wiser older man disappears for a moment and he says what he really thinks. His aversion for what he calls the “left” is often on display despite his efforts to appear neutral and it’s then that I shudder. At least the ill-considered is now no longer.

    1. I don’t really have a proposed strategy, more a series of ideas about tactics. Certainly challenging the narrative spread by trolls like PG, and calling out when attack stories from the rightwing blogs get picked up wholesale in the mainstream media.

      Politicheck was doomed the moment PG was given any kind of role in it, and that’s actually a pretty sad state of affairs. It would be really good to have a truly even-handed (not neutral) fact-checking site for NZ politics.

    2. Your blog is not displaying properly. Typeface is huge and links in email don’t show comments. So hope this reaches you in the right section. Australian Broadcasting Corporation runs a FactCheck I would imagine it’s popular. Perhaps Radio NZ could do one, though every single journalist worth the name should be doing it for every story. Happy to share my notes on and PG. kevin 1 mccready attt g mail com Happy for you to edit or not to make this post public too if you like.

      1. Thanks Kevin, I’ve just changed templates but I’m no technological whiz so can’t explain why it’s not displaying properly for you. I don’t think there’s much to be said on the topic of PG and Politicheck, it all seems done and dusted.

What do you reckon?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: