There have been a few events over the last few years that bring to the forefront the need to discuss how we on the left present ourselves particularly when you consider the hostile nature of the media towards anyone who falls outside of the neoliberal orthodoxy. When I say that I am not invoking some sort of ‘woe is me’ victim mentality but rather the need to accept reality as it exists and working within it rather than forever rebelling then complaining no progress is being made. As my old man used to say, “you only have one opportunity to make a first good impression”, and whether you like it or not people will instinctively will make a judgement within the first few moments of meeting you so way erect additional barriers?
When it comes to language being used, are we using language that is accessible? are we using language that turn people off from what we have to say because the first impression after hearing it is negative? When I worked at a bank there was a law change in Australia where if you used your credit card to top up your betting account, lotto, buying casino chips etc. it was treated as a ‘cash equivalent transaction’ which would result it being treated as a cash advance. We had a large number of people who rang up and wondering why they were being charged a cash advance fee because according to their memory they didn’t do a cash advance aka going to an ATM and withdrawing cash from their card. The one thing you never ask is “do you do gambling?” – why? because the word gambling has a whole lot of negative connotations – organised crime, a vice, addiction, dishonourable, disreputable etc. but if you phrase it as “do you like to have a cheeky bet on the Melbourne Cup” or “do you occasionally get a lotto ticket online” then the tone of conversation changes.
When someone from the left starts speaking about ‘white privilege’ to an audience that is primarily made up of white working class people who barely have two nickels to rub together, how do you think they’re going to respond to that? what does the phrase ‘white privilege’ invoke in the minds of the audience? Compare that to if you said “some people people aren’t born with the same opportunities, some are born into poverty, others into broken families, others don’t have the opportunity to get ahead because of discrimination or the lingering consequences of past discriminatory policies that impact communities today” – which one would a positive reception from the audience? both are essentially saying the same thing but the second example I gave doesn’t turn off the audience within the first five minutes of hearing you speak. It all comes down to how to deliver your message – ensure that how you present that message doesn’t become an obstacle to getting your message out there.
We’ve just seen the most recent fiasco with two political parties recently taking a photo with members of a prominent gang and in the background there are symbols of that gang. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t meet with constituents but when you’re running a campaign you need to realise that the media are not the friend of the left wing – they’re ultimately the mouthpiece of capitalist class interests. Yes, you can talk about breaking the cycle of poverty and the pathway of how people get involved with gangs without giving the impression that you’re sympathetic to gangs themselves given the negative consequences that communities feel regarding the existence of these gangs.
I was watching the following video from ‘Current Affairs’ over on YouTube regarding ‘Suit Socialism’ and the importance of presentation, branding and identity associated with a particular political or social movement:
It is easy to attack someone on the left wing if they represent themselves in a way that makes them look like the parody of what the right wing think left wing people look like. Part of selling your message is how you present yourself – what do the clothes you’re wearing say about you and does that send the message that you should be taken seriously? I always go back to what what my dad used to say “you only have one opportunity to make a first good impression”, it may not be fair that people make snap judgements like that but you deal with the world as it exists not how you’d like it to exist.
On a side note there are too many people in the media willing to give right wing commentators the benefit of the doubt by assuming they’re making an argument in good faith when in reality there is no interest in having a good faith discussion. For example, there is this constant narrative that makes the round at every election of a National-Greens coalition floated by bad faith actors online – some sort of teal coalition. The origin of this idea is that if the Green Party jettison all their non-environmental policies then they could give National a potential coalition partner outside of NZ First and ACT, and the Green Party would have an alternative partner they can use to negotiate better concessions from the Labour Party.
The above narrative not only exists online but also in the minds of media commentators who claim that the Green Party need to “stop doing woke politics and stick to advocating for the environment”. Whenever I hear such nonsense I have to wonder whether it is concern trolling by right wing bot farms because to turn the Green party into a ‘one trick party’ would make them complete unviable as a political party. The reality is that people vote for a party because there is an expectation that they do more than just one policy – we’ve had single issue parties in the past such as ‘Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party’ that has existed for 30 years with no MPs in parliament and little impact in terms of changing the discussion regarding the reforming of the legal system in relation to dealing with drugs.
The problem with being a single issue party, such as being exclusively a party focused on the environment, is that it makes you a target for attacks by the right that you’re advocating environment policies without any consideration or plan regarding the impact to the economy. This is the reason why the Green Party have policies beyond just the environment because to address environment challenge it also involves having a just transition to a sustainable economy where the concerns of the working class are being being addressed. You cannot implement a transition to a sustainable economy successfully unless you have buy in by the masses by ensuring their interests are being protected because if you don’t address those concerns then it opens up an avenue of attack by the right along the lines of “the Greens are fixated on the environment at the expense of the interests of the working class”.
