Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Vol. 37, No. 19. July 31, 1974

The Peoples Friend — The Rise and Fall of a Young Turk: by R.D. Muldoon. Published by A.H. & A.W. Reed. 203 pages

page 11

The Peoples Friend

The Rise and Fall of a Young Turk: by R.D. Muldoon. Published by A.H. & A.W. Reed. 203 pages.

Sculpture of Robert Muldoon

If what follows seems abusive, then I can only apologise to readers and beg their indulgence. I found it impossible to express this review any more mildly. Perhaps what caused my tone was being told by Muldoon in the first chapter, on page 12 to be exact, that he was a genius. Such a remark would be hard enough to stomach even if true, but since the book gives enough evidence to prove that Muldoon is the biggest political oaf this country has ever seen, his belief in his own genius becomes utterly contemptible.

Throughout he shows the superficiality of his thinking about society and politics. He believes that it is possible to achieve social justice without the 'levelling-down' effect of socialism. This is superficial because his prejudices tell him that socialism necessitates levelling-down. Stilt, it sounds a fair enough sort of prejudice, until you realise that the real reason he's against socialism is that he doesn't want anybody to grab any of his wealth. He quotes a poem which put his beliefs specifically:

What is a socialist? One who is yearning
For equal pay for unequal earning.
Idler or bungler or both, he is willing
To give up his penny and pocket your shilling.

And goes on to produce that classic rationalisation of all elitists:

"While I hated the loss of dignity and self-respect that was suffered by so many of the unemployed of the 1930s I was equally well aware of many who were the authors of their own misfortune and who, it appeared to me, should not as of right be entitled to absolute equality with those who had toiled or saved to improve their position."

The "authors of their own misfortune" is another rationalisation, another cliche passed off as an original thought. Muldoon doesn't ask himself why people author their misfortune, if indeed they do at all. It doesn't occur to him that people don't actively want misfortune, and don't actively author it themselves. Rather than blame their misfortune on the system that Muldoon is a blind agent of, Muldoon blames it on themselves, What a Christian!

On the concept of class he is strange, to say the least. On page 28, he says "I believe....that class consciousness and the class war have no place in NZ" and on page 29 he talks of the National Party's opposition to any form of class hatred. On the surface, it looks like typical National Party mystification, that classes do not exist. But if you look closer you find that he is only saying that classes should love each other and peacefully co-exist, ignoring each other's presence. In other words, the ruling class should go on ruling, and the working class should go on working, unconcerned that they are being ripped off.

As might be expected, he shows what a sensitive, compassionate fellow he is on the topic of law and order. "Active policing and sentences that will mean something will deter the kind of arrogantly senseless offender who causes so much worry or even terror to law abiding citizens in our urban areas. These mindless bullies may well have had unhappy childhoods. So did many children of my generation during the depression. That does not give them a licence to engage in gang warfare against the peaceful enjoyment of life by their fellow citizens."

Actually, no one is saying that gangs do have any sort of licence. Muldoon again shows his lack of simple logic and understanding. What should be done about unhappy childhoods? Nothing, says Muldoon, so long as those who suffered it are deterred from crime by being policed actively and threatened with long sentences.

Muldoon's "give him [the offender] all the sympathy you wish for his unfortunate family background or whatever it was that caused him to be a social misfit, but reserve a bit more sympathy, by means of some deterrent action, for the innocent victim of his conduct' is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue by emotionalism and calculated vagueness. The key phrase 'or whatever it was....' is left unexamined. Just as throughout the book Muldoon is incapable of self-criticism, so too he is incapable of seeing that there might by anything wrong with capitalism.

This self-reinforcement and absence of self-criticism is perhaps the most pervasive theme of the book. Muldoon and the National Party were always right! They never made mistakes! Muldoon has no need for self-criticism, because he has never made a false step! He is perfect! Perhaps he is God!

Early in the book he proudly quotes his 1954 manifesto, and pats himself on the back for not changing his mind about anything over the years. While he imagines that this shows his vision, he should be aware that it could equally be interpreted as showing the closed and barren state of his mind.

The nearest he gets to analysis of National's failure in '72 is to make a few points about the' "time for a change" mentality', as he calls it. He mentions poor National publicity, and that National shouldn't have changed its party colour from blue to orange, because people got confused! Trivial? Yes! Ignoring the colossal chaos that NZ was in in 1972? Yea! Why? Because Muldoon is perfect, and while New Zealand might not be quite perfect, it certainly is the best country in the world, and Muldoon wants to keep it that way. Never mind all the pressure groups and the silent oppressed, they're only the lunatic fringe. This is God's own country, and they're ungrateful.

It all makes incredible reading, for instance: "Public concern for so-called "moral issues" comes in waves. We have had "Ban the Bomb", Vietnam, racial discrimination, I percent aid. Apartheid and the Springbok tour, the French tests, and Concern for the environment. Although these have overlapped, the fashions have come and gone. If these are worthwhile causes, then concern and effort should not ebb and flow according to what is the popular cause."

So these are fashions, not worthwhile causes! The piece continues with a quick trip round the troubles of the world, superficial enough to reinforce the idea that NZ is the best country in the world, so we should be happy with it. He shows his keen understanding of South Africa's problems with "The oppression on minorities is not confined to South Africa" actually the oppressed blacks are a majority, but a bigot couldn't be expected to admit that.

What can only be described as an extremely ignorant and unfortunate attitude to race relations manifests itself in various places. Explaining why various National members won and lost in '72, he lets a couple of interesting remarks slip.

"Tauranga had relatively high unemployment, but mainly among Maoris." Didn't matter so much then, eh Piggy? Hastings, according to Muldoon, has a "Maori problem". Really a "Maori" problem. Muldoon?

Talking about his trip to the US, he praises the town of Atlanta — "the people are delightful. They live in a paternal relation with the Negro population..."

I discussed some of Muldoon's racial hang-ups in Salient two weeks ago, and they don't deserve to be repeated here. His latest outbursts are mentioned elsewhere in this issue. Ignorance, sheer bigoted ignorance, is the only explanation of Muldoon's solution to crimes committed by Polynesians. As the British Economist described him, he is the Enoch Powell of the Antipodes. Enough said.

On Vietnam, one quote will suffice: ".....I pay tribute to the United States for carrying the burden of one of the dirtiest wars in history because their leaders knew they were right." Might is right, evidently. But, he reveals his own confusion a few pages later. "The American political system today is based on favours given and received, and is hopelessly corrupt." Fair enough, but how can he reconcile this with the statement that the US was right to fight in Vietnam?

One of the values of the book apart from exposing Muldoon, is the occasional exposure of Kirk and his gang. For instance, if what Muldoon says about Kirk not making public the late 1972 Treasury report on the economy, then it reflects poorly on Kirk indeed. But as in all other aspects this book is disappointing. There are frequent sling offs at the (mythical)power of the FoL over the Labour Party, but typically Muldoon later contradicts that one and accidentally sets the matter right when in office Labour frequently ends up on the side of the privileged and vested interests."

Overall, then, a revealing but disappointing book. It is revealing not for its analysis of NZ politics but for its lack of analysis. Nor are there any real insights, only a lack of them which merely proves that Muldoon himself is even further from genius status than is Norm Kirk. There are no remotely persuasive justifications for right-wing politics — the only conclusion to be drawn from this is that there can be no justification for them.

Muldoon is no Churchill, not in stature, not in politics, and certainly not in prose. The dull thud of cliches is the only relief from the sometimes intentional but usually helpless obscurity or vagueness of the text. For instance, we will give the first person to understand this piece from p. 173, the wonderful prize of a week's free listening to Parliament on the Salient radio:

"As in 1969 Kirk & Co. claimed that the amount was grossly excessive and had been just pulled out of the air. At one meeting, in Richmond, he claim (sic) that Marshall was using a figure of $600 and I was using a figure of $900. At another he made the claim that the $600 million Figure had been deliberately leaked to Jack Marshall by the Labour Party and that it had not been calculated by a Treasury officer. A book was written after the election by two press gallery journalists who are by no means unfriendly to Labour. They were so obsessed with this issue that mentioning it in different parts of the book they revealed that in Masterton, Kirk said that Marshall was using the figure of $900 million while I was saying $600 million. They did not realise that they were revealing that Kirk had inadvertently reversed his Richmond statement. But this was only one of many angles the press missed. In fact, we both were using both figures $900 million including capital costs, and $600 million per annum with the capital spread over five years."

The nicest thing that can be said about Muldoon is that he is a conservative and the safest thing that can be said is that he is dangerous. Not because he will get into power, because he won't — the amazing thing about the National Party is that there are even worse types in it than Muldoon, which should keep them out of office for a long time to come. But Muldoon is still dangerous for at least two reasons. One, his constant rantings appeal to a large section of New Zealanders who are conservative (or reactionary) and racist and thereby give 'respectability' to ideas that maintain racial disharmony and all the other aspects of the inequitable, unjust status quo.

Some people say that they disagree with Muldoon's ideas but they like his style. But how genuine is his self promoted 'honest' image? People who have heard him cut off a dissentient talkback caller, or heard him use innuendo or evasion in public forums, have come to see the 'honesty' as a facade.

The Mad Turk Strikes again!

The Mad Turk Strikes again!

The second reason why Muldoonism is dangerous is that even among people who see through it, it promotes the idea that the Labour Party is tolerable as an alternative. While undoubtedly there are more progressive elements in the Labour Party than in National, they are just as easy to silence. As Muldoon himself points out. Labour en as up on the side of the privileged and vested interests — just like National.