Moral Leadership. Yeah Right #1
January 15, 2009
On a number of occasions recently Adam has been concerned at the stance taken in various media items regarding New Zealand’s moral leadership globally and the like.
Today he saw his first sighting of concern surfacing in the real world.
Consequently Adam is initiating a new series of posts - Moral Leadership. Yeah Right #?
These are essentially based on the premise set out in the letter reproduced below.
Adam confidently expects that he will receive many comments vilifying his position in this regard, but so be it.
Letters to the Editor - Dominion Post - 14 January
The reference to Intelligent design was amusing.
Advertisement
5 Comments
Comments are closed.
Moral leadership once meant the priest beating you over the head in church about your duty to the poor and suchlike. Now it’s the priest organising a hikoi to protest that the govt do something for the poor. The reason for that is pretty clear.. the priest is no longer talking to the bulk of the NZ population who formed the electorate.
Wittingly/willingly or not, organised religion has passed it’s moral leadership to the Govt, and the Govt is no longer resolutely secular but a confused amalgam of quasi religious pressure groups pushing inanities, and state administration.
This is nicely encapsuled in DPF’s MP profile today of Grant Robertson.. he’s in Parliament to develop a vision of free education.. something already won and studiously retained over much of the past 100 years.
JC
I put forward Collin D Blackman for man of the year even though we are only half way thru Jan – I am fully confidant that no one will come up wih a better observation of the fultility of some of the moral police among us.
Tony
Good point
I think that for many today ‘moral leadership’ is supinely signing up to whatever people like Clark/Minto et all tell us is the moral view
Usually along the lines of if the USA is for it we are against it and vice versa
I hope, ,over the coming months to give some examples as they emerge
A lot rests on agreeing a definition of “moral leadership”, and by whom.
If the term implies NZ Government moral leadership, then there’s a slippery slope to the nanny State (“we know what’s good for you and will regulate everything accordingly”, e.g. smoking, nutrition, pregnancy, birth and childcare etc, as in Huxley’s Brave New World).
Where to draw the line, and what is the “proper” role for individuals, families, communities and government? Without a formal Constitution, definition may be both problematic and variable. As attitudes change, so the line can move. Without constant pressure for the maintenance of individual rights and freedoms, we lose them. (Heaven help those unfortunates who, for whatever reason, live depending on the “goodwill” of the state.)
As for individual moral leadership, there’s a host of unsung heroes in the community who lead by example, whether occupying formal leadership roles or not. It’s this field of endeavour that is often overlooked in the debate. And yet, it’s from individuals, families and the community that national moral leadership emerges.
The term “moral leadership” is most often used to describe New Zealand’s role as a member of the international community. New Zealand’s stance in modern times has reflected its contributions in “righteous” wars, the advancement of science, and living as a social example. Not all our actions were fair, decent or generous spirited, but these values motivated much of what we did. Sadly, the achievements of the first three-quarters of the twentieth century, built on the sacrifices of great/grand/parents, were taken for granted and squandered in the “end of history” period until now.
New Zealand was once seen as a proud and self-reliant nation that gave its all to fight oppression and injustice, standing alongside democratic partners. Now, we savage the hand that protects us, replace aggressor for aggreived, and give comfort to hatred under the guise of a new dubious morality. Now New Zealand is viewed as the reliable partner of non-aligned nations such as Cuba, Libya, Iran and Zimbabwe. If there is to be renewal, instead of floundering in the quicksands of moral equivalence, its best hope may lie in rededication to ethics and history.
Otherwise, in forgetting our past we are condemned to repeat it, the first time as tragedy the second as farce (apologies to Santayana and Marx).
I must admit to nostalgia for parts of the days when there was trouble somewhere in the world, and the PM would come on radio or TV and make a comment of something like “Well yes, it’s not good, and I feel for those (insert victims), but it doesn’t look like it’s going to affect our trade there”.
And that’s the difference. As a small nation that had to trade with far flung corners of the world to survive and prosper we had to think first of ourselves, and leave the moralising to others best able to afford it.
So should we now.
JC