Left, right and wrong

One of the things I first noticed about elections in New Zealand is how labelling politicians with terms like “left wing” and “right wing” are merely for convenience, rather than the sure-fire indicator of ideology they usually are in America. For that reason, maybe, many NZ journalists prefer the terms “left-leaning” or “right-leaning”, and maybe that's a good idea.

The two biggest NZ parties—National and Labour—are both made up of people on the right and on the left, relatively speaking, so not even the party names indicate ideology. Sure, Labour Party politicians tend to move to the left from the centre, and those of the National Party tend to move to the right, but neither is absolutely one or the other and both parties house a continuum.

It's even more confusing in local elections, where parties are almost entirely absent. What parties there are tend to be mostly alliances for the sake of election campaigning, where a few core principles are shared but often little else. Determining what party is “left-leaning” or “right-leaning” is, more often that not, speculation or extrapolation.

Nevertheless, some people are to the right of centre and some are too the left. To me, some things are also right in the other sense, and some are wrong. I think it's pretty clear by now where I stand in that continuum, based on what I choose to comment about and the positions I take.

But if I get pedantic about terms like “far right”, insisting on being precise in placing some people or beliefs outside the normal spectrum, blame New Zealand and it's lack of easy political characterisation. The fact that such distinctions still matter to me can probably be blamed on America, because there they matter very much. And that, basically, explains both what I choose to comment on and the language I choose. The fact that I comment on political things at all, though, is a testament to both countries and the importance placed on democratic debate. That, at least, is one very good thing.