Out in the real world, Muller’s first week wasn’t so bad
The prevailing view of political commentators and the like is that Todd Muller had a torrid, bumbling first week as the new leader of the Opposition.
First there was the Make America Great Again cap displayed in his office and interpreted by some as Muller feeling some affinity with that great ogre of the north, Donald Trump. The fact he also had a campaign badge from Hillary Clinton’s camp did not seem to register in the same way.
Then his shadow cabinet, with four women in the top 10, was attacked as too white. National’s former deputy, Paula Bennett, who was punished for her loyalty to Simon Bridges and shoved down the list to number 13, was the only Ma¯ ori MP in the top 14. The next, Shane Reti, was ranked at number 17, with not insignificant responsibility for skills and employment, tertiary education, Treaty of Waitangi negotiations and associate health.
The feeling is that Muller’s apparent gaffes were major missteps that could mark the start of a disastrous run in his new role. It was certainly an unimpressive debut with perhaps the most grating aspect being the in-house love-fest in which Muller and his front bench kept praising each other’s amazing talents.
Another terrible feature of the own goals was that they put Muller on the defensive and diverted attention from his message and qualities as a new broom.
However, the clamour over the two issues within the echo chamber of the Wellington political scene, and generously reflected by the media, was distracting but not the disaster some claim. The silent majority, National’s main hunting ground, won’t see the so-called blunders in the same light as its natural foes.
The controversy over the cap in Muller’s office will be seen by the silent majority as a silly mediagenerated fuss over nothing. They will feel Muller has been unjustly pilloried and accept his souvenir story as genuine.
They will also wonder why any connection with Trump, no matter how tenuous, should be the political poison the kerfuffle suggests.
Not having as much diversity in his shadow cabinet as is expected in this politically correct world is also not necessarily a tone-deaf move. Muller says he selected his front bench on merit, not race, an approach many would agree with.
Progressive politicians often assume that where they go, the rest will follow. They are usually right but not always, and sometimes the lag can be fatal to electoral chances.
One of Jacinda Ardern’s great shining strengths is that people want to follow her because she is an exceptional human being as well as a gifted politician. She guilts people into questioning their own beliefs. But as Don Brash showed when he nearly won the election in 2006 with his ‘‘Kiwi not Iwi’’ message, there remains much lingering resentment about the perceived focus on Ma¯ ori needs and aspirations at the expense of others.
As Brash’s near success demonstrated, this approach plays well with the silent majority who don’t like some people getting advantages denied to them.
Muller’s front-bench selection is not going to win any points among urban liberals, but grassroots New Zealand won’t necessarily see it the same way. And that is where the votes are. Ma¯ ori are firmly in Labour’s camp and urban liberals will go with Ardern as well.
You can see how Muller is, in a more sophisticated way, positioning himself to appeal to the same people Simon Bridges was trying to reach but somehow failed. Bridges thought he could best Labour on law and order. Muller is hanging his cap on more competent management of the economy.
He gives himself the small business portfolio and says the election will be about the economy ‘‘but not the economy the bureaucracy talks about. It will be the economy you live in, the economy in your community, your job, your main street, your tourism business, your marae, your local rugby league club, your local butcher, your netball courts, your farms, your shops and your families’’.
In other words, Muller is trying to reach the real people of this country, not the Reserve Bank board or Treasury officials, political commentators or readers of the lefty website.
If he takes his appeal to the silent majority too far, he will start to sound like the sort of populist most New Zealanders distrust. He could also commit the most heinous of political sins, a lack of empathy.
He would be wise not to try to compete with Ardern on that front, nor should he fake it. He looks like a smart, decent guy, but Right-wing politicians are by nature not inclined to feel everyone deserves the same sympathy. They can be compassionate on a personal level but their judgments about sections of the population are less charitable. They can also be callous and bigoted. In that they are similar to the silent majority who feel they are the ones paying for all the empathy-driven policies.
Muller has taken over National at the worst possible time for a prime ministerial aspirant. His best hope is that by the election on September 19, unemployment has rocketed, the cult of Winston has shattered, the economy has tanked and voters are starting to worry about how the country will ever pay the billions back.
Then they might start to think empathy is all very well, but we need a leader capable of some hardheaded decisions that look beyond the lens of political correctness.
The silent majority, National’s main hunting ground, won’t see the so-called blunders in the same light as its natural foes.