Culture wars close to home

We are supposed to be having an election campaign focused on the economy and nothing but the economy. Dollars and cents, bread and butter, pain at the pump, inflation – nothing else matters.

Yet if you looked at the political stories that dominated the week, you might assume the 2023 election will be about the culture war issues that pundits and party leaders assured us are of marginal interest.

First, some background. ‘‘Culture wars’’ emerged in the US in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War. They described a political climate in which questions around race, gender and sexuality were highly oppositional and polarised. You were for abortion or you were pro-life. Red state or blue state. Godless or God-fearing. And so on.

That polarisation was slow to take root in New Zealand. We have mostly been more tolerant. When it comes to issues like race, gender and sexuality, many of us are happy to sit quietly in the middle.

Some communities in New Zealand will think that is far too positive and simplistic and they have a point. The 1981 Springbok tour protests were a culture war on a colossal scale, although no-one called it that then. But by and large, inflaming cultural differences has been a less successful political tactic here.

Yet three recent political moments fit the culture war category. One came when National MP Simon O’Connor said during a debate about child support that raising children is the responsibility of mothers and fathers. That saw him branded homophobic by Labour MP Kiri Allan.

National leader Christopher Luxon argued that O’Connor was merely attacking ‘‘deadbeat dads’’ rather than insisting on an ideal family structure, but O’Connor’s critics pointed out he is a conservative with form in such matters.

A second example seemed less ambiguous. At a community meeting in Tauranga last week, National MP Simeon Brown said road signs should be in English rather than having additional te reo that confuses drivers. ‘‘We all speak English, and they should be in English.’’

But Waka Kotahi, which has done the research, found ‘‘the use of bilingual traffic signage is common around the world and considered ‘standard’ in the European Union’’.

The third involved a well-laid trap in which Luxon was forced to concede that National’s plan to reintroduce $5 co-payments for prescriptions, axed in the Budget, means women will pay for contraception under his government. Contraception is not the only medication affected, but given Luxon’s record, including calling abortion ‘‘murder’’ during an introductory interview, it was a natural target for the media.

Labour’s ads and social media images quickly capitalised. One image implied that New Zealand under National would be comparable to the misogynistic society of Gilead in the TV series The Handmaid’s Tale. National deputy Nicola Willis said she was ‘‘appalled’’ by the comparison which was, of course, far-fetched. Yet her outrage seemed theatrical. It takes a certain amount of naivete or disingenuousness to attack a political party for doing politics.

O’Connor and Luxon were singled out for what they represent to Labour, women and voters on the left, which is fear of a creeping influence from right-wing US politics. No amount of saying that abortion and access to contraception will not be touched assures those who have seen rights rolled back in the US.

Brown’s comments about te reo, which had the support of his leader, are arguably the most serious of the culture war infractions, as they point to the courting of a political minority convinced a Māori takeover of New Zealand is under way. It is a dog whistle to a racist tendency and claims that National meant Waka Kotahi should be focused on potholes not words are laughable.

After these culture war skirmishes, you are excused for hoping we go back to talking about the Consumer Price Index.

By and large, inflaming cultural differences has been a less successful political tactic here.