Top Down Leftism.
From the authoritarian “kindness” of the contemporary Left deliver us, O Lord!
THE CONTEMPORARY LEFT dismisses the very idea of “Culture War” with a curled lip and rolling eyes. Not only do they sneer at the term, but they also condemn it as a nefarious political concoction of the Right.
According to contemporary left-wing analysis, the Right (generally identified nowadays as the “Far Right”) deliberately mobilises the deep seated prejudices of the aggrieved and poorly educated against the Left’s attempts to protect the rights of other vulnerable and marginalised members of the community.
It is for this reason that the “progressive movement” regards concocted cultural warfare not only as unwarranted and dangerous, but evil.
The Right’s assessment is very different. In the eyes of conservatives the contemporary Left descends upon settled cultural communities in much the same way as the Vikings descended upon the monasteries, abbeys and isolated farmsteads of Anglo-Saxon England.
The contemporary Left and its ideas are experienced by the Right (and many others) as alien, disruptive, and fundamentally hostile to the beliefs and values of the hapless communities unfortunate enough to fall victim to their ideological assaults.
Exacerbating this right-wing perception of the contemporary Left as cultural assailants is the manner in which the changes they favour are introduced and enforced.
Historically, leftists seeking to effect meaningful social change operated at the grass roots. Proposed reforms were often as not a distillation of the grievances communicated directly to the reformers by the communities they were intended to uplift.
The democratic character of the reform process ensured that the activities of the Left were welcomed. Regardless of whether the change-agents were trade unions, socialist parties, or groups like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the direction of successful reform efforts remained the same. Improvements travelled from the bottom up – not the top down. Mass involvement guaranteed mass acceptance.
A century ago, the Left (or, at least, that part of it commanding a mass following) was not seen as alien, disruptive or hostile to the communities in which it operated. On the contrary, it was (as one of the Left’s liveliest and most frequently suppressed newspapers proudly proclaimed from its masthead) the people’s voice.
How things have changed!
The Left of today is a very different beast from the grass-roots mobiliser of the masses that swept away the worst economic and social injustices of laissez-faire capitalism in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. As recently as 45 years ago, the New Zealand Labour Party boasted more than 100,000 members, today Labour’s membership is estimated at 8,000-10,000 – on a good day.
It isn’t difficult to understand why.
Such radicalism as Labour and its left-leaning allies are able to muster in 2026 is not fuelled by the grievances of a working-class suffering from an ever-increasing battery of economic and institutional pressures, but by the grievances of a collection of increasingly strident and demanding minorities.
The Left of old would have done its best to convince its supporters that the challenging claims of minority groups were worthy of a fair hearing and, if the arguments advanced by their advocates were accepted by the majority, supported. Mass involvement in the argument would, as always, guarantee the mass acceptance of the outcome.
The contemporary Left has no time for such democratic niceties. It no longer possesses the organisational and intellectual resources required to effect change from the bottom up. What it does possess, however, is a firm grip on the political, administrative, academic and judicial apparatus of the New Zealand state, as well as the major media outlets that communicate its “truths” to the public.
That is why the modus operandi of the contemporary Left is now distinguished by the top down imposition of minority demands regardless of the wishes of the majority. If the settled cultural communities on the receiving end of these impositions object that the new rules and values lack broad acceptance, then the leftists’ reaction is to dismiss them as “a basket of deplorables” and insist upon ever-stricter controls.
Entirely unsurprisingly, the communities affected by these top down changes are powerfully incentivised to turn to the political opponents of the contemporary Left for redress. My enemy’s enemy is my friend is the oldest political calculation.
“From the fury of the Northmen deliver us, O Lord!”, cried the Anglo-Saxons. Today’s culture warriors are seeking divine deliverance from the top down authoritarian “kindness” of the contemporary Left.
Tis a strange time when I completely agree with you. Further to what you have just written, the contemporary left refuse to have an intelligent conversation, even discussion, about their proposals for whatever it is they want, without immediately grasping for the most base personal invective they can find. In the months leading up to the election, the editor of The Spinoff wished to try an experiment in discussing political issues which can sometimes lead to heated arguments within families. She called it 'Arguing with my Mother-in-Law'. My son-in-law Mark Crysell, who is unashamedly a leftie (I would say chardonnay socialist), whom I love dearly, and I would each month pick a topic (for example Capital Gains Tax, and wealth tax) and discuss pros and cons. It lasted two months because the poor moderators at The Spinoff could not cope with the appalling comments - truly ghastly and mostly aimed at yours truly (of course). She had to can it. How immature is this? Mark and I actually never argue, and we ensured we finished every discussion on hope and positivity. But there you go.
Like Deborah I also find it odd that I agree with you. I consider you a stalwart of the Left and read your Substack ( along with Bryce Edwards) to get a more balanced view of the political world. You both strike me as intelligent people with integrity - qualities coexisting less and less often these days.
Also like Deborah I'm appalled by the abuse directed at political commentary in the comments section. Itrstional abuses used to be a " left wing thing" but I see it more and more coming from sympathisers on the right. Maybe it's where our education system has left us.
The Left has abandoned the " working classes" in favour of its mix of " disadvantaged minorities" ( usually identity based ) and beneficiaries. Labour's core support are the intelligentsia ( academia, judiciary, journalists - actually opinionists - and the civil service ) - the very people true socialists despise ( Mao burnt books , Pol Pot sent these people into the fields - or under them). They rely on guilt and need for much of their support.
No major party seems to care for the youth of NZ. The group truly disadvantaged by an unfair tax system, an education system derailed by ideology leaving them ill equipped for the workforce and a culture of entitlement rather than self responsibility. This generation faces the burden of unaffordable housing, high government debt and a responsibility to fund their parents and grandparents retirement and healthcare - along with funding the benefits for the significant number of their own generation unable or unwilling to work.
The Greens pretend to care for the young ( in the same way they pretend to care for the environment). But in reality they represent the same constituency as Labour - just younger. The Greens - the entitled generation from middle class backgrounds - assume the wealthy can pay for it all - without understanding how wealth is actually created.
Unfortunately the major parties on the Right don't exist. We have no far right parties in NZ, National is so " woke" many if its supporters are looking to vote elsewhere. ACT are a true right wing party but have been captured by their donors so avoid real reform and therefore have limited public appeal.
National lack clear beliefs - they are supposed to stand for growth and prosperity, creating an economy that lifts living standards for all. However their support for the middle class ( the new working class) is largely with more benefits ( working for families). They don't appear to even try to slow down the ideological reforms pushed on us undemocratically from within by the left leaning institutions. They don't challenge the institutions that block their policy progress. They avoid the real reform needed to stop our decline as a nation. Maybe it's because some of the required reform is not want its major donors or centre left MPs want.
So where do we go as a nation - to Winston / NZF , our Reform.? A populist who does lots to protect the benefits for the aged and his donors but otherwise just tells us what we want to hear on immigration and Maorification and does very little substantive about it until election time ( even then its largely promises for action on his next term). NZF wouldn't support the Treaty Principle Bill or push for a referendum on the Maori electoral role at this election ( it will be their next term , like it was in 2017). His own Ministry undermined the government with slipping the UNDRIP clause in the India FTA.