Cabal (noun): 1.
A secret intrigue. 2. A political clique or faction.
These are the two main definitions in my Oxford Dictionary.
There’s a third, historical one which reveals that the word originated under
King Charles II, who had a committee of five ministers whose surnames happened
to begin with the letters C, A, B, A and L (who knew?).
But it’s the modern understanding of the word that I’m
concerned with, because in many ways “cabal” seems an apt description of how
New Zealand is being run in 2021.
Okay, cabal implies a small, secretive group, which is not
what I’m talking about here. The cabal I’m talking about is neither small nor
secretive. On the contrary, it’s big and far-reaching, with an agenda that’s
very much out in the open. It’s a cabal so supremely confident about its power that it feels no need to be furtive.
In fact as I’m writing this I realise I’m effectively
proposing a new definition of cabal. Mine would read something like “a group
wielding power and influence disproportionate to its numbers, characterised by
a common ideology and constantly reinforcing itself through mutual support”.
The cabal I’m talking about reaches across politics, the
bureaucracy, academia, arts, the media, the churches and even sport and
business. It dominates the public conversation to the extent that dissenting
voices are largely excluded, at least from traditional mainstream platforms.
The common ideology that unites this cabal is not easily
summarised, since it’s multi-faceted. Some would call it “woke” – an
unsatisfactory term because (a) it’s too easily resorted to and has therefore been
diminished by over-use and (b) its meaning is so diffuse that it can be hard to
If forced to define the groupthink that binds the members of
this cabal, I would suggest it’s an adherence to the ideology of identity
politics – the idea that disadvantaged minority groups (more of which seem to
emerge with every passing month) have needs, grievances and interests that,
when push comes to shove, supersede those of the majority.
Identity politics involves a relentless focus not on what
unites us – in other words, the interests and values that all New Zealanders have
in common (such as freedom, prosperity, peace and respect for the rule of law) –
but on grievance and division. Proponents of identity politics see society as an
aggregation of disadvantaged groups that must compete for power and influence
against a privileged and hostile majority that’s indifferent to their needs. It’s
a world view that arises largely out of Marxist theory but which, oddly enough,
is not endorsed by all Marxists.
These aggrieved minorities may define themselves by their
ethnicity, their gender, their religion, their disabilities or their sexual
identity. The desire to protect these groups and promote their interests, even
if it means over-riding the wishes of the majority, has become an all-consuming objective for
the cabal that now dominates New Zealand politics.
We see this reflected in many of the political initiatives
pursued by the Labour government since it was freed from the restraining
influence of New Zealand First. Obvious examples include proposed hate speech
laws (still conveniently vague), Maori co-governance proposals, taxpayer-funded
government capture of the media, centralisation of power via radical new
arrangements in health and local government (e.g. the Three Waters),
indoctrination of school pupils through a distorted history curriculum, and the
imposition of Maori place names and Maori terminology unfamiliar to most New
Zealanders without any mandate.
Now, I know what some people will be thinking as they read
this. They’ll be thinking: “Hang on, there have always been cabals in
politics.” Which is true: in virtually every government, there’s a select group
– sometimes known as the kitchen cabinet – which calls the shots.
But what sets the 2021-style cabal apart is the sheer scale
of its influence. A homogeneity of thinking extends across virtually all the public
institutions that influence New Zealand life. What debate there is mainly takes
place on the margins – for example, on talkback radio (which the media elite
regards with contempt), in social media and on blogs like this one, where dissenting
opinion can be quarantined as if it were a contagious disease.
The dangers hardly need spelling out. A country
where government policies largely go unchallenged by the institutions that
normally hold politicians to account is a country that risks acquiescing in the
face of an authoritarian state.
Two obvious examples are academia and the media. In liberal
democracies, both institutions typically subject governments to close, and often harsh, critical
scrutiny. But in New Zealand in 2021, academics and the media sing from the
same song sheet as the people in power. Media outlets publish just enough
dissenting opinion to avoid the accusation that they function as compliant government
mouthpieces. Academics, apart from a tiny minority of courageous dissenters, serve as cheerleaders.
Some media go further, actively promoting narratives that favour
the government; witness Newshub
political editor Tova O’Brien’s sustained, malicious and deliberate undermining
of Judith Collins. Contrast that with the same organisation’s very occasional (and
mostly polite) reporting of government failures. O’Brien’s exposure of Kris
Faafoi’s inability to explain his own hate speech proposals, and Michael Morrah’s
valiant chronicling of the government’s failings and dissembling over Covid-19,
stand out precisely because they contrast sharply with the deferential tone of
most Newshub journalism, especially in
relation to Jacinda Ardern.
Some political journalists appear to compete for the prime
minister’s favour, like school children begging for the teacher to notice their
upraised arms. The penalty for asking awkward questions at Ardern’s “Pulpit of
Truth” sessions is that the questioner is likely to be snubbed in future. It’s
a more subtle form of control than that exercised by Robert Muldoon, who banned
journalists he didn’t like, but just as effective. Small wonder that Barry Soper,
the most experienced member of the press gallery, has exposed Ardern’s promise of transparency as a sham.
We even see media outlets actively suppressing content for
no better reason than that it’s ideologically unacceptable; witness the New Zealand Herald’s shameful refusal to
publish an inoffensive advertisement for the feminist group Speak Up for Women, which has
struggled to have its voice heard against a barrage of rhetoric from
the fiercely aggressive transgender lobby.
Once the guardians of free speech, the press has become
complicit in the suppression of opinions that run counter to the tenets of
identity politics. That media outlets like the Herald now align themselves with radical fringe groups such as transgender
activists, who only a few years ago would have been regarded as deranged,
demonstrates how out of touch they have become with the public they purport to serve.
But back to that cabal. For a micro-example of how it
operates, and of the cosy symbiosis between government and the media, look no
further than Newshub’s recent coverage
of an Official Information Act release to blogger Cameron Slater relating to
two of the cabal’s most feted figures, Ashley Bloomfield and Siouxsie Wiles.
On the BFD blog,
Slater had called microbiologist and media darling Wiles a rank hypocrite after
she appeared to breach Alert Level 4 rules – and contravene her own public advice not
to go out and socialise – by sitting with a friend on an Auckland beach, in
close proximity and both unmasked.
A delighted Newshub
crowed that in an exchange of text messages released to Slater, Bloomfield (or
as I prefer to call him, Dr Spin) told Wiles that “I don’t think that Cameron Slater
has much cred these days”. The focus of the story was thus obligingly shifted
from Wiles’ flouting of the lockdown rules – a matter of clear public interest –
to the denigration of the right-wing blogger who potted her. It was the perfect
illustration of how the cabal works to protect its members and turn its wrath on
anyone who challenges it.
In this case the self-supporting mechanisms kicked in
big-time. First, there was Bloomfield reassuring Wiles in a chummy, we’re-all-in-this-together
spirit that she shouldn’t be too concerned about Slater, followed by the
insipid bromide “Take care” and adding: “Keep up the great work and plenty of
good people … will stand by you”. Then there was the sneering tone of the Newshub report, which implied that the only
person tarnished by the affair was Slater himself. (After all, if the sainted Bloomfield
pronounced that Slater had no cred, who could possibly argue otherwise?)
Others soon piled on. “Kiwis on social media thought the
whole affair was hilarious”, Newshub
reported – citing, as evidence, a sniggering, sub-literate tweet by Hayden
Donnell from RNZ’s Mediawatch: “Imagine
OIA’ing a government official’s comms all their texts are just about how much
Let’s just consider that for a moment. Donnell is paid by
the taxpayer to provide fair, measured, non-partisan analysis of the news media,
and here he is (a) revealing himself as unable to string a few coherent words
together, and (b) joining in a social media gang-up on a figure the cabal loathes
because they can’t abide anyone holding political views different from their
I supposed we should be grateful to Donnell for confirming just how puerile and bigoted he is. We now know not to rely on anything he says
about the media we pay him to comment on. In an ideal world he would be sacked
because he has forfeited his credibility, but we know he won’t be. He can make
comments like this with impunity because the cabal protects its own – in fact,
applauds people for displaying bias, just as long as it’s the right type of bias.
The cabal’s influence, incidentally, reaches beyond New
Zealand, and I’m not just talking about the Guardian,
which is the cabal’s newspaper of choice. In a recent BBC World Service discussion, Newsroom
political journalist Marc Daalder, after playing down a key failure in the Ardern
government’s management of Covid-19 by saying the tardiness of the vaccination
rollout was due to “supply constraints” (not true), then smeared the country by
making the claim (also untrue) that the vaccination programme prioritised
whites and left "marginalised" communities behind. “The government hasn’t always
been the friend of Maori communities,” Daalder said, citing the smallpox (1913)
and influenza (1918) epidemics as evidence of New Zealand’s supposed indifference
to Maori suffering. (Neither could be compared with the current pandemic, but hey - let's not get too picky.)
Daalder’s casual slander aligns with a commonly held view
within the cabal that New Zealand is so irredeemably racist even Ardern’s
enlightened leadership can’t fix it. Overseas listeners would have formed the
impression that Maori had been denied vaccination opportunities as part of a deliberate
strategy, when both Kelvin Davis and Peeni Henare placed the blame squarely on
Maori themselves for not coming forward despite government publicity campaigns
targeted directly at them.
Distortion is just one of the weapons in the armoury of the cabal
that controls the public conversation. Ridicule and scorn are others, as evidenced
by Newshub’s report about Slater. The
purpose is to intimidate dissenters into silence. And we’re paying for it,
because the media elements of the cabal are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer through
the Pravda Project, aka the Public Interest Journalism Fund. That's the cabal’s master stroke.