Swinging the Vote

National rules out party sources for internal leaks

National leader John Key is continuing to refuse to disclose which consultants his party hires, saying a "vindictive" Labour Government would deny them business.

He has also ruled out someone within the party being to blame for leaks and is pointing the finger at the Parliamentary Service.

At the weekend, investigative author Nicky Hager reported Mr Key had hired Australian political strategy company Crosby/Textor.

The company had courted controversy for tactics including push polling, designed to influence voters.

Hager's report included diary-type references and dates and details of Mr Key's meetings.

Yesterday, Mr Key raised the issue with the Parliamentary Service.

The issue of political spin should be a defining one this election: rather than dragging public debate away from the policies that define our nation, as some have argued, interrogating the source of where these policies come from is a crucial process to an informed vote.  The refusal of John Key to confirm his party's use of Crosby/Textor as public relations consultants is disturbing, as it signals a degradation of the democratic processes through which a party should be elected on. 

Since the televised debate of Richard Nixon versus John Kennedy in 1960, politics has really been about the image that is conveyed rather than the substance of the policies themselves. Nixon's unkempt five o'clock shadow held no comparison in voters' minds to a tanned and toned Kennedy, the latter's election victory cementing the firm relationship between politics and branding. 

The danger with this marriage of public relations and politics is that the desire to pull voters ends up superseding the desire to establish firm, reasoned policies that benefit New Zealanders.  One only needs to look as far as the Bill Clinton administration to see how quickly ideological concerns can bend to the elusive power of the mass.  Realising that the health and social reforms he wanted to push through would have to take secondary priority to appeasing America's 'forgotten middle class' after the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, Clinton refocused his entire administration on the day-to-day concerns of 'middle America'.  As Adam Curtis traces in his brilliant documentary Century of the Self, Clinton's public appearance was increasingly shaped not by a representation of his own personality, but by lampooning what he thought his voters would like to see (apparently dressing up like a gun-toting Southern Republican on occasion made the list).  In preparation for the 1996 election, Clinton, acting on behalf of his public relations advisors, instructed his administration to abandon a campaign on real policy and instead focus only on the emotive issues that would mobilise swing voters, such as V-chips in televisions to prevent children viewing pornography or mobile phones on school buses.  Effectively, for seven years of Clinton's Presidency, focus groups of so-called 'middle Americans' had a greater role in determining internal and foreign policy than the experts that they elected to advise them. The success of Clinton's strategy led to focus groups becoming a crucial part of determining election strategy - as seen in Tony Blair's campaign. 

This is a strategy that Crosby/Textor are renowned for in their campaigns: using sensitive issues to polarise voters into voting on emotive reasons rather than a critical rationale.  This appeal to swing voters, as Crosby/Textor have proven in Australia, need not be based on any kind of fact at all: it can be manufactured to satiate the voter's palate.  Just ask Sue Robinson, the Australian Labor MP who sought an out-of-court settlement after Crosby/Textor push-polled voters to see if they would still support her candidacy if they knew she supported the right to abortion up until the ninth month, a statement she had never said. 

In many ways, Nicky Hager gets an unfair rap in New Zealand for his exposure of the role of public relations in politics.  Internationally, he enjoys a much better reputation with those who understand the dangers of electing "Hollow Men".  Voters should have a right to know how their policies are being determined and on what basis.  Four months out from the election, all we appear to have from National are a minimal list of vague, reactive policies that are largely based on appealing to the public's emotion and a refusal to reveal the processes involved in determining the focus of their campaign. Running a country is about more than presenting an image, and I, for one, would like to know that there is substance behind John Key's campaign. At the risk of sounding elitist, I trust a focus group of uninformed talkback listeners to run the country about as much as I trust a focus group of hicks from the Southern States with the might of America's entire military arsenal - which, for anyone who missed my point, is not a lot.