"A decent chap"

The manipulative messaging of David Seymour.

I’ve been watching and listening to David Seymour delivering his message about his Treaty Principles Bill and noticing a number of things. These manipulative techniques need to be understood by those of us who are trying to counter the Treaty Principles Bill, and all the other regressive government policy that continues to be enacted (and is oriented towards the same ends, but through less overt means).

1.        He uses a monotonous “calm” voice. This expressionless delivery is used to appear “reasonable” and contrast with others whose delivery is more passionate or emotionally charged. We have been acculturated to believe that “calm” and “reasonable” equals more intelligent, when in fact this is a mirage. The “calm” delivery of his message is part of the manipulation techniques he is using. It is a performance to make him, and his message appear “reasonable.”

2.        He repeats his phrases over and over again. This is designed to lodge those phrases in the mind, so they feel familiar to his listeners. The more familiar the phrases feel to his listeners, the more likely they are to believe they are their own.

3.        He uses words that appear universal, but are culturally biased. He says things like “equal rights”, but what remains unsaid is that those rights are the ones that are defined by the Westminster system and the worldview that sits underneath that system. The “equal rights” he is promoting are the rights that come out of a cultural perspective where everyone is a separate individual only, with no collective rights, no rights of nature, no rights to have their cultural values expressed in the way they live. In David Seymour’s worldview “rights” really come down to “property rights.” This is the big sleight of hand he is pulling—using universalist language to erase the rights of Māori to live as Māori, and in doing that to remove from sight the possibility of others seeing and experiencing the benefit of that way of being. He is actually narrowing the rights and duties of all New Zealanders with this bill.

4.        He is trying to entrench the idea that we have a level playing field and that differences in outcomes are entirely the responsibility of individuals. He is removing the responsibility of the crown to redress the intergenerational harm that was caused by colonial takeover of Aotearoa, and insisting that, effectively, one’s experience and upbringing and advantages or disadvantages have nothing to do with one’s ability to thrive. He is repositioning restorative initiatives as “special treatment” based on race, when in fact they are essential to achieving a just and equitable society.

5.        He uses false binaries to make his argument. This is a classic debate technique, where he lays out “either/or” choices (that he defines for you) and says it must be one or the other. There are many more ways of navigating this than the ones he suggests, and it is possible for more than one thing to be true at the same time. Binary thinking is a reductive and simplistic way of understanding a complex world. David is using it to control people’s choices. He makes out that things are mutually exclusive, when in fact that is a very simplistic (I might say primitive) logic. This is a tricky thing, because our Western education system has acculturated us to these binary ways of understanding complexity, so we’re primed for it. A simple example is the way he says that we can either be seen as part of a group or as individuals. No David, it is when you think about these as separate that you get into trouble.

6.        His arguments are projections of what he himself is doing. He talks about the idea that different people having different rights based on ancestry breeds resentment, when that is literally what he is fuelling—the rights of those whose ancestors have profited from stolen land and cultural supremacy to continue to be greater than those from whom they stole. The right to live comfortably, to have enough to eat, to determine the laws for everyone else, to have power-over. That is what breeds resentment. Injustice.

7.        He is lying. There are many many examples of him saying things that are untrue in ways that are made out to be statements of fact, not opinion. He talks about Te Tiriti being about a “partnership between races,” when it is actually an agreement between sovereign nations. He says “we take the Māori text and we take what it literally says, that the government has the right to govern. There is one government.” This is a false statement. He says “the reality is that there’s 5 million of us on these islands and we do need one government.” That is an opinion not a fact. He says that the Treaty “gives the same rights and duties to all.” No it doesn’t. That is a lie.

8.        He belittles those who disagree with him, no matter their expertise and status. He says “I know there are people who say we didn’t cede sovereignty” without noting who the “people” are (spoiler alert, scholars, researchers, judges, people who were actually there), the enormous scholarship and research that backs this up, and the fact that the Crown’s own body, the Waitangi Tribunal has confirmed this.

9.        He uses Māori terms, takes a superficial translation, and twists them to his own ends. This is an extraordinarily arrogant thing to do—to suggest his own interpretation of a language and its cultural foundations should reign supreme over the expertise of those who are steeped in it. The most egregious example of this is his use of “tino rangatiratanga”, which he defines as “self determination” and then goes on to say “Now some people say that only applies to Māori. I don’t see why that wouldn’t apply to everybody...” The “some people” he is referring to are those who actually know, ie those with expertise. Again he is belittling others to place himself and his intellect as superior. He throws in Māori words “whare”, “kotahitanga”, “ture” to make it seem like he understands more than he does and is not anti-Māori. Actions speak louder than words.

10.  He erases the arguments of others. I have heard him repeat over and over again that “no-one is able to tell him what is wrong with his bill”. This is a lie. He has been told by the Waitangi Tribunal, by the Human Rights Commission, by hapū and iwi Māori, by scholars, by the Ministry of Justice, by former Prime Ministers, by people in the largest hīkoi Aotearoa has ever experienced. It is just that he is not engaging with their arguments. Notice that he never responds to the legitimate arguments being made, rather he repeats his own talking points. And because he has the advantage of the Ministerial megaphone (and a lot of donor cash that has funded a website to push these racist ideas out into the community), it is his “side” of the “debate” that most people are hearing, not all the many someones who have told him loud and clear “what is wrong with his bill.” For those he is targeting with his message, it is probably true that for them the counter argument is absent. But that is the manipulative magic of David Seymour.

11.  He uses terms from the US right wing playbook. Terms like “activist judges”, “left-wing academics”, “so-called experts”, “radicals”. All of these terms are designed to make people think there is something dodgy going on. But what they are doing is reducing our trust in those who are actually holding power to account, and making us believe they are the ones who are manipulating the truth. David is manipulating the truth and is trying to brainwash his supporters to believe otherwise.

Make no mistake, all these techniques are deliberate and well-practised. And there are probably many more than the ones I’ve quickly jotted down here. I think we need to work from many different angles, and use many different (and creative!) approaches in the long term. I really support the idea of developing some simple messaging to repeat (like “Te Tiriti is our protection against privatisation, corporatisation, and environmental degradation” and “no-one goes hungry on the marae”), but also to continue to educate people as to the deeper things going on here so that they are not so susceptible to this kind of messaging (because it will definitely continue and will accelerate as we’ve seen in the US and across the world).

I still think our strongest position is to continue to live into the beautiful and expansive vision for the world we want and show people how much better that is for all of us. Experience is the most potent teacher. And imagination is needed now more than ever. The hīkoi offered people a felt experience of kotahitanga—joyous, family-oriented, uplifting the mana of everyone, caring for each other, beautiful individuals flourishing within a web of collectivity and relationships, not left to fend for themselves. Let’s keep embodying what our future can look like.

Toitū Te Tiriti!