Inflammatory political rhetoric leads us down a dark path - Editorial

Te Pāti Māori president John Tamihere again referenced the Nazis during a political discussion.

Editorial

Our political leaders continue to poison the well of public discourse with their inflammatory rhetoric.

This week we were all let down once again with the latest example in a trend which an associate professor of history described as the “radicalisation of language”.

For those who may have missed it, Te Pāti Māori president John Tamihere referenced the Nazis while trying to make a political point during a podcast.

When discussing the Labour Party’s chances of re-election next year, Tamihere said of the current Government: “This is worse than Nazi Germany, this is a fascist regime that has to be removed.”

Whatever argument he was trying to make, after saying something as ridiculous as that, he lost the debate.

Tamihere is no stranger to such controversy and he has referenced the Nazis before in public statements.

In 2019 while running for Auckland’s mayoralty, he defended his use of “sieg heil” during a debate and said Phil Goff “acts like Hitler”.

In 2005, when a Labour Party MP, he also said he was “sick and tired of hearing how many Jews got gassed” during the Holocaust.

This newspaper called for him to resign over that comment.

None of Tamihere’s words are justified and Holocaust Centre deputy chairman Giacomo Lichtner viewed the remark this week as “political hyperbole”.

But Lichtner also noted there was a growing frequency of similar comparisons in political debate.

“If we were ever faced with a regime that actually was fascist, the call to alert would fall on deaf ears because it would be easy to dismiss.”

Lichtner, an associate professor at Victoria University of Wellington, urged politicians to be cautious when using such inflammatory language.

“My message would be to just always exercise great care with historical comparisons, with comparisons to Nazism in particular and with the potential for radicalisation of language of political discourse, which can have really, really dire consequences.”

Our political leaders must stop themselves from describing their opponents with the most extreme example they can think of.

Not everyone on the right of politics are Nazis, just as not all those on the left are communists and Marxists.

We all remember David Seymour’s careless comment about sending Guy Fawkes into the Ministry for Pacific Peoples.

While our political leaders may not believe what they are saying in a literal sense, this type of language contributes to an increasingly hostile political environment and a perverse worldview of us versus them.

Just this year, we have already seen anti-academic and anti-expert rhetoric, along with claims of a racist police force and even specific demographics being targeted by authorities. This is even before you consider the low level of language that’s been uttered in the House.

We, including us in the media, must also recognise why our political leaders are using such extreme language with greater frequency. It grabs the attention they crave, via headlines but also with an unregulated and greater reach on social media.

Such comments also embolden those who hold extremist views in our community to make similarly abusive remarks to those in public office, which we know is an increasing issue particularly for women.

This abusive language spreads online but also targets real people. At worst, it could inspire someone to act on their political ideology.

Sign up to the Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.