Some screaming American waving a bowdlerized - nay ... FLANDERIZED - version of the US's 2nd Amendment has presumably internalized the aforementioned quote as a mantra. But that doesn't mean it's entirely useless in more outwardly sensible political environs such as our own. Indeed, quite the contrary.
You see, there is a movement out there to attempt to get young people out to vote on the strength of the presumption that politicians will do what you support them to. Or, in other words - that if you vote for good people, then you will get good policy governing, influencing and supporting YOUR lives as a result.
Perhaps this is true. I certainly do think that there are some morally upstanding and upright folk of vision and conscience out there - either presently in our Parliament or attempting their level best to enter same.
But they are from the 'Minor Parties'. Not the big ones.
The larger organizations that somewhat regrettably form the bedrock of our (neoliberal) governance have rather different priorities. Namely, the attainment and maintenance of POWER at almost any cost. In the context of what is often referred to as the 'triennial electoral lolly-scramble' of 'bribe' policies like tax-cuts and specifically targeted spending of occasionally questionable "necessity", these "costs" often have quite literal price-tags attached.
Now this should not necessarily be taken as an outright nor overt condemnation of politicians pandering to the electorate with big-ticket items in the pursuit of power. Some of the policies that have been derided [rightly or otherwise] as 'election bribes' in years past have actually been very useful and socially just measures to enact - and verily, might not have been mooted at all were it not for the serious pressure upon the proposers of an impending Electoral Crunch.
Take Interest Free Student Loans, for instance. One of the major reasons that you, as students, AREN'T going to spend a reasonable proportion of your adult working lives struggling to pay off an ever-expanding and groaning weight of interest-laden debt in the manner of American college grads ... is because Labour felt fundamentally freaked out at the prospect of losing power in 2005. So they offered a 'big ticket' item to win over studente voters [and thus a 3rd term] as a result. Had they pulled off something of an upset victory in 2008, then they would have restored us the Universal Student Allowance [dangled as a similar 'bribe' in that year's Election] which New Zealand students used to enjoy prior to the Nats getting rid of it in the early '90s.
A similar pattern can be evinced from the National Party choosing to offer much-needed infrastructural improvements in marginal [and often neglected-rural] seats whenever they've felt seriously under threat in them in recent years [e.g. Northland in 2015].
Or, in other words, particularly for those less well off or otherwise politically marginalized within our society, the threat of imminent 'turfing out' can draw considerable dividends in terms of law reform or the expenditure of the public purse.
But observe the emotional-ethical dynamic going on here. It is not a case, necessarily at least, of the politicians having bright and bold visions that they are simply awaiting the right time to unveil to the public. Although in fairness, such PR and political strategy considerations ARE occasionally the relevant rubric in the thought-process of some principled Parliamentarians (and their long-suffering Comms advisors).
Instead, often it is the emotional impetus of TERROR - the catastrophic realization that unless something serious is done, that the MP in question is very likely to be hurled out of office or forced to serve as second-fiddle in a Winston Peters-led coalition - that drives such a radical and drastic action as delivering actually decent and useful policy to the masses.
So with that in mind, in an electoral cycle wherein various agents are promulgating the view that one must have a 'warm and cuddly' relationship with the local candidates and elected representatives in order to get anything positive done ... I should like to propose something quite drastically different.
That the main force and emotional terrain in our politics cease to be a sort of bland, cotton-wool apathy wherein we basically just accept the view that the (yet-current) major parties of governance will do good things occasionally if they're treated right and lobbied panderingly ... to instead be replaced, as the sine qua non requirement for restoring control of our public affairs to The People, with the Tumult of Terror for our occasionally-elected representatives.
Now it is probably important to note at this juncture, lest I once again find myself being visited by a detective from the anti-terrorism unit at the New Zealand Police, that I am not meaning "the politics of terror" in the sense of blowing up buildings or physically threatening those who choose to get involved in politics. That would not be particularly helpful to anyone - and in our domestic political context, would almost certainly be wildly unjustified. All that would likely result, anyway, would be further enhancement of our already wildly over-reaching surveillance state, and the branding of sensible [if somewhat 'radical' appearing] demands as literal [and unpalatable] 'extremism'.
Instead, all I am simply saying is that if you want Government - whether predominantly Red or Blue - to actually deliver for YOUR needs more than once every couple of electoral cycles ... then you need to remind them who's "boss". Who ultimately controls whether they get/stay in or not. And what they must do in order to have a Hades-hope of earning even your fleetingly effervescent electoral support at that year's Election.
Give them something to FEAR when it comes to their potential prospects of not getting back in.
Make them WORK for YOUR VOTE, rather than placidly presuming that they'll sleepwalk to victory.
In short ... TERRORIZE YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE.
And enjoy the fruits of better policy-making, as a result.
