The contemporary left dismisses the very idea of ‘Culture War’ with a curled lip and rolling eyes. Not only do they sneer at the term, but they also condemn it as a nefarious political concoction of the right.
According to contemporary left-wing analysis, the right (generally identified nowadays as the ‘far-right’) deliberately mobilises the deep-seated prejudices of the aggrieved and poorly educated against the left’s attempts to protect the rights of other vulnerable and marginalised members of the community.
It is for this reason that the ‘progressive movement’ regards concocted cultural warfare not only as unwarranted and dangerous, but evil.
The right’s assessment is very different. In the eyes of conservatives the contemporary left descends upon settled cultural communities in much the same way as the Vikings descended upon the monasteries, abbeys and isolated farmsteads of Anglo-Saxon England.
The contemporary left and its ideas are experienced by the right (and many others) as alien, disruptive, and fundamentally hostile to the beliefs and values of the hapless communities unfortunate enough to fall victim to their ideological assaults.
Exacerbating this right-wing perception of the contemporary left as cultural assailants is the manner in which the changes they favour are introduced and enforced.
Historically, leftists seeking to effect meaningful social change operated at the grass roots. Proposed reforms were often as not a distillation of the grievances communicated directly to the reformers by the communities they were intended to uplift.
The democratic character of the reform process ensured that the activities of the left were welcomed. Regardless of whether the change-agents were trade unions, socialist parties, or groups like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the direction of successful reform efforts remained the same. Improvements travelled from the bottom up – not the top down. Mass involvement guaranteed mass acceptance.
A century ago, the left (or, at least, that part of it commanding a mass following) was not seen as alien, disruptive or hostile to the communities in which it operated. On the contrary, it was (as one of the left’s liveliest and most frequently suppressed newspapers proudly proclaimed from its masthead) the people’s voice.
How things have changed!
The left of today is a very different beast from the grass-roots mobiliser of the masses that swept away the worst economic and social injustices of laissez-faire capitalism in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. As recently as 45 years ago, the New Zealand Labour Party boasted more than 100,000 members, today Labour’s membership is estimated at 8,000–10,000 – on a good day.
It isn’t difficult to understand why.
Such radicalism as Labour and its left-leaning allies are able to muster in 2026 is not fuelled by the grievances of a working-class suffering from an ever-increasing battery of economic and institutional pressures, but by the grievances of a collection of increasingly strident and demanding minorities.
The left of old would have done its best to convince its supporters that the challenging claims of minority groups were worthy of a fair hearing and, if the arguments advanced by their advocates were accepted by the majority, supported. Mass involvement in the argument would, as always, guarantee the mass acceptance of the outcome.
The contemporary left has no time for such democratic niceties. It no longer possesses the organisational and intellectual resources required to effect change from the bottom up. What it does possess, however, is a firm grip on the political, administrative, academic and judicial apparatus of the New Zealand state, as well as the major media outlets that communicate its ‘truths’ to the public.
That is why the modus operandi of the contemporary left is now distinguished by the top-down imposition of minority demands, regardless of the wishes of the majority. If the settled cultural communities on the receiving end of these impositions object that the new rules and values lack broad acceptance, then the leftists’ reaction is to dismiss them as “a basket of deplorables” and insist upon ever-stricter controls.
Entirely unsurprisingly, the communities affected by these top-down changes are powerfully incentivised to turn to the political opponents of the contemporary left for redress. My enemy’s enemy is my friend is the oldest political calculation.
“From the fury of the Northmen deliver us, O Lord!”, cried the Anglo-Saxons. Today’s culture warriors are seeking divine deliverance from the top-down authoritarian “kindness” of the contemporary left.
This essay was originally published in the Otago Daily Times and the Greymouth Star and republished on the author’s Substack.
