THE NEW ZEALAND LEFT: A FAILURE OF NERVE AND IMAGINATION

 

Why does the American left, operating in a much more hostile political environment, continue to make far more progress than the New Zealand left? Perhaps the difference is that the New Zealand left continues to demonstrate a failure of nerve and imagination.

THE CONTRAST between the United States left and New Zealand’s left is striking, and not because the US is inherently more fertile ground for radical politics. If anything, the opposite should be true. New Zealand has proportional representation, a strong union history, and a political culture that once embraced universalism and public ownership. Yet in an election year, the left presence is faint, fragmented, and strangely passive. Meanwhile, the US left—operating inside a hostile two-party system, under billionaire influence, and with no proportional representation—manages to generate more energy, more organisation, and more cultural momentum. The difference isn’t structural; it’s political imagination.

One reason the US left feels more alive is that it has been forced to build itself from the ground up. Without a parliamentary party to default to, left movements in the US have had to organise through unions, community groups, tenant unions, and insurgent campaigns. That pressure has produced a culture of experimentation and confrontation. When people have no illusions about the Democratic Party delivering transformative change, they create their own vehicles—campaigns around Medicare for All, the Fight for $15, climate justice coalitions, and mass unionisation drives at Amazon, Starbucks, and universities. These movements aren’t waiting for permission from the political establishment. They generate their own momentum, and that momentum spills into electoral politics rather than the other way around.

Meantime, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest socialist organisation in the United States., continues a 'two track strategy'. It works hard within local communities while campaigning to get its members into elected positions. While congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani are its two most high profile members, the DSA has also successfully campaigned to get many DSA candidates  elected to local  state legislatures, councils and community boards.

New Zealand’s left, by contrast, has become overly dependent on parliamentary parties that no longer behave like left organisations. Labour has spent decades shifting toward managerial centrism, and the Greens—despite pockets of genuine radicalism—have struggled to articulate a confident, class-rooted alternative. The result is a political vacuum. In an election year, the left should be shaping the narrative around inequality, housing, climate, and public services. Instead, it is reacting to the agenda set by the right and the political centre. The Greens, in particular, have failed to capitalise on widespread public frustration with the cost of living, corporate profiteering, and the erosion of public infrastructure. With the notable exception of co-leader Chloe Swarbrick, Green MP's might speak to symptoms but rarely name the system.

The US left also benefits from a culture of unapologetic critique. Writers, organisers, and commentators openly challenge capitalism, imperialism, and corporate power. They produce podcasts, newsletters, documentaries, and grassroots media ecosystems that reach millions. This creates a feedback loop: movements generate ideas, ideas generate confidence, and confidence generates more movement. Even when the US left loses electoral battles, it wins cultural ones. Concepts like the 'billionaire class,' 'the 1%,' 'union power,'and 'climate justice' have entered mainstream vocabulary. That cultural shift matters because it shapes what people believe is possible.

In New Zealand, the ideological terrain is far narrower. Public debate is dominated by technocratic language, incrementalism, and a political class that treats transformative ideas as unrealistic or impolite. Even when the public is angry, the left often responds with caution rather than clarity.  The Labour Party has little to offer but a so-called 'kinder capitalism', but wasn't that what Labour was all about under former leader Jacinda Ardern? Look at where that has got us.

And, like Labour, the Greens talk about fairness but rarely about power. They critique inequality but hesitate to confront the corporate structures that produce it. They call for climate action but avoid naming the industries that block it. Without a sharper narrative, they struggle to mobilise people who are desperate for something bolder.

Another factor is the presence of visible insurgent figures in the US. It’s clear that the US left has produced nationally recognised leaders who articulate systemic critiques and inspire grassroots organising. These figures act as catalysts, drawing people into movements that exist beyond electoral cycles. New Zealand lacks equivalent voices with mass reach. There are activists, organisers, and thinkers doing important work, but they are not connected to a coherent political project with national visibility.

Finally, the US left is making progress because it understands politics as conflict. It names opponents—corporations, landlords, fossil fuel companies, billionaires—and builds campaigns around confronting them. New Zealand’s left often behaves as if politics is a polite policy seminar. Without conflict, there is no movement. Without movement, there is no momentum. And without momentum, election years become exercises in defensive positioning rather than opportunities for transformation.

The irony is that New Zealand has every structural advantage the US left dreams of, including proportional representation, a history of public ownership, and a population that broadly supports universal services. What’s missing is the political imagination to turn those conditions into a movement. Until a new left force emerges—one willing to speak clearly about class, power, and ownership—the US left will continue to feel more dynamic, even while operating in a far more hostile environment.