Escapism: The Similarity between Ardern and Luxon

Understanding this mental health condition helps us predict Luxon’s fate

In a former opinion piece about the lengthy coalition talks, I claimed that Christopher Luxon was a deceptive person. In this piece, I attempt to provide the readers with all the details of why I believe this is the case. The clue here is that both Ardern and Luxon have shown the symptoms of escapism which is a difficult psychological problem.

For a start, it is crucial to clarify that escapism is different from the imposter syndrome with which Ardern was diagnosed during her university years. Imposter syndrome is characterized by someone questioning his/her capacities, therefore, he/she becomes a perfectionist. Escapism is characterized by the tendency to avoid facing life’s difficult realities by distracting the mind. Officially, Ardern has never been diagnosed with this problem. Nevertheless, I believe she and Luxon have this psychological difficulty.

It is also essential to express that I did believe in Christopher Luxon being a politician of conviction and his dedication to supporting New Zealand to realize its full potential. However, the case of the demotion of Michael Woodhouse made me rethink my opinion about Luxon. I met Michael Woodhouse in February 2023, and we discussed taxation policy. I found him a thorough and professionally highly skilled politician. During the last week of Parliament before the election, in August 2023, I spent some days in Wellington, and I also met Andrew Bayly to talk about the economy. Accidentally, Woodhouse and I travelled back to Dunedin on the same flight. Then we could have another short chat.

It was a Thursday afternoon, two days before the National Party finalized the party list. Woodhouse appeared as dedicated, and highly motivated, and he showed all the momentum to conduct a strong local campaign. Two days later he withdrew from the party list because his rankings indicated that Luxon did not count on him as a potential cabinet minister. In various interviews, Woodhouse expressed that he had asked Christopher Luxon after the January 2023 party reshuffle whether Luxon had intended to give him a cabinet position. Then, Luxon reassured Woodhouse about his potential future role(s). Woodhouse believed Luxon was genuine. Eventually, however, Woodhouse never got the opportunity to be in the cabinet again, and it turned out that Luxon behaved deceptively with him.

This was the moment when I started considering if I had faced another moment when I got deceived by a New Zealand politician. Earlier, I believed in Jacinda Ardern, and she became a disappointment to me. As I analysed Luxon’s behaviour, I found many similarities between him and Ardern. These similarities point to the psychological problem of escapism. Here, I mention the positive elements of this condition alongside three of the most problematic aspects that are apparent in Ardern’s and Luxon’s behaviour. This will give us implications about Luxon’s future in politics as well.

Positive aspect: great intellectual capacity

What I noticed in examining people with escapism was that they are very sensitive people with enormous intellectual capacity. Ardern was a straight-A student at university. Luxon is also famous for his intellectual capacity. His former colleagues at Air New Zealand acknowledged this. Even Michael Woodhouse praised Luxon’s intellect. Not to mention what Luxon’s wife said on election night, namely, Luxon was the smartest person she had ever met.

This enormous intellect gives ground to these individuals to accurately sense the future, too. I was convinced by Ardern’s ability to give precise predictions when in June 2020, after successfully eliminating COVID-19 in New Zealand, she said that the virus would likely reappear in New Zealand because in many countries the virus was still spreading. She proved to be correct, by August 2020, the virus came back to New Zealand. Similarly to her, Luxon shows this capacity as well. I do not think it is coincidence or preparedness and luck that Luxon could become the leader of large organisations a couple of years after he joined them. It is more likely that he felt the opportunity when he joined. He must have seen those organisations as having difficulties. Difficult situations create opportunities, and he chose these organisations according to his career prospects and aspirations.

Negative 1: Glorifying communication

Both Luxon and Ardern talk in very positive terms. In Luxon’s case, it is obvious. When he talked about his shift at McDonald’s he said his time at the Christchurch store three decades before helped him tremendously through his career. Also, he regarded Air New Zealand as incredibly strong commercially when he resigned from his CE role in 2019, and said, there were 12,500 “excellent Air New Zealanders who [are] emotionally attached to the business.” It cannot come as a surprise that he believed the list of the National Party was representing a fantastic team. During the campaign, Luxon often said that New Zealand was the best country in the world. When we hear all these glorifying attributes they should ring the alarm bells, because they can easily paint a rosy picture and hide crucial difficulties.

We have to remember that Ardern was talking in glorifying terms too. When Ardern announced the end of the COVID-19 elimination strategy in October 2021, she sold the government’s defeat against the Delta-variant as a victory. She said the Delta-variant had “tentacles incredibly difficult to shake.” But she also said it was still okay because elimination had served New Zealand well and it had given time for New Zealand to vaccinate. Besides, Ardern used glorification in a paternalizing manner that was criticised by Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive when she wrote that New Zealand needed a Prime Minister not a storyteller. Du Plessis-Allan Drive’s criticism came after Ardern was talking about the people rescuing others during the floods in the Nelson-Tasman area in August 2022.

Oddly enough, this attitude towards glorification can help individuals with escapism become successful in sales and marketing. Luxon’s business career was in sales and marketing. After her resignation as Prime Minister, Ardern joined the Earthshot Prize Initiative. If anyone listens to her talking about Earthshot, there can be no doubt that she is also good at sales and marketing.

Regarding the glorifying communication methods, it is crucial to highlight a comment about Luxon made by E tū' union's head of aviation, Savage, who said that Luxon was all too often style over substance. This is way too shockingly familiar to what Ardern's critics kept saying.

Negative 2: Self-worth is defined as helping others

Escapism is a coping mechanism for individuals to avoid thinking through difficult situations. When a healthy intellect thinks through a difficult situation or question, that gives insights to the person. Besides, because these healthy people go through these difficult moments, they develop a realistic system of how to define what is valuable. More efforts in facing difficulties are regarded as more valuable. People with escapism do not go through these difficult situations, consequently, they cannot develop a healthy system of values. This leads to them having problems with their self-esteem too. Their most often used strategy to feel valuable is to help others.

Helping others itself is not the problem. The problem comes when this help serves a selfish purpose, to provide self-esteem for these individuals. It is possible to identify these moments of help, they are occasions when the individuals give help without others requesting it. The writer of Ardern’s biography, Michelle Duff, provided examples of how Ardern helped others in her youth. Once she gave transport for travellers near Auckland’s airport without the travellers expressing their need for it. On other occasions, when Ardern was a checkout assistant at a grocery store, she often gave people money from her pocket money so that they could pay for their groceries. The latter method was especially problematic. Poorer families might have developed a tendency to rely on the soft-hearted cashier, and, Ardern was unfair to everyone else who paid the price of the groceries properly.

In Luxon’s case, this form of selfish help is apparent in a different way: He brands himself as the leader who helped large organisations turn their fortune. However, one can help organisations turn even without becoming a leader, so, for Luxon, it was never necessary to do it only by achieving leadership positions.

Negative 3: Unclear religious views

For an individual who has a healthy attitude towards difficult questions, the greatest challenge is to find well-grounded answers to religious questions, such that involve life and death, whether there is God, what is good or evil etc. For a person who cannot face difficult questions, it seems close to impossible to find the religious grounds. In the cases of Ardern and Luxon, the situation is almost identical: they do not have solid religious beliefs.

Ardern was born into a family that follows the tradition of Mormonism. However, she left this religion because it was not compatible with her meeting friends who belonged to the LGBTQ+ community. It is fair to say that Ardern’s political purposes led her to leave her religious roots behind. It is also likely that she would not be able to define her religious views today.

Importantly, Luxon attempted to pre-empt all possible criticisms that may question the inconsistencies between his (alleged) religious views and his policies. In his maiden speech in Parliament, he emphasized that religion and politics were separate for him. Religion was kept private. However, a healthy person can stand up for religious views and political steps at the same time and can show that they are consistent too. Luxon excluded himself from this club. His religious views are apparently in contradiction with his political steps, for example, regarding abortion. It is fair to say that Luxon actively denies his religious views when developing policies (otherwise he would become schizophrenic). It is still a question when journalists start holding him to account for these contradictions.

The likely cause of escapism

Similarly to most psychological problems, escapism is rooted in benevolent but inconsistent parental emotions and attitudes. The tragedy for these people comes from one of their parents being emotionally preoccupied by their professional difficulties. Meanwhile one of their parents can provide emotional support and happiness, helping the affected children with getting answers to their questions, the other parent might refuse to spend time with them owing to their professional responsibilities. The children learn not to get close to the emotionally difficult situation, namely, getting close to the preoccupied and busy parents.

Sometimes, this avoidance is even encouraged by the parents, simply by saying “Dad or Mum has to focus on work now, it is not for children.” The outcome is eventually escapism. It is easy to find the possible root causes for escapism in the cases of Ardern and Luxon. Ardern’s father was a police officer who likely faced depressing social situations due to his occupation. It was likely the mother of Luxon who caused this problem for him. She was a psychotherapist. Psychotherapy can be emotionally draining for doctors, and it is no surprise that psychotherapists cannot be strongly present for their families emotionally.

Unfortunately, we cannot ignore the psychological problems of politicians. It is because these issues are causing emotional imbalance for the affected persons, and they develop behaviours with which they are coping with them. Because the individuals put a significant amount of energy into these rebalancing attempts, they can largely define their personalities. In Ardern’s case, the social-democratic policies to help vulnerable people were the apparent outcome. In the following, this essay discusses what Luxon is likely to “execute” as Prime Minister.

Chaos and failure are imminent

As presented earlier, individuals with escapism try to gain self-esteem by helping others. For Luxon, “helping” large organisations turn their luck has been this sort of behaviour. Now, bearing this in mind, we should not be surprised that he attempts to label his Prime Ministership with the same. The election slogan, “Get New Zealand Back on Track” stems from this endeavour, too.

Because it is difficult for these people to focus on deep political analyses, they attempt to quickly get over things. This kind of rush is apparent in Luxon’s walking pace (Interestingly, Ardern walks quickly as well). During the coalition negotiations, Luxon often appeared as the one who was rushing to the negotiation table, and he was often leaving his deputy, Nicola Willis far behind in their approach to the talks. Before the press conference when Luxon, Winston Peters and David Seymour announced the coalition agreement, Winston Peters told him not to walk so fast. It was audible in the broadcasting. Although many people see Luxon’s quick walk as a sign of confidence, it is exactly the opposite.

There are signs of Luxons’s failures as well. First, I mention the seemingly contradicting lengthy coalition talks and the quick pace of the execution of the Government’s 100-day plan. Analysts, for example, Bryce Edwards regarded the length of the coalition talks as embarrassing for Luxon, meanwhile, at the same time, they believe the pace with which the Government is executing the 100-day plan is impressive. The contradiction is, however, not real. Because Luxon attempted to rush the coalition negotiations, it backfired because he faced formidable opponents, Seymour and Peters. During the execution of the 100-day plan, there is no formidable opposition. Luxon even said that they suspended the bureaucratic officials from providing the Government with regulatory impact statements because they would not read them (At a point, broadcaster, Mike Hosking noted that he had read more cabinet papers than Jacinda Ardern.). This was an acknowledgement that he was not interested in fine details, or problems. The 100-day plan is more or less empty anyway. It includes three types of promises. First, it is the repeal of existing legislation that is happening with urgency. Second, a significant element of the plan is just “stopping work” on existing projects, such as the implementation of the Three-Waters legislation, or the Let’s Get Wellington Moving initiative. Third, the 100-day plan includes promises that only start working on various analyses, for example, the review of the operation of Housing New Zealand (Kainga Ora).

Besides, there is an obvious disappointment about Luxon and his convictions to help New Zealand. If he was a politician of conviction, he would choose at least a portfolio in which he is interested the most. But, he only has the GCSB (Government Communication and Security Bureau), which is almost held by Prime Ministers by default. The public might expect him to have at least one other ministerial role, for example, economic development.

Nevertheless, the more difficult period comes to Luxon’s Government after the execution of the 100-day plan. It will be during March 2024. By that time, they should develop a policy of how to increase the minimum wage from 1 April, and to what extent to increase the benefits. It is worrying because the Government does not seem to have a coherent strategy in that regard. If they increase the minimum wage and the benefits by the rate of inflation, it might be a danger for future inflation because the GDP growth rate might still be in negative territory. If that is the case, increasing the minimum wage and the welfare payments by the rate of inflation would mean significant income transfer for minimum wage earners and beneficiaries. Business groups will heavily oppose the idea, and within the Government, ACT is likely to express opposition, too.

Furthermore, as the recent reports by the Treasury indicate, the economy might not be in good shape for the next three years to come. It is a particular problem for Luxon. The economy itself may not be a showstopper for Luxon. The larger problem comes from his glorifying communication. Because people with escapism do believe what they say, they are deceptive. However, when the facts do not align with their assertions, these people can easily become annoying. If Luxon keeps using the attributes like “fantastic,” “exceptional,” “turbo-charged,” or “great,” and, at the same time, the economy is still struggling, he can easily become irritating to the wider public. It will be then when the wider public realises that he is, similarly to Ardern, more style than substance. This is the perfect ground for chaos: a Prime Minister who is incapable of deep-diving into analyses.

My bet is that the first obvious public disappointment will be the first budget by Nicola Willis in May 2024. The National Party’s taxation promises have proved to be quite elusive, and at the beginning of the year, the overall agreement among commentators is that it is unclear how the Government will deliver its taxation promises.

Luxon’s likely fate

In a way, escapism defined Ardern’s resignation. Many commentators argued that she had just looked into the future and could see the obvious defeat of Labour in 2023. The behaviour itself was indeed escapism. However, I still believe, her departure was indeed caused by fatigue. In a coffee interview with Helen Clark and Jacinda Ardern in 2018, when they celebrated the 125th anniversary of female suffrage in New Zealand, Helen Clark asked Ardern what it would be for her to have the greatest achievement in politics (it is at 23:46 in the clip). Ardern made a joke by answering that. She said she had not earned that moment yet, and she added, the first year was very demanding, but, she had to go on because Helen had 9 years of those. She was practically exhausted after one year already. So, it is likely that by the beginning of 2023, she had drained herself completely.

Importantly, the Labour Party does not have a tradition of internal coups. The National Party has. Oddly enough, the public has already seen a moment during the coalition talks when Luxon said something not entirely accurate. When Luxon said that they had achieved a significant milestone, neither Peters nor Seymour confirmed. Seymour even said that Luxon might have eaten one too many Weetbix because the negotiations had not yet reached that phase. What happened likely was that the National Party internally accepted significant requests made by the coalition partners. However, Luxon told journalists about these agreements first, and not his soon-to-be partners, hence they could not confirm. (Importantly, Luxon broke his promise to keep the talks behind closed doors.)

Luxon’s fate is likely to arrive in the form of an internal coup.

Although Peters and Seymour will likely notice that Luxon is often unaware of hard facts, they might not raise their issues publicly because they are interested in keeping the coalition together. It is their ticket to hold power and influence. However, inside the National Party, there might be people who will challenge his leadership after realising that Luxon was unaware of facts, and he proves to be more just promises rather than delivery. This moment might come during the first term because there are signs already that some of the National Party’s MPs do not believe Luxon’s inner circle has the necessary talent to lead the country in a successful direction. The tensions might become strong enough for a coup if there are hard debates among cabinet members, specifically with ACT and New Zealand First ministers. The wiser MPs know that for Peters, the stability of a government is crucial, therefore, they would not want to risk a coup. However, when we are close enough to the next election, a coup is more likely. The government might stay afloat because of the short period before the election, and the public would expect an election anyway when the voters are about to create a new deal of political power. For this reason, the most realistic scenario with the current economic outlook is that Luxon will not lead the National Party into the next election campaign.