It sure looks like people are never going to get over Jacinda Ardern
The enduring reaction to a former Prime Minister, even three years after her retirement, demonstrates a level of political polarization rarely seen. The mere mention of her name continues to provoke intense, often vitriolic responses, particularly online.
A Lingering Online Backlash
Recent sharing of a Freshwater Strategy poll result by The Post’s deputy political editor, Henry Cooke, revealing the former Prime Minister remains the country’s most popular politician, triggered a swift and aggressive backlash on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. Hundreds of replies, largely from anonymous accounts, expressed anger and hostility. Comments ranged from calls for her to be unwelcome in the country to outright abusive language, including labeling her a “tyrant” and “communist vermin.”
Cooke noted that this level of negative engagement isn’t new, stating that Jacinda Ardern is a “once-in-a-generation political figure for engaging people online,” both positively and negatively, but increasingly the latter, especially on X. This observation aligns with data from a 2023 Auckland University study, which found Ardern received online abuse at a rate 50 to 90 times higher than any other high-profile public figure.
Beyond Social Media
The intensity of the reaction extends beyond X. Sir Ian Taylor has repeatedly written open letters to the former Prime Minister, published in news organizations, while Matthew Horncastle, managing director of Williams Corporation, has dedicated numerous Facebook posts to criticizing her political legacy, framing her tenure as a “national mistake.”
Despite this ongoing criticism, the former Prime Minister continues to maintain a public profile through writing books and appearing in documentaries. Her memoir strained library waitlist systems, and a documentary about her time in office grossed over $1 million at the box office.
The Roots of the Reaction
Psychotherapist Paul Wilson suggests that, upon entering public office, individuals cease to be seen as people and become “parasocial symbolic figures.” This transformation removes a biological brake on empathy, turning politicians into “flat icons” onto which people project their own internal states. Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick experienced a similar shift in public perception upon entering parliament.
Wilson and others posit that the former Prime Minister became a “lightning rod for a range of fears, misogyny and anger throughout the pandemic.” Her actions during crises, such as the gun buyback following the Christchurch terror attack and the implementation of vaccine mandates, may have been experienced by some as a loss of autonomy, particularly by men. This, combined with broader economic anxieties, could fuel the continuing animosity.
What Could Happen Next
The intensity of the reaction is unlikely to subside quickly. It is possible that continued public appearances or political commentary from the former Prime Minister could reignite the debate. Conversely, a period of complete withdrawal from public life could gradually diminish the fervor, though the underlying sentiments may persist. The current political climate, characterized by increasing polarization, could also exacerbate or mitigate the situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is there still so much anger directed at the former Prime Minister?
The source suggests the anger stems from a combination of factors, including her actions during national crises, the symbolic role she has come to represent, and broader societal anxieties.
Is the negative reaction limited to X?
No, the source indicates the negative reaction extends beyond X, with individuals like Sir Ian Taylor and Matthew Horncastle publicly expressing their criticism through letters and social media posts.
What does the Auckland University study reveal about the online abuse?
The study found the former Prime Minister received online abuse at a rate 50 to 90 times higher than any other high-profile public figure, and that this abuse was constant and insistent over a prolonged period.
Given the intensity of feeling surrounding this figure, what factors might ultimately determine how her legacy is remembered?