There are a couple of blogs that I access through the OzPolitics Blog Feed that I can’t read without considerable eyestrain, resulting from the need to suppress a powerful impulse to roll my eyes every second sentence or so. Take for example the opening paragraph of this post from RightThinker:
In recent weeks, I have had some conversations with a number of friends from the right side of the political fence about a growing problem that our side of politics has. I’ve never been one to ignore the numerous faults and contradictions on the right-side of politics as one of the problems that any group has is group-think and the inability to either criticize or think outside the box. The problem that the general left has at the moment is that they do not know what they stand for. They know what they stand against — the United States, democracy outside of the developed world and military action against any rogue regime.
(my emphasis)
RightThinker’s “general leftâ€? is a man of straw. His claim that there’s a “general leftâ€? that doesn’t know what it stands for is fatuous — it would be more accurate if the emphasised sentence read:
The problem I have with the general left at the moment is that I do not know what they stand for.
I can’t speak on behalf of this “general leftâ€? — it’s a nebulous concept which, in common right-wing usage, usually means “anywhere to the left of meâ€?. In the interests of helping RightThinker get over his befuddlement about what the left stands for, here’s a list of a few of the things I believe in and I suppose, at a stretch, I’m prepared to “stand forâ€? them.
- Secular Democracy and the Separation of Church and State under Section 116 of the Australian Constitution: and because I’m for those things, I’m against Australia becoming an Islamic Republic under Sharia Law. I’m also against covert attempts by government to by-pass Section 116 of the Constitution to pander to their religious supporters by amending legislation to impose religious standards. That’s why I was against the amendment to the Marriage Act which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman — I see no good reason why two poofters, or two lezoes, should be excluded from entering into some legal union that accords them the same protections as straight couples married either in a religious or civil ceremony. It’s why I remain against the reforms of the Family Law Act which imposed a compulsory counselling session on all divorcing couples to appease those who believed that divorce had become too easy.
- The Separation of Powers under the Washminster System: that’s why I’ve frequently spoken out against the passing of Section 501 of the Migration Act which gives the Minister — a member of the Executive — the power to determine whether someone is a fit and proper person to reside in Australia. The proper place for such a decision to be made is in a Court of Law, where that person has the opportunity to answer the grave charge that they are not good enough to live in this country.
- The Rule of Law and Due Process: that’s why I’ve spoken out against this government’s complicity in the long-term imprisonment of David Hicks and the show trial process that the US Government intends to carry out through military commissions which will admit evidence which would be held inadmissible in any ordinary US Court.
- Honesty and Integrity in Politics: that’s why I regard Phil Ruddock — who once, from behind the shelter of his Amnesty Badge declared that sleep deprivation was not torture — as an abominable hypocrite. It’s worth noting that neither the head of our Defence Forces nor the Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police agreed with Ruddock. But the Prime Minister did, and I guess for Ruddock, that’s the main thing.
- That war, if it entered into, should be entered with just cause and fought justly: that’s why I was against the war in, and latterly on, Iraq. The justification for the war was specious and based on lies — as we now know well. Five years on from the start of the war, the much vaunted “Coalition of the Willingâ€? has become a rapidly dwindling “Coalition of the Bloody Well Stuck With Itâ€? because none of the coalition members has a bloody clue on how to extricate themselves from the mess. And while we’re on this subject, one ancilliary belief I hold is that the Constitution needs to be reformed to vest the war power in Parliament — the Legislature, rather than the Executive. If it works for the US, we can make it work for us too.
That’s by no means a complete listing of all my beliefs — not even all my purely political beliefs — I seem to have left out Freedom of Speech and Expression for example — but I think a good start to answering RightThinker’s assertion that the “general leftâ€? doesn’t know what it stands for.
Hmm. The ‘general left’ is a moving target it seems. Last year, only cheese eating surrender monkeys and terrorist appeasers thought we should deal with Hicks in accordance with the rule of law aka liberal democracy’s gift to the world. Now it seems, the majority agrees. Only anti US leftists were opposed to the war in Iraq, now it seems the ’sensible middle mainstream’ also thinks it is a miserable crock.
Once upon a time, only the loony left thought that women might like to be treated as human beings with the same general civil rights as men. Now it seems, we are all feminists, even Frank Devine’s daughter.
Where is this ‘general left’ to be found, and how shall we know him/her? Really it is getting more and more puzzling all the time. Is it a case of premature opinion formation syndrome?
You just listed things that everyone stands for. Why waste pixels? Or are you attempting to imply that the right doesn’t stand for those things?
Yobbo – the right may stand for those those things, but the current lot in power here and the US don’t seem to be particularly concerned about actually practicing them or even flouting them. Ya gotta walk the walk. Talk is cheap.
Trotsky
Clinton used to say that in order to win or have a chance at winning an election you needed to know what you stood for. Has said you need to explain in two sentences. Try it. Tell us what you stand for in two sentences instead of the missive that most people believe in. Go ahead. It doesn’t matter even if disagree with you. I could tell you what I believe in if you want. Here it is.
I believe in very limited government, free markets, strong defense and a hardened monetary policy. I believe the government should never run any enterprise that could be managed in private hands.
Lets see what yours is.
“Once upon a time, only the loony left thought that women might like to be treated as human beings with the same general civil rights as men.”
Gee, I didn’t know woman only got respect when Betty Friedan showed up at the village square with a soap box.
The right stands for nothing except greed,and exploitation of anything or anyone to obtain their mammon.The right makes bullshit a science, but even worse they believe their own rhetoric,they have been in the ascendancy for some time, of that there is no doubt,however,their time in the sun is fading as each day passes.At the risk of contradiction,the right have a bit more time to “shovel it on” but the banks will soon be calling up their markers, the greed is good mentality of these R.W.D.B. will soon all in end in tears.I can only hope the first bankrupts, are the bastards that voted for our current shower of shit houses. But we have never had it so good!Yea right.
“I can only hope the first bankrupts, are the bastards that voted for our current shower of shit houses.”
Shouldn’t hope bad things on people, Gaz, it’s not nice.
“But we have never had it so good!Yea right.”
It’s true. We have never had it so good in any time during the federation. If these are bad times, i only hope they never end.
That fatuous statement is never spoken in the company of “the general left”, it is designed to improve morale among those who can’t discuss their opinions with those who may not agree with all of them.
Why should anyone be stuck with two sentences? Bill Clinton certainly didn’t, a voluble man if ever there was one. As long as you have a few soundbites you can go on for as long as you need to.
That sort of crap sounds great when you have a Scotch in your hand after a good meal, less so if you have to define it and why such an airy concept should be pursued at the expense of all else.
Not even when it could be run better.
Because when JC thinks about women, he thinks Betty Friedan.
The general right doesn’t, yobbo, if you can accept that the general right is defined as one chooses to do so.
Shouldn’t hope bad things on people, Gaz, it’s not nice.
“But we have never had it so good!Yea right.�
Yea I know,what must I have been thinking?Oh I know, it was about the people in Iraq.
See I have made my point, you believe your own rhetoric.
Andy,
Don’t carry grudges from from site to another.
But great comment by the way. As always.
—————————————–
“a hardened monetary policy
That sort of crap sounds great when you have a Scotch in your hand after a good meal, less so if you have to define it and why such an airy concept should be pursued at the expense of all else.”
It would be quite easy to define. If you knew anything about it you would realize this to be so, Andy.
—————————————–
Saying what you stand for is easy if you know what you stand for.
You don’t obviously as you say on your website which therefore makes it very difficult for someone.
—————————————-
Gaz
Says:
“See I have made my point, you believe your own rhetoric.”
You’re right. I do.
Andy E, Gaz.
Tell us in two sentences or even three, but no more the five what you actually believe in. Not asking you to define it. Just tell us what it is you believe in.
As I said to Trotsky, it doesn’t matter if we disagree.
Hey J.C. what i believe or don’t believe is irrelavent.I would have thought from my comments,it could/would be concluded, that my beliefs lay in the left field of the political spectrum.An answer to a question like that in two/five sentences,is impossible.
But anyhoo to give you a chance to attack me….I believe the current conservative/rightwing/liberal/ call them as you wish rabble of shit bags running the world at present,are in a word fucking it.
Gaz.
It hardly explains what you believe in.
Ummmmm I see, so not one of you, not even trotsky is able to explain his/her beliefs in a few short sentences that concisely explain their core belief structure.
Which gets to the point the guy Trotsky was talking about and why he is has a valid point.
JC, no one else wants to define their views in 2-3 sentences – why are you talking like you’ve won a debate? Talk about straw men…
Political views (at least those not spouted on Fox New channel) are complicated things because the world is a complicated place. Now you can take the word of Bill Clinton, which means that a realistic political viewpoint will not get you elected (though your devotion to Clinton is puzzling), but getting elected and being right are two very different things.
I fear I fail JC’s challenge. I put this down to the fact that one of the things I believe in is that complex things should not be oversimplified – although it is possible that its just that I am a verbose bastard with nebulous politics.
However, here is the shortest meaningful precis I can give of what I believe in (and stand for)
I believe in a passing on the richness and diversity of the Earth, including cultural diversity, intact to future generations. I believe that genuine democracy and a more equitable distribution of wealth are inextricably linked. I believe that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, that even the best of us is sometimes incompetent, but we must always recognise the resorting to violence as reflecting a fundamental failure in ourselves.
Not all of these are universally supported by the “general left” – there are some elements who have no problems with violence at all. However, I think an increasingly large proportion of the left could sign on to these pretty comfortably.
Chris:
I don’t really think a belief system that may be complex needs to be explained in a complex way.
A belief in free markets isn’t complex, but understanding the reasons why free markets are superior to the other alternative most certainly is. Similarly with the other points I raised. This is not an intro to a debate about free markets by the way.
Feral S gave a good account, but like Yobbo said anyone could easily buy into most of those.
A belief system doesn’t have to be explained in a complex way.
I believe in extending genuine liberty through achieving the greatest amount of equal opportunity delivered through the least amount of interference in autonomy.
There you go, Joe.
I don’t think it’ll win me any elections though!
“(though your devotion to Clinton is puzzling), but getting elected and being right are two very different things.”
I do admire certain of his traits. He was a good prez for the times. I actually think Clinton was an excellent exponent of soft left values that were easily understood by so many people.
Gummo
I think you have proved RightThinker’s case. For you, a left-winger is little more than somebody who hates Phillip Ruddock. I am not sure what sort of house, let alone alternative society, you will be able to build with that piece of straw.
A belief in free markets isn’t complex, but understanding the reasons why free markets are superior to the other alternative most certainly is. Similarly with the other points I raised. This is not an intro to a debate about free markets by the way.
Jc you are something else,”this is not an intro to a debate” ! Au contraire, that’s exactly where you are steering this little fishing expedition.
The right are experts at labelling and boxing up people that have different ideas and opinions to what is considered in the main by the right, to be “Normal”and the m.o. of the right, is and has, always been to anylyse an opinion or idea on “where can i match that in relation to Stalin, Mao,Castro,or any other number of your como nightmares.
Now I know you haven’t mentioned some of my favourite people thus far,but I know as sure a the sun coming up in the morning,given enough waffle they will.
Understanding that biting on an apple offered by the ‘right’ is a weakness, but explained in this case at least by having just come off a 14 hour day (and as a bloody tax-eater, for crying out loud), here goes:
1) the ‘left’ believes that we can make this world better (ie, we are progressive in our outlook); but
2) the ‘left’ also believes that sufficient people only believe (1) in words, not deeds, so that government has a larger role to play in ameliorating the actual deeds of such people, for the comfort of the rest.
OK, off to bed. Catch up with you people tomorrow night.
“They know what they stand against — the United States, democracy outside of the developed world and military action against any rogue regime.”
No, no, it’s fair enough. I also stand against puppies, celery and bicameral parliaments…
JG,
I think your comment is nicely answered by this comment from Gaz:
You’ve just demonstrated that you’ve completely missed the main point of the post – which isn’t that I detest Phil Ruddock (with, I believe, good reason).
I can’t sum up my beliefs in two sentences but I can in three:
I believe in a market economy, with government intervention used to support civil society and the environment. I believe in a foreign policy based on restraint and the primacy of the national interest. I believe in a moderate, inclusive cultural policy and frown on culture warriors.
It’s also worth noting, as I among others have done here, that a substantial section of the right is motivated primarily by what they don’t like, rather than what they do, just as RightThinker says the left is.
Although it would be obviously wrong to say, in the manner of RightThinker, that “the problem that the general right has at the moment is that they do not know what they stand for” I do think it is fair to say that many such people (if they were honest) would list their first and foremost belief as “the left are pretty shit”, “the left are traitors” or something to that effect.
JC, what grudge? I think you’re a joke, you’re the one staggering stumbling under the weight of your grudges.
As far as snappy one-liners go, the above will have to do you. I use my blog to work through the bigger issues. I’m not that voluble normally, but sometims in the grown-up world complex issues can’t just be boiled down to the point where you can wrap your tiny mind around it. Like I said, Clinton didn’t and you don’t either.
“hardened monetary policy” as you escribe it is a prime example of Orwell’s dictum about attempting to contrive solidity out of wind.
I believe when people tell you they know what is good for you it does not imply a right to enforce it upon you. I do not believe in equality of opportunity because you can get further faster with a head start.
What a golden moment of parapraxis!
Anyone could easily buy into them precisely because the details (the complexity) that would refine and properly elucidate the points, and thereby allow people to find points of disagreement, have been excluded by your ridiculous insistence that the point be expressed in two sentences!
Here’s another example: I believe in a fair go for all. Anyone could buy into that, but I’ll tell you right now that what I mean by a fair go for all is not even remotely close to what fuckers like Howard & co. believe constitutes a fair go for all.
But here’s one more that may perhaps meet your absurd criteria (only one of the things I believe in, I’m afraid):
I believe in a government that recognises and acts in accordance with (1) the fact that there is no such thing as free markets (and it’s a good thing too!) and (2) the principle that governmental structuring of markets (to the extent that it is unavoidable and therefore necessary and therefore obligatory) should be undertaken to the benefit of those people (though not just people) who have, historically speaking, been marginalised, exploited, laid low and denied opportunities by virtue of poverty, institutional violence, prejudice, the oppressive weight of “common sense” and more.
In a word, I believe in democracy — but rest assured that it’s not the sort of democracy that the likes of RightThinker would ever buy into!
“What a golden moment of parapraxis!”
Are you sure, GT?
Well this probably sums up the difference in what we do or don’t stand for http://nerra.com/broadsword/archives/2005/11/05/723/really-fucking-stupid-people
Two sentences! How ridiculously verbose and inefficient. But I guess only to be expected from a criminal like Clinton (after all, he got a blow job didn’t he?). Joe, I demand you distill your beliefs down to two or three words.
Might I suggest “I’m OK Jack”?
Nice one obby.
Speaking as a lefty, I think you might show a little more gratitude for our willingness to stand up for you.
You just keep right on sticking up for that RFSP Hicks Gummo and his right to be in one of our mental asylums instead of the Yankee one at Gitmo. You know it makes sense until they actually stick a mike in his face and he turns out to be a horrible mutation between Mamdouh Habib and Cornelia Rau channelling Sheik Hilali. It’s right about then Hicks senior and junior will become yesterdays heroes with the left and they’ll go hunting for Hick’s replacement as an iconic figurehead.
Well I eventually found out what parapraxis meant (thank you, I like the word) and I’m with FDB. GT you were graciously suggesting I made a mistake and would not be crass enough to say what I really think given what I think.
I support the concept of opportunity not in equality of opportunity.
James Hamilton, what is the concept of opportunity when it’s at home? And do we know anybody who is against it?
James,
I think you’re mixing up “Equality of Opportunity” with “Affirmative Action”.
Imagine this: at the next Olympic Games the rules are changed so that for $1,000,000 bucks a meter, individual countries can buy their runner a head start. The race would go, not to the fastest runner, but the runner whose country was prepared to stump up $100 mil. to win the race.
Equality of opportunity demands that everybody start at the same place and run the same distance to the finish and the winner be the fastest runner.
Well,wbb, for that matter what is equality of opportunity when it’s at home. One is as wooly and bullshitty as the other in my humble.
I like the sound of equality of opportunity too but before you know it you dudes are removing government funding to private schools, imposing death duties and stellar marginal tax rates and other assorted abominations. I fugured best to nip it in the bud and give the whole idea the arse. Opportunity is when irrespective of where you are or how you are when you are born you have the opportunity to get along how you want even though more opportunities exist for the Alexander Downers of this world.
Please, JH.
You do understand what the terms public and private mean, yeah? Why should public money fund private schools?
We’re not talking about trying to completely equalise everything. Dolly Downer’s sprogs will still have a head start over Johnny Methhead’s in Frankston. The idea is to try to do something about the difference within reason.
I do not mean to hijack this thread. When we are talking about a race, or even before a judge in a court case then, yes sure I support equality in some things but for me this concept does not work as an overarching general principle which is the context inwhich we were discussing it.
I explained that equality of opportunity (as an over-riding general principle) seemed to me to be a wedge with inwhich some, particularly some here, would use to take affirmative action beyond the level that I would find acceptable.
wbb, don’t allow me to me divert you from the topic at hand but public monies should finance private education because the general consensus is that we want public monies to go towards education. I don’t support a voucher system either overtly by the issue of vouchers or covertly by seeing that private schools get the same per capita amount as government schools. I am too much of a lefty for that, God/Mammon forgive me.
You see my point, I hope finding it repugnant nothwithstanding. Mark says he supports equality of opportunity, I say I don’t because you can get further faster with a head start. You are gobsmacked but already in the space of three posts you are slashing private school funding – this is the kind of stuff that gives equality of opportunity a bad name. It’s was of those nice ideas that gets abused. Utopian stuff that is the work of the devil. The only utopian thing I ever did was support the invasion of Iraq. Bring freedom to the oppressed. Whoops. We are never more dangerous than when we try and make the world a better place, and I’m no exception.
Gummo Trotsky
Er, I hate to be the bearer of bad news KKKomrade, but that is known as “Social Darwinism.”
No John, Social Darwinism is where you shoot every second runner in the foot, then shoot everyone who doesn’t place at the end of the race.
Trotsky says:
“Imagine this: at the next Olympic Games the rules are changed so that for $1,000,000 bucks a meter, individual countries can buy their runner a head start. The race would go, not to the fastest runner, but the runner whose country was prepared to stump up $100 mil. to win the race.”
Trotsky, how on earth could you use such an analogy? It would no longer be a race to see who is the the fastest runner. You are changing the method in which the race is arranged thinking that people will view the result the old way. They wouldn’t of course.
Handcapping horses is similar to your analogy. You think punters don’t examine the details of the weights placed on a horse in a handicap race? Please.
Trotsky says:
“Equality of opportunity demands that everybody start at the same place and run the same distance to the finish and the winner be the fastest runner.”
Ok. That’s fine in theory, but please explain just how you will accomplish this?
It would be nice to get the details. Would you do it on an IQ basis, leaving aside that in itself is discriminating. Please explain.
Incidently most people would have no problem giving say the brightest IQs top 10% a ride through to Uni.
Do you agree with this?
Great post Gummo. In complete accord with your 5 key (dot) manifests.
I love it when you talk like a Commie.
Um, is this the same JC as the one who insisted that Gummo present his “belief structure” in only two or three sentences?
Or has JC simply (and silently) moved on from his (her?) point in that debate now that it has been shown as the absurdity that it is?
Joe,
Although I sympathise with your befuddlement, I’m afraid you’ll have to work it out for yourself. While I believe in equality of opportunity – that everyone should have the chance to succeed on their own merits, rather than getting a head start because their parents can buy it for them – I’m not a big fan of affirmative action – it has the potential to demean and patronise those affirmatively acted upon and creates resentment among those not so privileged.
And on that basis, I’ve decided not to give you the explanation you’re asking for. Because to make a special case for you, and explain to you what other readers can clearly understand for themselves would be to engage in affirmative action, and I’ve already told you why I don’t like it.
“Although I sympathise with your befuddlement,”
Shouldn’t this read,
Although you sympathize with my befuddlement.
Trotsky, although you say that you don’t support affirm action, the example you cited clearly shows that you do- maybe without even knowing it.
Mmmmmmm sweet meritocracy
“Because to make a special case for you, and explain to you what other readers can clearly understand for themselves would be to engage in affirmative action”
ZING!!!!!
Gummo Trotsky
Please save us all the train-wreck of your circumlocutions and just admit what you are advocating; The race to the bottom that is Socialism! And er, thanks, but no thanks. We’ve all seen the trailers, and will thus pass on the main event, let alone its sequels.
Ooh! Ooh! Un-Australian!
And what do you propose to do if I don’t? Continue your futile and boring attempts to shove straw up my arse perhaps?
You wanna wear that latte, mate?
Sorry, Johnny.
Sir.
I’m sure you’re a wonderful parent.
*runs*
Gummo Trotsky
With all this straw being shoved into your every orafus, no wonder I feel like I am debating with Mr. Ed!