This is my first attempt at blogging, other than as a lurker and very occasional comment-poster.
The reason for this debut is very self interested. I have to give a speech tonight at this event. Personally, I have no idea how Rudd should win the next election, so in the best tradition of unpaid speakers I thought I would talk about something else.
Let us assume that the Howard years are about to end.
What has the Left learned from the years of the culture wars?
Or, to put it less optimistically, what should the left have learned.
Here are my ideas so far. Those who read the recent War on Democracy thread from hell (look again if you dare) may already have gleaned that these are my views:
- Assumptions of righteousness are dangerous, no matter where they come from.
- Live in the real world – marshall your evidence and get your facts straight.
- Be prepared to change your mind in the light of the evidence, even when that goes against orthodoxy.
- Learn to write properly and to persuade. (This, I think, is where the right have had it all over the left)
- Learn to listen to, and argue respectfully with, people who see things differently from you.
- Abuse and labelling is not an argument – nobody wins an abuse-throwing contest. Answering abuse with abuse doesn’t impress anyone.
Faced with multiple deadlines and a speech to give tonight, I would be grateful for LP readers’ views.
I promise to acknowledge any help tonight.
Ask people to imagine reasons, other than being ‘duped’, as to why Mr Howard won 4 elections in a row. Also ask people to think very hard about why, if the PM does lose this year’s election, why that will happen.
The first part is true; the second, false.
I will keep this brief for now. I think that the Australian people have a healthy suspicion of ideologues of all sorts. The left really needs to put forward and defend its ideas first and foremost on a practical basis. Such a basis does exist for most of them, and isn’t even that hard to find most of the time.
Point 4 I think is really important. In recent years there has been a mightily conspicuous absence of progressive views from the opinion pages of our major newspapers. This really must change.
Oh dear, I thought we’d moved beyond the tired and increasingly meaningless left/right divide. Obviously not.
As to point 4, I’d really like some examples to substantiate this assertion. Most of what I read from the conservative side of is trite, boring, frequently disingenous and sometimes downright nasty. This applies equally to MSM and other outlets such as blogs. You only need to compare the standrd of literacy and debate on this blog with Tim Blair’s for example.
And surely if ‘the right’ are better at persuading (if this is true) surely it’s because they are given far more of a voice in the MSM, rather than through any intrinsic advantage in terms of literacy or persuasive powers.
Adrian I will answer your other points a bit later. As for left and right I consider them philosophically useless terms but when it comes to dividing those who would prefer to see the Howard Government re-elected and those who would prefer to see it replaced its just convenient shorthand.
Margaret, to my eyes, those six points read as naturally good advice for anyone who wishes to be an effective participant in any dialogue.
By implication that means they are not specific to what you are calling “the Left”.
I think the important thing, more, is to understand the different mindsets. I would propose this suggestion to help do that.
*) Imagine a roll of film tape where today’s events are captured in a frame. Then, as you see the tape roll out into the future, what you see is that same image in each frame. That is, the conservative mindset can be understood to be a continuance of today’s events.
*) What you are calling ‘the Left’ can be understood by imagining the frames of the tape to hold images which change as the tape rolls out.
Therefore, to communicate more effectively with the conservative is to understand the future is an entirely different place for them.
Likewise, the images of the ‘Left’ are so varied – not cohesive – as to represent to the conservative a place of meaninglessness, hence the term looney left. The closest the ‘Left’ can often become to cohesiveness is through its sharing of or agreeing on what it’s not, rather than what it is. This, of course, is the nature of a future to be created: great and varied things are possible. But to a conservative, that means they’re rightly confident they’ll win the cohesive arguments hands down and, from their perspective, are rightly fearful of any future the ‘Left’ propose.
These are generalisations of course. To me, the alternative “futures” as represented by creative, non-conservatives is so magical and and awe inspiring – but by very implication so incoherent and varied – that the ‘Left’ really doesn’t exist.
In this way, the great problem for ‘the Left’ is that it has to decide on a cohesive picture for the future to be able to begin to present it persuasively to a mindset which itself tends against change anyway.
My solution to this dilemma, though people would regard it as impractical simply because of the size of the perceived task, is to reframe the whole nature of how ‘the Left’ presents itself. Instead of attempting to appear as a cohesive, instructive body, it is far better to acknowledge its source of creativity and present as exactly that: Creatives.
We each – everyone, that is – in fact have conservative tendencies: we want the future to hold what we want from today, so conservatives don’t have a monopoly on the debate for the future of the world, at all. Similarly, within every conservative there is some measure of a creative individual and they, too, are driven by a creative need to make changes in their lives. They can, if presented well, fully appreciate the value of creative change if given in a way they can relate to.
By presenting as “Creatives”, rather than the amorphous “Left” , the conservative mindset can begin to see the value represented by people more of ‘our’ mindset and will naturally want to look to ‘us’ for solutions to today’s problems. This is highly evident already, for one example, in how business seeks to discover new technologies or methods for growth. Likewise, conservative governments are always looking for creative solutions to their problems. Conservatives are, similarly thereby, constantly driven by creativity but they don’t see themselves that way. By presenting as Creatives (choose any term you wish) a common language can begin.
So the key things are to understand that to be persuasive with the conservative mindset is to understand the future for them is something entirely different, and cannot be addressed in amorphous terms. The moment you say you’re from ‘the Left’ you’re gonna lose it, rightly, immediately. Why should they enter a world representing to ‘them’ vagueness and uncertainty? I’d go so far as to say that to even voice the word ‘future’ to them results in a recoil, a rejection of what you’re about to say before it’s even said.
Trying to define an alternative future and arguing that point simply lands you in the bin before you’ve started.
Instead, by presenting the future as creative solutions from today’s world, you can begin to speak their language. The future thereby is not a place already envisioned, but one which is created, or built from, today. Focus on the here and now, and work up. To do this, you have to present representing the essential qualities of who you are, which is that you are creative.
Radical, I know, (but we’re here to create!) yet to get rid of the term ‘the Left’ and reframing who we are as Creative breaks down a lot of barriers and connects our particular mindset tendency to the conservative tendency in a very meaningful, relevent, way. It also serves to connect us to our own conservative natures, which is a balanced and valuable thing to do.
The first thing “the Left” needs to understand is that it was the Left who started the Culture Wars.
The second thing “the Left” needs to understand is that the installation of Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister will be yet another medal for the neocons and others who reject the multiculti missiles of the leftist cultural warriors.
To wit, the Left lost.
That I definitely disagree with.
What the right has had over the left in the culture wars isn’t “proper” writing – or even better writing – but the long-standing liar’s advantage: it takes a few seconds to tell an appealing lie, days, if not longer to debunk it. Remember Children Overboard? A classic example.
That, plus in the case of every damn Murdoch columnist who’s weighed into the Culture Wars, the advantage of paid employment as a bully pulpiteer.
The Culture Wars have been about substituting fictions that people feel comfortable and relaxed in believing for facts that are less congenial.
All very interesting so far, thanks everyone. I am rather embarrassed at being (rightly) criticised for using those terms “Left” and “Right” so simplistically. Elsewhere I have myself argued that they are labels that get in the way of debate more than they assist. I have also claimed to try and avoid using them. Obviously I am not trying hard enough!
Generally I would argue that one should define one’s terms when talking of “left” and “right”, but Chris is correct: in this context I am using them as a convenient shorthand to stand for those who would rather see Howard re-elected, and those who would rather see Rudd as PM.
But Robert and others are also right to tease out the complexity. Perhaps shorthand won’t do even in this limited context.
Regarding the writing skills of columnists. I don’t like many of the so-called right wing columnists, but we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that Andrew Bolt, for example, can’t write. We may not like what he writes, but he often writes it well. I think he labels, smears and abuses too much, but he can also write movingly and lucidly. That is one of the reasons he is a successful columnist. (For what it is worth, I wouldn’t say the same of Christopher Pearson and as for Piers, he wavers between clear punchy prose and impenetrable strings of venomous cliches).
I do think there has been a lack of people with alternative views able and willing to address themselves in clear and persuasive terms to the non-converted.
Maybe newspaper managements haven’t looked hard enough for such people, but it is also true that they are lacking.
Much as I love the blogosphere, writing for people of broadly sympathetic views on LP is not the same as addressing oneself in a continuous and persuasive fashion to a mass audience.
The tragic irony on the writing point is that the whole postit thing is basically about rhetoric. And given that all postit polemicists and “thinkers” are Leftists, one would think they would be winning the debate hands down. What a hoot they are being bitchslapped from asshole to breakfast by Miranda Devine and Janet Albrechtsen!
Why is this so? Firstly, because of the amorphous quality of content – moreso than style: you need cohesion before you need style. Secondly, because for reasons outlined above, the conservative mindset – or writing or speaking from that tendency – has an immediate, outright advantage. People wishing for change have allowed the national debate to be framed in favour of the conservative mindset (we’re talking language here, in reality, Howard’s government has been radical); or, to put it in simple terms, the alternative presentation has of its own doing been removed from relevence if not pummelled into the ground – or at least allowed a perception of that!
What have we learned? We’ve learned to reframe the whole nature of the dialogue.
In this regard, people wishing for change have been done a tremendous service. We’ve been given an insight, a chance, to learn to communicate far more effectively. The world is changing dramatically and swiftly, anyway – why wouldn’t it suit a conservative tendency – people wishing to hold onto what they cherish about today. Learning to understand that validity, and to address it with altered language is what’s required. Reframing the nature of dialogue is at the very core.
Here’s a few things I’ve learned – not sure if they are helpful or not.
1) Language is important. Far-right groups presenting themselves as “family” and “values” groups make them difficult to counter effectively. The left need to start taking that language back and doing the hard work in exposing their sources of funding, their supporters and their agendas.
2) Humanism and humanists need to become part of any debate on values. This will take money and time.
3) Those with a religious bent need to be pitched to in a more effective manner. Telling them there is no god isn’t going to work. Explaining to them why they don’t understand their own religion doesn’t work either. “The Right” don’t have better powers of persuasion, but they do have a broader group of people they can pitch to. If it means softening stances to allow the continued progression of small-l liberalism, that is worthwhile.
4) The narrowing of debate on national security issues to mere stances of belligerence needs to be exposed for the fraud it is.
5) The narrowing of debate on economic issues to mere stances of company profit performance also needs to be exposed. We need reasonable debate on the efficacy of public borrowing for infrastructure work for example.
“Assumptions of righteousness are dangerous, no matter where they come from
Live in the real world – marshall your evidence and get your facts straight.
Be prepared to change your mind in the light of the evidence, even when that goes against orthodoxy.
Learn to write properly and to persuade. (This, I think, is where the right have had it all over the left)
Learn to listen to, and argue respectfully with, people who see things differently from you.
Abuse and labelling is not an argument – nobody wins an abuse-throwing contest. Answering abuse with abuse doesn’t impress anyone.”
These apply for any human being in any situation with other human beings. I don’t think normal humans beings (people who don’t read blogs) care so much about the old Left/Right divide. I’m afraid your speech sounds like it’s just going to parrot things that have been invented in the interests of a political agenda. How about something original?
I think it’s worth remembering that the ‘right’ is quite divided too. Libertarians (I am one) line up with the left on social issues and individual freedom (hence my posts on Hicks and drug law reform over at Catallaxy) but disagree on economic issues. The division between big government conservatives and libertarians is arguably greater than that between Liberals of the Howardista variety and people like you (or most of the other LP staffwriters).
There is, however, a general problem with righteousness, but since you’ve already flagged that, I don’t need to repeat it. Over at Catallaxy, a couple of regulars used to refer to a habit among progressives best described as ‘piling on’, something I’ve experienced first hand. I’m of the view that the likes of Piers have learnt the same trick. It is to be avoided at all costs – it greatly undermines civility across the political spectrum. Now that various righties have started to do it, I think it’s worthwhile for people on the other side to refuse to play the game.
How about being able to differentiate advocacy from analysis, in both one’s own and in others arguments?
Margaret,
Which mass audience? When it comes to the newspapers there are two mass audiences in Melbourne – the one that reads the Herald Sun and the one that reads The Age. They’re more or less mutually exclusive. As an Age reader, I’m getting more and more frustrated by the shallowness of a lot of the commentary therein, but there’s no way I’d switch to The Hun – too much ocular muscle strain from all the eye-rolling.
Oh, and if you could point me in the direction of a mass-audience publication where I can get away with writing on a subject at length, with a judiciously balanced mix of short sharp sentences and the odd, long digressive sentence that might be needed to get a complex idea across accurately, I’d be happy to give it a shot. In the meantime, I’ll make a virtue of necessity and stick with blogging. It’s today’s “hole in a corner” method of choice for getting the truth out.
David,
A three-word explanation for Labor’s last three electoral losses: Beazley, Latham, Beazley. I didn’t use the word “duped” once!
But when I look at the way the lads and lasses who sit in the liberal pews of the Liberal Party have been co-opted by the self-styled Burkean conservatives, it’s tempting. Sorry, that was gratuitously off-topic.
I think the ‘Left’ have probably learnt that scare tactics work very well. Children overboard – ‘we don’t want those sort of people here’, If we don’t go to war with Iraq then they will let loose the WMD’s and we will have no oil for petrol, if we listen to the Greens we will lose our rights to trample the flora and fauna in our 4wds etc. I suspect that Global warming, whether a naturally occuring phenomena or an accelerated by humans natural phenomena could be a winner for the ‘left’.
I think also that the Left should have learnt that 10 years of training the general electorate not to care about politics is really effective too.
these are all general points that must be considered by anyone who wants to do the ‘political’ thing, no?
how about another set of points regarding specifically left-wing political aproaches to a state-affairs compared to right-wingers? here are some points:
1) left-wingers are on the whole (generalising, but anyway) are more attentive to the complexity of situations compared to the simplistic approaches of the right. Part of this is the relations of futurity that Rob identifies.
2) the left looks to valorise elements according to the systems in which they emerged (immanent value), while the right likes to impose transcendental value systems
3) the left-wing perspective is always part of the world, part of the problem and part of solutions, the right-wing perspective attempts to separate itself for a given state of affairs and install itself in an external authoritative position
There is no way in hell that I am ever going to cross over to the right-wing side on any of these points.
Now this frames ‘politics’ in two very different ways. The right-wing way of doing things relies on a lazy, libidinally-complicit and anxiety-filled popularism that lurches from crisis to crisis trying to ward complexity, non-transcendental values, and any engaged perspective. IN other words, right-wing politics has no place for a left-wing politics.
My point is that your invocation of an assumed ‘politics’ is nonsense. ‘Politics’ in the way you have constructed seems to have been subsumed by the MSM apparatus and parliamentary government system. If you have read Lucy and Mickler’s book then you would know that one of the very basic points that they advocate is that possibilities of politics should not be subsumed under these two monolithic social institutions.
state-of-affairs
meh, coffee…
ward off
ffs… i’m going back to bed
So there you have it, Margaret. Be bold! People from all political persuasions each have conservative tendencies, as well as creative tendencies. (To find the value of each of those things within ourselves, individually, is to lead the way towards understanding others have them too). We all need each other. That is, the way each of those elements are expressed by people from such varied viewpoints gives us the occasion to learn the value in them and then respect them. Divides can be bridged through respect and considered language. By reframing the dialogue in terms of our similarities “we each have creative tendencies and we each have conservative tendencies” allows us to break down barriers, real or perceived, and enter constructive dialogue about what we wish to maintain in this world, and what, from that, we wish to create. That, after all, is what we are all about!
If you are still wishing to represent an arbitrary faction, throw away the term “Left” and begin the nature of changing the national dialogue by using the term “Creative”. This of itself allows those who consider themselves to be “righties” the opportunity to respect and enjoy their own creative nature, and right then you will have the greatly enhanced opportunity for constructive, effective dialogue. From your perspective, at least, you will have thrown away meaningless baggage and what you say will have an enhanced occasion to be heard. Doing this leads the way the ridiculous, outdated, term “Left” as placed here representing an alternative group can present as a valid, effective alternative.
Keep the term “Left”, and whatever you say maintains the status quo, and the occasion for division and even abuse. Is that an alternative? Do you wish to show you’ve learned? Do you wish to create positive change? Start at the core, and change the language.
I still think the left/right distinction is meaningful. In terms of the classic trio of Enlightenment values, lefties tend to emphasise equality and solidarity more than liberty. Though I think we should give more weight to working out how to combine all three. It hasn’t been superceded, and we’re not living in a brave new world where we’ve never had it so good and everyone has the chance to maximise their talents, it’s just that we’ve been persuaded that we are, and therein lies the rub. If you go back and look at the “end of ideology” debate in the 50s, it was the right who was arguing that the left/right distinction wasn’t meaningful. It’s the side that has lost the battle of ideas in a particular epoch that claims that distinctions have disappeared.
It makes a real difference, as I argued the other day in my sex worker post, whether or not the public sphere ignores issues of poverty and marginalisation. If they don’t get discussed, we can continue to live with the illusion that all is hunky dory.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/03/13/can-you-talk-about-sex-work-in-australian-politics/
Dare I say also, the right, as represented anyway in public debate, is more conservative than liberal. With a few exceptions like Andrew Norton, most righties in the newspapers don’t point to classical liberal issues or argue against Howard’s big government conservatism. That’s in contrast to the US, but maybe it has to do with harder line party discipline and fewer outlets for public debate. So I think SL is extrapolating a tad too much from the blogosphere here.
“what should the left have learned?”
That divided, they are easily conquered.
In our last federal election the internet did not appear to play a decisive role. But here you are, and here we are in 2007, engaged with a medium that provides instant feedback/gratification. It’s only during this last year that the SMH and The Oz have encouraged bloggers, although comments are subjected to delay/censorship. The internet also provives a fast expanding forum for agenda setting(Drudge), fundraising(Howard Dean in 2004) that the “Left” in Oz have barely exploited, notwithstanding the efforts of Crikey, New Matilda, and non-subscription sites like LP.
The full spectrum “Left”, from the disparate bands of misfits and “beautiful losers”, to those who identify more closely with the main stream, are capable of being united via the web in the task of voting governments in and out. The times, as well as the technology, suit us. Appleseeds of the mind sown in cyberspace have taken root, grown and fruited. Not many people gave the US Democrats a chance of a 51-49 hold on the US Senate after the Nov.2006 elections. The MSM were biased towards the GOP. I think that Left weblogs played a significant part in this result. It’s a phenomenon worthy of academic analysis.
To succeed, the Australian Left must learn to harvest well. LP easily matches a cerebral, non subscription US site like The Next Hurrah. We’ve got that demographic covered. What we need is something like the Huffington Post(free, but with commercials) to fascinate and persuade middle Australia. And a lefty angel to fund it till it’s ready to fly solo.
Give ‘em heaps tonight, Margaret.
That’s what I meant, Kim – I’m having a dose of the unclears. There’s a significant libertarian strand in the ‘Liberal’ Party, but it’s been all but submerged by the big government conservatives. Andrew Norton – and to a lesser extent, me – are pretty much the only public examples of same. It’s still out there, though, and should be acknowledged. It’s a way of opening a path to civilised conversation.
Reading over Robert’s comments off-line (the first two) it occurred to me that one lesson that the left needs to learn is not to write tickets on itself in public forums. The Right is prone to this bad habit too, but it would become a useful point of distinction between the pro-Howard, anti-Howard forces if they were the only ones making the empty boast “We’re so much smarter/more creative than the other lot.”
That tends to alienate the wider Aussie public too.
Agreed, SL, but one thing that strikes me about the Australian media compared to the US media is the lack of a variety of voices. What we have in the Murdoch press is really much the same as the Fox News paradigm – though without the extremes of spear throwing like Ann Coulter. Philip Adams, Michael Costello, Ross Fitzgerald, are as predictable in terms of representing “left” opinion (actually right wing Labor) as the punditariat are in pushing “shock” issues (Muslims want to kill us! Feminists hate all things good and true!) and finding any excuse to attack the left, and singing off the same song sheet with co-ordinated talking points. But we have few of the spaces that exist overseas which transcend attack dog partisanship. A plurality of new voices, whether left or genuinely liberal, if prepared to talk about ideas and issues, and to write to persuade, would disrupt this logic of attack, and make a real contribution. But where do they get incubated? There are multiple fora in the US and the UK (eg – just think of how many political magazines exist in each country), while we have nothing much except the blogosphere.
Right! Back on the wagon now! But I really wanted to jump on this thread, because I agree with what Margaret is saying, and I think she’s put her finger on a serious problem that goes broader than partisan interests and strategies.
I am hesitant as an ‘amateur’ getting in the throng here but here I go.
Cuture wars in Australia I think are framed within a certain archetype where Australians are seen very much in a positive light.
We are good naturted, generous, classless, straight forward etc. Australians in general see themselves and their country in a very positive light.
So let’s take the stolen generation as an example. When Paul Keating said at the the 1992 launch of the International Year of Indigenous Peoples
“It was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the diseases. The alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice. And our failure to imagine these things being done to us.”
He went smack bang against the self-belief of Australians of being fair and ‘good people’
This created a backlash where some politicians re-assured the population that it wasn’t true. We took aboriginal children to protect them etc. Then you had Windschuttle and his denials and so on.
The problem with this kind of culture wars is that there seems to be no middle ground.
I regards to multiculturalism for instance (something close to my heart) there seems to be an assumption in some quarters that before post-war migration Australia was a dreadful drab place. That basically the Anglo/Celtic culture was somewhat poorer than those imported from overseas. It is a form of cultural cringe.
You can see why some Australians from Anglo/Celtic backgrounds react negatively from that, and why Howard can then dog whistle and talk about ‘mateship’ ‘ANZAC spirit’ ‘Citizenship’ ‘Australian values’ and so on.
With that, everyone who advocates multiculturalism (even me, who think that Anglo/Celtic culture is great) is portrayed as ‘un-australian’.
So what we have is a polarisation between those who say that Australia is the best place in the world, everyone wants to live here (and that is why we need to keep those ‘unworthy uninvited’ out) and we did not wrong in our history and we saved the world in two world wars etc. etc. to those who think that we need to feel shame about how we treated our indigenous population, that if it wasn’t for the migrants we would be a drab uniteresting country, that we are racists etc. etc.
I think some sort of balance needs to be placed in the debate. But this is not helped by politicians (at this moment from the conservative side) playing on the estremes for cheap media grabs.
The “Left” is, as it always was, divided.
But, as SL hints, the Right is more divided than ever.
Thus, there is great fluidity in these alignments. Libertarian Left and Libertarian Right line up against dirigistes of different stripes.
Howard has demonstrated this fluidity by veering crazily between right libertarian positions and dirigisme according to political vicissitude.
The intellectual Left feels under pressure because Howard has taken their playthings away from them. Universities, cultural institutions like the ABC and the Arts Council, and various NGOs are no longer pleasant roosts for Lefties to hang out and to convince themselves that they control the “commanding heights” of Australian culture.
Trades Unions and their umbrella organisations are mere shadows of their former selves. These were natural breeding grounds for the career leftie intellectual.
Thus, the culture of the traditional Left has been cut off at the roots.
But is this the end of the Leftie world? No, not a bit of it.
The price of temporary dominance by the culture warriors who travelled on Howard’s uncertain coat-tails has been great.
Firstly, that dominance has been bought by lies. The punters are beginning to revolt against being taken for dupes. This is a serious, though cyclical, pehnomenon in democratic politics. Will punters always hate liars? Of course ont.
Secondly, and more importantly, Howardism in government is about instrumentalism. The great resource of the Right used to be myth. Those were myths of race, nation, class, God, and Empire. Marginal punters voted for Howard in marginal seats because he promised that he would fulfil their aspirational dreams.
For many of those aspirationals, these dreams are unsustainable in the medium, and even short term. Words like negative equity, foreclosure, realisation auction, will soon become currency. It has already begun in the US. Private debt is even higher here than in the US.
Voters will punish Howard. His coat-tail-riding acolytes will evaporate.
But don’t expect the Leftie Millennium.
We’ve already seen the future. It’s Steve Bracks.
Kevin Rudd’s forthcoming long prime ministership will be the federal version of Bracksy.
“Learn to write properly and to persuade. (This, I think, is where the right have had it all over the left)”
The Right have gotten very good at using language to stich up the debate on their terms, so it’s less about the traditional ideal of persuasion, then it is about keeping your opponent in a rhetorical box of your own design. “Tax Relief” for instance, is a genius bit of framing, ’cause you can’t argue against it with being ‘against relief and in favor of suffering’. It’s not possible to directly argue against “Tax Relief” and a meta-argument about words is obviously going nowhere.
The right have had a small army of think-tank staff in the US working on this for over 30 years. Teh Left have only just woken up to the problem and have a lot of ground to make up.
Mark, it could be argued that less diversity (and I’m not advocating that!) actually allows for quicker, stronger growth of ideas. If you see Australia fora as limited, doesn’t that mean that a powerful idea can more easily be thrown onto a national table, that there are fewer walls between it and the general public as it gets there?
Therefore, to my way of thinking, it’s about the idea – the power and usefulness of it – rather than the fora.
“Welfare dependency” is another great example, Darryl.
Robert, but what if the idea has nowhere to germinate?
It’s true that the national conversation is more integrated than that of the US or the UK, but we’re a smaller and in some ways more heterogenous nation. But I think we’d benefit from a thousand flowers blooming.
Not arguing with that idea of flowering, Kim. However, I would maintain that a powerful idea will be received in our existing fora – we’re still pretty open to a lot of things here! – and that it is the idea itself which is the bottom line. People, of course, would have to see merit in it for it to get a run.
I’d perhaps come back to this point, and this is obviously very debatable, that what is referred to as “the Left” is defined more by what it isn’t, than what it is. That means, to me, there is a central, cohesive, powerful idea missing. My proposition is that can be changed by those who consider themselves to be “the Left’ throwing away that term (I know, I know.. people love to hold onto their identities, me too!), and presenting in the way I’ve mentioned above: by changing the language, thereby reframing the national debate.
If that proposition has any merit, perhaps further ideas on it will come out.
I’d refer back to what I said before, Robert.
The project of ensuring equal opportunity for all our citizens (what I see as the core value of the Left and the route to liberty) has a very long furrow to plough, and it’s been set back considerably over the last eleven years.
However, I agree with you insofar as you suggest that the Left has too often been just a purely negative response to Howardism. These points could be added to Margaret’s list:
1. Get on the front foot
2. Come up with a core philosophy
3. Generate new ideas
Hey Margaret, Do you have any copies of your book about Hindmarsh Island laying around?
I can’t get one anywhere
Cheers
This may not be the best forum to try and rustle up an out of print book.
glen
I am afraid you misunderstand the Left completely. It is the Left that is into transcendence. It is the Left that seeks to escape the challenges of today by trying to control the future. The Left is in denial, so escapes into various types of utopian eschataolgies.
Timboy, the reason you can’t get a copy of The Meeting of the Waters anywhere is because everyone is keeping theirs and not punting it on to a second-hand bookshop. Including me.
Margaret, two things — the general point about the right writing better than the left: from my observation it’s generally true in the MSM (except for David Marr, of course), and in the blogosphere it’s the opposite.
More usefully, some very specific advice: give Judy Brett a call and ask her if you can have a look at the fantastic speech on what Labor could learn from the Libs that she gave at the last Adelaide Festival of Ideas.
Lurking, learning. Thanks all.
Specifically, thanks to Pavlov’s Cat for the advice about Judy Brett.
And, timboy, The Meeting of the Waters finally went out of print just a couple of months ago. My publishers, Hachette Livre, may have a few copies left in the warehouse, but failing that I have some. Didn’t intend to sell books through this forum, but if interested, e-mail me direct. You’ll find the address on my website. http://www.margaretsimons.com.au
Brilliant, glen. Alas, it’s wisdom will be lost here, I suspect.
Darryl Rosin hits the nail on the head (and thereby makes a mockery of the line that the Right “write better”).
Here’s another example to add to the list: “culture wars”. It strike me as a supreme irony that someone who completely embraces the language of the right is about to tell “the Left” what it/they should’ve learnt over the last ten years.
Unless, of course, the “lesson” that will be given can be summed up as “become the Right”.
Kim.. these things:
..are very creative. How do you feel considering yourself as Creative? Does it fit ok..? Does it ask of you.. what do I wish to create?
If so, what happens is we then look at the tools we have to create with, and our resources. This ties us to the here and now, and ensures we are practical in our approach.
Secondly, if you are happy enough to say, “Yes, I am a Creative” people will seek from you what you wish to create – certainly they are more likely to enquire.
Thirdly, when we consider ourselves to be creative, we seek to look for what others create. This helps us to see the valuable things others do, and further assists in turning the national debate into your own terms, because the creative terms (and their corollary, the conservative) are the way it’s gone about.
Politically, these concepts are workable. In terms of the current discussion, the problems of relevence, coherence (yes, that’s a bit harder to grasp the way I’ve quickly placed it), and sought-for value are resolved. It allows for valuable, in depth dialogue.. all the things Howard has denied us.
And here’s the rub about altering language. It’s not new.. Howard has done this very thing! Did it work for him – unbelievably. I guess if we’ve learned from Howard, we have learned that?
(These are all quickly placed thoughts here, apologies for their abruptness.)
““the Leftâ€? is defined more by what it isn’t, than what it is. That means, to me, there is a central, cohesive, powerful idea missing”
That we live in community – which entails rights and responsibilities, entitlements and duties. That the politics of the left enhances individual lives by building communities. ?? If I just free associate on the word “Labor” I think of:
1. A fair-go
2. Nation building
3. Progressive
The Howard government has been about none of the above – so the difference is still there to exploit.
I agree very much with Margaret’s points and while LP has the smartest and funniest commenters, there’s often an “assumption of righteousness” and shrill contempt for other viewpoints.
Language is important – look what happened to Labor’s policy of “Creative Nation”.
Gummo (one of the very best writers in the blogoshpere) thinks the left lost the last 3 elections because of Beazley and Latham, but it lost, bigtime in 1996 because of Keating – something the intellectual left can’t understand.
i think the posts above have thoughtfully articulated many of my thoughts.
THe only point i would add, and i guess its omission seems to allude to its veracity, is the overt alienation of the christian left by large swathes of the secular left. This is doesnt happen anywhere near the same extent in conservative ranks.
And quite ironic, when so many of the long term social justice advocates, and activists, (even political leaders) are sustained by this tradition/famework.
“It strike me as a supreme irony that someone who completely embraces the language of the right is about to tell “the Leftâ€? what it/they should’ve learnt over the last ten years.
Unless, of course, the “lessonâ€? that will be given can be summed up as “become the Rightâ€?.”
Captain Oates – what do you mean?
As a former journalist, I dispute that ‘the right’ write better than ‘the left’.
The readership of metropolitan broadsheet newspapers is skewed toward university educated small ‘l’ liberals (Liberal or Labor, doesn’t matter).
Successful editors build circulation by filling opinion pages with the provocative ravings of right-wing cultural warriors whose mission is to get a rise out of a literate, cosmopolitan readership.
When the readers complain about ugly views expressed, they are labelled as elitist snobs out of touch with mainstream opinion.
So the perception that they write well is generated by the ideological chasm between the writers and the readers – a chasm that guarantees maximum impact.
More broadly, the success of the right in the culture wars is just another example of how fear and pride can be effectively used as political tools.
Guido put his finger on it in his post above. Howard successfully tapped into the Hansonite backlash created by Keating’s embrace of multiculturalism and push for reconcilliation with the indigenous people.
Many people sensed that their Anglo-Celtic traditions were being derided as worthless. Understandably, they felt defensive.
But just as Keating probably went in too hard from one end of the spectrum, Howard is guilty of over-cooking it from the other end.
The result is that most of ‘the left’ (such as we are) are now probably closer to the centre of the political spectrum than the Howard brigade (who have moved out to the far right).
So if I were giving your presentation, Margaret, I would forget all the stuff about being nice and writing well. The key for ‘the left’ now is to show that they occupy the middle ground.
Rudd is effectively sending this message out now with his attack on the IR ‘reforms’ and the market fundamentalism that turns citizens into mere consumers. It is a pro-family message that appeals to conservatives.
Labor is now at the centre on national security, while Howard tied his bandwagon to a discredited neo-con cabal that was intent on trashing international institutions.
And on the cultural wars, the gratitude the mainstream initially felt to Howard for recognising their insecurity has now turned to distaste for his exploitation of those fears for political gain.
So the opinion polls are telling us that the public sense the pendulum has now swung too far the other way. From an efficient market pundit’s point of view, the market is just doing its job.
The left in Australia – and by ‘left’ I mean the vast majority who are democratic and libertarian socialists NOT red fascists – are playing a rigged game.
The ALP should have won in 1998 for example.
Two democratically elected leaders should not be able to be sacked without notice as has happened twice.
Steel traps are for dumb animals so the smart left should simply take their toys and leave.
When everything turns to shit then as it most assuredly will ( is? ) then the left may assume again its rightful place in the sun.
If the lunar right doesn’t like it here then they are welcome to leave for the moon.
Mr Denmore
Ah, by definition, if you have moved to the “middle ground” you are no longer of or on “the Left:” You have become a…….”conservative.” And since you are “new” to this, to wit, you are a “neoconservative.”
I hope this helps.
1. Get up on the good foot
2. Shake your booty
3. Get up offa that thing
4. Shake your moneymaker
5. Get down tonight
6. Take it to the bridge
Personally I reckon we’re just doomed to a succession of bland, timidly-centrist technocratic governments dithering and tinkering about over the heads of a latch key populace.
These days, it’s “underneath the beach, the cobblestones”.
oh yes, and:
7. Think positive
8. Don’t do or say anything controversial or outside mainstream political thought, as dictated by the MSM.
9. Be as bland as possible
10. Be nice
11. Don’t offend
12. Above all, play the game, maaaate.
One of the core values of the Left that has been omitted so far is commitment to unionism.
A big help, thank you, Mr Greenfield. I now understand why I have a compelling urge to unilaterally invade the homes of Albrechtson, Bolt, Akerman, Sheridan and co and foist social democracy upon them.
Mr Denmore has it. The ‘left’ is a term of political rhetoric employed by people whose single goal is to keep the current gravy train moving on. If you ask actually ask Australians what they think about a range of issues, ranging from economic policy, definitions of the family and the ways in which people work to get over fear of strangers and the like, people in general are far more small ‘l’ liberal, and social democratic than the screamers who currently hold centre stage, and far more so than the screamers would like anybody to believe.
The ‘culture wars’ are a preoccupation of a very small group of the population (nothing wrong with that , but it needs to be kept in perspective), and for the vast majority of the population it would be news that there was a war on about culture at all. What is old news, is that we have had a conservative government in power for a long time, and it shows, in places where it pays to be deferential. This group is in reality very small, and the reaction is already taking shape. I detect nil movement among people living in this country that could be described as a movement to embrace the 19th century, or some version of a 21st century Hobbesian ‘war of each against all”. The screamers and ranters who pontificate and blow windy rhetoric about the place will go ‘puff’ when the goverment changes, not because their views have changed, but because the gravy train is in another place. That’s all.
My first comment on this blog- to match your first post!
Make sure you address the paradigms the left work from. Many a discussion goes nowhere because the sides are working from totally different ideologies and interpretations of life. As for the ‘right’ much of this is pure socilaisation. If you’re talking to people all over the shop, I suggest including an intro explaining the humanistic virtues of the left over the materialistic virtues of the right.
What I usually find as the most basic ‘doctrinal difference’ is the idea of what society should be. Conservatives are so because they don’t want to change it. Why, I don’t know. Lefties often agree that society could me much different. I’d include this point. Point out that an issue of concern is that society is constantly recreating itself- and barriers to constructive world-changing are of great concern to lefties because they just want a better world for the children.
Sympathising with your task,
Alistair.
One hour to go until I leave to give the speech, which means I had best stop reading and considering and start writing some notes…
LP permitting, I’ll report back tomorrow.
This discussion has modified and informed my approach, and given me some ideas. Hearty thanks to all, including those who disagree…
What the left has learnt from the Culture Wars is the same lesson the Yanks have learnt in Baghdad. You can clear out a snake nest but as soon as you hit the bar they come crawling out of their holes again.
The only other thing the left has learnt is that the king Right-Wing snakes are uglier and more venomous than we thought back in the pleasant 1990s.
Actually it’s not just the left who’ve learnt this. Centrists such as Manne and Big Mal have learnt this too.
If I just free associate on the word “Labor� I think of:
1. A fair-go
2. Nation building
3. Progressive
I think of:
1. Bullshit Artists..Fair go for who, the chosen few, who choses? The left, the unions? the people? ..fat chance! Last I heard here the people were too stupid to vote thats why the ALP cannot sip the juice of success.
2. Nation Destroying..or perhaps lots of little nations all at war within a nation ..oops Oz not Europe.
3. Regressive and refusal to acknowledge progessive failed crap when it smacks you in the face,,
I think the ‘Left’ have probably learnt that scare tactics work very well.
‘Learnt’?
(Above post is not a comment on spelling)
Oigal,
The Whitlam government was Labor’s high point for me, so:
1. A Fair Go – that was things like starting Medicare (rather than moving the population back to privatised schemes); a huge investment in education like free universities; land rights etc
2. Nation building – huge grant program for regional development, and sewerage systems in the cities, highways, railways ….
3. Progressive – welfare, womens issues, relationships with Asian countries, family law …
These positions can still be developed:
A Fair Go vs Workchoices/IR
Nation Building vs neglect of environment, infrastructure deficits
Progressive vs inadequate parental leave, child care, inflexible work arrangements …
“Nation Destroying” hey? I suppose I had best vote for John Howard come the Federal Election. If the other guy gets in the whole country is going to look like Stalingrad in no time at all.
Sublime Cowgirl, you might find some value from the Friendly Atheist
It’s a numbers game. The conscienceless outnumber the caring. This is why mass murder has never achieved for either side, the next generation has the same numbers as the last..
Dear Margaret,
I was impressed with the open-minded and good-hearted approach that you have approached the vexed issue of the Culture Wars. Your shopping list of intellectual hygiene products is well worth investing in.
May I offer a few suggestions? Apologies for the gargantuan comment.
THE CULTURE WAR: HISTORY AND THEORY
The Culture War began in the sixties with the emergence of New Left cultural liberation movements, based on minority groups such as women’s lib, black power, gay rights. It should be distinguished from the Class War begun more than a century before by Old Left economic egalitarian parties based on an economic majority group: white male working class households.
The Culture War grew out of a change in the social bases of politics in the post-war era. In the sixties the LN/P’s Old Right started to lose its cultural grip on the newly educated middle-class, who had formerly been bound to establishment parties by cultural authorities, esp Church and Monarchy. Thus Whitlam’s New Left got a chance to drive a wedge into the Right.
In the seventies the ALP’s Old Left started to lose its class grip on the newly enriched working class who had formerly been bound to insurgent parties by means of class solidarity, esp Trade Unions. This is where Howard’s New Right got a chance to drove a wedge into the Left.
The Culture War got vastly more complicated and ideologically problematic when cultural minority groups started to claim the same rights and opportunities as the cultural majority group. Its socio-political manifestation was a status-conflict waged within both the populus and elites: to borrow marxist usage, there was a popular conflict in the sociological base and an elite debate in the ideological superstructure.
The popular Cultural Right is made up of so-called “traditional mainstreamâ€? or “silent majority” of more or less “normal” majority of straight male-led Caucasian Christian households. These characteristics were usually considered high-status markers, but this is now contested. Thus the advent of epithets such as “red-neck”, “trailer-trash”, “gun-nuts”, “god-botherers”, “McMansions” etc
The popular Cultural Left is made up of a so-called “fashionable fringeâ€? or “rainbow coalition” of more or less diversified minorities of female, coloured, non-Christian and gay households. These characteristics were usually considered low-status but are now considered higher-status eg “vibrant ethnics”, “sassy women”, “trendy gays” etc
The cultural elites now play out this status-conflict in the ideological superstructure. Right-wing conservatives (”ultras” or “Drys”) elites contend with Left-wing constructivist elites (”luvvies” or “Wets”) on the issue of what is the best form of household and what makes a good citizen.
The Cultural Right elites support established high-status groups to shore up the majority rump of the majority. The Cultural Left elites support ascendant low-status groups attempting to forge a coalition composed of a majority of minorities.
The cultural elites mainly share the same background: male-led Caucasian Christian households. Most of their work is symbolic, stategising and sermonising. The rewards are as much moral as material.
But many of the original Left-wing culture warriors were somewhat deviant members of this demographic ie drug-users, avant-garde artists or closet homosexuals.
Many Right wing culture warriors are apostate versions of same. The first generation culture warriors were neo-cons: liberals mugged by reality. Or a drink to far.
In Australia the Culture War started in earnest in the early nineties after Keating economic rationalism formula had run out of ideological fuel. So he switched to political correctness in a bid to win over emerging minority groups.
But Keating’s fashionable “Refugees, Republic and Reconciliation� agenda came a cropper against Hanson’s more traditional appeal to “God, Queen and Country� values.
The performance of minority groups after a generation of special attention was also not overwhelming. The endless parade of unruly ethnics, broken-family indigenes, barren career women, plague-ridden gays always blaming the same people for their woes started to get on people’s nerves.
Still, political correctness has won a sort of victory. It is impossible to be honest about the causes and consequences of the so-so performance of many minorities since the time of their liberation. Thus conservative politicos must resort to “dog whistles� in order to get their message across, or to simply tell the truth.
The debate has concrete electoral ramifications in Australia. Well-heeled luvvies (Wets) in formerly blue ribbon LN/P seats have swung to the Cultural Left in support of fashionable minority values, against their “bourgeois” class interest. Conversely, more modest battlers (Dries) in formerly blue ribbon ALP seats have swung to the Cultural Right in favour of traditional majority values, against their “proletarian” class interest.
George Megalogenis has a good article on the perverse cross-wired politics of cultural policy. He shows how the class traitorship of “doctors wives” and “battlers” is where the ideological rubber hits the psephological road in Australian cultural politics. Megalogenis points out that both parties rely on cultural wedges in their class base to swing the election:
Labor lost up to three battler seats in 2004 because its then-leader Mark Latham was seen as placing trees ahead of the jobs of timber workers in Bass and Braddon in Tasmania and in McMillan in Victoria. The only doctors’ wives seat to be picked up by Labor in return was Adelaide.
While Labor won’t actively court the doctors’ wives in 2007, it will remember the lesson of the last campaign that many more voters below them on the income ladder aspire to their wealth, even if they don’t share their values.
WANKY THEORETICAL POST-SCRIPT
In more rarefied elite intellectual forums the debate is conducted at a more abstract level over the relative virtues of unity: integration with institutional authority against diversity: differentiation of individual autonomies. Essentially it is a replay of the debates within European sociology over a century ago, with echoes of Gemeinshcaft and Gesellschaft. But this time the cultural context is global post-modernisation rather than national modernisation. We can even see a grander version of the Culture War in the so-called Clash of Civilizations.
There is also the deeper problem raised by the Culture War, whether biological classification is decisive in conditioning social stratification. The Platonic ideological question of “what kind of state is best for citizens� is now being overshadowed by more ominous socio-biological ones: the Leninist “Who, Whom� sometimes rendered as the Nietzschean “who is fit to rule�.
Shorter Strocchi: the Culture Wars have taught the Left the indispensable an intellectual lesson: the need for a proper modernist cultural theory, based on neo-Weberian sociology and neo-Darwinian biology. This means ditching the out-dated post-modernist clap-trap exposed by the Sokal Hoax.
The Culture Wars have also taught the Left a political lesson: to not take for granted its working class sociological base in favour of its middle class ideological superstructure. Economic realities and ethical ideals should condition the interaction beteen politics and policy.
Finally, the Culture Wars have taught the Left a philosophical lesson: if you try to replace modern nationalism with post-modern globalism you just might wind up with pre-modern tribalism.
adrian wrote on 15 March 2007 at 7:30 am
“Oh dear, I thought we’d moved beyond the tired and increasingly meaningless left/right divide. Obviously not.”
I don’t believe it is meaningless. As long as you can position an argument with the potential to “reposition” another’s argument, there will always be sense made of the left/right divide.
However, this doesn’t mean such divides should be limited to a context of debate called “the culture wars”. Mainstream debate ought to evolve into other contexts.
The process of getting from here to there may well be contained in the advice provided by Margaret Simons.
I’m not fully aware of Margaret’s speeches and writing, as I’m a communications writing newbie in general. Yet when I have had the occasion to read her newspaper articles, I’ve always found her to be a calming voice of assurance.
I’m about to attempt first-time university writing, so I appreciate Margaret’s insights into critical thinking in context.
So impressed, I’m going to print this entire thread and read it sometime on the bus trip to my studies.
…From Justin
“Margaret Simons on 15 March 2007 at 3:14 pm
One hour to go until I leave to give the speech, which means I had best stop reading and considering and start writing some notes…”
Geez,Jack, what a shame Margaret didn’t have the benefit of the wisdom so abundant in your 8.23pm and 8.53pm posts for her live address. Bet it feels better though, now you’ve got it all off your chest. You’re a legend, son.
Oh Jack, that was wonderful.
Do it again, please!
Well it all seems pretty obvious, doesn’t it?
1. We on the Left are smart and good.
2. Them folks on the Right are stupid and bad.
3. We know better than they do, because (see 1.)
That wasn’t so hard!
Re Strocchi the post-catallaxian (sometimes used to plead diminished responsibility),
like many post-war migrants or descendants thereof you think cultural wars in Australia only began in the post war period because that is when you arrived.
Another Euro-error is the idea that what happens in Australia reflects European sociological debates when ‘human ecology’ discourse from the Chicago School of sociology probably has more bearing upon the Australian situation. Particularly in the post-White Australia Policy era.
Why dont you just come out and say the catholics were led by Mussolini idoliser SantaMaria into believing that not voting Labor and backing the Liberals who offered them fake private schools was the best thing to do and that this kept Labor out of office.
Catholics relied on the increasingly secular capitalist class to promote their interests over that of non-believers, effectively selling their religion and votes for godless money. Still a long way from the top of the rich lists.
“But many of the original Left-wing culture warriors were somewhat deviant members of this demographic ie drug-users, avant-garde artists or closet homosexuals.”
This could describe Keating or Howard depending on how you analyze their behaviour. Alcohol is a drug, politics is an art and I will leave the rest to your imagination.
The morning after the night before…I think it went well. Peter Hartcher’s essay, which is what we were there to discuss, is worth reading. His basic thesis is that only two issues matter when it comes to turning votes: national security and the economy. These are, as he puts it, the “trump cards” of Australian politics, and Howard holds them both. Voters rate Labor higher on all other issues, but Howard “owns” these two. He believes that Rudd cannot win unless he manages to wrest at least one of these from Howard. The wild card, he suggests, is global warming, which is of course about the economy and national security as well as the environment and everything else. This issue is apparently now right up there with the big two, and whichever party presents the most credible program on it while looking credible on national security may well win. Rudd has some advantage on national security because voters have seen him on tv over the last few years talking about foreign affairs.
John Button also spoke. He said among many other things that voters are now at least stopping to look at what Labor has to offer. He doesn’t think this yet converts into voting intention.
I kicked off by harking back to my essay on Latham and making a few jokes about lack of backlist sales. Then I launched into the “What have Howard’s opponents learned from the last ten years” Read out my original list, plus some of the comments from this thread, with acknowledgement. Also talked about whether Keating was right when he said “change the government and you change the country” or whether the truth is that the country hasn’t changed very much, but different threads of the national character have been articulated, and the left (yes, fell into using that word)have been obliged to listen to voices and concerns that had been neglected during the Keating years. Also asked whether Labor has done the hard work on policy development, said I had reasons to doubt whether they had (at least in communications policy, which is the area I know most about)and said that the good polling figures could unravel if the goods aren’t there come election time. Also expressed a worry about corruption, both within the Labor Party and in the institutions of state governments, and asked whether this was the sleeper that might bring any Labor Government down, ala WA.
Robert Manne disagreed with me about the nation not changing. He said he thought it had, and deeply and alarmingly. I again suggested that it was the articulation that had changed more than the reality. Some discussion from the audience before we ran out of time.
Then dinner at Jimmy Watsons, at which I argued with Hartcher and the editor of the Monthly Sally Warhaft about new media and its impact. Home. Bed.
Thanks to everyone for helping me out on this. I felt a bit under-done on the night, but would have been much more so without the working out of thoughts here. I think it went broadly okay, and this thread has certainly been interesting – and I do indeed regret I wasn’t here to read Jack’s later contribution.
I have to be out for most of today, so won’t have a chance to contribute much more until Sunday, but will look with interest to see what has happened in my absence.
Margaret – you couldn’t ask the folks here if they’ll post your speech (that’s if it’s in a form suitable for posting) could you? I think it’d be worth a read. I think your point about listening to voices that had been submerged for a long time is a very telling one.
A more bi-partisan way of looking what the Left can learn from the Culture wars is indicated by asking the fundamental question: what does the Left seek in the organisation of a modern culture?
The Left, I have argued, emerged in the post-Enlightenment era to improve the social situation of low-status groups in liberal modernist orders. Broadly speaking, such orders are characterised by majority rule constitutionally constrained by minority rights under the rule of law. Pop progress through due process.
My biggest criticism of the Left, in the post-modernist context, is their failure to acknoledge the virtue of conservatism in improving the situation of the low-status. A conservative seeks to conserve the Good Society. This is an epistemological, not ethnological, committment.
Let us assume that a free, fair and fraternal modernist liberal order is achieved. Without question, this order is beneficial to low-status groups seeking progress. The Left should therefore be somewhat constitutionally conservative. But it is allergic to the notion.
To give a contemporary example: The conservation movement is a big victory for the New Left. It is a victory for low-status groups esp bike riders, trees and animals. But it is self-evidently conservative in nature. Leftists should take home a deeper message from this.
A further criticism of the Left its unthinking identification of the cultural with the social good. (Too many art house movies?) The modernist system does not always require diversity to be maximised. Unity is often functional, think UK, USA. Modern social scientists point out that traditional conservatism may trump fashionable constructivism as a cultural foundations for a modernist liberal order.
A modern liberal order is composed of individual autonomies regulated by accountable institutional authority. The principle of private choice and public voice works at personal, professional and political scales eg romantic families, catallactic economies and democratic polities.
These sub-systems reuire integration as much as differentiation in order to work well. It may be that we need should encourage more mindless conformism amongst minorities if they want to get ahead.
Moreover, the New Left has a bad habit of encouraging minorities to practice identity politics. This may not be the best for progress. The Old Left did not urge that workers keep their blue collars. It fought for education and social equity. “The best thing about the working class is leaving it.” P. Keating
The most successful part of the New Left cultural revolution has been the womens movement. The early feminists knew that they had to beat men at their own game. And many have. So much so that modern women are not all that Left wing. Ungrateful bitches!
But the New Left’s associations with gay and indigenous movements has frequently back-fired. Many Left political agents have encouraged these minorities to do their own thing, even when this leads to self-harm.
And post-modern multiculturalism, taken seriously, has been a disaster for the New Left. Here the New Left’s global post-modernist revolution, seeking national modernist reformation has led instead to a pre-modernist tribal reaction.
It leads to settlement rorting, ethnic crime waves and an incipient terrorist fifth column. Not to mention the corruption of social democracy and the provocation of nativist reaction.
Conservatives saw this coming a mile off. But the Left deadened its ears to their message.
The Labor leader who said that
Was Neville Wran, not Pual Keating. You’ve got your chardonnay socialists mixed up.
Jack, that’s the same assumption/assertion the Soviets used to justify the crushing of independent trade unions. I’m assuming you don’t actually believe we right now live in an unbetterable society?
Generally, the criticism from conservatives is that the so-called Left is irrelevent, “loony” (let’s really understand why they use that term!), impractical. Those who represent the “Left” take offense at this, but there is something very valuable to be learned from it.
Essentially, what this criticism says is that the “Left” is NOT communicating with the conservative.
As mentioned above, the world is changing so rapidly and dramatically it must surely be understandable that people wish to conserve. Jack calls it the Good Society, but in effect what conservatives wish to do is to hold onto a world they are comfortable with: one they know. It is entirely reasonable to want to do so. Further: we all do! We all have a Good Society. And no wonder the conservative mindset is forcing itself forward under these rapidly changing circumstances.
The so-called “Left” if it represents anything, it represents a progressive attitude. This attitude drives the non-conservative agenda. Notwithstanding that agenda is so varied as to dissemble the “Left” into meaningless: non existence other than as an ephemeral idea of general group belonging (a very powerful idea that: to feel one belongs, giving rise to the belief the “Left” actually exists), the bottom line about what successful progression is about is that it a) must acknowledge, and respect!, validity of the conservative [these are the building blocks]; b) engage with that reality [these are the tools], and c) work with the conservative to construct the vision.
These are simple principles of creativity: what progression is. Know your resources, respect them, see the value in them, and while holding your vision build it with them.
To do so requires the tool of communication.
Instead of acknowledging the validity of the conservative, the non-conservative has criticised that agenda and removed itself from play.
Instead of working with the conservative, the non-conservative has put forward a vision saying “this is what we have to do” and expected the conservative to appreciate it. (The conservative can’t even understand it, for reasons mentioned above).
Get a handle on those things, and then this arises: the conservative agenda is ever seeking to further present itself.. in other words, to progress, to grow. Isn’t that something!
By coming back to the essential principle of understanding the conservative tendencies we all have, and the creative tendencies we all have (individually or in any group including obviously political group form), we can form a purposeful communication.
The onus is on the non-conservative to do that, because if you want to create change, then it’s up to you to apply those principles and make it happen.
This leads us then to what happens when the conservative communicates with the non-conservative. Who’s agenda will win? Isn’t that what drives so much political attitude? Of course, no one particular agenda will entirely win. Dogma has no place when meaningful communication occurs. Instead, the dialogue takes the form of assessing what is good to be conserved, and what is good to be created.
Some may think that is futile. In fact, the very worst that can happen under those circumstances is twofold. 1) A far greater understanding about what each represents is obtained, not to mention far greater goodwill…. and 2) non-conservatives become relevent! Respected! Practical!
Given those circumstances, the chances of any non-conservative agenda actually occurring is greatly enhanced.
Frankly, there is no other way.
Jack,
Instead of trying to validate your bigotry, by manufacturing a fantasy environment of social and economic chaos, I’d have more respect for you if you just admitted that you don’t like people from different cultural backgrounds, particularly the non-Anglo ones.
In spite of your apocalyptic warnings, multiculturalism has not generated the chaos you fantasize about; in fact it’s worked quite well.
The disquiet, you’ve articulated, over the changing nature of Australian society actually has more to do with your own personnel prejudices and your inability to adapt.
delrio on 16 March 2007 at 1:35 pm
Delirio, Instead of trying to validate your bigotry by manufacturing a fantasy would you mind citing evidence for these defamatory remarks? I have never said that I dislike anyone on the grounds of their background. Put up or shut up instead of point and splutter.
In fact I have gone out of my way to praise the high IQ culture of North East Asians. Still less am I an Anglo-philic bigot. Half my own heritage is Italo and I am plenty -philic about that.
The pre-multicultural Australian immigration program 1945-75, which you conveniently ignored, worked pretty well. Non-Anglo European immigrants were quite successful at making a go of it in this country.
But this was an assimilationist or integrationist program. “New Australians” are the opposite of multiculturalism. The latter program has been controversial and controverted from day one.
What I have said is that many cultures around the world – particularly from Southern Eurasia, Southern America and Southern Africa – are still suffering from the relics of pre-modern tribal barbarism. We should filter these people out from the immigrant pool.
Or if they are already in then we should re-educate them to liberal modernist norms. As all good Leftists have been doing for yonks. Its called “raising consciousness”.
delrio says:
True the sky has not fallen in yet. Its the mark of a statesman to forsee and avoid preventable woes. Do we really have to be playing host to duelling artillery batteries down Bourke St before the Left admits it fouled up?
There are serious dysfunctions with the multicultural program from about the late seventies onwards, mainly due to poor selection policy. Although a divisive and inane settlement policy didnt help.
In particular, there were many SW Eurasians and SE Asians were let in during the late seventies who should not have made the cut. We had a massive crime wave in SW Sydney for almost two decades on account of this. These areas are still centres of great social dysfunction.
Not to mention reactionary cultural attitudes exactly the opposite of so-called Enlightenment Leftism. But then New Leftists are not afraid to betray their ideological heritage for a mess of bureaucratic potage.
delrio says:
These are facts not fancies. Most of the population woke up to them from 1996-2001. Thats why all major parties have shifted to the Cultural Right. People are not nongs, you can only hoodwink them with political correctness for so long.
We have pilot studies about how serious multiculturalism works in other comparable nations. For example the UK, Canada and Lebanon. Dos Londonistan ring any bells?
I support a race-neutral immigration policy that aims at attracting high cognitive IQ, high co-operative EQ migrants from any and every part of the world. I have said this on numerous occasions.
You have no excuse for not knowing this. Try to get your facts right instead of fabricating and spreading outright lies about my disposition.
The above is what our immigration policy already is and has been. Immigration policy and multi-culturalism are different things.
Ok Jack. YOu can stop now.
YOu make some incredibly valid points, but when analysis gives way to arrogance, then any insight the ‘right’ may have ends up being drowned out by the superior
race-ity complex.Thats a pretty hansonite way of putting things, which is counterproductive to moving forward. Sheeze.
Fiasco da Gama on 16 March 2007 at 12:30 pm
the best thing about the working class is leaving it
Was Neville Wran, not Pual Keating. You’ve got your chardonnay socialists mixed up.
I stand corrected.
Let us assume that a free, fair and fraternal modernist liberal order is achieved.
Fiasco da Gama saya:
Yes. A conservative seeks to conserve only present goods, not bads. A constructive seeks to construct only future goods, not bads.
The uestion of what constitutes good is a curly one. A liberal, such as myself, would say continueing prospects for the physical and intellectual empowerment of all individuals.
The bias to conservatism should exist when a society is predominantly of good constitution. And where consructive changes proposed are grand in scale and rapid in pace.
The problem is that we know more about the present than we do about the future. And social complexity is increasing at a rate faster than our ability to comprehend it.
The Soviets ere conservatives alright. But not conserving a liberal modernist order. So I disliked them.
The question of what constitutes good is a curly one
So true, Jack. And it’s also an extremely interesting one. Stoushing commenters may not agree; to my mind, there would at a guess be many similarities coming from varying political persuasions.
By applying this tool, the question of “what do you wish to conserve, and what do you wish to construct” what do you come up with in today’s Australia?
You may not be of mind, but I’d be interested in how you regard ‘good’ to direct your responses to that tool, that question.
“My biggest criticism of the Left, in the post-modernist context, is their failure to acknoledge the virtue of conservatism in improving the situation of the low-status. A conservative seeks to conserve the Good Society. This is an epistemological, not ethnological, committment.”
This is very true Jack.If I could be so bold to add my thoughts to your most informative comments.The main problem with the left today is its pre-occupation with epistemological radical deep seated ethnological random,but not always necessary, thoughts about the juxtaposition of each of the main themes.The crux, and indeed the critical mass, as all lefty’s have so frequently pointed out in the history of right wing revisionism reformast position, the doctrine is and has been very shallow,however it has some merit,if I could be so bold? in formulating an excellent immigration policy.
Jack,I know a lot of people find it hard going digesting your thoughful and informative comments,and indeed some on the blog have called you a wanker,but not me Jack, I understand what you are trying to say implicitly and look forward to your next burst.
So this thread is no longer about Margaret’s argument, but all about Jack’s “arguments”. Quelle surprise!
Btw, Margaret, I think the talk Judy Brett gave, which Dr Cat referred to, has probably been written up for The Monthly. At any rate, there’s a short piece by her in the latest edition on the same topic.
Would you like to share some thoughts and feelings on this thread, Kim, tonight? On topic? Maybe the things I’ve said have put you off. I hope not. It’s a particularly wonderful thread.
How do you feel?
Oh no, not at all, Robert. I appreciated your contribution and am intending to come back to it. I’ve just been a bit busy at work and am also a bit unwell at the moment so I wanted to wait til I had time and was feeling more compos mentis.
Thank you, Kim. Obviously I cannot tempt you tonight to speak of those ideas you have in relation to the many things placed here. A lot has been raised and addresed. I do look forward to sharing them with you on this thread, indeed.
Sorry Robert, I’ve got a back complaint and another problem that are giving me a fair bit of pain some nights so I wouldn’t make too much sense if I started trying to engage seriously, I fear!
I think Jack has been very insightful, both in providing a background briefing about the culture wars and providing his perspective on the issue.
Here’s a bit of a review of what he said and the reasons I took note of certain comments:
Jack says:
“A modern liberal order is composed of individual autonomies regulated by accountable institutional authority. The principle of private choice and public voice works at personal, professional and political scales eg romantic families, catallactic economies and democratic polities.
These sub-systems require integration as much as differentiation in order to work well. It may be that we need should encourage more mindless conformism amongst minorities if they want to get ahead.”
I would agree with this, except that I’d substitute “mindless conformism” with “mindful conformism”.
I’d then strongly suggest what we need to be collectively mindful of: that the binary of integration and differentiation is essential for “strategic thinking”.
Consider some examples of strategic thinking in various disciplines:
In Economics, this binary would appear to help provide a conceptual understanding of Adam Smith’s “division of labour” theory of productivity.
In Marketing, the integration part of the the binary would appear to help us understand Michael Porter’s model of the value chain (in summary, making strategic decisions in a co-ordinated manner to ultimately create greater value for customers and the business) while the differentiation part of the binary adds the competitive dimension to Marketing in which customers must be given reason to buy from a particular business instead of its competitors. Jack Trout regards strategy as being “all about differentiation”. Wow, what a coincidence
Yet when we get to Politics, a strong sense of national identity (integration) is being targeted directly against multiculturalism (differentiation) by the conservatives.
Try and think of how many other disciplines you could apply this binary of integration and differentiation to and you’ll soon begin to question the wisdom of automatically assuming that integration is more important than differentiation (or vice versa).
For the benefit of effective strategic thinking, the two concepts – integration and differentiation – should be, first and foremost – treated as a binary, not as two contrasting ideas locked into a battle until the death of one or the other.
Jack says:
“Moreover, the New Left has a bad habit of encouraging minorities to practice identity politics. This may not be the best for progress. The Old Left did not urge that workers keep their blue collars. It fought for education and social equity. “The best thing about the working class is leaving it.â€? P. Keating”
I like the idea of The Old Left. As a low income earner myself, I think the Old Left agenda is more important to me than the New Left agenda.
Yet I can’t help feeling that the Conservatives have “adjusted” these Old Left values to suit their side of politics – hence we have “Howard’s aspirationals”.
These days, we can even get the words “battler” and “aspirational” used in an interchangeable way. In fact, all that’s left to do now is to change the names of all Centrelink payments to “aspirational allowance” and we’ll have a totally classless society
The problem, of course, is that it’s many times easier to seek the hope of social status than the satisfaction of social equity. Which of course, is why we’re at times talking about aspirations when we should be talking about achievements.
Finally, Jack says:
“The problem is that we know more about the present than we do about the future. And social complexity is increasing at a rate faster than our ability to comprehend it.”
I’m so glad someone has the honesty to admit this.
The one constant challenge shared by those in Adam Smith’s day and those of the modern day is the need to simplify complex ideas and relationships.
Unfortunately, so much of that complexity seems to be edited from recognition by stale ideologies and dogma.
So instead of a “strategic thinking”debate in Politics, we get a brinkmanship of wedge politics called “the culture war”.
…From Justin
P.S. – I’ve found out I actually have a copy of Margaret Simon’s Quarterly Essay (Issue 15 2004). I hope I can find time to read it to help me reflect some more on this particular debate.
Good one Justin.
By the way, i visited your blog and read it for ages.
YOu are an incredibly thoughtful, honest and transparent guy.
Promise me you’ll never let the journey turn you into a cynical old bastard
sublime cowgirl wrote on 17 March 2007 at 11:15 am:
“Promise me you’ll never let the journey turn you into a cynical old bastard”
I’ll make that a non-core promise
Margaret Simons:
Enlightening stuff.
Left-Right is not quite relevant to the millenium world any more …..otger fracture lines have suddenly become far more important …. but I’ll go along with your use of it as a handy label
Graham Bell: “Left-Right is not quite relevant to the millenium world any more …”
I think it was Chesterton who said something like (paraphrasing here), “The world is divided into Progressives and Conservatives. The business of Progressives is to continue making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”
To add to this debate, I received the below from a friend in somewhat public life who has been lurking in this debate. (She cannot be identified, due to her position, but wanted to participate).
What this lefty has learned from the culture [history] wars is:
1. do your footnotes well (which is your point two) 2. don’t get emotionally involved with your argument or take it personally when folks disagree with you (they ain’t bad, they is just drawn that way) 3. it’s not just righteousness that we must guard against, it’s earnestness and as I get older I get more and more repelled by it 4. on that point, don’t be afraid of pragmatic responses to pressing issues
- that is, clinging to ideals is worthy, but you may have to take baby steps to actually take folks with you.
5. The right seem to have won many arguments just by having a better barometer for where folks feel comfortable which is why they have been successful in terms of language – David Marr makes this point in an old Overland essay about the moment he ‘got’ Howard – I don’t think it comes down to writing better, it comes down to hitting the right buttons, or, in ‘Don’t think of an elephant’ terms, framing. The left could have done its work a little better on anticipating the way the right would put up frighteners about certain things. You could say Unions NSW’s Your Rights at Work campaign is a very successful case of taking back the frame with the WorkChoices issue. It immediately takes the emphasis from choices to rights, without the need for an argument, and the Unions did a great job by packaging themselves in advertising, grassroots campaigning and rallies that were actually fun days as family friendly, appealing, knockabout, ordinary, happy, long before the government remembered to say unionists were tub thumping hysterics. By the time the government got back to union bashing, the unionists had a lot of emotional capital stored up.
5. Forget ‘left’ – use words like ‘decent’.
6. Always wear a suit if you are a bloke, and lipstick if you are a girl, and have a good hair cut. That is, grooming matters.
Tell that to Kevin Rudd.
Thank you for that Margaret, and for your learned friend’s contribution.
It sounds like excellent advice for someone needing to engage daily with the conservative disposition.
This has been a particularly valuable and enjoyable thread.
Having read Margaret’s friend’s contribution, I wish to clarify my contributions above so they may be regarded more as an overall strategic approach. By not identifying with the word “Left” – I heartily recommend consciously making the effort to dispense with it entirely! – but instead by reframing the approach in terms of creative/constructive and conservative, you remove the left right paradigm from play and away goes all those unhelpful attendant problems, and change the paradigm to one of top down, or down up.
Let’s be clear, to reframe from top down or down up does not put the non-conservative at the top, just because the constructive/creative has a vision (the conservative also has a vision.)! It puts both of them into a positive alignment, equally.
It means, significantly, that the non-conservative force, when reframed this way, is actively engaged in every single matter.
Think of it as a way of removing yourself from the left right paradigm of adversary or opposition, and placing yourself integrally into everything that matters. You maintain your identity, what you represent and your wishes and dreams, your work and your achievements, but you are now actively integrated into effecting your vision. Nothing can escape you, nothing can isolate you. You recapture the whole agenda by reframing vertically: creative and conservative forces and tendencies. And, this is mindblowing, you are assisted by the very forces you once opposed.
It’s hard to imagine, but amazing if you get a grasp of it. I’ve probably not said it all very well here… still, let’s bring on that new paradigm!
Robert – I can’t see where the self-interest/altruism dichotomy fits in to your new paradigm. Unless it can be accounted for, your paradigm will not serve as a political schema.
Robert,
Please go a step ot two further and tell us what you would say, exactly, if you were Kevin Rudd, and were given 5 minutes on TV to give your election speech.
Russell, that’s an interesting question. From the bits and pieces seen of Kevin Rudd so far, he’s following in words and policy approaches much of this integration process sought for in this thread. He’s talking the language of conservatism, integrating with that temperament. He’s been blasted from people who’d wish him to put forward a much more progressive agenda, but by doing that, as mentioned above, he’d only isolate himself from where the action is at. Instead, by integrating with the conservative, he’s affording himself the best chance to get elected.
Who knows, when he’s elected he may well do a John Howard and implement a radical vision!
But to be effective, he’s doing much in deed that is being sought for here in words.
Wbb, you’re right and helpful to bring up the paradigm you mention (if you’re positing something seriously). The self-interest is in becoming effective, integrally, in the national dialogue, for a start. Getting there is in self interest. That one can be effective there is also. The altruism comes from allowing the conservative to be heard, and to help balance, check and assist by those things your visionary agenda. This would be done not only to get the necessarily compromised (that’s politics and that’s achievement) self-interested visionary agenda in place, but also for the common good. I don’t know if you’re serious with that question, but it is a very good one.
Robert, I’m inclined to agree with wbb. You still need some ideological content in your schema – and I’m not sure creativity gets you there because it’s a sort of vague word and in any case many of the right aren’t conservative. The differences between the right are obscured because they’re in power. I’m still going for more equality of opportunity all round!
The ideological content comes from your vision, Kim. But instead of positing it as ideological, it is considered in terms of its creative value (explicit, as per your vision) in the current events of the country, and introduced in a way in which the conservative will appreciate. The whole idea of this approach is not to engage in ideological discussion, or left and right, which is to be deflected from being effective, but to reframe in terms where you can be effective.
Creativity is certainly a vague word when looked at in the way you place it.. and yet it comes into direct, immediate focus and awesome effectiveness when talking about your ideological vision – the elements of them. what are the creative elements? (To ask that necessarily requires that you ask also :What are the conservative elements, because these are the building blocks of your vision.). If you want the word creativity to have focus, relevence, effectiveness, then you need simply to apply it to the nature of your vision. It will apply perfectly to the smallest increment, or the largest. If there is a problem in applying it, then the vision itself is not focused, effective, or relevent – what is otherwise known as a vague idea. This, by the way, gets back to your original need to come up with one!
…an’ aint that the truth!
Robert
I agree with looking for a vision broad enough to accomodate everyone, but I think you need to be more specific. A lot of what you write sounds to me like something from the back of a “new age” paperback. That’s not meant as an insult – I don’t mind occasionally dipping into the new age – but you won’t get too far with that kind of language in a conversation with the average person. Remember the phrase “get real” ?
I think you need to express your vision in more specific goals. A political party has to have a brand – I think Labor’s brand should be: a fair go, community building, progressive/creative. It’s not hard to craft distinctive and broadly popular policies in line with those values.
wow, you mean like providing a generation of stupid bogans in southern and eastern sydney causing riots and making docu-soaps that valorise macho violence? yeah, awesome culture that one. well integrated.
No immigrant ever stopped me from doing something Australian. Has any non-Australian ever stopped any Australian from doing something Australian? can anyone please provide an example of where an Australian was stopped from doing something Australian because of a non-Australian?
I can remember the thing about someone being called ‘Mate’ at new Parliament House, but that was a class thing. Then they stopped the Mexican Wave at the cricket, but that is ok cause it was Mexican. Hmmm, oh! Some Turkish people tried to intervene in every young Australians’ dog-given right to go to ANZAC Cove and make a drunken spectacle of themselves. We should be able to invade the Cove whenever we f’ckin want to and as f’ckin drunk as we want to be.
The only tribalism I have witnessed in the last decade is a product of the pocketed anglo-australian nationalism. ‘Pocketed’ means it only appears in pockets of (to be slightly paradoxical) pre-modern nationalism. Of course the ‘national’ here figures as a kind of tribalism for weak-minded fools who try to enrich the existential poverty of their lives by incorporating a fundamentalist love of certain symbolic remnants of the national imaginary: “Kiss the flag!”
My biggest criticism of the conservatives, in their neo-post-modernist context, is their failure to acknowledge the true costs of conservatism in improving the situation of the already privileged. A conservative seeks to conserve the Good Society at an unacceptable cost to present and future generations.
Sassy women were not valorised in previous times? wtf. I love the sassy women. Pure sass. f’ck yeah. If nothing else this demonstrates how advanced we now are. Thanks.
Oh, most importantly, John Greenfield, I forgot one: the Left don’t stick their heads in ovens.
One of the very basic challenges that the conservatives and/or Right have never been able to properly to attack is the reality that most problems the world faces today demand a politics that exceeds short term political games and some even exceed the frame of reference of human generations. These include the middle-east conflicts, environment, the privileged distribution of socio-economic wealth, housing/mobility crises in most metro-urban areas, etc.
We need more elites. No enough elites. l33ts. If only to serve as positive role models that are not boofhead rugby players and accountant politicians.
i am in moderation!!!
I agree with everything there, Russell. I really do.
What I’m talking about here is a new way of looking at an old problem. But the way I am asking it to be looked at is as old as humanity itself. It has its roots deep in the human pscyhe, just as the alternative, current way of looking at politics (left right).
Let’s remember, also, that many people in real life don’t give a hoot about left right. They, more readily, appreciate what I’m suggesting, not wishing to engage in the ideology of politics (which is not to denigrate that either of course).
So what it comes down to is the application. I’d like to bold that line but it would be visually offensive. May i say it again?
So what it comes down to.. is the application.
How do you apply the simple question of “What do I wish to conserve, and what do I wish to create?”.
Try it yourself. Look at any political issue and ask of it: what do you wish to conserve, what do you wish to create?
As a tool, it is incredibly powerful, because it unpacks the issues, removes the distractions from them, and allows you to be a part of them. Then you can be effective.
(Variations of course on the same tool, same principle, are to ask: what do I wish to see conserved, what do I wish to see changed, built. Or, within a particular issue: what are the creative elements of it? What is it creating? What is it conserving, keeping?)
So in effect all that happens is that you have been given a tool, which allows you to integrate and be effective. (Anywhere and anyhow you like).
Russell, I don’t for a minute think the great pscyhological divide will merge. Journos for instance cannot remove the word “Left” from their thinking because to do so is the equivalent of removing the letters…. t f e l …from their keyboards: they wouldn’t feel they could write anything! It’s in their interests, as one example of many, to maintain the divisive terms. This suits the conservative and is one reason why it behoves us to begin to learn to think differently if something other than that agenda is to be implemented.
However, as a simple tool, to apply whereever and however you wish, it does empower you, personally, if you give it a good go and get used to it. It actually makes politics exciting, just to look at it that way.
Ask of Howard: what is he creating? Sheesh, he’s creating a whole new generation of subservient battlers, and with that the cementation of a tier of born leaders over them. How awesome is that? How creative!! And what has he conserved in the meantime? And so it goes…
For practical application, a good example once again is watching Kevin Rudd, who’s applying many of these principles of integration (the practical implementation of this way of thinking) in pragmatic, comprisingly effective, ways.
So, specifically, it’s a tool. A tool to apply, as you wish.
____
I’d add, also, that when you begin to think in terms of those essential forces, the creative and conservative force, it really does behove you to get a vision! It throws up our own inadquacies, dogmas, and kneejerk thinking, because those things are not effective.
Hence, the problems when applying this tool are not of the tool, but of the vision, the lack of depth, cohesion, usefulness and relevence. That’s been a big criticism of non-conservatives. Do you have one? How deep, specific, cohesive is it?
That’s not to criticise, either, but to highlight a general problem for progressives.
“Ask of Howard: what is he creating? Sheesh, he’s creating a whole new generation of subservient battlers” – but he would say he’s created the lowest unemployment for 30 years, more opportunities, more wealth …
That’s where you need to, as Margaret said at the beginning “Live in the real world – marshall your evidence and get your facts straight” and puncture the claims of prosperity by talking about mortgages, debt, the difficulty for young people to get a house and start a family, the under-employed, the lack of planning and investment for what comes after the boom etc.
“it really does behove you to get a vision!” yes, how are you going to do that?
You said earlier, of the left “to me, there is a central, cohesive, powerful idea missing” – not for me, I’ve always had a vision of what the left stood for and it hasn’t changed. Most people commenting here are left-wing, where did their beliefs come from? – presumably something like mine: family background, church and reading. And then as you get older, experience.
Exactly! That’s what he says he’s creating. So to reframe that conversation with Howard (imagine this happening on television!) in terms of what he’s creating, you can bring up the future battlers and tier of overlords! You are picking up there, Russell, exactly, how this works. You’ve identified the ways Howard speaks about what he’s creating, so if you were in a position to bring to light what else he’s creating he is forced onto your terms of debate. You don’t just swallow the line, you work with him in his creative work to unpack that issue more completely.
If you don’t like what he’s creating, by reframing your conversation with him you put him in a position where he has to defend it. That challenges it, and weakens his selling of the expedient line. He’s now in a position to have to talk about a generation of battlers he’s creating and those bloody overlords. That’s your power, by identifying that common element of creativity and reframing. That’s an application of what I’m talking about, which brings Howard into the real world!
Russell, regarding your vision, I’m not to challenge it or press you on it. I respect people do have a vision for life: that’s exactly my point to: we all do.
I guess all I wished to share there as ideas is that a general, cohesive vision hasn’t been provided from people who consider themselves part of the “Left”.
(Ps.. sorry, Russell, that comment there re Howard is to share an idea how an unpacking of an issue in a personal conversation with Howard or similar could be to your advantage – the television reference was to imagine Howard corkscrewing into the seat in pain while you did so. It was also a bit of fun, wasn’t meant to be misleading)
What you are saying by referencing Margaret is also correct. I don’t think it conflicts with the application of any reframing tool.
(that is not “forced to defend it”, but “forced to explain it”. Sincere apologies).
Kim
“Equality of opportunity” is a bit of meaningless agitprop, shamlessly copied and pasted from Xianity, whose only practical implication is equality of outcome.
Robert
I must say it is has been many a moon since I have seen a journo talk about “the Left.” We are all “Progressives” now, you see.