One of the most pernicious aspects of public discourse in the Howard era has been the theme of “elites v. the people”, exposed for the nonsense it is, as I pointed out, by Christopher Pearson’s use of it to slavishly defend Howard’s unprincipled vote buying while dropping learned references to seventeenth century French theological disputes. David Marr was pilloried by all the usual suspects for his argument in his Quarterly Essay, His Master’s Voice: The Corruption of Public Debate under Howard. Marr was taken by the editorialists at The Government Gazette to be complaining that he lacked a voice. That was patently absurd, but it was also a disingenuous distortion of Marr’s actual argument - public debate has been corrupted because those who dissent from conservative norms are either abused endlessly or just ignored. The last thing that anyone gets is engagement with ideas - precisely the kernel of what public debate ought to constitute in a liberal society. Perhaps there was once a time when public debate was monopolised by a circle of left liberals - that’s what I take to be Mark Davis’ complaint. But that time has gone, and we’re now seeing any sort of political debate thoroughly debased. This is apparent not just in what’s said but what’s not reported. And it’s here - around issues of moment such as the treatment of Mohamed Haneef and the so-called Indigenous emergency - that the Opposition also has a role to play in maintaining a space for argument, scrutiny and rationality, a space that under the reign of Kevin07 has been declared redundant. Here are two very powerful public interventions about just those two topics that you won’t read about in the newspapers - Christine Milne’s passionate speech in the foreshortened parliamentary debate on the Northern Territory bills and Julian Burnside’s address to a public meeting in Brisbane last week. Neither has been reported or commented on - because the media increasingly takes note of dissent only when it’s a useful foil for ad hominems and the reinforcement of prevalent orthodox themes. Otherwise, it’s just ignored. Fortunately, we have intertubes.
Update: Please note the link to Burnside’s speech points to a site that’s down - you can access the file here instead.
Is there a danger that the intertubes becomes the only location of real political debate, so that the uninterested aren’t even exposed to it anymore?
What’s worse - to have one side or the other monopolise debate, or to have all debate shunted off to the blogosphere where it can be conveniently ignored?
I have no sound at the moment, so couldn’t listen to the Burnside speech.
Christine Milne’s senate speech is extremely powerful. What is happening to this country that two such disparate things can be considered in the one piece of legislation. If they truly believed that this would work why not confiscate the land/assets of all child abusers?
.. the Opposition … has a role to play in maintaining a space for argument, scrutiny and rationality
Uh, no. The Opposition has a role to play in getting itself out of Opposition and into Government. I don’t like all this “me tooism” much either - you’re right that it’s allowing the terms of debate to be sharply narrowed. But it will make Kevin Rudd PM.
My real worry with Rudd is not that he might be being cynical but that he might be being honest - that is, that he genuinely is a narrow minded elitist stick-in-the-mud. If I wanted one of those for PM I’d vote for Howard.
It’s a good question, Lyn.
DD, I want to see Howard gone too, obviously. But I think that the failure to oppose does do severe damage to the maintenance of liberal standards and norms - it’s only the minor parties who point out the abhorrent aspects of these executive actions (and let’s be real - parliamentary scrutiny is a joke now), and they’re struggling to make an impact on the media at the best of times. Over the course of the Howard era, the “whatever works” principle has taken hold. Of course much of this so-called “pragmatic” policy doesn’t, but then it’s designed far more to get headlines and as a political tactic.
I do think there’s enormous danger in an opposition which won’t defend basic things like the recourse of citizens to courts and equal treatment under the law.
Oh as to your real worry, keep worrying!
derrida derider
Your less sunny assessment is spot on. Rudd is flying dangerously close to Beazley’s ‘fly under the radar’ strategy. The big test will be when the economic policy gloves come off. I fear that both Rudd and Gillard will make total tits of themselves. If they do scrape into government, then the fact that the ALP is an anachronism with absolutely nothing uniting its MPs, apart from shared desire to appear on television.
Mark,
As you know, there is a wide range of ideas that are what you could call ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ (as opposed to conservative) norms. Dissent from these norms is no less susceptible to abuse, ridicule and ignorance. The forces of conservatism haven’t even come close to monopolising public debate in this country. Hence a healthy degree of negative press coverage and spirited public debate about your two nominated issues, the Haneef case and the NT indigenous ‘emergency’.
I think you are simply mistaking a lack of engagement with certain ideas with a considered view that those ideas are, well, crap. It’s not a corruption of public debate when bad ideas are dismissed.
This brings me to the next point: it is a tired ploy that both sides of politics indulge in to complain about social and political processes, rather than have a discussion of the inherent merits of this or that policy. There is more than a little irony in that. For obvious reasons, it is now Teh Left’s turn to engage in this rubbish, hence so much talk about crumbling democracy and the corruption of public debate. It is a delegitimisation process engaged in by the political losers, rather than a feature of the genuine battle of ideas. Post-election, you will see the same stuff out of the new political losers, the Liberal Party and their acolytes. Prepare for endless recycling of the old ‘PC thugs’ canard.
Cheers
BBB
I sometimes feel like the last liberal in this country under forty, BBB.
Where is it so outrageously partisan to point out that Haneef was denied due process by executive fiat, and that the legislation before Parliament at the moment denies any right of appeal, fails to specify what compensation will be given for the compulsory acquisition of property rights, treats people unequally according to their race, sequesters money from those who haven’t abused it, etc, etc, etc?
I don’t understand why a bigger deal isn’t made of these issues either. It also frightens me that the opposition once in government may be no different to what we currently put up with. It appears that all of society, or at least those with a public voice, have moved considerably to the right. While a large part of the community live in world of ‘I’m alright, so I don’t care’.
i think we are being a bit unfair on the alp for lying low on these contentious issues.the way the msm,especially the GG shrieks in support of the gov. would scare the hell out of the uninterested majority of voters.the main game for now is to piss this sinster old rodent off for good.
I’d like to see Howard gone, and I agree with dd that the election has to be his first priority. You just have to hope that if he wins it turns out that he really did disagree with a lot of what Howard’s done. Good news on the uranium for India front on that score today.
Meanwhile, the precedents this government has set for just about everything from avoiding debate and responsibility to buggering the public service and stacking everything in sight are equally dangerous in Labor hands.
Howard hasn’t won a single election on the strength of good policy, so why should Rudd? Surely the Libs thought through the possibility that what they’ve done could equally be done by their opposition one day?
Surely?
Anyone?
Mark,
I’m not sure it matters whether pointing out those things is outrageously partisan or not. But if you’re worried about being called partisan because you hold and express a certain viewpoint, then I’d suggest you need to, in the words of a great humanitarian, harden the f*ck up. Just don’t take your eye of the ball by b!tching about the unfairness of public debate. This is what made the ‘PC thugs’ campaign so objectionable. It basically boiled down to: I don’t like it when I’m ridiculed for my unfashionable political views. Pansies.
All in all it’s a massive distraction, if only because the quality of public debate is in the eye of the beholder.
Cheers
BBB
That is another irony that the people most concerned with the decay of society can not contemplate such a thing outside of a politically conservative framework. I think it is going to take a generation for any civility to be built back into Australian Society after the damage done to the fabric of society ministers acting out of self interest ahead of principle.
It may well not be different enough under Rudd but a change of emphasis will be a refreshing start. I can just imagine where Whitlam is accused of going too fast the Rudd could well get himself accusations of being too conservative and too slow moving.
Well, in answer to those two comments:
I have no great confidence that a Rudd government won’t be authoritarian and heavy handed. The guy has form. That’s one reason why it’s so disturbing that any expressions of liberal sentiment from the Opposition benches are currently being quashed - and civil rights and protections are not handed down from the heavens, let alone entrenched in our constitution but their need and their fundamental role as the underpinning of our liberal democracy needs constant emphasis and reinforcement.
Crossed with steve - whose first para I agree with!
I also thought that professor Ian Lowe had a lot of good stuff to say on that night at the public meeting and it probably deserves its own thread.
The funniest thing happening now in the endless denigration of “elites” is that those noted leftists at the CIS are now running seminars “in praise of elites”. Obviously, you have to be the right kind of elite to avoid criticism. Being the left kind is incorrect. If your “right elitism” includes dodgy statistics promoting the genetic superiority of de white man, you’re A-OK!
I wasn’t there, steve, hence the link to barry’s post. If you can locate a summary and/or transcript, I’m happy to link to it.
Thank you for the post and the links Mark.
This is a most sincere thanks.
And thank you also to Christine Milne [and Mick Dodson].
That is why I vote Greens.
And leaflet for them and handout HTV cards.
The last hope for democracy in this mess.
Now I’m off to read your other links.
Political debate? There is none and while the Opposition continues on its low profile course, Howard et al just might win this election by default.
I totally agree with David Marr - there is no debating John Howard. His mind is set in concrete and his contempt for ordinary citizens and electors is palpable.
Should he lead the Coalition to the forthcoming election and win, this country may come to wish that he had been drowned at birth.
Similarly with Malcolm Turnbull.
BBB, to much of your argument I would agree.
But the media are a bunch of hypocritical arses. For example, a few weeks ago, Germaine Greer has a piece published that severely criticised the Princess Of Wales for a number of personal failings, adding to this an excellently erudite viewpoint about the tragedic figure of the Princess Of Wales throughout English history. A few days later the Australian had an opinion piece which severely excoriated Greer for daring to criticise the ‘people’s princess’. It was total schlock and completely missed Greer’s point. However, the piece originally appeared in … The Australian.
Nothing in any of that really. I’m know that Dr. Greer is no shrinking violet and can more than defend herself. I’m also sure she enjoyed her News Ltd paycheck. But if the Australian’s offical opinion really was that Greer is completely out-of-bounds in the matter I can only hold my breath to see which editor they sack for this egregious breach of editorial policy. Of course, there’ll never be such a thing. Rational, balanced, debate is not what sells newspapers. It’s all about the shock-value.
And this is something we all should decry. No matter our individual points of view.
Really, what hope is there for any sane thinking when we have Ministers getting up in front of the National Media and telling us that Land Rights have impoverished Aborigines. They were impoverished well before the Mabo decision Mal and will be further impoverished by the likes of Brough being allowed to do what he does. It is the whole of the Howard Government that is impoverishing Australia is the obvious response. What other section of society would lose land without compensation?
HISTORIC land rights decisions like Mabo have impoverished Aborigines, not freed or empowered them, federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough said today.
Mr Brough told the National Press Club in Canberra that he believed the High Court’s Mabo and Wik decisions, which delivered land rights to indigenous people, were “very important”.
“But what got lost in the debate was people thought it was the holy grail, that releasing land would free people and empower people,” he said.
“It’s done just the opposite.
“It’s actually impoverished them.”
Mr Brough said the land rights decisions have locked people into collective tenure.
“We need to actually recognise that communism didn’t work, collectivism didn’t work,” he said.
“It doesn’t work to say a collective owns it and you don’t have anything.”
Mr Brough said ownership of land needed to be properly mixed with economic opportunity.
“If we get that balance right, people will flourish.”
Meanwhile, the Government today refused to amend its Northern Territory intervention laws to ensure Aboriginal people are compensated for losing control of their land under the terms outlined by the constitution.
Well of course. it was most refreshing I must say to see the CIS sponsorship of a ringing call for a return the right kind of elitism. If Mr Murray’s views and approached are adopted we can all rest assured that those who rule do so because they truly deserve to. If I understand the interview he did recently on Radio National, the trouble with all this egalitarianism, is that it fails to engender the proper respect for the real elites who rule, because they are, well the talented 1%!
It’s good top know that the war on all those who are not members supporters and contributers to the CIS and its franchises in the Anglo sphere has now shifted from matters of genetic coding going to skin colour, and has been firmly settled on position in social heirarchy. Most satisfying, I must say. I guess that is what is meant by ‘progressive thought’ in the CIS. Now the real war can begin, on the undeserving losers who simply refuse to understand their real and genetically coded place in the scheme of things.
The elites-vs-masses thing didn’t work for the communists, and it won’t work for the right either. Nothing is funnier than hearing the fruity voice of Professor David Flint denouncing elites. Hint: if Janette Howard has invited you for drinkies at her public housing facility in Kirribilli, you’re elite. If you’re on the board of the ABC, you’re elite. Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt or Gerard Henderson are every bit as much part of the chattering classes as those they denounce. Many people make that linkage, start making it yourself and watch them fade.
John, you underestimate the fact that the Treasurer is politically dead, a significant disadvantage for a government seeking re-election.
Christine Milne’s speech shows everything that is wrong for what passes as ‘opposition’ in this country, especially when it comes to race. Howard’s proposals are clearly racist. But here is someone opposing it, supporting a system of segregation - on racial lines, supporting a report that focuses on behavioural problems of indigenous people – on racial lines, a report whose 97 recommendations would do not one thing to stop a white miner, say, from paying for underage sex as it claims is happening. A report that does not even bother to give aboriginal parents the onus of proof which any white parent would expect before intervention (despite Brough’s office admitting that 500 medical checks have so far not led to a single police referral).
With a left like that, no wonder Australia is regarded as a racist country around the world.
Hmmm, I’m not convinced Andrew E. You’d be surprised what an election campaign can do for an incumbent’s image. And anyway, we had this discussion back in 2004 and the post-election consensus seemed to be that Costello was a net positive for the Government. Leadership talk is probably as marginal now and it was then.
Cheers
BBB
Lefty E, I have deleted both your comments about the Morgan phone poll.
It’s really giving me the shits, lately, that people post political updates completely unrelated to the subject of the post. I don’t know why we bother writing anything - we could just have a forum for discussion of political news. Please post that sort of thing in future either on the open Saturday Salon thread or on a thread where it’s germane. I’ve been pointing this out repeatedly on various threads, and I’m tired of having to repeat it, so I’m just going to delete from now on.
You’re right about it being pernicious Mark. I think its part of a US led attempt to dumb the public down, so we don’t ask too many questions or raise too many objections.
Howard sides with the average man on the street because that’s precisely what he is. I think nobby is right. Rudd cannot afford to appear to be in any way too radically different from Howard until such time as he is home and hosed. Costello practically handed Rudd the election when he announced in Parliament that “the Leader of the Opposition’s greatest wish is to be a Liberal”. I think that was exactly what the majority of voters want to hear, that nothing terribly much will change for them personally, but they cans till get what they want –a change of Government.
Rudd needs to win the election and then be heavily pressured into engaging intellectuals in public discourse, without the risk of them losing favour and funding, (as has been the case under Howard). Rudd might lean towards the right on the political spectrum within the ALP but Gillard and say, Garrett most certainly don’t. It is clearly futile when no election is pending to get incumbents to listen. For three years (or eleven) they become a law unto themselves. Even if Rudd is circumspect about admitting any major differences now, is there a way, while he is still vulnerable of making sure that he does actually address these issues? Our only other hope perhaps is for Independents, Greens and Democrats to hold a balance of power.
As Abraham Maslow quite sensibly suggested, we should look to the best and the brightest in our society for advice and guidance, and not allow ourselves to be dragged into stuff and nonsense by the lowest common denominator.
PS. I heard a rumour this arvo, from a source close to the seat, that Turnbull is sweating on the prospect of losing his! Sorry, O.T. couldn’t help it.
Sadly true and good post.
I call it ‘Willful Ignorance’, which for some bizarre reasons (only the gods understand) has become an element of the national character over recent times… and doesn’t it show to those who have the eyes to see.
The ‘national debate’ is delusional most of the time, but counts to the extent that this is the closest most come to being (ill)informed.
Some people won’t be held back from investigating the story behind the stories either.
I agree public discourse has decayed. But active opposition to these proposals would be crazy. Get elected, and then stop introducing them. Get elected, and then you have some ability to reframe debate. For example, Howard played down his uber-anti immigrant beliefs, only to get elected and then take them up while reframing political debate. The left can do the same, but in reverse.
Reframing is a lot better than negating populist policy. Negating populist policy is a one-way ticket to permanent opposition. Since when has anyone won anything on “principle”. That idea is bullshit and ahistorical.
Rudd is doing the right thing. Keep the ship steady. Don’t take any risks now!
Mark B. says:
The liberal-Left has had a stranglehold on the cultural apparatus of elite media for most of the past generation. THere is plenty of evidence for this, just look at the roll-call of liberal-Left voices in the metro op-ed pages. Only in the Australian do Right wing voices get a regular hearing. Hence Mark B.’s obsessional vendetta with that newspapers officers.
Just today, I see that that the bastion of the liberal-Left culturalism, the ABC, has just produced another candidate for the ALP. You could just about fill a cricket team with the number of liberal-Left ABC journos who have made the cross-over to the Left-wing side of politics. Bolt digs the dirt:
Does not sound to me as if “those who dissent from conservative norms are either abused endlessly or just ignored”. Sounds like that the media-political pinko tide is running only one way, to flood.
I can agree on Mark B. on one matter. “Public debate is corrupted” when the national broadcaster becomes a graduate school for the apparatus of one, and only one, political party.
Sorry all, I’m in election world. No meaningful interaction on other topics till poll day!
I must plead guilty - even now I couldnt tell you what this thread is about. Mark had to email me so Id even notice his comment.
Jeebus, Im like Antony Green with Aspergers. Only less well informed on poll matters.
So, see other obsessives on relevant election threads, or at Poll Bludger!
as you were….
Maybe the first step for those so interested in stimulating debate is to stop blaming others like Howard, Rudd the US etc. etc. but take a little tougher look at what passes as the alternative debate itself. Christine Milne and the Greens certainly aren’t it. They are just orthodoxy posing as radicals.
There is an announcement at the end of this post - I believe the issue is very relevant and indicates a deeper problem, or at least a broader problem as it relates to Queensland.
The new paradigm of politics at the federal level, such as the non-scrutinisation of the Aboriginal emergency legislation, has developed quickly since the last federal election and the government got control of the senate. The knobbling of the house of review, either as a consequence or a cause is didectly related to the lack of political discussion.
The impact of this is still trickling down through the public service who are becoming more politicised and less accountable.
In Queensland there has not been an upper house for a long time. In the Joh days we used to make the connection between Petersen’s iron rule and Queensland’s one chamber parliament. But since Goss we seem to have forgotton about this and failed to see the same Joh Paradigm unfolding in Qld’s public service.
There are many examples of “reform” since Goss - prisons, police, child welfare, and more I cant remember. But how succesful have these reforms been beyond cabinet media releases?.
We have politicised police demanding not just industrial demands such as wages or equipment - which I support, but they are also pushing for changes to criminal law including mandatory incarceration for assault against police. this is a dangerous and improper role for the police. The judiciary and criminal law should not be subjected to political pressure by police. The police union, not the commissioner or media liason unit, was the source of media information about the recent shooting of a policeman. The union, who represent the officers at the scene, including legal representation of them if there was any problems announced that the gunmand died of a self inflicted gun shot (but witnesses said there were several shots heard). Why is the police union which has no investigative capacity, only police interests to defend, the primary source of information about the shootings.
Fitzgerald was supposed to de-politicise the police!
Beatties crusade to save children and the establishment of the Child safety department has major problems because it is under resourced and staffed. It is failing just as spectacularly as the family services department before it did.
The reforms of the last 20 years have not got a foothold in the public service.
The public service in Qld. is now an out of control, directionless power unto itself.
The public service has forgotten about notions of accountability and checks and balances.
There is not even a real opposition in Queensland.
Fine ideas of debate and scrutiny are irrelevant.
Anyway, that was a long winded introduction to this message.
****Picket to demand justice for people with intellectual disabilities and their families. (Brisbane*****)
There will be a picket next Wednesday, the 29 August 2007 at 9.00 am. outside the Brisbane Magistrate’s Court, 240 Roma St. Brisbane to demand reform of the Queensland Office of the Adult Guardian.
The picket will be opened by a traditional Aboriginal dance from Baganan Kurityityin Theresa Creed.
There will be an open forum during the picket chaired by Drew Hutton. All are welcome to speak.
more info - http://paradigmoz.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/picket-to-demand-justice-for-people-with-intellectual-disabilities-and-their-families-brisbane/
an excerpt from the paradigm Oz link
“At present Queensland’s Guardianship and Administration Act allows for no accountability or scrutiny from anyone. Even the Attorney General, the elected parliamentarian and member of the state executive whose department the Adult Guardian is a part of , is legislatively unable to demand information and reports from the Adult Guardian or initiate any official investigation of any sort.”
John, thanks for that, but in general we’d prefer people to post a link and summarise a notice like that rather than write at length. Helps keeps the free flow of the discussion going.
Mark B says:
Mark is clutching at a very thin and reedy straw if he thinks that by pouncing pouncing on one learned, but obscure, reference made by a single commentator he can “expose [the elitist v populist” paradigm] for the nonsense that it is”.
THe “elitist v populist” paradigm is more than a journalistic construct. It exists sporadically in the populus and epidemically in the elite. This was established by Katharine Betts research on the Great Divide. The ALP is no longer a party that can rely on the vote of the “labouring class” of tradesmen or even blue collar workers in some cases.
But the elitist-populist paradigm is getting less plausible as most parts of the political elite slide towards cultural populism, whilst the Right clings toa rather exposed and ridiculed form of financial elitism. This will not please either the Bahnisch’s or Pearson’s of this world.
Anti-elitism is the major reason why the populus voted against the elites in a series of polls throughout the nineties: against financial elites in 1993 “Feral Abacus” election, against the cultural elites in the 1996 “For All of Us” election and the political elite in the 1999 Republic referrendum. In each case the populus rejected, correctly IMHO, the preferred policy option of the relevant upper-strata.
The shameful AUS tendency towards tall-poppy lopping syndrome probably had something to do with this levelling tendency. But there was also a genuine rational popular rejection of elitist jiggery-pokery. Deconstructionism, post-modernism, multiculturalism, derivative trading, private equity, botique hedge funds and so on, it all stinks to high heaven to the noses of common sense people.
THis elitist-populist paradigm presents problems for ideologues because it transcends, or rather straddles, the one-sided partisan ideological frame. As Pr Quiggin says
The upshot of this is that both sides of politics have stymied each other in their populist poses to the electorate at large. Yet neither wants to admit to their elitist base.
The Right-wing courts the populist vote by pillorying cultural elites, who have been pumping out ideological garbage and foolishly tinkering with useful institutions for more than a generation. The populus got the message and in 1996 there was a right-wing reaction against the ruinations of ATSIC et al.
THe Left-wing courts the populist vote by pillorying corrupt financial elites who have been conspiring to rip off the system for more than a generation. The populus gets the message and we are now getting a left-wing reaction against the depredations of Macquarie Bank, Work Choices.
The elitist paradigm is also complicated by the general shift of Right-wing elites towards cultural populism whilst attempting to cling onto financial elitism. This is typified by the Howard govt which openly avows nationalist conservatism whilst covertly trying to sneak “financialist” constructivism through the back door (tax-free super, work choices).
The “Decline of the Wets” means that pretty much all major political groupings have slid back towards national conservatism, as evinced by Rudd’s rejection of liberal-Leftism. No doubt the next election will see some political shift towards “The Decline of the Scrooges”, with financial elites forced into more congruence with the populus.
I too want Rudd to win this election and am willing to sit back and accept everything he has to say and do to get there. Winning moral battles but losing the election is pointless. He can be all that he needs to be after the election. He can rectify the indigenous legislation and so forth.
You only ever get an opposition party engaging in genuine debate [without the wedge politics] with the government when it is not an election year.
Our political system is showing all the signs of being dysfunctional. Ministerial advisers who exercise power without accountability, Question Time a platform for Ministers to boast, a compliant and partisan press, Ministers with no recognisable code of behavour. Under the rules as they now exist, pretence that any politician can be judged by statements of intent are fraught, forget what is said and vote based on what they do. If they are found to be untrustworthy based on what they do as opposed to what they said—- vote them out.
Mark B. says:
I am staggered by Mark B’s janus-faced cultural analysis.
On the one hand Mark B. proudly insists that the AUS public sphere is not more prone to coservative nationalism now than it was a decade ago. So the Wets are still alive and kicking, “a tide of social liberalism” is just about to flow.
On the other hand Mark B. degectedly laments that AUS public sphere is a souless wasteland of conservative shock-jockery or corrupted discourse. So the Wets are down and out and are all swimming desperately “against the tide”.
Now he cant have it both ways. Which is it to be, “Long Live the Wets” or “Rest in Peace the Wets”? Perhaps I am taking Mark’s hysterical mood swings a little too seriously.
Elitism for the people!
What’s the basis for the assumption that Rudd would lose politically by taking a stand? Have people convinced themselves that Australia really is a right wing country and the best any Labor leader can do is sneak into office?
Nostalgia for a new generation!
sorry
Up Down!
Mark the question of why the ALP does not make a stand has been discussed widely within lefty circles.
I remember a few days after the ‘04 election some fella on late night live with Phillip pointing out that the Greens had done well despite being painted as loonies, a green senator, forget who, had stated that the ALP needed to become less bland, Garrett’s vote was above the received level for the ALP [he was consider a lefty…god help us]and generally speaking there was a move to brighten the party up. But it came to nought pretty darn quickly.
They are scared.
Scared of the media mainly.
Say anything and the GG and co. will crucify them.
Ditto TV, never forget “More people get their news from Channel 9 than any other source”.
Government by media.
The pollies know it.
If a polly doesn’t get [positive ] media coverage they don’t exist.
You have shown why today.
A major and eloquent political speech is unreported and instead we get bumff about who said what when, personality trivia.
The dumbing down of debate. Silencing dissent.
Who has more political power Rupert or Kerry [well,his successors] or Johnny or the trio of power brokers, Morgan etal, that will get their nuclear toys?
No simple answer.
Except that Rupert has seen.. how many PMs come and go?
You know all this better than me.
So what does some poor polly who just wants to get his/her bum on the seat do?
Speak up, take a stand, be principled, talk policy not sound bite?
Nup.
“We’ll get in and THEN we’ll be wonderful!”
Yeah sure.
Can you imagine an ALPer making Milne’s speech? Too scared to cos they are just this far away from being in.
Nearly there.
Don’t rock the boat.
Be patient.
Tomorrow.
And if they do get in.
Don’t rock the boat or we’ll get out.
Its endless.
A culture of caution and cowardice.
Rant over.
Sorry.
No need to apologise hannah!
Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be!
Mark on 15 August 2007 at 10:09 pm
“The basis for the assumption that Rudd would lose politically by taking a stand” is that liberal-Left parties and leaders are in electoral decline. The DEMSs are in slow-motion implosion. And the GREENs are lack-lustre electoral performers when they stray off ecological message.
More than 2/3 of the population were behind Howard during the Tampa/911 crisis in 2001. Had Beazley “taken a stand” on that issue the bulk of the ALP would have been wiped out in a repetition of 1996. Those were the days when the Cultural Left still pretended that Australia was a liberal-Left country.
Mark B. is just about the last AUS political commentator still flogging the liberal-Leftist dead horse. The actual merits of Tampa, Haneef, indigenous intervention are not really the fudamental issue. The issue is radical popular distrust of cultural elites.
That is why any amount net roots agit-prop is going to save Haneef et al. On an analagous issue there is no way that govt-funded advertising is going to save “Work Choices”. Respective elites are beyond redemption.
I suspect a fair bit of schadenfreude is being stirred up by the spectacle of HREOC’s Marus Einfeld and Macquarie Bank’s Ian Chalmers getting well-deserved come-uppance.
People have turned off the Political Correctness and Economic Rationalism message, no doubt owing to the treacherous tales of their own ‘lyin eyes,on the street and on the shop floor. You can fool some of the people some of the time…
The corruption of the public debate by this appalling mob of control freaks is well demonstrated by Julie Bishops latest attempt to shut down debate and micro manage education by wading into the Rock Eistedford here in NSW. Apparently a group of High School students dared to put on an act critical of the Iraq war. Bishop claimed that she was concerned because it was contrary to the “healthy lifestyle/anti drug message” & intent of the Rock Eistedford concept. Interestingly, she was completely unconcerned about other acts which were also unrelated to this message, including one about Kokoda. She really had to be heard to be believed. Am I the only person convinced she’s absolutely, irretrievably nuts? Unfortunately she’s not the only one!
These people have way too much spare time.
Post on that issue here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/08/15/more-from-the-minister-for-patronising-minors/
Well if we’re now playing JackStraws, I chose “obsessional vendetta”.
Whatever Jack. At least mini-J’s contributions can be scrolled over a lot quicker.
Shame you missed the Synchrotron opening party Jack. It was quite a magnetically enhanced hoot. All Australia’s real science players were there except you.
Or perhaps it’s because it’s the same old tosh by the same old tossers. They’ve been banging the same violins since 2001 for gawd’s sake.
Flog me!
Naaaay!
There is a place for minor parties. For example I can’t see why the labor party has to champion green issues, we have the Greens for that. I can’t see why the labor party it to be held in contempt because they focus on getting into power over being wedged ( or if you like pointing out the policy failures of the current government, when looked from a liberal point of view).
I define wedging as a party being forced to take a position on something that is contentious within their support base. I want Howard out because I believe he thinks it is acceptable to destroy peoples lives to stay in power; but I am a realist; a lot of people don’t care; a lot of people prefer “better safe than sorry” not realizing that that statement undermines the values that have made western society the success it is.
The problem for liberals is the Liberal party has been taken over by a bunch of conservatives, the democrats don’t know who they are and we are watching the labor party morph, where it all ends up who knows. Perhaps Labor will become the new liberal party, if it does I will be joining it. Perhaps the Liberals will lose this election so badly the conservatives will be kicked out and the party can swing back to it’s name. I don’t know.
One thing for sure, those of us interested in politics and not a member of a political party are to blame for this mess ( that includes me), lack of member interest is what allowed the liberal party to be hyjacked. I suspect Labor is suffering the same problem; what we don’t know is the political views of the hyjacker.
Not only has the substance and tone of debate declined, but so has the sartorial flair. Doesn’t anyone wear hotpants to parliament anymore? Think Don Dunstan, circa 1973.
I like the cut of your jib there missy.
Enjoy this swingin’ sonic commentary on funkin’ parlimentary procedure in return.
Thanks Nabakov, that was a gas.
I’m an expat peering down the intertubes at all this from Japan, and my franchise ran out long ago, but I’m on the edge of my seat nonetheless. Manically sympathizing with both sides of the me too debate. Yes yes, anything to see the back of the rodent … but then what?
And btw where HAVE all the flowers - and the hotpants - gone? What’s with the dull grey pall hanging over public debate? I left Australia when Hawk was still in power, so reading today’s Australian is necessarily a surreal experience, but by far the worst thing is the endless lying/flying low and pulling of punches on the other side of politics, the dreary bloodless shuffle-dance with the devil.
Oh, my.
Come back to Australia, Lisa E. We need you here.
Yes, it is fucking dull now, especially as filtered through the MSM. All the usual suspects, across the political spectrum, relentessly repeating received wisdom and getting comfortably controversial (”Time to say goodbye to the Sixties”) or elephantinely droll about trivalities (”Does Melbounre have too many bars?”)..
There have been worthy attempts in Australia like the Deakin Lectures in Victoria to frame public debate as a bigger and smarter excercise.
But ultimately, it’s the best of the web nowadays where you find most of the most well informed and passionate debates and discussions going on about topics that really stir millions - , leavened here and there by sometimes quality, sometimes not quality barracking from Bay 13
Some recent example include the recent thread here on anal sex here that really tried to get to the bottom of both the practice’s physiolological and pyschological implications and a current thread at Aftergrogblog where the whole Murali chucking thing is now being discussed in very informed detail by folks who can racously and correctly correct the sportscasters.
I can’t think of any MSM outlet anywhere where such dialogues could have unfolded with such informed brio.
I’m sorry, what was the question again?
The electorate has always been responsive to fear-mongering and populist crap. Tabloid journalism has intensified this as they are sure to scream about any politician who takes a stand. In a sense, the rise of mass media has increased democratisation by exposing the professional new classes (lawyers, bureaucrats) to popular scrutiny. This increased democratisation is unfortunate, because many members of the public just aren’t very well informed. However, contra Jack, I don’t think cultural conservatism has actually increased, I think it’s slowly declining. But it still is a majority, and the rise of media populism has given the majority a greater voice - even when the majority is fearful and misinformed. This is only a temporary condition, however, as the public are slowly tending towards social liberalism.
BBB, Costello was a net positive because he had economic credibility. That’s gone now. The piking was a positive in 2004 because it meant he stayed as Treasurer with a steady hand on the wheel. The piking is a negative today because the economy isn’t what it was, the opposition aren’t that scary and the press have ganged up on Costello such that no message he sends will be well received. One of the govt’s big guns has been silenced.
But, we’ll see. Election campaigns don’t necessarily lift incumbents - Malcolm Fraser seemed to be doing quite well until the day he called the 1983 election, then the wheels fell off.
Show me a society which rejects/ignores US leadership which encouraged smarting the public up, where people asked plenty of questions and raised objections. Go on Link, do!
Dead right Link, and that’s why people on this thread who claim Rudd = Howard Jr, not going to vote Labor etc. are mistaken. Whether you give them first preference or second, you should give Rudd the benefit of the doubt, a benefit Howard does not deserve.
Pressured, how? What threats, what inducements? At whose expense?
The Greens don’t necessarily have the best policies on environmental issues, even though they may seem to specialise in that area. If Labor want to be a party of government they have to take positions on issues which affect government. What you’re calling for is a segmentation of debate.
Mark contends that “public debate has been corrupted because those who dissent from conservative norms are either abused endlessly or just ignored.”
Then we have from pre-dawn elitist on Julie Bishop - “Am I the only person convinced she’s absolutely, irretrievably nuts? Unfortunately she’s not the only one!
These people have way too much spare time.”
Pot this is effing kettle, over.
And then we have Lyn stating that “Howard hasn’t won a single election on the strength of good policy.”
Well . . . I’d beg to disagree on that the GST election was fought on policy - good policy and won.
i think the problem you lefties have is that in the pst you got away almost scott free. Nowadays the Right have learnt well the lessons from the Left and the Left don’t like getting it served back to them.
Get over your selves.
oops, looks like my host forgot to renew my domain name. If you want to access the video link above, it’s here.
Razor, to the degree that your comment is worthy of a serious response (”get over yourselves”…) I’d point out that I am distinguishing in the post between public debate in the MSM and blogosphere debate.
There have been many excellent speeches in Parliament about the NT ‘National Emergency’ Bill intervention. What’s come through loud and clear is that control of both houses gives rise to unbelievable arrogance - the Government’s refusals to pass ANY amendments, even when the bill is clearly worded poorly, and even when they have recommendations form their own inquiry committee. Oh and the refusal to hand over the legal advice which allegedly said that just terms=reasonable compensation. I don’t see the mainstream media reporting this.
Given the public ignorance about what the legislation will mean in terms of absolute control of Aborigines’ lives and theft of their property rights - and the MSM’s lack of interest in this - I say through gritted teeth that perhaps Labor was right to resist the wedge; they would have been portrayed as supporters of child abuse. But since the first wedge failed, we have the new wedge — promise to keep the intervention going. Luckily Labor has given itself a few outs - by the proposed amendments to the legislation, including a review after a year, ‘just terms’ compensation; getting rid of exempting the laws from the Racial Discrimination Act; keeping ??bringing back??the permit system. And they supported some amendments from other parties. So, with luck if they do get in at the end of the year, they will be able to put money where it needs to go - housing and jobs and police - and not pour it down the drain of more Centrelink officials.
David on 16 August 2007 at 9:20 am
Spot the fallacy. I will save all the trouble, since no one ever went broke underestimating degree to which logical niceties are observed on this site.
If more people are better informed by “the rise of new mass media” then it most definitely does not follow that “the public just aren’t very well informed”.
David’s notion that “increased democratisation is unfortunate” because “the professional new classes (lawyers, bureaucrats) [are exposed] to popular scrutiny” offers an illuminating insight into the insufferably elitist mind-set of the Wets.
David says:
No. There is no “slow tendency towards social liberalism”. Occam, equipped with his Razor, would explain the public ignorance and contempt for the views of Burnside and Milne by pointing out that most people are unwilling to believe a con job second time over, no matter how many heart-strings are tugged or how much talk is sweetened. We had that soft-soap lathered up for us over a decade ago and it only brought tears before bed-time.
David and Mark seem to think Occam went about his business with a blunt instrument, which perhaps explains there chronic inability to face plain facts.
Just today we have the example of the council in a remote, predominantly Aboriginal, Queensland town imposing a curfew on “unruly youth” who vandalise public property and terrorise the community. The officials seem to be eerily channelling Strocchi-verse mind waves:
As I have repeatedly said, the problem in remote communities is anomie (and it is not soley a black problem). What people need is the Law extending its writ beyond the dole office.
I have done a lot of travel through outback NSW and NT and I can testify to such outrages. You people need to get out more. For some commenters this is just a philosophy debate or a matter of showing ideological solidarity with a losing cause. For those struggling at the battle front it is a matter of survival.
David, you have the right to be wrong about the Decline of the Wets. And I for one, in the spirit of democratic disclosure, am the last person to stop you embarassing yourself with such self-evident nonsense.
If you agree to write shorter comments, Jack, I’ll buy you a copy of Australian Social Attitudes 2003 and you can find all the empirical evidence you ever need that social liberalism is on the increase. Hang on, without the “Decline of the Wets” ubernarrative you’d have to write shorter comments.
Jack
I have said it once and I will say it again. The LABOR Party was taken over by Luvvies. However, Pauline Hanson gave oxygen to the near boiling point resentment that the majority of Australians had towards the resentful, bitter, sneering condescension of the tenured-luvvies on Australian cultural life.
The Luvvies are still pecking and scratching, and swooping down on any whiff of “racism,” “Islamophobia,” “orientali