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,” “orientalism,” “reconciliation,” “UN Human Rights,” “Hillsong.” “phonics,” “the canon,” but they are increasingly talking to the Hand, coz the rest of the nation has moved on.
Mark
Y’all loathe Jack’s interminible ‘cultural left’ analyses and my highlighting your luvvie hypocrisies and incoherence, because in your heart of hearts you know it is so on the money.
The prospect of having “to lose your religion” once more (after throwing in the towel on economics and politics in the 1980s), understandably causes excruciating anxiety.
Jack has this really weird thing for Occam and blunt instruments…
The public is becoming better informed of the behaviours of the professional new classes, but they are not better informed about the actual issues the professional classes are addressing. This is because there is a clear market in whipping up resentment, but not a market in educating the masses about the problems.
A good example is provided by a tome of research on attitudes towards criminal sentences. You ask people in the abstract and they will say ‘oh judges are too lenient’. But when you take them through the complications of specific cases they are shown to be the same or *more lenient* than judges.
The fact that the masses clamour for higher sentences (although this tendency is now in decline) is not due to a radical cultural divide, but simply due to the fact that they are not as well informed as judges. This is because they get all their information from soundbites. Human beings are more responsive to spontaneous fear than learning complexities. As the commercial media have a vested interest in getting a response (as opposed to accurate reporting), there is systemic distortion in the information that the masses are basing their decisions on. But this is certainly *not* an indication that their actual values are becoming more conservative. In fact the opposite is true.
See, I actually thought that the whole control-and-disempower thing was a con job, and that it had been tried before to tragic results. They aren’t dead, the liberals, just sleeping and while rights will have to be reconfigured they won’t/can’t disappear.
Take you point with the particular case Mark, but if a thread requires a long post, and the software will accept it, a long post is what you’ll get. Maybe you can post a long and considered piece followed by a series of lite-brite-n-trite comments, but it wouldn’t be much of a blog and would certainly fall short of your espoused standards.
Jack too often parrots the conservative politicians of this nation, too.
Also referred to as Corman’s Editing Scissors – the soft left turns out to be a giant superimposed eyeball.
Andrew, I was specifically referring to the practice of posting long extracts from other blogs, the MSM or notices or whatever. It’s much easier in that instance to provide a short summary and a link people can follow if interested. I don’t object to long comments per se if they’re necessary to make a point and provide substantiation for it, or to respond to several other comments, or develop an argument at the length it deserves.
I do think striving for concise and precise blog comments is a good thing.
Ok Mark maybe there has been avoidance of issues and personal denigration instead but are there reader swho remember what things were like under the Fraser government?
Or even the Keating ?
The PMship of Keating seems to be primarily remembered for the fruity and abusive language used by the then PM as he dismissed disagreement as being the work of village idiots.
“but are there reader swho remember what things were like under the Fraser government?
Or even the Keating ?”
I do.
Dammit.
I remember Pig-iron Bob.
I remember Mick Young and his great sense of humour but such characters seem to have been removed from modern politics – Dave Tollner excepted perhaps.
Who was Pig Iron Bob Hannah?
A bloke named Robert Gordon Menzies.
See this link.
http://www.menziesvirtualmuseum.org.au/1930s/1938.html
And from another site.
“The Pig-Iron Song
a song by Clem Parkinson©1964 Clem Parkinson
play mp3 or
Did you ever stop to wonder why the fellows on the job
Refer to Robert Menzies by the nickname Pig-Iron Bob?
It’s a fascinating tale though it happened long ago
It’s a part of our tradition evey worker ought to know
Chorus
We wouldn’t load pig-iron for the fascists of Japan
Despite intimidation we refused to lift the ban
With democracy at stake the struggle must be won
We had to beat the menace of the fascist Rising Sun
It was 1937 and aggressive Japanese
Attacked the Chinese people tried to bring them to their knees
Poorly armed and ill equiped the peasants bravely fought
While Australian water siders rallied round to lend support
Attorney General Menzies said the ship would have to sail
“If the men refuse to load it we will throw them into jail”
But our unity was strong – we were solid to a man
And we wouldn’t load pig-iron for the fascists of Japan
For the Judas politicians we would pay a heavy price
The jungles of New Guinea saw a costly sacrifice
There’s a lesson to be learned that we’ve got to understand
Peace can only be secured when the people lend a hand”
Ah memories.
A week may be a long time in politics but not in my life.
Interesting song .
And many japaanese will tell you that the raw material embargos by the Imperialist forces MADE them go to war. More particularly an oil embargo but pig iron would fit the same description.
I am not informed enough about Mr Menzies to know why he thought the iron should go – but it is strange to think of the unions and the US being together on this issue.
I certainly remember the Keating and Hawke governments and sort of the Whitlam and Fraser governments – I was 15 when Hawke won power (and it was such a nice night!) – it’s fair to say I had an interest in politics from a very young age. However, I think you, like some other commenters are missing the point. Most governments are dismissive of criticism. Not all governments have a cheer squad in most of the media who see the journalistic role as purveying spin and occasionally counterspin and being part of the “process” and certainly not all have the benefit of a public sphere where denigration and partisan abuse is resorted to before engagement. I’m not saying it was ever perfect, but if you haven’t noticed changes in public debate and in the media over the last decade or so, I’d suggest you reflect again.
David on 16 August 2007 at 4:09 pm
Dave’s child-like faith in the wisdom of liberal elites is wondrous to behold. No doubt if Marcus Einfeld were to approach him with a bargain basement offer on the Sydney Harbour Bridge he would leap at the chance.
Sadly real life does not conform to Wet fairy tales. People who are daily subjected to criminal invasion, or children who are abused or citizens who are unsettled by roaming thugs are better informed about crime and the causes of crime than judges sitting on benches far removed from ordinary life. School of hard knocks and all that.
The Culture War in the USA was was caused by changes in sociological structure not ideological posture. The massive shift to the Right in US public opinion was not just because of “soundbites” put out by tabloids or shock-jocks. Dave is rather confusing cause with effect here, not to mention a semi-paranoic imputation of almost occult powers to what are, after all, only a few blow-hards.
THe proximate cause of Right wing backlash was the spectacular increase in social pathology over the period 1965-95. This was a time of unparallelled freedom and prosperity, when lawfare got fewer sticks and welfare handed out more carrots ie exactly when liberals assured us that diverse people should have been getting nicer not nastier.
The brute fact is that some US inner city areas became war zones, which harmed minorities more than any one else. GNXP reflects on the Second US Civil War:
In the US both state polity and civil society represented popular mistrust of bleeding heart liberals. Nixon replaced Johnson, Gingrich replaced O’Neill and Scalia replacd Warren. And there was massive “white flight” to suburb and exurb.
Over the nineties the Dries fought back. Lawfare got sterner (“three strikes…”) and welfare got meaner (“mutual obligation”). So the crime wave subsided.
AUS’s dose of the Culture War was much less virulent, for reasons to obvious to state. It was later and lesser than the US version. No doubt the political and social reaction has been more moderate on account of that, thank God.
Dave says:
I suppose this is why the GREENs and DEMs are doing as well as they are doing in the polls. And people like Burnside, Georgiou and Milne are household names.
Any easing of virulence in the Culture War over the noughties is mostly due to the Rights successes rather than the Left’s excesses. Firstly with immigration where integration rather than differentiation is now the rule. And secondly with correction, where penal retribution and fiscal restitution have deterred or detained the worst criminals. That is the meaning of Howard’s “relaxed and comfortable” society.
Excruciating boredom hearing the word “luvvies” recited endlessly without a skerrick of evidence to back up your assertions would better capture my feeling, John.
A long bow to list them as successes too. More like ludicrous acts of stupidity really.
“many japaanese will tell you that the raw material embargos by the Imperialist forces MADE them go to war.”
Many Japanese will also tell you that the Japanese Emperor is directly descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu. Fascinating language, and they say all sorts of astonishing things in it.
Oh, Jack, you might also like to check recent social attitudes data for younger demographics in the US.
But I know you never let data get in the way of ideologically convenient generalisation.
” I’m not saying it was ever perfect, but if you haven’t noticed changes in public debate and in the media over the last decade or so, I’d suggest you reflect again.”
I haven’t lived in Australia for 23 years so must apologise for not spending all my time while abroad reading those week old Aussie newspapers you find in hotels and endlessly scouring the internet to catch up with the spin on distant political news.
The questions I asked weren’t rhetorical.
You could guess I left before the Hawke Government was elected.The Keating governments one achievement was getting into the news around Asia because of his behaviour .
Sorry, hadn’t realised that.
Well I guess being polite to allcomers tests the patience of any blog moderator .
Well not so much, but these do tend to be the same people that believe the “Nanking Incident” never happened.
One thing for our right-wing standard of debate here, it hasn’t descended to driving around in noisy flag-bedecked buses blaring martial music and complaints about foreigners. But who knows what the future may bring.
Was it Andrew E who noted all the BS employed to legitimise the destruction of the rights of those notorious Ferrari owners and elites, the NT Aboriginals, on the false pretext of stopping child abuse? Is he the only other person who sees this.
Piping Shrike calls Milne to task, for emoting over it. But at least Milne referred to the “little children might have some use” report.
Far worse was the obseqious performance of Labor Senator Ruth Webster ( I think ) who totally reinforced the paedophile-as- excuse- for- aboriginal- subjugation paradigm, in bleating away to alibi Labor’s support of the Tories on this isse.
Boredinhk, it wasn’t intended to be snarky, but I’m getting over the flu and am very tired, and am aware that I’m in a grumpy mood, so am going to take a break from blogging for a few days. But please do accept my apology if it was unintentially impolite.
Christine Milne’s speech was great. I used to work in Parliament House and hear all sorts of great speeches, the substance of which would never be reflected on and debated in the mainstream media (the pundits seem to have forgotten a little thing called Handsard).
There is something else the numnuts in the mainstream media have pretty much missed lately that I would like to discuss. Did anyone notice a couple of weeks ago that Tony Abbott walked out of negotiations with the states on the Australian Health Care Agreements?
‘The important task at the present time is to get re-elected and that is where my energies are focused.’ link
I don’t think that the significance of this can be overstated, we are paying this joker a significant sum of money to manage the country’s health system and he has decided that playing politics and kicking Labor heads is more important than even the most fundamental of his portfolio responsbilities.
I have heard through the grapevine that the beureacrats can’t get anything out of the PM’s office at the moment (I mean basic administrative things, not major policy decisions) because they are too busy ‘playing the game’.
It is indicative of just how bloated their egos are, they have begun to think they are born to rule, that all they have to do is worry about the election, and the business of governing the country can take a back seat.
The media knows this, they have closer and more regular contact with federal ministers than all the senior mandarins. Will they report it? Of course not, thats a job for the ‘elites’, and then we can ridicule them.
Thanks Mark and may I suggest that you get hold of some Hastings Valley Honey and Lyme Myrtle yoghurt to help recharge your virus and medication
battered body?
The taste is fantastic and it’s good for you.. much better than scotch be it blended or single malts though the Devil Drink will no doubt now pop up and explain why I’m wrong .
Good health.
Thanks, Boredinhk, appreciate the suggestion and the thought.
Mark on 16 August 2007 at 3:47 pm
I am trying to cut down, but the temptations to monologhorrea sometimes prove overwhelming. Particularly when Mark B. continually picks at the scabs that formed over his Culture War scars.
In partial exculpation I think it fair to note that I am trying to squeeze in a pithier phrase, juicier quote or handier stat everytime I haul out the old Dry sermon book for another belting.
Mark B. says:
Save your dough mate. A digest of the ASA “findings” on cultural matters are already on-line, in the notorious ARPA Symposium on the Howard Decade. It will come as no surprise that these finders only found what they were looking for, which was irrelevant, unimportant or incorrect.
I could not resist a mordant chuckle at the Symposium’s editorial masthead. Officered by a couple of bolshie Micks, no doubt with equally-weighted chips on their shoulder. I suppose that is what counts for balance in the pinker groves of academe. The OR’s ranged from Strong Left to Far Left. Ahh, the wonders of ideological diversity!
Most of the “social liberalism” they found “on the increase” was of the soft or vague kind, such as gender roles or gay rights. The warmer public attitude towards Howard’s “national interested” immigration regime, emphasising economic prosperity over ethnic identity, should be the last thing to give aid or comfort to the multicultural Wet. Migrants receive a more tolerant reception because, not in spite, of Howard’s hard-line nationalism.
There is no argument from me on their claim of a resurgence in Economic Leftism. This is exactly what one would expect with a more populist mood in the community. Much the same people who are sick of cultural elites also find financial elites on the nose.
This sentiment is also obviously conservative, in the traditional sense. Although you would need to be a little more aware of the bleedin’ obvious than a Left wing sociologist to pick that.
Mark on 16 August 2007 at 9:58 pm
The “social attitudes of younger demographics in the US” always have been, and always will be, more liberal than older demographics. That is because young people are less responsible and less experienced than older people. Its all part of their boyish/girlish charm.
The relevant cohort to today’s young is young people of the past, such as Baby Boomers c 1970, not old people of today. To make the comparison is to draw the conclusion. The Pew Survey found that the previous young generation were far more open to cultural quests:
mark B says:
C’mon Mark. You cant have it both ways. One moment you are complaining that my comments are too long-winded, invariably because they are loaded to the gunwhales with all sorts of interesting facts and quotes. Next moment you are complaining about the absence of said. Pick one spin and stick to it.
Shorter jack: Only strocchiverse data is admissable. And it’s all about the boomers.
Wouldn’t the kiddies have had their opinions shaped or controlled by that conservative/authoritarian/nationalist/populus-ist private school education yr always banging on about when you want to prove some other part of the endless dialectic boondogle that is the Cultural Dries hypothesis?
I do note with interest that LP has lately been getting quite a serving from some conservative posters.
Take “Bingo Bango Boingo” for example. He earlier this week made a very interesting point:
“It (The Howard Government” tried to sell WorkChoices on the basis of significant effects on productivity, an argument which any idiot can dismantle in about 30 seconds. Thankfully we’re starting to overcome that diversion and we’re getting to the employment effects and allocative efficiencies, which should have always been the main game.”
Bingo Bango Boingo may be interested in the views of Andrew Charleton, an economist at the London School of Economics, a Rhodes Scholar, and author of Ozonomics: Inside the myth of Australia’s economic superheroes.
Mr. Charleton identifies productivity, employment and equality as the three big things about the economy that matter – another way of defining “the main game”.
What attracts me to Mr. Charlton’s interpretation of economics is his willingness to communicate to dummies like me about economics in way that’s neither too complex nor too simplistic.
I would like to challenge our conservative friends to speak about the economics of WorkChoices in terms of “The efficiencies (means) and effectiveness (ends) of productivity, employment and equality, combined”.
In particular, I’m interested in why Bingo Bango Boingo appears to have dismissed a worker’s productivity as being part of “the main game” of economics.
Can it be explained why productivity of Australian workers does not matter, both in the context of the evidence I’ve produced here and in the context of an increasingly competitive, global marketplace?
Me being a mere undergraduate student, and many others here being postgraduate, I keenly await “the economic wisdom” of other LP posters, especially those Howard Hugging Right-Wingers like Bingo Bango Boingo
Thanks, from Justin, the first-year Uni student.
The fly in the ointment of all Jack’s rantings is that they take no account of the the fact that economically the figures for Queensland run circles around the National figures produced by Howard and Costello.
This is without accounting for the latest meltdown on world markets which are only going to make his preffered cultural warriors look even more amateurish and cement the view that what has been sold to us as good economic management is nothing but wasted opportunity.
Not only economics either but the figures in that area are stark. Sometimes stivking to one spin just makes people look silly Jack.
Zero is a good place to start. Think someone has the bull by the tail.
As for the continual bleating about the left wing bias in the ABC perhaps it is not quite the problem you continually expect us to believe it to be.
hiya, my site’s back now. It would go down the first time i get a link from LP. Gah!
anyways, the videos of every presenter have been uploaded, you can access them here.
Well said David, and I would add moral panics inspired by the likes of Miranda Devine.
80 Grit ‘Wet and Dry” Jack responds:
So Jack, the victims of crime get to re-write the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Acts that the people’s representatives legislated?
Local Court judges are “far removed from ordinary life” when the grubby stories of poverty, stupidity, drunkenness and violence are paraded in front of them every day?
Judges never picked up a book on criminology? Durkheim’s dissertation on anomie with industrialisation is a mystery to the legal profession?
I await with dread Jack’s 5,000 word elaboration: shoe-horning the legal profession into his one size fits all disunified “grand” theory of wetness (and dreams therof.)
“I would like to challenge our conservative friends to speak about the economics of WorkChoices in terms of “The efficiencies (means) and effectiveness (ends) of productivity, employment and equality, combinedâ€?.
I would have to agree with BBB on this point.
But that makes it next to impossible to sell to the electorate.
Please let me explain this from the prospective of an employer.
We look at overall productivity of the work force – immediate dismissal allows us to remove the less productive .
They have no recourse to a complaint mechanism ( not one that is always promoting reconciliation anyway) so it is not going to tie up resources in legal tussles. More gains. For the shareholders.
If a business is able to deploy the more productive workforce successfully one outcome may be that the management will undertake expansion. Ths leads to the potential for more people to join the workforce .
At present there is a tight labour market and those with skills are able to negotiate better pay and conditions – a company can’t work without a skilled work force and especially as growth and productivity improve then more specialist skills are needed . These workers inturn promote more effective capital deployment.
If this all looks too virtuous for words it can be.
Less skilled workers are going to face pressure to work harder to keep their employment.
There is pressure to reskill and continuously improve your education.
This is good for individuals but the employers needs can be described as being ever present – so not much consideration may be given by management to an individual workers need for time for family demands for example.
Equality doesn’t come into the equation .
Capital has a tool to constantly put pressure on the workforce. Good managers do this without generating rancour and will benefit from protecting and nurturing their workers.
There is also the possibilty that any gains end up in the shareholders pockets or are deployed into other enterprises which challenge the existing business – think of the situation for manufacturers who find more profits building a factory in China and exporting back to Australia.
The biggest challenge though isn’t with small companies with their small workforces even though they employ a large part of the workforce. That lies in the public service sector and their unions.
Getting a union controlled job – on the waterfront and building industries , in some councils or state authorities used to be like obtaining tenure and the process was much abused. Management didn’t have any incentive to improve productivity as there wasn’t a shareholder base to answer to . Many workers received pay and training but didnt actually work. I have friends who worked on the NSW State rail authority who trained as electricians and carpenters but had another job at the same time . They could also order and use materials to build items they then sold for personal profit. These rorts are probably now consigned to the recollections of the good old days but represented an tremendous waste of taxpayers money. Where is the equality in this situation ?
This government hasn’t confronted the biggest challenges directly .
The waterfront dispute was one attempt but gained the government little but poor reviews and hostility. The productivity gains made by Patrick were quickly absorbed by the Toll company and it’s major shareholder.
Workchoices is a tool for capital to pressure the workforce . I’ll buy the argument it promotes efficiency and productivity but individaul workers face constant demands to improve and this is not promoting equality.
Bored in HK, Mick Young was the last sitting member of the ALP who had ever done a day’s work.
The last of a breed should be remembered.
Mark, 9.46pm on the 16th:
John, it IS very tiring, boring and indeed excruciating to have to suffer through constant repitition of the word “luvvies”. It is juvenile, immature, not conducive to reasoned debate, and is lacking in respect.
That word demeans the user rather than those it is intended to describe.
In future stick to: “Dolly the Sheep” “Ratty” “Rodent” “Dollar Sweety” “GG” & so on….
Want a nice healthy yoghurt to add healthy bacteria to your digestion, but you want to catch drunk at the same time, boredinHK?
Airag is where it’s at.
Well almost nobody is subjected to daily criminal invasion, Jack. And I am talking about scientific facts here: when you compare what the perceived likelihood of crime to the actual rate, you will find the average person has drastically inflated beliefs about the pervasiveness of crime. They also think crime is going up even when it is going down. This is not a lefty hermeneutic conspiracy theory: it is a simple fact – most people are empirically wrong about crime.
Why has the fear of crime increased far faster than an increase (or decrease of late) in the actual rate of crime? And why did this take place over the last 40 years? The proliferation of the mass media sounds like a commonsensical explanation. People now hear and see scary crimes far more than they used to.
The other research I refer to is the oft-replicated finding that respondents, when given extensive particulars of actual cases, on average give *lower* sentences than judges. Yet the same people, when dealing with abstract generalities, will say judges are too lenient. This clearly shows that the people are mistaken about the ‘average’ cases judges deal with.
Jack its a real shame you can’t make a decent argument and have to resort to crap like this:
I have no such faith. I simply make the point that judges and experts are empirically more accurate than average about things like perceived levels of crime. This is not opinion, it is a fact. But keep refuting any evidence with anti-scientific rubbish about the innate wisdom of the common person and the school of Hard Knocks, etc.
“extensive particulars” Interesting phrase.
Respondents, (in the unlikely event) they are given extensive particulars of the experience of the victim, on average would give *what* sentence I wonder?
Extensive particulars of the victim are not what sentencing is, or is meant to be, about!
Yeah right David.
The magistrate in my town was dishing out “understanding” to the unruly & brutal thugs who came before him. They would be well groomed, dressed properly, convincingly shame-faced (er..well, convincing to any who didn’t know them) and remorseful (at being caught).
One night the Magistrate was too far in the grip of the grape to drive home from the restaurant, so he walked home, alone, after midnight, along deserted & darkened streets.
Though not hospitalised for more than a day as a result of the bashing-disguised-as-a-mugging, he did nurse extensive bruising, which was placed where it could not be seen. This included extensive bruising to his wedding tackle.
After that, in place of “understanding” from the bench, he dished out “punishment” to any who came before him on street offences.
It seemed that all the “reports” & “statements” he had previously read hadn’t given him an understanding of victim’s feelings after all. Neither had having paraded before him on a daily basis
done much to bring him into the real world.
Nothing quite like first-hand violence to focus the abstranct mind.
The goal is to neither ‘understand’ the criminal nor ‘understand’ the victim. The law isn’t about feelings. That’s a lovely anecdote, though.
Hi BearCave. I’ll answer your question, but I’m still reeling from being called a ‘conservative’. I suppose you meant an ‘economic liberal’. On most of the issues that seem to define undergraduate or otherwise superficial discussion of Australian social conservatism (like same-sex rights, abortion, republicanism, etc.) I come down firmly on the side of social liberalism, if I can use that term.
Anyway, the answer to your question is this: I have made myself unclear. WorkChoices’ virtues are not those which enhance productivity. I mean, as far as I know there is no evidence that says that individual agreements per se enhance productivity. Any effect is going to be marginal. It ought to be trite to say that, in the long-run, only expanding the capital structure (ie. investment) can enhance productivity and improve real wages.
My central point was that Howard had made a strategic error in adopting productivity as part of the economic case for WorkChoices, because it is probably indefensible. I used the term ‘the main game’ narrowly to refer to the bases on which the WorkChoices legislation should be advocated. I never meant to imply that productivity itself was not important or not part of the broader ‘main game’ of economic prosperity. Indeed productivity is absolutely critical.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Cheers
BBB
Bingo Bango Boingo on 17 August 2007 at 12:55 pm wrote:
“Hi BearCave. I’ll answer your question, but I’m still reeling from being called a ‘conservative’. I suppose you meant an ‘economic liberal’. I come down firmly on the side of social liberalism, if I can use that term.”
Fair point. Any reasoned debate here should take into account that we all exist on a spectrum of opinion. Sorry about calling you a Howard Hugger – that’s being a bit deliberately naughty when I already know to behave better
“I used the term ‘the main game’ narrowly to refer to the bases on which the WorkChoices legislation should be advocated.”
Oh, I know you did, Mr. Boingo. There was never any misunderstanding on this point. In fact, it’s my point that’s still being developed here.
The point being that “spectrum of opinion” (between Left and Right) is not all that is important. As a long-time, low-income earner myself, “scope of opinion” is also of value to me if my concern is whether low-income Australians are to be “stakeholders” in the national economy (as distinct from being a latent public that simply “eats cake” if or when the economic good times end and the Government of the day seeks quick solutions for keeping the numbers looking beautiful).
Union-aligned or non-union aligned, it is in my interest to maintain low-income earners as “an active public” to keep the scope of opinion wide, “regardless” of where between Left and Right that opinion is best positioned.
This is why I am launching the “Let them Eat Cake in ‘08″ mock PR campaign to highlight the motivations of the pro-WorkChoices business lobby PR campaign.
Today’s modern-day “Let them Eat Cake” line comes from Ed in The Australian who writes:
“Ultimately, we believe Labor would be best to look elsewhere (other than Industrial Relations) to achieve the wealth distribution and equity results it is seeking. As the Howard Government has shown, the answer lies in the tax and welfare systems rather than labour market controls. ”
When Ed can reveal to me (and the rest of the World) how politics and policy can be handled separately, then I’ll be willing to listen to his ideas about why the tax and welfare systems need to compensate for an unfair Industrial Relations system.
Such an approach allows for analysis without synthesis. It’s quite apparent (especially so close to an election) that it’s not easy dealing with politics and policy separately (rather, the two are mixed together like the ingredients of a scrambled egg). Perhaps this explains annual $10 pay rises and annual $2 tax cuts for the poor?
If the assumption is already “low income earners are a latent public, albeit a tax-paying latent public”, then that makes way for making “prosperity” a modern day gospel instead of merely one phase in a business cycle.
The narrower scope of public debate also narrows the divide between Left and Right to “culture wars”, which I increasingly understand to be a corruption of the term “cultural literacy”, a quite unacceptable situation from my viewpoint, not to mention a step back into the Dark Ages (and you thought “winding back the I.R. clock” to 1904 is meant to be a scary prospect!)
I’ve had two responses on this thread (including the one from Bored in HK) helping to verify that WorkChoices isn’t about dealing with employment, productivity and wealth distribution “in synthesis”.
Which only validates modern day interpretations of a “Let them Eat Cake” attitude towards low-income earners by big business interests.
…From Justin
Mock-promoting the modern day virtues of “Let them Eat Cake in ‘08″ and faith in “Prosperity forever and ever”, etc.
Kim on 17 August 2007 at 12:53 am
It is boomers who are forever banging on about the political timidity and cultural conformism of “post-” modern youth. I merely report, apparently you can only deride.
Gramsci’s work has done alot of mischief to impressionable New Lefty minds, convincing them that the only obstacle to the complete success of their program was the wilful malice of certain cultural apparati.
It causes people like Kim to grind down Occam’s Razor to a blunt stump. Her attempt to interpret the right-ward cultural tilt of politicians and populus as a defensive crouch to ward off the nebulous threat of shock-jocks and tabloids is painful to watch.
The simplest explanation of Cultural Right populist policies is Cultural Right political preferences. That is why FF vote is going up and GREENs/DEMS vote is going down.
Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.
Kim says:
Kiddies have their opinions shaped by experience, example and exhortation just like everyone else. The conformist institutional medium of private schools incarnates the conservative (ie authoritative, integrative, gradualist) ideological message. The results speak for themselves, a generation fairly hip suits.
The small “c” conservatism of the youth cohort is not so bad. They dont have anything much interesting to say, but they say it very well.
David on 17 August 2007 at 11:28 am
David, your suggestion that public concern over the massive increase in crime 1965-95 was just a beat up by shock jocks or a joe citizen’s phobia is a diagnostic of cultural elitist ignorance of, and arrogance over, the populus.
It is also a staple of post-Gramsci New Left culture studies, a pretty dull one at that. MOst people take the news and op-eds with a large grain of salt. It is word of mouth and insurance premiums that really hit home.
It is false and silly to imply that “white flight” and conservative “Law and Order” campaigns were just an irrational or iniquitous reaction to a bogeyman cooked up by the media. Your conclusions about the probability of crime victimiztion do not square with the awful facts on the ground when the Culture War raged:
The tragedy is that the most vulnerable and frequent victims of crime were minorities, the very people that liberals feigned to help.
You are also pretty myopic about public opinion in the good old days. During the Depression era the general public was agog with “shock horror” stories about crime and gangsters. These became a staple of films. But actual crime was not so bad. So people did not take such depictions to seriously since they knew “thats entertainment”.
It was a different story in the post VN war era. The massive increase in multicultural and subcultural diversity combined with a spectacular collapse in traditional authority certainly kicked over quite a few legal traces.
We now have a vast panopoly of Big Brother systems just to keep a lid on crime – more cops, prisons, monitoring devices, fences, locks, gated communities, insulated condos, protected borders, private security, bouncers. Crime has cost us the liberty we playfully enjoyed as children.
David says:
Actually some minority communities do live in a constant state of siege. Such as indigenous ones who are now falling overthemselves in placing curfews on uruly youth.
But cultural elites do well to stay clear of such hell holes. Particularly since their inept and inane policie have done so much to make them worse.
David says:
Now you want to put primate pyschology on trial and convict humanity of having “incorrect feelings” about such trifles as the risk of murder. Tell me, how does that argument go down when you quarrell with your wife? Like a lead zeppelin with mine, I’ll tell ya.
You sound like a person who has never been mugged, robbed or set upon by ruffians. I wonder what it feels like to be such a person. Sheltered, I expect.
I lived in NYC during the early nineties. I can tell you that anyone who lived in that jursidiction in that time and failed to take precautions wound up victimized.
WHat really triggered the conservative reaction was the evident positive correlation b/w liberal cultural policy and social pathology. That was the reason behind the political success of the first generation neo-conservatives – Wilson, Murray, Glazer and so on. Liberals mugged by reality.
AUS is in the happy position of being behind the US in such matters. I suspect that a large part of Howard’s appeal to the general populus is his evident intention to keep us that way.
David says:
Come on old boy. Just yanking your chain a wee bit. You should be in my shoes when the fur starts flying.
steve at the pub on 17 August 2007 at 10:13 am
The current crop of ALP pollies really are a drab lot. Not that the LN/P’s are the ones to set the pulse racing.
In 1950 the ALP represented the cream of the working class. And it now represents the scum of the middle class.
Kim Beazley Snr.
Jack, crime certainly did increase over the last 50 years, but not as fast as fear of crime.
You are wrong to suggest that the war on crime was caused by the increase in crime.
The crime rate began to increase from the late 1950s, due to the baby boom entering the years of crime commission – not because of multiculturalism. The war on crime only started occurring in the mid-1970s. The war on crime was caused by a whole series of intense conflicts at the time, including white reaction against progressive change in the 1960s. It was part of the Southern Strategy to capitalise on the resentment felt by certain whites towards minorities and the ‘undeserving’. Jack I know you believe in the school of Hard Knocks, but it is important that you do not mistake psychological perceptions of the cause of rising crime for the actual cause of rising crime.
The most important point is that the fear of crime and perception of crime’s prevalence continued to increase throughout the 1990s, even as crime was falling. This suggests that the perception of crime, and its actual occurrence, are two very different sociological phenomena that just happened to overlap for a little while. The production of ice cream per capita probably increased as well, but no one would suggest that this had a causal relationship to the fear of crime.
The fact is that even at its peak, crime is an unlikely cause of serious injury. Yet, in surveys, people will always exaggerate the amount of people hurt or murdered in crime compared to more mundane things like illness, etc. Whenever you get people to give a quantitative rate estimating the likelihood of crime in a particular area they will almost always seriously overstate it. This isn’t to suggest crime isn’t an issue, or that crime didn’t increase. It is simply to say that people are misinformed of its prevalence – ‘pop’ wisdom just isn’t always right, you know Jack.
Incidentally, Jack, the ‘victims of crime’ movements who push for longer sentences are dominated by middle class whites.
Historically, the murder rate in Australia in the 19th century was much higher than it is now. I doubt even Jack could ascribe that to some Gramscian New Left plot.
I love how he presents himself as Mr Behavioristic Scientific Realist – oh no we can’t trust qualitative attitudinal stuff – whilst continually extolling the accuracy of ‘everyman’ commonsense…
Incidentally, the United States did have a problem with violent crime in certain urban areas in the 1970s to 1990s. This was to do with the proliferation of violent gang cultures. This outlier had quite a distorting effect on the crime rate. It was a complex cultural anomaly specific to the USA. Australia and Western Europe had nothing remotely comparable.
Try as you might Jack, you can’t blame this American-specific gang problem phenomenon on liberal elites, who have had less power in America than anywhere else. Moreover, the problem with violent gang crime continued to rise throughout the 1970s and 1980s as the law and order people steadily turned the US justice system into something so wackily severe it was completely without precedent in liberal democratic history.
If we have to try to pin the American gang violence anomaly on some bit of government policy, the obvious example would be the cultural rightist availability of weapons, which would be a necessary – although not sufficient – cause.
Yes, it was the same in America. And in 18th century Britain crime was a danger genuinely on par with illness. During the early 20th century crime rates plummeted as did penal severity. Now if we operated according to Jack’s Razor (an embarrassingly butchered misinterpretation of Occam), this should mean that the decline in cultural rightism caused a decline in crime rates. Of course, we cultural progressives would not let ideological convenience slip us into making a stupid anti-scientific assumption like that. You can’t expect populist rightwingers to have such basic intellectual principles.
Jack, please realise that Occam’s Razor does NOT mean uncritically accepting common sense assumptions, refusing to rule out rival explanations, ignoring construct validity or assuming that covariation is causation. If doctors had followed Jack’s Razor, they’d still be bloodletting people with red faces…
Don’t forget, David. Doctors are probably all Islamic terrorists in the Strocchiverse, or aren’t being taught anatomy any more but po/mo cultstudies. That might be for the best.