I’m the first to respect what Aboriginal elders, male and female, have to say, but the next era can and will, I fervently hope, allow and provide the means for many new, younger representative voices and perspectives to come forward and have their say.

Katz, I think you’ve got it about right. With Brough the money doesn’t flow until you sign up to individualistic, acquisitive capitalism.

It is based on the paradoxical belief that the sticks and carrots of a transformative, interventionist policy of social engineering can create the character of the responsible, acquisitive individual on which the philosophy of neo-liberalism is premised.

All western cultures are based on individualist, acquisitivist philosophies having been shoved down the throats of protesting traditionalists. The early, hallmark example of this was the enclosure movement in England. This enclosure movement is closely related to the rollback of Aboriginal landrights.

There is no reason to assume that Aboriginal cultures are any less susceptible to this form of coercion than any other cultures.

One of the chief reasons for the failure of previous social-engineering attempts to inculcate an ethos of acquisitive individualism among Aborigines has been the failure/refusal of authorities and white entrepreneurs to create a comprador class of Aborigines who could become the pioneers and missionaries for this ethos among other Aborigines.

There is a powerful reason for this failure/refusal: racism.

And now the memory of racism, discrimination, disenfranchisement, dispossession, marginalisation and cultural genocide casts a dark shadow over Black/White relations in Australia.

This past cannot be forgotten. It must be acknowldged and confronted.

That is why a sincere, substantive gesture of apology is essential before any reconciliation is possible.

Howard therefore promises to try everything except the one thing that will work.

Mr Howard is indeed a very clever politician.

Just prior to her on the program Geoff Gallop had been pointing out that there wasn’t an actual backflip on Howard’s part, that his position is now pretty much what it has always been. Max Walsh was totally scathing, pointing out that Howard was at the end of his days politically and what he thought and said didn’t matter all that much.

Langton says that the outcome is more important than the motivation. She should be aware that what will be delivered will be consonant with current initiatives, which are philosophically in the Pearson mould. The money quote on this, I think, is from Robert Manne’s essay in The Monthly:

Pearson’s plan is not merely an audacious (and very expensive) neo-liberal blueprint for the revival of Aboriginal community and the adaptation of Aboriginal identity to conditions of modernity. It is based on the paradoxical belief that the sticks and carrots of a transformative, interventionist policy of social engineering can create the character of the responsible, acquisitive individual on which the philosophy of neo-liberalism is premised. This is Pearson’s gamble. It is very far indeed from Stanner’s dream – many will think too far. Yet for the hope of the survival of autonomous and viable Aboriginal communities, it seems to me the most coherent policy which has yet been offered. If it too fails, it might turn out to have been the last throw of the dice. (Emphasis added)

More than 50% of medical school graduates are women. Maybe in our grandparents day, the Doctor marrying the Nurse or the Physio might have had some validity, but those days are long gone.

Its a silly term isnt it? I prefer Luvvies, if one must use a colloquialism to compare to the Battlers.

FTR the term “Wets” refers to liberal-Leftists who are focused on the identity politics of differentiated ethnic minorities. The term “Dries”, conversely, refers to “corporal”-Rightists who are focused on the identity politics of an integrated civic majority.

These terms do not easily map onto the traditional Left-Right dichotomy. But minorities tend to be lower-status than the majority (which is typically led by Caucasian males holding pragmatic conservative views).

The Left tend to support the low-status and the Right supports the high status. Hence the Left tend to be pro-ethnic diversity whilst the Right tend to be pro- civic unity.

The whole Culture War battle field has been heavily mined with terms loaded with exlosive social status connotations. eg redneck natives versus vibrant adoptives.

The â??Rudd Luvviesâ?? are an urban myth.

Who made up the silly notion of “Doctor’s Wives” in the first place? They must be very old and sexist. My husband is also a doctor. More than 50% of medical school graduates are women. Maybe in our grandparents day, the Doctor marrying the Nurse or the Physio might have had some validity, but those days are long gone. I rarely get enough free time to see my girlfriends, let alone getting involved in the charity set.

Howard is worried about the Rudd wets, and wants to try to reach out to them.

The “Rudd Luvvies” are an urban myth. The Wets are in long term secular decline, as evinced by the collapse of the DEM and GREEN vote over the past decade.

The collapse of the GREEN vote over the noughties, ever ,since the major parties hopped onto the enviro bandwagon is a particular shocker. Since 2004 it has slipped from 7% of the vote to 4%, a decline of 30%+. A lingering rump of the rainbow coalitionists.

Whats left of the Wets are trapped in the LP, clustering around ex- and would-be PMs. Playing the civil rights violin. They will not be flipping en masse to Rudd, or else he would be courting their vote, Which he aint.

To the extent they exist they are a pretty cheap date. They can be bought off for a few cheap words of sympathy and a compliment of their ideological dress.

The explanation of Howard’s back-flip is fairly simple: he is a Machiavellian who is uncomfortable with the concordance of words and deeds.

His duplicitousness is the best way to keep the enemy wrong-footed. No doubt some such stratagem got hard-wired into our genes to evolutionary advantage.

In the Aboriginal affairs case Howard is talking Left but he has already tacked Right. Rudd, always the careful student of the master, is probably likewise dupliciting. Although he has changed the ideological signs: talking Right but preparing to tack Left.

I dread the passage of Gilliard through the cultural institutions of our state.

Its part of the Great Convergence between the major parties, that I have been blogging about since the early noughties.

It would be nice, for a change, if bloggers tried to develop predictive explanations of political behaviour. Instead of indulging in pointless retro-dictive speculation about motives.

Malcolm wasn’t impressed.

Lawyers are not impressed. The preamble does not have any effect on how the Constitution is interpreted.

In this interview, Brian Butler and Larissa Behrendt reckon it’s a stunt.

Jackie Huggins says:

But the bottom line is that they must have effective and respectful consultation processes with our people because we know and, you know, international models have proved unless Indigenous people are involved at the outset of anything, any legislative change, constitutional reform, any service delivery type operation within communities, it’s doomed to fail.

“Respectful consultation.” Does it sound like JWH? Remember what the old guy said about the snake.

Rudd was rattling on today about bringing the Aboriginal life expectancy up to the standard of the rest of the population. The only ALP policy document I’ve seen does not inspire with confidence. It looks as though it has been thrown together from a few different portfolios and prettied up with photos, graphs etc. The weakness is in procedure. Not much evidence of respectful consultation.