Google the search string “robert manne dear mr rudd” restricted to the website of The Australian’s blogs, and you end up with a bizarre collection of invective filled weirdness. That’s excluding the leaders, of course, but you don’t need to read them to imagine what’s in them. In one way, this is all amusingly counter-productive, as one would imagine the somewhat worthy tome in question would have struggled to attract as much attention on the basis of its contents - it’s a book publicist’s dream. None of it seems to have any relationship to the recent call for a “new civility” from The Australian, and as Jeff Sparrow observes in today’s Crikey, the book is hardly “unbridled moonbattery”. I’m not even too sure that chapters by Patrick Weller on the public service or Harry Evans on the role of the Senate have anything to do with “the left”.
But all this ranting and raving does say something very important both about the conception of public debate on the part of the conservative commentariat, and on the endangered nature of that public debate - a key focus of Sparrow’s analysis:
In his introduction, Manne writes about fostering a “conversation between the government and the nation’s public intellectuals and independent policy experts.� A dialogue that extends that far and no further will make very little difference. As Jill Murray notes in her chapter on workplace relations, “the very idea of having to appeal to one man comes pretty close to some of the dangerous modes of decision making of the previous government.� If that’s all Dear Mr Rudd entails, Kevin07 will simply thank Robert Manne for his good ideas – and then pour them down the sink.But both Manne and Murray also suggest that the book should be understood as an attempt to foster a broader debate: “an invitation,� Manne writes, “to all interested citizens in the discussion of ideas about how, in this new era, a better Australia might be built.� One suspects that it’s this prospect that motivates The Australian’s maniacal hostility: for conservatives, a policy discussion outside the tete-a-tetes of a gerontocratic elite in Quadrant seems contrary to the laws of nature.
The disengagement of ordinary people from political debate marks one of the characteristic features of our era. It’s interesting, in that regard, to compare Dear Mr Rudd with the Labor Essays, a similarly structured collection of policy discussions that Pluto Press used to publish annually. The difference in titles is itself symptomatic: where Labor Essays emanated from the Australian Fabian Society, Dear Mr Rudd, though addressed to a Labor PM, possesses no obvious organisational affiliation. Only a few of its contributors (Geoff Gallop, for instance) could be unambiguously linked to the ALP, and the only chapter that discusses the Labor Party does so on entirely on the basis of its internal dysfunction. (Parenthetically, Mark Aarons’ suggestion that Labor should sever its union ties seems a strategy certain to add to the disenfranchisement of the rank-and-file: just think of the American Democrats. But that’s an argument for another day).
Once upon a time, the election of a new government would have led to a rush of new Labor memberships. But, like the contributors to Dear Mr Rudd, most Australians feel that our atrophied and sclerotic political parties offer no outlet for democratic participation. Where, then, does public policy discussion take place? In underfunded universities increasingly devoted to abstruse specialisation? In newspapers dominated by the antics of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton?
Given the ever-shrinking public sphere, the efforts of genuine public intellectuals become more important than ever, since the discussions they initiate can – potentially, at least – develop a momentum amongst ordinary people. That’s why this book matters: not because it provides some ideas to throw around during the ersatz 2020 forum, but because it might help nourish a conversation beyond the usual suspects, and thus provide the basis for grass-roots change.
It’s not only, as Sparrow argues, that the culture warriors really aren’t interested in fostering any sort of lively public debate - for one thing, that might produce something that doesn’t look like a stereotyped battle of the cliches. More than that, there’s a very significant point that rarely seems to be highlighted when this ersatz public sphere is analysed - those who are identified by the Albrechtsens of this world as “the left” are actually not really representative of any broader social or political movement at all - they’re journos, commentators and columnists. David Marr and Robert Manne, and Sparrow is surely accurate in saying that if they get denigrated so much they must be doing something right, are pre-eminent examples. But neither really represents a political movement of any kind. Both are best known as commentators. It’s a weird kind of shadowboxing that actually depoliticises while generating an enormous amount of faux-partisan heat that’s going on here. Citizens, and people actually involved in politics more particularly, and social and political movements crucially, are all erased from the picture while the phantom armies of the commentariat fight their never-ending and never-endingly tedious battles.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
Interesting that nobody has responded to this post yet. Maybe the culture wars are running out of puff.
Maybe!
“It’s a weird kind of shadowboxing that actually depoliticises while generating an enormous amount of faux-partisan heat that’s going on here.”
This is such a perfect way of expressing what is going on. We can see the localised effects of this whenever, as happens regularly on blogs, we are called upon to identify with commentators who are seen as somehow representative of ‘the left’ or ‘the right’.
I think Manne and Marr are complicit in this: their aloofness from an identifiable constituency helps others to propagate the myth of them representing some immense, homogeneous group. At the same time, that aloofness is not yielding results in terms of demonstrating their disinterest, so what is the point?
Well, the point is to exalt themselves and their influence as part of the commentariat elite, I imagine, Klaus! I do get the sense that there’s some sort of “insiders talking to power” undercurrent in a lot of these alarums - and possibly also the book, though I haven’t read it. To be honest, it sounds a little tedious!
“Well, the point is to exalt themselves and their influence as part of the commentariat elite, I imagine, Klaus!”
Indeed, but they also make themselves available to their opponents for bludgeoning others in so doing, which I think is implied here also. Their interests are served by their most vehement opponents and vice versa.
I have very little time at all for Manne’s projects: tedious, certainly, but also remarkably superficial in his treatment of some issues, and I don’t have much hope that an edited volume with many of the usual suspects would depart from that.
As for Marr, well I liked the Patrick White biography!
Yes, I agree.
I’m not much of a Manne fan though I do think his work in countering Stolen Generations denialism is creditable.
It still exists over at ‘Teh Surge’. Can’t discuss anything related to Iraq without a ridiculous amount of ideological posturing.
“I’m not much of a Manne fan though I do think his work in countering Stolen Generations denialism is creditable.”
Yes, I’ll give him credit for that, certainly, although there is a certain ‘thinness’ and lack of reflection even in that work. I do admire him for taking a stand on that, though.
The same goes for ‘Whitewash’ as a response to Windschuttle: Manne has only a limited framework for addressing certain issues. The most interesting responses to Windschuttle, and I would argue the most interesting arguments about the politics of history, were largely outside the scope of such a collection.
Klaus K, you’ll be glad to know there’s an article by Marr appearing in the next (ie April) issue of The Monthly about the newly released Patrick White papers, including first drafts of three novels and a whole cache of what White called his ‘f*ck-off letters’, the smoking epistles with which he was wont to dismiss all manner of friends and acquaintances from his life. I know this because I heard Marr the other day at Adelaide Writers’ Week, talking mostly about the White material but also about Howard and Rudd and indeed about the book in question and the hysterical, and to his mind inexplicable,
GGOO response to it.Dunno if you’ve read Dark Victory and/or the article that began life as a 2003 lecture called ‘The Role of the Writer in John Howard’s Australia’, but both are, to my mind, exceptional pieces of commentary on contemporary Australian public and cultural life.
Re history. McIntyre’s History Wars is one of the best on that aspect of the culture wars and far more wide-reaching than its title suggests. But I would imagine most of you would have read it by now.
Speaking of John Who? - I hear he said something or other today at some speech somewhere.
Didnt bother to read the details. Who cares what that loser reckons?
Can’t Howard just retire now? From the TV footage of him at the Starship Enterprise he sounds like he’s still in campaign mode. I suppose he’s going to be campaiging for his legacy now.
For a self-confessed cricket tragic he could sure do with putting some time in at the nets.
Why do people assume there was an “old civilty” to begin with?
If Cicero, Pope, Swift, Mencken or too many others to mention had blogs back then, we’d see pretty much the same kind of dirty dunciads, raucous rodomontades, filthy insinuations, fiery incitations and general splenetic follow on commentary as we do now.
I was amazed he didn’t denigrate the apology. I got so mad I wrote to the local paper. The gist of it was that he was a disloyal treasonous little bastard. Wonder if they’ll publish. At least we know now where he was getting all crazy his ideass from. I don’t think political correctness ever really caught on here as much as the right wing commentariat tried to make out. In a weird way we don’t take ourselves that seriously IMHO.Maybe Rudd should charge him with sedition under his own anti-terror laws. Can’t be good for potential American investment. Assuming that’s a good thing.
Nabakov,
Now Swift in all his scatological glory. That would be an absolute delight to read. Chaucer would be fun too. Or a Procopius extolling on the peculiarities of our modern Byzantine courts. or a 21st century Rabelais? The possibilities are endless. An end to boring civility!
“a whole cache of what White called his ‘f*ck-off letters’, the smoking epistles with which he was wont to dismiss all manner of friends and acquaintances from his life”
A bit of ‘Strong Opinions’ down under? That sounds absolutely brilliant and would go nicely with my plans to read all of White when I finish my thesis.
I’ll admit I should probably give more time to Marr before writing him off. Manne, however, I have read a fair bit of and I’m not especially impressed. Which is not to justify the OO response at all, or to criticise Manne’s admirable intentions.
“tedious, certainly, but also remarkably superficial in his treatment of some issues”
Thanks Klaus and Mark. On balance, I think Robert Manne has done some good work, and occasionally his pieces I’m confident have led thoughtful readers to follow up on issues and become better informed. As with the best university lecturers or tutors, prodding and enthusing an appreciative listener/reader. Again, it’s the old question of generalist writer vs specialist researcher. The generalist can still have a useful social function, though (I agree) some of his contributions may be somewhat thin or superficial. And (IMHO) smug.
What is the role of “public intellectual” in our polity? I dunno. Does it matter??
An example of Manne’s work I admire is his detailed forensic essay on Wilfred Burchett (using archival material in addition to Burchett’s own writings, and laudatory essays others had written); this still stands up well, after Tom Heenan’s WB biography and the Burchett(fils)/Shimmin compilations published in recent years. Manne was a staunch anti-Communist, anti-Stalinist but DID the READING to support his case. He didn’t just take Frank Knopfelmacher’s word for everything.
David Marr IMHO may be a better writer, and seems to have that strong lawyer’s skill of digesting and presenting complex material. So for example I think his biography of Barwick is so much stronger than (for example) Jenny Hocking’s biography of Lionel Murphy. I suspect it’s because Marr has a deeper understanding of The Law and legal practice. But I may be mistaken.
Does “Dear Mr Rudd” strike anyone as a tad self-important? Does it matter, if it’s raising a good set of issues??
Jeff Sparrow: “Given the ever-shrinking public sphere, the efforts of genuine public intellectuals become more important than ever”
I disagree with the first claim. I see no evidence of shrinking. I cite the relatively high sales of non-fiction books on “matters of public importance”; the strength of letters-to-the-editor and social/political blogs; the strengths of various activist groups working on particular areas of interest (environmental groups, Amnesty, ICRC, refugee support groups, health system advocacy, etc). I wouldn’t “count” Mr Rudd’s election as strong evidence, as there was an “it’s time” factor….
I see no evidence that commentary by University staff on public issues has been reduced, constrained or muzzled. Au contraire, several well-known academics seem to be doing OK as far as their own academic careers are concerned.
CSIRO staff? Well, there has always been some filtering of their opportunities to “speak out”, I think. Going back decades.
It seems that the conservative hate pack will contribute nothing to the Liberal repositioning, Chris Pyne & Marise Payne do speak for a section of public opinion their analysis will have more impact on the Liberal platform in 2010 than anything conservative hate pack. What does John McCain owe to the US hard right? has anyone lloked at the recent Quadrant & IPA Review?
Mark @6, I’ve been making my way through “Left, Right, Left” and feel a bit each way on a lot of what Manne has to say. You’re right about his work on the Stolen Generations; his article in the current Monthly cements the respect I have for him in his acceptance of a viewpoint counter to his own after being presented with the arguments. McGuinness et al just brushed it aside and accused everyone involved of being liars.
While I agree with Mark’s and KK’s description of the symptoms, I think it is important not to mistake the symptoms for the disease.
The prominence of these commentators’ voices in what passes for public debate is itself a symptom of a larger disease.
That disease is the hollowing out of our political parties. Before Hawke and Keating, to take the example of the Left, the State branches of the Labor Party were the location of public, genuine and fierce struggles over control of national policy. During the 1980s, over a series of issues including uranium mining, Hawke and Keating simply ignored the Party and created a clientele for themselves within the parliamentary branch of the ALP.
Thus persons and organisations that wanted to have direct influence in policy-making within the ALP were essentially locked out. Meanwhile the factions took control of more and more of the erstwhile democratic functions of the membership of the ALP.
Faced with that denial of access to policy formulation, the most available alternative was the role of opinionator.
Hence today’s shadow-boxing.
I think there is something in that Katz, although part of that hollowing out is arguably the fragmentation of the Labor constituency. The same could probably be said of the conservative side, although they have never had great claims to running democratic parties: their various constituents may be more at odds than can be adequately represented by the Coalition. I think there needs to be a proliferation of smaller, genuinely representative groups emerging, to lobby, agitate and so on on behalf of constituents. On top of that the unions should move away from the ALP. An independent, non-ALP-affiliated union movement would have more legitimacy and autonomy.
For the time being, I find the faux-disinterested commentariat less engaging than those speaking from necessarily partial, necessarily limited, positions of expertise, or representing defined groups or interests.
Katz, yep, that point was made by Sparrow in the section I quoted and I agree that it’s an important causal factor, among others.
Good points Katz & Klaus. Special interest groups seem to succeed these days, tugging at the sleeves of print or electronic journalists.
If the OO is mistaken about a “new civility”, can we anticipate “a new servility”?
