Over at Catallaxy, Jason Soon links to Kerry Miller’s article in Spiked about Clive Hamilton’s influence in the propagation of the idea of the “Clean Feed” web censorship plan. There are some strange alliances around this issue, and Miller, who writes for the Maoist site Strange Times (formally, as The Last Superpower, about the only actually existing Australian example of the pro-Bush “Decent Left”) can’t resist a side swipe at us “pseudo-leftists” even when we’re on the same page. There’s also a bit of a contradiction in her piece. She argues that Hamilton is a “communitarian” – which I think is to give him too much credit and in light of his views on other issues, somewhat inaccurate. But nevertheless, the moral authoritarianism of communitarianism is certainly in play in the censorship stakes. Miller claims:
The ALP under Rudd is in fact far more moralistic and authoritarian than the Liberals ever were.
I think that’s far too broad a statement, and could be contradicted with evidence from other policy domains. And needless to say, there were enough Howard Ministers – Tony Abbott being one who immediately comes to mind – who could trump almost anyone when it comes to sanctimonious authoritarianism. It’s more accurate to say, in my view, that the arguments of “communitarians” provide useful cover for left ALP ministers (for instance, Gillard, Tanner and Macklin) to sign on to an agenda which actually derives straight from the Catholic right, and which has more than a little political calculation behind it – both in terms of Senate numbers (and the cohesiveness of the ALP Senate caucus itself) and also in terms of skimming some votes from churchgoing socially conservative Catholics and Evangelicals.
A very similar dynamic is observable with regard to the arguments of the Noel Pearsons and Warren Mundines of this world – in that they provide cover for authoritarian interventions in Indigenous affairs (and increasingly in social policy more generally). The basic mindset is the same – worrying about the breakdown of norms and the absence of community. The communitarian stream of political philosophy – which largely developed in the 1990s and has strong affinities with “Third Way” politics – generally bemoans the alleged fracturing of moral values and shared ethics and places the duty on the state of recreating community in its absence. Very often, the practical and political application of such views has more than a tinge of racism about it. The goals set can never be achieved (which is useful politically for the more canny operators), and a lot of the concern is misplaced and wrongly framed, but a lot of damage can be done along the way by state intervention. Also writing in Spiked, Guy Rundle is much more sensitive to the real political dynamics of moralistic social democracy than Miller.
Probably the best way of understanding what’s going on is in terms of the clash between post-materialist and materialist politics. Labor governments need their own discourse to recapture those who “should” vote for the centre-left on economic grounds, and moralism and campaigning about the dire effects of pr0n and binge drinking or whatever provides the missing piece of the puzzle. But it is very much the case that such attitudes – or at any rate similar attitudes – cross the political spectrum, and that’s why it’s far too simple to judge one government as more authoritarian than another. There is a reason why Miller is partially right in suggesting that the left’s response has been “anemic” but again I think she’s too predisposed by her political dispositions to be an objective analyst in this instance. That reason has to do with – yep, you guessed it – the same legacy of 60s libertarianism Hamilton rails against, but it’s a big issue, and one I’ll return to shortly in another post.
I know Tony Abbott had a reputation for sanctimonious authoritarianism, but I can’t think of any practical examples of this. I could be wrong, and I’ve tried to think of some, browsing his Wikipedia page to help jog my memory, but, nada.
His publically-stated concerns about abortion rates and stem-cell research surely don’t count – since in the one case, I don’t think he’s ever said that abortion should be banned, just that adoption should be made easier, thereby obviating the immediate need for abortion in some cases.
Or am I missing something (says he, opening up his umbrella in anticipation of the storm soon to come down on his head).*
*The rain, it raineth on the just
And on the unjust feller
But mostly on the just, because
The unjust steal’s the just’s umbreller. – some Victorian dude whose name I forget
How about the last fortnight, TimT? Welfare quarantining should be extended to everyone – regardless of circumstances, and we shouldn’t give out Christmas bonuses because people will spend it on booze and pokies… That’s only for starters!
As I’m suggesting, it’s misleading to view the question of “authoritarianism” in a partisan frame. First, there are constellations of attitudes which cross parties (and which are somewhat different politically and philosophically) which come down to the same thing. You could find examples of both authoritarian and liberal approaches to different policy areas in the record of both the Howard and Rudd governments.
Secondly, surprise, surprise, the state has an inbuilt tendency towards wanting to control stuff.
Call me an ignoramus if you will, but I’m confused about how this is linked to “the clash between post-materialist and materialist politics” (or what that *is*, probably is the real problem for me).
When you say “those who ’should’ vote for the centre-left on economic grounds”, do you mean “the poor” (or the lower-middle class or something)? And that they aren’t necessarily voting for Labor anymore because they don’t realise its in their material interests… so they have to be convinced by moral panics, or something?
I also didn’t realise Hamilton was railing against 60s authoritarianism? And don’t really understand how that works, since he seems to be pro-authoritarianism on the ‘clean feed’. Looking forward to your post on that…
Who else has noticed Faulkner spruiking for more open and transparent government …and actual slimy secretive fascist ALP right-faction practice by the likes of that worm Conroy?
Is this a fucking ‘ Good-cop – Bad-cop ‘ strategy?
Or just the usual fuck-up?
Inquiring minds wanna know
I dunno, Mark. Rudd’s doing pretty well in the social conservatism stakes at the moment, in part because things like the internet filter thing are likely to be enacted (even if in a form attenuated by practical realities). Howard let Abbott sound off like the blowhard he is but never actually did anything. With Rudd, we’ve had coppers in art galleries and now this caper.
I expected Rudd to be personally socially conservative when he was elected, but I really did think his main focus would be elsewhere, at least initially.
SL / Mark,
I just get the feeling Rudd is all at sea on economics and the area of his speciality, foreign affairs, does not have the profile he probably thought it would. It is also being handled tolerably well by the actual minister. With the exception of climate change, other policy areas are, frankly, boring outside these two. Climate change is too dangerous for him to get into as there is likely to be little in the way of concensus even within Labor ranks.
I think that this sort of pointless or counterproductive meddling is the best he can do at the moment.
He’s railing against 60s libertarianism.
I think there’s a typo in the post! I’ll fix!
ahhhh ‘libertarianism’ makes a lot more sense
Well I think the standard pissing contest viz which party is more Nazi is pretty much useless. In my opinion, if you’ve run for parliament, you’re a closet fascist until proven otherwise. Thus far Vaclav Havel is the only one who gets my nod.
.
Whatever the truths about Howard’s authoritarianism (and he was) Kevvie seems to think you can fix the world by a. Writing regulations and b. Appointing a bureaucracy to ‘watch’ stuff.
.
This piece of fascist crap from the less than plesant Conroy is a goft to anyone who wants to portray the ALP as a bunch of totalitarians. It is totlaitarian. It’s secret censorship, it’s instituted for purposes which are questuionable, it will hamper the economy (way to go Kevvie) and it won;t actually do what it’s supposed to.
.
Frankly I’m surprised that makers and distributors of child pornography still use the internet. It’s a gift to those who would bust ‘em. Thanks now to Conroy this lot will go under that radar.
.
Thing is, if it’s only about child pronography, or prtecting children from ornography or whatever – then why do we need this apparatus with broad powers and no accountability. Conroy is on a moral crusade. There’s nothing more immoral than a moral crusader.
.
Shame tho’ the usual protest, speech and chant tactics obtain. I’d like to be more pro-active. How about let’s get rid of Conroy? Easy enough. Vote ALP. Well just vote for everyone but him. If you could get enough people to do it, it would be
Good points, Mark, but I could have done without exposing my beautiful mind to the bad vibes of that first blogpost or the really bad vibes at that Marx-Lenin-Mao-Kill-Bush-Kill blog.
(Strange Times? Inspired by High- and Fortean-, I guess.)
I understand your critique of ‘communitarianism’, but you’re far too generous to the Iraq-Kill-Kill-Thrill-Thrill-Thrill writer when you say she mightn’t be objective RE Hamilton and his policy advocacy. You think? Just because she
makes a good pretence of being against authoritarianism doesn’t change the mad fact she believes killing people in faraway places is the very height of ‘liberation’.
I’ve got a feeling the communitarians wouldn’t even be the first up against the wall if they (the Maoists) somehow got to rule the world…
And Soon, is Soon even making an grown-up argument? Wot a w- er, difficult chap.
But I was really disappointed to read Rundle on what he reckons drives the offending minister:
Guy, Guy, you’re meant to be the moderate one here, but you have to go and flirt with Godwin’s; though I suppose your analogy might be okay as long as we can all agree that Eyeties don’t count as white people & therefore are really quite
unHitleresque; there, that makes things all peachy clean and non-offensive.
(But seriously, ’social democrat’ Rundle makes no mention whatsoever of either Hamilton or the ‘c’ word, only one throwaway reference to Polly Toynbee. I’m going to take a punt and suggest he would back Clive’s ideological hobbyhorse
100% if it meant the destruction of that surprisingly non-doctrinaire ’social conservative’, Conroy.)
How can we even begin to keep Federal Labor intellectually honest if the noisiest voices against the pandering can’t argue bollocks without foaming at the mouth?
.
Spiked? You mean the journal of the entryist Revolutionary Communist Party (UK)?
Spiked are Marxists who appear to advocate neolibertarian ideas. That have Cafe Hayek on their blogroll yet support the liberation of Iraq. Jason Soon likes ‘em a lot. Strange bedfellows.
.
I think Jason gets a kick out of the far left dismissing the soft left (pseudo left) as a bunch of claret skullin’ ivory tower types. Of course they’re dead wrong. It’s far too hot in Qld for claret.
.
Anyway I think Mark’s right. Protests are naff. The one today in Melbourne had some info but Jeeez it was dull. And in the bloody rain! And you sign a petition and you chant some bullshit and for what?
.
I’d get involved in a campaign to make Conroy eat this.
.
I reckon if a protest campaign is organized by a small number of people who are smart, dedicated to winning, strictly against violence or harm to property and realize that protests are actually media events and not very good ones – well you could actually succeed.
.
Any takers? Of course not. The Left protest ineptly and the Right don’t protest at all.
Rudd put Conroy where he is, with the filtering job, so he would be clearly seen as the idiot he is. Cabinet reshuffle?
If the left wing blogs have only opposed the proposal “anaemicly” how is the red-blood cell count measured? Number of posts, level of vitriol, or is it necessary to call for a vote for the Liberals on this single issue to be considered red-blooded?
Mark, anemia doesn’t actually mean anything. Its American English. The word is anaemia which derives from the ‘ancient greek’ for without blood. Anemia means nothing except it emphasises the point that Americans can’t spell and are as inconsistent as the rest of us when it comes to their own language. How about being a bit more precise and less sloppy?
I just realised that Australia’s strict libel and political campaigning laws (and how they’d be applied online) are the issues most likely to go nuclear with ordinary folk if a compulsory meta-filter is installed with the intent of actually working.
People, don’t fall for Hamilton’s rope-a-dope strategy whereby you just end up saying, “fuck you, authoritarian communitarian Red Chinaman internet nazi!”
(I heard him interviewed by BBC world service radio–he put forward his nonsense about how the Internet should not be excempt from the censorship TV and newspapers are subjected to–Instead of a retort like, “but wot about telephones and ham radio?” or “will QCs seize the houses of people who trashtalk on social networking sites,” the reporter just babbled about China.)
Why can’t all cleanfeed activists put meat onto the bones of their arguments–are they all obliged to masturbate furiously like Soon, Rundle, Miller?
Or they might even be anti-cleanfeed activists.