There’s an interesting (at least in parts) debate over at Troppo on a post Nick Gruen has written about calls for collective apologies from the right directed at the left around the time of s11 for all the crimes of history for which blame can be allegedly sheeted home to the left. Nick wonders whether the same people might now in turn like to apologise for what’s happened in Iraq. Unfortunately, some of the discussion plays to the predictable Iraq stoush script. But the more interesting issue is the one about the practice of asking an entire political grouping (if indeed it makes any sense to collectively address an ideology – there’s huge variance ideologically and pragmatically and along partisan lines on both left and right) to apologise for something someone who wore the same label did.
Nick’s contribution in comments clarifies that he and I are basically in agreement on this.
I wondered what LP readers thought – there’s a useful observation by Geoff Honnor pointing to the position of those akin to Andrew Sullivan, who gave partial support to the Iraq War basically as a prudential decision, and is now reviled by hardline righties as some sort of traitor. This seems to me to be an absurdity inspired by the twin curses of unreflective tribalism and irrational moralism in politics which inspires the “with us or against us” philosophy which creates so many of our current problems, and actively hinders attempts made rationally and in good will to deal with them.
More broadly, the issue of a collective apology raises some interesting questions. I wish I had more time to deal with them in some depth, but I will take the liberty of reposting a comment I made in response to a call for clarification from Chris Lloyd.
Mark Bahnisch said:
“I do not know why Mark has such a problem with asking for apologies. I suspect he might have been a marcher on National Sorry Day. A hell of a lot more Iraqiâs have been violently killed since 2003 than Aborigines in the past 50 years. And there is much more prospect of the unacknowledged ME mistakes being repeated.”
I donât think the two situations are at all comparable, Chris. The first is something for which I feel some part of collective responsibility – the second, no, because I opposed the Iraq War and I donât believe that anyone is asking Australians generally to apologise – thatâs ludicrous. As is asking those who were in the CPA in the 50s to âapologiseâ? for Prague. The thoughtful ex-CPA members agonised over it, and many are highly critical of their younger selves as well as of the Soviet Union, but many donât âapologiseâ?, because they had or believe they had good reason to support the Communist movement at the time. As someone who has always had anti-Communist Left politics, I find it ludicrous that I should be asked to âapologiseâ? for – I donât know, letâs say human rights violations by Castro in the 1980s (Iâm picking that example because I only became politically active when I was a teenager in the mid 80s). I donât see why someone ten years older than me who was active in Left politics should âapologiseâ? for Pol Pot (and the demand is often made by Quadrant-ites).
To be honest, Iâm dubious about National Sorry Day and have never marched. I have been on Land Rights marches, and others which protested violence against Indigenous people in custody. Iâve also worked with Indigenous people on campaigns, and these issues are ones on which I have strong convictions. But I still donât think that apologies are particularly worthwhile as a political strategy in this context either.
In general, I think that the concept of collective apology is too confused to be supported, and as I said before, itâs just a moralising move. You shouldnât be amoral in politics but reducing it to âgoodâ? vs. âbadâ? is a childâs game. Politics has its own standards of conduct – itâs better to go with Weber and refer to an âethics of responsibilityâ?. The ultimate sanction is political failure. But you get precisely nowhere by moralising, and attempting to insinuate that your opponents are somehow less ethical. Thatâs far too common among Latte Left style commentators like Robert Manne, and itâs why theyâre so politically ineffectual. There are ethical people on the right and unethical people on the left. Itâs puerile to think otherwise, and we owe people a more adult debate than the distasteful self-righteousness that invariably accompanies such demands.
Posted on 02-Oct-06 at 10:02 pm | Permalink
Mark,
I wrote the post quickly and at least in hindsight it might be seen as singularly inept.
Actually perhaps I should clarify that. The post as I’ve said was written quickly. However the mistake if I made one is one of naivete about how it would be received. It lobs into ground which is well tilled – indeed tilled into well recognisable trenches.
You have read it as an invitation to apologise over Iraq. And now we’re arguing about ‘apologies’ and collective responsibility. I’m not really making that point. As I said in the comments on the post:
To clarify, Nicholas, I recognised your intent above in my reference to your comment – in my second para. And also by saying your post was “about” calls to apologise, etc, rather than a call to apologise. Though it does seem some commenters misread it.
Mine really wants just to focus on the issue of apologies without the “noise” of the stoushing over Iraq. That’s what I’d like to have a discussion about. I’m not saying it was what you wanted to have a discussion about!
Hope that all is clear now!
Pressure was put on John Howard to apologise to the aborigines not because he was responsible, or because any private individual was responsible (although perhaps there are some still alive who share some responsibility… but that is not the point), but because he is currently in command of a corporate individual; the Commonwealth, that does share responsibility. It was not John Howard, who is but one man, that was called upon to apologise, but the individual of the State, of which we (and our predecessors) are all collectively a part.
When it comes to the Left, and the Right, however… no such entity exists. Although the groupings vaguely correspond to commonalities of opinion and convergences of interests… they are not bound up in a corporate entity with enough coherency, unity and continuity to be conceivably collectively accountable for the sins of some of their number. The sins of the part can only be borne by the whole if there is a whole to talk about. And even then we should probably distinguish between the perpetrators and the patsies. I’m certain that many on the left who supported people like Mao, Stalin, or Castro are guilty of no more than naivete and of being blinded by their own ideals and perhaps the suspicion of right-wing propaganda when news came along that challenged their views. In hindsight they were wrong… but there is so very much than can be regretted in hindsight. We can only be thankful that the naivete of Western Marxists never yielded any Year Zeroes in our own backyards.
Furthermore, as a member of the left myself I take exception to the charge that myself, and others like myself should show contrition for communist atrocities. We often forget, in these ideological battles… that the mainstream left today is more liberal than communist… more Rawlsian than Marxist. So for what should we rightly apologize? The New Deal? Medicare?
And as for Iraq… I don’t hold conservatives responsible for it. In fact, I think the basic premise of Bush’s plan for Iraq was patently unconservative.
Well said, Cliff.
Should we apologise for the man who defeated the dictator Batista, who was corruptly supported by criminals from the USA; and who gave Cubans a measure of pride and independence. There are disaffected Cubans in the USA; but were the disaffected Afghanistanis or Iraqis who advised the US Administration serving the best interests of their countries.
There is a scene in “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”, about Czechoslovakia I think, which I saw about nearly twenty years ago now. Some young people, moral libertarians at a licensed venue that had the appearance of Cloudland, chose to mock a group of middle-aged dour politburo types who had dropped in for a drink. This was not really the most diplomatic thing to do. When we think about the old USSR we tend to do so through the filter of the propaganda we have been fed. There were no doubt dark places in the USSR; there are no doubt dark places in the USA, and in Australia.
Different countries have different problems. Russia and Eastern Europe have bitter winters. The Middle East is desert, probably with much poor soil as well. The people in hard countries have developed customs which suit them; and to try to transplant say the American Mid-West, fed by the Mississippi River, to say Iraq fed by the Euphrates River, may be a superficial idea.
John Howard has been stirring up the spirit of Gallipoli for so long now. Could he possibly be a Chicken Hawk, guilt makes people do strange things. But the looming war will bite those very young who are so keen to teach the (insert the propaganda catchphrase of the day) a lesson. We suffered a Pope with Universal pretensions in Europe, and beyond, up until the Reformation; and from the Pope’s perspective, he probably still believes in the conversion of the world. Does Islam want a restoration of the Caliphate. Who knows, but we’re helping them there, because such an institution imposes order and peace. Besides first into an all out brawl is usually first out too. This was America’s strength in WWII, but the Neocons are too stupid to see that.
Should the share-farmer from Drayton, who was under the thumb of the local store keeper, who was a friend of the Commissioner for Crown Lands, who hunted with the land-holder from Dulacca who had charge of a contingent of Native Police; apologise to the Natives for their dispersal. It was not much fun being a share-farmer at Drayton. Dark places in Australia: well I’m too old for this war, but should my economic situation turn dire, there’s a nasty streak in Australians that is prone to respond with violence towards what they perceive as not proper.
Mark, good to see you back. But if you want to be taken seriously, you’ll have to throw off your Freudian tendencies.
Mark
Replace the subject of the following quote with the name “Cristopher Hitchens” and you will unstand it better.
YES!!!!!!
Sorry, steve? Which Freudian tendencies?
Knowing what we know now all the leftists who made excuses for Marxist-Leninism should apologize. They should apologize humbly, distance themselves from red fascism ( hopefully in democratic and libertarian socialism) and promise ‘ NEVER AGAIN!’.
While Castroism doesn’t have the horrendous body count by slow torture of Castros heros, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and Pot it has still snuffed out free thought, free movement and independence for many Cubans.
Bakunin said socialism without freedom is slavery and predicted Marx’s badly thought out ideas would lead to the worst dictatorship ever.
Since 1918 he has been proven right again and again.
No excuses can be made for abominations such as the DPRK and none should by any decent leftist acting in good faith today.
Just my 2c.
Politics is about striving to achieve power to impose decisions upon others.
There are many tools that are potentially useful to achieve victory in that struggle.
In a society like ours naked violence has proven to be ineffective in the medium term. Thus, consent and legitimation are sought. And we grant that Howard wields legitimate power.
An apology sincerely sought of a person like Howard can be justified by the belief that Howard will listen to the better angels of his nature. Such an apology is assumed to be sincere.
I am perhaps not alone in believing that any apology wrested from Howard for Aborigines or for Iraq will not be sincere. Thus I cannot sincerely ask for contrition.
Such an insincere apology from Howard, however, may have some utility in that it would be humiliating and demeaning for Howard to be forced to make it.
On the other hand, demanding an apology from a person like Howard may well provide him with additional ammunition for rallying his supporters by giving new energy and a new focus for their hatreds and prejudices.
If that serves to energise and to focus Howard’s opponents, then demanding an apology still has political value.
My guess is that demanding an apology for both Aborigines and for Iraq will always have a nett negative impact upon the political power of those demanding an apology.
Thus, it is important for those who seek to play the politics of gesture to understand where and how their efforts intersect and influence the real struggle for power in a complex and finely-balanced democracy.
The alternatives are:
the politics of genuine sentiment–unlikely.
the politics of naked force–unattractive.
It’s weird to see DSP posters asking us to “defend the cuban revolution” – how separated from reality are these people?
This far, Sacha
“The DSP seeks to build a mass revolutionary socialist party that is capable of organising the Australian working class to bring into being a socialist society through replacing the political rule of the capitalist class with a working people’s government.”
About as relevant to modern liberal democratic reality as the high buttoned boot.
We don’t need an apology from anyone, what we need is an admission that mistakes were made on both sides, with a helping of understanding that hindsight is 20-20 and an undertaking to learn from history and trying not to make the same mistakes. Then, once the pigs are airborne we can all move on.
Geoff – *laugh* – I’d forgotten their kind of rhetoric.
The DSP has obviously been extremely unsuccessful in achieving their goals. You can’t convert a majority of Australians to a revolutionary socialist party via horizontal recruiting.
Oh, a high buttoned boot can look quite good on the right woman, if I’m picturing high buttoned boots correctly.
I apologise for Stone’s Green Ginger Wine.
Really, I don’t know what came over me, and I beg forgiveness of its millions upon millions of victims.
“The Devil Drink on 3 October 2006 at 11:01 am
I apologise for Stone’s Green Ginger Wine.”
About time too.
As your mightiness appears to be in such a sober mood please also consider apologising for “old ” beer- or at least explain what you were trying to achieve with it ?( apart from inebriation that is).
Mood and sobriety are in the eyes of the beholder, boredinHK. Better wipe your beer goggles down with a clean lint-free barmat, and get yourself convinced that ‘old’ beer is generally superior to the weak-as-piss lagers and ‘extra dry’ rubbish sold these days as prole-feed in Australia. Next time you’re at the bar, if you don’t like the taste of old beer by itself, get a fifty-fifty, AKA ‘black and tan’ in some States. In fact, follow Jason Soon’s example and order a magnitude.
“weak-as-piss lagers and ‘extra dry’ rubbish sold these days as prole-feed in Australia.”
That’s the straight-up single malt of the matter, Great Spirit. Nothing good has ever come of cold filtration. Only at next to freezing point (my patented beer slushy) is it remotely palatable. Beer with the beer taken out. It’s a shameful waste of a wonderful resource.
While I’m here, I’d like to apologise for;
Mixing the cover band Dr. Bogus and the Wizards of Wonder at Fremantle’s The Clink nightclub for three months in 2002. Actually for going there at all.
Using similar technology to make audible the voice of Wilson Tuckey at Ascot Racecourse in the summer of 1995/6.
Wearing faded denim cutoffs well into 1994.
Now I feel much better.
I wish to apologise for the “People’s Princess” version of Candle In The Wind.
I wish to apologise for my Apologia Pro Vita Sua.
“I wish to apologise for the âPeopleâs Princessâ? version of Candle In The Wind.”
Too little. Too late.
I wish to apologise for encouraging Graeme Bird to set up his own blog.
What about all of us making an apology to future generations for ruining the environment of this planet?
Cheers…
Does anybody know who these socialists classify as “working class” who are going to effect this revolution? Are they the same as the aspirationals?
Non, je ne regrette rien.
Thanks Jase, that means a lot.
I would prefer that all of us take immediate action to pre-empt the need for such an apology.
I wish to apologise for “Sometimes When We Touch”.
I wish to apologise for getting Tim and Adrian elected as Rabelais editors in 1983.
I wish to apologise for the forbidden fruit misunderstanding.
(PS, I also wish to apologise for Genesis. The whole thing actually took much longer to create than six days. Sorry, sorry, sorry.)
(PPS, I don’t apologise for Jesus. I wasn’t the father.)
I apologize for
WingsDon’t forget
Ebony and Ivory, PaulChill, God, everybody loves a bit of forbidden fruit. If it weren’t so wrong it wouldn’t taste so… right.
Oh yeah, we apologize for that too.
Canada has bitter winters. Australia is mostly desert with much poor soil.
Where have we failed in that we have developed customs more akin to those of the American Mid-West rather than those of say Russia and Iraq which, by your reasoning, are more suited to us?
How can we rectify our errors so that we can enjoy the blessings brought about by Russian and Middle-Eastern customs which better suit us in our harsh climates?
Well yes, I accept your comment about Canada and Australia.
I thought about the mighty Mississippi and our Darling River. But when I went to Bourke I found the Darling was not much more than a creek, and the river-boats that plied it once were neat, but rather small affairs. Also the intermittant flow meant that full trips to the coast carrying wool could be rather extended affairs.
I don’t know when, or how, but I think Australia will have to change in the long run.
The Middle East and Central Asia had a traditional culture that worked for it. Something that seems to upset us is the clothing that they wore, particularly that of the women. But I have read accounts of women who say that it is protective against the elements, which seems reasonable. I guess it depends on how custom is imposed.
YOu guys are much scarier then Hannibal Lector.
He at least takes responsiblity for what he does.
He doesn’t kill as many people as you guys.
And whereas the horseman FAMINE and the others follow hard on the heels of our policy applications…….
At least Hannibal could always put a good meal together.
“And whereas the horseman FAMINE and the others follow hard on the heels of our policy applications…….”
What do you mean “ours”, paleface?
Also, where the fuck have the gravatars gone?
This is the sorriest bunch of apologies I’ve had the sorry task of wading through. I’m sorry I read it.
Thanks for your incredibly important contribution, justaguy. Really picked up the tone. Full marks.
Sorry.
That’s better. Now I’m sorry for being mean.
This apology stuff is so way cool.
I apologize for posting comments while despicably drunk. What seems profound or witty at the time seems embarrassing the next day.
Sorry about those fluxions.
Well, I suppose it’s come to this, and I had rather apologize for Hot Pants.
Though I do feel I must say, I’m not completely convinced I’m blameworthy.
You’d have all done the same, had you been in my situation!
The issue here is one of personal morality and how good you are at learning from mistakes.
Did you support Castro? Have you been presented with evidence that, on the whole, he’s done more harm than good? If you answered yes to both questions, then you should apologise. Failure to apologise under such circumstances diminishes your credibility. professor rat is right.
Apologise when your pet schemes go south. It doesn’t mean everything you’ve ever said, done or thought was wrong, it just means that things haven’t turned out as you thought they would – an experience common to all people.
In 2003 I actually thought the invasion of Iraq was a great idea, I was glad to see Saddam gone from power and was confident the Yanks would install order and the hardworking Iraqis would turn their country into an economic powerhouse, the South Korea of the Middle East. Hahahahahaha, kick me! I’ve since recanted as my faith in the US was completely misplaced. Failure to climb down under such circumstances implies that the humiliation to your own ego and prescience is somehow greater than those who are paying a far higher price for this error (and I don’t include Washington pundits or defendants-to-be in the Bush Administration who are currently drawing the income they will need for legal expenses).
tk.noonan, if you’re sick of Howard and Costello justifying their existance by reaching back to the interest rate levels of 1991, then shut up about bloody Batista and 1959 and Bay of Pigs and all that shite. It could be worse in Cuba – Haiti is a reminder of that – but God damn it, it could be better. And it should be. Here as well.
I haven’t added this holocaust-denial to my own blog yet.
Think about wiping it out before I decide to do so.
I think that would be my best reccomendation and its not getting any better then that.
“Think about wiping it out before I decide to do so.”
Now that’s inductive logic Birdy!
While you’re all here, I’d like to apologise for once again baiting Birdy into a rabid fit.
What? He hasn’t thrown one yet on this thread?
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4…