End of year reflection on the state of politics and the nation type articles can be interesting. They can be tedious rehashes of trivia and reinventions of an already distorted reality to prove punditarian narratives r us and are ace (read any column in the Opposition Organ for an example). They can be quite thoughtful and rise above the usual trivia and actually say something. Or they can be quite weird.
John Hewson’s contribution in today’s Fin falls into the latter category. I strongly suspect his article is the first time evah a columnist in the venerable biz organ has written the sentence: “Whatever!” – indeed, Dr JoHew has been rather exuberant with his punctuation for emphasis in what is a sustained attack on the Reserve Bank. He may have a point that Glenn Stevens indicating that he’ll be taking a rest over January isn’t the best idea – as he points out, the Fed has rates heading down to a range between 0% and 0.25% and UK rates are at 2%. Perhaps Stevens thinks that in the month or so of the Great Australian Stupor, we’ll all spend the economy back to health by splurging on alcopops and sunscreen. On the other hand, Hewson is probably right that Aussie parochialism can’t be afforded anymore – the rest of the world may not understand that we’re all at the beach.
But Hewson’s paradox is that his solution is typical of what got us here in the first place – better “governance” and a more “independent” board – which sits uneasily with his own complaint that no one is allowed to complain about the independent Bank. This is the sort of neoliberal managerialist fantasy that landed us in this mess (in part) and the proscription is even more technocratic wonkery!
Speaking of which, that takes me to my segue about Kevin Rudd, political reality, climate change and technocratic wonkery.
In Crikey, Bernard Keane has one of those articles which fall into my second category. Rightly, he says:
Rudd has the keenest political instincts we’ve seen in a generation. Whereas Howard’s talent lay in coming from behind and converting bad polls into convincing election wins, Rudd’s skill is in avoiding the bad polls in the first place. Not having to come from behind each time is an altogether better strategy. And Rudd has been a very, very good student of political history.
…
It’s the media’s job, or one of them, to make much of little and it has done that expertly for much of the year, as it does always. History suggests that, barring incompetence on an inordinate scale, Labor will be in power for several terms, but that’s not going to attract many eyeballs. Instead, the most minor political events are forensically analysed, with each tiny feature placed under the microscope so that it looms large to the viewer despite its irrelevance.
So true.
On climate change and the White Paper, Keane is inclined to give Rudd more of the benefit of the doubt than many posters and commenters on this blog. The theme here is that Rudd should spend more political capital because the consequences of not doing so are so important. I agree. But, conversely, the cry that “this issue is too important to be left to the politicians” is barking up the wrong tree. There is no other way of ordering human affairs and coordinating diverse and conflicting interests than politics. “Leave it up to the scientists” is another fantasy, because diagnosis of the causes and effects of climate change does not and cannot imply agreement about public policy solutions, nor how to communicate and implement them. Just doesn’t and can’t. The motto here is not to join the ranks of those decrying politics itself as the art of the possible (in the best sense) like the neo-liberals have been doing for so long, but to remember that we’re all part of politics as well and a disengaged disaffected citizenry is what allows our rulers to get away with it.
There’s a bit of an affinity here with the cry from the liberal blogosphere in the US about many aspects of Obama’s performance since the election. “President-elect: u r doin it wrong!”… The most recent explosion is over homophobic preacher Rick Warren giving the “invocation” at the Inaugural. I won’t bother with a link. Check just about any American liberal blog. The real surprise is why anyone is surprised. Obama, as I kept saying all year, isn’t the Messiah, and the Democratic Party is a very flawed entity indeed. Again, there’s a bit of collective delusion going on. But the result shouldn’t be disillusion, but real engagement and a recognition of reality and that issues based campaigns can have a most necessary supplementary effect to electoral efforts. In that, lies the audacity of real hope.
And with that thought – dear reader – I’ll sign off for a bit. I’ll be back with a Saturday Salon and another condemnation post, but I’m off on my own holidays. So thanks to everyone for a bloggingly fabulous 2008 and have a happy and safe festive season! I’ll be seeing youse in 2009!
It could be argued that Australia’s silly season will mean the profound failures of reporting and analysis of 2008′s failures, particularly financial, will never get their proper deserve. I have never been able to understand the ABC’s complete abdication of any apparent responsibility in covering this period. Why not put your trainee talent to good use to run the show if you have to holiday your stars?
I guess it is the public service mentality but it is just not good enough in today’s context. And the powers that be in Canberra and elsewhere make the most of it as witness Rudd’s carbon reduction whimp out. Whatever… Kim aveagoodone!
John Hewson was right,the RBA stuffed up.We had Wayne exclaiming that the inflation Genie was out of the the bottle and Kevin egging the RBA on to increase rates.What an incestuous conundrum of ill informed policy and poor judgement.
Both the RBA and Treasury should hang their collective heads in shame.Perhaps lawyers also,should refrain from espousing economic policy based on emotion and personal bias.
So true. Most of the conflict IS about the nature of reality though, and the usual post911 way of responding politically to opposing views is to label opponents as nutters or subversives and then to isolate them with whatever means are politically possible. The guise for introducing internet filtering in Australia could be taken as just one example of that kind of politics. A measure of the success of that kind of politics IS the level of political delusion and dysfunction that has, for one example, let the financial bubble that has now burst become a really big problem, among other things. Trust us, we’re officials.
Many of the old liberal-democratic political institutions provided the checks and balances that could expose massive state-based corruption before they became major problems. I know that many people here are proud to call themselves social democrats. My use of the word liberal is tied in more with the idea of protecting individual human rights (including the freedom of association) and having a free, transparent and open public realm with regulation where appropriate. I am certainly not a neoliberal.
It may sound boring and old fashioned but I think this framework provides the best way to arrive closer to reality and for puncturing delusional public bubbles, be that with ideas or finance. It may not suit those with spin bubbles to protect, though, and so you do need these liberal-democratic institutions to be understood as something of a social and political NORM in the community. I think that may not be the case anymore in Australia and the ethic that many people worked under during the Howard years seems to have been a self-serving anything goes attitude, at least until they are caught out. It is one of those things where, counter-intuitively, an individual’s best interests are served by supporting liberal-democratic norms. A burst bubble hurts everyone if that bubble is left to grow unusually large. You could call it a deontological argument. You could also say that liberal-democracy is part of our tradition. You could also claim that it is part of our egalitarian way of doing things. The important thing, I think anyway, is to recognise the importance of these political norms, even while we may disagree on particular issues.
I’d like to thank people at the Larvatus Prodeo blog for creating a public space where we can express our differing views on issues.
I’ll step off my soap box now…
“I’ll step off my soap box now…”
I hope RobV, that you step onto it more often!
Well said.
Europe have their summer holidays in June, Australia has them December, it surprises me that people who are supposed to have a brain can’t work out why.
Thanks for your compliment Possum Comitatus!
Is it just me or do others feel that Hewson gets too much space on the AFR.
The record of companies with which he has been associated over the years has been less than stellar to put it as kindly as I can.
By the way, God Bless you all for Christmas.
Jack Hackett
I’m a bit agnostic about Hewson’s substantive argument about the Reserve (while thinking he has a strongly arguable point), though not about his dumb solutions. It really does expose how much the terrain has shifted that neo-liberal “trust the experts to set up a spiffy market and/or to calculate what’s good with you” really does stand exposed out on a limb. I’m with dk.au that this sort of thinking is one of the major problems with the White Paper.
And interesting post, Kim, and comment, RobV.
I still think Naomi Klein was spot on mid year when she was asked if progressive goals had been subsumed by Obamania-ism. Her response was to suggest that if so, it was our own fault as we hadn’t put anywhere near the same energy into issues based campaigning and campaigning around basic social justice objectives. There’s an analogy there for us in Australia. I also think Bernard Keane is on the money when he says that KRudd will be with us for a long time. We have to accept that as the way reality looks at the moment and start thinking a lot more creatively about how nevertheless to produce progressive outcomes rather than defaulting to the reflexive Australian statism of “I wanted the government to fix it – they haven’t – boo hoo”.
Hewson’s hyperbolic column read like he wrote it just after the office Christmas party, or even during the office Christmas party.
Example: Hewson said the RBA declared inflationto be “Public Enemy Number 1″. I doubt very much whether the RBA would ever use such colourful language. Rudd might have, but the grey men in the grey suits at the RBA? Never.
John Hewson’s real beef is the same one he had when Howard was PM, and that is thst no one who matters pays any attention to John Hewson. He thinks he’s the Oracle; he thinks he’s the Philosopher King, but no one has given a fat rat’s clacker about anything he’s had to say since 1994.
Mark, some interesting points about technocratic wonkery in a vacuum, and I would agree almost entirely. While I would argue – very strongly – for the importance of taking expert advice, even when it’s inconvenient, “experts” can’t tell you how to value competing priorities.
That said, in my crazy fantasy world, I’d like politicians to straight-out admit they’ve considered expert advice, and after considered reflection they’re going with their chosen policy because they’re the ones with their necks on the chopping block and they’ve gone with what they think the voters will be happiest with, long term.
If you want to hear more from John Hewson’s perspective on the climate change problem, check out this blog by him – http://www.openforum.com.au/content/carbon-economy-0
Is it possible to contact Dr John Hewson for his comments on the collapse of Elderslie Finance Company? He jumped ship as it collapsed despite his exercise of the “Highest standards” of corporate governance and his reassuring letter to debenture holders in December 2007.