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.
Continue reading ‘Strange affiliations: the Clean Feed’s political trajectory’
I have to confess at the outset that I haven’t read the report – I am really busy with work at the moment and I simply don’t have time (or energy when I do have time), but I wanted to comment instead on the practice of not reading. I was struck by this when reading Mark’s post from last night about the reactions of Gerard Henderson and Kevin Donnelly to the report released by Stuart Macintyre’s history curriculum panel. Donnelly, when interviewed on Lateline (and why is it necessary to interview him – for balance? … so that the substance of the story can be obscured by inscription in a “history wars” frame – what happened to journos perhaps reading the report and reporting on its substance not a press release?) couldn’t actually point to anything in the report which would support the line he wanted to run about a “black armband view” and wanted to mutter something dark instead about Labor being tricky about pretending not to be as left wing as they are. Incidentally, that’s the cunning new strategy that Chrissy Pyne came up with the other day, if we believe his ghost writer Glenn Milne.
Similarly, Hendo appeared to be reacting to a press release. Now these characters are held up as “public intellectuals” and their assemblage of titles (thinktank director, educator/consultant, etc) supposedly represent authority and expertise. Obviously, they’re just going to push the political line they run with constantly, but what’s happened to the idea that you should actually inform yourself about what you comment on?
(Hendo, I suppose, doesn’t have time, what with having to write 50 emails a day to Robert Manne about what they each thought about Indonesia in the 1960s, or monitoring the ABC all day for “bias”…)
Something very similar is operating with the reaction of Warren Mundine to the NT Intervention Review. Andrew Bartlett asks some pointed questions:
Yet almost all the attacks seem to be ignoring the evidence about what has been happening on the ground, and the views of the people that live there, instead treating policies such as universal compulsory quarantining of welfare payments and scrapping the permit system as sacred totems which cannot be touched, regardless of the evidence.
Continue reading ‘Review into the NT Intervention: on not reading and stereotyped debates’
In the wake of discussion of Andrew Forrest’s proposal for the creation of 50 000 full time jobs for Indigenous Australians (discussed here at LP) and Germaine Greer’s remarks on the continuing force of history in shaping Indigenous responses to state initiatives (discussed here and see the video of last night’s Q&A), I thought it was worth linking to a paper prepared for the Australian Education Union by UTS Indigenous academics Larissa Behrendt and Ruth McCausland. The specific topic they examine is welfare quarantining and schooling outcomes. I’d recommend anyone interested read the whole thing, but the abstract has also been posted at Australian Policy Online.
As well as discussing the philosophy of mutual obligation (referred to as John Howard’s most significant legacy to social policy), the authors point to the lack of an evidence base for most policy initiatives in this area – something almost totally lacking in the research which justified Noel Pearson’s proposals for “family commissions” in Cape York, which is now being held up as a model for the rest of Australia. This appears inconsistent with Jenny Macklin’s disclaimers of ideological motivation and claims that evidence and “what works” would be the criterion for Indigenous policy. They also point to several studies which demonstrate that parental responsibility in sending kids to schools is at best only one factor in school attendance and outcomes, with the quality of schooling and child health also being very important variables.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that most policy initiatives in this area are at best blunt instruments. It also suggests that they are being driven by a new orthodoxy – arguments about “personal responsibility” and “social norms” being more assertion than evidence based. Most tellingly, perhaps, and here Greer’s comments are important too, is the suggestion that the obligation is almost entirely one sided and thus lacking in mutuality – and that the state is failing to put in place the preconditions for such experiments to have much chance of providing enduring outcomes. That doesn’t leave me feeling me feeling very hopeful about the prospects of closing the gap.
Unsurprisingly, the release of the government’s discussion paper on the pension system has prompted calls for immediate action. Perhaps the opposition were all waiting for Godot Costello somewhere because The Greens appear to have been first out of the starting block, with Senator Rachel Siewert calling for an instant $30 increase and damning “yet another review”.
The discussion paper emphasises the fact that 77% of Australians over 65 rely to greater or lesser degree on income support. It also highlights the fact that on current projections, the percentage of the population over 65 will rise from 13% now to 25% by 2047. Few aged pensioners currently supplement their income with paid work, but that can be expected to increase, and there may also be debates about the age cut-in as the labour supply situation alters and health outcomes improve. Because the income support system costs 6.8% of GDP, its sustainability is very relevant, and increases are also very expensive because of the very large number of recipients. The paper also considers those on Disability Support and Carer pensions, where the issues are different for many – with fewer having substantial assets and more receiving some income from paid work.
Continue reading ‘Pension review paper prompts calls for immediate increase’
Recent comments
zoot, Gummo Trotsky, AdamTucker, desipis, desipis, Casey [...]
Casey, Geoff Robinson, Pavlov's Cat, Jacques de Molay, Deborah, CMMC [...]
josh, Gummo Trotsky, Wood Duck, joe2, tssk, joe2 [...]
Alison, anthony nolan, joe2, tssk, Gummo Trotsky, Ginja [...]
Fran Barlow, Jacques Chester, John D, HuggyBunny, Chris, Tim Macknay [...]
ewe2, Helen, Luke Walladge, anthony nolan, Paul Burns, anthony nolan [...]
Renee, Nay with two gorgeous boys, Lefty E, murph the surf., conrad, conrad [...]
Ian Curr, Chav, Chav, Liam, Paul Norton, Fran Barlow [...]
Frankie V., armagny, sg, Robert Merkel, wilful
Caroline Church, Fran Barlow, Sam, Jenny, Sam, Kim [...]
Liam, anthony nolan, pablo, Ute Man, Col. Douglas C. Niedermeyer, Mindy [...]
David Irving (no relation), Roger Jones, David Irving (no relation), Elise, Paul Norton, Gummo Trotsky [...]