From David Marqand. Decline of the public. Cambridge : Polity, 2004, p. 120:
"In a haunting passage in Democracy in America Alexis De Tocqueville warned that democracy was menaced by a new and subtle find of despotism, in which the "immense and tutelary power" drew its authority from popular election.
'That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labours, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness ....[W]hat remains but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people'
[Alexis De Tocqueville. Democracy in America. Ed. Alan Ryan. London : Everyman's Library, 1994. pp318-319.]
Think "relaxed and comfortable".
14 November 2004
19 September 2004
Reading lists
I've read some fascinating books recently, and have been remiss in writing for the blog. These have explained a good bit for me about Australian politics of historical interest, and with resonances to recent politics. Highly recommended, all three.
Judith Brett. Australian liberals and the moral middle class: from Alfred Deakin to John Howard. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press, 2003.
The Liberal Party (and its anti-labor precedents) and the moral concepts underlying its support. Initially a party for all Australians (unlike the labour movement which clearly identified its own class self interest), protestant and dutiful. That is, until the move of the moral, disinterested citizenry to the Labor Party in the 1970s ... and Howard's move of the Party to the right, and its representation for the self-interested classes, Howard's so-called battlers. A fascinating and satisfying read.
Alison Bronowski. About face: Asian accounts of Australia. Carlton: Scribe, 2003.
Face, or self-image, is presented as of key importance to the Asian mindset. Bronowski describes how Australia undermines its own relevance and influence in the region through the face it presents, as good blokes in an innocent country. But also how views of Australia are manipulated by Asian political elites for their own purposes.
Marion Sawer. The ethical state: social liberalism in Australia. Carlton: Melbourne Univ Press, 2003.
The standard neo-classical economic theories are not new, and this is not the first time they have been tried, and criticised. Sawer presents the social liberal argument (incl. the benefits of investment in poverty relief, and the lack of justice in contracts between parties of unequal power) which was influential in 1890s England. Unlike England, with its rigid class system, Australia was then seen as the place of opportunity for development of these very principles - so we were early with extended suffrage, fair pay, 8-hour days, etc. Sawer is moderately optimistic about a return to these principles, but not particularly convincing.
Judith Brett. Australian liberals and the moral middle class: from Alfred Deakin to John Howard. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press, 2003.
The Liberal Party (and its anti-labor precedents) and the moral concepts underlying its support. Initially a party for all Australians (unlike the labour movement which clearly identified its own class self interest), protestant and dutiful. That is, until the move of the moral, disinterested citizenry to the Labor Party in the 1970s ... and Howard's move of the Party to the right, and its representation for the self-interested classes, Howard's so-called battlers. A fascinating and satisfying read.
Alison Bronowski. About face: Asian accounts of Australia. Carlton: Scribe, 2003.
Face, or self-image, is presented as of key importance to the Asian mindset. Bronowski describes how Australia undermines its own relevance and influence in the region through the face it presents, as good blokes in an innocent country. But also how views of Australia are manipulated by Asian political elites for their own purposes.
Marion Sawer. The ethical state: social liberalism in Australia. Carlton: Melbourne Univ Press, 2003.
The standard neo-classical economic theories are not new, and this is not the first time they have been tried, and criticised. Sawer presents the social liberal argument (incl. the benefits of investment in poverty relief, and the lack of justice in contracts between parties of unequal power) which was influential in 1890s England. Unlike England, with its rigid class system, Australia was then seen as the place of opportunity for development of these very principles - so we were early with extended suffrage, fair pay, 8-hour days, etc. Sawer is moderately optimistic about a return to these principles, but not particularly convincing.
21 July 2004
More on that wall
Today I heard of the UN General Assembly vote on the Israeli wall. Apparently, it was US, Australia, and a few island states (whose poverty-sticken votes, I guess, were somehow influenced) who sided with Israel. Just Australia standing with the US against the world. That's today's Australia for you. Some would look with pride. I don't.
And that was followed by our Foreign Minister concerned with the vociferous complaints of East Timor, which should be so happy with Australia's recent military actions (that, at least, was a fine hour for Australia, even if it was rather late). They should negotiate in confidence, he argued. (I thought, "like good businessmen, commercial-in-confidence, the new Australian form of political accountability"). This was in light of Australia's refusal to accept a role for the International Court of Justice, or an independent third party (New Zealand was suggested), to assist the two countries to reach a resolution. Rich country, poor country. This is not even negotiation for a fair contract, it seems to me.
There's more every day, if you just open your ears ...
And that was followed by our Foreign Minister concerned with the vociferous complaints of East Timor, which should be so happy with Australia's recent military actions (that, at least, was a fine hour for Australia, even if it was rather late). They should negotiate in confidence, he argued. (I thought, "like good businessmen, commercial-in-confidence, the new Australian form of political accountability"). This was in light of Australia's refusal to accept a role for the International Court of Justice, or an independent third party (New Zealand was suggested), to assist the two countries to reach a resolution. Rich country, poor country. This is not even negotiation for a fair contract, it seems to me.
There's more every day, if you just open your ears ...
Cricket: the new history of Aboriginal Australia
It's more with despair than anger that I write this entry. The Canberra Times yesterday recorded the excitement at the National Museum of Australia in the purchase of a boomerang which was supposed to be used by the first Australian cricket team in Britain, which happened to be a (very successful) Aboriginal team. Well, it's an interesting story, and the purchase of a historical artefact like that is a good thing to celebrate. But it was obvious from day 1 that this is the new view of Australian history - the white blindfold view.
So, the history of Australian Aborigines will now be celebrated as one of assimilation of those poor deprived souls into an all-conquering and civilised European (specifically Anglo) culture. The merging of cricket and converted blacks appears to be just too, too much for the NMA to resist. It's the new, relaxed (and blind) view of Australia's history of mateship and a fair go. The Howard view writ large. Sad, but so transparent. And I can imagine the view of the much-revered Australian mainstream becoming relaxed and comfortable with the good deeds we have done, and continue to do, for our poor, backward cousins, as we offer tham a hand-up to our rich, civilised culture.
Several years ago, I could have been swayed, but the "Bringing them home" report on the Stolen Generations changed all that. I was a parent of young children at the time, and close enough to cry at the thought of children removed from their mothers and family and culture. Most defenders just attacked the report as overly emotive, and denied there really was a stolen generation. They called it "political correctness" to use such terms (despite having learnt so well the lesson of controlling thought through language). And there were even those defenders who recognised these events happened, but argued it was for their own good. Paternalistic, and confirmed to remain ignorant of their own thought processes. Look at LO'D, they'd say, or some other successful black who had made it good given a white upbringing and education. But listen to LO'D and you had a different view.
Remember, I was a parent of young children. For once, rationality could not overcome emotional grief at the stories of children being taken from parents. Too, too close to home. They lost me on that one. And the amazing thing it that it just confirmed my disbelief in so many of their other claims.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
But I open today's Canberra Times (Doubts over tour boomerang's origin, by Robert Messenger, in Canberra Times, 21 July 2004, p. 1-2) to amusement with a front-page article on doubts on the authenticity of this very boomerang. Amusing and appropriate. Apparently there were two cricketers called Twopenny, and this boomerang may have been used by the wrong one! Trust some academic in Canberra to report this. As the local Canb Times editor (Jack Waterford) often states, there's an expert on every subject in Canberra. That's perhaps why we're not so easily fooled. (Although Howard's "mainstream" probably thinks that's why we are so easily fooled!)
This new ideological broom is sweeping political correctness from the National Museum, and I despair, but I can laugh at their little mistakes.
So, the history of Australian Aborigines will now be celebrated as one of assimilation of those poor deprived souls into an all-conquering and civilised European (specifically Anglo) culture. The merging of cricket and converted blacks appears to be just too, too much for the NMA to resist. It's the new, relaxed (and blind) view of Australia's history of mateship and a fair go. The Howard view writ large. Sad, but so transparent. And I can imagine the view of the much-revered Australian mainstream becoming relaxed and comfortable with the good deeds we have done, and continue to do, for our poor, backward cousins, as we offer tham a hand-up to our rich, civilised culture.
Several years ago, I could have been swayed, but the "Bringing them home" report on the Stolen Generations changed all that. I was a parent of young children at the time, and close enough to cry at the thought of children removed from their mothers and family and culture. Most defenders just attacked the report as overly emotive, and denied there really was a stolen generation. They called it "political correctness" to use such terms (despite having learnt so well the lesson of controlling thought through language). And there were even those defenders who recognised these events happened, but argued it was for their own good. Paternalistic, and confirmed to remain ignorant of their own thought processes. Look at LO'D, they'd say, or some other successful black who had made it good given a white upbringing and education. But listen to LO'D and you had a different view.
Remember, I was a parent of young children. For once, rationality could not overcome emotional grief at the stories of children being taken from parents. Too, too close to home. They lost me on that one. And the amazing thing it that it just confirmed my disbelief in so many of their other claims.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
But I open today's Canberra Times (Doubts over tour boomerang's origin, by Robert Messenger, in Canberra Times, 21 July 2004, p. 1-2) to amusement with a front-page article on doubts on the authenticity of this very boomerang. Amusing and appropriate. Apparently there were two cricketers called Twopenny, and this boomerang may have been used by the wrong one! Trust some academic in Canberra to report this. As the local Canb Times editor (Jack Waterford) often states, there's an expert on every subject in Canberra. That's perhaps why we're not so easily fooled. (Although Howard's "mainstream" probably thinks that's why we are so easily fooled!)
This new ideological broom is sweeping political correctness from the National Museum, and I despair, but I can laugh at their little mistakes.
16 July 2004
Israel and that wall
"In pursuing this course, Prime Minister Sharon, a long-time patron of extremist settlers, has led Israel down a path of unprecedented peril. His policy behaviour has substantially weakened Israel's moral and political positions in world politics. Under Sharon, in the words of the recently retired speaker of Israel's Knesset, Avraham Burg, Israel today lacks both 'a just path' and 'an ethical leadership', and 'the Israeli nation rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice'. Burg also concludes that 'the countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun'". ("Israel likely to pay a high price for its defiance on West Bank wall", by Amin Saikal, in Canberra Times, 16 July 2004, p. 15).
Selective service is not the draft ... just ready for it
The US is fully prepared to draft young men for war. I was stunned to find this site: Selective Service System. Registration of virtually all 18-26 year old men is in place, and all it needs is a vote of Congress to activate the draft.
Just another suggestion of a US obsession with guns and power and war. How can so powerful a country appear so fearful? Especially when they spend more on defence than the rest of the world put together. To my mind, the US needs to display more of its good side - its culture, its passion, its commitment to bold political ideas, and also more generosity. I trust it's there. They'd find other cultures warming to them, and they'd ultimately have more influence than they presently have with their current warlike, fearful and self-opinionated stance.
Just another suggestion of a US obsession with guns and power and war. How can so powerful a country appear so fearful? Especially when they spend more on defence than the rest of the world put together. To my mind, the US needs to display more of its good side - its culture, its passion, its commitment to bold political ideas, and also more generosity. I trust it's there. They'd find other cultures warming to them, and they'd ultimately have more influence than they presently have with their current warlike, fearful and self-opinionated stance.
10 July 2004
To know history
"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men ... The government of Iraq, and the future of your country, will soon belong to you ... We will end a brutal regime .. so that Iraqis can live in security". It was a new on on me when I read it this morning. The speaker is General FS Maude, Commander of the British Forces to the people of Mesopotamia, 1917. Just goes to show the importance of knowing your history, and the truth of the adage "whoever doesn't know history, is bound to repeat is" or thereabouts.
03 July 2004
An apt quote
This is not one I had read or heard before, but it's particularly apt for the AginSpin blog. It's quoted in a review of a book on war correspondents (Denise Leith. Bearing witness: the lives of war correspondents and photojournalists. Random House, 2004) which further quotes Susan Sontag from "Regarding the pain of others". "[A]fter a certain age [no one] has the right to this kind of innocence, of superficiality, to this degree of ignorance, or amnesia". And yet, I contend that our politics, and especially this current Australian government, are trying to do exactly that. "Relaxed and comfortable" has a meaning, and this is it. As the National Museum falls into the cricket, ANZAC and explorers view of Australia, we see our cultural blindfold settling. What of the future? Or in the shorter term, what of this coming election?
02 July 2004
A universal aim of the power hungry is to stifle dissent
Tony Fitzgerald's speech for the launch of Margo Kingston's new book "Not happy, John!" has the title "Howard a 'radical'". I have always thought of Howard as an economic radical, but a social conservative. Given the change, the return to the future model he's having us digest, perhaps he is radical all round. To me, he's ideological, and prepared to trash our institutions to insinuate his ideologies. The frightening thing is that this may not be one-sided. I certainly don't feel comfortable with a Latham alternative, despite any hope for Howard to be rolled this time around.
See the text of Tony Fitzgerald speech "Howard a 'radical'" on Margo Kingston's SMH Webdiary
See the text of Tony Fitzgerald speech "Howard a 'radical'" on Margo Kingston's SMH Webdiary
01 July 2004
Empiricism or rationalism?
This was an eye opener for me. I had always thought myself rational, although I had recognised that a logical structure built on false assumptions is valueless, and possibly dangerous, and thus we have to continually test our assumptions. I interpret it this way: by all means, use logic to build your expectations, but continue to test against observations (I was about to write "reality", but that's a loaded word these days, too) and be aware of your assumptions. In science, I guess this would be finding the best current approximation to reality (here I'll use the word!) through testable hypotheses.
"The philosophy of experience is known as empiricism. Empiricism says that a concept is valid only if it is derived from, or is testable by, experience. The alternative theory is ‘rationalism’, the view that truth cannot be attained otherwise than by reasoning from self-evident first principles. The rationalist paradigm of knowledge is logic, the empiricist paradigm is science. Empirical knowledge is less certain than logic; it is tentative, responsive to new evidence and better research, always open to test. It is therefore the very embodiment of the spirit of preparedness to learn. Outside the formal disciplines of logic and mathematics there are no absolute certainties -- except of course in religion, which abounds in them, to the extent that people commit murder for their sake. But the experience of history always shows the danger of dogma. What additional bitterness of experience is needed before we learn to return dogma to the kennels of history whence it came?"
The reason of things : living with philosophy / AC Grayling. London: Phoenix, 2003. p.159
"The philosophy of experience is known as empiricism. Empiricism says that a concept is valid only if it is derived from, or is testable by, experience. The alternative theory is ‘rationalism’, the view that truth cannot be attained otherwise than by reasoning from self-evident first principles. The rationalist paradigm of knowledge is logic, the empiricist paradigm is science. Empirical knowledge is less certain than logic; it is tentative, responsive to new evidence and better research, always open to test. It is therefore the very embodiment of the spirit of preparedness to learn. Outside the formal disciplines of logic and mathematics there are no absolute certainties -- except of course in religion, which abounds in them, to the extent that people commit murder for their sake. But the experience of history always shows the danger of dogma. What additional bitterness of experience is needed before we learn to return dogma to the kennels of history whence it came?"
The reason of things : living with philosophy / AC Grayling. London: Phoenix, 2003. p.159
Missile defence: physicist says it all
The scientists have been consistently open on this issue, ever since its first incarnation under Reagan. They're the one's who'd know. Who am I to say otherwise. Here's a recent quote.
"'This is perfectly reasonable, since a non-working missile defense system should be sufficient to deter a non-existent threat from Iran or North Korea.' Bob Park, editor of the American Physical Society's "What's New" newsletter, on the US Senate Armed Services Committee's decision to deploy the missile system without independent tests to prove it works (18 June)"
Quoted in New scientist, Vol. 182, no. 2453, 26 June 2004, p. 12
"'This is perfectly reasonable, since a non-working missile defense system should be sufficient to deter a non-existent threat from Iran or North Korea.' Bob Park, editor of the American Physical Society's "What's New" newsletter, on the US Senate Armed Services Committee's decision to deploy the missile system without independent tests to prove it works (18 June)"
Quoted in New scientist, Vol. 182, no. 2453, 26 June 2004, p. 12
30 June 2004
Not happy, John
I borrow the title from a recent book by Margo Kingston, which I have yet to read, but it fits so appropriately. I think "not happy, ..." is also in current usage in the UK. Seems appropriate, despite the application to different sides of the political spectrum. But this heading is mainly for a perfect quote from last Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald. Alan Ramsay quotes from an email he had recently received. I read it, and blushed to think that someone had said exactly what I so often feel. I'm waiting for the true liberals to come out of the woodwork. There are issues of principle here, and power does not justify the extent ot which Australians have been misinformed and maipulated.
"Then there was the email from an old Liberal Party friend on Thursday, which read: 'Congrats on your piece on the opinion polls. I'm constantly bemused by the Canberra press gallery's laziness in its reporting and analysis. It's tribal, superficial, out-of-touch with real life. Above all it's so predictable, bogged down in the excruciating detail of daily political combat. Only a few seem to want to hold the Government to account for its deeds and words. They seem to prefer the contest - the slippery, weasel words, the insults - to actually reporting fact and separating it from propaganda. Was it always thus? I think not.
"Have not changed my mind about the outcome of this eight-month election campaign. Howard will lose, not because he's personally hated (like Keating was by many) but because normal people are getting tired of the constant fear-mongering, the lies, the over-the-top propaganda, pathetic use of flags and soldiers in uniform, the wedge attempts, kids locked up, the shrilly desperate Downer, the revolting Ruddock (he used to be a liberal), and above all the old-style poilitics of say anything, do anything, deny everything. Jesus, it looks and sounds so tawdry.
"It is eerie watching CNN or Fox cable news. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft; it could be Howard, Costello, Ruddock. The words and symbols are identical. By Christmas it will all be over - in both countries.
"Sorry about the rant. It comes over me when I get deeply depressed.'
"Many of us know exactly what he means."
My comments? I also feel that depression. There are issues of democracy that this politics is threatening. Howard is not the first - Labour has used a good few of these tricks - but the extent to which they are used is blistering. Deceit, or at least manipulation, minimally spin. Implication, rather than explanation. See, hear, do no evil, where really the ministerial buck stops here. I don't think it's so obvious that Howard will lose, though. There are new generations out there with different concerns - not even the environment, let alone social justice. To some degree, Howard's relaxed and comfortable has been successful. Come to think of it, it's a version of that Australian classic, "don't you worry about that" [= trust me, I'm a politician]. As for Liberals mimicking US pollies, well it does make a mockery of the attempt to paint Latham as a plagiarist. Liberal politicians have been following the lead of the US republicans for years over Iraq and other issues: "cut and run" and "elites" are just two populist and effective arguments that are in my mind just now. For now, I long for some true liberals to come out of the woodwork, and let their philosophy triumph over their unprincipled desire to hold power, regardless. Be very scared where politicians tell you someone is "unAustralian" or any other un-acceptable thing. The next one could be you.
"Then there was the email from an old Liberal Party friend on Thursday, which read: 'Congrats on your piece on the opinion polls. I'm constantly bemused by the Canberra press gallery's laziness in its reporting and analysis. It's tribal, superficial, out-of-touch with real life. Above all it's so predictable, bogged down in the excruciating detail of daily political combat. Only a few seem to want to hold the Government to account for its deeds and words. They seem to prefer the contest - the slippery, weasel words, the insults - to actually reporting fact and separating it from propaganda. Was it always thus? I think not.
"Have not changed my mind about the outcome of this eight-month election campaign. Howard will lose, not because he's personally hated (like Keating was by many) but because normal people are getting tired of the constant fear-mongering, the lies, the over-the-top propaganda, pathetic use of flags and soldiers in uniform, the wedge attempts, kids locked up, the shrilly desperate Downer, the revolting Ruddock (he used to be a liberal), and above all the old-style poilitics of say anything, do anything, deny everything. Jesus, it looks and sounds so tawdry.
"It is eerie watching CNN or Fox cable news. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft; it could be Howard, Costello, Ruddock. The words and symbols are identical. By Christmas it will all be over - in both countries.
"Sorry about the rant. It comes over me when I get deeply depressed.'
"Many of us know exactly what he means."
My comments? I also feel that depression. There are issues of democracy that this politics is threatening. Howard is not the first - Labour has used a good few of these tricks - but the extent to which they are used is blistering. Deceit, or at least manipulation, minimally spin. Implication, rather than explanation. See, hear, do no evil, where really the ministerial buck stops here. I don't think it's so obvious that Howard will lose, though. There are new generations out there with different concerns - not even the environment, let alone social justice. To some degree, Howard's relaxed and comfortable has been successful. Come to think of it, it's a version of that Australian classic, "don't you worry about that" [= trust me, I'm a politician]. As for Liberals mimicking US pollies, well it does make a mockery of the attempt to paint Latham as a plagiarist. Liberal politicians have been following the lead of the US republicans for years over Iraq and other issues: "cut and run" and "elites" are just two populist and effective arguments that are in my mind just now. For now, I long for some true liberals to come out of the woodwork, and let their philosophy triumph over their unprincipled desire to hold power, regardless. Be very scared where politicians tell you someone is "unAustralian" or any other un-acceptable thing. The next one could be you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
