I am sorry to harp on the love of labels and abstractions at The Weekend Australian, but last weekend it reached tsunami proportions. I apologise in advance for the length of this note, but I do see more than bullshit at work here.
Paul Kelly sees the crisis of conservatism as ‘a moral crisis.’ While Mr Kelly does not say what he means by ‘conservatism’, it is not hard to see the crisis as ‘moral’ – at base, all political issues involve moral questions – unless you subscribe to the view that winning means everything.
But then you look at what Mr Kelly says that ‘conservatives’ demand from Turnbull – ‘quitting the Paris accords, pitting coal against renewables, ditching Gonski funding, revisiting the National Disability Insurance Scheme and achieving small government with a new round of spending cuts.’ Then you are even more at sea about what a ‘conservative’ may believe – except, as Mr Kelly says, ‘a package for guaranteed electoral suicide.’ It’s little wonder then that Mr Kelly concludes that ‘the political contest over morality is pivotal and the conservatives mainly lose it.’
But Mr Kelly’s infatuation with –isms finds another demon.
The issue for conservatism has been its paralysis before its gobsmacking individual expressionism and its violation of Christian views of human nature.
The last phrase looks over the top – are we not supposed to be a secular community? – but what on earth is wrong with individuals wishing to express themselves. Isn’t that what ‘conservatism’ is about? ‘Thank you, Government, but no – leave me alone to look after myself.’ And Mr Kelly refers to a writer who gives a horrifying indication of what happens when the individual surrenders to the herd. The highest rating TV show of the 1950’s, I Love Lucy, had a 67.3 Nielsen rating. Can you imagine a worse indictment on the intellectual life of a nation? In 2014, the highest rated show Saturday Night Football maxed out at 14.8 rating. Is not that the best news you have heard from the U S in ages?
Finally, Mr Kelly says that ‘the problem with Turnbull is that he remains a transactional rather than conviction politician.’ There are two labels in play here. What is a conviction politician? If it is politician who is in some way ideologically driven, then they have to confront an aversion that is not just Australian, but Anglo-Saxon. We have produced Gough Whitlam and Paul Keating. The UK produced Mrs Thatcher. Any other takers? One thing is sure. Mr Trump is not a conviction politician. He has no convictions at all.
What then is a transactional politician? When applied to people like Trump or Shorten, it is one of disfavour. Buy why? Is not the ultimate platitude that politics involves the art of compromise? The Turnbull government in my view has transacted good business on trade with our Pacific neighbours, and looks to be navigating the turbulence of Trump. That, for me at least, is good politics, not bad politics.
But Grace Collier tells us the truth about what she and her colleagues think of a ‘transactional politician.’
It is true that Shorten is often described as ‘transactional’. Further, this term is one you always hear when people are trying to account for his seeming lack of core values and belief systems, friendships with the super wealthy and other inexplicable contradictions…..The word transactional and really seems to me just a polite way of saying someone is an untrustworthy shyster who would sell his grandmother to the highest bidder.
Well, sadly, that’s not far off how many Australians see most politicians. But, if you haven’t guessed the politics of Ms Collier yet, she is keen to disabuse you.
Most people think that the purpose of the union movement is to look after working people, in workplaces. That is a naïve assumption and wrong. The purpose of the union movement is to put union officials into parliament.
Well, there it is – and perhaps not surprising from a journalist who sees a friendship between the leader of the ALP and some of our very rich people as involving an ‘inexplicable contradiction.’ Why? Has the man got uppity and got ideas above his station? Is Ms Collier’s commitment to the tribe so commanding? God help us, has she succumbed to ‘identity politics’?
Noel Pearson has a piece on how conservatism has been hijacked by reactionaries. He makes the obvious point that people are never exclusively conservative, liberal or socialist – unless you melt those terms down to nothing. So much of our discussion is flawed by the fallacy that you have to be one thing or the other.
Mr Pearson makes an observation that is so true for most of Team Oz:
…so-called conservatives, while railing against the victimhood of the leftish tribes, are themselves pushing their own victimhood.
He says that Keith Windschuttle, Gary Johns, Andrew Bolt and so many more ‘started in the left,’ but after a Damascene conversion wound up ‘more extreme in their views than their new associates.’ Mr Pearson subscribes to the view that Mr Bolt just ‘found a business model.’ Mr Bolt, then, is no conviction commentator.
Mr Pearson then gets into his stride. ‘The Centre for Western Civilisation is the apotheosis of this reverse identity politics….Conservative English philosopher Roger Scruton in his 2012 book Green Philosophy argued that conservatives should properly be conservationists.’ How could they be otherwise? How could anyone in our political tradition prefer theory to evidence, ideology to facts, or dreams to sense and reality? And Mr Pearson gets something else right.
Howard deferred major crises of conservatism, such as same-sex marriage and religious freedom, climate change and energy security, rather than resolving them.
Chris Kenny riffs, as is his wont, by pushing his own victimhood, to use the term of Mr Pearson.
Bring back the Barnaby story. Half of what passes for national debate is almost as inconsequential….It can’t only be me who simultaneously feels overgoverned and ungoverned…..If voters want environmental gestures, nanny state laws and never-ending government interventions, they can vote for the past masters – Labor – so why vote for the cheap imitations? ….Perhaps Labor did them [Tassie Liberals] a huge favour by proposing a radical poker machine ban they could never accept, thereby forcing them into a strong position of differentiation…But in my view the warning signs are flashing for Liberals across the country. In a haze of opinion polls, social media, and superficial spin-driven politicking, they have forgotten their mission.
Will Mr Kenny never see that he is one of the main creators of the ‘haze…..and superficial spin-driven politicking’? What else has he ever done in life? We can come back to banning poker-machines, but do we not see here Mr Kenny condemning politicians for being naïve in making a moral stand on a matter of conviction?
Speaking of the haze of opinion polls, Dennis Shanahan is obsessed by them. He is also obsessed with the ‘regicide’ of his mate, Tony Abbott. If his piece had any other point, I missed it.
Greg Sheridan wrestles with the moral dilemma of Trump and conservatism. It is or ought to be common ground that Mr Trump is a liar, a fraud, a coward, a fool, a lout, and a man so deeply in love with himself that the word ‘shameless’ is hardly enough.
Trump is in many ways a very unsatisfactory president. But the crisis in Western governance is morphing into a crisis of Western civilisation.
What could that mean? Well, at least Mr Sheridan believes that imposing tariffs is a bad idea – as does Judith Sloan – but why does he feel the need to justify the man and put blame on the ‘exaggerated and hysterical reaction’ of the rest of us?
John Durie has an interesting piece on Mr Andrew Mackenzie, the CEO of BHP. Mr Mackenzie (or Dr Mackenzie) studied geology at St Andrew’s University, took a PhD in organic chemistry at the University of Bristol, and was awarded a Humboldt Research Fellowship at the Julich nuclear research centre in Germany. He is a member of the Royal Society. (The members of the Royal Society don’t elect idiots.) Not bad for a corporate CEO. Far, far better credentials than mine.
But Terry McCrann in his piece sees Mr Mackenzie as part of the ‘commentariat elites’ and an idiot. Since Mr Mackenzie says ‘we don’t hide from the global challenge of climate change’, the rest of the commentariat elite at that paper would also think he’s an idiot. As would all others who falsely call themselves ‘conservatives’ while refusing to act to conserve the earth that we live on.
Leaving the best to last, what does the good Christian Gerard Henderson say about the moral issue of middle class recreational facilities living off the earnings of gaming?
The comments from the likes of White, O’Connor and Brown [people who said the Liberals were ‘a bought government’] are imbued with elitism…..the absence of poker machines and the customers they attract would have put financial pressure on hotels and clubs throughout the state….Whatever the damage caused by the small number of problem gamblers, hotels and clubs give a vibrancy to local life for many citizens.
It’s true the Federal Group campaigned to retain its poker machines in hotels and clubs throughout Tasmania. That’s what the management of a legal business is expected to do. Yet Labor and the Greens are delusional if they hold the view that the Federal Group ‘bought’ the Liberal Party.
Well, there you are. We have so far been looking at bullshit. Now we have more bullshit, and with it, a searing hypocrisy. Bugger morality – just look at the politics. Had the moral question been answered against the government, some businesses would have felt ‘financial pressure.’ Since those businesses were prepared to give a lot of money to the government to avoid that pressure, the moral issue would just be ignored. I was, apparently, wrong to say that all political questions resolve into moral issues – although I did say there was an exception for those who believe that winning is everything.
That’s apparently the view of Mr Henderson. I find it impossible to believe that that view could even have been contemplated by the holy man who preached the Sermon on the Mount and who issued his own death warrant by taking to money dealers with the lash.
If people at the Australian really want to know why newspapers and politicians are so on the nose, just look at those comments of Mr Henderson. They also indicate why his church is sinking before our eyes. The whole mess is terribly sad. I had thought that Mr Henderson was harmless. I now think that I was wrong in that.
In fairness to the faith I have lost, I may say that a good friend of mine who subscribes to that faith – if it matters, as a member of the cloth – was appalled by the comments of Mr Henderson. As I recall it, when the golf club in his town said they would shut down without pokies, my friend asked why shouldn’t they? I think that’s a real question – but not for Mr Henderson. If people cannot maintain a recreational facility without relying on income from a business that inevitably causes harm to other people, why should the rest of us allow it? Are we not complicit in their living off the earnings of wrongdoing?
What is clear is that there is a lot of bullshit involved if people want to talk about morals, convictions and transactions when looking at poker machines in Tasmania. The Liberals knew a transaction when they saw it – you piss in my pocket and I will allow you to pick the pockets of others – to hell with conviction or morals. As squalor goes, this is hard to beat; and when God gets invoked, it becomes unbeatably squalid.