In the post immediately below, I argue that it's an error to label John Howard as a "neocon" comparable to George W Bush. However, that isn't to say that there aren't some interesting and instructive parallels to be drawn, especially in terms of the rhetoric and mindset of conservative pundits in both countries. They frequently seem to be reading from a common hymn book. One of the favourite hymns is the one that bemoans the imagined oppressive leftie domination of the media and academia. This comment from Michael Warby (on Mark Bahnisch's recent post about the rhetorical failings of the left) is fairly typical; you can read similar things from Tim Blair, Professor Bunyip and other RWDB pundits almost any day of the week:
I get a laugh out of the left complaining about the alleged propaganda advantages of the right. Let's see; the left-of-centre dominates academe, curriculum development and implementation, literary grants, ARC grants, Fairfax metros, the ABC, the SBS, advocacy NGOs, unions, hunts in packs ...
It's an article of RWDB faith. But precisely the same phenomenon is evident in US conservative pundit rhetoric, with the New York Times and commercial TV networks (except Fox) being endlessly excoriated as bastions of socialist evil. Thomas Frank explains it this way:
The basic idea of victimhood on the right it's even worse than Rush Limbaugh. His brother wrote a book and the title is one of these one-word titles that conservatives love: "Persecution." The idea is that Christians are persecuted right here in the U.S. of A. - you know, right here, right now, Christians are being persecuted by the liberal elite, of course.The idea is that there is this elite that controls society, and that there's almost nothing you can do about it. You are powerless and helpless before these people, and they fiddle with your culture. They change what's on TV, and they change the language however they want. They're not accountable and there's almost nothing you can do about it except get mad. This is the conservative fantasy of victimhood - that they are society's greatest victims.
This is particularly interesting, given that a guy like Limbaugh and a guy like O'Reilly love to talk about the culture of victimization. Conservative pop culture has the biggest victim fantasy of them all. You raise another very important issue, which is one of the things that I want people to take away from the book, and that is the gigantic contradiction in conservatism that the free market capitalism that they profess to love delivers this culture that they find so offensive and so abhorrent.
The only way they can get out of this contradiction is to imagine a liberal conspiracy that controls things, so they can get free-market capitalism off the hook. All you have to do is talk about this. If the Democrats just talked about this, I think that contradiction could be made unavoidable. And that contradiction is fatal for conservatism, in my opinion.
Further thoughts - Frank has a point. But there may be additional elements to the RWDB victimhood rhetoric and mindset. We shouldn't ignore the Straussian influence, for example: leftie cultural elites being calculatedly conceptualised as a common internal enemy/threat to unite the lumpen masses in opposition to an imagined 'Other'.
And perhaps the psychological insights of transactional analysis theorist Eric Berne might even be relevant:
Eric Berne, the originator of Transactional Analysis and social game theory, defines a game as "sets of ulterior transactions, repetitive in nature, with a well-defined pay off" [Berne, Eric, MD. - What Do You Say after You Say Hello? (New York: Grove Press Inc., 1972)]. Satisfaction of position hunger is the existential advantage of the game. This, as we said, is the need to feel "one-up" or "one-down" in relationship to another person in order to vindicate a not-OK existential position. The arrogant position, I'm OK - you're not OK, is the basis of the common domestic squabble game called Uproar where insinuations of worthlessness are tossed back and forth like a hot potato with escalating vehemence in order to avoid intimacy.
Games vary in intensity or degree from the relatively harmless first degree to the hard third degree game which leads to personal injury and involves tissue destruction. In any given episode of a game, the players must initially adopt one of the three complimentary attitudinal stances referred to as: Victim, Rescuer, or Persecutor. The participants then engage in ulterior transactions leading to a switch in stances for each player. This usually comes as somewhat of a surprise, at least for one of them, after which comes a moment of confusion called the crossup. The cardinal symptom by which a person can recognize that a social game is in progress is that momentary feeling of being off balance, at odds with what she thought was happening, of elation over a sudden sly victory, or frustration of having been conned. With the switch and cross-up comes the psychological payoff in which each player collects positive or negative strokes. Since a negative stroke is regarded as better than no stroke, the game may then proceed to the next round with the players each in a new victim/rescuer/persecutor role. Dr. Stephen Karpman developed the diagram below, called the Drama Triangle, to illustrate the three game role positions and their interchangebility [Karpman, S. - TA Bulletin, 7, (April 1968) P. 39-43.].
It rather reminds me of the feeling I sometimes get from participating in the Troppo comment box dialogue, actually.
if the US media is dominated by Bush haters then how iin the world did 70% of yanks end up believing the piffle that Hussein organised 11/9?
without that great lie there would have been no invasion nor second term presidency for Bush.
Ah Thomas Frank, ever apt.
Homer, the book by Lakoff I talked about in the post Ken linked to addresses precisely your question.
As I said there, the rhetorical posture of standing with the people against the "elites" is a powerful one. And Ken's right to say that claiming victimhood is an essential element of it.
Poor downtrodden right wingers...
The idea that "70% of Yanks believe that Saddam organised 9/11" is a left-wing myth. In fact, 70% of Yanks believe that there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, which is a completely different belief, and one that is justified by known facts.
This is just one more example of how left-wing elites distort the facts to suit themselves.
Of course, the Thomas Frank quote above is rubbish. Far from believing that they are helpless victims of a left-wing conspiracy, right-wingers are empowering themselves to change the situation. People like Frank don't want this to happen, so they try to pretend that there is nothing that needs changing. We are not fooled.
One symptom of the cult of right wing victimhood is the ubiquitous use of the word evil in reference to themselves. Poor things, just trying to make helpful suggestions, but thanks to leftie domination of the media, everyone thinks they're evil.
Ok, EP, we won't expect to hear you complaining about lefties' dominating anything anymore - we'll assume you're out there empowering yourself instead.
There are many areas dominated by the Left -- notably education and the media -- but the point of the exercise is to overthrow the dominant elites in those sections of society.
To replace them with dominant right-wing elites, presumably. Unless you're going to go with Athenian democracy and select people by lot.
sorry the precise wording is 'was responsible'.
How did this myth gain ground in the USA?
Actually, a reasonably balanced diversity of opinion in media and education would be sufficient. It would certainly be better than the near-monolithic dominance of the Left in those fields.
Homer, the myth that Americans are ill-informed by right-wing media has its origins with a left-wing think tank which published a biased study with the intention of discrediting Fox News. Naturally this propaganda was spread about by left-wing media and bloggers, which is probably where you picked it up.
NB See the additional thoughts I've just added to the primary post.
Don't be silly Evil. All the left needs do is become more left, and the whole media would be automatically dominated by the right. The alleged left-wing media, academe etc myth is self-generated and self-proved by the emergence of an historically extreme right. We are dealing with a relative spectrum metaphor. If you want to be substantive, you need to take into account real philosophical terms.
Chris, there isn't any "emergence of an historically extreme right" here. That's just a perception caused by your own far-left perspective.
By the way, Ken, nothing you have said or quoted in any way disproves Michael Warby's observation that "the left-of-centre dominates academe, curriculum development and implementation, literary grants, ARC grants, Fairfax metros, the ABC, the SBS, advocacy NGOs, unions, hunts in packs ...".
You merely proceed on the assumption that he is wrong, and quote dodgy pseudo-psychological theories purporting to explain the thinking of right-wingers. But nowhere do you produce any evidence to contradict Warby's facts.
Dream on Evil. All the zones you think are dominated by the 'left-of-centre' were all regarded as right-wing before the left shattered. There isn't anything coherent called the 'left' anymore, only right-wingers, and the heterogenity of everyone else.
Michael Warby's observations on cultural hegemony are spot on - except that above all, it is an age bracket (b.1946-1962) that dominates academe, arts grants, journalism, etc.
This is hardly news, and the Right's constuction of a straw man (how can a boomer smugly contented with his/her house equity windfall possibly be called "left"?) does its own cause no favours.
For me, Warby and his ilk are also part of the problem, in having denied the next generation access to proper/affordable jobs, housing, education etc.
Paul
I would never accuse you of playing Berne's Uproar game. You just cleave instantly to the victim role and cling to it grimly irrespective of any inconveniently inconsistent facts.
You're hallucinating, Chris. Time for your medication.
Denying that the Left exists is a tactic that some lefties like to use in order to deflect attacks. If a thing cannot be named, it cannot be criticised.
You deny that the Left exists, yet it is the very thing that you represent and defend. Hence your denial has no credibility.
EP, there are a number of polling organisations that have polled on this in the US.
They poll on anything there.
This figure was below 50% pre-invasion to just over 50% just after invasion to 70% during the election campaign.
A vast majority of yanks thought Hussein was behind 11/9.
Why did they fall for this guff?
Does Berne suggest ways to avoid all the role playing & the (sigh)inevitable "tissue destruction", Ken?
Homer, read George Lakoff's book on this:
http://troppoarmadillo.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/008730.html
Wen
Transactional analysis is a quite evolved set of theory and practice nowadays. It involves many aspects, but perhaps most importantly helping people develop insight into existing pathological ways of interacting with others by analysing beviour in terms of "games" and "scripts", by role-playing some of these games, especially healthy ones (I'm OK You're OK instead of switching roles games of I'm OK You're Not OK)), and by adopting a contract-based approach to changing behaviour. See http://www.itaa-net.org/ta/keyideas.htm .
I see alternating drama triangle games of victim/rescuer/persecutor around me all the time, and I think merely the fact of being conscious of the games helps me to recognise them and avoid participating in them (or nip it in the bud if you find yourself doing it).
Mind you, perhaps in part I'm playing it right now, alternating between meta-narrative-revealing rescuer and condescending persecutor, while EP happily mostly plays the victim but also simultaneously persecutes Chris Sheil as personification of the left.
"... the myth that Americans are ill-informed by right-wing media has its origins with a left-wing think tank which published a biased study with the intention of discrediting Fox News. Naturally this propaganda was spread about by left-wing media and bloggers, which is probably where you picked it up."
Would that be the survey "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War" conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks Poll on October 2, 2003 EP? There's an extensive discussion of it in _America Alone (The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order)_ by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke (of whom more later):
"... The data demonstrated that in the lead up to the war and during the postwar period, a large section of the American public held a number of misperceptions that played a vital role in creating and sustaining support for the decision to got to war. For example: Significant numbers of the US electorate believed Iraq to have been directly involved in the attacks of 9/11; that Iraq and al-Qaeda were linked; that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq after the war; that Iraq actually used weapons of mass destruction during the war; and that world opinion generally approved of America's going to war ..."
They go on to repeat the frequent assertion that the study found that Fox News was the principal source of these misperceptions. In the introduction to the book, Halper and Clarke assert that they are conservatives and Republicans of a "center-right" persuasion. Of course we only have their word for that.
Homer, you are mistaken. The vast majority of Yanks believe no such thing.
You are relying on a distortion of the truth, created by left-wing propagandists.
It is you who have fallen for their guff.
That's the one, Gummo. A biased study that presented a highly distorted version of what Americans believed, and used it to attack non-left-wing media.
I read that that bogus study when it was released, and responded to it on my blog:
http://evilpundit.com/archives/004207.html
Like the dodgy Lancet "study" of Iraq war deaths, it was a cocked up piece of advocacy research designed to produce a specific result for propaganda purposes.
Some guy called for you again Evil Pee, and with the same message: "why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?"
You used to be witty, Nabakov. What happened?
To those whinging right-wingers who complain about left-wing academia, how about we do a swap. We'll dump a representative bunch of you into the arts faculties of our universities, where you can resume your endless culture wars at the University House lunch tables. In return, how about we appoint some of the unemployed senior academics to the boards of our top 50 companies, especially PBL, News Corp, and Fairfax. Oh, and we'd like matching funds from those companies to go to NGO's for all the money they spend on astroturfing and corporate hospitality to our politicians.
We covered that story at this very blog evil. You might recall losing the argument.
http://troppoarmadillo.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/003165.html
EP, perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying.
There are more polls done in the USA than there were WMDS!
It is not hard to conduct one.
There are a plethora of organisations that do them so the polls have been done and the results are in.
There is a little difference the last time I looked at them however it was all in the margin of error.
A vast majority of the US believe Hussein was responsible for 11/9.
I didn't mention my favourite which was a majority of peoople who voted for Bush believed they found WMDs however I have not seen this polled by other organisations!
"This figure was below 50% pre-invasion to just over 50% just after invasion to 70% during the election campaign."--Homer Paxton
"I would have thought an excellent example of Joseph Goebbels-type propaganda was the fact that 70% of Yanks believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 11/9!
Posted by: Homer Paxton at August 17, 2004 04:09 PM"
http://slattsnews.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/006839.html
It's pity that Steve Edward's old site is gone then you would see just how far back Homers 70% goes to pre-invasion .
I assume the meds haven't kicked in, Chris, because you're still drifting quite a ways from reality when you imagine I "lost" that argument. I guess one advantage of having lefties in universities is that it frees up space in our under-resourced residential institutions for the feeble-minded.
Homer, you're just mindlessly repeating the same erroneous claim without providing any evidence. You won't convince anyone that way.
"You used to be witty, Nabakov. What happened?"
I was never witty. That was just another distortion of the truth, created by left-wing propagandists.
Interesting to look at that old link cs, and notice how none of the pro-war people were running "But it's all about bringing democracy to Iraq" line back then.
Does anyone else find it as strange as I do that pointing out the rather ubiquitous existence of alternating victim/rescuer/persecutor role-playing games in interpersonal discourse mostly does nothing whatever to restrain people from simply continuing to play them as enthusiastically as ever?
Ken, I want to be a victim! I thought I was the personification of the left for EP! I'm conspicuously indignant!!! So, rescue me!!!
Does anyone think Howard would have been keen to invade Iraq if Bush hadn't been? Was it high on his agenda? Does anyone think that Howard in his heart of hearts thought it was a good idea at any stage?
Howard, left to his own devices, is caution personified in international affairs. Given his druthers (whatever they are) he'd be happy as larry staying at home to rip off workers, put women back in the home, take higher education back off the masses, bathe in sporting glory etc.. and foreigners could remain foreign and mind their own business.
My feeling is he puts on the shiteating grin for Bush (in the same way he does for Packer or anyone with more power than him) and goes along with any idiot scheme because of the primacy of the alliance. Call it cowardice or expedience according to your stripes (or both, as I do), but it isn't idealism or concern for the Iraqi people. It's submission.
For such an esentially risk-averse politician, Bush's hubris would be anathema. Perhaps Howard sits up at night at Kirribilli nursing a Para Port and cursing Bush's callow inability to parse anything his controllers told him, his total lack of analytic powers or independence of mind, his rather childish appeals to romantic notions of democracy and freedom - exquisitely tailored fo his information poor and ill-educated audience, his princely self-delusion and dishonesty, his basic unfitness for leadership.
I imagine Howard (like Blair perhaps) secretly hating Bush for utterly destroying the quality of his legacy, even as we marvel at it's width. But if he's honest, he will save a dollop of bile for his own weakness, his fatal flaw, his personal tendency to expedience, the almost pathological aversion to taking the high road.
Iraq won't be the only decision made with that trademark combo of lily liver and rat cunning that the PM will live to regret (Tampa comes to mind too) but it is the most important.
He should see about getting the grin fixed permanently - he's going to need it.
Interesting to look at that old link and see how much actual linking to sources was going on in support of arguments. That's all gone now.
I really think the comments section of this blog would be vastly improved by turning linkage back on. There are better ways to stop spammers.
Oh, it's like the Lancet study -- solid research endorsed by every expert in the field consulted? It's that good, according to EP it would seem.
"Let's see; the left-of-centre dominates academe, curriculum development and implementation, literary grants, ARC grants, Fairfax metros, the ABC, the SBS, advocacy NGOs, unions"
Which is 100% true. Do you have some super-secret information which refutes his claim?
In the US, right-wing students are routinely victimised by left-wing faculty for the crime of holding different beliefs to their teachers. I think they have a legitimate gripe.
The point of this article seems to be they should just stop whining about getting failed and leave the universities to the lefties like it should be. Or did I miss something?
I realise that this is an attempt to be "centrist", but Ken, if you're going to attack the right, at least have something to attack them over.
Yobbo, in what sense do you think the left of centre dominates the Fairfax metros, for example?
Yobbo (and others) do need to be corrected. From my experience, the likely truth is that the humanities has a preponderance of liberal-minded academics. This should not be surprising, given that the liberal academic tradition leads in so many fields world-over, Keith Windschuttle notwithstanding. It is at teacher level that the political characterisation is wildly wrong, notwithstanding exceptions. Below postgraduate level, most teachers are primarily preoccupied with inducting students into the mainstreams of their subjects, and helping and encouraging them to make their own arguments, whatever those arguments may be. Originality is the most highly placed value, not conformity. If anything has changed politically over the past decade it is that teachers have become more sensitive to right-wing arguments and authors etc. This is sort of like an abc reaction, where we are bending over backwards. I encourage all my right-wingers, rcoommend texts for them, pose problems, help them wth their expression, encourage them to make their own arguments and stick to them. If we're going to have right-wing intellectuals, especially if they come from one of my classes, let's at least have some decent ones. Now, wouldn't that be refreshing. Must be off. Have a class right now.
Chris is right. That's why I teach Hayek and Friedman when I teach political economy.
"Homer, you're just mindlessly repeating the same erroneous claim without providing any evidence. You won't convince anyone that way."
EP, this comment coming from YOU is priceless. I had been thinking similar thoughts about your posts. Where is your proof of YOUR claims.
Gary, 2004 was an election year!
i suspect that it is a case of ignorance of rather than hostility to the classical liberal tradition among social science/humanities academics.
Well, Polly, that proof would be referenced by the link to my blog that I posted above, which you somehow missed in your careful reading of this comment thread.
Robert Merkel makes a very good point and it has occurred to me before.
When RWDBs like myself start going over the top with our conspicuous indignation, it begs the question: "If they are not going to be in the creative industries, where are you going to put them" Doesn't take long before I decide they are best left where they are.
Of course conspicuous indignation is a relative term. It is only now that we are becoming vocal in our objection to certain givens. We are whining like f*cked diffs but we are coming off a very low base. So, please lefties, a bit of slack. We were slow on the uptake. The penny only just dropped after Howard's election victorey prior to the last (and the blogosphere) that there may be others who actually agree with us. We were raised by teachers unions to believe we were ideologically perverted and leperous and we best keep quiet.
If somebody was to knock on my door this very day and ask me if I thought Saddam was behind the bombings on 9/11 I'd probably say "Yes" myself. Not because I believe he was literally behind it, I know he wasn't, but because I lump them altogether as "crazy Arab toublemakers who are in dire need of a tune up" We chose Afganistan and Iraq to start cleaning up the planet and it was as good a place as any and nobody with any decency (a subjective term, I concede this) gives two shits about what Koffi and Bob Brown might say about it.
NO I didn't miss it EP. I meticulously went to you blog and to all the other links. There were quite a number of claims made but NO PROOF re the figure you are disputing.
I have seen similar claims from other poll sources. So where are the polls, surveys etc that you claim show different figures?
Your original post is about whether they were misperceptions or not not it does NOT dispute the 70% figure (or any of the others). Wizbang discusses causation ie the conclusion they held those miconceptions because they watched Fox.
Where is the proof , the statistics, the documents.
"If somebody was to knock on my door this very day and ask me if I thought Saddam was behind the bombings on 9/11 I'd probably say "Yes" myself. Not because I believe he was literally behind it, I know he wasn't, but because I lump them altogether as "crazy Arab toublemakers who are in dire need of a tune up" We chose Afganistan and Iraq to start cleaning up the planet "
So that's why we went to the trouble of invading Iraq so that Islamists could get into power. Makes sense.
You aren't reading, Polly.
Homer claims that 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
In fact, what a majority of Americans believe is that there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
These are two different things.
Polly, Homers been using the 70% claim since before the Iraq war attributing it from a CBS to election exit poll's. Unfortunately I cannot prove it because the site with his comment are no longer.
Heres a more up to date survey http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html#1 complements of ChrisV from co-author Yoggo's site.
And for a fun game ask Homer who invoked ANZUS Treaty and over what conflict.
Polly, Homers been using the 70% claim since before the Iraq war attributing it from a CBS to election exit poll's. Unfortunately I cannot prove it because the site with his comment are no longer.
Heres a more up to date survey http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html#1 complements of ChrisV from co-author Yobbo's site.
And for a fun game ask Homer who invoked ANZUS Treaty and over what conflict.
But it's still avoiding the point Gary that people who regularly watch the "fair and balanced" Fox News are much more likely to hold inaccurate information about the biggest geo-political caper of the century so far.
True, Homer does himself no favours by misstating his key points but, no matter how many hairs you spilt, it's still a bloody flimsy comb-over that yer trying to pass off as a full head of natural hair.
Good thing the left is there to provide a bit of balance hey?
"But it's still avoiding the point Gary that people who regularly watch the "fair and balanced" Fox News are much more likely to hold inaccurate information about the biggest geo-political caper of the century so far."
If you followed that link you would have found it supports your opinion. But I gather Nabakov , you expected it didn't.
"True, Homer does himself no favours by misstating his key points but, no matter how many hairs you spilt, it's still a bloody flimsy comb-over that yer trying to pass off as a full head of natural hair."
The facts are wrong but the sentiments are true,is that it?
It is hard to exaggerate the dishonesty of this post.
First, I didn't claim any sort of victimhood. I merely pointed out that if the left had problems selling its message, it certainly wasn't from lack of resources. Which suggested that its problems lie elsewhere
Second, I was very specific about which institutions I nominated. I noticed none of the list has been challenged.
Third, I am not a conservative.
Here's P J O'Rourke commenting on famous victim of the media John Kerry:
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/350fnrnt.asp)
[Kerry says] "And when you look at the statistics and understand that about 80 percent of America gets 100 percent of its news from television, and a great deal of that news comes from either MTV, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Jay Leno, David Letterman, you begin to see the size of the challenge." (Those were all Kerry supporters or, at any rate, Bush opponents, but this thought—if any thinking occurred—didn't slow Kerry.)
firstly EP I have siad there have been a plethora of polls on this subject.
If you have missed some of them I'm sorry but I happen to love reading polls.
There have been quite a few where rsonsibility was asked. My aging memory has a NY times poll just over 50% after the war 'ended'.
Gary I am sorry But the 70% number just didn't come from a CBS exit poll. you have quoted me in August 2004. An exit poll is in november 2004.
They are used when voters exit the polling booth hence the name.
you are confused.
P.S.
the Anzus treaty can only be invoked for a specific threat. it was deliberately wriiten for that effect so when it was invoked for 11/9 this didn't automatically come into effect for Iraq.
Homer, if there have been "a plethora of polls", why can't you name, and provide a link, to even one?
You're just making this stuff up.
Michael
"First, I didn't claim any sort of victimhood."
Nor did I suggest you had (per se at least). However, the conviction that the left is in control of most of the levers of power is a common theme, and your comment exemplifies it perfectly and succinctly.
"Second, I was very specific about which institutions I nominated. I noticed none of the list has been challenged."
You merely made unsupported assertions. There is nothing to challenge. When you provide evidence, there may be something to discuss. In the meantime it's just empty verbiage.
"Third, I am not a conservative."
Well then, how would you define yourself? The fact that you have liberal attitudes on issues of sexuality isn't conclusive. Moreover, it's best to be a bit wary of labels anyway (although most of us resort to them as shorthand classificatory tools). Your past IPA connection might suggest that a neoliberal label would be more accurate. But many neoliberals share a range of attitudes with conservatives (both the neo and traditional kind), including the strange conviction that politically correct left-leaning elites control most of the levers of power in our society.
Michael, in large part I simply used your quote as a convenient "hook" or jumping-off point for a range of issues I wanted to canvas. I actually don't think I treated you unfairly in that regard, but if you believe otherwise then I'm happy to apologise. I value your participation in these discussions, and I hope it continues.
"Third, I am not a conservative."
But you seem to wish a lot more others were.
And when they turn on people because of their sexuality, will you just grit your teeth lik Andrew Sullivan and focus harder on the "left" as s unifying enemy.
One of the main reasons Mike W. that you can toss yer sexuality ino debates here as an example of yer even-handed bona fides and not get slagged off for it is because of several generations of activists you'd probably label as lefty making it possible that sexuality should no longer be seen as an issue in judging someone;s contributions to the civil society.
Talk about bad faith and judas goats. A fair chunk of yer ideological helpmeets wouldn't let you near their kids if they knew how you were pychosexually wired.
No wonder yer so keen to position yerself as a "victim".
Well the Rehame report found yet again that the left-wing bias at ABC was again in the imagination of those whose dossiers were doused in delusion. It seems like finding this left-wing bias (sort of the holy-grail for certain hysterics) seems to be even harder to snuff out than Saddam's WMDs. Also hate to mention that every Newspoll asked whether ABC is fair-and-balanced sees the public firmly on its side - well into the 80 percent band of approval when I last saw the response in 2002. I mean they used to accuse Pru Goward of being a rabid leftie, and she went and married the PMs biographer.
Fairfax and the Oz sort of balance each other out, and when you take into account the tabloids I don't know where this left-wing media bias is. Behind the grassy knoll, secretly transmitted in subliminal code on a giant sateliite dish from outer-space, some parasitic lifeform that gnaws from the inside devouring reason, a swinging Svengalian pendulum that in its rhythm gradually lulls its target into submission.
As for academia, what about the left-wing bias in the nursing industry or in childcare or in telemarketing or in stamp collectors. I always find the paranoia on display fascinating. I just don't think a particular cultural studies lecturer's opinion is going to shift public opinion that much, I'd thought you'd be worried about bigger targets. You'd be better off concentrating on the left-wing bias in dog-catchers, goalkeeping coaches, sewer technicians, fishmongers and pirates "Ah, me hearties, say anything bad about Keating and you'll walk the plank." Not to mention the left-wing bias of this "The Bible" they put in hotel drawers, my God some of the passages have a certain Marxian flavour.
No Homer you attributed the 70% to a CBS poll before the Iraq war(2003) at Steve's old site and recently to election exit poll's.I hope that's more clear.
"the Anzus treaty can only be invoked for a specific threat. it was deliberately wriiten for that effect so when it was invoked for 11/9 this didn't automatically come into effect for Iraq."
Evasive as ever Homer. Repeat you other often repeated unsupportable claim that "Bush invoked the ANZUS Treaty over Iraq".
Yup Steve H. You ever heard anyone in real life complain about lefty bias on the ABC? No, it's always complaints about when to schedule programs.
"And when are they bringing that nice Tim Bowden and Sigifrid Thornton back again. She was a good sort. And didn't Barwon Heads look lovely in 'Seachange'? Who would have guessed it? And did you see that last episode of '4 Corners' or 'Australian Story. Jeez that was interesting.'"
I am so fed up of this cabal of self-appointed, chattering-class big city media pundits and bloggers telling us what we shouldn't watch on the only national network we all own. They just seem to assume Aussies are dumb enough to settle for the lowest common denominator in broadcast media.
If they tried the "get rid of the ABC" line on in Mildura, Longreach, Mareeba or Portland or a thousand other regional communities, they'd be run out of town as the fucking elitists they are.
One, I have never suggested the left controls the levers of power. Fairly obviously they don't, because they have often been defeated on policy issues. (One of the signs of the marginality of indigenous Australians, is that, policy-wise, they have been much more susceptible to the enthusiasms of the left; to their great cost, as Noel Pearson has been rudely pointing out.)
Two, I don't know what you think is the centre of Australian opinion, but it is fairly obvious that the specific institutions nominated are more friendly to the left-of-centre than the right-of-centre.
I really suggest you consult some of the better studies of such things. The Australian Electoral Survey (AES) is a good way to start.
Also Prof. Heningham's work. Start with *Australian Journalism Review, Vol 17, No.2 (1995). The most pro-Labor (not my preferred criteria, partisan bias is a somewhat different matter) media outlets rated *by journalists* were -- from the left -- 7.30 Report, ABC News, Four Corners, SBS News, The Age. (The SMH was rated as more even.)
I would prefer to rate on cultural-politics issues, broadly understood, not least because journalists opinions are distributed notably to the left of the general public. Again, Heningham has data on that. But, since the milieu that produces journalists is much the same as that which produces ALP, Democrat and Green candidates, Katharine Betts recent *People and Place* article using AES data is informative.
John Howard, for example, was long treated as some extreme right-winger, when his opinions are often quite centrist -- he is to the left of the majority of public on capital punishment, mandatory sentencing and people-smuggling, for example. Andrew Bolt is fairly similar. It is precisely because debate in the media and, even more, in the intelligentsia is skewed so significantly leftwards that they get treated as somehow extreme.
Moreover, you are displaying a contemptible hypocrisy, holding me to a evidentiary standard in a comment you don't even come close to meeting yourself in the main post.
You are creating a straw man even on the US debate. Yes, attacking the liberal media is a favourite of conservative pundits in the US. They do that because it resonates with their audience, because there is a significant measure of truth in it. As in Australia, there is notable gaps between the opinions and values of the general public and those of mainstream media. The latter are, in US terms, considerably more liberal. And that is, at times, reflected in the way various issues are covered.
One reason why the left has problems is that it has real problems coming to grips with inconvenient aspects of reality. Treating one of the most effective tropes of your opponents as a joke (and, worse, distorting it into nonsense) when it is effective precisely because there is something to it, is a recipe for failure.
Charles Krauthammer's comment on FoxNews is apposite -- "Rupert Murdoch noticed a niche market: half the country".
Finally, I am a classical liberal. I sometimes reluctantly use the term 'libertarian'. Reluctantly, since classical liberalism is not about liberty uber alles.
I have real problems with the way progressivist intelligentsia typically uses political labels. 'Conservative' is used as a comprehensive boo-word for any critic of the left not on the left. I also have big problems with the term 'neo-liberal' -- a patent attempt to put a hurrah word, 'liberal', into in-built shudder quotes -- but that is a whole new post.
You are really taking us back Ken, I read Games People Play in 1967. The argument of the book was that we function at three levels, the child, the adult and the super-ego (I forget the precise term). Bad communications occur when there is a mismatch of levels between the two parties in the exchange - for example when one party assumes the super-ego role and talks down to the other. Optimum communication is adult to adult. As to whether the left or the right are under or over dogs, as Ken and I have agreed it is hilarious to see each side claiming underdog status. The simplest explanation for this situation is that the left dominates in some places and the non-left (in its various forms) dominates in others, and some people on each side adopt selective vision to describe some parts as the whole. I get the impression that most of the people in this dialogue are too young to recall the time before the left embarked on the long march through the institutions, so when Mark talks about the march of the right, he is talking about a fightback, which has so far made rather little impact on the dominance of the left in those places where it most obviously is dominant. The decisive year in this process was of course 1968 and the period of Vietnam debate, say 1965 to 1972, was the time when whole generations of politically engaged students either turned to radicalism or at least became lifelong anti-Coalition voters. During that time Marxism and cognate forms of leftism almost completely took over the social science and humanities parts of the universitites, and people who arrived in the mid to late 1970s were surprised if someone told them it had not always been like that. The point is that this massive change happened long before any of the current students on campus were born. Say the process was complete by 1975, people who are now 45 would have been only 15 at the time. I remember a letter from a middle aged sociologist circa 1978, saying he would not be attending any more Sociology conferences because he was tired of being insulted by young colleagues. Even under a scholar of the standard of Sol Encel at Kensington, the sociology school was a black hole: in my cohort of postgrads the brightest of the young PhD students had a nervous breakdown and left academia for good, while most of the mature age students who did honours, including myself, went away disillusioned without completing higher degrees. One more word on the Vietnam debate: conscription was Gods gift to the left in both the US and Australia. The anti-war movement would have had virtually no legs without the conscription issue that demonstated a degree of intellectual and moral imbecility on the part of the Governments. The left was badly battered by the Hungarian debacle, and it should have been out of the event but it came back to life on the back of the conscription issue and that gave it a dominance in some of the commanding heights of opinion that it has yet to relinquish (but we are working on it).
Ken
Wouldn't it be better to list the topics predominantly pursued by the networks and the ABC. Then workout what demographic they are targeting.
An anecdote.
A Fairfax journalist who describes himself, quite accurately, as right-of-centre mentioned to me once that he did not know a single person who was going to vote 'No' in the November 1999 Republican referendum.
Says it all about the narrowness of that milieu, really.
Mikey W,
It would kinda help the dialogue if you specified who yer were responded to - eg: how much of yer last post was responding to Ken, me or others?
Without that kinda context, it'll end up as a drunken pub conversation. Not that that anything''s wrong with that. But it would be counterproductive to the tone that Ken is trying to gainfully and gamefully re-establish here (c'mon guys, Don, Geoff, Sophie, jen, wen et al, help him out here).
You seem like a smart, fairly wordly and thinking hard kinda guy Mike W. So work out the rough and tumble, etiquette, mores and hacks of blogdom. Don't become a quitter like Kev Donnelly who couldn't seem to wrap his head around the fact that local pub rules amibience, fitfully enforced by management, is the norm online. He seemed quite shocked to have his op-ed party tricks challenged and to be asked to provide links.
I'm hopeful you'll have more guts when it comes to shooting the shit in this pub.
My shout, everyone!
The problem with these debates on alleged left control of institutions is that they are never ending and repetitious as the two sides talk past each other. It'd have been better if people had stuck to Ken's point - about the way the right portray themselves as disempowered - rather than these futile exchanges over whether or not lefties control everything.
I've said this again and again but most social science academics I know (and I've known a lot) have little interest in politics. Most are probably ALP voters but activists or those whose teaching is informed by their politics are much rarer than the culture warriors would have us believe. It's another example of faith-based reality - an American theme imported to Australia and made to fit with no evidence for its accuracy every proffered.
Not very Popperian!
"An anecdote.
A Fairfax journalist who describes himself, quite accurately, as right-of-centre mentioned to me once that he did not know a single person who was going to vote 'No' in the November 1999 Republican referendum.
Says it all about the narrowness of that milieu, really."
Maybe - but it doesn't prove anything about left/right. Lots of leafy suburbs (for instance the Western Suburbs of Brisbane - St. Lucia, Indooroopilly, Toowong, Taringa, Chapel Hill) gave the republic a large majority. All it says is that Fairfax journos are educated and upper middle class. Many of the same electorates that voted for the Republic with these demographics also voted for the Libs in the Federal election.
Michael, you are just trundling out opinion, masked as some sort of quasi-fact:
"The most pro-Labor (not my preferred criteria, partisan bias is a somewhat different matter) media outlets rated *by journalists* were -- from the left -- 7.30 Report, ABC News, Four Corners, SBS News, The Age. (The SMH was rated as more even.)"
which you must know may merely mean that the 7.30 Report was the least pro-Howard, but still pro-Howard. To make a case, you must first determine a direction in rough approximation to the underlying integrity of the account and events, and then take your measure.
It is not unusual to look back in history, and find most media at the time stuffed stuff up, with the rare exception. Because reports are different doesn't make them wrong or biased. The reverse is possible.
To suggest otherwise, by some formula, would, for example, admit (Goodrins Law alert) nazi interpretations of wwii as worthy of equal time, you decide, fair and balanced.
I'm sorry, there are no short cuts.
Make mine a Glenfiddich on the rocks, Nabs!
Michael
I've tried to (re)establish a civil dialogue with you here. But if you want to persist in using words like "contemptible" then I'm not going to waste my time entering into discussion with you. Nor do I confine that approach to any particular ideology. I barred a particular left-leaning commenter last night (the first time I've ever barred anyone in almost 3 years of blogging) because she persisted in being abusive, destructive and ad hominem rather than addressing issues in a civil (which doesn't preclude robust) manner.
Nabakov
Your bigotry is tedious. My sexuality has never been a notable problem in the intellectual and political milieu's I move in.
Yes, members of the left have done honourable and sterling work in favour of the rights and dignity of gay people. And so have some people not of the left.
Because the left is oppositional, it is often excellent at taking up the cause of the deprived and neglected. Alas, it is also often crap at diagnosing what is then to be done about their situation.
You should read some of the fascinating work on the dangers of cognitive conformity for decision-making.
I have the eccentric view that breath of opinion is a good thing. One of the most corrupting elements in modern intellectual life and public debate is the belief that attitudes display moral superiority. It is the belief that it is wicked to believe x and virtuous to believe y which is deadly for proper pedagogy, intellectual activity, commentary and journalism because it creates an impoverished epistemology and chills debate.
Michael, you claim in the comment from which Ken quoted that although the left controls key institutions - notably education and the media - no amount of propaganda can hide the fact that it's selling a flawed product (I paraphrase).
If that's so, why does this alleged domination get under your skin so much? In Australia, John Howard was re-elected toward the end of last year, gaining control of the Senate. In the US, George Bush was similarly re-elected; the Republican Party controls the three branches of government.
Either left-wing institutional domination doesn't exist or, if it does, it makes no practical difference. You can sleep soundly.
"Make mine a Glenfiddich on the rocks, Nabs!"
To put my earlier comments in context, I'm right now seriously into drinking Jameson's with ice and just a dash of soda and Melbourne tapwater- while listening to a recently remastered CD of Iggy Pop's "The Idiot."
"Calling Sister Midnight, you've got me reaching for the moon,"
Ken
I am 45 about to be 46. For far too many years I have had to put up with having
(1) my views misrepresented
(2) being assumed to have views I don't have
(3) being treated as some sort of moral leper because I happen to disagree with whatever was the cutting edge fashionable view of the moment.
It has probably left me a bit testy.
You used my comment as an example to attack views I don't have. You misrepresented the views of the people you were attacking. You dismissed a comment of mine for not reaching evidentiary standards you patently don't hold yourself too.
How exactly would you characterise your behaviour?
Nabs (and other Troppo readers), if you'd like a small tipple to celebrate the successful test of my new blog, the bar's open at http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/
I won't be posting regularly and launching the blog until 28 March, but I've tweaked the design and put up a few posts to test it out. Thanks heaps btw to Rob for hosting me and his help beyond the call of duty in helping me get the thing working.
Now Ken, there's another fascinating idea to examine: the notion (expressed by Michael just above and ad nauseam by Evil P and others) that one of the defining characteristics of the left is a claim of moral (and/or intellectual) superiority over the non-left.
"Your bigotry is tedious."
Right.
I take back all the stuff I said before about you being smart and thoughtful - until you can point to an example of my bigotry. I was having a go at yer fellow travellers not you. And since we've never swapped words until this thread, how has it become tedious?
It seems that just like Educationalist Kev D before you, yer not really used to having an actual real time cut and thrust with folks outside yer comfort zone. Cheap op-ed rhetorical tricks don't play well in this kinda arena.
On the other hand, aptly chosen links, constructing google-proof petit polemics and hoisting others on their sophistical petards does play well.
There's a hell of a lot of very smart people here and in blogdom generally who'd turn you into sushi without even the courtesy hot towel that Ken or I initally extended.
If yer gonna call me a bigot, prove it! with a link or quote. Otherwise shape up, learn to blogdance or ship out.
Nabs is a licensed bouncer.
"I have had to put up with having
(1) my views misrepresented
(2) being assumed to have views I don't have
(3) being treated as some sort of moral leper because I happen to disagree with whatever was the cutting edge fashionable view of the moment."
Not our problem. Work out how to represent yourself better. The blogosphere's the most utterly free and Darwinian market for ideas and opinions there is.
"Nabs is a licensed bouncer."
And I can kill an accountant with my bare expense account.
Surely it should be "And precisely the same phenomenon ..." rather than "But precisely the same phenomenon ..."?
You're a lightweight, Nabs. And you're getting awfully defensive there.
Don't know what tim's on about, and maybe he's right about something, whic he occasionally is. But I have absolutely no fucking idea why anyone might possibly think that I, as a reader, might even in my wildest dreams want to know that Michael Warby is 45 going on fucking 46 is fucking beyond me.
Maybe it's the generational argument Paul Watson raised earlier in the thread, Chris? Who knows? Glad to see Troppo now has a resident grammar checker in Tim, though.
Yes, come on in little tim. It's always warm where real debates happen (can't you feel the love keeping this blog all toasty here) and you won't pestered by all your dittoheads here.
C'mon. Here, timmy, timmy, timmy. Look! a nice warm bowl of curdled comments about the ABC over here. Don't be shy, timmy, timmy, timmy.
No one will mention you sometimes have problems telling "premiere" amd "premier" apart. Honestly they won't! And we don't want to see yer whiskers go all grumpy in a mirrror site, do we?
Here, timmy, timmy, timmy. Oh, look! A nice bowl of minced turkey just for you. 'O's a lucky pussy then?
Just read Tim's post - so Andrew Bolt, having retired hurt from Pandagate is sizing up for another round of blogosphere wars?
I just wish Andrew would post to his own blog more often, since he's apparently interested in the blogosphere so much.
Sample from Tim's comments thread:
"On the other hand, Andrew Bolt has always impressed with his carefully argued and factual material."
!!
I also note that Tim's not outraged that our erstwhile friend Dr Kevin Donnelly retailed parts of a private email I'd sent him in comments here at Troppo. Should Tim ensure balance by denouncing Dr D for his ethical failings?
It's the mid-life crisis version of right-wing victimhood. Cute. Could kill a dinner party.
where would we be without little timmy blair - savant of the salon, the pontiff of pedantry, emir of erudition, dementia praecox?
Michael, first if there was such a large cleavage between the opinions of the media and the populace I think this would become apparent to the audience. Where is this groundswell of derision for the mass media, other than the more sensationalist reporting which I think is off-putting to a lot of people and to the credibility of the craft
As Gerard Henderson puts it Australia is not quite as polarised into left and right camps as the US which has its advantages and I think favours a slightly more pragmatic discourse, this could be unfortunately changing. Luckily, most people I've met just tune-out at the next episode of the culture wars as mere imported irrelevance.
Where is the "centre" position to judge the media - this is a difficult proposition to place into a imperical context without over-simplifying. I don't think there is a position of complete objectivity for anything that is constructed in linguistic terms is reducing the amount of ways it can be read despite the diverse range of connotations it might still offer. However, a good reporter should be able to aim for some central point of skepticism that puts all the major ideas of the time to the test. What you want is a titanium-made bullshit detector that attempts to peel beyond the rhetoric and platitudes and get to the detail of an issue.
Also opinion is substantially different from reporting. I think the influence of OpEd pages is vastly overrated and generally more for insiders than the general public which goes for whether your a devotee of Hugh Mackay, Robert Manne or Andrew Bolt. I think part of the problem is the predictably of some the punditry, particularly when it becomes more emotive than argumentative.
You mentioned Fox News, which is targerted at social conservatives which is not pulling anywhere near half of America despite the quote. Otherwise the Democrats could not afford the luxury of refusing to appear on these shows as they don't feel they are going to be given a fair-go.
On the republic debate my parents who are life-long Liberal voters both enthusiastically voted Yes, as did the majority of people in Ruddock's seat not that far from us, had a Yes vote over a half, Bennelong I think was even higher. I think Tony Abbott's RRR analogy is not very reflective of the fact quite a lot of republicans, reconciliation bridge-walkers are supportive of these social issues, but vote Coalition for economic reasons.
I'd agree that terminology should be carefully applied, I think constituencies and definitions are a lot more fluid than people are often willing to accept. Personally I seem to skip a lot of the comment box discussion which mentions Left or Right too often in too many sentences.
Also, I should mention before I go to sleep that some of the more irrate criticism of the media is I believe quite affronting to the professionalism and devotion of the work of reporters. I think a lot of the general public, knowing what it is like when they receive an unfair criticism at the workplace aren't particularly receptive to governments that attempt to bully or coerce people who are just doing their job. From what I hear from friends, the Jonathan Shier madness was actually generating quite a few complaints from members of marginal seats.
"You're a lightweight, Nabs. And you're getting awfully defensive there."
Yup, the best text simulacrum version of a online pout...so far this year.
However sportsfans, I'm confident Evil Pee just sees it as a warm up exercise before he goes for the 2005 online lipquivering record.
C'mon, Evil Pundit. It's clear you are intelligent and with a sense of humour, yet for some reason you persist in carrying on like that dickhead in year 10 who ate an worm for the attention.
Really, you are such an angry little sausage. Perhaps you need get laid? Would you like **** *****'s mother's phone number?
Like I said, a lightweight. You can't argue the issues, so you use your little diatribes to compensate. I used to take you seriously, but further observation has indicated that there's very little "there" there.
Won't you two just get it on for God's sake! The URST is fogging up the internets.
"...observation has indicated that there's very little "there" there."
Pouting right back at you, you incompentent sperm security manager you.
What I'm listening to now is Iggy Pop's "Nightclubbing". Anyone else care to suggest another soundtrack for this doomed love spiral?
Anthony
He's not my type. Can't keep track of his sperm for starters.
"Can't keep track of his sperm for starters."
He can't? Or you can't?
Nabs has no idea. It's all over the place. But he's happy. That's why he and evil are natural enemies.
True, I'm a pretty seedy character.
But unlike some, my interjeculations follow the furrow, and not versa vice.
*Cue Parker Parrot jokes here*
Used to think hanging around Troppo all day was a fun way of spending time, but having just read through this thread I'm kind of glad I spent the day driving around Albert Namatjira country. God, this part of the NT is beautiful (West Macdonnells).
On the original subject of Ken's post, if we haven't travelled too far to get back to it, this particular RWDB doesn't feel in the least bit like a victim, nor does it seek victimhood (whatever that is). As far as it can see, we're riding history's roll right now. True, the invasion of Iraq was a hideous mistake that, miraculously, seems nonetheless to be coming out right. Few enough thanks to Bush, I daresay, but even presidents of the US can't actually control the tide of events and their usually unintended consequences.
For the rest, I think the most significant part of Michael's comment is not the bit Ken quoted, but the following:
"The left has been wrong on socialism, on the Cold War, on economic reform, on ecomomic development, on indigenous policy, on fighting the jihadis. It's been flogging a dud product and, what's more, shows no sign of learning from its pattern of failure."
Too right.
"Too right".
"Too left," surely?
Rob
I agree about the direction of this thread, but there have also been some interesting points made in between the boringly predictable partisan spats.
Thanks for bringing the discussion back (vaguely) on topic. I agree that the part of Michael Warby's comment that you quote is well worth discussing. But I think I'll do it in a separate post that I might have a go at later in the day (after I attend to pressing CDU duties). This thread is getting a bit too long now to use it to embark on a whole new (and interesting) tangent. I'm acutely conscious of the length of threads now I'm forced to rely on a crappy dial-up connection at home. A discussion tends to take an uncomfortably long time to download and view once it gets over 100 comments or so.
"I agree that the part of Michael Warby's comment that you quote is well worth discussing."
Pardon me for pre-empting your planned fresh post, Ken, but I don't see it as a whole new tangent, anyway. So the Left has lost the battle for policy dominance? Whatever, Michael Warby. As Warby himself takes great care to point out, when he mentions his age as an apparent killer debating point, this claim is
"True, the invasion of Iraq was a hideous mistake that, miraculously, seems nonetheless to be coming out right. Few enough thanks to Bush, I daresay, but even presidents of the US can't actually control the tide of events and their usually unintended consequences."
Of course, the one wall still standing in the Middle East is the Israeli one so the oft-made comparisons to the 1989 velvet revolutions are a bit off the mark. Not to mention the fact that Iraq still doesn't have a government 6 weeks after the elections, and that what the US has effectively done is destroy the secular traditions of Iraq and give Political Islam a big leg up.
That's an "unintended consequence" which was eminently predictable - who now remembers the claims from the Neo-cons that Iraq was going to morph into a secular democracy. Now all that's being hoped for is that it's not too Islamist or too theocratic.
Sorry for going OT, but since Rob seems to feel justified in making constant comments about the historical errors of the Left ad infinitum, I don't feel too bad about it.
True, Mark, I reached the point of being a revisionist bore some time ago .I bore even myself, these days. I will look out for another governing trope (or meme, ehatever).
You could try Popper, Rob :) Hang on that's taken!
2 digs about Rafe's Popper obsession already today - one here and one on Rob Corr's blog.
The sad plonkers of the left are the real victims. They have just discovered that when they had finished the long march through the institutions they had so diminshed those institutions that the prize was no longer worth having.
The course of left-wing ideology over the years reminds me of the struggles of Wylie Coyote. Like Wylie, every time another one of the left's "ideas" is proven wrong, they try another in the same vein, with the same lack of result. Of course Wylie could just go and buy some food instead of spending all his money on elaborate Heath-Robinson-like contraptions in a feeble attempt to catch the roadrunner who is obviously smarter than him. Similarly, your average lefty could eschew the use of many an over compicated nostrum in striving to reach the light on the hill and just take up his mental pallias and walk: out into real life.
That's kind of ironic, wasn't it Keating who labelled Hewson's Fightback as ACME.
I think if you remember back to the mid-90s it was assumed that Keating was invincible, the Libs were assumed to be unelectable. In that time it was assumed the Left was allegedly triumphant and unstoppable. Of course varying displays of hubris put pay to that myth.
'if the left had problems selling its message, it certainly wasn't from lack of resources'
That's a bit rich coming from you. Who's your (think tank's) daddy?
'I have real problems with the way progressivist intelligentsia typically uses political labels.'
What, like 'progressivist intelligentsia'?
'My sexuality has never been a notable problem in the intellectual and political milieu's I move in... Yes, members of the left have done honourable and sterling work in favour of the rights and dignity of gay people.'
Reminds me of a letter in the SMH today, neatly pointing out that if it weren't for all those hairy radical feminists over the years, Miranda Devine wouldn't have a forum in which to pillory said hirsute honeys. And I'll bet the milieus you move in resemble far more closely the sort of milieu the leftist enemy moves in (you know, those 'narrow milieus') than the bulk of people who voted as you did. Which may explain why you haven't had a problem. Yet.
'Because the left is oppositional'
And what, you blokes aren't?
'it is often excellent at taking up the cause of the deprived and neglected'
So you need us, eh? We're a 'necessary evil' I suppose.
'Alas, it is also often crap at diagnosing what is then to be done about their situation.'
I'll stack my Iraq diagnoses (or Nabokov's or Chris's or anyone's really) against yours from 2001 to the present any time you like. Whose do you think will still be standing at the end of the process? Who, to put it another way, was right? As Mark Steyn said the other day (with no justification whatever) 'I may have got a few things wrong lately, but I got the big things right.'
'You should read some of the fascinating work on the dangers of cognitive conformity for decision-making.'
Who needs to read any such thing when the right has provided us with such excellent source material in recent years? Send it to the USA where God knows they could use it. (That comment will come in handy when airily dimissing me as anti-American, thereby avoiding engagement)
'the belief that attitudes display moral superiority'
Depends on the attitude. The attitude that it's perfectly alright to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and thereby endanger our own future (or more likely that of our children) just because (insert any reason you like here, none is capable of justifying what we have done whether it's a bullshit reason like WMD or liberation or a fair dinkum one like control of diminishing resources to ensure continuing primacy) - well, it's not hard to feel superior to that attitude I find. Don't you?
Do you, in all honesty, really feel that today the real dangers to our community and polity come from the left of spectrum?
I'm not terribly familiar with your work Mr Warby, but I know you're one of those people who seem to think the ABC a clear and present danger to our way of life. I assume the American mediascape is more to your liking... I'd like to ask you a simple question and a simple yes or no would suffice. If the US had had an analog of the ABC or BBC in place these last decades, do you think the country could so easily have been persuaded to prosecute an illegal and immoral war?
'Blaming the left
how could Keating be labelled left?
"The attitude that it's perfectly alright to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and thereby endanger our own future (or more likely that of our children) just because (insert any reason you like here, none is capable of justifying what we have done whether it's a bullshit reason like WMD or liberation or a fair dinkum one like control of diminishing resources to ensure continuing primacy) - well, it's not hard to feel superior to that attitude I find. Don't you?"
Are you talking about Iraq here or some bad geo-political experience you've had on the planet, Dwoob Zweeby?
Whether it's Iraq or DZ it's a little bit tasteless quarrelling over illegalities and moralities of the bombing. I mean it's done now and the Bad Guys just don't seem to be showing any remorse, and they keep getting voted back in - even those with a BBC and ABC. Sooner or later the right ascendency will come to an end (looks beyond camera and sighs in a Robert Duvalesque moment) and the good guys will come to the fore with their highly nuanced and thoughtful legalities and moralities. Won't be thanks to me, that's for sure.
My vote is for one of his later ones:
"I Wanna Live (a little bit longer..)"
"the US has effectively done is destroy the secular traditions of Iraq and give Political Islam a big leg up"--Mark Bahnisch
Statements like this make the charge that some still think a dictatorship is preferable over a chance at democracy if religion is involved.
This is also triangulation on Marks part who clumsily defends Islamic achievements at the same time.
Some, maybe, but not me. What I'd argue is that the almighty stuffup and consistent incompetence by the US in political planning (as opposed to military planning - obviously their forte) has enabled them to be backed into a corner where some form of Shi'a dominated state is likely, and where Sunni resistance is being co-opted by Political Islamism. This could have been avoided - it would have been possible to build on the secular traditions to develop democracy.
So I am NOT saying that dictatorship is better than democracy.
As to defending Islamic achievements, yes, I do but I also distinguish between Political Islamism and Islam.
The world's more complex than evildoers vs. good guys, I'm afraid, and sometimes you need to make a nuanced argument.
Mark, Iraq has never had secular traditions, only the ones imposed on the people by dictators. Evan Saddam didn't do a China. As far as political Islam and Islam have always been the same, unless you can tell me a time in history when they were separate.
"This could have been avoided - it would have been possible to build on the secular traditions to develop democracy."
How! Not working with the clerics, telling the Shia that there vote is only a fraction of the rest to compensate.
"The world's more complex than evildoers vs. good guys, I'm afraid, and sometimes you need to make a nuanced argument."
Yes yes My "simplistic" and "black and white" views are such a pain aren't they?
Mark , I don't see your approach more nuanced then mine.
Yours is rhetoric without solutions lacking the compromise that goes with that pesky thing 'reality'.
Gary, read some Iraqi history - you can look at the revolutionary regime from the late 50s overthrow of the British sponsored monarchy - it didn't really become a dictatorship til 79 when Saddam purged most of the Baathist leaders. If you like, you can go back to the supporters of the Young Turks in Ottoman Iraq.
There is/was a large educated middle class in Iraq (a lot of whom suffered under UN sanctions) and many were Shia. It's simply wrong to suggest that the Shia clerics are a single group, and also that there aren't more secular Shias who could be dialogue partners.
Even Bremmer now admits there were stuffups. As usual though, antipodean RWDBs are plus royaliste que le roi, and unwilling to admit that a single mistake was made on the glorious road to freedom and democracy (strewn with corpses instead of flowers however).
I'm not proposing "rhetoric without solutions" - I believe the US could have done things differently and if you really want to, you can go back and read any number of articles in 'Foreign Affairs' for instance (hardly lefty central) for guidance as to the debate. I don't see it as productive to engage further on it on this thread as it's extraneous to the topic.
It's also tiresome debating with someone whose first move is the standard and tedious one of accusing everyone who doesn't agree with triumphalism Neo-con style of supporting dictatorship.
'Read'? 'Books'? 'History'? Don't be so old fashioned now, Mark. As RWDBs like Gary will tell you, that's all passe. Why read actual books when you can Google?
Sorry, Jason, I forgot for a second we were living in a faith-based reality. You and I are obviously still stuck in a "reality-based community":
http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/03/18/respice-post-te-mortalem-te-esse-memento/
Very difficult to argue with these right-wing postmodernists! :)
You would have thought that if the more 'cultural' aspects of our society were controlled by a leftwing powerblock that - ooh, let me think for a moment - funding of the Arts would be astronomical.
Ok, so maybe only I, not "you" would have thought.
Hang on Mark I didn't accuse you of anything.
"Statements like this make the charge that some still think a dictatorship is preferable over a chance at democracy if religion is involved."
See! You clarified it and I moved on.
As per Ken's request my tone is subdued so take your own advise and cut back on the over generalizations (RWDB's are dum,illiterate blar blar).
But since the dislike of ad homonyms has been noticeably one sided I'm compelled to make up for it and ask, isn't it past Jason 's nap time?.
Fair enough, Gary, maybe I'm getting touchy in my old age. I'm probably proving Ken's theory about attitudinal stances!
Your examples still are heavy on Islamic influence Mark.
"As usual though, antipodean RWDBs are plus royaliste que le roi, and unwilling to admit that a single mistake was made on the glorious road to freedom and democracy"
This old cercle, should I respond with "lefty don't acknowledge any progress" will that bolster you opinion? or say nether is correct.
"maybe I'm getting touchy in my old age"
Me two ;)
Think of it this way. If you go to a mechanic, he /she doesn't tell you to go read the manual when you ask advise. Also not being a mechanic does not mean you cant tell when they are trying to rip you off (this does not necessarily apply to this thread or you).
This "new Islamic state in Iraq" is just the latest doomsaying from the same people who predicted "a new Stalingrad in Iraq" and "a new Vietnam in Iraq".
I'm not holding my breath.
Evil Pundit: you asked for a link to a poll which suggests that most Americans believe that Saddam was 'personally involved in 911' (note: not merely that he had some links with AlQ).
Here is a link to an article by the American Enterprise Institute (which is conservative) http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.20843,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
The author refers to a gallup poll which found that *for the first time* the nymber of Americans who believe Saddam was involved in 911 has fallen below 50% to just 44%. The figure may have been as high as 70% at one point, I don't know.
Clearly a staggeringly large number of Americans believe this fallacy, including at one point at least majority of the population.
You can check this with Gallup if you like (at www.gallup.com). However the info is under lock and key ($95 or a free trial).
You're wrong, I'm afraid, EP.
Hi Mark. Where have you been? I'd been thinking of emailing to see if something had happened to you, but I was too slack. Luckily, masterly inactivity has proved its worth yet again, because you finally got around to posting a comment anyway.
Thanks, Ken, all is good. I'm off watching Dr Who.
Maybe there's a place in transactional analysis theory for the attitude of being completely over arguing with RWDBs and preferring to watch childhood favourites on video? Or would that be Freudian theory?!!
I tentatively stand corrected, Nick. Although it is a secondary source and not an actual poll, it does seem to support Homer's assertion.
Of course, citing a link to any source at all is much better than mere repetition of a claim.
Nick
The poll I linked earlier.
PIPA published on October 21, 2004 showed.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html#1
CrisV referring to the above poll "Similarly, on the subject of Al-Qaeda, 20% of Bush supporters still somehow believe that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11"
http://www.gravett.org/yobbo/index.php?p=1208
So 20% of Bush supporters is a lot less then 70% or 50% of 'Americans'.
That article you provided was published on July 2, 2004.
A downward trend leading up to the election.
Now what does that tell you?.
For me there are huge disparities on how they are conducted and interpreted.
If the question "Was Saddam responsible for 911" I would say yes partly because of the reasons given by Osama due to the Saudi basses.
James - 'Whether it's Iraq or DZ it's a little bit tasteless quarrelling over illegalities and moralities of the bombing.'
I don't see that 'taste' comes into it, but if you insist, I will say that the alleged tastelessness of my observations pales in comparison to the reality those observations sought to address. And it's typical of the right to focus on local solecisms or even solipsism, rather than the foreign chaos and despair we (and they in particular) are responsible for.
I don't even know whether Mr Warby was a rah-rah warmonger or not, but it doesn't matter. He is a person who spends much of his time trying to limit the oxygen a true democratic discourse needs, in dangerous times which demand it more than ever. If he and his lot had their way, our media would be subject to the one-partydom the US is labouring under. No ABC or SBS unless neutered and Fairfax to Packer, Murdoch still sitting on top. That scares me. The corruption of the US media, it's shift from player to asset, means there is no public oversight of government and the results are obvious to anyone with both eyes open.
This is from Laurie Graham, a Pulitzer Prize winning journo, one of a dying breed of American journalists with independence and courage. She's had enough, resigning from USA Today:
'In a blistering memo to her colleagues at the paper, she ripped Newsday's parent company - the Tribune Company - for putting profit over quality journalism. In the memo announcing that she is going to work full time at the Council on Foreign Relations, she wrote that "All across America news organizations have been devoured by massive corporations - and allegiance to stockholders, the drive for higher share prices, and push for larger dividend returns trumps everything that the grunts in the newsrooms consider their missions." She went on to write, "This is terrible for democracy. I have been in 47 states of the USA since 9/11, and I can attest to the horrible impact the deterioration of journalism has had on the national psyche. I have found America a place of great and confused fearfulness." She continues: "It would be easy to descend into despair, not only about the state of journalism, but the future of American democracy. But giving up is not an option. There is too much at stake." '
I agree. We don't have much to crow about here either, but if the cancer is to be treated effectively, we'll have to fix America first; the rest of us as always, will follow.
If you were an American, an average American, which of the following facts do you think you'd be aware of:
- that the nominations of Bolton (a UN hater) and Wolfowitz (a failure) have been greeted around the world with shock, anger, disbelief, and a growing sense that other nations are beginning to network in opposition to US designs, with some speculation that Russia and China have made agreements to assist Syria and Iran in the event of war?
- that Halliburton charged the US Army 27.5 million for the transport of 82,000 bucks worth of oil from Kuwait to Iraq? And that the Pentagon has been accused of trying to hide reports into Halliburton/KBR profiteering?
- that the US, despite promising to bugger off soon, is spending billions of dollars building 14 permanent bases in Iraq, each to hold between 3,000 and 20,000 US soldiers and contractors?
- that, far from being an isolated phenomena, the US is busy building huge permanent bases all around the southern borders of Russia and northern reaches of China in order to control oil and gas supplies into the future, one corollary being the propping up of a few regimes that make Saddam look like a kindly old buffer?
- that the FBI is investigating AIPAC in relation to the transfer of defence secrets to Israel; involved are several members of Douglas Feith's OSP (Schenker, Wurser, Rubin, Makovsky etc), all pro-settler Jewish Americans; all were integral to the provision of 'cooked' intel (probably from Mossad via Chalabi) to justify invasion; some had contributed to the PNAC 'Clean Break' document which advised Netanyahu in the 90s to target Iraq... (Andrew Sullivan and Ann Coulter might like to look a little closer to home for their fifth column... this is by no means the only Israeli breach of US intel over the last few years; most are quietly buried, including the fact that it was Mossad who first taped Lewinsky and Clinton, who at just this time called off the search for MEGA, a highly placed Israeli spy in the US govt
- that the main reason Bush and co are whacking Iran for trying to make nukes is because Israel, which is stuffed to the gills with the things, wants to maintain the present balance of power (ie, they have it and the Iranians don't)?
- that the main reason Bush and Rice tried to remove Hugo Chavez, the elected President of Venezuela, is because he had taken steps to wrest the country's oil wealth from a small pro-American elite in favour of the great majority of Venezuelans and then had the hide to sup with Castro and sell oil to Russia and China... he's now in Rice's words 'a troublemaker' ... how long does he have do you think?
- that the Bush Admin has been busy denuding US libraries and archives of data relating to American foreign interventions going back more than 50 years?
- that a story which recently broke on yahoo news alleging that two of the US marines involved in the 'capture' of Saddam have claimed the rathole was an invention and that Saddam had fought his pursuers with a rifle from the house where he'd been holed up - has disappeared into the ether... (as has the bullshit surrounding Jessica Ryan, a celebrity hero the US needed to create because, unlike say Italy, they have not produced even one genuine hero in two years of invasion and occupation)
- that the White House has spent millions on fake news pieces, run on prime time without attribution; has paid columnists to spruik admin policies and has arranged for a gay prostitute party apparatchik to slide under the rigorous rules for entry into the White Hose press corps so that he can take the heat off Bush with softballs?
- that the US economy, far from being in the rude good health the admin claims, is only a decision or two by Chinese and Japanese banks away from disaster, being in hock up to it's neck, with the added danger of a possible shift in petrodollar currency by Russia and China to boot?
- that a Rand Corp study into the relative effectiveness of the UN and the US in nation-building and peace-keeping showed the UN a clear winner
- that US Army and Navy investigators have found 26 cases of homicide by US troops of prisoners in their custody in Afghanistan and Iraq
- that Donald Rumsfeld (another failure) has sought and rec'd approval for funding for a space program which involves massive munitions depots and launching pads capable of nuclear destruction of enemies from space (called SSB, Special Services Bureau or something equally anodyne), along of course with the giant robot soldier idea and also another 'black ops' group with powers to quietly liquidate anyone in any country demed a danger to US security... these initiatives will not be subject to Congressional oversight
- that the heart-stirring, dick-stiffening spread of freedom and wasting of baddies does not apparently apply to admin-friendly tyrants like Aliyev, Karimov, al-Sabah, Musharraf or Uribe or to those dictators lucky enough to dominate oil-free domains
- that 80% of the voting machines used in the last US election are owned by two companies, each headed by one of two brothers, both of whom are Republican operatives and fundraisers; their machines leave no paper trail..
Seriously, how many Americans know any of this stuff? (And that's just a scratch on the surface)
What are the consequences of such carefully managed ignorance? We have already seen some but I don't think they're finished yet.
Perhaps one of the consequences is an upsurge in stuff like this:
http://www.betweenthecoasts.com/archives/000232.html
James again - 'I mean it's done now and the Bad Guys just don't seem to be showing any remorse, and they keep getting voted back in - even those with a BBC and ABC'
It's not remorse I'm after. I'm after a better than even chance of preventing it happening again. And again. Mr Warby's existence do far as I'm aware of it is employed in trying to create here the media conditions that apply in America, conditions which make it easier for democratic governments to behave in deeply undemocratic ways.
Maybe Mr Warby doesn't apprehend such a danger; I do. He seems to have disappeared, though at least he did more than have a piddle and leave like his fellow travelling Mr Blair.
Sorry to hijack the thread Ken, though I'm hardly the Lone Ranger there.
You have a very active imagination, Glenn. You should put it to use writing sword-and-sorcery epics, rather than wasting it on the comments sections of blogs.
Gary, it tells *me* that it's impossible and meaningless to compare the two figures without more information.
Different questions conducted by different pollsters at different times. Apples plus oranges. Who knows? I don't and you sure don't.
OBL may well have cited US bases in Saudi Arabia as one of his rationale, however, that pretty obviously does not mean 'Saddam was personally involved in 911' which was the question in the Gallup poll (and yes, Evil Pundit is right to point out that it is only a secondary source).
Here's a question for you: why are you and EP and others like you so desperate to disprove the notion that a large number of Americans think Saddam was behind 911?
Why are you and Homer so desperate to prove it?
That's odd, the PIPA poll shows a disturbingly large amount of Bush supporters thought that 'Saddam was personally involved in 911' EP hasn't disputed it. Yet thats not good enough for you. Just who is ideologically blind. Aren't the details important to form and opinion here because it doesn't seem that way.
No EP Homers is not desperate to prove anything, his opinion is ordained not to be proved or checked, and apparently a lot of others think that way. This is the nuanced intellectual style.
Er, I initially posted because EP was disputing that Americans believed Saddam was personalyl involved in 911. If he didn't dispute anything, why did he say this: "I tentatively stand corrected, Nick. " Are we reading the same thread here?
And I assume this: 'Aren't the details important to form and opinion here because it doesn't seem that way.' is about my refusal to engage in a discussion about the various polls about Americans' blief about Saddam. Of course facts are important. It's just that we only have two partial seccond-hand references to different polls to go so there is no way to check details. Until we have that information there is nothing to discuss... we just have two polls that don't match up whih would be for any number of reasons...
EP: I'm not desperate to prove anything. I merely saw a post from you which was clearly wrong (in my view) and I attempted to correct it. It is significant however because it hinges upon what Americans thought they were actually going to war for...
for those of us who looked at polling whwn the US Election was on I counted over 20 organisations doing polls.
I don't really care if EP thinks a question wasn't asked.
The same question wasn't asked it is true however there is no doubt that on at least survey 70% of yanks believed Hussein was responsible for 11/9.
Others as EP has alluded merely had Hussein 'influencing' 11/9.
either way it shows people have lost their intellectual faculties.
However in the bigger scope of this thread it shows up the silly notion of left/ right divide.
If we take the issue of Iraq.
Only an idiot would catergorise Laurence Eagleburger, Brent Scrowcroft, The Cato institute, Owen Harries and the Sydney Anglican diocese ,all whom opposed the war, as 'left'.
Let us take economic policy.
Both Bush and howard had much bigger Government programs than their opponents. Neither Bush nor Howrad made any apology for that either.
Indeed 'Low grade uranium' Cheney has been known to say deficits do not matter!
Sounds very left wing to me or is it that 'RWDB's simply do not understand economics?
As a left-wing academic I think it is probably true that people with a left-of-centre bent dominate in sections of academia (including the ones I'm involved in). I think the simple explanation for this is that a process of self-selection takes place whereby people with a centrist or right-of-centre world view and with comparable talents to ourselves find their services in great demand in the mainstream political parties, allied thinktanks, business peak associations and advocacy bodies, and the mainstream commercial media - all of which have much more influence on public opinion and on political and policy outcomes than academics in the humanities and social science faculties of academia. They are also better paid!
I may no have been clear enough Nick, I meant to say the EP didn't dispute my original link to the to the PIPA poll. By the way it is a complete first-hand reference.
"Only an idiot would catergorise Laurence Eagleburger, Brent Scrowcroft, The Cato institute, Owen Harries and the Sydney Anglican diocese ,all whom opposed the war, as 'left'."--Homer Paxton
err Who has?
In response to Paul Norton, I think your explanation is not a very good one. For people with intellectual or academic tendencies there are next to no openings in the avenues you mentioned. The more likely explanation is the one nominated by Andrew Norton, namely the dominance and intolerance of the left in the academies. This is apparent from the collection of essays titled "Them and Us" which was sponsored from the top of the profession and workshopped extensively for a couple of years before publication. There is a pervasive bias, based on almost complete lack of comprehension of the economic rationalist or minimum state liberal point of view. This would not have been possible if there had been any input to the discussion or the volume itself from outside the leftwing ideological bandwidth of the contributors.