The return of the prodigal voter?

[photopress:Clive_Hamilton.jpg,full,pp_empty]

The left got into trouble when it lost its ethical moorings, said Tony Blair. Influenced by the Christian socialism of John Macmurray, Blair saw New Labour as heir to the communitarian traditions of ethical socialism and New Liberalism. That was in 1996 and after the harsh economic liberalism of Margaret Thatcher, it seemed to be just the message British voters were waiting for.

Today Clive Hamilton is searching for a a new progressive politics — something beyond the familiar politics of unions, welfare and the environment:

…despite the suspicion of many progressives, the churches could be the answer. Traditionally, the churches have attended to and represented the deeper aspects of life, those that transcend the individualism, materialism and selfishness that so characterise modern affluent societies. It is in this transcendent concern that I believe we can find the roots of a new progressive politics—not in the institutions of the churches themselves but by rediscovering those aspects of life that, at their best, the churches articulate and cultivate.

In the United States, Democrats are reaching out to Christian voters. Recent polling by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press shows that, among white voters, mainline Protestants and Catholics are swinging away from the Republicans. Of all the Christian groupings, only evangelicals remain loyal to the GOP.

Continue reading

A Short Remark on A Tradeoff

At some point in the future, the Northern Territory will be admitted to the Commonwealth of Australia is a State. The Self-Government Act will be swept aside and replaced by a Constitution of some kind.

Before this august day arrives, however, I expect that every man, woman, child and greenie and their dogs will line up to try and write their pet cause into that Constitution.

Here’s one of mine; a modest proposal designed to balance the interests of tax payers and tax consumers:

Income and payments from the Government, or a vote: pick one.

Continue reading

Margaret Simons on Jonestown

Great piece by Margaret in today’s Crikey.

Last Tuesday Crikey published an editorial criticising Chris Masters’s Jonestown for the way in which it “outed” Alan Jones and treated its subject matter with “breathless, censorious innuendo.” It took my breath away.

It wasn’t only the cheek of Crikey accusing the country’s leading investigative journalist a man who has done more than anyone at Crikey to keep public life clean of having missed the lead that made me uneasy. It was that hardly anyone including me had had a chance to read the whole book, and yet the debate was raging based only on the extracts published in The Sydney Morning Herald on the weekend.

Those extracts selected by Fairfax have done the book and the community a disservice. If you read them, then you have read almost all the quasi-s-xual material in the book, which is 453 pages long not including footnotes and index. If you have read nothing else, then you don’t know what the book is about.

Yet because the s-xy bits came out first, the debate has been hijacked by the issue of whether Masters should have “outed” Jones, and whether he did it in a justifiable way.

These are important and difficult issues, and I will return to them. I am not completely on Masters’s side.

But outing is not by a country mile the most important thing in the book. Continue reading

A story, an anniversary and a moral

In early 1996 my father Fred fell from his motor bike on the farm and cracked a rib. He had blood in his urine, which the doctors called haematuria which means blood in the urine in Greek. The doctor told him that the indicated procedure for haematuria was a cystoscopy to check the bladder for tumours or other conditions. This is a nasty procedure in which the patient is put under a general anaesthetic and the doctor inserts a camera up the urethra (up the penis) and into the bladder and has a look around.

Because the procedure is unpleasant and not completely free of risk especially for a man in his mid 70s, and because the diagnosis seemed obvious Dad decided with the doctor’s blessing that he’d not bother with it. About four months later with ribs in fine fettle the symptoms recurred. On performing the cystoscopy the specialist told Dad as he woke up ‘You’ve got a nasty tumour in there’. And so he had. During his long illness one of the specialists asked him if he’d ever worked with aniline dyes. Dad had worked for a printer for a year or so when he was 19 in England. Smoking till his mid forties probably didn’t help but working for the printers probably gave him the cancer over half a century later.

Dad didn’t fancy having the surgery, and had always thought he wouldn’t. But he decided to go ahead, perhaps to please others. He ended up with a stoma and urostomy bag but this failed to stop the cancer. Metastases spread to the rest of his body (some of the nastiest medical conditions have some of the most beguiling names).

Just a few months after Dad died, I noticed blood in my own urine. Continue reading

Unlawful killing

What would you call a situation in which a man . . .

[P]unched his wife in the face and she fell to the ground.

He kicked her before smashing her face with a rock.

She suffered multiple fractures to her skull, ribs, vertebrae, and shoulder blades, as well as a ruptured liver.

The court heard the woman had taken out a domestic violence order against Conway a week before her death.

He had been convicted three times for previously assaulting her.

Well you don’t call it murder apparently. The convicted Katherine man Robert Conway, 37, “pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing his wife”. He was sentenced to 11 years in jail. Non-parole period? Five-and-a-half years.

Kevin Rudd’s Fatal Conceit

Why Rudd is wrong about Hayek

Friedrich Hayek argued that human beings are "almost exclusively self-regarding", says Kevin Rudd. In contrast, modern Labor "argues that human beings are both ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other-regarding’." But what Hayek actually argued was that human beings naturally tend towards other-regarding sentiments such as altruism and solidarity. Surprisingly, he believed that modern civilization depends on our ability to suppress these sentiments.

Rudd’s Hayek is a cardboard cutout — a stereotypical neo-liberal who believes that human beings are innately selfish and who wants to turn everything into a commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace. For Rudd, Hayek is the intellectual heir of Thomas Hobbes.

According to Rudd:

Neo-liberals speak of the self-regarding values of security, liberty and property. To these, social democrats would add the other-regarding values of equity, solidarity and sustainability. For social democrats, these additional values are seen as mutually reinforcing because the allocation of resources in pursuit of equity (particularly through education), solidarity and sustainability assist in creating the human, social and environmental capital necessary to make a market economy function effectively.

The self-regarding values are the values of the marketplace — the institution neo-liberals place above all others. According to Rudd, neo-liberals refuse to tolerate the intrusion of other-regarding values into market relationships. This leads to the erosion of the kinds of institutions that conservatives value. Family, church and community all suffer when they come into conflict with the market’s demands. Labour market deregulation, for example, exacerbates the tension between a person’s obligations as a worker and their obligations as a spouse, parent or carer.

Rudd may be right about the way free markets create conflict with other institutions, but he’s wrong about Hayek’s stance on human nature. Hayek that the only way that we could make "a market economy function effectively" was to suppress our innate desire for altruism and solidarity.

Continue reading