Every time I pick up a newspaper these days I feel a little bit depressed, and not just for the litany of disasters around the world.
More than anything else I feel myself dispirited by the many examples of mean, self-serving and often hostile actions of people in the news. Most of these are politicians, unsurprisingly. I feel like I have just about reached my limit in the last month. I'm sick and tired at much of the crap, the empty rhetoric, the political posturing, the political correctness that seems to be everywhere these days. Enough is enough!
I pick up the paper this morning and there's more about Rudd's so-called 'Indonesian solution' and how it's becoming unravelled - as it should be. This is a shameless example of another politician abstaining responsibility, passing the buck to the Indonesians who, it now seems clear, don't want to take it. Make a decision man! Cut the tough talk - it's a bit like the Milky Bar kid coming on strong, and just as laughable. Be honest, be real, act with fucking integrity for a change... No-one ever said being PM was going to be easy, but you wanted it - now be the man the office demands. Be above party politics, act according to what is right rather than what is convenient and easy - and take responsibility. Your wife puts you to shame.
Then there is the ongoing fiasco about global warming and how to deal with it. Fuck me dead these politicians put Nero to shame. They'll still be arguing about it and trying to gain some political advantage while planet earth turns into a sizzling ball of flame. Can they not see there are more important things than protecting their sorry arse? Silly question of course - the answer is no, they can't.
Then there is the carry on here in Vic about city violence and booze. This too has become a political football. Every aspect of this is now scrutinised for potential political gain, all clamour and hue. Much of it is a sideshow, the irrelevant theatre the politicians put on trying to make themselves look noble (when will they learn?). In the meantime the real problems and the real causes are ignored because that way lays vested interests no-one wants to put offside. This is a problem of their own making yet no-one is willing to own up to that - and so instead we have this shadow theatre which does not one whit of good.
Of course there is much more than that, but I can't be bothered going on. Let me conclude though with the latest farcical contribution to cultural debate here in Australia.
As I write this picture me with steam coming out of my ears. A couple of days ago some shit-stirring dickhead made a big song and dance about racist biscuits Coles are selling. That's right, racist biscuits! Good grief. The biscuit in question was called a Creole Cream, which according to this prick (Sam Watson you idiot) is another example of the racist nature of Australian society. His claim is that Creole is derogatory word to describe someone of mixed blood.
I'm no expert, but my understanding is that Creole is not a derogatory term and in fact is a description of pride for many people - and why should it not be? It's these cultural Nazis that turn everything upside down and make the innocent evil. For the record Creole is in fact recognised as a language for one thing, and of course Creole cooking or cuisine is well established. Bah, I don't even know why I'm bothering to explain this. I'm going to go the next person who tells me how to think and what to say.
Look, the world needs people like Mike Moore, people to speak for the little guy, and against entrenched interests be they political, financial or corporate. That he exists to ply his trade is does not necessarily make for a healthy society maybe, but it's solid proof of a strong democracy.
I saw his latest film in preview last week, Capitalism: A Love Story. I went with Whisky, a good capitalist if ever there was one, after we spent the couple of hours before sitting in the sunshine and drinking good European ales on one of the prized balconies of Cookie. It was a lovely day for it, so much so that I briefly considered canning the movie altogether and ordering another round of drinks, but no...
Moore is as he always is, the happily unfashionable nerd, bearded, plump, and wearing his baseball cap - I don't think I've ever seen him out of it. As always he is a character in the drama, the shambling maverick poking his nose into other people's business and making a point - occasionally comical - about the inequities and evils of the world. This time he took aim at capitalism in general, and capitalist America and the fat cats on Wall Street in particular. That's a popular target and he loaded up and fired.
I like Mike Moore, I 'enjoyed' (if that's the word) Fahrenheit 911, and I think he's important. Given that he has about 2 hours to propose a theory, develop and 'prove' it, he has to stick to the headlines with a few colourful leads thrown in. There's information there, but it's presented simplistically and with an angle I'm guessing he has no apologies for. He's an entertainer at the end of the day. No-one wants to go to the cinema to be lectured to or be forced to wade through all manner of facts and figures. He joins the dots and paints the picture and lets you feel the outrage. He loads up but his approach is scattergun.
That may seem like a damning indictment, but it shouldn't necessarily be seen that way. I think it's sensible when going to watch shows of this sort to go in with an open, but critical, mind. I always ask myself what I'm not being told. Sure, there's generally plenty presented on one side of the argument - but where is the other side? Turn on a current affairs program tonight and you'll see what I mean - it's sensationalist, tabloid TV, designed to indoctrinate you to a particular view.
So is Mike Moore a tabloid journalist? I don't think so. For a start Mike Moore is a lot smarter than most tabloid journalists, and unlike most, is a true believer in what he does. He might share some attributes with them - the sensational claims, the odd sentimental manipulation, the occasional simplistic analysis, but generally it is better informed and more intelligently reasoned. Generally he has something important to say, something worth hearing - the counter-balance to 'conventional' opinion.
To an extent this explains some of my disappointment with this movie. I thought about half of it was great, but the other half was crap.
Lets start with the crap first, and the sweeping, tabloid-esque assertion that capitalism 'doesn't work'. I almost groaned eating my popcorn on hearing that grandiose claim. It begged the question, if capitalism isn't it, what is? A few times in the course of the film he touched upon socialism, but I don't think he was really suggesting that was the solution. Rather - and this is very much the way of the tabloid media - he was pointing out the problem by and large, without propounding a solution.
To say capitalism is wrong is plain stupid, no matter which side of the political fence you're on. It's such a broad, facile statement to make as to be meaningless. Right there and then some credibility was lost, for the problem is not capitalism as such - it is the way it is regulated and governed. That's the real story, and ultimately the story he told.
We have had a global financial crises not because of capitalism, but rather because of the absence of controls and appropriate regulations in the American market. Once upon a time they were there, some of them at least, but in the spirit of unfettered free market economics they were removed. Australia, a capitalist country, suffered not nearly as much as the States, and almost entirely because we have the governance they don't have in the shape of prudent fiscal and banking regulations, and sensible government policy.
Capitalism is built upon the profit motive, which gives the impetus to a system that in its purest form will benefit everyone working within it. In that ideal state it is a dynamic, living organism that needs none of the artificial stimuli that socialism and its ilk need to get going. There is no need to prod the beast into action because it is forever on the prowl searching for more, searching for better, because that is where the pay-off is. The beauty of capitalism is that it is self-perpetuating; the peril of it is that it should do so without any control.
There are hundreds of different economic philosophies and schools. By and large they measure and theorise about economic triggers and management. Many are at odds with each other and are perpetually evolving - economics is big business these days, even if it is an inexact science. A few would argue that rampant capitalism is a good thing, in much the same way that Gordon Gekko pronounced that greed is good. That's a hard argument to sustain in these economic times when it is greed and unfettered financial markets that have led to the mess Moore documents in his film.
In essence the difference in the two arguments is the difference between having an untamed tiger in your front yard and one toilet trained and taught not to eat the natives. What would you rather? Yet this is what has been allowed to happen. By removing the natural and proper constraints from the market the tiger is shitting in the laps of the big corporations and chewing on the natives - the poor punter in the suburbs.
The real issue is not capitalism then, but greed, and Moore knows it. Accordingly he takes aim at Wall Street and the fat cat banks and brokerages, and the insidious influence they have had on government policy - now that's a story worth exposing. He quite rightly comments on the obscene salaries and bonuses of senior management at a time when lowly workers are laid off without getting their full entitlement. And he exposes the absolute lack of government oversight on the billions of dollars paid to bail-out half these corporations. All in all the picture is bleak. It is a story of incompetence at best, and corruption at worst. It is an American story, and in some part at least Moore is right, there is something sick in American society today that allows these things to occur. It's not capitalism though, it's greed and it's the decline of the social contract.
I trust people will be smart enough to overlook the more extreme elements of the movie and see them for what they are: pure sensationalism. Whether we want to or not we can't live without the financial markets, and without Wall Street everything would grind to a halt. The real story is how greed, mismanagement and rampant de-regulation led to a global disaster. And in a way it's all about the need to return to human values - something I think any intelligent person would applaud. In that Mike Moore is right - it's time.
In a revised version of the nursery rhyme that aired recently on the British Broadcasting Corporation’s children's channel CBeebies, the tale – which first appeared in print in 1810 – no longer ends with “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men/Couldn’t put Humpty together again”. Now, a crack squadron of His Majesty’s finest hard-boiled military personnel has found the recipe to "make Humpty happy again”. How eggsellent.
It's hard not to wonder what the world is becoming sometimes with all the violence in our cities and around the world, treatment of refugees, outrage over comedy skits, and the like. But then maybe it's all due to insidious influence of those nasty nursery rhymes we learnt as children. Thankfully we have the rigidly correct thought police in branches all through the world looking after our interests.
Thank God for the BBC. No longer will children wake up crying at the thought of Humpty Dumpty and his gooey yolk going splat. No more will these children grow into damaged adults with an egg phobias and aversion to golliwogs. If only the BBC and it's brethren could pre-masticate everything for our benefit no matter what age we are, like a benevolent nanny. How did we ever do without this?
Doubtless the ills of the world will now be cured and perhaps, in an ideal world, there will no longer be the need to think for ourselves - auntie will do it for us.
At about 5 this morning Rigby came nosing up to the side of my bed wanting to be let out. I let him out and returned to bed. I was far from sleepy and lay in bed comfortably thinking about the Socceroos match the previous night, and then inevitably back to the race row sparked by Hey, Hey last week.
I've been been stewing on this ever since. On the one hand I felt a kind of outrage at the over the top and ill informed international reaction to the event. Like many Australians I figure I got to the point where I felt like flipping the bird to international opinion. On the other hand there was a sense of dissatisfaction about the discourse it had provoked, mostly shallow and clichéd drivel from a variety of commentators.
This last week has highlighted to me how inadequate our thinking about racism is. People react with shock and horror, but with little real discernment. Few stop to look deeper, not just at what it means but at how it shapes our society. Racism is rightly abhorred, but for most part our response is reflex.
I'm a believer that any healthy society must have a voice of dissent, and the louder the better. I'm not against opinions being rowdily expressed whether I agree with them or not, and think the status quo is there to be challenged. We should never get too comfortable with ourselves, and should never shy away from the tough questions needed if that society is to progress. Somebody needs to ask those questions though, and the questions have to be heard.
In a funny sort of way that controversial little skit has acted as a lightning rod for discussion and dissent on the subject of racism. Far from being a bad thing I think it's a positive. It was certainly not the intention of those suburban doctors to make a political statement, but the result is that their act has opened up a conversation everyone was too afraid - or too polite - to speak of.
One of the first things I felt last week in the wake of all this outrage was a sense of offended innocence, as if in another world we might have been able to say sorry mate, didn't mean to upset you and moved on from there. And of course that is a trivial reaction on the surface until you begin to look a little deeper.
One of the things we have lost as a society in recent generations is our innocence, our naivety. What small pockets of it that remain ultimately die a nasty death. With everything broadcast all around the world and with information instantly available at our fingertips there is little excuse for ignorance any more. At the same time much of what we receive as information and news has been pre-digested for us. Commentators, editors, fashionistas put their spin on the news until it becomes received wisdom. This is what you wear, this is what you think, this is what you believe, and even if you are a truly independent free-thinker you live in a society shaped by this.
This is why dissent is important. This is why we need to ask why: to upset conventional wisdom and look deeper, to question cultural mores rather than blindly accept them.
Naivety is a much underrated quality. Our children have it and they are beautiful because of it. A child feels and it acts. It sees and it responds. A child doesn't think twice about expressing what it feels; there is no thought of conforming to a standard. A child is yet to be laden with the baggage our society will pile onto it, whether it be cultural or personal. A child is transparent and natural.
Now I don't advocate we become like children - that's asking too much - but we would do well to recall those qualities.
I believe in basic concepts, in liberty, in equality, in a fair go for all. They are the bedrock of belief for any fair minded person, but as a society we have built upon that a shanty town of disparate habits and attitudes and dos and don'ts that grows with every minute. We no longer see things just as they are, but rather qualified by these constraints. We have wandered a long way from our child like ways.
This is not just about race: it is about many things now. We have drawn so many lines trying to do the 'right' thing that there is little room left to move between them, and the lines too easily over-stepped.
The outcry last week served to do the opposite of what it represented: it drew attention to our differences, and not to what binds us together. Well intentioned people across the world climbed aboard their soapbox and declaimed what had happened, but in so doing made it all about 'us' and 'them'. Well intentioned as it was it was also a kind of discrimination by drawing attention to our superficial differences: don't do that because you'll offend them.
I may be a cock-eyed idealist, but rather than us and them shouldn't it be we? Isn't that the ideal, what we should be aspiring to? A colour of a persons skin should be as relevant as the colour of a persons hair or the size of their foot. Each time we make this distinction we draw another line, we travel further from where we want to be, and put something more between us. Each line we draw is another boundary between us at a time when those boundaries should be removed.
I'm sorry if people were offended by that little skit. We don't want to be the cause of discomfort or distress. Yes, we acknowledge the ugly past - but are we condemned to repeat it? In the end it was just a silly skit and nothing more than that. That it can't be seen as that points to something seriously wrong with our society. We have to undo much of what we have done, clear away the ramshackle set of beliefs we have built up over time. In it's place our society should be such that we can look each other in the eyes and be open, and recognise things for what they are rather than what our darkest fears would have us believe them to be.
There's something about Kevin Rudd that really sets my teeth on edge. Had I gone to school with him I'm sure I would have been tempted to give him a regular smack on the back of his head. I'm sure he got a lot of that. I can picture him sitting at the front of the class thrusting his arm up at every opportunity, "Miss...miss..." There is something in his manner highly disagreeable, and to many others too, rightly or wrongly.
I've been reminded of my distaste by a sound bite on radio this morning where in his typically prim and smarmy way he defends his decision to get the Indonesians to intercept a boatload of refugees. Putting aside my ongoing opposition to policies like that, it's his manner and his transparent need to be popular that gets my back up. I know a lot of politicians do it, but more than most he plays to the crowd. This has resulted in some very ill-advised interventions in cultural debate - the Henson affair for one, then describing Gordon Ramsay as a lowlife.
This a personal reaction to him. I don't like him particularly, but even if I don't agree with everything he does or how he does it there is a bigger picture. I don't expect to find a leader in my lifetime with whom I'm perfectly attuned. I take that as a fact of life, and if the worst thing I feel is a personal antipathy then it can't be that bad. (And I think his wife is a gem.)
That's the paradox here. I wouldn't want to be in the same room as Rudd, yet I think he is a pretty good Prime Minister. I don't agree with everything he does, but by and large I respect his intellect and determination. The government's handling of the GFC has been first rate, and Rudd particularly has taken a leading role in the G20 in tackling it internationally. I suspect he's good deal more intelligent than most world leaders. I support his ambitions to find us a bigger role in world affairs - I think we've earned it. If there was a vote tomorrow I would put aside my personal objections without a second thought and throw in my lot with him once more.
That decision, if it came to it, is much easier given the abject rabble the opposition have become. What an immature, irresponsible lot they are. I have often thought that politics has a lot in common with the school yard, and the Libs at this moment epitomise that. I tell you, they're kidding themselves if they think they are a serious rival to the government. They're a long way off that.
What I find so annoying right now is the internal debate about emissions schemes. Self interest has trumped national good. Ratbags from every section of the party are getting up on their soapbox and saying their piece. Their leader is undermined by this disunity and indiscipline to the point that his position is becoming untenable. What then? Another leader? And for how long? The local scout troop could show them a thing or two about teamwork and working with a common purpose. They're a joke.
Putting aside the politics (ie members terrified of offending their electorate) the debate boils down to whether the greenhouse effect and climate change are scientifically proven realities. It seems a tired argument these days, but there are still a few hold-outs who refuse to acknowledge what is plain to most of the rest of the world. They're the ratbags, the extreme edge holding the rest of the party to ransom. Then there are the nervous nellies without any particular opinion, but unwilling to commit themselves to anything. Let's wait for the rest of the world to do something, and we'll follow. Right.
By far the minority view in the party at the moment, as personified by their leader Turnbull, is that this is a reality that Australia has to deal with. He is trying to get agreement to take a bi-partisan approach to the issue and to get some resolution in place before the Stockholm talks. Just between you and me I figure climate change is big enough an issue that politics should be set aside and a common approach forged. Except it looks very likely that Liberal bickering means they will be left behind.
In the meantime it looks likely that the government will forge ahead, leaving the Libs behind and making them look very silly. Don't they understand that?
Once more, I'm not in agreement with everything Rudd has done in regards to climate change - I think there could be greater effort (and investment) to find alternative energy sources - but by and large I think he has done a good job, and taken a leading role internationally. I think it is imperative that Australia comes up with a scheme we can take to Stockholm, and be on the forefront (and front foot) when it comes to tackling this huge issue.
Just in conclusion it's worth making reference to a subject that has reared its head again lately: nuclear power. Australia has the largest stocks and is the leading exporter of uranium in the world - yet we don't have one nuclear power station. Historically nuclear power has been very much on the nose here. A strong green sector have successfully made it seem an unpalatable evil. That was easy while Chernobyl and Three Mile Island lingered in the public's consciousness.
It's different now though. There are over 400 nuclear power stations worldwide, and many more coming online. They are cheap, much more efficient than coal burning stations, and obviously a hell of a lot cleaner to - which in this age of environmental alarm is a very big tick.
The fears in the past have been about safety and in disposing of the used plutonium. Technology has advanced to the stage that there has not been even the slightest issue for many years, and that disposal of waste is a lot safer and secure than it used to be.
I'm of the view that given the environmental constraints - as well as our geographical limitations - that Australia as a nation must consider the nuclear power option. It is irresponsible not too look at it at least. I doubt that will happen though, and perhaps I should close with that thought. Nuclear power is a political hot potato unfortunately. No matter which side of politics may propose it you can be guaranteed that their opponents will oppose it on principle, seeking the political capital to be made by taking the populist option. Australian politics has to be better than that. Unfortunately I see this as one of Rudd's big deficiencies - we need someone strong enough to champion what is right regardless of popularity. We need a statesman, not a politician.
I like Obama plenty, but for him to be awarded the Nobel Peace prize is ridiculous. In fact I think it's plain embarassing, something I figure Obama would agree with. Not his fault he got the gong, and he seemed a bit sheepish about it in his acceptance speech - and quite rightly. What this does unfortunately is devalue the award. It's hard to believe there is no more worthy recipient than him, and it's a sad state of affairs if there isn't.
This is a mockery. Obama may one day earn it, and let's hope he does, but it should not be awarded for good intentions and high blown rhetoric - otherwise half the world would be entitled by virtue of toasts to world peace.
On Wednesday night about 2 kilometres from where I live a seemingly innocuous event took place which has provoked outrage internationally and bewilderment at home. I'm referring to the now infamous red faces skit on the Hey, Hey reunion show where a bunch of guys don a black face to imitate the Jacksons performing Can You Feel It. The shit the fan and has continued to clang against it ever since when Harry Connick Jnr, one of the judges, took offence at what he took to be a racist act and lambasted the performers, the show and, by inference, the country. Wow.
I didn't watch it live. I was an avid watcher of the show when I was a kid, and while I can understand the nostalgia the re-union has generated I'm not much interested in a re-hash of something that belongs to my childhood. I'm very familiar with it though, with the characters, the segments, the general vibe of the show which I might have described as playful nonsense once upon a time. Waking yesterday to the news it seemed anything but playful, but there has been a lot of nonsense spoken.
This is obviously a lot more complex than what it appears on the surface, and much of the confusion since seems based on cultural differences. Hey, hey is hardly cutting edge TV, and from what I gather the performance was not even a parody - it was a straight imitation of the Jacksons, silly, perhaps puerile, undoubtedly good natured. We do not have the cultural baggage here to make it more than that, but I am sympathetic to the American view given that they have fought the race battle for generations. To don a black face in America means something very different to what it does here in Australia.
I had a friend ring me last night. In the course of our conversation we touched upon these events. She had watched the skit and thought it a bit stupid, but nothing much more. We both agreed that the bigger risk was in portraying Michael Jackson just months after his death - we understood why someone might be upset by that. She asked me though, I didn't see anything wrong in it - does that make me racist? Is there something wrong with me?
Well the answer is no, she is no more a racist than I am, no more, in fact than most Australians are. And yet in the fallout from this tiny and ridiculous event commentators around the world are choosing to believe this is proof of the racist nature of Australians. That annoys me. I think it is ridiculously unfair. We may be ignorant in this case, possibly innocent, but we are no more racist than anywhere else.
As so often the case balance has gone out the window. Context is disregarded. I can't help but feel that this has been a huge overreaction. And there is part of me sick and tired of being dictated to as to how I should speak, what I should think, how I should act. I am sympathetic to any black person who is offended by this, but I would point out that the intention was innocent no matter how loaded the act might appear. This was a bunch of guys re-enacting a performance they made 20 years ago when they were medical students - the guy playing Michael Jackson is Indian for God's sake!
This was a bunch of people pretending to be other people - take the colour out of it and that's what it is. Put the colour back in and it becomes racist. Is that how it should be?
The reaction is a sad sign of the times. Others saw something in the act that was unintended - what was performed in all innocence was seen as being sinister. A non-existent subtext was deemed to be both racist and offensive. It is revealing of the difference in cultures, not that we are more accepting of racism, but that we do not read into this the racism that others have. If it is racist then I too am racist.
We - society - have gone too far. Had a bunch of guys got up on stage dressed as the KKK I would condemn them too - but this is a bunch of amateurs simply imitating a famous pop group. I dare say Al Jolson is frowned upon these days, but should he be? And what if a bunch of black guys had got up on stage with white faces and imitated the Bee Gees say, would there be this outrage? When men dress as women and perform is that sexist? Is it racist for someone to adopt the accent of another nationality?
I know, it's not the same - but it's not the same only because we have made it so, and seemingly have entrenched that difference. I can't help but think we make the divide larger by refusing to deal with it in anything other than sanctimonious platitudes. I would like to live in a world where something like this is seen as what it is, a bit of harmless, silly fun - and not another example of racial oppression. That's wrong.
There was an apology made by the show, qualifying it by making the point that there was no offence intended. That was the appropriate response. We're sorry if we offended anyone, but we didn't mean to. I guess we know now, and it won't happen again, but every time something like this happens we lose a little bit more of our innocence. That's sad, but, as I say, a sign of the times.
It was nice to see yesterday Kim Beazley appointed as our next ambassador to the US.
Like most Australians I have a lot of time for Beazley. I think we recognise in him a genuinely good bloke, a rarity in politics and possibly why he never quite made it to the Lodge. While that may be a disappointment to him he has been a great servant to the Australian people, and I'm sure will make a very good ambassador.
He is a decent, kindly, man with the sort of jolly nature we associate with larger men. He is also a man of great intellect, greater than most of his contemporaries. It's a good package, but it just goes to show you need more than that to reach the very top. What Beazley lacked was ruthlessness, and that over-weening belief in self that views success as a God given right.
Years ago in the early days of his leadership of the opposition I wrote a stinging letter to the Labor apparatchiks explaining to them bitterly why Beazley would never be Prime Minister. As someone who despised Howard and whose politics were just left of centre I was deeply frustrated by this. While I admired Beazley for the reasons above, I knew then he didn't have what is need to reach the very top.
Much of politics is managing peoples expectations and their emotions. You can have the greatest policies in the world but if you don't inspire confidence then you're dead in the water. It's not that Beazley didn't have the tools - I'm sure he would have made a fine Prime Minister - the problem was that he was not perceived as being a strong leader.
It's ironic really, because Beazley is no weaky, unfortunately though he felt forced to play a role that was not natural to him. Whether he was poorly advised or he took it upon himself I don't know, but I remember watching his public performances with a seething frustration.
In opposition you have to oppose I guess, and to do this Beazley would wrinkle his brow and put on his stern face and harangue the government. It was totally unconvincing, and the public, as it always does, saw through it. The problem was that is was performance. He was acting the way he thought he should be acting, rather than reacting from his true self. The public will always give you some license to over-act, that's politics after all and much of it's theatre. What it won't cop is this contrived toughness, they'll laugh it out of court. You're tough or you're not, you can't pretend to be.
One of the things that led me to write was exasperation at the waste this represented. This wasn't working, was never going to work and furthermore didn't deserve to work. Yet here was a man universally liked by Australians of all political persuasions, a genuinely decent man of soaring intelligence, and with a nice bedside manner to boot. Wasn't this enough to be without trying to be something else?
I got no response to my letter and Beazley went on to lose the next election and the one after that. He got close-ish in 1998, but was blown out of the water in 2001 after the Tampa affair. That was a deplorable blight on our history, and no-one comes out of it looking good - including Beazley.
One of the reasons I despised John Howard so much is his obsession with power regardless of cost - the cost being to the country. Again and again he changed the political conversation - and ultimately the political culture - not for the benefit of the country he served, but to suit his cheap political needs. He was past master at exploiting things to his own advantage, even to the point of injustice, to dishonourable lengths. The Tampa affair was just another example of that.
In brief a ship carrying illegal immigrants foundered off the north west coast of Australia. A passing container ship - the Tampa - picked up the survivors as they sailed towards Perth. What happened then is the crux of this tragedy. Before they reached Australian territorial waters the ship was boarded by the Australian navy and stopped. Once they reached Australian waters Australia was duty bound to accept the immigrants as refugees. Howard didn't want that.
Leading up to a federal election he leapt upon the incident and beat it up in his inimitable way, claiming that Australia was being invaded by these illegal immigrants, that he was protecting our borders against people who had no right to be here. He banged the drum hard, playing the fear card, the race card and incited outrage at this perceived 'invasion'. Come in spinner, and the Australian public were duped.
What then does Beazley do? Howard has ambushed him very cleverly. Beazley can either go along with the new rules of the game as set by Howard and join the chorus hoping to look strong on security. Or he could differentiate himself, could stand for what he believes in, could speak out against the injustice, the fear-mongering, the misinformation being spread. This was his chance.
I'm an idealist. That's probably clear. I probably couldn't survive 5 minutes in politics. I believe in things. In principles. In justice. In doing the right thing, in remembering that as Australians, as strong and rich in a world of weak and poor, we have obligations that cannot be denied if we want to be a moral and decent nation. Howard was over-turning all that for his own political ends - this was Beazley's chance to make a stand for what was right.
Unfortunately Beazley blinked. The tide was running one way and he went with it, putting on his stern face to do so. We'll never know what might have happened had he gone with his principles. He might have won the consequent election or he might have been absolutely flogged. We know that his decision made no difference, and was roundly defeated regardless.
I sound like I'm condemning Beazley, and I guess I am. Howard, for all faults was true to himself; Beazley was not. To be successful in pretty well anything you have to act with conviction. This comes from knowing yourself and being true to it. We have a right to expect of our elected representatives that they will stand for something. Once you take the oath you're fair game, it's tough but it's what you asked for. Beazley, an intelligent, good man, failed this test and the consequences were awful - 6 more years of Howard pulling his stunts and taking the country down a wicked road, SIEV X, the children overboard affair, and so on...
That's history now, and history will remember Beazley for his much broader contribution to Australian life. He's done a lot of good and I'm sure he'll continue to as our representative in the states.
The outburst was unexpected from a milquetoast Republican backbencher from South Carolina who had attracted little media attention. Now it has made him an overnight right-wing hero, inspiring “You lie!” bumper stickers and T-shirts.
Is this the other side of the argument I was making last week?
I'm an advocate of free speech and robust debate. While that does not mean I condone outbursts like Joe Wilsons, my first inclination is to dismiss them as an act of stupidity. I am aware also that it can be dangerous giving too much air time to incidents like this - in such a way molehills can become nasty mountains.
There is another angle though. I am not close enough to the cut and thrust of US society on a daily basis. I read a lot - more than most - and like most people in the western world am exposed to US culture through movies and TV, and the big headlines that make the daily papers. No matter how closely I read I do so from a perspective that is not American - which is both a positive and a negative.
Dowd suggests in her article that Wilson's outburst was the explosive consequence of simmering racism. I can't say yay or nay to that because I don't walk American streets, don't listen to the conversations in American bars and coffee shops, am not exposed to the nuances of the discussion there. In this case I have to bow to Dowd, a seasoned correspondent and there on the spot.
One thing Joe Wilson's outburst seems to have done is to lift the lid on some unsavoury divisions on the political stage. As I suspected it would his comments and the publicity following them seem to have brought the extremists out of the woodpile. At the same time it is being reported more commonly even here that there is a racial tinge to much of what is happening - which Down explicitly alludes to.
In the end what do you believe? I'm tending to think that opposition to Obama is not all about his politics. If that's true then it's hardly new, but is very disappointing. And if it's true then the likes of Joe Wilson should be called out. As Dowd quotes in her article, silence gives consent.
I was reading this morning how during a speech given by President Obama on health care reform the Republican member Joe Wilson burst out with a spontaneous "You lie!". My first reading of this was to cock a middling eyebrow and think not much more about it. Not so in the States.
I know Americans hold that the office of the President, regardless of stripe, is sacrosanct. Looking from afar this pious regard for the President no matter who he is has always seemed a little unhealthy. Though we share a lot in common, there are many differences between the American people and the Australian - and I suspect most of the world.
It's an interesting question to ponder how these divergent attitudes begin and develop over time. In large part I would think it is product of how we started. I'm not about to go into anthropological detail, mainly because I'm not an expert on it, but I would guess our differences arise initially by when we were settled, and by whom.
America is an older nation by several centuries, and settled by pilgrims, while Oz became the dumping ground for convicts. Religion has always had a central place in American culture and society, whereas it is very much on the fringes in Australia. I think that makes for a very big difference, in outlook and attitude.
I generalise, though the events of today back-up much of what I claim when I say that Americans are earnest and solemn where Australians are wry and relaxed. America is big on ritual and ceremony, and grand rhetoric. I think Americans are more emotional than Australians are, and more garrulous - though there is no-one more gregarious than a extroverted Aussie.
Here we are wary of ceremony, not wanting anything - or anyone - get too far ahead of itself. We are more earthbound, and suspicious of rhetoric - I am typical of this, a man who loves words and literature, yet wary of fine sounding words that mean nothing at all. I suspect we are more cynical, certainly more ironic, believers that actions mean much more than words do.
I was amazed to see the outrage - and vitriol - this one undisciplined outburst by Joe Wilson has created. Do I read it wrong to think that he is considered to have brought congress into disrepute? I think that's a bit strong, but I have been in contact today with American friends who are the most decent, sincere and worthy people you'll ever meet, yet they are scandalised by what has happened, as if this is the end of civilisation.
I don't doubt that the Australian parliament could be more civilised. Let's face it, it's pretty crazy sometimes, and occasionally ridiculous. It's no place for the faint hearted, but I have to say for all that I am often amused by what comes out of it even as I wonder how our country is served by it. It is the polar opposite of the American congress, and would do well to take one or two leafs out of their book.
Will that happen? Maybe, maybe not. One thing that will never change is how the Australian people see the office of the Prime Minister. Here again we are the extreme opposite of the States. In the US the Presidential office is looked upon with reverence. Here it's the highest job in the land, but no more. Half the people voted for him, and half didn't. Even those who did still expect much. He's been elected to do a job, but by and large I doubt there are many Australians who see the PM as a better man than what they are. And so he is treated pretty much like anyone else, and subject to the same criticisms as everyone else: respect the man, not the office he holds. Rightly or wrongly, there are few pedestals in Oz.
I'm glad of this pretty much, though that could be simply because I've grown up with this and feel comfortable. What we see in parliament here is pretty much the product of our society, and not far distant from the hurly burly I remember as a competitive kid growing up. It may be tough, but it's also very democratic.
Perhaps there should be more reverence for our politicians - there are certainly enough pollies who think so. And I think it might be a good idea for our parliament to be less focussed on winning political points and more on debating policy. And in truth if Joe Wilson had done this in the Australian parliament it might have been seen as poor form.
Having said all that I think what I've read since constitutes a huge over-reaction to a foolish outburst. Should he be run out of congress? Of course not. Must he perform an act of public contrition? I hope not. In fact I feel a little sorry for him now - no doubt he regrets what he said, but it will never be forgotten now such is the nature of American politics. It is a small thing that will be writ large in political folklore, and there's no going back from that. Unfortunately what it now becomes is a divisive point of difference - for the extreme right Wilson will become a hero, for those of the left a villain to be forever vilified. He's neither, but the truth gets lost in all this bombast.
What is needed is some perspective. There are some pretty big issues being debated in the American congress, and wider issues in the world that have to be dealt with. Obstructive party politics aside, the important quest is to make things happen and not be sidetracked by the irrelevant.
PS For the record, I think America must embrace health reform. Forget the politics and the scaremongering, the American health system is a disgrace for a civilised country.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=56bc6208-b8c9-40e4-9577-cec6e6b9634e)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ce84ca34-1757-4aae-b28a-bf8b08b2cdfd)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b8289342-2b59-4d28-b71e-599896c9fc3c)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7450aa30-2f8e-455e-b983-34f907eacdc3)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1cb78cf2-c5e0-4b07-91bf-c9d53462aa8b)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=43e05297-d2c4-45c1-bd54-240bf80b6cfb)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=92ae4d3f-daa1-4a46-a952-2b0804db2e28)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a2cc5fc5-95eb-4529-b7c6-ed3f86072b17)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ad9d015e-dfcf-4e95-ba9c-df601cded3c2)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=037a73f2-b9ab-4783-80a4-18b5e9f04bd7)
Recent Comments