G’Day. Today, some of your responses to Faultlines in Howard’s plan for absolute power. I’m getting stacks of great emails on the implications of Howard’s agenda and how to counter it – sorry if you haven’t got a run. I LOVE this suggestion from Sue King: “Wouldn’t be bad to have an Australian version of opengov.” A Washington Post report, Site lets citizens monitor Big Brother, begins:
Ryan McKinley relishes the idea of turning Big Brother on his head.
Concerned about expanded government monitoring of individuals, McKinley, a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has created an Internet repository for citizens to provide information about public officials, corporations and their executives.
The result, he hopes, will be a giant set of databases that show the web of connections that often fuel politics and policymaking, such as old school ties, shared club memberships and campaign donations.
I’m off to Adelaide this afternoon for the Adelaide festival of ideas, so I’ll get an injection of ideas I’ll share with you next week. I’m giving a speech called ‘Redrawing maps of home’, a great phrase used by WebdiaristChristine Evans after the 2001 federal election (Redrawing my map of home). Her piece, republished below, was a response to the question “What will you do?” after the 2001 election result.
My speech will be based on what we’ve been discussing for the last couple of weeks – haven’t written it yet, but I’ll publish it when I get back to work on Tuesday.
Contributors today are Stuart Skelton, Joe Bryant, Damian Shaw-Williams, David Redfearn, Grant Long, Greg Carroll, Mark Carey, Alistair Noble, Malcolm Manville, Stuart Cairns, Sven Klinge, Philip Hewett, Simon Jarman, Matthew Barnes, Jim Robinson and Andrew Byrne.
Thanks to University of Sydney journalism student Lachlan Brown for helping me process your emails this week.
***
Christine Evans (published in Webdiary on November 13, 2001)
I am writing from the US, which the Fulbright commission has generously funded me to visit on the presumption that world peace is more likely if we get to know people from other countries and share our views and lives a little.
I am trying to make sense of the fact that the post-Sept 11 atmosphere seems more poisonous in Australia than in Manhattan, where strenuous attempts are being made to AVOID racial profiling and bigotry. I am trying to redraw my map of “home” after the deeply depressing election results – and more generally, political ugliness – in Australia.
Globally, I feel we are living through the first death throes of the nation state and that the ugliness and fear we are seeing is more than just racism, but a response to the vague but real perception that borders mean less and less.
With over 28 million refugees now world wide, our way of being “citizens” and defining our sense of belonging has to change, unless we are going to define an exponentially escalating part of the population as pariahs. And populations with nothing to lose are, of necessity, terrifying.
Back to ‘What will I do’ and the map of home. Edward Bond (playwright) says that the child maps the world in a process which also creates the child; the map and the mapmaker are one. He writes “If the map is torn, the mapmaker is torn”. My map of Australia has just been torn, but along folds that have been worn thin for a long time.
Another vision of maps inspired by visiting Belgrade this summer (in conversations with my Serbian theatre friends who have survived, overcome despair and offered continuous resistance to a far more poisonous political situation than ours) is one in which “home ” is redefined not as country or race or nation, but by the connective tissue one builds between points of meaning: connection points to land, music, people, ideas, cultures. The task is then to make “home” by building bridges between these starry points.
This sounds abstract, but as a strategy kept my theatre friends alive as people and artists for 10 years: when “home” was unlivable they worked overseas; when the regime fell they brought their international friends to visit. They refused to be as small as the degraded and shrunken politics of their country would have them be, and defined themselves as both Serbs and more than Serbs, human beings and artists with loyalties beyond their State.
How can I apply this way of mapping? By ways despised in the current climate in Australia; through art, conversation, imagination and trying to strengthen community. By refusing to recognize the borders of the nation state as the borders of my and others’ world.
For instance: I am writing a musical set in a refugee camp. Much of it takes place in the Australian desert. I hope I can get it produced in Australia as well as the US and that the music will be so seductive that even people who hate its politics will tap their feet.
I also visit the International Institute in Providence, RI USA, twice a week helping on a project where recent immigrants are learning English and writing a script together. I’m organising a visit for my Serbian friends to Providence, where we will do a theatre project bringing African-American, student, and local arts communities together. Dijana Milosevic will lecture to our community on “The Role of the Artist in Wartime”.
These are only small things but they are attempts to redraw the map. Every day with every action we vote for the world we believe in, which – like the notion of a country – is both imaginary and real.
***
Stuart Skelton in Germany
It would appear to me that the mere inclusion of your obviously partisan diatribe serves to show exactly how patently ridiculous your premise over media bias is.
Your keep referring to John Howard’s popularity. It is so painfully obvious that you are upset that so many people actually approve of him, and the job his government is doing. How galling it must be that DEMOCRATIC PROCESS doesn’t agree with YOU!
The avenue for your consistently anti-Howard messages, along with your equally partisan colleagues Messrs Carlton and Ramsey have yet to be interfered with from this “evil” conspiracy of right wing media ownership.
The reform of the Senate has been one of the avowed ideals of Labor Party policy since 1975, and yet now you scream blue murder at the fact that the Liberal Party are actually the ones to contemplate reform and present an actual plan for doing so (see Howard’s rubber-stamp democracy). The Senate has been the private publicity firm for single issue parties (or in some case single issue people) almost since its inception. Does anyone really think that “Keep the Bastards Honest” was about party platform rather than about headline grabbing?
Whatever your arguments with the current Federal Government, you seem to be most upset with it because it simply doesn’t agree with you. Strange then that they are continuously re-elected. Perhaps the “intellectual elite” that you so obviously feel to be a part of could get it so wrong so often.
Perhaps you should learn a little more about the PRACTICE of democracy rather than your CONCEPT of what you think it should be.
As far as I am aware, the Government presents its policies. The Opposition presents their policies, and then the PEOPLE decide who they would prefer to have running the country for the next four years. It must be of endless frustration to you that the PEOPLE so often, in your opinion, get it wrong.
Keep scribing your Labor Party advertising, please! It continues to make a mockery of your claims about media bias, and displays your true colours about what you really think about Democracy, and the people who practice it!
***
Joe Bryant in Sydney
Here’s an extract from the Declaration of Independence that we should all know off by heart, not only Americans but all people across the world, because it states important truths, in particular the lines highlighted:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”
Let’s mark what it meant then and make it mean something in the future.
***
Damian Shaw-Williams
What can be done in this mono-media-culture people ask?
Several things came to mind. One is the move-on movement in the US which is an online organising forum which has provided momentum for Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. The online forum would provide a means of democratic and electoral discussion.
More generally it would be a ‘permanent petition’ for anyone registered to vote in Australia, regardless of political persuasion. As opposed to affixing your signature to a petition once for a worthy cause, it would be a mass of people subscribing to say four or five core principles, and a declaration that those undersigned will vote according to the democratically determined position on selected issues.
Of course there is no obligation apart from the stated intent, and those who differ in opinion could simply vote however they please. But impact would occur in marginal seats if it could be demonstrated that those on the site represented a block large enough to swing the electorate.
In short it would be the next step on from Webdiary, with a charter and a permanent presence (i.e. not subject to the ownership of the Fairfax group). Cheap and relatively easy to run too.
***
David Redfearn in Northcote, Victoria
A few random thoughts.
1. Reading ‘Howard’s Faultlines’ made me think of Victoria in 1999. Who would ever have thought that Labor would have won seats like Ripon and Seymour (with Green help in the latter). The national situation is obviously much more complex because Victoria’s demography and a bipartisan consensus on our diversity ensured that One Nation never had much oxygen here. But we should never really underestimate genuine grass roots discontent wherever it occurs because electoral consequences are more than possible (Tony Windsor and Peter Andren should be testimony to that).
2. A friend in Queensland who is a genuine swinging voter with Liberal leanings (and Peter Beattie watch out because he is not happy with you after supporting you for two elections!!) said in a recent email that he had now enough reasons to vote against Howard but not enough to move across to Labor. I don’t think it was Simon Crean per se, as he has some regard for him, but there is a cry for some sort of leadership on the Centre Left to articulate a vision for Australia.
There needs to be some sort of dialogue to find issues which unite us on the Centre and Left with the aim of removing Howard and ensuring a vigorous but unifying debate occurs because much that most Australian’s treasure will be lost by stealth and clever wedge politics. It will require effort, considerable patience, acceptance and tolerance at times but is achievable at community level, which is a most delightfully subversive way to do it!! And to boot, Murdoch and Packer will never know until it is much too late (once again I return to Victoria 1999)!!!
3. I am ever sustained by my outward looking and curious adult children who are blessed with knowing and valuing many Australias. including the very small rural NSW community I hail from, their Italian and English heritage, and their cosmopolitan environment in Melbourne.
Some things are right in this country and must be fiercely protected.
***
Grant Long in Newcastle
It’s great that you pick up on the grass roots resurgence in ‘Faultlines’. Over the last few years it has been easy to become very disheartened by what was happening politically in this country. This, I’m sure, is exactly what the government and the big corporate players want.
But tough times demand tough hearts, and it is at that local level that most people feel that they can make a difference. We are seeing many signs of this happening. This week’s news report about a Supreme Court victory by a local group against a mobile phone tower was an example.
The beauty of this sort of action is that it highlights a latent passion for our places and shows that our local societies are strong. These actions bring people together. The joy on these people’s faces was invigorating.
It’s good to hear about the US Democrat Howard Dean who is garnering support from individuals. The prominence of Ralph Nader at the last US elections is another example that people are not comfortable with the shifts taking place in our democracies. The Michael Moore website also includes some stinging comment regarding the current US president (the latest, a letter to Lt Bush is a doozee and focuses attention on the unpopular question, ‘When is a victory a VICTORY?’).
Your alliance discourse was also enlightening. In Australia, we had the alliance between the Australian Conservation Foundation and the National Farmer’s Federation over land degradation (dryland salinity, water quality, etc). This “unlikely” alliance seems entirely logical when seen in context.
As a whole, I think your faultlines are a reality today. Far from being disheartened, every time I hear Howard pushing his little barrow I see another nail in his political coffin. His comments this week regarding the Hicks trial were laughable. It’s like one of the rules of cross-examination – leave irrational and absurd answers where they lie.
All we can hope is that an alliance will withstand the inevitable pre-election barrage. Oh yeah, and let’s all hope that we don’t have another Tampa or children overboard fiasco the week before.
***
Greg Carroll
I think your analysis about the disconnection and alienation from communities and the consequences is spot on. I hope your speculation about possible weaknesses in the current neo-liberal domination are proven to be as accurate. Like you, I think the Nats are at fork in the road. It will be interesting to see if they’ve got any guts or pride left.
***
Mark Carey in Springwood, NSW
Howard has always been divisive: look how the Liberals divided around his ambitions, several times, back in the 80s; his consistent wedge politics; the polarisation of the country now. Accumulating power to oneself is by definition divisive.
I think you are right that to counter this, we must look for what the rest of us share, what we have in common, what unites us. Call me romantic if you like, but the awareness of Howard’s megalomania will grow if it is named often enough, and his willingness to say whatever keeps him in power will undo him.
The only thing is, each round we go with him the stakes are higher. You have pointed out where his agenda is taking us (Howard’s roads to absolute power). It is important to keep on saying what is happening. This is a time when every conversation you have, every piece you write, makes a difference.
***
Alistair Noble in Glen Innes, NSW
Your recent analyses of Howard’s agenda have cheered me up no end – it’s so good to read views similar to one’s own in the media! The full horror of Howard’s vision may only now be becoming certain, but we should all have seen it coming years ago. The thought of a (l)iberal backlash is lovely but I’m not going to hold my breath any longer …
From where I live, in what Howard so patronisingly calls “the bush” (here in Glen Innes the nearest real bush is a 45 minute drive away!), I can see at a grassroots level the development of the sort of unholy alliances you mention.
This might yet prove to be our salvation. Imagine the support a Greens/Nationals alliance could gather across the country.
Keep up the good work, Margo. You can’t really hope to keep the bastard honest but at least you can annoy him a bit and you’ll be able to say to everyone “I told you so!”.
***
Malcolm Manville in Killara, Sydney
I hope your articles about John Howard’s political position in our lives stirs people into action, because that is what is needed. Howard has, without one dissenting voice from his government colleagues, made Australia a different place. I have a mental image of Howard going to bed at night kissing his wife goodnight, then the photo of Bob Menzies that sits on his bedside table and once more turning the clock a bit further back.(Margo: Howard is no Menzies. A Webdiary intern, Lachlan Brown, is writing a piece for Webdiary about Menzies’ vision for education, and boy oh boy is it poles apart from Howards!)
Surely we don’t need another political party under John Hewson but rather a reduction in party political power. We don’t get to chose our members of parliament anyway, it’s done by the party machine. We just have the privilege of voting them into a job without really knowing their capabilities or often them knowing anything about us.
This was the case with my federal MP hastily moving into our electorate and given the nod weeks before the election. In the process our long standing and respected MP was dumped to give the blue eyed boy a seat.
If voters were to select an independent member who was truly concerned about the electorate – hopefully without any previous party affiliations – he or she might truly be representational and not just a puppet too frightened to speak out when it counts. The people, in the bush in particular, would then have some control over their destiny, Brian Harradine, for example, has managed to do quite nicely.
***
Stuart Cairns in Armidale, NSW
I wouldn’t cross my fingers too hard for Mark Latham if I were you. I can see what is going to happen to him even if there is not another Beazley challenge. Last week we had Mark Latham saying on Lateline that he would be interested in looking at the issue of negative gearing in relation to taxation and revenue raising. The next day we had Simon Crean wetting himself when asked about this and saying that no, that no consideration would be given, when formulating new policies, to the issue of negative gearing.
We then had the Treasurer smirking his way through a one-liner about Labor not being able to make up its mind between Lateline and lunchtime. Very droll, Very depressing.
Given that there are sound economic reasons for examining the effects of negative gearing on an over-heated housing and construction market, I would have thought that Labor should look at it if, as has been said often, the only policy issue not under consideration is the sale of Telstra. However, it looks as though we will just have to stand by and watch Simon Crean morph into a small target like his predecessor did. Perhaps he doesn’t know that most of us don’t own investment properties and avail ourselves of the tax minimisation advantages of negative gearing?
There is also a sizeable minority of us who want to see taxes raised equitably and spent on the creation of a fair society. If this is the case, then it may not be too difficult to convince others that bold policies which achieve this are worth supporting.
If this is to be the direction in which Labor chooses to go, then I’m sure that Mark Latham will go the distance. However, if Labor is heading in the direction of becoming a new style small target, then I doubt that he will stick it out.
***
Sven Klinge
‘Faultlines’ didn’t mention the Greens once. (MARGO: Not true!) Labor doesn’t represent the left or the centre – since 1983 it joined Thatcher and Reagan in a world-wide move to the right.
When looking at the 20th century as a whole, Labor now represents a moderate-right and the Liberals a far right. The political spectrum has become narrower with the ideological battleground moving to the right. It seems from your writing, with its focus on Labor, that you have fallen into this trap.
Given your voice, why not encourage people to think about Greens, Independents and other truly LEFT wing candidates for elections?
It’s a mistake that activists in the USA make – supporting the Democrats. As was seen with Clinton, nothing really changes. Instead of an ultra-ultra-ultra right wing corporate-sponsored conservative political party, they just get a ultra-ultra right wing corporate sponsored conservative political party.
People will not vote Labor if their policies are virtually identical to the Liberals in all the important areas. Is it laying too much of a burden on Dr Bob Brown?
***
Philip Hewett in East Gosford, NSW
I wish I had the capacity to write nice dispassionate logical analysis as do others who contribute – but I can’t so here’s an alternative diatribe.
Packer and Murdoch are almost always referred to as Australia’s most powerful men. Why is it necessary to preface their names this way? They hold no power or sway over me. I do not read their journals, magazines, watch their TV stations or consume anything else they produce – to the best of my knowledge.
Whatever power they have stems from general (but waning) public acceptance of the corrupted political system by which they are feted. If enough people think the system is no longer worth supporting (which it isn’t) then they can turn on these powerful ‘elites’ and dismantle the system (as many have done throughout history). Howard is in the same position. He stays only as long as the people accept his corrupt and corrupting system.
Power can only be held for so long. Like wealth, it tends to accumulate. Then one day a seething populace snaps and the real action starts. Let the powerless masses revolt now against these mandarins instead of bleating in fear of losing a democracy that has been in terminal decline for more than 25 years.
Today’s Australians seem unable to exercise the level of courage of their ancestral shearers, miners and waterfront workers, who at enormous risk and expense stood up to the abusers and the exploiters. These were long and debilitating battles but they won our democracy. We too are going to have to fight for our democracy instead of handing our souls over to the corrupt Howards, Murdochs and Packers of this nation.
These oligarchs fear losing power more than you can image. To be at all like the mob absolutely spooks them. But Howard certainly has the measure of mainstream Australia (his ‘mob’).
He knows they are confused and divided. He knows they lack the ticker of past generations. He knows they have grown fat on consumption and have become intellectually lazy. He knows they will merely bleat and appeal to fair play. He knows they will not stand up for themselves. He loves that.
Get over it Australia. Get active and give the whole system a damned big shake up.
***
Simon Jarman
Thanks for your recent articles. They really resonate with me and give me cause for optimism. I have to say that everything this government does and stands for makes me feel oppressed as a citizen. It’s a sense of oppression that I don’t believe will be lifted until John Howard’s political demise (which can’t come too soon).
It’s almost as if everything that I valued as good or great about Australia has been under assault since his election. During 1997 I was the Secretary of the A.C.T. Branch of the Community and Public Service Union. Peter Reith had just introduced his workplace relations act and was sacking thousands of public servants. My job was to represent 40% of the workforce in Canberra during this time.
That job was tough, but what I find harder to come to terms with is the current state of the Commonwealth public service. This once great Australian institution that proudly provided ‘independent, frank and fearless’ advice to ministers is now, under John Howard’s stewardship, nothing but a hollow shell. Ministers simply shout their orders into it and back comes an echo. Senior staff are rewarded if they can tow the party line.
Just look, for instance, at Jane Halton – the current Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing. Ms Halton was one of the architects of that derided policy that wanted to make our parents sell their homes to obtain a place in a nursing home. Any public servant worth their salt should have advised the government that this was a dog, but Ms Halton got rewarded – and then when she covered for the Prime Minister in the ‘children overboard’ scandal she was rewarded again with the plum job she has now. Is this the kind of public service that Australians deserve?
Our taxes pay for it and as citizens we must demand better. I understand that this is not a sexy issue with the voting public, but nevertheless it’s vital to the strength of our democracy. Hopefully Labor will move to restore the public service as part of its policy and election platform.
The Public Service may be a personal hobby horse of mine, but in general, it’s the lack of fairness exhibited by this government that assaults my value system. If a country or government should be judged on the way it deals with the worst off in its society, then John Howard’s government would be guilty on all counts. Under John Howard there has literally been an explosion in welfare for the rich – at the expense of the poor. He’s our very own Sheriff of Nottingham.
It’s certainly not the ‘battlers’ who benefit from the private health insurance rebate or the massive funding increases to wealthy private schools at the expense of the public school system, but their taxes certainly provide for these little luxuries. The working poor may now be forced to pay for a visit to a doctor – even though they’ve already paid their Medicare levy, but a retired millionaire with a concession card? No problem madam – you’ll be bulk billed!!
Throw in the regressive nature of the GST, Howard’s failure to tax trusts as companies (trusts being a favourite tax dodge for the wealthy) and his treatment of those seeking asylum in this country and how long is this piece of string?
Next to the lack of fairness, I would have to say that John Howard’s mastery of deceit would have to be one of the saddest hallmarks of his Prime Ministership. I don’t just mean the bald faced lies like the ‘never-ever’ GST, but the day to day stuff – like the plastered-on look and tone of false sincerity when he insists that he hasn’t already decided to commit our country to war. You know, simple stuff like that.
Sorry if I’m rambling Margo, but you got me started! The last thing I want to say is that I’m a bit of a fan of John Ralston Saul, who talks about the power of language in some of his writings. I think its time that journalists, the opposition and community leaders harness the power of language to attack this government.
Let’s face it, this is the most extreme right wing government this country has ever experienced, so let’s call a spade a spade. A label like ‘extreme (or ‘ultra’) right wing’ could be an enormously damaging one if used against this government in a concerted and ongoing way.
I suppose, if you throw enough mud, some of it has to stick and there are plenty of instances where it would where John Howard is concerned. Maybe applying such a label is propaganda, but maybe we should fight fire with fire. Maybe there is a better label, but anything that takes the gloss off this disgusting government would be worthwhile.
***
Matthew Barnes in London
I’m at a loss to understand what John Howard stands for economically other than stealth tax and spend. Do you think that Howard is aware the burden that his policies have on the average Australian?
I would suspect that he and the Treasurer have absolutely no idea. Nevertheless, I’m sure they think they are doing a great job because there’s not a budget deficit and economic growth is about 3% per year.
Paradoxically, strong economic growth is a function of just how hard Australians are having to work to keep their heads above water.
Under the Australian regime its very simple to have a budget surplus. Every year there’s substantial wage creep and it’s a no brainer to earn surpluses by simply giving very little of it back. In contrast, over here in the UK there is a commitment to an annual indexation of the income tax brackets notwithstanding that economic growth is rarely more than 2% per annum.
Australians have really received none of the fruits of the labour they could expect from the 10+ years of strong economic growth. The top tax rate of 48.5% cuts in at about 1.4x Average Weekly Earnings compared to about 1.7x in 1990.
Nor can I understand this government’s obsession with being debt free. Name a company that carries no debt on its books! Compared to a company, governments have the benefit of a predictable revenue stream and should carry some debt. Nor can it be said that the interest burden for a AAA rated government is at all an issue.
Margo, I assure you I care about issues other than economics, but I feel the federal government’s lamentable performance in this area has not been criticised anywhere near to the extent that it should have been by the Australian press.
Opponents of the government should focus much more on this issue, as dissatisfaction in this area is much more likely to cause the Liberal’s electoral demise than some of the other issues that so infuriate opponents.
***
Jim Robinson in Perth
I read with great interest your articles about Howard and his plans. As a transplanted Canadian, I urge you to look at the Canadian situation in regards to US political partnership.
Canada has an appointed Senate, which means they are a ‘rubber stamp’ body that does nothing but cost money. All the real power is in the Prime Minister’s Office. This has lead to rorting of both power and money. For example, the ex-Minister of Public Works was investigated for influence peddling and appointed Ambassador to the Netherlands.
Canada does more than eighty percent of it’s trade with the US, and is the USA’s biggest trading partner. This did not stop the US from slapping a 27% duty on Canadian softwood lumber for the third time!! The last two times the WHO and NAFTA overturned the duties, but that did not stop the US Federal Government from trying again. If the US will do that to their biggest trading partner, what will they pull on Australia when they feel like it?
The politicians here need to be very careful when dealing with the US because they have proven time and again, that a deal is only a deal when it is good for the USA. And let’s not even start on the war in Iraq …
If you want a view of where Howard appears to be taking us, just look at the Great White North (Canada :-))
***
Andrew Byrne in Chiswick, Sydney
I recently read an article on the SMH online had me laughing my head off (Australia could be richer if economy more free).
The article was prompted by the publishing of a report primarily pushed by the Cato Institute in Washington. Seeing Cato and the name of a “reputable” economist Milton Friedman made me gag. Friedman is as neocon as one can be.
A while back, Margo, you wrote an article with an accompanying piece by Alistair Mant on corporations muddying public waters ( Muddying the waters between guardians and traders). It discussed PFIs (Private Finance Initiatives) and PPPs (Private/Public Partnerships) models.
Friedman is the god of Globalisation and father of the original PPP and PFI models in Chicago in the 1970s. The man is a lunatic who believes the world should roll over and let the corporate world get on with owning everything. This is his version of “economic freedom”. This philosophy is used by the priests and snake oil salesmen of the World Bank, World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund and the Cato Institute.
Their freedom medicine comes down the heroin syringe of Free Trade Agreements. In the US, the same system brought California (and other states since) to its knees.
As for the Cato Institute – where does one start? They’re very wealthy because vaults of money are hurled at them every year from the biggest corporations in banking, tobacco, oil, pharmaceuticals, media, technology and finance.
Names like Shell, Chevron, Exxon, Citibank/Citicorp, Chase Manhattan, American Express American Petroleum Institute, Pfizer, Saloman Brothers, Prudential, Microsoft and Philip Morris are just some of them.
Rupert Murdoch is up to his eyebrows in Cato (including his directorship of the institute (1997). The sponsorship data is very hard to get from Cato (but not impossible, obviously). Still, they’re very coy about who pays them to spout Orwellian gumpf.
I could spill it all out, but the previous paragraphs are enough to show that the SMH article promoting free trade is a standard diversionary plant. In World Bank/WTO parlance it’s part of the first of four phases in Free Trade Agreement based take-over called “Softening” (that fell out of their mouths – not mine).
The connection with Murdoch is even more wonderful. The article said Hong Kong was number one – the most free economy in its study. Does this suggest that its sinking democratic rights are directly proportional to its “economic freedom”? (It’s comparable to gloating that a death row in-mate has the best surround-sound home entertainment system on the cell block – gee, he’s so lucky and well off!)
How ironic to laud the greatness of Hong Kong’s economic freedom when Murdoch is currently pushing his media empire in China. Consider his cancellation of the BBC on his Star TV channel because Chinese authorities complained the BBC was being too nosy into China’s human rights history. In 1994 Murdoch said: “The BBC was driving them nuts. Its not worth it”. Murdoch quickly disconnected BBC from Star TV.
The Cato Institute said in its report: “The actual income of poor people increases as nations gain in economic freedom because of the increased wealth economic freedom generates.”
(Stunned silence)
A year or two ago a rubbish dump in Argentina saw the odd sight of jobless professionals combing the trash-heaps for food. It was just after Argentina had been manhandled into “economic freedom”.
Want economic freedom as Cato promises? Go ahead, enjoy your home entertainment system – the problem will be paying the 400% electricity bill increase from yesterday’s price just to watch your DVD. (400% increases and worse occurred regularly during the Californian energy crisis due to these same “free market systems” designed to allow private industry to set the prices for electricity, water, gas and telephone at their whim with no government oversight.)