I’ve been thinking a lot about how the `progressive’ discourse not only converted no-one, but alienated many, to the extent that Howard loved it as much as progressives did. Reinventing the discourse is crucial to a fight back.
The tin tacks question is how to define and describe the political divide these days, now that the traditional left/right labels don’t work any more. There were several suggestions in March, and I’ve pulled them together for your consideration. Define yourself for Christmas!
In case you missed it, I’ve also reprinted an excellent piece by Don Arthur published on the eve of the election in Could we start again please, which begins thinking about how people in his political categories – traditionalists, humanists, rationalists and bohemians – might speak to each other constructively. Don’s contributions to Webdiary this year have been a highlight for me. Thanks, Don.
Donald Brook (in Foreign Control)
The only ideological division that counts in Australia today is that between the neo-liberals (go for it, and the hell with the widening gap) and egalitarians.
The problem with the egalitarians is that they split disastrously into those who conceive of equality as likeness (we white Anglo-Saxon protestant migrant-haters) and those who conceive of equality as the reconciliation of difference (how shall the child of a poor black Hindu family ultimately come to find life in Australia as rewarding as it will be for the child of a Liberal cabinet minister presently attending private school?).
So I suggest that instead of Left and Right we might have Up (radical gap-extending), Down (radical gap abolishing) and Sideways (radical gap-reconciling). Slotting each of the presently observable antics into one of the new categories might call for a moment’s thought; but isn’t that what we want?
***
Marc Pengryffyn in Katoomba (in Foreign Control)
The absurd oversimplification of a bipolar political model was encouraged by the propaganda excesses of the cold wars but has never really been of much use for understanding the political scene. Look at the Spanish civil war, for heavens sake!
However, if you start to add a few more axes (thats plural of `axis’), then you start to get a more interesting picture. The classic is of course the Totalitarian-Anarchist axis, which gives you Right-Wing Anarchists (Libertarians), and Left-Wing Totalitarians (Stalinists). I tend also to think in terms of a `Green-Brown’ axis, and a `Nationalist-Globalist’ axis. I believe it was Tim Leary who came up with the `Neophile-Neophobe’axis, and you might be able to make a case for a `Tolerance-Bigotry’ axis.
Thus we have the advantage of endless flexibility- we can always add more axes, and with a little effort you can come up with quite impressive labels for people. (I tend to the mid-Left Green 1/2 Anarchist Tolerant Neophile position, but my ex was a Totalitarian Right Green Bigot).
***
James Paterson (in AMP and Woodside go Green)
There are four meaningful political categories today, two large ones and two minor ones:
1) Neoliberalism with a pronounced solicitude for the rich and white males,
2) Neoliberalism tempered by a certain solicitude for women, gays, ethnic minorities and other subordinate social groups,
3) Anti-neoliberalism with a pronounced solicitude for the rich and white males, and
4) Anti-neoliberalism with a pronounced solicitude for women, gays, ethnic minorities and other subordinate social groups.
1) and 3) equals the old right and 2) and 4) equals the old left – but it’s not clear that the crucial division is soon going to be between 1) and 2) on the one hand, and 3) and 4) on the other.
***
Patrick Drake-Brockman (in AMP and Woodside go Green)
In trying to define political ideas in the “post cold war”, our terms are trying to encompass too much. Our Ideas are breaking down into smaller groupings or cliques. Most of these are more based around personality than any overarching ideology.
This makes reporting in short and succinct manner nigh on impossible. The old tags which have had years of discussion to build up the images behind them are no longer valid. To help reporting on the issues we need to look for the new ideas and ideologies that have the necessary social definitions to use, and accept that there are now more than 2 sides to our ideological debate.
***
Matthew Pearce (in Don’t kick me: I’m down, mate)
We can better use the terminology of progressive (those who want some change), radical (those who want great change) and conservative (those who want no change). Furthermore, we can apply those terms to two main areas: economics and culture.
In this context, the economic rationalists of the late 1980s and early 1990s were definitely economically radical. They tried to overhaul the whole welfare state and redirect expenditure.
Similarly many of the S11 protestors could be described as economically conservative, because they deny the so-called necessity to open up national borders for trade. Certainly, regarding trade, the S11 protestors are similar to the conservative Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party.
But culturally, to make generalisations, the S11 protestors and One Nation supporters couldn’t be more different. The S11 protestors were often culturally radical, doing their best not to subscribe to society’s conventions. The One Nation party, however, would definitely appear to be culturally conservative.
Some people, such as Michael Warby of the Institute of Public Affairs, like to refer to liberal and conservative when refering to the political spectrum. But I think there is much disagreement, and has been for a couple of hundred years, over what liberal means. It’s such a contentious term that its value in public debate is pretty limited.
Regarding the two main areas of culture and economics, referring to progressives, radicals and conservatives is much more fruitful, and more relevant to today’s society, than speaking of left and right.
***
Peter Parker (in Don’t kick me: I’m down, mate)
I agree that the old left and right classification has become less important since the collapse of communism. Both the Labor and non-Labor parties have been affected by this trend. This has been because of two factors.
The main parties of the `Right’ have lost their common enemy of communism. The common enemy of communism united both liberals and conservatives in the one party. Communism masked the differences between liberals and conservatives.
The main party of the `Left’ has suffered a loss of faith in collective solutions following (1) lack of public support for socialist solutions (2) the collapse of communism (3) consumerism and widespread material affluence (but not necessarily widespread wealth) and (4) a degree of suspicion of government (though less strong here than in the USA).
I also see four categories: Social Liberals, Social Conservatives, Economic Liberals and Economic Conservatives
Examples of policies favoured by each group
Social Liberals
Strong support for multiculturalism and active encouragement of diversity
Non-judgementalism over people’s lifestyle choices
Moral relativism (except when criticising absolutism)
Support for drug decriminalisation and injecting rooms
Support for homosexual rights
Support for apology to Aborigines
Sympathetic towards `affirmative action’ to improve position of disadvantaged groups in society
Republican
Sympathetic to boat people refugees
Oppose censorship
Social Conservatives
Suspicion of overt encouragement of diversity; need to maintain social cohesion
Moral absolutism – clear idea of right and wrong for all
Opposition to drug decriminalisation
Opposition to homosexual rights
Opposition to apology to aborigines
Belief that Aboriginal and ethnic rights should be equal rights
Monarchist
Less sympathetic to refugees
Support censorship
Economic Liberals
Globalisation
Free-trade
Less government involvement in economy
Support for market forces
Labour market de-regulation to increase `flexibility’ for business
Economic Conservatives
Support for national economic sovereignty
Protectionism
Government involvement in economy to protect national interest
Suspicion of market forces
Labour market regulation to ensure fair wages and conditions
Let’s see how prominent figures show up. John Howard: Economic Liberal, social conservative. Jeff Kennett: Economic Liberal, social liberal. Kate Carnell: Social Liberal, maybe economic liberal. Malcolm Fraser: Social Liberal, economic conservative. Gough Whitlam: ditto. Kim Beazley: Economic Conservative, social conservative. Richard Court: Economic liberal, social conservative. Peter Costello: Economic liberal, social liberal (some issues).
Of course there are imperfections in the above. For instance a feminist may be socially liberal, but support censorship of sexist pornography. Also some of the social liberals are heavily into identity politics and group rights, while some social liberals emphasise the primacy of the individual (especially those who are also economic liberal). Also I haven’t found a place for environmentalism on this spectrum. However I would suspect that many environmentalists are economic conservatives and social liberals (though serious environmentalism would have to eventually curtail the `right to consume’ or the `right to produce’ to reduce resource depletion).
***
One nation, four cultures: Not all your political opponents are ignorant, stupid or wilfully evil – that’s the problem
By Don Arthur
Australian politics is getting nasty. It’s not just that people disagree over issues like asylum seekers, the stolen generations and economic rationalism – it’s the way they disagree. Confronted by an opponent who refuses to recant, partisans in these disputes become convinced that that they are dealing with a person who is refusing to accept the facts, is too stupid to draw the logical conclusions or has deliberately decided to support a cause they know is morally wrong. Maybe it’s time to ask whether these are the only options.
I suspect that politically engaged Australians have very different ideas about what makes a political position morally and intellectually defensible – we differ about what we think is a good argument, and sometimes about whether an argument is what’s needed. It’s as if we’re all on the one playing field but some of us think we’re playing soccer, others rugby, and others still, Aussie rules. None of us can understand why the other teams are always cheating.
I’m not sure I completely understand what’s going on here but here’s a tentative first go.
Two dimensional politics
Most of us are used to dividing the players into left and right. Politics understood this way is a continuum along a single dimension. At some stage in our lives most of us have hit upon the idea that maybe it’s not a straight line but a circle – if you go far enough left you end up on the far right. The first time you think of this it seems profound and original. It’s not.
What the circle idea suggests is that maybe there’s another dimension to politics. Maybe we need an up and a down as well as a left and right. Obviously we could go on adding dimensions to our political map. At times I’ve played around with models that have five, six or seven dimensions – maybe you have too. The real question is not how many there really are but what is the smallest number that will explain most of political disagreement we’re interested in. I think that number is two.
The first dimension is moralism. People who are strong on this dimension believe that issues of right and wrong are central to politics. They see the government as a legitimate moral agent. Not all moralistic thinkers agree what it means to be just, fair or ethical but they do agree that governments should actively pursue a vision of the good.
People who are low on moralism believe that morality is, at most, a private matter. They would argue that it’s none of the government’s business to impose any particular vision of morality on citizens. They regard such efforts as repressive and a threat to individual freedom.
The second dimension is authoritarianism. People who are strong on this dimension believe that it’s the government’s (or perhaps the family or civil society’s) job impose a framework of rules or moral norms on citizens. Authoritarian thinkers do not regard this framework as something that can be legitimately disputed politically. For some it might be an austere and amoral market framework while for others it may be a traditional way of life.
People who are low on authoritarianism tend to see state imposed rules and customs as a kind of oppression. They may argue that individuals and groups ought to be free to follow their consciences or to be true to themselves.
With two dimensions you get four political `cultures’. On this account left and right are not cultures in their own right but alliances between cultures. There are six possible alliances.
Traditionalists
People who are strong on both moralism and authoritarianism we could call `traditionalists.’ These thinkers believe that the ideal society is one with strong institutions which impose moral order on citizens. For example, parents and teachers who show children the difference between right and wrong and impose firm discipline. The law is not just a formal dispute resolution system but something which is grounded in morality.
Traditionalists do not believe that people are innately good or pro-social. Some individuals are neither. If citizens are going to be able to live decently and peacefully together they need to be taught how to behave and given a firm framework to guide them as adults.
The ideal traditionalist leader has firm convictions. They know the difference between right and wrong and have enough strength and self discipline to impose their will on those who step outside the boundaries or fail to live up society’s expectations. Good leaders will make sure that citizens get what they deserve. Those who work hard and live decently should be rewarded. Those who don’t should suffer the consequences.
Bad leaders allow themselves to be swayed by emotional appeals, self interest, or overly intellectual arguments. Bad leaders indulge citizens who are weak and allow anti-social and self-defeating behaviour to continue. For example, traditionalists believe that welfare recipients need to be subject to firm discipline and that law breakers should be punished. If people are allowed to blame society or rely on excuses for personal failure then social order will break down.
Columnist Dennis Shanahan suggests that traditionalism is the Australian way when he writes: “Order, stability and process, they are the Australian way and there are a lot of quiet people in the electorate waiting to vote for those watchwords.”
Political opponents often accuse traditionalists of ethnocentrism and xenophobia because they identify morality with the traditions of their own society.
Humanists
Like traditionalists the humanists are moralistic but they believe that the foundation of morality is human nature. All of us are by nature good and pro-social. Humanists believe in things like universal human rights and self actualization.
As children each of us is like a seed which has the potential within it to develop and flower. When society fails to provide the resources people need to develop their potential then individuals can become stunted like a seedling without the enough sun, water or nutrients.
Traditionalists see crime and poverty as largely the result of a breakdown in social discipline or self control. Humanists see these problems as stemming from the failure of society to adequately nurture its citizens.
While traditionalists are suspicious of multiculturalism (they believe that some cultures are just less moral than ours) humanists are confident that other cultures are just different expressions of our universal human nature. As a result humanists are relaxed about immigration and ethnic diversity. They tend to regard opposition to multiculturalism and attempts at assimilation as irrational prejudice or unjustifiable ethnocentrism. Traditionalists are likely to see cultural diversity as inviting social breakdown and leading to disorders such as crime and dependency.
Because humanists see morality as grounded in our natures they tend to equate immorality with `inhumanity.’ People who inflict suffering on others and repress their natural feelings of empathy and horror are less than human. They are `stunted’, `warped’ or `twisted’ individuals.
The idea that people are naturally pro-social also means that humanists tend to `medicalize’ social problems. For example, their response to sex offenders or young people who refuse to accept work is likely to be some kind of therapy – a treatment which identifies the unnatural or socially imposed barriers that prevent the individual from developing to their full potential. Traditionalists are appalled by this kind of approach. They see it as either indulgent (weak and hence immoral) or as patronizing.
In a recent Herald column Hugh Mackay imagines John Howard repenting his wicked traditionalist ways: “I see now that my resistance to the republic and my failure to embrace wholehearted reconciliation with indigenous Australians acted like roadblocks in this nation’s journey towards maturity.”
Rationalists
Rationalists do not regard moralizing as a legitimate function of government. Economic rationalists see human beings as having `interests’ or `preferences’. The role of government is to create a rational framework that allows all citizens to pursue their interests without interfering with others.
As columnist Padraic P. McGuinness writes: “…the purpose of political activity is not to spell out a vision or a grand eschatological goal, still less to bring a particular ideology to power, but rather to deal with conflicts of interest in the community for the purposes of good government. Good government is a much more modest purpose than the onwards march of humanity towards some kind of utopian vision.”
Bad governments have things like `values’, `ideological commitments’ and `visions for the future.’ All these moralistic pathologies are likely to impinge on individual liberty and economic efficiency. Good governments, according to economic rationalists, are strong but limited.
Rationalists believe that the framework the government imposes on citizens ought to be morally neutral. It will be the kind of system that any rational citizen would agree to if only they thought it through properly. The worst kind of criticism a rationalist can make is to call an opponent irrational, emotional or crazy – the kinds of things Imre Salusinszky says about Web Diary contributors.
Economic rationalists don’t believe in `social’ or `distributive’ justice. Justice is purely about procedure – about following the rules. As a result they don’t see any problem with disparities in wealth or income. They have no sympathy for traditionalists who complain that they haven’t got what they deserve. “Life is not fair – grow up!” is a typical rationalist response.
There used to be another common kind of rationalist – the socialist rationalist. There aren’t many of them about these days. These people believed that it was obvious the most efficient way to meet human needs was for the government to plan and control the economy. In practice this didn’t work out so well in places like Eastern Europe. However some modern social democrats have a strong rationalist streak. They are more likely to talk about `needs’ than `preferences’ or `interests’ and to look to Scandinavia rather than the USSR.
Rationalists despise any kind of moralizing. They see it as irrational, oppressive or quaintly old fashioned. Unlike traditionalists they are happy to solve the problem of poverty by giving money to poor people and letting them spend it how they want. While traditionalists would like to have an army of bureaucrats or Salvation Army officers supervising the unemployed, economic rationalists would be happy to give them all the sack, use the money for tax cuts and let ‘dole bludgers’ do what they liked.
Bohemians
It may be that P. P. McGuinness was a bohemian in his youth. Like economic rationalists bohemians are fervently anti-moralistic and highly individualistic. Many bohemians believe that the government ought to `empower’ them with a large grant so that they can live an authentic and creative life free of the constraints of parents, bureaucrats or employers.
Bohemians are anti-authoritarian like the humanists but unlike humanists they do not believe that people are inherently good. Instead they would say that `good’ and `bad’ are arbitrary social constructs and that there is no such thing as a `human nature.’ They sometimes think of humanists as quaint and naive. However when subjected to humanist `therapy’ they are more likely to condemn humanism as a kind of `fascism’ or `totalitarianism.’
Bohemians are not so much beyond left and right as beyond good and evil. They tend not to believe in leadership (unless they get to be the charismatic leader themselves) and see leadership as inherently repressive. They do not acknowledge any legitimate grounds for authority. `Authority’, for a bohemian, is just polite name for power.
The bohemian ideal is a life devoted to creativity or pleasure. Heroes include French existentialists like Sartre and Camus, the German philosopher Nietzsche and, for some, the Marquis de Sade. In place of morality the bohemian life is guided by taste – Bohemians like to appear `cool’ and favour a personal style of knowingness and ironic detachment.
While traditionalists risk xenophobia, bohemians risk nihilism. The fervent pursuit of social justice definitely isn’t cool. Violent revolution might be – especially if you can dress like Che.
Alliances
The `right’ is an alliance between traditionalists and economic rationalists. The rationalists tolerate moralism in the personal family and civil society spheres in return for support for the free market. Traditionalists tolerate a certain amount of amoralism in the market because they see the market as an important disciplining institution – a valuable tool of social order. Both have an interest in rejecting the `blame it on society’ approach of the humanists and their support for claims on society’s resources by those who refuse (or are unable) to accept market discipline.
The `left’ these days is an alliance between bohemians and humanists. Humanists agree to promote things like individual and welfare rights in return for not mentioning social obligations. Bohemians accept a certain amount of benign moralizing on condition that medicalized humanist institutions of social control allow enough loopholes for them to escape. Both share an interest in overcoming `the establishment.’
The old populist left was an alliance between traditionalists and humanists. Humanists accepted that the traditions of society were the best way to nurture and develop citizens (eg women at home, men at work) while traditionalists put up with humanist anti-authoritarianism as long as it was directed against corporations and the rich and powerful. Both shared an interest in resisting the amoral libertarianism of bohemians and rationalists.
Libertarianism is an alliance between bohemians and economic rationalists. Bohemians accept that the market allows them enough freedom to live as they choose while rationalists accept a measure of disrespect for property rights (eg vandalism or graffiti). Both share an interest in resisting the moralizing tendencies of the other two cultures – particularly claims on their resources. Humanists are always taxing to fund the welfare state while traditionalists want to subsidize deserving citizens like farmers and parents.
The `third way’ is a kind of rationalist/humanist alliance with the free market acting as a resource for human empowerment.
Bohemian/traditionalist alliances are dark and mysterious affairs which are likely to be hostile to ideas of reason or modernity. Padraic McGuinness might have something like this in mind when he writes: “The spirit of D.H. Lawrence and his fascination with the dark forces of the human soul haunts the modern (or postmodern) elites; unfortunately, as has been found so often in the past 100 years, the intellectuals who rely on such irrationalism rarely survive it, unless they actually enlist in the service of the new dictatorships and terrorism, as so many have.”
Cultural conflict and the boat people issue
Responses to the boat people issue divide fairly sharply along cultural lines.
Traditionalists see the appearance of people smugglers and their cargo of asylum seekers as an attempt to subvert the legitimate order of Australia’s immigration system. The boats also represent an attack on right to control our borders and our national security. The behaviour of the asylum seekers is seen as an attempt to manipulate Australians by making us feel that we are morally responsible for self-inflicted threats to their safety
The most important virtue a traditionalist leader must show in the face of these challenges is strength. He or she must never give in or compromise on the rules we have established for accepting migrants or on our right to control our borders. By deliberately boarding unsafe vessels and disabling them when confronted by the navy the asylum seekers and the people smugglers have acted irresponsibly and immorally. Their behaviour represents an attempt to exploit our sense of decency and compassion. The correct and moral response is ensure that this behaviour is not rewarded – we must not give these people what they want. That would be like giving in to a child’s tantrum – an easy but wrong option.
Humanists immediately empathize with the boat people. They regard any attempt to turn the boats away or to incarcerate the asylum seekers as inhuman. The only possible explanations for the traditionalists harsh response could be that they are twisted or sick individuals (perhaps abused or neglected as children?) or are selfishly and callously seeking political advantage.
As a result humanists respond by attempting to educate and shame the traditionalists – a strategy a traditionalist would regard as yet another test of their moral resolve. Traditionalists would regard the humanist response as emotional and morally weak. Under no circumstances should the government give in. As far as traditionalists are concerned it’s `that time of month’ 365 days a year for silly humanists.
Rationalists regard morality as beside the point. The real issue for them is whether this whole debacle will damage our standing with our neighbours and make the pursuit of our national interests more difficult. Offending military allies or major trading partners is an important concern. This is the kind of line the Australian’s Paul Kelly is advancing: “Forget the nonsense about Australia losing its compassion. The issue is whether an election mandate will lock Australia into a series of self-defeating national policies that will weaken our country.”
Bohemians aren’t showing much interest except to occasionally remind fellow citizens that immigration is good for the nation’s cuisine. The war in Afghanistan makes much better TV – it’s got jet fighters and explosions.
So what do we do?
If this perspective on the conflict is right one of the major problems is the lack of mutual understanding between those inclined to traditionalism and those inclined towards humanism. Each of them makes the conflict more intense by doing what they think is morally right.
Traditionalists see the whole crisis as a test of their virtue. Not only are the people smugglers and the asylum seekers attempting to crack their moral resolve but at home attacks by weak, emotional and naive humanists are making the business of virtue more difficult.
The more virtuous a traditionalist leader is, the more of a monster he will appear to be to the humanists. The more strongly he resists the more evil he is. Humanists respond by trying to `dispel myths’ and provoke feelings of shame and the more they do, the more strongly a traditionalist will resist. It’s a vicious circle.
If John Howard is a genuine traditionalist then the conflict is fuelled by a mutual misunderstanding and his opponents need to take a different approach. If he turns out to be an economic rationalist in disguise then shaming still won’t work. The best approach would be to highlight the damage the government’s behaviour is doing to our standing in the region. It seems pretty unlikely that Howard is some kind of humanist or bohemian.
The real tragedy would be to discover that Kim Beazley is, at heart, a humanist who has been forced to play the role of a strong traditionalist leader. That would make him an opportunistic populist and shaming might have some effect. The funny thing is that’s exactly what Howard wants voters to think.