I can only presume, until John Howard gained full control of the Federal government earlier this year, that right wing ‘intellectuals’ in Australia have suffered their own dark age.
There are not too many of them, not because the right lacks intelligence, but because conservatives openly distain ‘intellectuals’.
One relict of this breed, the conservative intellectual, Gerard Henderson, is generally given to fairly sensible comment, but now is apparently eager to seize his laurel at the cost of logic.
His recent comments (SMH Coalition troops ill-equipped for battle of ideas) would have us believe Senator Vanstone’s comments on the idiocy of some of her governments ‘security’ measures reflects a weakness among members of the ruling coalition to “intellectually defend their government's decision.”
Interestingly, Henderson reflects on the conservatives of the 1960’s and their need, to co-opt right wing spokesmen from outside the party and parliament, people like Henderson.As an example, Henderson’s comment fails the test of intellectual integrity.
Without adding one iota to the debate in favour of the imposition of dubious security measures, he merely manages to show that the governing coalition is failing in a fundamental way to defend their position.
I guess, for those of us who long for more sane and forward looking policies to quell the social division and unrest conservative policies have created, Vanstone’s comments were on the flippant side.
Vanstone’s revelation that the security measures are a farce, while perhaps not intellectual, was telling. Henderson used his space, not to argue for the terrorism measures of the government, but against continued funding of the national broadcaster, his favourite hobby horse.As of today, it is Vanstone #1 and conservative intellectuals still trying to find the starting line.
Part II
Richard Harris is executive director of the Australian Screen Directors Association. I expect Australia’s conservative intellectuals, the likes of the aforementioned Gerard Henderson, would roll their eyes at this ‘artsy’ lefty.
They would no doubt be wrong. Richard achieves what Henderson right wing politicians fail to do, by his own measure. Harris articulates the failing in the Australian governments plan to resurrect sedition laws to fight terrorism.
Supporting Henderson, Harris asserts;
“Observing the sedition debate over the past few weeks it has been hard not to notice that other than the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, there have been few commentators willing to argue in favour of reviving Australia's sedition laws.”In his article, (SMH Anti-democratic provisions fall on the wrong side of the law), Harris launches a well considered argument, revealing the follies of the proposed law changes.
“What has become increasingly clear is that these new sedition provisions are recognised across the political spectrum as problematic at best, dangerous at worst. This is because they not only wake up "dead-letter" sedition laws that had been assumed to be moribund, but also expand them in ways that threaten the reasonable rights to freedom of speech and expression that we do - and should - expect.”The sad fact is, the conservative agenda, in Australia, Britain and of course, the USA, is cynical and self serving. The current leaders of those countries would thrust the world into total turmoil, in the process, pulling the wool over their publics’ eyes.
They are not about human rights, they are not about national security, they are about further enriching a small group who currently own and control those governments.
There can be no intellectual defense of this process. It is grounded not in any viable social imperative, but in base greed. Henderson’s defense cannot be based on any sustainable logic, purely on the ability to effectively argue.
The issue reflects the inherently corrupt nature of an overriding economic program based on monetarism, greed and its rejection of the value of people.
No comments:
Post a Comment