Time for a Dialogue

28Jan12

Several years ago an Aboriginal woman collapsed at a bus stop. She had exhibited symptoms not unlike that of being drunk, and her fellow commuters mistakenly assumed that the effects of the alcohol had finally caught up with her. Upon finally being admitted to a hospital, it was discovered that she was, in fact, suffering from a medical condition and had nearly died. The cry went up: RACISTS! Her fellow commuters had not seen past the stereotype to see that she was actually unwell. It became a symbol, for some, of all that was wrong with Aboriginal affairs in this country. And, in a perverse way, it was. While most Australians, probably, ruefully admitted that their experiences with drunken Aborigines would doubtless have led them to the same erroneous conclusion, one thing struck me as inherently odd about the whole situation. Even this Aboriginal activist had seen enough of her people in such a condition that she did not berate the others for their lack of care in toto- merely that they had failed to ascertain the facts of her condition. In other words- she was okay with the idea that had her fellow commuters found her to be another drunken Aboriginal in a similar situation, she should be left to sleep it off.
Strong emotions are a guaranteed aid to memory, and there are few stronger emotions than fear. From an early age, non-Aboriginal Australians come to know Aboriginals and their culture through a perspective of fear. Not some amorphous concept of racism or xenophobia but personal encounters. The elites of this country, media, political and academic, exposed as they are to Aboriginals within their own milieu, are able to see Aboriginals as they could and should be. Most Australians have experience only of the other sort- the stereotypes. And as we can see from the above, this is not a perspective wholly limited to non-Aboriginals. Indeed, the levels of domestic violence, child abuse and self harm in Aboriginals would suggest that they are far more likely to know the failings of their own people.
The continuing plight of the Aboriginal peoples in this country should be a national disgrace. The events of the last forty-eight hours are a clear demonstration of why this country is able to avoid facing up to the fact that the plight of the Aboriginal peoples is worse now than when the nation voted to invest Aboriginal affairs with the Commonwealth Government. After fifty years of failed policies in pursuit of a failed philosophy at the cost of untold billions, the nation needs to invest in a conversation on the future direction of aid to these people. The events of the last forty-eight hours are not the type of conversation the majority of Australians are willing to engage in.
It is clear that there are two types of Aboriginal leader. The first type has come to see that the old policies are not working- that they are in fact detrimental to the welfare of their people and only serve to give people, white and black, a power and influence they do not deserve. The second type derives power and influence from the old policies and seeks to perpetuate them even at the expense of the Aboriginal peoples. We saw the second type of leadership over the last forty-eight hours.
The efforts to support the interests of Aboriginal peoples are being ultimately defeated by the Aboriginals themselves and those interested in perpetuating the existing system. By subscribing to the myth of the Noble Savage, supporters of the current policies are not merely allowing, but are encouraging a degree of savagery that should be insupportable in a modern nation. The levels of child abuse, domestic abuse, substance abuse, incarceration, etc that blight these people are not done at the behest of the White Man, but at the hands of the Aborigines, many of whom are supposed to be leaders or future leaders of their communities. The valid and necessary steps being taken to weaken this culture of violence and brutality are opposed at every point by people not seeking to alleviate unnecessary suffering, but only to maintain a system that ensures their own power- and too often it is a power to inflict these very brutalities.
Tony Abbott was entirely correct in his assertion that the Tent Embassy has served its purpose, that it is now detracting from the need to engage in a long overdue conversation on the needs and plight of the Aboriginal communities. It is now serving as a reminder that these people see themselves as a nation apart- and the events of the last forty-eight hours serve only to confirm that impression. These events indicate that the Tent Embassy is representative of a mindset that is not merely in support of the Aboriginal peoples but is demonstrably anti-Australian. It will elude the vast majority of Australians, even those who might feel sympathy for their position otherwise, how the events of the previous day in any way justified the burning of the National Flag. The pleas of the leaders of the Tent Embassy that they were in no way provocative will fall on deaf ears when set next to such an act of provocation.
Such actions only serve to alienate support; continuing this vein of offensive, provocative and belligerent protest will merely serve to solidify support for those who believe that enough is enough and it is time for the spigot of public funding to be shut off. The special treatment that comes with being Aboriginal will end. Gone will be the advisements that Aboriginal recipients of social welfare programmes are to be handled as a priority, with more support and funding than that available to non-Aboriginals. And the national conversation, already long delayed, will be delayed even further.
The victims of this situation will not be the protesters at the Tent Embassy. They will not be the civil servants at the various Ministries associated with Aboriginal welfare. It will be another generation of Aboriginal youth condemned to living out their lives under a savage regime in their communities and their homes- doomed to ultimately perpetuate that cycle of violence on their own children.

As an aside-
Whatever happened to the intelligent conservative argument? One could very well ask the same question of the Left, but being a conservative the continuing failure of the Left to articulate even the beginnings of a cogent argument is not unwelcome. Having become more organised between work, studies and personal life, I am also catching up on my reading. And whether in Quadrant or Review or even in the conservative media, there seems much too much focus in conservative writings on the failings of the Left and not nearly enough on articulating an Australian conservative idea worthy of the appellation, much less a whole suite of them that could carry the nation. And, as previously noted in other posts, there is an increasing trend by many to co-opt American ideology on issues that have no place in Australia- or at least not in the way that an American, with their own constitutional traditions, would understand them. The very idea that Australian conservative opinion should spend even a moment in contemplation of the concept of Intelligent Design is a crime against conservative supporters in this country.
What is particularly galling is the faux intellectualism adopted by many of the writers. Patrick Morgan tries to use psychology to paint a picture of the Labor leadership but invariably comes across as someone with an outsider’s perspective writing of things as he imagines them to be. John O’Connor tries to use cosmology and ends up with more or less the same sort of article as Morgan.
On the whole, constantly harping on about the failures of the Greens or Labor, suggesting policy positions straight out of Newt Gingrich’s or Ron Paul’s campaign material or just out and out engaging in unsophisticated propaganda does not amount to a satisfying immersion into Australian conservative thought.
Conservatism is not about being opposed to ideas or change. This is the sort of imagery that Leftists like; a rendition of the dictionary definition. If the central ethos of the Australian experience is mateship and the fair-go, then pursuing policies that sh*t all over your mates while elevating yourself at their expense are not likely to find traction in this country. The Australian conservative voice needs to become distinctly less American and distinctly less focussed on the shortcomings of the Left. It needs to build ideas that allow for the changes we are experiencing in our society while, at the same time, seek to build on the foundations we have inherited.

Filed under: Media, Politics   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: Aborigines, flag burning, racism, Tent Embassy, tony abbott

The Wilkie Dilemma

24Jan12

The Honourable Andrew Wilkie, MP, is demonstrating he is a man of principle. So say the commentators and admirers. In sticking to his guns on the poker machine debate; the Honourable Mister Wilkie is demonstrating the dangers of the extremist- unable to get his way on his matter of principle- blind to his failure to carry his colleagues by the means of his arguments- he is willing to tear it all down. The Honourable Andrew Wilkie is willing to plunge the nation into Constitutional Crisis without even looking at the alternatives to the failure of his self-imposed mission. No compromise is good enough for the Parliamentary Member who is staking the stability of the nation on an all or nothing gamble.
One is supposed to admire the stoicism and courage of the Honourable Member. Here, say his supporters, is a man of principle- the type of person we need in this hour of crisis. Yet, were he to bring down this government and force an election, the result is likely to see a government unwilling to entertain his notions of gambling reforms while the Honourable Member is likely to no longer be the Honourable Member. It is only by a preference deal with the Liberal Party that he has his seat; bereft of preferences from both sides he is unlikely in the extreme to maintain his seat at such an election. Moreover, such an election is likely to topple the only other Member of Parliament given to strong support for Gambling Reform: South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon. The total result of his insistence on an all or nothing position is likely to be destruction of any hope of gambling reform, even the compromise effort being proposed by Comrade Julia. His moment of relevance and importance is fast slipping by and rather than pitching in and finding solutions to the vexing social issue of problem gambling, he has opted to take his bat and ball and head home.
Yet such childishness is being held up as the positive actions of a man of principle. We are to admire him, this paragon of extremist attitudes. Once again the notion of compromise is being derided as the avenue of the weak and the feeble. Once again the notion of actually achieving some good is thrown aside in the mistaken belief that extremist posturing is the answer to a road block. Theroux wrote that two roads diverged in the woods and that he took the road less travelled. Had the Honourable Member encountered the diverging road we might expect that his ode would be to the act of standing at the fork and willing a path to open up that allowed him to continue his journey without having to choose between the alternatives he is faced with. While Theroux found the difference of the road less travelled exhilarating, the Honourable Mr Wilkie would still be at the fork in growing frustration.
Let us not admire the Honourable Member overmuch. Let us question his motives in this action. Let us deride his fanaticism. For it is appalling to believe that a compromise is the greatest of evils.
For the likes of the Honourable Mr Wilkie and his supporters would have us believe that while any action to rid society of the ills of problem gambling is acceptable, the one action likely to alleviate these ills is not. If any action is a help to these unfortunates, then the Honourable Mr Wilkie needs to climb down from his pedestal, open his mind and make the best of the dwindling opportunity he now has. The Honourable Mr Wilkie needs to understand that his inability to get all that he desires is no excuse for failing to achieve all that he can. What an incredible waste of an opportunity to achieve some good, perhaps great good, simply because he is too stubborn to accept most of the dream in favour of hoping for the world to spin on a different axis. Such are the perils and risks of extremism.
As an aside-
In the wake of receiving the Order of Merit in recognition of his lifetime commitment to public service, the role John Howard played in the Republican Referendum has again become the focus of scrutiny. In the eyes of the disillusioned true believers, Howard perpetrated a terrible crime, single handed, in bringing down the republic. No mention is made of the many doubts and reservations of the people; no mention is made of the pathetic attempt to sell the merits of the model put forward; no mention is made of the strong reticence of the outer states to more control from Canberra. In the mythology of the Republicans, John Howard destroyed the hopes of a Republic almost as if he had personally stuffed the ballot boxes.
There is an asinine quality to the republican movement that can only be described as childish. If, as they maintain, we are destined to become a republic, when exactly will they begin to describe their vision of the form and constitutional arrangements of that republic? When will we be told about the arrangements for the appointment of State Governors? When will we be told how they expect the President to be appointed? What will happen to the Executive Powers?
Instead of providing information to allay the concerns of the electorate, the republican movement are relying on emotive appeals to chauvinism and xenophobia they would decry in anyone else on any other issue. Instead of offering reasonable dialogue on the merits of their models of governance, the republican movement relies on puerile attacks on the personalities of its opponents and the Royal Family. And any reasonable objection to the republic is invariably met with a dialogue but one step removed from a childish exhortation of- Awwww; you’re just a poo-poo head.
There is an undercurrent in republican appeals that says that these issues will be sorted out later on; that the important aspect is that we get rid of the foreigners at the head of our political system and put an Australian in their place (could you imagine any other scenario where pushing such a statement would not be shouted down by cries of racism). Yet we would do well to learn from the experience of the Americans. Some of the finest minds in history, much less the era, worked upon the document that would define the governance of that nation not just for the time being or for a few generations, but for all time. For all their vision and determination, its mistakes are glaring and often its provisions rely on the things we hold to be true and beyond words on a page- respect for the rule of law. Yet it has been the focus and glue that has held that Republic together through the trials and tribulations of its long history- it has not only formed the foundations of the Republic as it was and as it is, but it has also been adaptable enough to preserve hope for the Republic as it could be.
Constitutional arrangements should never be made for the moment. A constitution should not be for the now or the near future, but for the forty generations that follow, and the forty generations that follow that. It is precisely because it was envisaged to last so long that the American constitution and the American experiment has lasted so long. Is the Australian experiment worth any less consideration?
It is an irony of epic proportions that one of the most politically aware populations in the world is being expected to make changes to its constitutional arrangements without due consideration of the effects of those changes. Until the Australian republican movement learns the lessons the electorate gave it in the referendum, until it begins to explain how the republic will work, its success will be a long way off. The fact that so many republicans are still peddling the myth that John Howard was solely responsible for the destruction of the republican dream suggests that they are a long way from learning those lessons.

Filed under: Politics   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: compromise, extremism, fanatic, gambling, pokies, Wilkie

Piracy is a Social Threat

21Jan12

In an election year that is likely to be decided by which candidate has the best plan to solve the US debt crisis, it does seem somewhat ironic that a measure that will, as a side effect, make that task somewhat easier and less painful for the average voter has become the focus of such vitriolic protest. The US in particular, but the Western World in general, is moving away from the manufacturing base that led their pre-eminence in the world- the new economy, we are told, will be a knowledge economy- an ideas economy. An important aspect of this future economy will be the artistic output of videogame designers, musicians, movie makers, etc. Without protection of their revenue through copyright protection, then the simple fact is that it will become increasingly economically unviable to produce this content. Given the standards of some of this content, we might be moved to say that this is not necessarily a bad thing, however the success of much of this content would suggest otherwise for more than a few.
Although academics and economists like to paint a picture of a future world where economic activity exists without the stimulus provided by money, there are some deep holes in their prognostications- namely if we do not need money to buy products and services that satisfy our needs and wants, where is the motivation to go out and earn money by producing said goods and services? Leaving aside the debate about what ultimately drives economic activity, it is still a fairly obvious fact that money is a prime motivator and enabler of our daily activities. While it is true that money cannot buy happiness, it makes the search for happiness a little easier. But as the European debt crisis reminds us, we can live beyond our means for a while- perhaps a long while- but sooner or later we have to pay.
There is no doubt that the SOPA legislation before Congress is a ham-fisted attempt to resolve the problems of copyright infringement. There seem to be few, if any, safeguards for those caught in the middle, the ISPs and site hosts, from being maliciously targeted by competitors or even just the garden variety of ratbag. But to suggest that the underlying principle is a threat to freedom of speech is a big stretch. At its heart, SOPA is meant to ensure that the efforts of corporations and individuals are protected through a more stringent interpretation of the requirements of copyright law. This is not a situation where content is being banned from the internet in toto- it is a situation where pirated content is being targeted.
If, as its supporters maintain, the internet is a modern miracle enabling the production and dissemination of new sources of content, then such targeting should not be seen as a threat. While we might grumble over the details of the legislation and the protections contained within it for innocent third party hosts, there is nothing in the legislation that specifically targets other than pirated content. So to claim that such efforts are likely to change the internet for the worse, then we must treat the prognostications of the true believers with a bit more scepticism. To claim that the SOPA legislation is inherently flawed brings into question the prognostications of the true believers; if the internet relies on pirated content for its survival, then it is an ultimately doomed vehicle. The threat is in not protecting copyright, business is likely to pursue ever more extreme protections- perhaps even abandoning the internet as we know it for some alternative that allows them to earn money.
One of the more interesting facets of the book-reader revolution that has been overlooked is the ability of publishers and retailers to access your content and delete it. It is true that, for now, this threat has been largely undone by public outcry at the few instances when it was tried. Or, rather, the threat of public outcry. But if the alternative is bankruptcy, it will not take too much for this reticence to be cast aside. Indeed, there is something of a legal principle that you can take back or destroy property that is rightfully yours. While this might not sit well with the average person, a corporation that sets out to target illegally obtained content, as opposed to the device on which it is stored, is not likely to face too many problems in the courts. There could be an argument for trespass, but a corporation should be able to get around that by simply not trespassing- simply releasing the requisite virus into general circulation should take care of that.
At $58billion dollars, the loss of revenue from pirated content is something that should concern us all. The tax revenue on the profits alone is hardly likely to be small change, no matter how many tax loopholes corporate accountants are likely to find. Moreover, the multiplier effect from this amount of money circulating in the world economy, much less the US economy, would go some way to improving the outlook for the future. And it is the future that should concern us.
Economic growth and prosperity in the future is going to increasingly rely on the generation of knowledge and ideas. We are currently facing a situation in which the nations producing that knowledge and ideas are unable to find a way to make them pay. Yet the infrastructure that supports the generation of knowledge and ideation costs money- bucket loads of money. The education system, universities and so on are all reliant on the fact that government is able to pay for them. But if the government finds itself in a situation where it cannot generate revenue through taxes because individuals and corporations are unable to raise revenue because their content is being pirated, then the support mechanism for those ideas will dry up- and then those ideas will dry up. It can be a virtuous circle; right now it is a vicious circle.
We are all reliant on the generation of revenue. Individuals need the revenue provided by capital returns, salaries, wages, etc. Businesses need revenue provided by sales. Governments need revenue provided by the taxes on businesses and individuals. In order to generate this revenue, we need a healthy economy. If the future healthy economy is one reliant on ideation and knowledge, then it is going to be vital to protect them. It is not a threat to freedom of speech; it is not an invasion of privacy. Ultimately, just as defeating the pirates on the high seas ultimately allowed 18th century trade to flourish, defeating the pirates on broadband will ultimately allow 21st century trade to flourish.
As an aside-
The decision by the government to again subsidise the auto industry is a matter of deepest shame. No matter the excuses trotted out by the relevant ministers and spokespeople, it was clear from the outset that this decision was meant to save a few parliamentary seats at the next election- or rather not lose them two years out. And despite the protestations of the Liberal Party to the contrary, there is no doubt that they would have made the exact same decision had they been in power for much the same reasons- the slim hope of gaining or retaining seats at the next election. How much is this latest effort likely to cost- although initial estimates are $1billion the broader question is how much is it going to cost in missed opportunities? What would $1 billion in subsidies mean for the tech sector or medical research or any one of a dozen more worthy industries?
We are forever being told that Australia’s future economic prosperity is going to rely on the establishment and support we provide future industries. Yet this decision is a lifeline to an industry that surely must be well past the used by date in this country. If it was an industry sector producing for export it might be a different matter- but it is increasingly an industry that is producing vehicles that Australians do not even want. Of course the real irony is that a modicum of intelligence and a bit of inspiration would suggest that a truly Australian motor vehicle, a vehicle designed to meet the challenges offered by this continent, would surely be an export winner. But these are qualities lacking in the motor industry more generally- international motor companies are now masters of preserving themselves by suckling at the teat of government largesse instead of through innovation and development.

Filed under: Politics, Thoughts   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: economics, piracy, SOPA, tax