John Pilger, New Statesman, January 21:
"The fear and sycophancy that Howard and his Antipodean neoconservatives have promoted since coming to power almost a decade ago have put paid to Australia’s tenuous self-regard as 'the land of fair go'. (The much-abused term 'lucky country' was ironic, coined by the author, the late Donald Horne, to denote a first-rate country run by second-rate people.) Like Bush’s America, Howard’s Australia is not so much a democracy as a plutocracy, governed for and by the 'big end of town', even though, as Mark Twain pointed out, this is 'an entire continent peopled by the lower orders'."
"The fear and sycophancy that Howard and his Antipodean neoconservatives have promoted since coming to power almost a decade ago have put paid to Australia’s tenuous self-regard as 'the land of fair go'. (The much-abused term 'lucky country' was ironic, coined by the author, the late Donald Horne, to denote a first-rate country run by second-rate people.) Like Bush’s America, Howard’s Australia is not so much a democracy as a plutocracy, governed for and by the 'big end of town', even though, as Mark Twain pointed out, this is 'an entire continent peopled by the lower orders'."
7 Comments:
Loewenstein has time and time again proven that his knowledge of this country and its varied people is, at best, limited. Pilger - funnily enough, a Londoner these days - falls into the same category.
All those quotes listed by EMS seem pretty sane and in line with orthodox liberal economic theory. Yes, business groups tend to support such theory, because when said theory is implemented it tends to be good for business. Funnily enough, what's good for business is also good for society, however I understand that a great many here won't accept such a statement.
Also, tax reform is a great idea and eminently achievable considering the current health of federal public finances; it's a pity Costello is being such a wanker about maintaining that top marginal rate of PAYE tax, not to mention the progressive system in general.
When Pilger says lower orders, what on earth does he mean? "Lower"? by which standard? Social? Economic? Is he just being a barefaced snob - the continent is peopled by utter rabble, daahhling - or poor people?
If the former, then I have nothing to say, because the man shows himself up as the elitist twit he is. If the latter (as I suspect), then he should get over his 19th century ideas of what constitutes "the working class" - these days, a bloke in his early thirties and possessing an ordinary trade is more likely than not to be earning over $50 000pa. An enormous number of regular tradespeople are earning six figure salaries. The traditional "lower orders" are actually doing quite nicely for themselves these days - and guess which federal political party most of them gravitate towards? No need to answer, although I'm sure the ALP reckon they're ungrateful swine for refusing to back their purported champions.
Or perhaps Pilger is talking about the Australian underclass - and there is an underclass, largely created by the welfare state, I should add - but to suggest that these people form a majority, or even a large minority, is ridiculous in the extreme. Are these the dispossessed and disenfranchised "lower orders" Pilger is referring to?
Cry your crocodile tears for the poor, Pilger. You never know, you might sell one or two more books to the usual suspects for doing so. No wonder the left is so out of touch these days - their social observations, ideologies and allegiances date back several decades.
Response to follow, Addamo. The one quick observation I will make is that I definitely do not view politics through the traditional left/right paradigm.
However, I do see "The Left" as a monolithic political entity which is redolent of a bygone era. I will frequently refer to "The Left" because I feel the tag is still an apt description of a particular political group, of which Pilger belongs to.
But the fact is "The Left" is no longer a particularly relevant political force. I suppose I fall into the "right" camp of the traditional left/right demarcation, but I don't view "The Left" as anything more than a political joke. My ideological enemies are those that try to impose their will on me. All leftists seek to do this (some are more direct than others, thus the various shades of leftism), however they are all relatively harmless these days - marginalised as they are.
My most intimidating ideological enemies pose the greatest threat to my liberal sensibilities, and they are found on "the right" if we're using the old political compass - those that wish to impose their values on others by removing the rights of others. They are my most dangerous political enemies because they actually hold a considerable amount of power and they are way more capable of moulding society in a way I find offensive. "The Left" is a long-bested non-event compared to these guys. And yes, I'm talking about GWB, Howard and the like.
However, I also have a visceral hatred of misrepresentation and dishonesty, (the stock-in-trade of the modern leftist movement) which is why I will often be found defending such people.
However, if anyone stopped to ask me what I don't like about these characters, I'd have plenty to say.
Bilger obviously lives in the UK because he believes in retention of proper separation based on "order". Failing socialism, the least he expects is that the big end of town will have been properly born into it.
As usual, the good point he starts with ends up being sent up by his own idiocy.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"The fact that Pilger is based in London is pretty irrelevant"
You are joking, right? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he doesn't seem to understand Australian society at all, as demonstrated in his article?
"The trouble with this is that it has yet to be proven."
It has been amply proven - the proof is all around you. Businesses only lay off workers if they are running inefficiently - they won't lay off workers that they need. Laying off workers without cause isn't good for the bottom line at all. In a dynamic and deregulated economy, laying off surplus workers is good because there are other parts of the economy that need - and can absorb - them. Misallocation of personnel is a major economic bottleneck to growth.
Reducing tax on business means they can increase their margins or prices will fall. Both are beneficial for the economy - the latter especially, as it increases living standards. The good news is that competition in most markets strips out high margins, so the latter is much more common. High profits are good for society, too, because it's a stimulant of consumption. Naturally, I want taxes to be rolled back across the board. Therein lies the greatest number of benefits.
I'd like to see how Bush's administration is remotely comparable to a monarchy. It's just another fallacious claim that lefties like to delude themselves with. Also, I'd like to know how our system is "corporate owned".
It terrifies me to think what you'd like to replace the current system with, if you think the old protectionist days were preferable to the years that succeeded the Hawke/Keating reforms into the present.
What does your perfect society look like?
Post a Comment
<< Home