tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post1225603873032441768..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Are we really like that?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-69216045741254867722007-06-03T10:25:00.000+10:002007-06-03T10:25:00.000+10:00Bobby, thanks.I think drawing to people's attentio...Bobby, thanks.<BR/><BR/>I think drawing to people's attention the distinction between left and right liberalism is useful, for if it's kept hidden then people think they have more choice in modern politics than they actually do. <BR/><BR/>However, I do agree that politics is too often degraded by people following their "side" like a football team. There are people who will defend their "man" in politics to the very last, no matter what he does.<BR/><BR/>I very much agree that Leunig is effectively taking an easier option. If he really thought the Aborigines were on to something good, then he'd seek that good for his own society. But this would mean re-evaluating the politics of his own class and doing some difficult political work.<BR/><BR/>Instead he plays the role of passive, negative critic to this own community - something which wins easy plaudits from his own political class, but which doesn't achieve anything practical or positive.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-8647568299530313162007-06-01T10:18:00.000+10:002007-06-01T10:18:00.000+10:00Eloquently put Mark. Your words, while mature, res...Eloquently put Mark. Your words, while mature, resonate due to their adherence to a common sense in the real world.<BR/><BR/>In terms of truth, reality & progress – I don’t think we should get bogged down <I>too</I> much with political syntax like right-liberal, left-liberal, neo-conservatives, etc (or even between Politicians like Howard v Rudd v Gillard v…), which starts to sound more like football team ideologies (ie. X vs Y), than discourse about societal thinking & reality. It’s starts to sound like evasive ‘wining’ of points. Sure they are prominent ‘icons’ – but they aren’t the ‘meat’ or the ‘ideas’.<BR/><BR/><I>MARK SAID:<BR/>“Leunig, though, is defining his own society negatively as an "us" in contrast to a positive "them".</I><BR/><BR/>Leunig’s view is common amoung people that find it difficult to swim against an often strong current in their own world. For them, it’s far easier to gravitate towards a foreign ideology simply because it seems like THAT current flows downstream. It goes far beyond ‘sympathy’ for another. The fact that one forgoes their own identity so quickly is of great concern – particularly when the after-effects are not thought out.<BR/><BR/>This overly-sympathised blind <I>“Going over to the other team”</I> ideal, is seen commonly in liberal history & everyday life. (eg. Affirmative action, abortion, Animal rights, Childrens rights, Gay marriages, etc) – where a previous responsibility to common-sense in society is foregone for a modern laziness in an attitude of <I>‘let everyone do as they please’</I>. The result of these largely unethical lifestyles is that we alleviate almost all the responsibility from ourselves to fix our own problems (or cultures) – and always look to the horizon for the ‘answers’.<BR/><BR/>We learn little, and ‘build’ even less.<BR/><BR/>Bobby.NBobby.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11494573597598152422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-85795291562698706442007-05-31T21:40:00.000+10:002007-05-31T21:40:00.000+10:00I suppose I should reply to Gandhi.Gandhi wants us...I suppose I should reply to Gandhi.<BR/><BR/>Gandhi wants us to believe that Leunig speaks universally "for all mankind".<BR/><BR/>It's difficult to accept this proposition, though, when Leunig takes extreme positions in describing different groups.<BR/><BR/>He relentlessly puts down the Anglo population, describing them recently as "stupid" and "boring". The Aborigines, though, are lionised as a "profoundly spiritual people".<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that Rundle's argument makes sense, and that what Leunig is doing is a certain kind of reverse "othering".<BR/><BR/>In the liberal worldview, "othering" is a naughty thing that traditional societies supposedly do: such societies are assumed to define themselves (or even construct themselves) positively as an "us" in contrast to a deficient outsider "them".<BR/><BR/>Leunig, though, is defining his own society <I>negatively</I> as an "us" in contrast to a <I>positive</I> "them".<BR/><BR/>For this framework of understanding to hold firm, the polarity has to be sustained. What they have, we don't have.<BR/><BR/>That's why it's such a dead-end politics. For Leunig to be proved right in his worldview, we have to stay benighted - we have to continue to make up the negative polarity.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the Aborigines are treated emblematically - they stand in for something relative to white society. This detracts from what is really needed, which is a hard-headed, practical, courageous view of what Aborigines need to do to survive as a people.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if you want to get emotional then Leunig is your man. There is plenty of wallowing to be done if you accept the kind of framework Leunig offers.<BR/><BR/>It's no coincidence, though, that what results seems exaggerated or distorted: "the delicate tears of a lost and solitary duck", "cringe with shame and feel genuine physical pain when Howard utters a new lie", a "dry, shrivelled heart of stone" etc.<BR/><BR/>So why take Leunig seriously? Only, I think, because he does have a genuinely poetic sensibility. It's a talent, though, that is much burdened by Leunig's political worldview.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-42413972824451038832007-05-31T15:36:00.000+10:002007-05-31T15:36:00.000+10:00Hello Scott,Please don't read me wrong (for lack o...Hello Scott,<BR/><BR/>Please don't read me wrong (for lack of a better expression) I'm not trying to <I>reproach</I> you at all. <BR/><BR/>I'm just trying to "keep the faith" in Howard as I think that Traditionalists like you and I will be heard clearer with a Coalition leadership than under the "Christian" socialism of Rudd or the reformed Communism of Gillard.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I don't believe that Howard is either a <I>paleo-con</I> or a <I>neo-con</I>, but merely a pragmatic populist-capitalist. It's an awkward expression, but I don't know how else to describe it; perhaps this is a symptom of the ideological "<I>mishmash</I>" you mention in your last post.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I'm still in the Howard camp only because we in Australia don't have a <A HREF="http://www.amconmag.com" REL="nofollow">Pat Buchanan</A> equivalent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-26808478001435110292007-05-31T12:10:00.000+10:002007-05-31T12:10:00.000+10:00Well, as far as it goes, Rundle is right. But ther...Well, as far as it goes, Rundle is right. But there's plenty of things that an ALP operative can do to balance the two.<BR/><BR/>I myself forsee Rudd's style as being a populist in the same mould as Peter Beattie in Queensland. Hunger for office as well as ideology drives Rudd and his team, and they'll do whatever it takes. And in the end the left-liberals will swallow a lot to help keep them there. That's the way it seems to me.<BR/><BR/>Kilroy reproaches me for writing off Howard too soon. He might be right- Howard has seemed dead in the water before. One must pay reluctant credit to his political skills. But Howard has a confused mish-mash of ideology of his own; he is still more a right-liberal then a conservative. I think WorkChoices is the proof of that. There's been those that have described implementing WorkChoices as the height of Howard's career.<BR/><BR/>And from what I've seen, it is WorkChoices that will bury the Howard government. It's a profoundly unconservative program too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-46326975433591085062007-05-31T08:19:00.000+10:002007-05-31T08:19:00.000+10:00the Howard government has gifted back the battler ...<I>the Howard government has gifted back the battler vote to the ALP with his work-choices legislation. So the battlers and the artists are back in the same tent again. However after the past 15 years or more, the value gap has, if anything, widened.</I><BR/><BR/>Rundle himself, as a leftist, isn't too hopeful. He thinks it likely that if Rudd wins office he will attempt a Blairite New Labour solution. The artists will be bought off with subsidies, and the fallout of modernism will be kept in check with surveillance and micromanagement, or what Rundle calls "therapeutic coercion".<BR/><BR/>Rundle concludes that in such a setting the left-liberalism of the artists will remain "a dead and self-indulgent tradition" disconnected from social and political reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-73768573714839571952007-05-31T00:55:00.000+10:002007-05-31T00:55:00.000+10:00Hello Scott,I understand where you're coming from....Hello Scott,<BR/><BR/>I understand where you're coming from. Traditionalists don't have a substantial enough grouping within the Party to influence policy to the degree I'd like them to, however, given the choice, I have to say I'll be putting my lot in with the Coalition. At least they can run an economy, and that is no small feat, my friend! :-)<BR/><BR/>I disagree with you about how they are somehow equivalent to the feminists. I'm sorry to have to say that is "streatching the friendship" a tad - though I do object to thier quantification of human experience: the one thing capitalists and communists have in common.<BR/><BR/>But at the end of the day, I'd rather live in a capitalist society than a communist one (in which, I will disclose, I use to live). At least in a capitalist society, there is room for our ideology, in a socialist one, there is little to none (I find leftists to be the most intolerant people out there in the political milieu).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-37162916445925986782007-05-30T20:45:00.000+10:002007-05-30T20:45:00.000+10:00Howard is surrounded by right-liberal 'feral abacu...Howard is surrounded by right-liberal 'feral abacus' types that I find just about as abhorrent as a left-liberal feminist. They are just as damaging to the fabric of Australian society. <BR/><BR/>I used to be a right-liberal myself, and so I suppose I am sensitive to the damage that right-liberalism has caused. But that's a story for another blogpost, I think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-27210967002057115032007-05-30T18:51:00.000+10:002007-05-30T18:51:00.000+10:00I'm amazed at how easily the right has written How...I'm amazed at how easily the right has written Howard off.<BR/><BR/>If the polls were any indicator at the last NSW State Election, the Greens should have won government.<BR/><BR/>Polls are, to put it bluntly, crap.<BR/><BR/>Howard was king hit in the "debate" on the ABC on the last two or three occasions also, and the Liberal Party has had it's fair share of bad press ever since 1996 (or 1946, for that matter).<BR/><BR/>Although the government isn't exactly Traditionalist, I take Pat Buchanan's advice and vote the the better alternative, which is, almost always, the Liberal-Nationals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-63632536263221308372007-05-30T13:32:00.000+10:002007-05-30T13:32:00.000+10:00I need absolutely no lessons in empathy, least of ...I need absolutely no lessons in empathy, least of all from yet another bleeding heart liberal.<BR/><BR/>Bobby's point about Leunig only liking the 'nice' part of human nature is a good point. We cannot defy our own human nature- we can discipline it, but we cannot defy it.<BR/><BR/>The political aspects though are interesting. For one thing, the Howard government has gifted back the battler vote to the ALP with his work-choices legislation. So the battlers and the artists are back in the same tent again. However after the past 15 years or more, the value gap has, if anything, widened. Watching Kevin Rudd as PM try to balance the two wings of his party will be interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-15506778270791882972007-05-30T12:19:00.000+10:002007-05-30T12:19:00.000+10:00For me, it's not as much about empathy when it com...For me, it's not as much about <B>empathy</B> when it comes to Leunig, but rather a lack of coherency or objectivity in his views.<BR/><BR/>Politics aside - Leunig doesn't believe in 'nature'. More to the point, he <B>only</B> believes in the 'nice' things of nature. There's no account in him for nature’s syntax of discipline, violence & death. Like most (if not all) liberals – the undercurrent to their ideology is an infantile ‘coddling’ where nobody dies, and everyone loves everyone else ‘eternally’. <BR/><BR/>Though this road is useful within a ‘family’ (or community) construct – the extreme leftist wants it extended to all corners of the globe. All races, nationalities, cultures, sexualities, personalites, etc.<BR/><BR/>How?<BR/><BR/>How are we all to ‘love’ the same thing that everyone else loves? One’s identity <B>must</B> be defined to a set of principles. <BR/><BR/>Respect? – sure, but <B>not</B> beliefs.<BR/>People defend their beliefs. Wars & violence are synonymous with this principle. Whether literally, or metaphorically – one’s life & beliefs do come into threat at times and need to be defended.<BR/><BR/>The leftists & feminists fail to see this. They have one foot in the ‘birth’ side of nature only, and the other in the ‘material’ benefits of capitalism. When one looks at what these two worlds require to exist - It’s hypocritical.<BR/><BR/><B>Life is not a right</B>. In terms of wars, violience, respect & honor – I’m a naturalist. The hare doesn’t have the ‘right’ to live unless it outruns the fox.<BR/><BR/>Bobby.NBobby.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11494573597598152422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-82706982280249619382007-05-30T11:47:00.000+10:002007-05-30T11:47:00.000+10:00Ghandi: "LESSON ONE: Imagine you are an Iraqi moth...Ghandi: "<I>LESSON ONE: Imagine you are an Iraqi mother, standing in the rubble of your bombed house, with the bloodied and blackened corpse of your dead baby in your arms. </I>"<BR/><BR/>I agree with you there Ghandi, Hussein was certainly guilty of these crimes, as is bin Ladin and the late al Zaraqawi.<BR/><BR/>The mother probably hopes to high heaven that somebody would bother get off their back-sides and deliver her from the tyranny of socialist thugs and Islamist fanatics.<BR/><BR/>Too bad the only country in the world with the will to have defeated Slavery, Caesarism, Nazism and Communism, and is now tackling a problem that the UN and EU refused to seriously address, gets so many "barbs" from those who benefit from its presence in the Western world.<BR/><BR/>Fat bloated arm-chair peaceniks are about as useful as a chocolate teapot in these times.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the lesson, "Ghandi".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50611770162528435992007-05-30T11:17:00.000+10:002007-05-30T11:17:00.000+10:00I first started reading Leunig back in the early 8...I first started reading Leunig back in the early 80's. I don't remember him being too jolly cheerful back then, in the Hawke and Keating years. But that's just me. Perhaps I have an overly close attachment to that quaint old-fashioned concept, reality.<BR/><BR/>If you cannot put yourself in the shoes of those of us who cringe with shame and feel genuine physical pain whenever Howard utters a new lie, perhaps you need to work on your empathy?<BR/><BR/>LESSON ONE: Imagine you are an Iraqi mother, standing in the rubble of your bombed house, with the bloodied and blackened corpse of your dead baby in your arms.Jaraparillahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336314539987735082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-54961934381808535642007-05-30T10:20:00.000+10:002007-05-30T10:20:00.000+10:00"Leunig speaks for all mankind".? I needed a laugh..."Leunig speaks for all mankind".? I needed a laugh to start the day, thanks for that gandhi.<BR/><BR/>I don't think Leunig need be taken too seriously. After the next federal election, he'll be full of the joy of living and be willing to write of how wonderful and enlightened Australians are. Leunig and his ilk (and there's plenty of right-liberals like him too) remind me ever so much as football fans, who cheer on their team and detest their rivals.<BR/><BR/>"A hail of sound and fury, signifying nothing."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-22951706922743678682007-05-30T09:26:00.000+10:002007-05-30T09:26:00.000+10:00A dry, shrivelled heart of stone will never unders...A dry, shrivelled heart of stone will never understand the delicate tears of a lost and solitary duck.<BR/><BR/>Leunig speaks for all mankind, not for just the blackfella or the whitefella. <BR/><BR/>If you cannot see that, perhaps it's because you cling too resolutely to your own tribal identification? <BR/><BR/>Perhaps your values system is all fucked up?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Leunig's delicate barbs have stung your twisted soul, and perhaps your anger and pride are driving you to long-winded, semi-coherent defences of the indefensible? <BR/><BR/>Just guessing...<BR/><BR/>:-)Jaraparillahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336314539987735082noreply@blogger.com