|
June 07, 2003
One of the least remarked aspects of the Costello/Howard fallout by the Canberra Press Gallery is the differences between them suggested by Costello's deliberate use of 'tolerance.' Few have connected the liberal notion of a tolerant Australia to the conservative populism of the national security state as articulated by John Howard. That was encapsulated by a strong Australia. Some acknowledge that tolerance signifies Costello starting to sing his own song but they then more or less leave it at that.
In using this classic liberal word, Costello has marked a rupture with Howard's embrace of the old One Nation Party and Howard's exploitation of the fears and resentments of the One Nation electorate through an appeal to national belonging. Thus we have John Howard marketed as the traditional Anglo-Australian conservative with the white picket fence and the traditional family all drapped in the national flag.
Both Costello/Howard concur that Australia can only become prosperous through the free market, and that the state should be strong in terms of defending its borders and fighting international terrorism. But Costello's use of tolerance indicates a rupture with Howard's strong state defending the common cultural heritage against the non-white refugees desiring to become Australian citizens. A strong state protects its own Anglo-Australian culture from the aliens within and without in the name of Australia First. It says NO.
The conservative culture of the national security state is exclusionary and its strategy is to exploit the fears of the alien others now marked by Islam and Muslem. Some (cosmopolitan liberals) call it a xenophobic populism ie., the people against the elites, outsiders and scapegoats, with the nation defined in terms of ethnic nationalism. The 'We are all Australians' (Anzacs) populism is an appeal to Old Australia and its idea of assimilation, even if this appeal is also coupled to a strong dose of neo-liberalism and economic reform.
Costello's shift is a little fissure: a shift from ethnic to civic nationalism and thus to a more liberal nationalism. But tolerance is a big code word within the Liberal Party. It will have multiple meanings to those living within this culture. It will resonate with reconcilation and immigration issues.
From the outside looking in, tolerance stands for liberalism not conservatism; a way to achieve social cohesion within the national security state. It says that the way to an open, tolerant liberal society is through a civic nationalism. It holds things together to counteract the way market reform pulls things apart by creating winners and losers.
Update
So what does a tolerant liberal society mean apart from evoking warm fuzzy feelings? Try this:
"Well, according to him neo-conservatism asserts some people are better than others, while socialism asserts that everybody is the same. He says both are untrue because people do manifestly differ from one another, but those differences cannot be judged by anyone, so they must be tolerated if society is to exist at all. Thus, liberal tolerance is the only virtue that matters, perhaps the only virtue in existence...Liberal tolerance teaches that it is all right to disagree with the views or beliefs of another as long as you don't act on those beliefs to restrict the freedom of action and belief of others."
Liberal tolerance has its limits:
"....in the liberal version of tolerance you daren't disagree with their favourite causes or you're exorciated as a bigot, a fool, an exploiter of the poor, or a 'phobe' of some kind. That's exactly my point. Entertain a dissenting opinion, and you cross the limits of their fake tolerance on the spot."
So we wonder. What does Costello's appeal to tolerance stand for? Maybe we should question the the scope of tolerance. For instance, we should not be tolerate of those actions and beliefs that make people suffer through living damaged lives.
|
Where is this xenophobic populism Gary? I live in the inner west of Sydney, where the thriving urban streetscape incorporates more Greek and Vietnamese signage than it does english and the people passing by are more likely to be Ghanaian, Samoan, Tongan, Lebanese, Chinese etc than they are to be identifiably Lawsonian "Australian". One third of Sydney's 4 million+ people were born outside Australia.
We're one of a handful of nation states that is pledged to a "land of immigrants" reality. Some 100,000 arrived last year - around 12,000 of them refugees.
The constant conflation of 'border protection' with 'migration policy' in order to create the illusion of a Fortress Anglo Australia is fundamentally dishonest and totally untrue.
I believe that we could - and should - increase our migrant/refugee intake but some of the strongest objections to so doing come from the Conservationist Left which believes that we're already over-populated against a reasoned sustainability matrix. Wonder why that's never read as misanthropic xenophobia.....?