Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
parliament house.gif
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Commentary
Media
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
Cartoons
South Australian Links
Other
www.thought-factory.net
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

Nelson: a farewell to political life « Previous | |Next »
September 17, 2009

I'd always seen Brendan Nelson as a social liberal who became a conservative in his pursuit of political power. That was what was required during the Howard decade, if you wanted to be successful. Nelson, no doubt, would dispute this interpretation.

His farewell speech was wry, modest and personal. The witty references to earrings and haircuts (but not to motorbikes and Fender guitars) showed that he was more than a cut out cardboard politician with partisan instincts. He was an emotional human being who related to people and not a cog in a political machine.

MoirNelson.jpg

The speech was very weak on policy. His justification for war with Iraq is this:

I supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein in the post September 11 world. He may not in hindsight have been an immediate threat, but he was an inevitable one.

That was it. Not much reflection there. How was Saddam Hussein an inevitable threat to Australia? What about all the lies and deceptions? The torture and renditions? Why George Bush was arguably the most misunderstood and misrepresented figure in recent history? Why the invasion of Afghanistan? Nelson says that our generation is engaged in an epic struggle against resurgent totalitarianism. That's cold war rhetoric.

Nelson does go on to say that there are five key challenges facing Australia. One of these is the environment:

It is time for our generation to live on environmental interest instead of the environmental capital that has sustained us since the industrial revolution. But on climate change, let us not be a nation of intellectual lemmings. Why introduce the biggest change to the economic architecture of this nation in my lifetime with a tax on everything, and massive churning of money through the economy as we emerge from the deepest economic downturn in eighty years, for no environmental gain? To legislate an Emissions Trading Scheme in a country responsible for 1.4% of global emissions before knowing what the three major emitters will do, defies not only logic, it violates the nation’s best interests. The dictum in medicine is Umbirima Fides – to always act in the utmost good faith.

In contrast to the rhetoric about living on environmental interest Nelson's view is that the nation’s best interests are economic, rather than in adapting to the inevitable consequences of global heating. Prosperity rules.

So Nelson is one of those Liberals opposing the scheme so that the Liberals would be "standing for something" as Liberals. Yet the policy the Coalition took to the last election promised that a re-elected Coalition government would "establish the world's most comprehensive emissions trading scheme in Australia, commencing no later than 2012.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:28 AM | | Comments (17)
Comments

Comments

'He may not in hindsight have been an immediate threat, but he was an inevitable one.'

What a pathetic rationalisation for waging aggressive war. And what's with the crap about hindsight? These complacent creeps are incapable of admitting that plenty of people including their own professional advisers said pre-invasion that Saddam was not an immediate threat.

You can only conclude that the man is utterly incapable of understanding the human consequences of the tragedy we helped bring about in Iraq. Truly Howardesque and it completely destroys any lingering respect I had for him. Still I'm sure Rudd will find him a cushy job somewhere.

Ken,
he had the opportunity to speak truth to power on Iraq and he passed it up. He became and remains a neocon. Likewise about the respect bit.

The awful politics is covered over by the emotional human being.

Nelson was one of the lesser evils of the Howard COALition era.
On a relative scale of course.

But he was happy to bask in the general racism, xenophobia, cronyism, corruption, misogyny and classism that so characterized that mob.
And added a few little bits of his own.
Screwed the unis.
Supported IDism in schools. Whilst minister of education no less!
Or should he have been called the "Minister for Private Education Only"

But his crowning glory was his Sorry Day speech, you know the one that caused people to turn their backs on him because it was inexcusably crass, insensitive and racist.

He won't be missed.

maybe Nelson's comments about Afghanistan--fighting totalitarianism etc--- were made in the knowledge that he was going to be appointed ambassador to NATO! So he had to find a reason to justify a crazy war.

He'd gain more respect by going to work for doctors without borders.

BTW I had no inkling of Nelson's government appointment when I made my first comment. It's predictable but depressing to see the ruling class welfare scheme confirmed so quickly.

OK, I've been around the politics/ideology fun fair, but one thing that stumps me is thing y'all called "social liberalism". What is it?

John,
It has its roots in T.H.Green's revision of J.S. Mill's late liberalism. At its most basic level instead of the negative freedom of classical liberalism, social liberalism emphasizes positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare.

Gary

Ok, but those positive rights are still "individuals" rights, right? I mean it's individuals who would take action if their positive rights were being denied, not the whole society. The system you are advocating their is better descibed as Socialism, rather than liberalism, no matter how you try and dress it up with fancy adjectival accessories.

John,
there is a basic difference between social liberalism and social democracy and that lies in the role of the State in relation to the individual. Social liberalism gives greater weight to individuals, social democracy to the state.

It is social democracy that has its roots in socialism, not social liberalism.

Ken
Nelson, in supporting Bush and Cheney's (neocon) heritage of an American empire, will have to deal with the pullout of the European nations from NATO's war in Afghanistan.The context is an upsurge in Taliban activity across northern Afghanistan and their control of most of Afghanistan's second city of Kandahar.

Since Australia, by all accounts, is in for the long haul, Nelson will be arguing that Nato allies should deploy more fighting forces (Australia excepted, of course) to help support the American military intervention. Some are saying that the US needs to send up to 45,000 extra troops to Afghanistan.

Nelson will not argue against an American empire style foreign policy. He will be one of those urging a deepening of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan--just as he was one of the people (neocons) who promised that the US and Australia would encounter few difficulties in Iraq and that that war would solve American problems in the Middle East.

Actually Gary your comment prompts the question of WTF he WILL be doing. He doesn't need to argue anything - our public servants are perfectly capable of expressing our opinions to NATO in elegant letters, just as the NATO members are free to ignore them as they undoubtedly will.

The idea that we need an ambassador to a military alliance formed to contain the USSR is preposterous. The fact that hardly anyone points this out is a wonderful illustration of the way the ruling class has framed public policy discussion.

Nelson's appointment is about as useful as Fischer being ambassador to the Vatican or Downer getting his ridiculous Cyprus job, or some absurd peacemaker's job being created for Blair. Pure welfare for ex-MPs.

"a social liberal who became a conservative in his pursuit of political power"

That's as close to a perfect example to illustrate the definition of "hypocrite" as I can think of.

No trouble getting working with KRudd then...

Ken,
What's Nelson going to do? According to Greg Sheridan in The Australian Rudd wanted to manage the day-to-day relationship with NATO.

From its earliest moments in office, the Rudd government wanted a more intense involvement with NATO, and more input into NATO strategy in Afghanistan. Rudd himself attended a NATO summit. Co-operating with the US in the internal politics of NATO, in relation to Afghanistan, is now a strand in the US-Australia relationship.

Sheridan should know about these things. The touchstone, as always for foreign policy, is the American alliance. It is the sun around which Australia orbits.

By all accounts Nelson will be Rudd's man in Europe representing the Rudd government.That means Nelson will have to put his scathing view of Australia's emissions trading scheme being implemented ahead of climate change talks in Copenhagen to one side when doing his job.

Dave,
Though Nelson seeked the support on the party's right by being a conservative in order to become Liberal Leader, it could be argued that Nelson as Education Minister, saved the universities from destruction by Howard.

Gary the hypocrisy from Labor is nauseating. The professed opposition to the invasion of Iraq is revealed as the opportunistic populism it always was, and now that a new strong man has imposed his rule from Baghdad we can all forget the unpleasantness ever happened. In fact we can appoint one of the most enthusiastic creators of our shame as our ambassador, when he should be in The Hague facing a war crimes prosecution.

Rudd really is Howard writ large; a politician who has no principles whatsoever beyond staying in office but who can do a great line in purse-lipped morality when it's convenient. Christ they make me sick.

Project for the New American Century... QUOTE:
"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Then US Senator, Robert C. Byrd commented on 19 March 2003:

"The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice."

Perhaps it's awfully unsporting to bring facts into it. but let's consider what Honest Johnny said on ABC Radio in January 2003 when asked about regime change:

"That has not been one of our policy objectives. That could be a consequence. Because of the circumstances in which military action might take place. But our goal is the removal of weapons of mass destruction"

It seems he didn't think regime change was worth going to war over.

And on March 14, 2003:

"I would have to accept that if Iraq had genuinely disarmed, I couldn't justify on it's own a military invasion of Iraq to change the regime. I've never advocated that"

So... was it really all about the "inevitable" threat posed by Saddam????

Gary

Well of course, there would be a difference between 'social liberalism' and 'social democracy'; one being about liberalism, the other about democracy.

But you have not answered my objections to the aspects of liberalism you style 'social' when they are clearly individual.

As for 'social democracy' I did not even mention that, let alone to contrast with a concept I think is incoherent like 'social democracy'.


'Social democracy' is just Socialism, except tactically to be achieved by democratic, rather than violent/revolutionary methods.