|
October 19, 2004
One reason to be pessimistic about Australian politics, after the end of communism and the triumph of the free market the mediocrity of its current political class in terms of its foreign policy. That political elite certainly looked pretty mediocre during the federal election.
True, we heard something different from all that boring business talk about the free market as a harmonious order requiring the light hand of regulation, with the end of the nation state being economic growth and economic prosperity. In contrast to the neo-liberal world-without-borders vision we had some post 9/11 political talk about the new moral energy coursing through the body politic, restoring trust in government, creating a new culture of patriotism and connection and Australia acting to shape rather than respond to events.
I even thought I heard calls for sacrifice and destiny resonating in the wings of the rhetoric about danger and security, the need for resolute will and force and the apocalyptic confrontation between good and evil, civilization and barbarism.
The political elite seemed to take their bearings from the Washington neocons; the ones who were enthralled by the epic grandeur of Rome, embraced the ethos courage and barbaric virtù of the pagan warrior, and expressed their deep yearning for an American empire. These were the ones who wanted the US to shape the future, to determine the outcome of history, to make the world and create history.
It is a mediocre political class because the right-wing political culture in contemporary Australia talks about getting some "respect" for Australia in the Pacific Rim (Indonesia) and ensuring the "authority" of the West is not challenged in places like the Middle East.
What this rightwing political culture accepts as a reasonable way to conduct foreign policy is ensuring that America is respected as a global imperial power and that it gets "respect" through it policy of regime change in the Middle East: in Baghdad, and then in Tehran and Damascus. Foreign policy seems to be driven by Australia getting respect by the nation state flexing its muscles and punching above its weight through its role as the Deputy Sheriff of the US in the Asia Pacific Rim.
The domestic side of "getting respect" from Islamic nation states is fear of the enemy (the alien terrorist), with its flip side of patriotism. This then dove tails into the fear about radical projects accomplishing social goals in the service of grand utopian visions.
Hence the mediocrity thesis.
Does this disclosure of the role of fear indicate that the mediocrity thesis of Australia's political class has got things wrong?
Is it fear shaping our politics as our faith in progress recedes? As our faith in progress recedes, so we turn to fear as the justifying language of public life. We no longer know the good, but we do know the bad. So we cling to fear, abandoning the quest for justice, equality, and freedom.
Is the role of fear now a key instrument of political rule within our liberal democratic institutions.
Is this what is going on? Have we turned back to Hobbes and the murky world of power and violent conflict, of tragedy and rupture? Since the government is there to protect us, so the political class had to educate its people to be afraid. And it does so through cultivating the fear of death from a terrorist's bomb.
|
hi, I am a student from the Philippines and I am curently doing my thesis right now regarding fear in world politics. It is a great pleasure for me if you guys could send me bibliography, links and authors who study, explain and criticize fear.
Thank you so much I am hiping for your immediate response.