|
February 18, 2008
A recent editorial in The Australian opens with the sentence it's time to restore civility to the national discourse. This must be an attempt by The Australian to retain some credibility and influence in the new political order when its motley bully boy crew of right-wing commentators and editorialists has spent a decade sinking the boot into the left and introducing toxicity into public debate. That was then, this is now:
The culture wars are over, at least in the minds of some prominent ABC commentators and the liberal intelligentsia who claim Kevin Rudd has routed the reactionary forces of the Right. If by culture wars they mean ideological trench warfare in which opponents lob insults, indignation and polemic across a barren, muddy landscape, then we join in the hope that peace has broken out. If on the other hand they mean intelligent, informed and reasoned debate then The Weekend Australian fervently hopes they are mistaken.
Hopes? It was The Australian that engaged in trench warfare in which its attack dog commentators lobbed insults, indignation, polemic and engaged in character assassination across a barren, muddy landscape of the public sphere.
Why is this reversal? Why the sudden concern with civic discourse and democracy? The editorial says that Rudd is Howard-lite:
The truth is that Mr Rudd is more than just a fiscal conservative. He is a church-going, family-values social conservative who in many ways has more in common with former prime minister John Howard than, for example, he has with Phillip Adams. Mr Rudd's economic policy is no doubt distasteful to Professor Manne, who has been an ardent critic of economic rationalism. What the election of Mr Rudd has done is make many conservative policies and values less easy for the Left to attack.
Rudd's election represents another defeat for the left. However, the signs----Kyoto and the apology-- are that Rudd is moving away from his me-too electoral persona of Howard-lite. If The Australian now endorses Kyoto and the apology because these are merely symbolic, then they are swallowing a lot of their own history of entrenched opposition to both. What they are disguising is the extent of shift they had to make in their rewriting of history to gain credibility in a new political order.
The second reason in The Australians call for a new spirit of reconciliation and the restoration of civility to the national discourse:
Lastly, while the internet has democratised access to the public arena, it has also coarsened debate. We admit we have not been above the odd ad hominem attack ourselves. It's time for a little more elegance, a return to the debating conventions of earlier times, to the rules obeyed by men and women of letters. As we prepare for the 2020 summit, let's return civility to the national conversation. We should be able to respect our opponents even when we disagree with their ideas, counter them with argument, not argumentativeness. It would make a welcome change to emulate a little more of the Age of Enlightenment, a little less of the Reign of Terror, a little more of the spirit of the salon, a little less of the barricades. It's time for a battle waged with wit, not brickbats.
The bloggers are to blame for the polemics of tench warfare, with The Australian admitting that it has merely engaged in odd ad hominem attack. So it is positioning itself as the reasoned salon voice of the Enlightenment against the terror wagged by the lefty bloggers. Presumably, the Australian will continue to affirm the values of western civilisation against the romanticisation of the
noble savage.
This revisionism fails to persuade. The blood stains of the culture wars waged by the attack-dog journalists exist because the young conservatives go beyond robust debate in the public sphere on a controversial subject. They deploy tactics of personal denigration that is designed to discredit an opponent and who use the term 'political correctness' to attack universities and whole disciplines whilst lecturing everyone on patriotism. Tenured radicals were said to have imposed a tyranny of political correctness in the academy, victimising dissident colleagues, imposing restrictive speech codes, rooting out all elements of the traditional canon and poisoning young minds with their obscure and nihilistic theory.
|
Rearguard action from a newspaper which considers itself a political player and strategises like one.
Still trying to claim Rudd and still trying to claim a win in the culture wars. They must have read Manne's article in The Monthly and realised their mistake.