On Moral Complacency
Published July 9th, 2006 in , .The Howard prime ministership has had a strangely mesmeric quality that… has put the national moral conscience to sleep.
– Robert Manne
I’d been meaning to post this Op-Ed piece for a while, but with one thing and another, I hadn’t gotten around to it. It is an opinion piece that was published in The Age newspaper on May 23rd, 2006. It was written by Robert Manne, Professor of Politics at LaTrobe University. As a student at LaTrobe, I’ve had the pleasure of been taught by Professor Manne for a number of subjects. He has had a great influence on my (and many of his students) thinking. The Bullentin magazine described him as “undoubtedly one of Australia’s most prominent public intellectuals – a term he is uneasy with – and one of the Howard government’s most despised ‘elites’”.
These are the voices that need to be heard. Apathy IS NOT the answer.
Oh, To Be So Morally Complacent:
by Professoer Robert Manne
Last week John Howard was lavishly celebrated by the President of the United States as America’s best friend - with a 19-gun salute and a glittering black-tie dinner. Drawing from his ever-reliable stock of mock-modest populist cliches, Howard claimed that the honour belonged to all Australians. Privately he must have known that it belonged exclusively to him. How had it been won?
For almost all its architects, the Iraq invasion has proved lethal. Largely because of Iraq, the Bush presidency is now no more popular than was the Nixon presidency in its darkest days. America’s main Iraq allies in Europe, Jose Maria Aznar of Spain and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, have both lost elections to successors who regarded the invasion as wrong. Although Tony Blair did not lose his election last year, as a consequence of Iraq, he is now (except when he visits Australia) damaged goods, with an approval rating no higher than that of George Bush.
The sole exception here is Howard, whose reputation is entirely untarnished by the central supporting role his Government played in the invasion of Iraq. In part this is because of the generic weakness of the Labor Opposition; in part because of the influence of the pro-war Murdoch press; in part because of the successful marginalisation of the critical intelligentsia; and in part because only one Australian soldier has been killed in Iraq. Perhaps most deeply, however, it is because the Howard prime ministership has had a strangely mesmeric quality that, except for local community concerns, has put the national moral conscience to sleep.
From Bush’s point of view, Howard is a wonder to behold. It is not merely that he is politically unwounded by Iraq. Over four and a half years he has not uttered one syllable of criticism concerning American strategy in the war on terror. No one could hope for a more blindly loyal ally. Hence, last week’s celebratory words and drums and guns.
While Howard was in Washington, centrist political think tank the Brookings Institution published its most recent study of the outcome of the invasion of Iraq. According to this study, since the invasion, between 44,000 and 89,000 Iraqi civilians, perhaps 55,000 Iraqi insurgents, and 2500 members of the invading forces have been killed.
Even though the US has spent or approved the spending of $US435 billion on Iraq (which is 15 times the entire annual Iraqi GDP) - an even larger number of Iraqi children (9 per cent) are suffering from acute malnutrition than was the case before the invasion of March 2003; more than two-thirds of Iraqis still do not have clean water; and residents of Baghdad receive on average fewer than six hours of electricity a day.
Two-thirds of Iraqis feel less secure now than they did before the invasion. Fewer than 1 per cent believe that the occupying forces have improved security. Before the invasion the Baghdad morgue processed fewer than 100 corpses a month. In the first three months of this year, it processed 3427. Iraqis are now losing hope. A year ago, 67 per cent of Iraqis believed that their country was at least heading in the right direction. At present a mere 30 per cent still believe that this is so.
In Washington last week, despite all this, George Bush and John Howard, two architects of the invasion, swapped effusive compliments. According to Howard: “The world needs a president of the United States who has a clear-eyed view of the dangers of terrorism and the courage and determination to see the task through to its conclusion. And in you, sir, the American people have found such a leader and such an individual.” According to Bush, Howard had always supported “the liberty agenda”. He had always shown “a deep desire for the world to be a peaceful place”. He was a man of “courage and conviction”, of utmost reliability and honesty. “When he tells you something, you can take it to the bank.”
The world now generally acknowledges the injustice and illegality of the invasion and the catastrophe that, even after the appointment of the so-called national unity Government, now confronts Iraq. Are Bush and Howard really unable to see what it is that they have done? I can only speak with confidence of the Prime Minister.
Howard took this country to war on the claim that he knew that Saddam Hussein had a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that posed a terrible danger to the world. This turned out to be entirely false. Howard argued that an invasion to bring about regime change in Iraq could not be justified. When weapons of mass destruction were not discovered, he argued that regime change was precisely the reason we had gone to war. Howard argued that the war would be swiftly concluded and that the people in Iraq would welcome the invading forces as their liberators. Three years after the invasion, the rate of insurgency is steadily increasing; 82 per cent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence in their country of occupying forces; the country is descending into unspeakably brutal Shiite-Sunni civil war; very many tens of thousands of people who would be alive today, were it not for the invasion, now lie dead.
Even if Howard continued to defend his actions strenuously, if he at least was anxious or agitated about this state of affairs, I would be able to feel for him some respect. What unnerves me is the calmness of his demeanour, the apparent near-entire absence in him of a troubled conscience or the kind of self-scrutiny that might lead him eventually to remorse. Howard is one of the most nimble but also one of the most morally complacent politicians I have ever observed.
Howard rightly asks us to contemplate the pain of the families of the 3000 innocent people who were murdered on September 11. Does he, do we, feel nothing for the families of the tens of thousands of Iraqis whose lives have been lost in the killings and the murders that have occurred since the invasion of Iraq, for whose involvement in which our Prime Minister was honoured, in Washington last week, with a black-tie dinner and a 19-gun salute?
Read the Bulletin article about Robert Manne here.
The Age online version of this piece can be found here.
13 Responses to “On Moral Complacency”
- 1 Pingback on Jul 27th, 2006 at 19:43
- 2 Pingback on Jul 27th, 2006 at 21:37
Hear, hear!
These and other views about Howard and his gang cannot be shouted loudly enough or often enough for my liking. I am not sure how else the Australian public will hear the words of those who care and study and pay attention to what this coalition is doing to this country.
It’s a shame most people absorb the network news account of politics as their only way of staying “informed”.
When I was ranting about this very topic in my very white collar office the other day, someone said “but we don’t have a viable opposition”. I say, who gives a shit? Vote Democrat, Green or whatever, but don’t give these evil bastards the same power again next time, or better still, force the opposition to step up to the plate.
Maybe even vote for Beazley.
Anything will be better.
We are declining into American-colonialism, and the only way out is a show of hands.
Hell will freeze over before I ever contemplate voting for Beazley…Howard all the way. Greens, democrats! Huh! Not likely…one must love the beauty of freedom of speech.
You can have polls all you like. The Australian public voted in Howard…wait for your next election.
Whatever a government does, it is done in OUR name. The government remains accountable to us at ALL times, not just when there is an election. For the vast majority, what is happening in Iraq (and other places) doesn’t effect or touch them personally, so they are unconcerned. But these things still happen.
As a serving member of Australia’s armed forces, you would hope that should you ever be sent again into harm’s way, that it is for a just and noble cause. The most striking example of this is the efforts of the ADF in the days following the Tsunami that struck Indonesia.
This is not the case in Iraq. The reasons behind the invasion were based on lies and deception. As someone who served (or perhaps didn’t) in the Middle East, the blood of innocent Iraqi’s is literally on your hands. Take your head out of the fucking sand! These acts aren’t just being done in YOUR name, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for them.
As for the Australian people voting in John Howard, that isn’t quite true. In no federal election contested with John Howard as leader, has the Liberal/Coalition received anything close to a majority of the vote (’04 - 46.4%, ‘01 - 42.7%, ‘98 - 39.5, ‘96 - 47.2%. All figures for House of Reps). That’s not a majority anywhere, perhaps with the exception of Florida.
The final word, however, goes to former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. In an Op-Ed piece for The Age, he stated that “we’re all responsible for this Government’s inhumanity”. Read the article here.
Dee,
The Australian public is made up of way too many over 50’s boomer types and their largely conservative asshole offspring.
I’ve been waiting for enough of the grey set to die off to let the young people ie. the people whose future the politician’s are destroying, have a fair say in who runs this country.
Voting based on morals and humanitarianism instead of share prices will come back into fashion soon.
Jimmy James, extremist left wing views are no better than the extremist right wing you seem to percieve the baby boomers hold. And name calling is kind of childish really.
I am one of the largely conservative asshole offspring you refer to, and am wondering who on earth you think is going to run for office (and win) based on morals and humanitarianism. Sure as hell not the Labour party, and the Greens have enough viable policies (other than those on the environment) to fill a matchbox. And that’s in their extended versions.
And as for you Daydreamer, what planet are you living on??? Do you honestly have such an unrealistic view of the world to think that war will ever cease? Human nature dictates that this is will never happen as greed will win out 9 times out of 10 - why do you think Communism can never work??? Good deeds do not, sadly, beget good deeds in this world, as the last Bali bombing showed.
And to slag off an acting member of the armed forces is EXTREMELY bad form, lets hope you never have to rely on them for protection as I personally don’t think you deserve it after those comments. I don’t see you going out an doing anything to help what you consider to be a just and noble cause - writing a blog, while lovely for voicing your opinions, doesn’t really cut it at the coal face.
To quote yourself - Get your head out of the fucking sand!!!!!
And, just for the record, who says what you think is a just and noble cause actually is?? Who made you God???? Apparently you are part of a holy trinity with Jimmy James and some other as yet unnamed and similarly delusional individual.
Pretty strong language there Princess. It’s good to see someone getting passionate about ideas, even the ones you have. One might call it idealism.
Firstly I don’t think that any political party should be in power for as long as our current government. Arrogance and greed are the only possible result, as we now see daily.
I agree that extremism (and/or radicalism) is pretty bad. That sort of single mindedness shows a lack of imagination and intelligence. “Isms” in general for me are too limiting to subscribe to, and I include religions in general in that group.
I’m not a Left extremist. If anything, I am reactionary. If the ALP happened to be in power right now, and was showing the arrogance and American brown nosing tendencies that this government is showing, I would yell and scream too.
The Blogshere is an odd space. People say things that may stay on the page, and are never uttered out loud, and therefore do very little in the real world. I like to think I act ALMOST as much as I talk. I support Unions, more so since the new IR related laws were announced. These laws do hurt people, they have hurt people, and will continue to do so. I was a Union rep, an elected member and now I just show my solidarity with money and my presence.
I think that it is kind of funny that conservative governments pretty commonly carry on about family values, but these are usually fairly narrowly defined as a particular model of family. I’d hate to be a single mother, a single income working class family paying off a house or any other marginal type of family unit under this regime.
I’m going to have to disagree with you on something here. I have to say that Idealism is what makes the world turn. Conservatism and complacency by their very nature champion the status quo. When society doesn’t move forward in any meaningful sense, the ideas that are produced by it become stale and re-hashed. You have to daydream.
Also, just to clarify, I mentioned Beazley only as an outside thought. He is as much a US brown noser as the arrogant bastard who currently holds the position. Politicians of any persuasion tend to be difficult to like, especially the born-and-bred ones this country keeps producing on both sides. We need some people who have actually worked and lived in the real world in the mix.
I’d like to close with a question. What do you consider to be a viable policy for a political party? Granted, the Greens seem to thrive on marginal issues and radical ideas, but that’s what they are there for.
P.S. I object to being referred to as holy, even in a trinity with the good and noble Daydreamer. There is absolutely nothing holy about me.
You know, one thing I do admire blogs for is the diversity of opinion that is expressed, and the discussions and views that they open up! I think diversity is the spice of life, and that it takes all kinds from all backgrounds (including our clearly opposing ones) to make the world go round!
I have similar discussions with the Daydreamer and we basically agree to disagree (sort of), but acknowledge each side (although I think he still thinks he can change my views - good luck there…). I do get fired up, and I agree with you that it is important to feel passionately about how the world is being run around you.
It is also important in my view to accept that opinions are not fact (although they can be based on them) and that an opinion can’t be wrong - it is just one person’s point of view and is no more or less valid than anyone elses. Except in my case when they are all (obviously) right. ; )
As for your question, I am not sure what a viable individual policy for a political party is. I guess it depends on the state of the nation at any given time as to what they feel is appropriate. You can’t please all of the people all of the time (or all of the people any of the time I would venture to say).
And just as a name drop, after I finished off my last firey response in the Emirates lounge in Auckland this afternoon, who should sit down opposite me but Sir Bob Geldof. Very cool, and got me thinking about all the amazing things he has done. Then realised he was flying first class. Kind of strange how the world works really… Oh, and me being me was too shy to say hi to him! : )
For The Daydreamer: I am not going to bother with a response as yet…I am too tired.
For Jimmy: can you please elaborate on “The Real World”. I hear this term used so often at my place of work, but fail to see how someone can be in it and not experience it. Is The Land of Oz not the real world? I would enjoy hearing your comments on this one.
For Princess: Good luck…may the force be with you…
Hi Dee.
I don’t know what some people mean by “Real World”, and I guess if you live in it it feels real, even if others see it as a crock.
What I mean by “real world” is where the average Australian lives and tries to carve out a living. Its where government policies can mean the difference between meeting a housing repayment and losing everything, and where a tax tweak here and an inflation point there can change your life. Its also where the new IR laws can make you lose your job, or be offered a pay cut with the threat of being replaced.
I don’t live on the breadline, and my real world doesn’t feel real, as I know what people are going through. I’m unlucky enough to be from a very working class family that struggled.
For most of Australia that struggle is day to day, and lets face it, many of them are not particularly well educated or enlightened, especially regarding politics and their place in this so-called democracy. Unfortunately that suits the majority of the rest of us.
Can’t have too many people taking a piece of the pie.
Moral complacency? We’re a police state short of a dictatorship. So the Australian public has figured out that politicians lie? Congratulations, tell us something we don’t already know.
Don’t like the Liberals? Stiff shit. Want to throw away your vote on a third party? Be my guest. Fact of the matter is, the economy remains viable and that’s all Australia gave a shit about at the last election. As long as everthing is going well for a lot of us, why rock the boat?
There is no one who can hold this government accountable for its mistakes. Forget the Labour paty - they’re too busy fighting between themselves over the scraps to really worry about the issue at hand. Expect to see the garden gnome in power for another term, assuming he doesn’t break a non-core promise.
For the Daydreamer: Does pigheadedness run in the family? I do not live a life with blinkers… Yes, I have strong opinions on certain beliefs, issues and morals in a number of given areas but none are set in concrete. If someone can give a valid rebuattal I am all ears. I may not necessarily agree with the individual/group in the end, but I am open to hear the other side of an argument which may/or may not cause me to sway my opinion.
Quote, ‘The Daydreamer’ -”For the vast majority, what is happening in Iraq (and other places) doesn’t effect or touch them personally, so they are unconcerned”. Don’t you find this statement a bit ‘broad’. How can you know and express the opinion of ‘them’? I think you’d be quite suprised how ‘they’ feel surrounding this somewhat ‘delicate’ subject. ‘They’ after all, are still human…
Quote, ‘The Daydreamer’ -”As a serving member of Australia’s armed forces, you would hope that should you ever be sent again into harm’s way, that it is for a just and noble cause”. There will always be people that disagree with what the government is doing. Being a member of the ADF is not a democracy…it is a job, more than a job. One which one does as is told, not what one necessarily wishes or believes to be correct/incorrect, wrong or right. Something that comes when one signs the dotted line. Having said that, as you know from my previous statement, that I am for our government and Howard. I might not agree with everything this party has to offer, but in my eyes it sures beats any replacement.
Quote, ‘The Daydreamer’ -”The most striking example of this is the efforts of the ADF in the days following the Tsunami that struck Indonesia”. Having been one of these people, what I saw I have very strong opinions on…one which I’ll share over a beer…not on paper/monitor.
Quote, ‘The Daydreamer’ -”As someone who served (or perhaps didn’t) in the Middle East, the blood of innocent Iraqi’s is literally on your hands”. Yet again, over a beer, I’d love for you to elaborate on this one!
Quote, ‘The Daydreamer’ -”Take your head out of the fucking sand!” Reading this makes me laugh. Where I come from, if you want people to even contemplate looking at another angle to a given situation/scenario, you would approach the subject in a manner that would encourage people to consider your opinion. Yes, they might not agree with you, but at least they will have taken the time to consider. All you managed to do was make me angry and dismiss any attempt at trying to see your side of the argument.
For Jimmy James: Although our visions on the argument are different, I value what you said and like your response in regard to the ‘Big Wide World’.
Quote, ‘Jimmy James’ -”I’m unlucky enough to be from a very working class family that struggled”. Maybe you’re not unlucky at all - maybe in a weird way you received some sort of gift. You now know the plight of a struggling individual/family/group? Maybe now you cherish/appreciate things moreso than what one may if not from a similar upbringing?
For Oz: