POLITICS: The Pros And Cons Of Neo-Cons

In his Quarterly Essay, Waleed Aly looks to the past for the future of conservatism in Australia, but Irfan Yusuf wonders what - and who - has been left out of his political vision ...

There's nothing like a fresh approach to Australian politics. And what could be fresher than that of a former executive member of a peak Islamic religious body, a young man with degrees in engineering and law, the author of a book and a ton of op-eds who now lectures in politics at Monash University?

Waleed Aly tells us that his Quarterly Essay - What's Right? The Future of Conservatism in Australia - is not just a treatise about the strategic direction of Coalition parties but that it also delves deeper into the conservative movement and its philosophical and ideological underpinnings.

Broadly, Aly argues that liberalism, with its emphasis on individual rights, added much-needed ideological flesh to conservatism which was historically allergic to ideology. Through the marriage of liberalism and conservatism, Aly shows how philosophies can sometimes collide and end up walking hand in hand.

Problems arose, however, when, some 30 years ago, a vicious streak of market-obsessed neo-liberalism tried to force itself onto the two political lovers, the resultant conservatism morphed into the unreal, defending the indefensible and undermining the very foundations of both conservatism and liberalism. Aly says it all started in the Western world with Maggie Thatcher and the late Ronald Reagan, both of whom adopted the basic economic ideas of Friedrich Hayek. (Surprisingly, he doesn't mention influential neo-liberal economist Milton Friedman).

In Australia, according to Aly, the neo-liberal revolution started in 1996 with the election of the Howard government. He is mistaken. In fact neo-liberalism was first adopted by the NSW Liberal government headed up by Nick Greiner and followed closely by the Victorian Liberal government of Jeff Kennett.

When Aly claims that neo-liberalism works in the unreal, what does he mean? His most significant example is climate change - neo-liberal neo-cons apparently have no way to support climate change action. He writes that:

In order for neo-liberalism to be preserved, climate change must, in the first instance, be denied ... The battle over the truth of climate-change science is therefore a political fight to the death for neo-liberalism.

Aly cites Nick Minchin and even this colourful former Thatcher adviser in support of this claim but he doesn't mention Thatcher herself, who, as far back as 1990, was under no illusions about the science of climate change or its consequences for environmental, economic and broader government policy.

Now to Aly's critique of modern neo-conservative liberalism's approach to multiculturalism. Aly takes the Howard government to task for its rhetoric toward Muslim communities in particular and migrants in general which was ostensibly about "integration" and social cohesion, but applied with alarming inconsistency. Hence Brendan Nelson can tell Muslim independent schools to "clear off" unless they teach Australian values but can still dish out millions to schools run by the Exclusive Brethren.

Aly writes that

... the cultural politics of neo-conservatism very quickly resort to a kind of groupism, prosecuting an identity politics of collectivism ... not simply the dispassionate application of a political philosophy ... a reactionary, combative doctrine that seeks out enemies it can destroy.

Muslims have in no way suffered the kinds of deprivations suffered by Australia's Indigenous peoples. On that basis, a prominent former spokesman for a Muslim peak body should surely recognise the greater injustice and identify the greater ideological evil. Aly's response?

ATSIC, native title, any kind of treaty and indeed almost the entire politics of symbolic reconciliation are very difficult to accommodate in a liberal conservative worldview ... One should be circumspect ... about explaining every liberal conservative position on these issues as the simple product of racism or colonialism. These factors may be present in varying degrees, but there is a strong philosophical dimension that is fundamental. (my italics)

So we should be wary of accusing conservatives of racism when they refuse to apologise to the stolen generation, even if they're inconsistent and have no reluctance to apologise to white stolen kids? Aly unpacks conservative rhetoric and it's underlying philosophy when used to prosecute one form of oppression and yet excuses the same process when used to execute and justify an even greater oppression. When it's done to migrants (especially Muslims), it is irrational, ideologically-charged prejudice but when much worse is done to those who have occupied this land for 400 centuries, it can have some philosophical justification and should not necessarily be seen as racism.

Muslims did suffer severe headaches and a fair few civil rights infringements during the Howard era, all in the name of national security. But Muslims have never had their social security benefits quarantined on the basis of their ethnic or religious identity. Muslims were not subject to a severe intervention which could only be implemented by suspending the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act and Muslims have not had their children stolen from them as part of a deliberate government policy.

Aly's inconsistency reflects a lack of empathy we sadly see all too often among defenders of multiculturalism, especially current and former "ethnic" leaders. Today's migrant brown man complains of the white man's prejudice toward him but neglects to recognise the responsibility of both white and brown migrants toward the continued dispossession of the original Australians. Muslim leaders should not expect empathy when they do not empathise toward those who have suffered much more and for much longer.

Those sympathetic to Aly's Muslim advocacy might also be uncomfortable with his deep reverence for Howard-s ideas. Indeed, Aly's admirers from that nebulous ideological place often referred to as "the Left" will be shocked to read him state that "the liberal and conservative traditions contain indispensible wisdom for the functioning of our politics." They might conclude, as I have, that Aly is finally confessing his own deep conservatism.

To be fair, what Aly reveres in the likes of Howard and Abbott (and what I also recognised in Abbott) is their commitment (or at least lip service) to basic conservative principles, not policies and programs. These principles can lead to policy outcomes with which people on both sides of the political spectrum will be comfortable.

Conservatives like decentralised power, gradual evolutionary change, not revolution. They are cautious and prefer the status quo without becoming captive to what Aly calls "reactionary nostalgia". Anti-racism is thus an inherently conservative idea, even if it has not been associated with contemporary manifestations of conservatism.

Aly's historical and philosophical range is impressive: the industrial revolution, the development of liberalism and its marriage to conservatism; and the more recent morphing of conservatism into neo-conservatism via a marriage with market-obsessed neo-liberalism.

That said, by the time I reached page 64 of this 105-page essay on the future of conservatism, I wondered when - and indeed whether - we would actually reach the Australian present, let alone the future.

I flicked to the "Sources" section where Aly presents his references. There are plenty of references to Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Hayek and others. Also mentioned were Michael Oakeshott, former UK Guardian journalist Melanie Phillips and even American neo-con Irving Kristol.

One surprising omission was Tony Abbott's Battlelines which was launched in late July 2009, probably before Aly first put pen to paper for his Quarterly Essay. One needn't agree with everything Abbott's book has to say (Lord knows I certainly don't), but it strikes me as extremely ambitious on Aly's part to even attempt to write about domestic conservative futures without exploring a comprehensive treatise of one of its prominent practitioners. Instead, Aly's discussion of the current Federal Coalition leader is limited to some speeches and articles where Abbott discusses multiculturalism, Muslims and climate change.

Aly's basic conclusion is that if conservatism in Australia is to have any future, it must retreat from market-obsessed and culturally reactionary neo-liberal conservatism and return to the old style liberal conservatism. Aly argues that Abbott's understanding of multiculturalism shows he has the nuance to begin this process (although he ignores Abbott's calls around this time for a new paternalism toward Indigenous peoples.)

But exactly how is this de-and-reconstruction of conservatism to be achieved? After reading Aly's essay, I'm still not sure. His broad brush of history, economics and political philosophy hovers around the topic but never quite nails it. He has little to say on what is billed as the central theme of his essay except a confession at the top of page 96 that: "I am not optimistic."

And if Aly's conservative prescription is followed, Indigenous Australians need not be optimistic either.

This review was first published in NewMatilda.

Words © 2010 Irfan Yusuf

Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: On ACMA, al-Manar TV and the search for consistent treatment of all forms of racism ...

I know this won’t make me very popular in some circles. But when it comes to combating racism and sectarian prejudice in broadcasting, could we have some consistency please?

The Age has reported here and here about attempts by ACMA to stop the broadcast of the al-Manar TV channel apparently linked to the Lebanese political party Hezbollah, whose military arm has been designated a terrorist organisation.

Some are unhappy because ...

... Al-Manar's political talk shows feature guests from terrorist organisations.

Well, so do many mainstream Western TV stations. Is it wrong for us to understand the rhetoric of those we are fighting?

It’s also a problem that al-Manar is ...

... fiercely anti-Israel and anti-US... and often broadcasts the final messages of suicide bombers.

Well there are plenty of Israeli media outlets that could be deemed anti-Israel. And how often do we see Western media outlets also broadcasting excerpts from the televised wills of suicide bombers?

Australia-Israel Review editor Tzvi Fleischer complains that al-Manar ...

... is very anti-Semitic, with some very nasty stuff.

That may well be true. But some of the speakers the Review publishes host also engage in quite extreme diatribe against other semitic groups and faiths. Speakers like Daniel "don’t-vote-for-Obama-because-he’s-Muslim" Pipes and the rather nutty Melanie Phillips.

Then there are the good folk from the Anti-Defamation Commission whose chair quite legitimately complains of al-Manar ...

... inciting violence and hatred.

Unfortunately, their former CEO has been inciting some unfortunate attitudes here, as well as attempting to defend a rather nasty Israeli professor.

And some of Roland Jabbour’s soundbites on behalf of the Australian Arabic Council aren’t too helpful. The Age reports Jabbour as arguing that:

... he would not call Jews the offspring of apes and pigs, but that in the context of "the crimes of the state of Israel" it was reasonable for al-Manar to do so and to portray Israeli rabbis as killing Christian children to use their blood in Passover meals.

I’m sorry, but it doesn’t matter what Israel does to Palestinians or Lebanese of various faiths. Repeating this kind of racist trash is never acceptable discourse because it offends even Jews that have about as much support for Israel as Robert Fisk. It is also deeply offensive to many Muslims, including ones that certain people at The Australian love painting as extremist.

Finally, I hope ACMA isn’t bullied and threatened by Hezbollah supporters in the same manner as it was by certain bigoted broadcasters and their often equally bigoted parliamentary patrons.

First published in the Crikey daily alert for Friday 22 August 2008.

COMMENT: What would Melanie Phillips make of this?

Tabloid columnist Melanie Phillips was so quick to condemn the Archbishop of Canterbury for his comments on sharia.

(Then again, so were many others including Dr Tariq Ramadan).

During a recent appearance on Stephen Crittenden's Religion Report, Mel ranted and raved on about how sharia is oh soooo nasty to those poor oppressed Muslim women.

Now I must say that I agree with her to the extent that she says that in many instances sharia courts are used in a manner which, at the very least, discriminates against women. But mad Mel didn't stop there. She actually said that such discriminatory practices were rooted within Islamic theology itself.

Further, she attributed cultural practices like arranged (often forced) marriages to Islamic theology.

The Archbishop made it clear in his lecture that the comments he makes concerning sharia courts and Islamic sacred law would equally apply to rabbinical courts and Jewish sacred law. Conveniently, Mel glosses over that point. Perhaps she expects Muslims to be critical of their sacred law whilst refusing to be critical of her own. A case of "do as I say but not as I do" perhaps?

The fact is that so many of the difficult issues concerning sharia courts and their interaction with civil and secular law are equally present in Jewish sacred law. In saying this, I am not suggesting that Orthodox Jews should not have the right to practise their sacred law or to have their affairs determined by courts of their choosing. Nor am I suggesting that oppression of women is central to Judaism or any other faith.

Rather, my point is that the clash of jurisdictions is present in many many civil societies where religious and secular law must interact.

This includes the civil society of the world's only Jewish state. Writing in Haaretz, Tamar Rotem discusses the dangers of extending the limits of rabbinical courts in Israel ...

The young woman walking toward the offices of Mavoi Satum, an organization that offers assistance to women whose husbands refuse to divorce them, was only 21, married for two years, and pregnant. The daughter of a well-known right-wing spiritual leader, she grew up in a veteran settlement, was wed in an arranged marriage, and asked a rabbi before she decided to get divorced. Her husband was not mature enough for marriage, and was quick to anger. She was condemned to wait a few years for the divorce. One day, in the hallways of the rabbinic courts, her lawyer asked her why she had started the divorce process in the religious court. "My father would not let me do it any other way," she answered. "The civil courts are off-limits to us."

Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog was blind to the reality of women like this - who are typical of a growing number of people in Zionist ultra-Orthodox society who do not recognize civil courts - when he fielded his unsound proposal to expand the powers of the rabbinic courts. On a silver platter, this bill gives rabbinic judges the option to adjudicate any civil matter, from property and inheritance to labor laws. For people for whom Torah law is not something they deliberate over, this option is a religious imperative ...

... This dangerous bill, if it had passed, would have worsened women's status, already low in rabbinic courts. Meanwhile, following the public debate after the bill's presentation, Herzog backpeddled, and its discussion by the cabinet was postponed ...

Zionist ultra-Orthodox women would be the main victims of this bill; women who even now are condemned to be extorted by their husbands. Who can ensure them that all aspects of the divorce will not be given by agreement to the rabbinic court after the divorce itself? The ultra-Orthodox community has an internal system to deal with men who refuse to give their wives a divorce, by means of threats, payments under the table and shunning. Attorney Batya Kahana-Dror, of Mavoi Satum, says that in recent years more and more women among the Zionist ultra-Orthodox are being refused divorces ...

Why not have judicial pluralism? Why not let every sector of society adjudicate in keeping with its worldview? That was the question raised last week in a conference called by Kolech, a women's forum committed to Jewish Law and gender egalitarianism, at the Van Leer Institute, following the presentation of Herzog's bill. This is the answer: The state must protect those who do not have freedom of choice and who are inferior in Jewish law.

I recognise that in countries like Malaysia and Pakistan, the (albeit partial) application of sharia in criminal and family law operates in a manner that severely discriminates against women. I wonder whether Mel Phillips will now make the same admission about Jewish sacred law. Will she call for the dismantling of the Beth Din? Will she openly write about the oppression of her Jewish sisters inside the world's only Jewish state?

And will she decry the fact that this law is being introduced by a coalition consisting of the allegedly moderate Kadima party in coalition with the virulently anti-Christian and anti-Muslim Shas party? Or, to quote Tamar Rotem again ...

This dangerous bill, if it had passed, would have worsened women's status, already low in rabbinic courts. Meanwhile, following the public debate after the bill's presentation, Herzog backpeddled, and its discussion by the cabinet was postponed. The threat, however, is still there, because it is rooted in coalition agreements between Kadima and Shas, and Shas will not give up easily.

Will Mel Phillips be consistent? Or will she claim that what's good for the Jewish kangaroo is never good for the Muslim wallaby? I certainly won't be holding my breath.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: More on guide dogs and cabbies ...

Poor Daniel Pipes. He's been caught out misrepresenting an Australian Human Rights Commissioner. In an effort to manufacture group-hatred against anyone deemed Muslim, he has repeated a report from a tabloid newspaper without bothering to check the source. And he's sent his trumped-up article to op-ed editors of Australian broadsheets.

Who knows how many other lies and distortions Pipes has knowingly or recklessly peddled in other articles promoting his kind of sectarian bigotry. But will this pseudo-academic polemicist stop?

(And will his followers stop leaving abusive and racist anonymous messages on this blog?)

Pipes has struggled to find a response to my allegations. He knows he has been caught out. He knows he should have checked with Commissioner Innes before repeating the discredited claims of a reporter from the Daily Telegraph tabloid.

At the end of his article, Pipes provides an update which refers to my "long analysis". But does he provide a hyperlink? Does he want his readers to decide for themselves whether what I wrote was an accurate reflection of what he said? Does he want his readers to be able to make up their own mind about what he describes as "screed"

If we were talking about someone seriously and sincerely searching for truth, or at least someone interested in intellectually honest debate, we would expect Pipes' update to contain a hyperlink. But we aren't talking about truth and intellectual honesty. We are talking about neo-Conservative rcism and bigotry.

In short, we are talking about Daniel Pipes.

And what is Pipes' precise complaint against my exposure of his deceipt? Pipes alleges that I have criticised him for making "a mistake in the caption to the picture [of Commissioner Innes] that accompanies [his] column".

Having re-read my post, I must concede that Pipes may have a point if we were to consider my treatment of his caption out of context from my entire post. But as any reasonable reader will concede, Pipes' so-called critique misses the broader point. Hence Pipes is able to repeat the dishonest claim that ...

... Innes indicates that the drivers sometimes cite a religious reason for refusing his guide dog, a clear allusion to the Shari‘a, the only religious law with strictures about contact with dogs.

Where does Commissioner Innes say this, Mr Pipes? Have you asked Innes? Have you contacted his media officer? Have you contacted the man himself? Have you spoken to the Commissioner directly? Or are you relying on a discredited report from a tabloid newspaper?

Even on the Barking Buddies website, it mentions in relation to cab drivers that ...

They claim they’re afraid of the golden Labrador, or that she will make their vehicle dirty. One said it was against his religion to carry the animal in his car.

A number of cab drivers have expressed fear of the golden labrador. Others have expressed concerns that the dog might cause their cab to become dirty. At the very most, only one cab driver has mentioned some religious concern, though no religion is mentioned.

Yet Pipes happily uses the words of one cab driver are used to spread hatred and venom toward an entire sacred legal tradition and the 1.2 billion people across the globe who respect it (even if many don't follow it).

Pipes then concludes that this must be a reference to ...

... the Shari‘a, the only religious law with strictures about contact with dogs.

Perhaps Mr Pipes isn't aware that many non-Muslim cultures across the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia also regard dogs as unhygeinic animals. Perhaps he isn't aware of the hygeine rules of some upper-caste Hindus or observant Sikhs.

But forget all that ecumenical and cross-cultural stuff. Pipes simply ignores the fact that Commissioner Innes has specifically stated on the record that ...

I never mentioned any specific religion and never intended to cast aspersions on any religion.

So if Commissioner Innes doesn't think this is an issue about Islam or Muslims or sharia, why does Daniel Pipes think it is? And why does Pipes insist on involving Innes in his unholy war against the religious law of 1.2 billion people?

Will Pipes now acknowledge that his article and update misrepresented the views of an Australian Human Rights Commissioner? Will Pipes admit he was wrong and apologise to Commissioner Innes?

Finally, it's clear Pipes hasn't even bothered to read Dr Williams' speech on sharia. Because if he had, he'd have realised that Williams specifically states that any reference to sharia in his speech equally applies to Jewish sacred law.

If Pipes was intellectually honest, he would spread hatred and venom toward Jews in equal measure as he does toward Muslims. He talks about the draconian punishments of sharia whilst ignoring the equally (if not more) draconian and violent teachings of Jewish sacred law.

There are parts of the Jewish law that talk about slaughtering women and children of gentiles. And stoning blasphemers and adulterers. These provisions still exist. The verses are there in the Old Testament. But seriously, how many Jews (other than the Israeli far-Right that Pipes often champions) seriously wish to implement these rules?

Scholars of the Jewish sacred law know that there was a time and a place for certain aspects of the sacred law. That time and place is not now. It has long gone. The same applies to Muslim jurists and the Islamic sacred law. Only the most fringe individual would suggest that we should start stoning adulterers in Sydney or London or New York (or even in Karachi or KL or Sarajevo).

Understanding and appreciating such issues requires a certain degree of intellectual sophistication. This is esoteric and complex stuff. It isn't the sort of stuff you'd expect to read on CampusWatch or a Pipes column in the New York Post. If this discussion and debate is out of Pipes' league, he should consider leaving it to others.

UPDATE I: Melanie Phillips, tabloid columnist and author of pseudo-conservative conspiracy thesis Londonistan, specifically refers to Pipes' fixation with guide dogs in a blog for The Spectator here. As expected, Phillips just cannot handle criticism. Hence she allows comments of those who share her big-"R" acism and huge-"X" xenophobia but not comments of her critics. Check these beauties out ...

... the chaff of Islamic dissembling.

... daily insights into the more disagreeble aspects of the Islamic world by the media (well, not Al Beeb and Al Gruaniad) and alerting people to the shape of the enemy ...

... any excuse to impose themselves on their host nations and express their disapproval ...

None of what is required to protect our culture is going to happen without an uprising taking place in the general population ... The best we can hope for is an after the fact resistance movement and guerilla warfare for the 50 or so years after takeover.

You don't have to be a Human Rights Commissioner to realise how scary and wacky these people are.

© Irfan Yusuf 2008

NB: To switch off the funky music, go to the playlist at the bottom of this homepage.


Bookmark this on Delicious

Mel & Steve do the sharia shuffle ...

Here’s a rather funked-up summary of the interview between Melanie Phillips and Stephen Crittenden (or should that be vice versa?) that appeared recently on Radio National’s The Religion Report. The purported subject was a recent speech on religion and secular law delivered by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The real subject was why everyone should become scared sh*tless of anyone who doesn’t blame all the ills of the world on sharia.

STEVE: Yoh, sis. Sharia sux badly! ‘Em bloody Moslems wanna establish demselves as a separate entity. That Ro-bro Williams fella like dis kinda stuff ‘coz it’s da happnin thang in his own church. Yoh tell, Mel. You waz there at da lecture. Give us the low-down run-down.

MEL: Yeah, like innit! These nasty Moslems ain’t happy with da English common law. For that reason, they wanna impose dis parallel jurisdiction sh*t on us, a kind of supplementary jurisdiction. Dis is da Islamisation by stealth. Them Moslems are gettin married two three times and doin dat dangerous sharia-compliant mortgage sh*t where da interest amputated from da loan and sh*t.

STEVE: Sh*t, man! What else did da funky Ro-bro say?

MEL: Man, don’t ask me. I waz like way spaced out, man. I borrowed some stash from dat Winehouse sista. Man, when you sniff up her stash-a-hash, you get some pure stuff. Like implementin sharia. Man, you can’t just pick and choose and mix it all up. Once it’s there, you just can’t control it. OK, I hear there are liberal interpretations of Islam, but then how can a non-Moslem like moi talk about dat liberal sh*t? But I so spaced out, I wanna give this f#cktup fatwa: Everywhere sharia has been applied in the world at the moment, the more authoritarian, draconian form holds sway. Dat’s right, bro. Everywhere.

STEVE: Yoh, sis, you freakin’ me out wid dat sh*t.

MEL: Dat’s not all, bro Stevie. Here’s one more fatwa: we already haz da situations where we got lotsa honour killings, honour-based violence, sexual violence, gender violence against women and dat sh*t. Man, all dis is rooted in da view dat women is having half the value of men. Dis sh*t is rooted in Islam.

STEVE: But man, sis, I don't think all dem Moslems agree. What you say to dem, sis?

MEL: I tell yah, Stevie. Any genuine Moslem scholar who challenges my f#cktup fatwas are just doin spindoctorin as if dey are to be true reformers. Bro, you know da reality dey are subtle and sophisticated operators with dubious records and are banned from entering the US of A and France coz dey havin links to extremists.

STEVE: You sayin, sis, dat dey havin links to you?

MEL: No, bro Stevie. I say day havin links to da wrong kinds extremists. Da cure is to stop readin their books and start readin mine!

STEVE: Thanks for coming on da show, sis.

© Irfan Yusuf 2008