The NABA defence
I read with interest Naomi Wolf’s article which posits that the US Bush government showed signs of at least the beginning of each of 10 steps which are part of the path toward fascism. It’s an interesting article.
Slacktivist responds to some of the criticism of the article, labelling it as the NABA defence - that the accusations might be true, but the situation is Not as Bad As Iraq, or Afghanistan or some other situation which is demonstrably has more fascist tendencies than the US.
I have a couple of thoughts. The first is that arguments like these are always good as rhetoric, because we can always point to some behaviour or impetus within our society or, in this case, within our government which is undesirable. In one sense, it is a version of the slippery slope argument, which I have previously discounted. It is certainly a provocative analysis, which I think it is intended to be. However, I think that it is more than just a slippery slope argument, because you are looking at the interaction of a number of factors which demonstrate worrying tendencies.
On its own, objecting to the fact that the government is thought to engage in a secret campaign of wiretaps might certainly be alarming but, it’s disproportionate to say that, taken alone, it is the end of democracy as we know it. There is a scene in the TV series The Sopranos where mob boss Junior Soprano is seeking to be released on house arrest for medical reasons while awaiting trial. The judge tells him he will be required to wear an electronic monitoring device at all times during his release. Junior says “I think this sounds like Nazi Germany”. The Judge responds, “I think you need a history lesson.”
But as we have discussed before, there are a range of things happening at the moment which are very worrying. The list in Australia would be different to the list that Naomi Wolf constructs, but it shares some similarities. And equally, I am not sure what we are in danger of becoming if the trend continues in this way, but I think it is a place which I think departs substantially from our view of what it means to be Australian.
I should point out here that if this is a slippery slope or multiple slippery slopes, then I don’t think that we are very far down them, but, as pointed out by slactivist:
NABA-NABA is meant to be reassuring, but it’s a feeble kind of reassurance. It’s like trying to tell the people of New Orleans to cheer up since, after all, Katrina and the broken levies were Not As Bad As the Boxing Day tsunami. That may be technically true, but it’s hardly the point.
So what are the elements that I think we are seeing here in Australia?
1. The shedding of governmental responsibility and accountability
To some extent this has always been an element of the Westminster system, cleverly lampooned by the likes of Yes Minister. Yet in Australia with the Children Overboard, Migration department bungles, the Australian Wheat Board Oil for Food scandal we see this tactic used to such a degree that it no longer seems to be a political liability to obfuscate, deny and lie to save your own skin. Universally, people no longer suspect that our government representatives will lie to us, they expect and accept it. In the same way that Keating, Hawke and Kennett were once admired for the fact that whether or not you agreed with them, you knew where they stood, this no longer seems something that many in government consider desireable. I am concerned that the Australian public no longer uses the criteria of honesty and accountability to evaluate our politicians (I have had many conversations with people about the fact that all politicians lie, and therefore you have to assess whether their self-interests coincide with your own).
2. The demonisation of “the other”
This perhaps draws on the discussion by Wolf about creating a fear of an terrifying internal and external enemy. I don’t think it could be said that the atmosphere here has degenerated to the point where we fear the end of civilisation. Without any significant recent terrorist attacks on our own soil, we are far too laconic to embrace such a level of hysteria. However, we have increasingly embraced a distrust of people unlike us.
Australians like to see ourselves as open, welcoming and egalitarian, but I have always felt that there is a dark-side to our supposedly happy-go-lucky open nature. The dark side of our egalitarianism is a strange kind of competitiveness to ensure that nobody else has an advantage over us or succeeds without earning it. To those more successful than us, we express this as “cutting down the tall poppies”. To those less or equally successful, we express it as a dark suspicion or downright sneering at those that we perceive not to earn their place in society. We sneer at dole bludgers, imagining that they prefer to loll around on government handouts than earn a decent wage. We have an appalling record with our lack of regard for indigenous people and the dreadful circumstances in which they find themselves. I remember going through school and university, there was a largely unspoken suspicion of “those Asian kids” who were stealing all the places at the good universities and schools because they had the temerity to be more studious than many Anglo kids.
So while we may not think that the end of the world is nigh, the fear of terrorism and the covert nature of the sorts of violence that we see taking place around the globe - without uniforms, without fanfare, without warning signs - has tapped into this dark side. And our government has been complicit in this identification, condoning and encouraging the sort of vague mutterings that we have always as a nation been a little ashamed of. When Pauline Hanson warned against Asian immigration in her maiden speech in parliament, the public response was largely to condemn her remarks. For some, this was done in a fairly weak condemnation - “I see where she is coming from, but I think she has gone too far/expressed herself poorly” or “We need to look at what factors are creating these feelings amongst Australians and address them”. But generally, Australian people wanted to distance themselves from publicly agreeing with her views. Even members of One Nation, the party that she founded at times distanced themselves from the Hanson association. Now, the same implications that refugees should be considered potential terrorists, that muslim people should be viewed with suspicion as potential terrorists, that Lebanese men should be suspected as potential gang rapists and criminals seem to be accepted without the same level of objection.
3. Unwillingness to act in National interests or in the interests of citizens
In some senses this is a misnomer, because the tendency here has been for our government to assess that the most compelling national interest is our alliance with the US, which must be pursued at any cost. In situations where the interests of Australian citizens have been perceived to be in conflict with the interests of the US, then our government has not resolved that dilemma in favour of our own citizens. We are the only country in the world that has not demanded the return and release of its citizens held by the US at Gitmo. The only country in the world unwilling to advocate against the US for the rights of its own citizens. There was the cringeworthy moment when we have been described as a deputy sheriff in the region.
In doing so, we have threatened arguably equally important relations in the Asia-Pacific region. In doing so, we have made ourselves entirely vulnerable to the whims of US foreign policy. Australia does not offer enough politically to the US to be guaranteed its unswerving loyalty if circumstances change.
4. The erosion of the rule of law
We have talked a lot about this, but for me it expresses itself primarily in a distancing from the idea that justice and process need to be equally and evenly applied. As a nation we no longer publicly advocate against the death penality in other countries, even when it relates to our own citizens. As a nation, we have introduced laws which permit the reduction of procedural protections afforded to citizens suspected of crimes - when it is exactly those individuals who are intended to be protected by these rules. As a nation, we have devoted immeasurable time and resources to escaping our obligations under the refugee convention - “We will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come”.
—————————————————————-
These are just some poorly formed thoughts about my current fears for what our society threatens to become. What are your thoughts?
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
“I guess I distinguish between a version of the truth - i.e.t he way one particular person or group explains it, and the truth itself.”
I’m not saying that any world view other than Christianity has no truth in it at all.. I am saying that ultimately and fundamentally they contradict Christianity and as such are irreconcileable
“God alone is the truth (Jesus I guess) - we have glimpses of part of that truth. The way we explain what we understand to be the truth is a version of the truth.”
But if we have 2 different versions of the same subject (ie God) and one affirms his existence (Christianity) and the other denies his existence (materialism) both cannot be true.
Postmodernism does not trump the law of non-contradiction
God does not trump the law of non-contradiction
Rev
“why then do you spend so much time and energy fighting against what is only a part of one particular world view?”
i don’t. this is not the only string i comment on nor is it the only conversation i have. Just ask Janet about our conversations on scientific materialism that we have had in the past. I do however think that this is a (if not THE) biggy that our culture faces… i believe that consumerism/materialism have its roots in postmodernism/moral relativism and that we should be battling this as strongly as we can..
George Barna has said
“Almost everyone in the U.S. believes that truth exists. However, a large majority of both adults and teenagers, Christian and non-Christian, contends that there is no absolute moral truth. More than two out of three adults and more than four out of five teenagers argue that truth is always relative to the individual and the circumstances. While most of these people describe themselves as followers of Christ and say that the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings, they nevertheless believe that truth is based on feelings, experience or emotion.
“This is one of the great deceptions of our age,” Barna pointed out. “Embracing relativism under the guise of Christian faith facilitates comfort with sin. By claiming the authority to determine right from wrong, we crown ourselves the kings and queens of reality, yet we have no such authority and we constantly pay the price for the arrogance of believing and acting like we are in control of our destiny and experience. What an affront it is to God for us to claim His name and protection but to resist His moral truths on the basis of human feelings.”
“I actually believe that within a Christian world view, there are aspects of postmodernism, and modernism”
I believe that Christianity holds the truth and is the world view that answers the questions of life as Jesus would answer them.. i would re-word your above statement… ‘within postmodernism and modernism there are aspects of Christianity’… but even so they are both fundamentally ‘anti-God’
“And communicating within both of these world views the truth of Jesus, is of primary importance.”
This is my point… if you are a modernist or postmodernist you cannot by definition be Christian.
If you are postmodernist you have a worldview that necessarily is anti God and you would be basically denying yourself. you may as well say that you are trying to communicate the truth of Jesus from within Satanism.. in fact i think you would have a better time as Satan knows that God exists and that truth is absolute for all people in all cultures.
Being or communicating from within something means that you have taken on the primary tenets of a belief system, if you have not done so then you can’t call yourself a modernist or a postmodernist. and if you do you have denied the existence of God or the truth of Gods moral purpose etc.
The concept that we should be communicating the truth of Jesus from ‘within’ these systems is absolutely baffling… you may as well say that you will become a homosexual so that you can witness too the gay community ‘from within’
i really hope that that was just poor word choice rev.
understand them yes, be loving and graceful yes, but if we join the postmoderns and deny the existence of universal truth then you have nothing to offer…
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I would say I am more post modern than modern. I do not deny universal truth, and the fact is I know of know post modern that does, they just believe than not all truth is universal, and there is relativity involved.
I believe God transcends time and space and therefore exists to our understanding in paradox, which is the denial of modernity. God is both part of us, and seperate to us. He sustains the universe, yet indwells us. Ect.
So I find post modern thought to be much closer to Christ than modern thought. I have never heard you rail against materialism, nor the precepts of modernism.
I do not deny universal truth, because universal truth is a person, not a concept. I find it quite funny that you would say I deny anything about God, I stand by Jesus and a more literal truth of His life than many of the “fundies” on this sight.
rev
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
in a round about way rev you confirm alot of what i am saying
“I am more post modern than modern”
and i would have a liberal dash of both in me… but it is my aim to rid myself of the world and follow and be like Christ…
“I do not deny universal truth, and the fact is I know of know post modern that does, they just believe than not all truth is universal, and there is relativity involved.”
if you don’t deny universal truth you are not truly postmodern.
i don’t believe everything that proclaims to be truth is true for everyone either.. never have never will
it is true ‘for me’ that i prefer chocolate over vanilla but that may not be true for you.
but this is a different order of truth that there is a God who has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ and is going to call all to account for themselves one day… as far as postmodernism goes this is truth relative to the holder only and we should not presume to say that this is something that others should have to believe for themselves .. its a chocolate v vanilla question
“I find it quite funny that you would say I deny anything about God,”
when i said “and if you do you have denied the existence of God or the truth of Gods moral purpose etc.” i didn’t specifically mean you rev but more generally anyone that says they adhere to postmodernism/modernism and actually understands what they are saying are by definition denying God. You don’t campaign for the labour party by joining the conservatives.
if there is any truth in the life and existence of Jesus Christ .. something that all humanity needs to take into account irrespective of culture sex beliefs race history (i am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but through me) then modernism/posmodernism along with evolutionary materialism gnosticism polytheism hinduism islamism are necessarily false.. lies.. garden paths that lead you away from the truth
there is nothing that we need from these beliefs - they cannot add anything to Christianity - that does not mean they have no truth whatsoever but all truth is God’s truth..
“I have never heard you rail against materialism, nor the precepts of modernism.”
i copied this from my own web site that i know you have visited either ’shellybeach blog’ or ‘jesus loves white trash’
“money is a strange thing.. we werent meant to have money - it is a human construction designed to deal with our relationships with each other separate from God.
God designed us to share his creation but in our rebellion we want to own his creation and be master of it ourselves and money helps us do that.
Money is not a neutral thing… it is more powerful than sex,power, material things, position, fame etc because money offers them all… good things can be done with money of course but as humans we are (in our natural state of rebellion) unable to do the right thing with it separate from God’s grace… it is only ever through Gods grace that i will ever do any good with what i have.”
there… spoke against material/consumerism
who am i
what is my purpose
what went wrong
where do i go from here
these questions are answered by the Christian worldview in a complete and non contradictory way
and the thing is whether your a stay at home mum, dying of cancer in hospital, running the country or starving in africa .. we all have a lifelong quest to answer these questions… as Christians we believe that we have answered these questions… the problem the church faces is how do we get our answers across to our neighbours when (in one sense) they seem to be speaking another language?
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
I agree, and to rail against something that is as natural to them as breathing is in my opinion not necessary. When they meet Jesus they will begin the journey towards understanding what truth truly is.
And I said before, and meant again for materialism to be taken as the scientific understanding that all that is true is what we can actually see and test. Not economic materialism, but the materialism that says that all that is true is observable.
rev
May 4th, 2007 at 9:16 am
^ ^ Rev, is that an American use of the term ‘materialism’? I had a look on the web, and it seemed to be used in American philosophy, but the term I’ve usually come across is ‘empiricism’? I haven’t really heard of materialism used in that sense (though I know now that it is), but more in the sense of economic materialism.
A bit off track I know, but I’m just curious!!
May 4th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Oh - and like your post at 62 - that’s pretty much where I’d situate myself, and why I get…really cross…when I hear fundies rail against the Evils of Postermodernism. Grrr…
May 4th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
whats your definition of fundamentalist Bec?
materialism and empiricism can be interchangable
Rev sorry as the above posts indicate it easy to mix both up even when your trying to be clear… one of my pet likes is the debate of Christianity against scientific materialism.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
abtruth…sorry, I was probably using “fundie” as a blanket term, not as a term of art…I guess I’m just referring to the many times I’ve been in a conservative church (evangelical or pentecostal) and have heard sermons on The Evils of Postmodernism.
I realise now that materialism and empiricism are interchangeable…and my curiosity and too much time in front of a computer this morning has lead me to believe that it’s a term used in philosophy - but i haven’t come across it in political philosophy, geography, sociology, law etc. Interesting. Another reminder of how lingo can blind.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
agreed.. you’ll find materialism in the philosophy of science generally as part of an epistemological assumtion that the material world is all there is or all that can be known.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
found a great link to spark debate from saints blog (dogfight at bnkstown)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm