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?
April 27th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Well this blog is officially no longer a Hill$ong bashing-gay suportting-Homer deriding web site; it is now a politically rightwing-john howard loving-kevin rudd hating-spoof of a web site.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
‘NABA’ - hadn’t heard that expression as a ‘group’ of excuses before (although it’s presence has long been in evidence within SP.)
I guess it points us in a similar direction (I might be squinting here!) to the discussion on Wed & Thur re the ‘lesser of 2 evils’.
That is, this mob did that (which is bad) but is NABA what they did (which is worse).
I guess it’s pointing increasingly to moral framework by relative positioning…
April 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
NABA?
SP?
IMGTISALOBS!
April 27th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I actually like it quite useful to identify metanarratives in the way that people engage. The fear of the other that I talk about above, is another expression of the girardian hypothesis of scapegoating that we have discussed here before (see here for an example.
Likewise, we often see the “NIMBY” (Not In My Back Yard) arguments which come out when talking about introducing necessary but for many people undesirable infrastructure such as prisons, drug treatment facilities, tips or prostitution zones.
In my opinion the global political climate is such these days that people exploit these ideas or ways of thinking to achieve political ends.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I May Get Together In Sweden And Lose Orbit Behind Shed?
What on earth are you talking about Stump?
April 27th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I took it as a misspelling of
OMG This Is Such A Lot Of Bull Shit, which I took to be a little unwarranted.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
We can talk about the NABA defence, but Wolf’s article is essentially a TJNG argument (”This is just like Nazi Germany”). Anyone can invoke TJNG to argue against anything eg.
P1 : You have a tatoo
P1 : The Nazis used tatoos - this is just like Nazi Germany
P1 : Therefore you are as evil as the Nazis
P2 : No - I’m not as bad as the Nazis
P1 : A ha, the NABA logical fallacy
April 27th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Almost word perfect - Oh my Goodness (not the other G word) this is such a load of male bovie urea…and I was refferring to the propensity toward achronims -not the contents of your wordy though eloquent post!
Sheesh, you lawyers get antsy real quick dontcha?
And how was it a misspelling?
April 27th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Ah…don;t worry =- IMG instead of OMG - prize poontz I am!
April 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Seriously dude, did they really let you procreate?
rev
April 27th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Warren, yeah I agree with you on one level, which is why I pointed out that it is easy to point at one bad thing and proclaim that the sky is falling. But it is different I think when you are pointing out a range of different factors which are working together.
I also make this point. The whole thing about rule of law and due process is kind of like free speech. It only means something if you apply it to the people that don’t deserve it. That is what gives us all as citizens the security that we cannot be unfairly railroaded, imprisoned or even tortured for something that we didn’t do or (in the case of Hicks) which was not a crime at the time that the act was committed. And it is a touchstone - the sort of thing that we have traditionally pointed to as setting ourselves apart from the heathen nations who aren’t good guys like us.
So there you go - it is a INS (Is Nothing Sacred) - argument.
April 27th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
urea = chemical found in urine, not faeces.
/pedant
April 27th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
male bovine extretia then!
In all seriousness though, many of the worlds attrocities have been allowed to occur becuse people ahve started off with the idea that such and such is not as bad as whatever - Bombing them is NABA them flying into our buildings etc
April 27th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
At the risk of violating Godwin’s law yet again in this thread, the book Hitler’s Willing Executioners is an interesting part of this argument. The author argues that the ordinary non-Jewish population of Germany were on the main willing accomplices in the genocide rather than merely bystanders. I don’t know whether I agree with this thesis, but I think that the NABA excuse is potentially a very strong one. Hmm, more thoughts later.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:15 am
yeah dan the population of Germany were culpable… they voted him in and cheered him all the way to 1944. and they knew exactly what he was on about in the movies the goebbels (sp?) produced, his speeches (you can find translations on the net) and in mein kampf.
forget Naomi Wolfs ministrations though.. moral relativism is far far more dangerous and inevitably leads to fascism.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:27 am
“moral relativism is far far more dangerous and inevitably leads to fascism.”
Do you have other examples of this?
This is a big claim… but isn’t “moral relativism” a pretty recent phenomenon, historically speaking, within a particular society? How do you know it’s inevitable?
April 28th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
although the assertion by Protagoras (c. 481 – 420 BC) that “man is the measure of all things” provides an early philosophical precursor to modern relativism .. moral relativism as a worldview was really started by such philosophers as Heidegger and Nietzsche (Heidegger was a great influence on Hitler, although he later tried to modify his support for Hitler and was put under surveillance) and Hitler was of course greatly influenced by Nietzsches moral relativism which was the logical extension of his belief in the non-existence of God
basically we can say that fascism is terrible but what is the basis of fascism that makes it so? it is the belief that there are no moral absolutes and that one can decide moral truth for themselves,
Fascism is totally underpinned by moral relativism
once you have swallowed this belief then society is ripe for manipulation and guidance from a Hitler.. Neitzches ’superman’
“In the Judeo-Christian value system, God is the source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion. Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards. But once individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one’s preferences. ” Dennis Prager
“Erase all thought and fear of God from a community, and selfishness and sensuality would absorb the whole man.” William McGuffey
If it is up to us to decide (rather than discover) right and wrong, then there is no difference between Mother Theresa’s morality and Adolf Hitler’s morality. Hitler was not evil; he just had preferences different from our own.
It is impossible to live as a moral relativist. As C.S. Lewis points out, a person who claims there is no objective morality will complain if you break a promise or cut in line. Do you think stealing stereos is wrong? Well, that’s just your view. My morality says it’s perfectly acceptable. Who are you to force your views on me?
Moral relativists have only themselves as their guide for moral oughtness. They are thier own arbitors of wrong and right. Someone who could truly live this way would be a socio-path, the policemans worst nightmare.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I would say there have been very many religious people, that were definately not moral relativists that became facist rulers as well. They think that God chose them to be the leader, and all must bow before them.
In my opinion, it is not relativism but the will to power that brings about facism.
rev
April 28th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
i would say the will to power is relativistic in its underpinnings … in fact a natural extension of it.
your first paragraph? does a dictator have to be facist? i can think of christian dictators (14thC kings of europe) but no Christian fascist leaders. there are of course some weirdo blends in the deep south that take inspiration from Hitler of course
April 28th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Hitler called himself a Christian…we may disagree but he definitely aligned himself with Christ and drew much inspiration from Luther’s anti-semetic ravings.
April 28th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
No he didn’t Emma, he expressed extreme disdain for Christianity being influenced by Nietzche
rev
April 28th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Emma I think you are on the wrong track there.
read the book by Wolfgang Benz. A concise history of the Third Reich ( I think).
April 28th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
abtruth - how is the will to power relativistic?
forgive me if I’m being stupid, but I’m struggling to see how the desire for power, and moral relativism, are particularly closely related…
April 28th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
yeah I don’t get it either, sounds like you are saying everything you don’t like is therefore relativistic otherwise you would like it.
rev
April 28th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Hitler said this in a speech on April 12, 1922 (Norman H Baynes, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 22-August 1939, Oxford University Press 1942).
“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter….as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood if vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison…as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people”.
I’m not saying he was a Christian, but that speech is pretty interesting. Also a good indication of maybe how we shouldn’t use the “violence in the temple” example to justify other kinds of violence.
April 28th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Well that speech is very different from other things I have read that basically say Hitler was very antagonistic towards Christianity, and considered him a messiah to the aryan people.
I find it very very interesting,
rev
April 28th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
yes me too…but then considering a lot of German Christians supported Hitler, it may have been just a vote winner, I guess. And as we have been debating in the other post, a good example of how using that particular scripture to justify violence - and get other Christians on board with your views - is so dangerous and wrong.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Great post Dan.
Could I add a couple more:
1.Appropriation of religion by the state
Archbishops for GG;government financing of the church,never has the church been so dependent,so incorporated into government -schools,community services,employment services,family planning,legal centres,health clinics etc etc;public institutions such as state services to the unemployed contracted out to churches;churches as govt election launches-Sydney Wesley,Perth Pentecostal etc;prayer as an alternative to rational water policy;strong support for national Days of Thanksgiving(no coincidence why Howard would give this support when that day falls on the same day as Sorry Day!!churches never learn)funding of clergy/chaplains in public schools and clergy officers in the army;and the church wedged as govt picks and choose between churches for policy support eg church involvement in drug policy(primary policy officer a Salvo),leading church people in Fair Wage Commission,CEO of Mission Australia provides rationale for the closure of employment services and his agency immediately picks up millions of dollars in contracted out services, etc
2.Glorification of the Warrior
Complicity in deception to ensure the invasion of Iraq;redefining/revising/rebadging Anzac day;heritage listing of battle sites(the only thing that stopped this were the govts of turkey and france!! but they were listed any way as significant heritage sites!);male rituals of death and burial,with women in their place eg Kovco fiasco; state funerals for the old diggers-men- but nary a one for an old female digger!;and defence spending at an all time high when there has never been so few wars.
Re the issue of the church and Hitler:NB Hitler incorporated the church at almost every level;Oberammergau was a Nazi pilgrimage.NB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_Religion
April 28th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Hitler may in public have claimed to be doing the will of God, but records of his private conversations show otherwise. Many of these were recorded by his secretary and published in a book called Hitler’s Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953). I have lifted the text of these from the soc.religion.christian newsgroup’s Hitler FAQ. Night of 11th-12th July, 1941
“National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. “Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday
“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday
“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. “Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. “…the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. “Christianity the liar…. “We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.” (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night
“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.”
21st October, 1941, midday
“Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…. “The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation…. “Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.” (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight
“Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. “When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.” (p 118-119)
14th December, 1941, midday
“Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself…. “Pure Christianity– the Christianity of the catacombs– is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics.” (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner
“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.” (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday
“It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie.” “Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .” (p 278)
April 28th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Bec
“how is the will to power relativistic?” I would say it is intrinsically so for just every person I know. How many people decide or do what they want and then come up with the reasons to justify what they want? I can’t think of anything more relative.
Cheers
MN