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 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
interesting rev…if the speech was just about public support, then how sad that it worked.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
mn,
Still don’t get it I am sorry. How is the will to power relativistic. It is not just the moral relativist that seek power, infact church history is all about power, and the pursuit of power.
rev
April 29th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Rev
very often people do things or make decisions according to what they want and then make up the arguments to justify those actions and/or thoughts after the fact. The justification then becomes very relative to the decision/thought/desire of the individual and disconnected to what may “the truth” or the real story/facts.
If this is outside the context of what people are talking about here that’s fine - I can live with it. But again this is how I see individuals justifying sin, which then expands on a macro scale to communities, nations etc.
At the end of the day individuals holding to any morality/philosophy seek to justify their actions usually firstly with reference to that morality or philosophy and if that fails or is “not accepted” by reference to something else.
I see anything that is different from God’s truth which is used to justify actions/thoughts/desires (and in saying that I state up front most of us have varying ideas on that so I acknowledge the broad differences) as being moral relativism no matter what name we give it.
Cheers
MN
April 30th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Well MN, that may be your definition of relativism, but it isn’t the one we are working with here. Relativism would say that morals are shifting with circumstance and people. In other words what is morally true for you, might not be true for me, or might not be true for you later. What you are talking about is justification, but it doesn’t make morality flexible, it changes the system so that the concrete moral choice is now always moral.
The prosperity gospel is like that. These people do not say that well it might be right for you to be poor and me to be rich. They have twisted scripture until it says what they want, but they say it always says that. So God wants everyone to be prosperous, and if you are not prosperous you are outside of Gods will.
I hope that makes sense.
rev
April 30th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I don’t see how fascism necessarily implies moral relativism. George Bush would say that he deplores moral relativism - he seeks God’s will in every decision. This point of view taken to extremes can be just as fascist as moral relativism. Instead of “There is no God, so you have to do what I say”, it becomes “There is a God, He has appointed me, so you have to do what I say”
I think the tradition of the OT prophets in speaking to Kings has lead through the ages to the idea that the King is separate from God or the Law, and is not above the Law. I think this is the idea that stops us falling down the slope to fascism
Getting back to Wolf’s article, I thought it was really trying to make quite a stretch to get its 10 points of similarity. Not that I am making excuses for Bush and the neo-cons - I think they should be tried for war crimes. But from point 3 onwards you can tell she is straining to make them fit the pattern. To compare the Blackshirts and Brownshirts of Italy and Germany to the actions of one private security guard during Katrina is laughable. Oh yeah, but thats a NABA argument isnt it.
The issue should be debated, but lets have some reasonable arguments - I’m disappointed in Wolf.
April 30th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I thought that some of her points were stronger than others. I think her points regarding the dismantling of the rule of law (which oddly enough was one of the later ones) is certainly true. The article is obviously designed to be provocative and so on.
Likewise, in my analysis of the australian context, I wouldn’t say that we are heading towards fascism, but it is concerning.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Dan, her point 10 “Suspend the rule of law” is debatable. I’ve always had some problems with the concept of 50 different armies running around the country all under different command. So I dont see too many problems with the Federal executive assuming control in an emergency. The conditions under which martial law can be declared have been expanded slightly, but its not time to run for the hills yet.
I agree with you that the ideas of rule of law, due process etc. are being eroded both here and in the US. Mainly in how we treat non-citizens and how we are side-stepping obligations by clever legal arguments. The way that the US has made “enemy combatant” a new category, therefore avoiding the protections granted under the prisoner-of-war or criminal categories. How we “excised” bits off of Australia when we wanted to deny asylum seekers access to our rights and laws. All of this must eventually erode our own rights and protections - eg. I could declare that bit of land underneath your house no longer part of Australia and therefore you are a foreigner.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
You’re right warren, I notice that her “rule of law” thing was different (now that I go back to it). I also thought that her covert eavesdropping thing was a bit tiggy touch wood - I think we all suspect that particular citizens are placed under covert surveillance relatively often and have been for some time, even if the fruits of that surveillance will never be admissible. I don’t like it, but I don’t believe it is anything particularly new.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Rev
“How is the will to power relativistic. It is not just the moral relativist that seek power,”
in my understanding the ‘will to power’ as such really originated with the writings of Neitzche in ‘thus spoke zarathustra’ on the basis that ‘God’ was ‘dead’ (”we killed him” declared the madman) and that now with no moral obligations beyond ourselves we were free to invent our own morality and all that was left was the “will to power” that was the natural extension of that premise .. the superhuman will emerge and subjugate others to his will (obvious correlations to Hitler) rast forward to the extreme moral relativists of the last 50 yrs with Derrida and Focoult and to today with R Rorty and you will see the same pattern in thinking.
moral relativism means that cultures are allowed to decide moral imperitives for themselves without and accountability beyond themselves and their will to power, therefore if a society was morally relative it could vote that it is morally legal to take the life of an unborn child should the mother want to do so.. or we could decide that a certain section of society was not fit to live with us because of their ethnicity or religious afilliations or sexual orientations..
this is simplifying it of course as there is a radical form of individual moral relativism (which is really no morality at all) the logical extension of which would lead someone to be a sociopath with no moral accountability but to oneself
this is obviously a huge and complicated topic but of course you were correct in saying that non moral relativists have becoome dictators of the worst kind with different worldviews. having a different worldview doesnt mean that you cant be despotic but moral relativism will lead eventually to despotism.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
“there is a radical form of individual moral relativism (which is really no morality at all) the logical extension of which would lead someone to be a sociopath with no moral accountability but to oneself ”
This assumes people are logical.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
if people were really logical then we wouldn’t have the conversation on moral relativism
April 30th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
abtruth, the will to power is existent in man long before Nietzche glorified it in his writings. Infact it has been since the beginning, and is Satans sin. I think you have chosen the wrong battle my friend.
rev
May 1st, 2007 at 10:46 am
[…] The NABA defence » home […]
May 1st, 2007 at 11:20 am
on the contrary rev
the desire to be the arbitor or what is right and wrong (superscede the position of God) has been given legs in our culture throught moral relativism. in effect they are hard to distinguish from each other, moral relativism has given our culture the intellectual justification it desired to jettison the ancient myths of ‘God’ etc.. thus my belief that moral relativism (that justifies mans pride) is the most dangerous philosophy that is taking over western thought.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:28 am
How is that any more dangerous that the moral imperialism that has caused countless wars, and genocides? Seems like the only difference is that you think you have the “correct” interpretation of scripture, so your “eternal truth” is the right one.
If you have been looking at the threads on violence and money, you will see that even those with “absolute truth” cannot agree with just what that truth is. I would rather have relativity that the war mongering fundementalist doctrine of manifest destiny, as I would rather have relativity than the triumphalistic capitulation to consumerism that is called the prosperity doctrine.
rev
May 1st, 2007 at 10:06 pm
well i thought we were doing well till then rev
what the heck was that post about…?
i have never said that i am or have the absolute truth, i contend that absolute truth exists however.
what scriptures was i supposed to have been interpreting?
are you saying that truth is relative to individuals and that along with morality there is no overarching truth or standard that we should be adhering to? if so how do you come to the conclusion that i am wrong?
i thought i was being civil in my dialogue, you seem to have been offended by my arguing style somewhat, i am sorry rev that was not my intention.
if moral relativity is to be our belief system then we have no basis on which to condemn the moral imperialist or the war monger or the wife basher or the abortionist or even the purveyor of the prosperity doctrine
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Friedrich Nietzsche identified morality as an error, introduced to human thought through the concept of dualism and maintained through the church. He saw his life-long task, the revaluing of all values, as rescuing mankind from these errors. He envisioned a future where individuals acted naturally, using their full natural potential or will to power. He believed that mankind would progress and fulfil this potential only by starting to act naturally and instinctively according to each individual’s desires and drives. The Übermensch would represent the strong, powerful, natural and happy outcome. Happiness would naturally emerge, defined as “the feeling that power increases, that a resistance is overcome”. Nietzsche wanted to prepare the soil for mankind’s growth by “re-naturalising” human drives. Once we become free of morality (and, by association, of religion) he believed that the coming generations would grow unpolluted, free and strong.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:23 pm
btw .. i just discovered that Chuck Norris is a devout Christian… wow!
May 1st, 2007 at 10:24 pm
dude, what the hell are you talking about? I was just explaining my point of view, no emotion, just explaining how I don’t think either the relativist point of view, nor the absolute truth view has much real hope in relating to God or each other. The problem we come up with is truth is not a fact, or a position, or a theology, but rather a person, The Truth.
I find that moral relativism is not the problem, nor relativism in general. I find them more honest most of the time than those that think everything can be defined, and codified. I believe you have picked the wrong enemy. If you are going to fight against the postmodern generations, I say consumerism is way way way more destructive than relativism. If truth does exist, which I believe it does, a relativist is more likely to see and embrace it than someone who holds a contrary posistion within the modernist frame work.
I have no problem with you, nor your argueing style, I just disagree that this is that big of a deal.
rev
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Copy Rev
i probably put more into your statement
“Seems like the only difference is that you think you have the “correct” interpretation of scripture, so your “eternal truth” is the right one”
than you intended
i am very anti consumerist but i think we differ somewhat (can’t put my finger on it at the moment) on our understanding of its relation to relativism.
i would see a great correlation with moral relativism in its ‘define right and wrong for yourself as you (mankind) are the measure of all things’ and the basic concept of mans rebellion against God. Moral relativism is man wanting to be God in ones own life beholden to no outside authority… and thus the underlying problem which leads to societies ills of which consumerism is one manifestation…
maybe i can’t see the forest for the trees? any one else see where i am going wrong?
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
look bro, people are by nature going to find ways to justify their own sin, so whether they do it be relativism, or by making their own desires into eternal truth and back it up by the bible, it is still the same thing. I find that we need to focus on Jesus, He is the truth, getting into world views and modern vs postmodern just serves to distract from the real issues. I see Jesus moving just as powerfully in the truth is relevent camp, as in the other. My issue is the centrality of Jesus, and His teachings, I believe their truth transcends world views.
rev
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
hmm
i would have said that Christianity IS a world view
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:59 pm
There are Christians that would lean towards postmodernity, and those that would lean towards modernity, and even some that lean towards premodern thought. I believe that CHristianity at its best is a following of Jesus, the calls people of different world views to the Father.
rev
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:04 am
I agree with Rev - Christianity transcends world views. Just think - Christians have been following Christ since the first Century - and in every culture/nation of the world (well almost). Each one of these situations operate from a differing worldview - but people have been Christians, following Jesus within each of these world views.
It has been my observation that people who say they have a Christian world view, only hold a Christian interpretation of the particular world view they hold.
Perhaps you could say that Christianity is an ‘other-world’ view.
janet McKinney
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:01 am
Janet.. i think we are arguing the same point from different ends.
a lot hangs on how you would define a world view.
I would define the Christian world view as the only true world view that we should hold…
do we all hold it ? do I hold it ? no of course not .. not completely but i aim to do so and act in a way that is consistent with that world view.
those that have a postmodern world view should be aiming to leave behind postmodernism and take on the Christian world view
same for modernism or any other world view
to say though, that we can be Christians from different world views means that we have to hold mutually contradictory views on how the world works kind of believing that a square circle is possible
world views answer three basic questions
1 How did we get here (Creation)
2 What went wrong (Fall)
3 What is the answer (Redemption)
Now modernism answers these questions
A1 Evolutionary Forces unguided as a result of Chance v Time
A2 Lack of education/knowledge
A3 Science will be our saviour eventually curing all disease etc
Postmodernism answers these questions
A1 combination of evolutionary or polytheistic theories
A2 man tried to make sense and see meaning and truth in the world when there was none
A3 we break free from all claims to truth especially any sort of religious claims and realise that there is absolutely no meaning to life apart from meaning that you make for yourself
now Christianity answers these questions
A1 God created everything through his own power with meaning and purpose which incuded us (the exact mechanism of this creating isn’t important here)
A2 We rebelled against God and His purpose. We wanted to define truth for ourselves and be the authority for ourselves (contradicting entirely postmodernism in authority and modernism in the view of our lack of ability)
A3 Christ is the answer. We must realise that He is our source of meaning and our redemption from the predicament that we are in and that we must deny ourselves and follow him
You see that Christianity contradicts/subverts/revolutionises all other worldviews and shows that they are examples of our rebellious nature
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:17 am
in other words to take on the Christian world view they must first deny their previous world view, maybe gradually but surely
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 am
I would define the Christian world view as the only true world view that we should hold…
the trouble with that is that there are stil very many versions of what the so called Christian world view is or should be.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:14 am
I am not too sure about this -remembering my thinking is a constant work in progress!
In the beginning, a “Christian world view” was in fact a “Jewish world view”. Jesus and his disciples were fully Jewish, and saw life through that set of glasses - world view.
then God made it obvious that the gospel was to be extended to include the Greeks, and other non-Jews. Great debate ensued to say whether these new Christians should be instructed to take on a Jewish world view - and we all know the answer was NO. However, there were some instructions given about changing their previous culture in certain areas.
I think that the Gospel is here to redeem world views - not replaces them.
However, the three basic questions you say need addressing in a world view - I agree with. I believe that it is possible to hold to these three premises within a Postmodern / Australian Indigenous / Modern / any other worldview.
Yes it probably means that we are working from two different definitions of worldview - but fully agree on the basics.
Janet McKinney
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:17 am
absolutely greg.
But there are essentials to the Christian faith that the Church has held to for 2000 yrs
even if there are different versions this does not mean that they are all right - they can’t be..
the different versions must be backed up by evidence.. scriptural, logical, philosophical, physical and the view which makes the most sense of these in a correspondant and coherent way is orthodox ancient Christianity
of course we should not get thrown by arguements within Christianity on peripheral matters… remember the axiom
Unity in essentials
Liberty in non-essentials
Grace in all things
and of course the arguements should continue so that we can hold the truest course possible. Being attacked and having to justify our beliefs is a valuable thing.. imagine our government without an opposition?
But if a world view denies the concept of objective morality and the possibility of meaning being sourced from anything but ourselves, as postmodernism does, then this world view is condtradictory and mutually exclusive to the Christian world view and cannot be reconciled
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
The different versions MAY all be right - just that each one contains part of the total picture.
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.
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.
Dare I say - how the truth applies to me may be different to how it applies to you? That opens up a can of worms doesn’t it!!!
Janet McK
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
but abtruth, why then do you spend so much time and energy fighting against what is only a part of one particular world view? Why are you not attacking materialism (the scientific not economic versioin) which is at its very nature anti God? this is my point that you are picking the wrong battle. I actually believe that within a Christian world view, there are aspects of postmodernism, and modernism. To pick and choose aspects of either of these to be our “battle” is in my opinion distracting. And communicating within both of these world views the truth of Jesus, is of primary importance.
rev