Whats with these stupid memes about how simple it is to govern?

What is it with political conservatives that they seem to believe that all the big questions facing advanced 21st century economies can be reduced to simplistic homespun models with one or two variables, no assumptions, no ambiguities, no doubts etc.  In the 'real' world of national/state economies/societies there are real issues of competition, monopoly, scarcity, initial disadvantage, initial advantage, competing priorities, diverse views of positive outcomes, the role of debt to finance future growth, the role of society to protect its citizens (and thousands more).  Despite this impossibly complex environment consevatives believe all these intersecting and overlapping problems can be solved by ignoring them and instead applying a few primary school level logical situations.

For example, the task of determining the distribution of tax across people, trusts, companies, etc via direct and indirect means between people that earn essentially nothing and others that earn literally hundreds of millions of dollars a year is reduced to splitting up a beer tab.

Again, the task of figuring out how to best manage an economy of over 20 TRILLION dollars a year, involving half a billion 'players' (people/trusts/companies etc), that manages everything from the distribution of food stamps so that people can eat tomorrow through to conducting studies of what nuclear powered attack submarine will be ordered in 5 years time for delivery in 20 years is reduced to managing a household budget for a year.

Finally, the most recent one I've seen reduces the socio/political theory of 'socialism' which in its purist form requires hundreds of pages to explain and has been implemented in dozens (or even hundreds of different ways) to a single college lecturer refusing to give individual results and instead awarding everyone the class average.

I suspect there are three forces at work.

First is the basic conservative preference for the simple.  Note, I'm not saying conservatives ARE simple, I'm certainly not meaning to imply that they are in any way less intelligent, educated, aware etc than progressives.  However, as George Lakoff and others have often shown via studies, conservatives prefer a simple answer over a complex one, a yes/no over a maybe, a black/white over a bunch of grays.  So when confronted with reams of overlapping and often conflicting factors that cant be treated digitally but rather have to be balanced and nuanced they tend to simply discard them.

Secondly, I've found that for many conservatives the economy/society is personal and moral.  Its no coincidence that the richer people become the more selfish, this has been shown in any number of studies.  What also interesting are the pure numbers involved here, in the US for example the family that owns the WALMART chain (6 people) possess more wealth than the poorest 30% of amercians (100 million people).  When we are talking about the kind of conservatives with the money, time, energy and desire to devote resources to driving a media agenda (via the publishing of this pithy little economic parables for example) we are therefore generally discussing a relatively small group of people, conditioned by their wealth to be inward looking and in an economic/social position where the public and private, economic and moral become one and the same.

Finally, these stories are simply following a successful advertising/advertorial tradition.  Forget all the bullshit theorising, these methods of simplifyingto the point of silliness work as a form of advertising.  And make no mistake, that what these stories floating around the net are, advertising for a conservative point of view on whatever topic they are trying to win on.

Finally, Australia gets an ambassador from the US

Its been a little odd here in Oz lately, something has been missing but we couldnt quite quite put our finger on what it was, well now we've remembered, is a US Ambassador!

Ok, perhaps that's a little extreme and in reality only those of us who pay attention to these things noticed but still it has felt weird not having an ambassador from the US for quite some time. But the announcement is made and we are getting Jeff Bleich, described as Obama's Superman by The Australian.

If you want to read more about the guy go to The Australian article - its ok.

In short, it appears we have got another political appointtee rather than a career diplomat - and that's fine by me, why?

• First, governments face great embarrassment if a political appointtee screws up, therefore they are usually extra careful to send someone how might not have the exact experience but will be extraordinarily competent.

• Second, political appointees usually have direct access to high levels of government (also usually often based on mutual friendships with leaders) providing a unique opportunity to the country receiving the politicians mate. And finally,

• Third, political appointees fall into two camps, the comfortable retirement and the career advancement. Appointments to the Vatican and the Holy Sea are a reward for years of hard toil and a chance to see out your final years. The people sent there are usually in their late 60's and this will be there last job. Jeff Bleich is just 48 and in the middle of what appears a glittering career, he's a man going places. I cant see him swanning about the outback for a few years before retiring, I expect him to be looking to make his mark by doing something special. Given we aren't hiding any illegal nukes and turn up to all the right parties always wearing the right clothes I'm guessing that "something special" will be nice.

Welcome Jeff, glad to have you on board.

Australia takes one step closer to being what it should be

Today in Australia the government finally took away the punitive measure of actually charging asylum seekers for the pleasure of being detained in mandatory detention as covered here in The Age, in abolishing asylum seeker debt.

This measure was never about recouping the cost of detention, it was about making sure that people that tried to escape horrible places that were sent home would never be able return. You see, having a debt to the Commonwealth makes it impossible to apply for a visa. So imagine your kids got accepted as legitimate refugees but you got knocked back, then you got sent home with a quarter of a million dollar debt and could never return to see them.

That wasn't an accident - that was the entire aim of the plan.

It was evil and we are a better country with it gone.

The return of adverserial politicals or simply the empowerment of both sides

Michael Stutchbury writes in todays Australian that the new industrial relations laws of the current ALP government have ushered in the return of adversarial politics where workers and employers are pitted against each other.

I would tend to disagree.

Workers and employers are always pitted against each other. Every dollar that the boss pays a worker is one less dollar profit and one less in his own. Yes, yes, I hear all those people out there saying that it isnt a zero sum game and that good bosses will treat staff well to maximise growth and benefits for all. That is true - in part. While good bosses will treat their personnel well, they will only treat them as well as they have too, only as well as they are forced to.

So as important as mutual understanding and shared benefits may be, as real as the notion of long term growth is, that harsh truth is that each and every payday there is only so much money in the kitty and who gets what is decided by who has what power.

As someone who has never been able to join a union and always had to rely on the goodwill of his employer let me tell you that alone you have no power and your employer has it all. That the old union adage that together we bargain, alone we beg is true. And that while company profits are certainly maximised by stripping workers of all power to truly negotiate, giving workers some power through the ability to bargain collectively is the only path to a just workplace.

The release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi - my view

Frankly I'm ok with the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and dont really care what the Libyans do about his return.

The reason we have to win against terrorists isn't because we are Christian and they (usually) arent. Its not because we are white and they (usually) arent. It isnt because its us or them and anything is justified in self defence. In fact its really very simple - we have to win because our way is better, our way is good.

Our way, that of the liberal democratic west, believes in the rule of law, believes in mercy, believes in the individual and their right to be treated as an individual. These are all things our enemies either don't understand or if they do "get" them, cant abide. That's how these people are able to blow up a plane full on innocent people.

But we do 'get' these things. And, in theory, not only do we abide them, we celebrate them, we glory in them. And the recent decision by the Scots to release one of the worst criminals in the history of humanity in accordance with their laws and in the name of compassion is a clarion call to all of those who wonder if the war on terror is worth it.

It is and this is why.

That we can offer some compassion to someone who doesnt deserve it, that we can follow our laws even when its unpalatable, that we can consider this man as a man not as a political pawn to be used solely as a message is a testament to us. Its a celebration of how we can be great.

Its something I welcome with open arms.

Rudd, China and the importance of poise

Greg Sheridan, has a good little opinion piece on the recent handling of the Australia-China relationship by the Rudd government.

I agree with his basic thrust. That the current Australian government has been wise in playing a straight bat to China, not getting over-wrought, not stamping our feet and holding our breathe, but rather quietly pointing out our concerns with issues such as the Stern Hu arrest, steadfastly sticking to our guns over the issue of a visa to Rebiya Kadeer, and working to secure a huge natural gas sale.

China has an alien political culture to us. And, casting all relativism aside, a vastly inferior one. There is no other way to characterize that countries authoritarian government, opaque legal system, endemic corruption and massive poverty. Australia and China will often disagree. I think the wise course is the one we have taken. Call it principled pragmatism. Basically we simply acknowledge our differences, deal with them best we can while being true to our values, always be on guard and dont trust to much but find a way to do business.

Perhaps one thing we need to always remember - China needs us, perhaps as much as we need them. We need to hold our nerve, not let the bully sense fear and above all retain our poise.

Clubs NSW TV AD - a followup

Well, there's a first time for everything and today was the first time I got an "official" response to one of my blog posts - which is pretty cool (man does that make be sad or what?!?).

Anyway, a rep from Clubs NSW has sent me an extremely polite email pointing out my error and that there are in fact a number of references to people of other than an anglo-celtic background in their piece. Specifically,

• At the 20 second mark of the advertisement, there is a family dining together and enjoying a club meal who are of Asian background.

• At the 46 second mark, there is signage on a golf course that includes the words “Con’s Green”, “Raj’s Fairway” and “Raul’s Rough”

• At the 55 second mark, the names “Bella” and “Fatima” are shown in neon writing."

Ok, I've gone back, had a look and sure enough its all there. But if we look at the ad not so much as a text to be studied but rather as a method of communicating a message I thinks its still a concern that I drew the conclusion I did. Lets face it, if I, a fifth generation Australian of Irish heritage, has my radar send a warning signal I suspect many others also felt a little disquiet with the ad.

So clubs NSW - I was wrong, there is a place for 'the others' at your venues. Hey, maybe I'm the only person out there whose had this reaction and there's something worng with me. But, if I'm not wrong, and if you've had this reaction from other people, you might want to think about how you advertise in future.

The importance of a free society

I hate Kyle Sandilands and everything he stands for, which appears to be the glory of standing for nothing. I think the world would be a better place if he vanished into obscurity and was never heard from again.

But I dont believe he should be sacked - yet.

And I absolutely dont believe he should be taken off the air by some sort of government agency.

The beauty of a free society is that the same freedoms that give us The Chaser at one end of the spectrum and Four Corners at the other unfortunately mean that we are stuck with cretins like Sandilands. In a rare thing I actually find myself agreeing with David Penberthy of the Australian when he calls for Kyle to be allowed to keep his job.

I dont want the radio station that employs Sandilands to take action! I dont want the Government to take action! I want us to take action! I want us, the people, the masses, the citizens to say that there are standards and we care about something even if he doesnt. And the action I want us to take is very simple, I'd like people to simply turn off. I want people to simply walk away from Sandilands and leave him to wallow alone.

I suspect it wont happen, I suspect that there are enough cretins to listen to him that he will stay famous. But I so hope I'm wrong.

Restricting the vote - my theory

I'm 42 years old and everyday I still wake up to find I'm smarter than I was yesterday. I know more, I understand what I know much better, I know my limitations and I have a clue how to work around them. Everyday I look back at work I've done in the past, whether that's 5 years or 5 weeks and think "How did I write that?, How was I so ignorant and simplistic?" Going further I find myself wondering, if I get a little more knowledgeable and a little wiser everyday how dumb was I when I was twenty something?

And this goes to the core of my problem with the idealization of youth and in particular the insane notion of giving people under the age of 18 the vote.

In the main people don't really fully develop their moral sense until their late teens, brain development doesn't stop until their mid to late twenties so why would we actually go out of our way to give people, clearly still in the process of becoming adults the single most important right most of them will ever use, the right to elect a government? In fact I'd like to go further, how about we raise the voting age until something like 21.

Better still how about we throw some other requirements in as well. These would be some of mine:

a. You cant vote until you have a job and earn at least 80% of your disposable income yourself. People with trust funds, inheritances, allowances etc need not apply.

b. You cant vote until you've moved out of home and been responsible from running a household. If you live at home and mummy and daddy take care of you how can you be trusted to have a say in the running of the country.

In addition to controlling who can vote at all, I also think we need to control whose vote counts. This would be pretty simple. On the back of the ballot would be a test with simple questions relating to some of the key issues of the day at the time of the election. So using an example from one of the more shameful parts of Australia's past it could be something like:

Under the UN convention for refugees (to which Australia is a signatory), people seeking asylum are required to stop:

a. at the first country outside their own,
b. at a country in their region,
c. at a country similar in race, religion and/or political system like their own, or
d. only when they feel safe.

or alternatively

Last year the number of asylum seekers arriving at Australia by boat was closest to:

a) 500
b)2500
c)5000
d)20000

Have just (say) four questions and make them absolutely factual with no room for interpretation. Get two wrong and your vote isn't counted. Really this seems pretty obvious, if you simply don't know anything about the key issues of an election why should you get the ability to impose your ignorance on others?

Ok, clearly none of this is going to happen, and on mature reflection I'm not even sure it should but it would be nice to think of a government actually elected by people who had some grasp on reality.

I'm a left social libertarian - sounds about right

Facebook - gotta love it. One of the most inane aspects of all social networking sites are the quizes, polls and games. And yet, every now and then one comes along I'm motivated to try. This political views quiz is one that caught my fancy. Here are the results.

My Political Views
I am a left social libertarian
Left: 5.4, Libertarian: 3.73

Political Spectrum Quiz


So what did I say to get there? Well I hate the idea of abortion but I hate the idea of governments forbidding it more. I think that markets are wonderfully efficient but also essentially amoral (at best) so in need of regulation and their more egregious tendencies controlled. While progress is great only a fool could ignore that all change creates losers and I think its only fair that those who benefit from things entirely outside their control (like their inherent skill and abilities) should shoulder some of the burden for those who suffer from things totally outside their control. I believe in morality and want people to do the right thing, even think its fine for us to judge those people, but its never ok to try and enforce our will on people.

The Australian medical system, ok but could be spectacular

Interestingly, considering yesterdays post, there are some issues of policy where the consequences of 'mere' inefficiency are so grievous that they can elicit a visceral response. One of those is health care.

I'm not going to write a great deal on that right now but I will over the next little while. However, I will point out that although I approach the problem from a very different point of view to Tony Abbott, a man with whom I share almost no ideological common ground, I actually think he might be on to something here when he suggests getting the government out of the health services business.

Politics - the intellectual vs the visceral

My interest in politics comes in two flavours, the intellectual and the visceral.

The intellectual interest is that part of me that says I could do this better, or with less ego, that this could be done better. This makes we what to be involved in politics but it lacks the urgency to turn the vague desire into something more concrete.

The visceral interest is that part of me that says we must do this better because the way we are doing it now is evil. This visceral urge turns a vague desire into real action.

Because governments, even nice ones in relatively honest first world western liberal democracies, can be evil. In the Australian context I believe the Howard government had some policies that were essentially evil. I am not using that word lightly, the willing fanning of racist fears, the imprisoning of children as a deterrent, and a range of other policies were, by any of my moral measures - EVIL. These were the things that turned me from a passive voter to an active citizen involved in politics, ultimately joining the Australian Labor Party and even running for council as a Labor member in local government elections.

But Howard has gone and my visceral urge is missing and so I'm wondering if I can find my desire to get involved in politics again.