Ghettos of the Mind
Charles Richards
Herald Site.
NAMING THE ELITES
Ghettos of the mind: who are `the elite' and why does
everyone hate them?
By Don Arthur
Quick quiz - which of the following Australians is a
member of
'the elite'?
a) John Howard
b) Kerry Packer
c) Kylie Minogue
d) Rose Porteous
e) Hugh Mackay
John Howard has power, Rose Porteous has wealth, Kerry
Packer has wealth and power and Kylie has fame.
Obviously
none of them qualify as members of the elite. Anyone
who
keeps up with public life in Australia knows that the
only correct
answer is `e'. In this list only Hugh Mackay, newspaper
columnist and opinion research, counts as a member of
the
elite.
The elite may be wealthy and famous but neither wealth
or
fame are defining characteristics. What is important is
that no
member of the elite is responsible for exercising power
-
instead they take on the role of criticizing those that
are. Paul
Keating was once a target of elite criticism as the
hated
architect of economic rationalism. Now that he's left
political
office he has joined their ranks.
The elite are educated, well connected and have access
to the
media. They use their access to sit in judgement on the
morality of those in power and of the general public.
The term
`'elite' is a mocking one - a bit like calling the
fattest guy in the
office `Slim'. The elite are often said to be `self
appointed' and
the label draws attention to their supposed assumption
of
moral superiority.
The classic indictment of the `elite' mindset was
written in the
late 1940s by American public intellectual Arthur
Schlesinger
Jr. In his book The Vital Center Schlesinger criticized
an
intellectual type he called `Doughface progressives'.
According
to Schlesinger the Doughface preferred impotence to
responsibility, rhetoric to action and myth to reality.
"The weakness of impotence is related to a fear of
responsibility - a fear, that is, of making concrete
decisions
and being held to account for concrete consequences.
Problems are much simpler when viewed from the office
of a
liberal weekly than when viewed in terms of what will
actually
happen when certain ideologically attractive steps are
taken.
``Too often the Doughface really does not want power or
responsibility. For him the more subtle sensations of
the
perfect syllogism, the lost cause, the permanent
minority,
where lie can be safe from the exacting job of trying
to work out
wise policies in an imperfect world.
``Politics becomes, not a means of getting things done,
but an
outlet for private grievances and frustrations. The
progressive
once disciplined by the responsibilities of power is
often the
most useful of all public servants; but he, alas,
ceases to be a
progressive and is regarded by all true Doughfaces as a
cynical New Dealer or a tired Social Democrat.
"Having renounced power, the Doughface seeks
compensation in emotion. The pretext for progressive
rhetoric
is, of course, the idea that man, the creature of
reason and
benevolence, has only to understand the truth in order
to act
upon it.
``But the function of progressive rhetoric is another
matter; it
is, in Dwight MacDonald's phrase, to accomplish "in
fantasy
what cannot be accomplished in reality." Because
politics is for
the Doughface a means of accommodating himself to a
world
he does not like but does not really want to change, he
can find
ample gratification in words. They appease his twinges
of guilt
without committing him to very drastic action.
``Thus the expiatory role of resolutions in progressive
meetings. A telegram of protest to a foreign
chancellery gives
the satisfaction of a job well done and a night's rest
well earned.
The Doughfaces differ from Mr. Churchill: dreams, they
find,
are better than facts.
``Progressive dreams are tinged with a brave purity, a
rich
sentiment and a noble defiance. But, like most dreams,
they
are notable for the distortion of facts by desire."
Schlesinger was a tough minded anti-communist liberal
who
had once worked for the CIA's predecessor - the Office
of
Strategic Services. He despised the shallow and
short-sighted
politics of America's business elite as well as that of
left
leaning journalists. He believed that communists should
never
be trusted and that totalitarianism, left or right, fed
on fear and
uncertainty.
Schlesinger argued that the Doughfaces failed to
recognize
how ruthless the enemy would be - that only tough
minded
pragmatism and a willingness to get your hands dirty
would
keep the nation secure and justify hope for the future.
To
Schlesinger the Doughfaces were weak both
intellectually and
morally and he was convinced that they would end up as
the
pawns of America's totalitarian enemies.
Schlesinger admired leaders who were prepared to be as
ruthless as their adversaries - who weren't deluded
about the
good intentions of their opponents. But at the same
time he
wanted leaders to exercise strong moral leadership. He
did not
believe that politics ought to be primarily about the
pursuit of
power. It was about getting things done rather than
symbolic
gestures, anxiety over identity or the cultivation of a
clear
conscience.
Most criticisms of Australia's elite consists of
variations on the
same themes - pragmatism versus idealism,
responsibility
versus deliberate impotence, realism versus mythology
and
healthy cynicism versus naivety. The criticisms are
fuelled by
irritation at a group whose moral purity seems to come
at no
personal cost - citizens who claim the right of free
speech but
will not support the actions needed to protect a free
society
from its enemies.
Moralistic critics can shed the elite tag only through
some overt
display of pragmatic toughness. George Orwell took a
bullet in
the neck while fighting fascists in Spain while
Christopher
Hitchens denounced `Islamic Fascism'. In a piece for
the
Guardian Hitchens claimed that Islamic terrorists
weren't
making legitimate complaints about the US but were
attacking
exactly the things that western liberals ought to be
fighting to
protect - rights for women, scientific inquiry and the
separation
of church and state.
Both Orwell and Hitchens earned credit because they
were
willing to alienate themselves from others in the `left
leaning
elite.' Orwell denounced Stalinists, ridiculed sandal
wearing
vegetarians and took a bleak view of human nature.
Hitchens
refused to see September 11 as "the chickens coming
home
to roost" and instead turned on left wing moralizers
like Noam
Chomsky.
Members of the elite might complain that they receive
death
threats, dead animals and lumps of gift wrapped shit in
the mail
- but that kind of martyrdom doesn't count. To deflect
criticism
an elite member with an interest in foreign policy
needs to be
dishing out threats of violence or, better still,
participating acts
of violence against the nation's enemies and fellow
travellers.
In the field of domestic policy Indigenous leader Noel
Pearson
dealt himself out of the elite by denouncing Aboriginal
welfare
dependency. Pearson was playing political hardball,
using a
pragmatic strategy designed to prise extra resources
out of a
conservative electorate and its government. He knew
he'd cop
criticism from other Indigenous leaders and their
supporters.
Critics of the elite see them as adolescent parasites.
The elites
call for a more just distribution of resources but they
refuse to
produce - they despise business. They demand an end to
military action but benefit from the peace, security
and
prosperity that military force guarantees. They
denounce the
`invasion' of Australia but make no effort to return to
where they
came from or move to turn their quarter acre blocks
over to the
nation's original inhabitants. Critics argue that the
elites are
always complaining and making demands on citizens who
are
prepared to do the dirty work but are never willing to
get their
own hands dirty.
On this view the elitist is like someone who says "I'm
not a
vegetarian but if I had to kill pigs myself I'd never
eat bacon."
The elites would never risk offending their moral
sensibilities by
declaring war, polluting the environment or protecting
our
borders. However they seem content to enjoy all the
benefits
these morally objectionable activities make possible.
The dispute between the so called elites, those who
exercise
power and those who side with them is rooted in the
increasing
professionalization and division of labour in societies
like
Australia. Few Australians join political parties -
politics is now
the preserve of despised professionals. Most citizens
will never
serve in the military - today's armed forces would not
even
know how to deal with compulsory national service. And
many
Australians can go their whole lives being paid by the
government, never having to enter the sordid world of
commerce.
This professionalization breeds mutual contempt. Those
who
manage the public purse despair of having a sensible
conversation with people who want to abolish the GST
and
massively increase government spending. Business people
are frustrated by those who want to increase their tax
burden
but will never share in the job of producing goods and
services
for export. And those who provide taxpayer funded
social
services are sick of criticism from citizens in
affluent suburbs
who have no idea of the level of unmet need in the
community.
Everyone is convinced the others aren't listening, that
they
don't understand and don't care. There's a lot of talk
about
ethnic ghettos but right now most of us seem to be
retreating
into ideological ghettos. We seek out the company of
people
whose lives are similar to our own and whose values and
beliefs reflect ours. And when other voices drown out
our own
we stand on a soap box and announce that we're leaving
the
country.
A similar pattern emerged in the United States during
the late
1960s and 70s. A number of Americans on the left
announced
that their critics had been right - that their beliefs
and values
really were un-American and that it was time for them
to get
out. As former student radical Todd Gitlin wrote:
"A sympathetic though critical onlooker, someone
possessed
of a large and not punitive vision, might have
discerned the
rage of the rejected child pleading to be let in and
loved - a plea
that America be refashioned, in fact, so an outsider
might find
an honourable place. But the populace who recoiled were
not
large of vision. Their Americanness was too narrow, too
resentful, too negative itself to permit commiseration
with
rebels"
So if you're a self-confessed member of the elite and
you're
talking about leaving don't expect anyone to beg you to
stay -
that's not going to happen. But if you're looking for
largeness of
vision in Australian politics you'll need to stick
around. We need
your help to build it.
Stan Pierce
I saw Malcolm Frazer this evening pleading for both sides of politics to
regain lost compassion and show it towards boat people.
I wonder if he has developed a sense of fairness and responsibility in his
old age through guilt. I vividly remember that day he divided this country
into almost civil war.
Now, am I observing the behaviour of him as an elite....or...am 'I' acting
like an elite. The valuation of another's behaviour is subjective according
to a point of view. Who or what is the arbiter?
Stan Pierce.
Charles Richards wrote in message <3BF60153...@yahoo.com.au>...
tjlim
grow old.
"Stan Pierce" <spi...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:dduJ7.344886$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Tristan Jones
> It looks like he has grown wiser as he grows older against many who just
> grow old.
Fraser will not be remembered for presiding over a golden age like
John Howard will and many Australians do not give a rats arse about
him :-)