The most amusing outcome of the 2020 summit has undoubtedly been the spectacle of Alexander Downer, grandson of Sir John Downer, son of Sir Alexander Downer, old boy of Geelong Grammar, former Director of the Australian Chamber of Commerce, former Foreign minister, now enjoying retirement on full salary at the expense of the Australian taxpayer, denouncing the participants as “elites”.
Of course, Downer has been backed up by his leading rival in the “anti-elitist” toffee-nosed snob stakes, Professor David Flint.
The full phrase was “Keating loving elites” which is indication of how thoroughly culture warriors like Downer are stuck in refighting the battles of the past*. A substantial proportion of those attending the Summit were too young to have any significant recollection of Keating, and a substantial portion of the rest were not Keating-lovers by any stretch of the imagination. The only time I heard Keating’s name mentioned was in the context of a recommendation to see Keating! The Musical which came from a friend and colleague with impeccable conservative credentials.
* Of course, Downer has done his best to traduce the memory of every Labor leader in history, most notably John Curtin.
John Quiggin 
Even allowing for the fact that Downer was doorstopped at a monarchist function to make these comments, it will have repercussions in the Lib camp. Brendon hardly matters but I’d suggest we wait for Sen Heffernan or George Brandis to let fly if given the chance.
It’s somewhat surprising just how readily various politicians and pundits have jumped on the whole anti-elitism bandwagon. Even Harry Clarke, who generally writes conveys his conservative viewpoints very sensibly, couldn’t resist having a go at the summit attendees for being “elites”, despite being himself just as much a part of Australia’s public intellectuals.
My only issue with the Summit in this regard was relevance.
I think it’s a fair point to suggest that the Governance stream is not represntative of broader Australia when 99% of those in the room voted to support a republic. Australia hasn’t shifted that far in 10 years; I can gaurantee that if a referendum were held next week that Republicanism wouldn’t achieve 99% of the popular vote.
I support a republic, but I think the whole process needs to be viewed with some cynicism.
A note on PCness and the culture wars; when I was in primary school, Paul Keating was Prime Minister; I think I was in year 6 when John Howard became Prime Minister. I distinctly remember the dominance that political correctness played when I was younger. I like the fact that I haven’t really heard the words “political correctness” in the past 10 years, when before that period you’d hear them every day.
Today people can say whatever the hell they like, without being branded backwards, bigotted, or racist. I much prefer the way things are now. Normal, everyday Australians can feel comfortable with themselves; they don’t have to feel guilty for having and expressing their natural viewpoint.
The issue is that I have a sneaking feeling that the 2020 Summit would have been a little microcosm of PC-ness; I obviously don’t know for sure because I wasn’t there.
And I suppose that’s the real rub. If I had applied, I would have been denied involvement; so by definition the summit was somewhat “elitest”.
“I like the fact that I haven’t really heard the words “political correctnessâ€? in the past 10 years,”
This is the reverse of the truth. The term “political correctness” was only imported to Australia about 10 years ago, from the US culture wars, and was used incessantly in the Howard years. Google will produce thousands of Australian examples if you look, and I’m pretty sure you’ll find it in Downer’s own statement.
The term “politically correct” was never used by the Australian left, even ironically (the equivalent phrase here was “ideologically sound”. It was and remains an import from the American right.
Alrighty, lol. It’s just my apparently poor understanding of my experience of Australian society. As I stated above, my feeling is that in the Keating years, there was a certain elitism present to the extent that ordinary people weren’t free and open to display conservative viewpoints (as these were seen as “backwards” etc.); while in the last 10 years, the reverse has been the case.
Cheers
“The only time I heard Keating’s name mentioned was in the context of a recommendation to see Keating! The Musical”
The send up of Downer in this show is itself worth the price of admission.
Downer is such a dill.
Personally, I do not have a problem with elites. As a society we have no problem with sporting elites, for example cricket players.
An odd feature of Australian elites is that they tend to believe in the egalitarian myth, which just goes to show how valuable myths can be.
Still I think a useful distinction can be drawn between the overly privileged and the elite. Of course, the privileged category draws a wider circle, and that is why I was particularly taken with the suggested idea of using community service to pay off HECS debt.
And I am at a loss to understand why Our ABC sent a crew to cover Downer’s non-event of a speech and led the evening news bulletin with it.
Correct Steve Hamilton. During the Keating years, whenever an ordinary Australian expressed a conservative opinion they were carted off the to gulag. It was truly frightful; I lost many relatives that way.
So much more relaxing and comfortable in 2008! Little Lord Downer going girlishly all the way with Dirty Dick Cheney and the Whitehouse gang no longer need drag the whole country’s reputation down with him. LOL
The best way to get that stupid smirk off Downer’s face would be to put him in the dock.
He still hasn’t properly accounted for the AWB scandal, let alone his close ties to the neo-conservatives and their friends in the US military-industrial complex which (you will have notice) has been busily investing $$$ in Adelaide over the last 5 years.
It was in somebody’s interests to have a buffoon like this serving as Foreign Minister for a record 11 years, but it certainly wasn’t in the Australian public’s interest.
Dunno really if the sarcasm is totally necessary? I consider myself to be centre-right in most areas (but wouldn’t consider myself to be conservative re. social issues) and have viewed this blog for a while; I have contributed of late because I thought people would like to hear from a contributing and often opposing voice.
I think this is why more people don’t contribute; there’s just such a strong ideological current running through this that pretty much sweeps everyone without the right kind of raft away. I’m not crazy intelligent, I’m not part of the “elite”, etc. But I was just giving my perspective on my experiences through life. I’m not suggesting that I have the answers, but I wouldn’t minds some respectful and considered responses.
Cheers
Flint and Downer were I think responding mainly to the decisions of the governance panel.
The vote for a republic within the governance panel was 29 in favour and 1 abstention. The former governor-general Sir William Deane abstained from voting on the plan. It was essentially a 100% return supporting a republic.
But divisions on the issue of the role of the monarchy in Australia remain divided – in a preceding post only 42% are were revealled to be in favour in 2007.
If the word ‘elite’ is too emotional for the purposes of a dignified blog discussion substitute the word ‘unrepresentative’. The reps may have been the ‘best and brightest’ but their critics Flint and Downer came closest to representing the views of most Australians and were justified in criticising the obvious unrepresentativeness of the Summit Show decisions.
Just on reading Steve Hamilton’s post about the term “political correctness” and John Quiggin’s response: I am fairly certain the term has been used in Australia well prior to the commencement of the Howard government. It was definitely an import as John says, but I reckon we were mocking it in or around 1990. I haven’t checked it but I suspect that “The Australian” viewspaper was the original culprit for introducing the term to the elite-lite class in Australian society <:-0
Hope you don’t mind me saying so, John, but aren’t you a touch aged to have attended what sounds like the Youth Summit?
This is gold.
hc I would prefer to keep to the reference meaning of elite, as in sporing elite, so it is not surprising the Ideas Summit was unrepresentative gathering.
We do not, for example, expect that the Captain of the Australian team should come from the Premier State, although obviously he should.
But if monarchism is such a good idea, aside from the status quo and historical baggage, I wish it proponents would make the case, which if I am not mistaken assumes some notion of social elitism.
Yeh, in the Keating years conservative ideas didn’t get much of a run. Well, except for the endless discussions of Hewson’s GST and its impact on birthday cakes on A Current Affair for a few months. And Dolly’s policy launch as leader, where he wisecracked about his domestic violence policy being about “the things that batter.”
Maybe conservative ideas didn’t get much run because the people mouthing them were such patently nitwitted nincompoops. In the end it took a relative genius from an Ipswich fish shop to show them how to do it. Yes, I thanked the Lord in heaven after her maiden speech in 1996, when I could finally throw off the yoke of PC-oppression and start talking openly and proudly about the yellow peril and those lazy natives again. Broadening the debate in that direction was just the shot in the arm Australia needed!
“If the word ‘elite’ is too emotional for the purposes of a dignified blog discussion”
It’s not too emotional. It’s too silly, at least as its being used in these criticisms.
Steve; thanks for the contributions, and don’t let Lord Sir Alexander “Dolly” Downer (LSADD) get you down; I reckon the sarcasm is usually more a satirical poke at Downer himself than a savage attack on comments from others. Either way, I like to think of LSADD as the recurring character who pops up in conversations here in the same way a sketch show may have a particular parody sketch crop up every now and then (and that’s a compliment, LSADD!).
Incidentally, on your view of Australia under Keating, I was also pretty young when Keating went out, and had a similar view of politics in Australia for a while. After arguing with a few people about it, I kept getting irritated by the fact that I couldn’t really define what I meant by “eliteâ€? or “politically correctâ€?, and found I kept using them as ways to finish (or escape from) and argument. When I went back and read up a bit on the Keating years, to try and work out why I thought what I did, it was hard to find much evidence much evidence to fit the story I’d kept hearing over the last decade.
I reckon impressions like the ones you and I have/had are more about the discussion (or lack thereof) about Aussie politics in the last decade while we’ve been growing up. The way I see it, us being crazy intelligent isn’t about us knowing when and why terms like “political correctness� were first used for a specific purpose or in a given context, it’s about us being willing and or able to find out and change our minds and our opinions if the evidence we find doesn’t fit the theory or story we’re using.
And to get back to the point of this particular blog, I also think elite is a silly label to use as a slur. The idea that we wouldn’t want the elite (in the true sense of the word) involved in the political process is ridiculous. The fact that “elite” in Australia is political slang for “liberal” (small l) has never been more clear than in Downer’s comments.
Steve Hamilton, when you assert that in the Keating years “ordinary people weren’t free and open to display conservative viewpoints”, you need to provide evidence or argument. Otherwise it is just so silly a statement – a feel-good statement of the sort that receives applause at a meeting of likeminded souls but means nothing – that ridicule is the only possible response.
“This is the reverse of the truth. The term “political correctnessâ€? was only imported to Australia about 10 years ago, from the US culture wars, and was used incessantly in the Howard years. Google will produce thousands of Australian examples if you look, and I’m pretty sure you’ll find it in Downer’s own statement.”
I think the term actually derives from the Cultural Revolution’s Little Red Book from whence it was adapted for sardonic purposes in the late 60’s.
I first recall hearing it used in its sardonic form in the 70’s with the rise of de-gendered terms of reference etc; it was certainly in common currency in Australia well before the Howard era.
And it’s used by people across the political spectrum. I can recall PJK using it on occasion and I’m sure Kevin Rudd has as well.
Rudd used it once or twice last year when he was trying to impress on the suburban/Murdoch tabloid/Today Tonight demographic how conservative he was. He most certainly did not use the term in the 1970s self parodying Left way, “ideologically sound.”
Wikipedia:
“Some commentators have argued that the term “political correctness” is a straw man invented by conservatives in the 1990s in order to challenge progressive social change, especially with respect to issues of race, religion and gender. Ruth Perry traces the term back to Mao’s Little Red Book. According to Perry, the term was later adopted by the radical left in the 1960s, initially seriously and later ironically, as a self-criticism of dogmatic attitudes. In the 1990s, because of the term’s association with radical politics and communist censorship, it was used by the political right in the United States to discredit the Old and New Left…
The earliest citation is not politically correct, in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), denoting the statement to which it refers is literally incorrect, owing to the U.S.’s political status as then understood”
My understanding is that it originates in Russia after the Bolshie revolution. Its popular, widespread “sardonic” use here came from the US in the early ’90s I reckon.
It was a way for fat old men who hadn’t had an original thought for 25 years (like Paddy McGuinness, Frank Devine etc) to proclaim their independence, bravery and courage etc, by daring to “speak the truth”. They were on 6 figure salaries, but compared themselves with the victims of McCarthyism.
In reality they could not accept that there might be differing points of view about things. ‘Tis still the case.
Gerard Henderson, bless him, was one who ridiculed it in the early ’90s. He is consisent at least: he made fun of people who said they were “being silenced” under Keating, and he did the same under Howard.
Ken, you said:
“And I am at a loss to understand why Our ABC sent a crew to cover Downer’s non-event of a speech and led the evening news bulletin with it.”
I was wondering the same thing. I thought it was because of the demand for ‘balance’ where the ABC has to give equal time to both ‘sides’. So even though the Coalition lost government and all the action is with the new government and the opposition is in total disarray the ABC is forced to cover their irrelevant rantings.
In the interest of ‘balance’ where could we not have more from left of the centrist Labor? Why cannot the ABC cover more Green Left actions?
Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness notes the Bolshevik etymology but also its re-importation into the US in the 1970s as ‘satirical self-criticism’, offering the following example:
“In typical left-wing usage, Ellen Willis says: “in the early ’80s, when feminists used the term political correctness it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement’s efforts to define a ‘feminist sexuality'”
It then gets reappropriated by US conservatives to attack ‘progressive’ teaching methods in US schools. And thence to Australia, via Dolly and the op-ed team at Murdoch media.
My experience is counter to Steve Hamilton’s: I dont recall the term “political correctness” popping up much prior to the “backlash” against it. Which makes me of the opinion that the whole thing was conveniently constructed to make it easier to defend/promote certain policies — anyone who criticised them could just be labelled as being a PC drone stifling free debate.
Still, Steve, I was interested to hear that your experience was counter to mine. I started to be of an age where I noticed what was happening politically around the early 90’s, so its possible that my view is just an artefact of that. I’d be interested to hear other peoples experiences.
The 2020 summit was top heavy with actors & academics. Both professions which are not underpinned by reality.
Throw in the legal profession & there’d be a full set of “ideas” without any experience of having to pay for “ideas”.
‘Elite’ is a poor choice for an insult – which is clearly what Downer is intending. It’s strange how the word ‘elite’ has been turned into a derogatory word in a social context. In sporting or military contexts ‘elite’ is the highest praise – ‘elite athlete’ or ‘elite marksman’ clearly being positive uses of the word.
So why in a social context does ‘elite’ have negative connotations? Surely we want ‘elite politicians’, ‘elite bureacrats’, ‘elite academics’s? Shouldn’t we celebrate success?
Having said that – I have some sympathy with the concept Downer is trying to portray. Maybe I’m too old and cynical but there’s not much I can see coming out of the 2020 summit. The write up in the media yesterday of the key ideas is depressingly thin and shows depressingly little originality.
The one idea that I hope blossoms into a meaningful change is the idea to completely reform Federalism. Hopefully even abolishing State Government. The Feds can take over national services (eductaion, health etc) and we can have beefed up Local Councils dealing with local issues. Having State governments is an anachronism.
I must say I was gobasmacked and alarmed at the recrudescence of Keating’s Culture Warriors over the weekend. Still that demographic – white bourgeois baby-boomers – is now in its 50s and 60s.
While they are large in number and rich, they would do well not to suffer the same delusions they suffered during the last referendum campaign. The enemy is not “The Monarchists” David Flynns/Downers of this world.
The Luvvies’ enemy are those who love democracy and want to elect our President. These are The Luvvies’ betes noir; THE PEOPLE.
Sadly, John Greenfield, THE PEOPLE tossed out John Howard, declaring he and his mob to be the out of touch elitists. You’re soooo yesterday.
Andrew, here is a youtube clip of a funny (yet quite scary) monologue on taking back the term “elite”… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBzYSUI5_GM
Lord Dolly
I am aware of that as I was one of the ones who so tossed! But that is not relevant here.
“Chattering Class” is a so much more apt term than “luvvie”
And will be similarly deleted. JG has wasted enough of my time, without ever, in my recollection making a useful contribution. He can take his luvvies elsewhere since he won’t be published here again. SATP, please try and avoid snark. -JQ
Mike; Thanks a lot for the support and understanding.
LSADD; I made the comments I did, as a reflection of my own experiences. How the hell am I going to get PROOF of my feelings? I didn’t represent my claims as fact, but merely as my perceptions as a young person of society at the time.
My reference of PC-ness comes from the fact that I was in primary school when Keating was PM, and my recollection of that time is associated with much “oppression” of free and open discussion; by this I mean if anyone ever said anything “outrageous”, it seemed to have been heavily looked down upon. My experience post- this era seemed to be very different; I never heard anyone really ever say “don’t say that, it’s not PC” etc.
Obviously by “elite” I think he means “elitest”, which seems to be an all together different thing. I think the summit was very clearly and very openly supposed to be a gathering of “the best and brightest”, which by definition means the most “elite” members of society. I think Downer’s issue came from the fact that he felt that many of the people attending were sort of culturally “elitest”, in that they live well above everybody else, but purport to know what’s best for the rest of us (and it may be argued, as JQ said that this is a tad hypocritical of Downer). The idea of 1002 of these people deciding what’s best for the rest of us just ties in with this idea. I’m not really sure whether I sympathise with this view or not.
Having said that, I think if you want to come up with the “best ideas”, then you’ve got a better chance succeeding if you ask the people with the “best minds”. I certainly think that pretty much all of the people (with the exception of Bob Katter of course :p) in the Economics stream have vastly more experience, talent and intelligence to brainstorm ideas for the future of the Australian economy than me. And as Kevin Rudd said; to get 1002 people to be representative of the Australian people is “very hard”.
On a sidenote, the revelations that Glyn Davis actually cut previously-accepted men out of the list to make absolutely certain that there was 50/50 gender equality smacks of the sort of “elitest” behaviour that is being talking about. Women aren’t a minority, and in today’s society I’m not sure that they need affirmative action. But just a thought anyhoo.
Cheers
The anti-PC group puzzle me. If Bob says something and John criticizes him how is John’s critique a violation of Bob’s right to freedom of speech? Liberalism 101. Howard and his devotees specialised in self-pity (like Mugabe).
On the affirmative action front, it would really depend how this was done. If it was an case of, “well we’ve filled 900 spots, with 60% men, we have 300 people left, all pretty much of equal ability, so we might as well try to balance it back towards a 50/50 gender-split by ensuring the last 100 spots are mostly females”, then there’s no real issue surely. If females were picked despite being obviously less capable than male alternatives, that’s a different matter.
What does seem hard to justify is making an effort to ensure an even gender balance, but making an effort to ensure, e.g., a cultural/ethnic-background balance. E.g. were at least 60 of the attendees of (relatively recent) Asian background? And at least 20 of them self-identified aboriginals?
The PC thing is a bit of a stalking horse to distract attention from the actual issue. Is the “right” of someone to call a black person a “nigger” or to demand that female employees wear short skirts worth defending, or even defensible? Not on its merits, but you can defend it by proxy by talking about PC, freedom of speech, elitism, etc, and thus turn an argument about oppression into an argument about language. I wish people who claim to oppose “PC” language would be clear about what they actually support.
HC (13) reckons: “The reps may have been the ‘best and brightest’ but their critics Flint and Downer came closest to representing the views of most Australians”
Flint and Downer are 100% against a republic. That is actually more out of step with majority Australian opinion than the people who support a republic. What HC means is that they are more in step with his views.
As I explained to Steve Greenfield, the days when you could just pretend that anything “progressive” is out of step with real etc Australians – simply because we happened to have a Rodent as PM – are over.
You cannot play that card no more. That particular Rodent has departed. “You’re out of touch” doesn’t work no more.
Time to start employing fair dinkum debating devices, such as quality of argument.
I mean John Greenfield, of course. Apologies.
See Keating the Musical, not the least reason being for the “Freak Me” number featuring a Dolly Downer character resplendent in lace, corset, suspenders and fish nets.
I saw it a couple of weeks ago. A fun night at the theatre.
I must say I like political correctness in so far as it deters people from publicly airing offensive views. Ah but “offensive to whom?” you ask. Well in my case the Tampa incident and people overboard offended me. Hearing people talk disparagingly about aboriginal people or disabled people offends me. I don’t like an environment where people can openly express racist views. In my experience (and I saw Bradman play so you can guess how old I am) people who do are not broadly informed because they take little interest in current affairs or politics. My friends who fall into this category seem to form their opinions on the basis of what they hear on commercial radio and TV. They do not watch ABC, SBS or pay-TV news or opinion programs such as Agenda nor do they read newspapers which aim at carrying a wide spectrum of opinion. In these circumstances I think it very important that political correctness does hold sway in so far as it might help remove biased opinion and substitute more factual information.
My understanding is that people applied to attend. Few were invited.
There is some danger of a selection bias but in way that is perhaps independent of political preferences. Though people tend to want to talk to people that agree with them:
Linked by Dkos
I’m not sure how one can solve this type of problem.
Downer isn’t being original didn’t H(R)C call Obama a l33t Haxor?
James, on the other hand, do we really want a world where people refrain from calling black people “niggers” purely because it’s considered to be “un-PC”? Personally, I couldn’t care less if people use the word “nigger” – unless of course you are clearly attempting to incite racial hatred in others. What “offends” me is having to listen to music that’s full of so many “bleeps” and silent gaps that it becomes unlistenable. The music in question is fairly usually sung by the people that are supposedly likely to be offended by the term, with little evidence that anyone has bothered to check with them their opinion on the matter.
wizofaus: do we really want a world where people refrain from calling black people “niggers� purely because it’s considered to be “un-PC�
I think its a little more complex than that. Public expression/condemnation of “un-PC” remarks help to shape social norms, and determine what is acceptable. Much of people’s behaviour is guided by a general feeling what is broadly acceptable. Jumping up and down on people who criticise racists, under the banner of defending free speech is a bit strange. Both have a legal right to express their views, but it seems strange when the emphasis is on condeming those who speak out against (perceived) racists/sexist/whatever comments — dont they have as much right to express their view?
“I think it’s a fair point to suggest that the Governance stream is not representative of broader Australia when 99% of those in the room voted to support a republic”.
(?)
I think you might find the same group would also be less likely to watch Australian Idol. Maybe they are more likely than average to take an active interest in things like their kids’ education. Maybe they are brighter and better informed than average. Maybe they know more about governance. Maybe there’s a pattern here.
Sure, Peter, but why is there a need for the word “nigger” to be unacceptable? Surely the world we’re aiming for one where race just isn’t an issue at all – where calling someone “nigger” is no more derogatory or offensive than calling them “baldy”. Obviously we don’t live in that world yet, but it’s not clear to me that blacklisting words is the way to achieve it.
After all, the problem with a statement like “niggers are always stirring up trouble” is *not* the use of the word “nigger”. Attempting to be sound P.C. – “Afro-Americans are responsible for social unrest” – is just as racist.
Methinks ‘political correctness’ was already mocked by intelligent left-leaning people themselves. This is because we can all detect when received wisdom has come into play – there is no substitute for original thinking, and any set of good values can be warped when adopted as mere fashion or reflex. But the term became overused and employed constantly by certain commentators, even when people were expressing genuinely thoughtful views. I found this offensive, because there were times when people’s real distress about the plight of other human beings was lampooned as ‘PC’. The tendency to call others PC became itself, PC.
wizofaus: do we really want a world where people refrain from calling black people “niggers� purely because it’s considered to be “un-PC�
Yes.
This has been another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.
wizofaus: Sure, Peter, but why is there a need for the word “nigger” to be unacceptable? Surely the world we’re aiming for one where race just isn’t an issue at all – where calling someone “nigger” is no more derogatory or offensive than calling them “baldy”.
There is no need for the word nigger, say, to be unacceptable. But it is pretty clear that it is currently (mostly) used to be deliberately derogatory. I might prefer that the word ‘c**t’ was purely an anatomical term, but it’s not. Until such time as it is, I’d rather my children didn’t use it….
Similarly, when the word nigger ceases to be pejorative, then people will cease to object to its use….