Politics and truth

Furthermore, I remain mystified by the simplicity offered by certain Australian political scientists. In addition to Professor Robert Manne who noted Howard’s effort to reverse “the cultural trajectory of the Hawke and Keating years” and deeply integrate Australia with the US “strategically, economically, socially and culturally” (The Monthly February 2006), Rae Wear argued that the Howard government brought populism to a dangerous level (Australian Journal of Political Science, December 2008).

It did not matter that empirical data noted that satisfaction and trust in Australian democracy actually increased under the Howard government from 1998 to 2004 (McAllister and Clark, Trends in Australian Public Opinion), or that perhaps some of the Howard government’s policies actually upheld public support for immigration and multiculturalism by addressing domestic concerns.

Of course, views and values remain an important guiding light to any agenda or perspective, as they are for the majority of left-wing academics besotted by policy possibilities rather than any willingness to recognise policy limitations.

But we need to be honest in our assessment of truth or normative aims.

As suggested by Professor Henrik Bang in an upcoming British Politics issue:

... if we are to bend the stick in a new direction, it is not enough to criticise neoliberalism and economic globalisation; rather we must go to the heart of the matter and show why democratic politics and policy can be conducted otherwise than as hierarchical, legitimate domination.

No doubt that sophisticated policy outcomes will be enhanced by ongoing interaction between political parties, interest groups and public opinion, or at least more so than in non-democratic nations.

But we may never find the “right” solution given our different and eclectic range of views. For instance, greater domestic industry gains may have consequences for poorer nations. Saving the environment may indeed mean accepting a less extravagant standard of living. And freer trade will indeed place greater pressure on Western nations to reform and modify their social welfare assistance.

International turmoil and environmental degradation may even worsen. Pakistan may become the next major hot spot of conflict. And the rise of prosperous Chinese and Indians may obliterate any bid to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

All we can do is offer a range of ideas and arguments from our different perspectives, hope that some people listen, but always accept the verdict of the people, at least in free and prosperous democratic societies where everyone has a right and opportunity to express an opinion.

As for myself, I will write academic articles as well as opinion pieces. My articles will never pretend to have ideas that will save the world, although I do believe that liberalism has and will continue to make an important difference for good. Rather, my articles will seek to balance the ledger against the bias and simplicity that is directed toward so-called neoliberal trends or any other claim that offers theoretical certainty about how to resolve problems in such a competitive world.