"The bottom line is that liberal democracy is best served by pluralism."

No.

Democracy, the Western model, is best served by preservation of the democratic structure and the checks and balances which preserve individual rights and freedoms.

It is obvious you are confused about what constitutes a democracy of the Western model.

It is NOT majority rule. The Western model enshrines minority rights with egalitarian enfranchisement, equality before the courts and the principle of Habeus Corpus, separation of powers [which the old commie Bjelke Peterson did not understand], freedom of association [which is why the bikie laws are wrong], freedom of expression [which is why Finkelstein was so wrong] and the seperation of church and state [which is why Islam is such a threat], among others.

These mechanisms and principles ensure as far as possible that personal freedoms, the ultimate and only real pluralism, is protected.

But what happens when an ideology which contradicts the Western model uses the rights provided by the Western model to attack that model? Islam is the obvious example with its persistent and concerted demands for Sharia.

But Marxism too opposes individual rights by putting the individual second to the state.

By espousing pluralism and using pluralism to justify the right of Marxism to enjoy the rights of the Western model I can see no difference between what Islam is doing, using the freedoms of the West to entrench its anti-West position [“We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy.” – Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed], and what advocates of Marxism are doing.

In other words both the Muslims and the Marxists are using the pluralism of Western democracy to subvert that pluralism. Fortunately the Marxists are not as violent as the Muslims [as least in the modern era] but the similarity is there

Cohenite,

I am pretty much 100% with your summary:
‘The Western model enshrines minority rights with egalitarian enfranchisement, equality before the courts and the principle of Habeus Corpus, separation of powers [which the old commie Bjelke Peterson did not understand], freedom of association [which is why the bikie laws are wrong], freedom of expression [which is why Finkelstein was so wrong] and the seperation of church and state [which is why Islam is such a threat], among others’.

Tristan, it is this political framework that allowed unions and universities to flourish as part of the development of pluralist society, but no actor should ever assume an entrenched position within society. You have to earn your place and your influence, assuming that the fundamentals of society are fair.

Just as unions must have relevance if they want to increase numbers, along with political parties trying to win more support, so lecturers should also compete to promote best practice teaching or to secure funding for a course.

Whether someone is a marxist, liberal or whatever means nothing to me. Only the quality of teaching, perhaps shaped most by a healthy western perspective, aiming to expose the student to ideas and to get them to think critically, should be the criteria. Obviously, each course cannot take on every theory, so a general overview of each major stream of thought can be provided.

Sure, I have a bias to the Western political system. But why not. It is precisely this bias which promoted education to allow a variety of perspectives to flourish.

No. I would say that a humanities course should not depend on equal representation of people with different perspectives. It should only depend on quality teachers who deliver quality courses. Now that resources are scarcer, hopefully better scholars and teachers can rise to the top. But who knows.

I am going to take up how to promote quality humanities research in this era of relative austerity in my next OLO piece

"I am going to take up how to promote quality humanities research in this era of relative austerity in my next OLO piece"

Good luck Chris!

Cohenite:

Ok - free speech, free association, separation of church and state - we're in agreement that far whether you like it or not.

I agree with minority rights also.

Hence Rosa Luxemburg: "Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently.” And also: “Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element.”

Checks and balances - Yes I agree with that too. Which is why I *don't* advocate blanket nationalisation. And why I believe in separation of powers. But on the other hand surely monopolism and oligopolies are a threat as well? And surely a democratic MIXED economy could accommodate a variety of financial power centres without such blanket centralisation/monopolisation - so those checks and balances would remain... The added competition could even be beneficial; and natural public monopolies would also further efficiency.

You also say Marxism puts the individual second, and that "Muslims and the Marxists are using the pluralism of Western democracy to subvert that pluralism."

In response - The Stalinists certainly did this wherever they were for the better part of the 20th Century. But you cannot pin that on the Western Marxists, Austro-Marxists, democratic revisionists, Euro-communists etc. Take the Luxemburg quote again; Or what about Karl Kautsky? Look to his works 'On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat", and "Terrorism and Communism." And note that these Marxists prioritised INDIVIDAL self-realisation through participation in culture... At a time when workers were largely excluded...

And if you can disprove that Marxist Social Democracy was a force for liberty and democracy in Germany pre-1914 pls do so. But if you do a little research it will dawn on you that early Marxism really did maintain a nexus of democracy, equality and freedom. If you look to Eduard Bernstein's critique of Ferdinand Lassalle you will also see that even early on these democratic Marxists were critical of over-dependence on the State....

Chris

'I would also say that centre-right think tanks can also lift their game.'

No. That's empty pomposity. Right-wing think tanks (forget 'centre'-right - they don't exist) don't have to lift their game at all. They can and will continue exactly as they are. Unlike the left, they are completely embedded with the hegemony and so do not have to struggle to exist or to justify themselves. They have plenty of money and access to the major political and financial players, who are more than happy to keep THEM happy.

Your concept of objectivity and pluralistic democracy, while allowing for plenty of self-righteous illusion and pretensions to maturity, does not exist. This is because the political landscape in which the left and right operate is outrageously unbalanced in favour of the right.

Jayb

That yarn about the crying guy and the domestic violence paper is a load of porkies and you know it.

Killarny: That yarn about the crying guy and the domestic violence paper is a load of porkies and you know it.

Actually, no it not.

They were a very man hating vicious lot at James Cook all the Text books they were studying from stressed how evil all men were. Left Wing, feminist & biased in the extreme. As the only male at a dinner, I was asked what it was like to be an A$#ole by one of the women doing the Councillors Course (I don't know the real name of it) I gave as good as I got that night, which was a lot but I'm great at retort, so it was a fun night. Well, for me, not my wife, unfortunately. That crewcut does suit you luv.