Excellent article. The confusion of sentimentality with morality, and of heartfelt good intentions with achievable and effective policy, is more likely to cause poverty than to cure it.

However, I'd raise two provisos.

Firstly, deeply-felt compassion can be a spur to effective and rational action. Indeed, it is hard to imagine the world placing high priority on effective measures to reduce poverty without both the sense that this is a moral issue, and some emotional spur of empathy for the plight of the poor. This need not degenerate into the narcissistic urge to feel good about oneself that seems to motivate many of the live 8 groupies – or, as Paul perceptively point out, the more perverse romantic gratification in self-loathing, guilt and angst at the scale of the problem and our failure to eradicate it that drives some of its leading lights.

Secondly, critics of the emotionalism and naïveté of the protesters can tend to fall into the opposite vices of callousness and cynicism. The protesters deserve to be sneered at for their “exquisite silliness”, but this should not detract from the seriousness of the cause they seek to address. Poverty is far more complex and difficult to solve that the protesters admit, but this does not mean that nothing at all can be done. The Howard view of practical compassion, which Paul quotes approvingly, places considerable emphasis on effective action – not only disdaining vainglorious emotionalism, but also doing things that actually work.

Maybe in a future article Paul could outline his view of an authentic ethical framework for addressing global poverty, and his agenda for what practical compassion might entail in this instance.

All I can say is ABOUT TIME someone (besides myself) made this socially crucial point !
If only some of the 'bleeding heart' mob could see that they are often experiencing blood loss over people and ideas which will destroy the way of life they have come to know.

While one picks up the bruised and battered traveller, and dresses his wounds, and pays the inkeeper to look after his welfare in the short term, you don't neccessarily invite him to run your foreign policy or your immigration department :)

I too found this to be a very good article. I'd be curious to know if Paul felt this way when he was working at Rolling Stone which I imagine to be at the leading edge of the wave of narcicissism.

I suggest though that whilst John Howard has sucessfully identified mob sentimentality in reconcilliation and green issues, he has fanned it in other areas, in particular Gallipoli. Australian deaths at Gallipoli accounted for less than a tenth of the total in the Dardanelles; the French and British lost 7 times as many men as we did, and about 7 times more Australians died on the Western Front. Despite this, the mass outpouring of solemnity at the site looms larger every year and Mr Howard seems to be at its centre. I fear that the conspicuous compassion associated with Gallipoli is distorting the public image of the rest of WW1, thereby undermining the whole point of the Rememberance process.

PS: For those that found the article interesting I can thoroughly recommend "Culture of Narcissism" by Christopher Lasch. First published in 1979 this book fortold much of what has since changed in public and private life and morality.

Good call BD :) Immigration and welfare – might see you in that thread sometime!

Paul Comrie-Thomson article is interesting and quite frankly I agree with his "sentiments". (or should we call it something else?).

The symbolic gestures of reconciliation offered to Indigenous peoples did nothing to ameliorate significant disadvantages in communities right across the nation.

The planting of thousands of plastic hands looked pretty in parks; the walking across bridges was an impressive spectacle as well.

But it came to nothing.

But hang on. Comrie Thomson doesn't put forward solutions to these world and domestic problems either. Yes he identifies a cultural phenomenon, but for what other than ‘self righteous’ cultural critique?

It’s easy enough to describe the pathology of self deceit, but for what reason other than to say they are wrong?

Yes, there are self righteous and self deceiving amongst bridge walkers. But there are also people who truly believe that social justice for Indigenous people must be attended to in practical ways.

And this is where you'll see the critics nervously looking for the exit as more often than not, practical things require good symbolic representations.

I too found the Geldorf rock concert ridiculously trite and plastic.

But on the other hand, I doubt whether your average 18-30 year old is going to learn about world poverty by doing individual research.

So many social issues are piggy backed in popular culture and especially popular song. It’s what the sixties delivered.

Is Paul Comrie-Thomson suggesting we should only listen to Kylie Minogue pulp-songs and not get too sentimental and self righteous listening to Marley, REM, Dylan, Paul Kelly singing about real life situations?

We are apparently not able to hold views other than those sanctioned by the conservative right. The green movement has been given in a previous post as an example of conspicuous sentimentality. Environmentalists have been arguing about degradation of habitat for many, many years ( 35 plus years) prior to concerns being addressed to a small extent by the Coalition Government. Governments usually don’t involve themselves in issues that have little currency in the electorate, it took years of hard work for the environment to be seen as an issue. Conspicuous sentimentality is a good term coined by those with a nihilist view. By any measure the current Coalition Government has, or has had the meanest set of politicians assembled? Peter Reith with his rottweillers, Ruddock and Vanstone with their incarceration of children.

It has been suggested in some newspaper articles that branch stacking occurs in the Liberal Party to weed out anybody with a social conscience.