In today’s Mercury, there is a small article on page three about how the former Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson is highly critical of the Howard Government on the basis of appointing very conservative High Court Judges and going over the top in relation to anti-terror laws. Does that mean that he is now being conspicuously sentimental? I think not but believe other posters may believe it to be the case.

Boaz_David in his last post has stated that I was being political in my choice of language and I’d fully agree that is the case. My language has changed in what I write about politics since John Howard has become Prime Minister. I honestly believe there has been a hard hearted/mean attitude and conniving secrecy that has evolved and continues to evolve by the current Coalition Government. There were a number of deceptions in relation to the last election. Promises about Medicare being but one example of deceptiveness

Through people voicing their opinions in the media issues are raised; those voicing their opinion are not always in situations where they can physically or administratively do anything about an issue. However, by voicing an opinion chances are some thought might be give to particular problems and decisions made. We need to voice our opinion also to keep democracy in as good a shape as possible. Currently, we do not have a viable opposition in the Labor Party; Mr Beasley does not seem to have a “ticker”.

As suggested elsewhere the notion of conspicuous sentimentality is a good device to try and strangle opposition. To suggest that people can only hold an opinion if they are in a position to do something about a situation, is vacuous.

Rainier,

I don’t think it was Paul’s intention to deride compassion or moral sentiments; it certainly isn’t mine (see 1st post on this thread).

Again, though, you demonstrate an example of what Paul is talking about – the inability to accept the sincerity and legitimacy of an alternative point of view, or to evaluate competing interpretations of an issue by reference to reason and evidence, rather than your own emotions and ideology. So you dismiss “ people like Comrie Thomson who obviously have lost touch”, misrepresent his view as deriding compassion, and assert that only those who share your worldview understand or even care about the world’s problems – “The Greens appear to be the only party that sees the connections between economy and human communities”.

Your critique is almost entirely self-referential. As the article says:

“In this narcissistic stew what feels right for me is right. What feels ethically wrong for me is wrong. What I have grievous feelings about is worthy of grief. It follows that if you don’t share my feelings then you are anathema. Such sentimentalism is dangerous.”

Rhain,

Anyone that quotes John Howard's attempt at face saving for the nearly ten years of absolute irresponsibility in Indigenous affairs deservers a cynical appraisal of their views.

(Sorry, "I'm" being sentimental now).

Out here, on the ground, such belated sentiment and ideological critique of what went wrong with "early approaches to reconciliation is a dud argument".

I don't expect you to believe me and this is not a personal judgment on your views, but it’s still a dud argument.

I don't apologize for self referentials. Life experiences cannot be ignored simply to indulge in some kind of false neutrality.

I'm sure PCT is sincere about his views and "I" accept this.
I just think he is wrong. What so hard to understand about this?

Do you think subjective and apposing views should pretend to be 'objective' just for the sake of keeping those like PCT comfortable with having an alternative view?

And for that matter, what I don't see in his article are his own views on social issues? Does he have any? Or is this just a slag off at those who do and are passionate about them?

Here's an example of PCT's false dichotomy of reason.

"Jo Bloggs thinks XYZ, therefore he does not respect alternative views (even though I have not expressed one myself).

Say What?

It’s very existential and sexy, but it’s a joke.

Rainier,

Your position seems to have hardened since your first post, which said that you agree with Paul’s "sentiments", and said that “the symbolic gestures of reconciliation offered to Indigenous peoples did nothing to ameliorate significant disadvantages in communities right across the nation.”

Apply for a moment your “Jo Bloggs” logic test to your own text:

Jo Bloggs is not sincere in his representations of his motives for advocating policy on XYZ, and anyone who supports Bloggs’ opinion deserves a cynical appraisal of their views

This displays the logical fallacies of guilt by association, appeal to motive, and ad hominem attack.

When I accused you of being self-referential, I was not attempting to denigrate your life experiences – which are of course vital to understanding and interpreting the world – nor to say that you should pretend some unattainable neutrality separated from your values and opinions. Rather, my point was that when you use your own feelings and ideology as the sole basis to determine your judgements about others’ motives and opinions, you operate in a self-contained frame of reference that makes meaningful discourse virtually impossible.
Actually, I suspect we’re not entirely at odds on the insufficiency of sentiment in shaping policy – I agree, for example, that “there are also people who truly believe that social justice for Indigenous people must be attended to in practical ways.”

R said “use your my feelings and ideology as the sole basis to determine your judgments about others’ motives and opinions”,

I don’t know how you can lock these away in making judgments about anything and everyone. This isn’t narcissistic, its just how all humans think and articulate what they ‘believe’.

This is not anarrow mindedness and a blinkered approach at all times. It means people develop their ideas from life experiences and interactions with similar ideas and counter expressions to their own.

I don’t have to think twice when I see or hear a bigot espousing bigoted and racist ideas. Been there, done that.

I does not mean that I won’t take the time (as tedious boring as it can be) to engage with this persons thinking. According to you and PCT I'm hearing what this person is saying the wrong way because I’m so emotionally guided? Please!

As for ‘practical reconciliation’ (example again) I would argue that a Treaty be struck with Indigenous people as a practical [and belated ] measure to developing a civil approach to Indigenous affairs. But I sense you and PCT would counter this by calling this an emotional and ideologically driven proposition just because you can.

In sum, the rationale you and PCT propose purports to be unemotive and non-ideological. To argue as you have for the right to be contrary to is for me a furphy.

Pathologising me as an ideologue by using some old hat social psychology mixed up with some conservative non-position taking isn’t new. John Howard uses this strategy all the time.
If you and PCT want to be curiously contrary I’m not standing in your way. Go for it! but be warned, you may have to come up with something more than simply being contrary for the sake of it.

I too abhor the unproductive adversarial political culture that is fostered in the Westminster system, but this does not mean all my beliefs are guided by conventional political ideologies. Some are about advocating basic human rights. Do you have real opinions other than a non-opinionated position?

Rainier,

Look at my first post again - I'm not denying the importance of either emotion or moral sentiment, just their sufficiency in guiding policy discourse.

For what its worth, I am also not convinced by Howard’s approach to practical reconciliation – in this case (unlike, say, Live 8) I believe that symbolical gestures are needed as well as practical actions, in part because the harm inflicted on our aboriginal population is social and psychological as well as material. I also think that some of his proposed solutions are paternalistic and unlikely to work. But I’d agree with Howard that the actions that we’ve taken so far have not worked – a glance at the appalling statistics on aboriginal health and welfare demonstrates this only too clearly http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/w2.2.1!OpenView&Start=1&Count=1000&Expand=13#13).

In the face of such evidence, I’d agree with Howard that it is foolish to continue with more of the same policies that have failed in the past. That’s what I mean by integrating empathetic emotion and moral reasoning with practical actions and evidence-based analysis. It’s not enough to simply feel badly about aborigines’ position in Australia – not that I’m accusing you of that; from your previous posts we’re probably not as far apart on this as you “sensed”. Which just goes to show the dangers of relying on “sense” alone …