Wednesday, 13 September 2006

Values for money

Heard on radio this a.m. was the comment that Beazley takes two steps forward and four steps back.
I can't help but agree. Is the man a total idiot?
Yesterday's foray into the world of populist political propaganda would seem to suggest that he, like his political nemesis, has abnegated his repsonsibility for visionary politiocal leadership and decided to go with what appeals to rednecks in our midst.
While there is no doubt that saying visitors to our fair shores should be prepared to affirm their acceptance of "Australian Values" will appeal to the rudimentary emotions of many people most of us can see through the shallowness of this sort of comment.
Mr Howard is past master in tapping into this sort of populism, and using it to his advantage. But it is not LEADERSHIP, per se, it is followership!!
And lest we think that Beazley's new-found shallowness is something unique to the Laborites let me point out that the cartoon above was drawn not this week but last year. And the politician speaking is not Beazley but Costello (see here)
I was bemused when this mornign's radio was ineterviewing some young backpacking tourists....Would you sign up to Australian values? Ohh yes!! But what might they be? Ohh patting koalas and so on.
And that does indeed beg the question doesn't it? What are Australian values?
The ill-defined "mateship"...but what does it mean? The equally ill-defined -"fair go"?
What of the more obvious clear values of acceptance of diversity and democracy? (mateship and fair-go would seem to be derivative of them rather than vice versa).
Doesn't Beazley's proposal actually go against these Australian values?
It is time for him to go. It is spineless, weak leadership which needs to make way for better, more truly value-laden vision. Combet?...maybe Certainly not the roosters. Maybe the Labor party is now dead. Mr Beazley certainly does not seem able to breathe life into it with this sort of rubbish.


Gay Erasmus said...

The sad thing is that Beazley, as you say, doesn't breathe life into this rubbish. And that's because he doesn't believe any of what he's saying for a moment. That is too depressing for words -- not only does he propagate this amoral rubbish, but he is insincere.

stephen clark said...

The sad thing for me, GE:, he is an Anglican!! And at times looked as though he might actually take his faith seriously.