Monday, November 12, 2007

Supporting the right in the face of leftist barbarism

I am often criticised for supporting John Howard and the Liberal Party. Many people in the blogosphere think that for some reason it is idiosyncratic, and even somewhat perverse, to support a political party which has gained the majority support of the Australian population over four successive Federal elections and whose leader has been overwhelmingly popular in the electorate over that period.

This prejudiced view shows how narrow-minded and out of touch the crazy section of the Australian left has become. It also shows the contempt they feel for Australian public opinion and their need for abuse in dealing with figures such as the Prime Minister. He is a ‘liar’, ‘a rodent’ and so on. He deceives the ignorant masses and tricks his way into power.

Howard is none of these things. He is a decent and widely respected Australian who would never descend to the depths of the leftwing rabble. He has won successive elections because most Australians like him and his policies. Backing Howard and the Liberal Party is backing a consensus view in Australian politics - not an extreme one.

I generally can’t be bothered reading the diatribes on left-wing blogs. These sites do have some excellent writers and some good posts but, in the main, they operate as echo chambers where fanatics reinforce each other’s fantasies.

This sites do contain some really unpleasant posts. Let me pick on just one recent effort by Ken Lovell on Road to Surfdom to illustrate my point. This is a particularly ugly diatribe criticising John Howard’s decision to lay a wreath on Remembrance Day on the grounds that Howard is politicising the occasion. That he has been doing it every year for a decade or more matters little. Nor does it matter that a batch of Labor politicians are doing the same thing. This is the strident voice of one-eyed hypocrisy.

KL sees Howard on this occasion as displaying:

‘ ... creeping opportunism, his cynical expediency, his tawdry instinctive lunge for the cheap immediate party-political point-scoring over any thought of the national interest … along with all that must be reckoned Howard’s destruction of the office of Governor-General’. (my bold)
The sentence shows, more than anything, KL’s preference for exaggerated, derogatory language. In a break from his linguistic barbarism KL solemnly sees Remembrance Day as a day:

‘that above all calls for ceremonies that bring us all together in a solemn spirit of remorse and shame at the youth and the beauty and the joy of living that was sacrificed upon the altar of old men’s pride and avarice
Note how KL terms a solemn occasion into a populist anti-war rant involving 'old men's pride and avarice'. What a shocking statement to make about our fallen war dead and the reasons for their deaths. KL, moreover, knows who should have carried out this ceremony – it is not our elected PM but the unelected Head of State:

‘Someone of the order of Zelman Cowen or Bill Deane or Roden Cutler who can find the words and the manner to express the better part of what we feel as Australians’

Instead KL sees John Howard involved in the ceremony which disgusts him. This is what KL wrote:
‘Needless to say, he (i.e. JWH) seized the opportunity to wrap himself in the flag and talk a lot about the sacrifice and suffering of those whom he had bravely sent off to fight in the Middle East … thereby subliminally reminding us all of course of the importance of re-electing a Strong Liberal Government who can be relied on to keep fighting the War on Terror.

What a slimy, self-regarding, small, repugnant, grub of a man. Four weeks into an election campaign this worm has the indecency to stand up and pretend to speak for all Australians on the most solemn occasion in our calendar … a few minutes before he throws himself back into the partisan fray of lies and deception and divisiveness’. (my bold)

This is ugly language and largely deceit. JWH didn’t ‘talk a lot’ about those he had ‘bravely’ sent off to fight. Note the twisted, political viewpoint KL pushes here in the midst of his ‘respect’ for this solemn occasion. The language is as ugly as anything I have seen for a while - KL has problems in articulating a sensible view of what happened because of his deep hatred for Howard.

Howard had, in fact, reminded us that two soldiers recently died in Afghanistan. Moreover, to the inevitable response that Kevin Rudd leader of the Labor Party was doing much the same thing at the same time – he laid a wreath at King’s Park in Perth - KL writes:

‘...but in Rudd’s defence I have to say that if he hadn’t, he was certainly risking 48 hours worth of vicious mud-slinging from Howard’s amoral vacuous baying media leeches about his insensitivity to the fallen.

If Howard had any decency at all he would have declined invitations to participate in these ceremonies and urged Kevin Rudd to do likewise. It’s a job ideally suited to state governors and the Governor-General. But there was never any chance of that happening … not when the little shit could get some footage in the nightly news being Father of Our Nation’. (my bold)

Words run away from KL here and Rudd is not acting indecently he is just avoiding criticism. The intemperate language and narky criticisms scarcely suggest KL is well-equipped linguistically to be the left’s Miss Manners but he continues with advice to the incoming PM:

‘The incoming prime minister will have many opportunities to begin to restore this country’s dignity and decency. One will be to appoint a successor to Michael Jeffery who can be an eloquent and inspirational symbol of national unity on those occasions that transcend the grubby pissant politics which obsess the John Howards of this world’. (my bold)
This nonsense gets an award for some of the most tasteless tripe I have seen all year. KL does exactly what he wrongly accuses Howard of doing – politicising a solemn occasion where we honour our dead. Hence KL is a hypocrite - he does exactly what he criticises others of doing. He is also a narky buffoon - he sacrifices a solemn occasion to vent his hatred for John Howard. It is a commentary that displays prejudice, and the foul-mouthed stupidity of the worst of the riff-raff who support this end of politics. The comments made on the post at the Road to Surfdom site are just as stupid and unpleasant – a couple of them bemoan the fact that a majority of Australians have backed Howard! I wonder if they have the intelligence to understand the implications of what they are saying.

In fact, what Howard said at the Remembrance Day memorial service is accurately reported here. What he did refer to was the fact that two Australians have been tragically killed in Afghanistan during the current election campaign. There was no political element in it at all or any appeal to back one side or the other that anyone other than a leftwing grub could pick up.

I am happy to retain my preference for civilised people and civilised discourse on the right. The left convince no-one but themselves with this type of 'analysis'. If Kevin Rudd wins the forthcoming election it will be no thanks to this bunch. Indeed Rudd would retain towards them the same contempt that I do.


Mark U said...


I agree with what you say about the Road to Surfdom post.

But there are equally crazy and prejudiced posts from the right.

rabee said...

Given the pristine, as-new, condition that you've apparently kept your faculties of analysis Harry, mate! I for one am never surprised by your take on Australian politics.

Anonymous said...

A deceased member of Joh's white-shoe brigade had the good sense to state that his approach to politics was like barracking for the football - barrack for your own side and barrack against the other - (near) regardless of the merits. It would be nice if the more passionate on both sides would appreciate or be as upfront about this and not think they are really analyzing anything with any sophistication. Posts like this (and similar ones on the right too) seem like the equivalent of the Richmond Grog (cheer) Squad.

Spiros said...

Harry, FYI it was one of Howard's enemies in the Liberal Party who named him The Rodent.

And if you are going to get high and mighty about groupthink or echo chambers on left wing blogs, have a look at Tom Blair's, the very exemplar of rightwingers congratulating each other on how smart they are, while lining up, like a pack of dogs, to attack the target du jour.

Or at Catallaxy, where anyone not toeing their kindergarten libertarian line gets abused by all and sundry. It's even happened to you!

And really, your defence of Howard is naive. While Howard doesn't make vicious attacks himself, he gets his minions like Bill Heffernan to do his dirty work for him.

There are bullies, and there are cowards who egg bullies on while keeping a safe distance. Howard is one of the latter.

Bring Back CL's blog said...

indeed I would evwen advance comments made about the Anhillator.

Wait til he becomes PM.

watch timbo then or even JC or Sinkers

very very naive

Anonymous said...


You think i am the way I am because I was born like this? I wouldn't be if the left weren't around to irritate my tourettes.

People like Ken Lovell are basically the arse end of humanity. Have you ever seen him? Take a look at this pic.

Isn't he low rent.

There is nothing to ever say to the Walrus ( Ken L) other than turf abuse and cause him deep pain. Continually! He deserves it.

The disgusting idiot was accusing the British government of planting the London bombs. .... a few hours before the Scotland incident.

But why are you even surprised at the ugly walrus' attitude? That's par for the course by lefties.

They are always into character assasination. Even their well known economic professors spend most of their time impugning motives and stabbing people with character assasinations.

Look at the back stabbing Homer for instance.


Why would I say anything about Harry Potter. the guy is a first class clown.

I'll enjoy these 3 years. Harry's front bench will be the gift that keeps on giving.


Anonymous said...

"Or at Catallaxy, where anyone not toeing their kindergarten libertarian line gets abused by all and sundry. It's even happened to you!"

Not true, Spiros. there are numerous lefties there who don''t get abused. It's jsut the really stupid ones that do. I notice you haven't been there for a while.

How's your politics is soccer affliction going , Mr. Tifosso.

Spiros said...

"I notice you haven't been there for a while."

You've got to draw the line somewhere.

Anonymous said...

Forgive me but to be perfectly honest, Spiros the only thing I ever see from you are the Tifossi comments for the left.

I never see any economic justifcation from you to support your cause. Just seems like mindless drivel to me.... like oh, howard is going to lose because of workchoices.

Well of course he's going to lose because of the economic lies put out by the union trogs and their poltical arm. However I never see an argument from you as to why regulation of the labor market is superior to free labor markets.

So there's probably a good reason you'"draw the line" as you'd get laughed out of existence.

hc said...

Some good comments here and some irrelevancies.

Spiros and Mark seem to suggest that a type of moral tit-for-tat operates. the right engage in disgusting politics so the left can too. I think this is a poor argument - disgusting commentary deserves condemnation whereever it appears.

And I don't always enjoy the comments on Tim Blair's blog - often I do - but I haven't seen anything rivaling the vicious nastiness of KL's post.

hc said...

I deleted the last post. I will delete any post that attacks anyone's claimed sexual orientation.

The attack made was anonymous.

Mark U said...


My point was not to justify any moral tit-for-tat. It was to say that there are crazy's out there on both sides and the best response is to not bother with them.

Mark U said...


I meant "crazies".

Anonymous said...


I wasn't attacking anyones sexual orientation in the least. In fact it was the opposite. I was and am totally indfferent to anyone's orientation as I couldn't care less.

I was actually amused that the person in question would think anyones would be interested.

What I said was that the person is such a low rent twat that anyone would run away from him, either hetro or gay.

I really don't think you read it properly.

Ken_L said...

Gosh Harry, I came over here from 'Missing Link' expecting to find something about the role of an Australian head of state and all I found was another dreary rant about how much Teh Left hates John Howard. I guess you were having the blog equivalent of a slow news day.

Still you gave Joe Cambria a forum to air his obsessive fantasies about me one more time so you made one person happy.

hc said...

Your post Ken contained almost no analysis of the role of the Head of State. You simply asserted he should be in charge of these memorial occasions.

Your post took this meaningful and important occasion and used it to present a diatribe against John Howard.

You imputed motives without evidence, you even degraded the memory of those killed by suggesting they died for dishonourable causes.

Read your original post and tell anyone it was an analysis of the role of Head of State, It was not. Why should I then respond to it in these terms?

The language you apply to Howard applies pretty well to you. It was a foul-mouthed rant with no redeeming feature whatever.

And I am perfectly entitled to criticise the narky barbarism you displayed.

murph the surf said...

"If Kevin Rudd wins the forthcoming election it will be no thanks to this bunch. Indeed Rudd would retain towards them the same contempt that I do. "
Amen to that sentiment.
A well written and carefully considered post Harry , thank you.

Chris Lloyd said...


While I agree that the KL post was over the top and ineffiective, it is a straw man to use his article as the argument against Howard being involved in such functions. The point, in case you missed it (which would be easy from KL’s post but is part of the past five years of politics), is that Howard committed Australian troops to an illegal and tragic war on the basis of intelligence he well knew was false and against the overwhelpming wishes of the people at the time. Depending on how open you are to logic, between 100,000 and 1,000,000 are now dead because of the Iraq debacle. This serves as a nice metapor (no tragic repetition) of WW1. Which makes Howard being involved in any event even tangentially related to war a cause of great anger to me and others.

Does it dishonour dead soliders to say that they died needlessly and were sacrificed on the altar of old men’s pride? If the truth dishonours them then so be it. Truth is a much higher cause than feigned outrage and mindless patriotism. Every war has a winner and a loser. So statistically, half die in a lost cause. Actually more than half since the losers lose more soldiers. And if there is a wrong side and a right side in each war, then roughly half the dead soldiers die for a wrong cause. So there you have it in pure logic. Most soldiers die fighting for a lost or wrong cause. Or did I just miss the part where God is on our side?

You are wrong the accuse KL of hypocricy. He would need to give his rant at the war memorial on Sunday to be polticiising the event. He is politicising discussion of the event, not the event itself. Nothing wrong with that in princple. People have made plenty of political points in relation to the war in Iraq. Is this politicising the war? No. Only the discussion of the war which is always poltiical. You are just playing word games Harry. It would have been better for you to just link to KL’s post and reserve your contempt for people who really do harm, rather than those who are just bad mannered.

Anonymous said...

Lol . Lloyd come to Lovell's defense and pretnds he's being objective.

"he wasn't barbaric at all", he asserts.

Then there's the walrus himself attempting to defend his hono.He isn't a low rent barbarian at all and people just obsess about him. As if.

Lovell. You truly disgust people. In fact you make feel sick.