Dale Heslin
Pauline Hanson is a figure of the right. Nay - the far, far right. So we
are told by our left wing friends. Just what do these terms "left-wing" and
"right-wing" actually mean, and where did they come from? In the post-war
era western culture was sold a bill of goods. That is that it is smart and
sophisticated to be left-wing, intellectually plodding and provincial to
be a right-wing conservative. Right-wingers are dullards, so the story goes.
This basic framework goes unchallenged - not even remarked upon - in discussions
and debates on matters of politics and social philosophy. The unspoken assumption
of all parties - right as well as left - is that the intellectual upperhand
must inevitably abide with the left and not the right. Conservatives must
remain on the defensive, forever deflecting charges of being "reactionary,
racist, redneck, homophobic, sexists". Right-wingers shuffle their feet,
'um and ah' and generally act floundered and flustered while trendy liberals
(these days big-L as well as small) dash off with one public relations victory
after another. Is it any wonder that young people of recent decades, concerned
as they so often are with style and appearance, have tended to flock to the
forces of liberal, supposedly "progressive" thought, rather than to more
conservative social philosophies? This is a problem for One Nation as it
contemplates the problems of wooing the younger voter. Can one imagine young
people seriously opposing the republican push, and opting for the "archaic
British institution" of the Monarchy, for example?
How did it get this way? A full answer to this question would take us back to the enlightenment and the days of the French Revolution. That is beyond the scope of this article. Suffice to say that the right-wing/left-wing dichotomy has been devised by the left, for the benefit of the left, and society as a whole has never perceived this. "Right-wingers" are in short, entirely a product of left wing philosophy. Hitler, Thatcher and Bjelke-Petersen were never "right-wing". They were merely people who were not left-wing. The idea that there is some coherent "right-wing" philosophy linking these individuals is an invention of the left. There is in fact no such thing as a "right-wing" ideology. Although we can't get rid of these terms, we can at least constantly question their meaning. The left itself has invented an ideological conflict to suit its own purposes. "Isms" are of the left not the right. Capitalism, for example, is not an inculcated philosophy, it is just people doing what people always do - strive to make money. Consider that the Labor Party has clearly defined factions of the left, right and centre - and seemingly every combination in between. Do the more conservative parties have these sort of factions? No. The reason is the lack of ideological dogma - the politics of pure theory. The "isms" of the right are of left-wing construction. The left generally speaking defines for the right what it (the right) has chosen to believe in, ideologically speaking. It does this in order to perpetuate the idea that the fundamental issues of human existence can be understood in exclusively intellectual terms. The result is that all social evils are construed as some kind of false consciousness put into our minds by conservative ideologues. Issues of war, racial and sexual differences and so on are all portrayed as some kind of false belief system we have been brainwashed into accepting. A counter-ideology is devised to combat this false consciousness. This line of thinking of course immediately validates all the consciousness raising efforts of the social activists, and in the process makes everything into a smart versus dumb issue. This is not to deny that there is a common philosophical outlook (more or less) which links Hitler, Thatcher and Bjelke-Petersen. This could be summarised in the language of God, king and country, and traditional moral and family values. But the point is that none of these things are the product of intellectual theorising, or some false consciousness inculcated into otherwise decent human beings by these evil right-wingers. This framework of social values is just basic to our make-up as human beings and is neither good nor bad in itself. Yet it is the battleground in an ideological war which the left believes it needs to fight. There is a difference between how we think about things and how we theorise about things, and there is a difference about what role theorising plays in the way the world works, and how human beings behave.
To illustrate the point I am making, consider an issue such as feminism. It is apparent that the logical premise of all feminist theory is that men consciously and deliberately oppress women. After all, no socially aware person is freely going to accept the role of simple biology in matters of sexual politics - notwithstanding that two things which are different cannot possibly be equal! On the other hand, no feminist would be stupid enough to argue that evil men conspired together at some point in time and decided to oppress women, thus bringing about woman's present unequal condition. But in fact all feminist activism is premised on precisely this footing. Think about what they are trying to do. They wish to change the status of women by pursuing a course of rational action. They want to set up government bodies, take political action, seek government funding, engage in social consciousness raising, and all the rest, in order to bring about "social justice" for women. My question is: did such things create women's inequality in the first place? If not, then how can one justify working through these channels in order right a "wrong" that was never brought about through these means in the first place?
Social issues are now routinely portrayed as some kind of "debate". After Pauline Hanson's maiden speech we were informed that there was a race "debate" in progress. Now we are told that there is a "multiculturalism" debate going on. In both cases I ask, what exactly are we "debating"? This is right versus wrong, smart versus dumb, intellectuality gone crazy. The multiculturalism debate is an ideology being foisted upon us. As far as the "race debate" is concerned, racial differences are a fact of life beyond rational analysis. There is nothing to "debate". Different races and groups in society are naturally going to feel alien to one another. This is in itself neither a good nor a bad thing, but for those campaigning against "racism" it is an issue which must be put under intellectual control. Intellectual effort did not create these differences, but they must be made to appear to have this character so that an adversarial ideology can be raised to counter it.
It is said that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Today, we have a situation where "problems" are dreamt up to match the "solution". The solution has already been worked out - it's politically correct thinking. The problems aren't important, whether it's Aborigines, women, homosexuals, you name it. They merely exist to reinforce an ideology of social justice activism. There is a neverending search for victim groups in society to match the ideology. Certain issues are constantly in the public eye because they suit this style of thinking. Homosexuals make up only tiny part of the population and yet their "rights" and their concerns are constantly shoved in our collective face. They practically dominate the deliberations of main-stream churches, even though they are only a minuscule presence in our society. When Bill Clinton came to power, almost his first executive act was to push for the acceptance of homosexuals in the military. Was this really one of the more pressing affairs of state facing the U.S. in 1992? I think not. Then there is the environment. It has been observed that the last thing environmentalists actually want is a solution to environmental problems. This would deprive them of an issue to agitate about.
We must counter this system of thinking by constantly denying the intellectual framework by which social issues and we Hansonites are being judged. We must stop denying we are "racists". We should simply not acknowledge the term. ("I am neither a racist, nor not a racist!") This terminology belongs to, and is in the service of, social justice ideology. We should not play by their rules. We must constantly make these people define their terms. They must be put on the defensive for a change. Make them spell out exactly why they are saying the things they're saying, and doing the things they do. What these people have in common is that they are exploiting politically correct social justice issues to bring about a world of peace, justice and equality - an entirely unrealistic aim which only makes sense in the heady realms of intellectual theory. This is why they are always on the attack, and we are always on the defensive. Their philosophy is adversarial. There must be winners and losers. This is why left-wingers will win debates on social justice issues. They are the ones who make up the rules of argument! If you deny that you are a racist they are immediately in front in this debate. (Dear reader: When did you stop beating your wife?) We must make these people accountable for the ideas and accusations which they peddle. Their approach is one of vilification and character assassination. We must make them accountable for their empty social theories. Meanwhile, we of the so-called "right" must move forward, not by reference to spurious theorising, but with respect to the conservation of certain enduring social values. These represent the true foundations for real social progress, without the unrealistic world changing aspirations of the "social justice" lobby.
Dale Heslin dale@pcug.org.au
Canberra, Australia