This morning I opened my Weekend Australian to find Chris Pearson peering out at me from page 26 of ‘The Inquirer’. This week Pearson’s article featured author Mark Lopez. Lopez has made a name for himself making the cynical argument that pandering to the political beliefs of your lecturers at uni will get you good results (for minimal effort). Contrariwise, for Lopez, deliberately setting yourself at odds with your lecturer’s beliefs is as good as asking for low grades (and then, for greater effort). Merit will only get you so far.

According to Lopez (and Pearson), most educators are the B-grade of their field. English teachers are failed authors; Politics lecturers are failed politicians, and so on and so on: all harbour delusions that they were destined for great things. Pearson cites Lopez’s example of teacher-turned-author Frank McCourt. McCourt was an English teacher who later in life penned Angela’s Ashes, ‘an entertaining book of modest literary or historical value’. People like McCourt are the darlings of the failed-author-cum-English-teacher – rare glimmers of hope for all of those wannabes who are nevergunnabe. The fact that Angela’s Ashes became a set text on the VCE syllabus is proof of Lopez’s thesis. McCourt validated the fantasy selves of the English faculty, and they rewarded him in kind. Or so Lopez argues.

However, there is a more plausible thesis that could be drawn from Lopez’s work, and maybe Pearson’s. Lopez gives voice to the fantasy self of the student who believes that trapped inside them is the next Pulitzer or Nobel Prize winner. ‘If only my biased lecturer, tutor or teacher would not dismiss my work. If only they would set aside their leftist or conservative bias. Then I could blossom and become who I’m meant to be.’ From my own experience as an undergraduate student, this latter thesis is more likely to be true than Lopez and Pearson’s thesis that the educational institutions of the country are filled with educators who can’t set aside their beliefs and judge a student’s work on its merits.

It sounds like Lopez and Pearson are the ones trying to validate their fantasy selves. ‘If only people would realise that deep within there is so much more than a columnist for the national daily.’

Pooh-pooh Pearson. But that’s coming from a blogger, and we all believe that deep within us lies a columnist.

Bobbio 1993

‘The central theme of Hobbes’s political thought is the unity of the state’ (p. xi). With this, Bobbio begins his defence of Hobbes and, following that, his defence of unity. We live in an international state of nature. Despite the auspices of the United Nations the system still functions on a ‘balance of terror’ (p. xii), so the central question for those seeking perpetual peace, on Bobbio’s account, is the one that has troubled Natural Law theorists for centuries: How do we get from the state of nature to a civil society?

In chapter 1 Bobbio schematises the two main traditions within political philosophy that deal with this problem – Natural Law theory (Hobbes, Locke) and what Bobbio terms the Aristotelian tradition (Aristotle, Bodin, Althusius, Marsilus of Padua, Sir Robert Filmer). The former typically present two stages of the state formation process – the state of nature and civil society – and use a social contract or similar device to justify the move into civil society. The Aristotelian tradition, contrariwise, presents the family as the model for state formation. This tradition holds that the family is the natural social group in the state of nature – proof that humans have the ability to cooperate as an organisation, however small. Families then form villages, and villages in turn form civil societies. The main idea separating the two traditions is that for the Aristotelian tradition the state is natural while for Natural Law theorists the state itself is a synthetic product of human reason. The ‘reactionary’ charge against Natural Law theory, as Bobbio stresses, is that the state is only synthetic or unnatural when viewed as a product of an imaginary contract between imaginary free and equal individuals (pp. 20-21).

Continue reading »

What was Costagate?

Frank Costa

‘Costagate’ refers to an episode in which a number of candidates in the November 2004 Geelong council elections received funding from six Geelong businessmen and developer Lascorp. Under Section 81 of the Victorian Local Government Act 1989 a Councillor ‘…must disclose … particulars of any gift of or above the amount or value of $500 received by him or her from a person other than a person related to him or her by blood or marriage…’ A number of candidates were thought to have breached the Local Government Act.

The name ‘Costagate’ refers to the involvement of Frank Costa (pictured right), head of the Costa Group and then President of the Geelong Football Club. The term is a piece of journalistic hyperbole whereby Costa’s surname was appended with the suffix ‘-gate’. The allusion to the Watergate affair conveys the idea that the parties involved engaged in gross misconduct.

The Geelong businessmen and their donations

The businessmen who contributed to the fund included:
Frank Costa, Costa Group, $10,000
Robert Harris, Development Manager, Lascorp Development Group, $21,269
Stewart Harrison, Eureka Sports Saloon, $10,000
Robert Riordan, United Retail Group, $5,000
Lino Bisinella, Bisinella Developments, $10,000
Glynn Harvey, Fruit and Vegetable Wholesaler, $10,000
Sean Blood, Blood Toyota, $5,000

The money was delivered to Cr David Saunderson, who managed the fund. The donors stipulated that the money be spent on electoral campaign support. During the campaign Councillor Saunderson requested that Mr Costa provide more funds, to which Costa responded that no more money would be forthcoming. Harrison, Bisinella, Harvey and Blood did not know who was to receive the money. Riordan knew who three of the recipients were [1].

Who received how much

Twelve Councillors were elected in November 2004, including Barbara Abley (Brownbill), Tony Ansett (Windermere), Lou Brazier (Corio), Shane Dowling (Deakin), Jan Farrell (Beangala), Bruce Harwood (Kardinia), Strechko Kontelj (Kildare), Rod Macdonald (Cheetham), Peter McMullin (Buckley), John Mitchell (Austin), Tom O’Connor (Austin), David Saunderson (Cowie). Funds were received by the following:

Newly-elected councillors

Lou Brazier, $6,257 (Oct. 2004)
Tom O’Connor, $5,302 (Nov. 2004)
Peter McMullin, $5,000 (funds ‘promptly’ reimbursed)

Re-elected councillors

Tony Ansett, $441 (below level requiring disclosure)
Bruce Harwood, $221 (below level requiring disclosure)
David Saunderson, $5,649 including $2,968 from Lascorp and $536 from each of four Geelong businessmen.

Whelan 2006, Report on Investigation into Greater Geelong City Council

Under the Local Government Act, newly elected councillors are not required to disclose campaign donations because they are not yet councillors.

Whelan’s recommendation

After prolonged coverage by The Geelong Advertiser, in 2006 the Inspector of Municipal Administration, Merv Whelan, conducted a report into possible breaches of the Local Government Act. Whelan recommended that his report

…be referred to Local Government Victoria to take appropriate action regarding Cr Saunderson’s failure to disclose in his ordinary return lodged on 21 July 2005 for the return period to 20 June 2005, gifts in the form of election campaign support received by him from Lascorp Developments $2,967.68, Frank Costa $536.33, Lino Bisinella $536.33, Stewart Harrison $536.34 and Glynn Harvey $536.34.

This week Victoria Police and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted raids on a number of Victorian properties as part of an investigation into an alleged plot to attack a military base in outer Sydney. An associate editor at The Australian, Cameron Stewart (pictured right), knew of the planned raids in advance. According to a report by Paul Maley in The Weekend Australian, on July 30th Stewart contacted the AFP and alerted them that he was aware of the planned raids and intended to publish on the information he had. In the ensuing negotiations with the AFP Stewart agreed not to publish if the story jeopardised the police operation. But Stewart also made it clear to AFP acting commissioner Tony Negus that the final decision on whether The Australian published the story or not was not his to make. This led to what can only be described as an incredible series of events.

Stewart informed Negus that the final editorial decision would fall on The Australian’s Sydney editor Paul Whittaker (pictured right), who in turn told Negus that he’d have to check with editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell. The hubris of The Australian’s editors is amazing. Essentially, the AFP was held over a barrel by the national daily. Whether or not a large police operation would be effective was in the hands of three editorial staff who would have to check with each other that it was okay not to go to press. Eventually Whittaker struck a deal with the AFP to hold Stewart’s story until after the raids. Nevertheless, how is it that senior editors at The Australian can even consider placing a police operation in jeopardy? Given that significant coverage of the planned raids would tip off the targets, it seems that in this case the success or failure of the operation largely came down to an editorial decision at The Australian.

But this is not the worst of it.

Continue reading »

Malcolm Turnbull is this week summoning up that good old “we acted on good faith” defence to distance himself and the Liberal Party from the Godwin Grech/OzCar scandal. There is a small problem with the defence, however. Acting on good faith is no indication of competence. Maybe in this particular case Turnbull should have gone for a little more due diligence and a little less faith. In fact, faith is a pretty ordinary basis for any action in politics, not just attempts to discredit your opposition.

“The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have used their offices and taxpayers’ resources to seek advantage for one of their mates and then lied about it to Parliament” was the claim made by Turnbull following a Senate hearing in which Eric Abetz questioned Grech on the email. Malcolm is certainly regretting these words following the discovery that not only was the email in question Grech’s handiwork but so were the questions asked of him in the Senate hearing.

As the week rolls on you can bet that “we acted on good faith” will continue to be Turnbull’s defence. But come the next election, “faith” may have to double as his offence. It will now take a leap of faith for voters to trust Malcolm with the keys to Kirribilli.

War is the existential negation of the enemy.

If there is a political realm then it is based in the distinction between friend and enemy, much as ethics is the distinction between good and bad and aesthetics is the distinction between beautiful and ugly. Thus (Schmitt 1996, p. 35)

Schmitt 1996

A world in which the possibility of war is utterly eliminated, a completely pacified globe, would be a world without the distinction of friend and enemy and hence a world without politics. It is conceivable that such a world might contain many very interesting antitheses and contrasts, competitions and intrigues of every kind, but there would not be a meaningful antithesis whereby men could be required to sacrifice life, authorized to shed blood, and kill other human beings.

At first Schmitt appears to present an enlightened and pragmatic view of war: ‘…it would be senseless to wage war for purely religious, purely moral, purely juristic, or purely economic motives’ (p. 36). The catch, however, is that non-political situations can become political. Religious, moral and economic antitheses can intensify or contribute to the political antithesis of friend and enemy. So although Schmitt’s position appears at first to ridicule religious, moral or economic wars, his definition of war does not permit of a war that is not political. ‘War is the existential negation of the enemy’, and it is not possible to existentially negate another without that other being by definition an enemy (p. 33). Schmitt’s definition of war and criteria of the political are therefore circular: (1) the criteria of friend and enemy define ‘the political’; (2) war is the existential negation of the enemy; (3) therefore, all war is political.

Jeff Blodgett

Jeff Blodgett, former campaign director for Barack Obama, is in town for the Labor national conference. Blodgett is probably a guy who gets stuff done, and in the world of politics if a guy can get stuff done and still serve his ideals then he’s doing well. Kudos for that Jeff. However, there are two points that Jeff has made while in the antipodes that it would be remiss of his fans, myself included, to overlook. One point relates to candidate authenticity, the other to passion in politics.

Appearing on ABC’s Lateline on Friday, 31 July 2009, Blodgett instructed wannabe Obamas that they must be authentic to win the hearts and minds of the citizenry. Well, maybe more hearts than minds. There is only one problem, duly noted by host Leigh Sales: What if you’re not ‘authentic’? What Leigh really meant, as she appended to the question, was: What if you’re short tempered or you just lack the charisma of an Obama?

This gives one cause to wonder what authenticity is. Is it to be liked? to have conviction? to believe in the policies you propose? One thing seems certain: authenticity and contrivance should be mutually exclusive.

Continue reading »