CONSERVATIVES in Australia are often decried as heartless; the do-gooders and chardonnay drunks of the Left insist they have a monopoly on that which they cherish above all else: compassion. But “compassion” is a dirty word, too often abused by its adherents in the name of less honourable agendas.
It’s a short post this morning, although I will be back a little later today; my early morning scan of The Australian has turned up one of the best critiques of “compassion” and progressivism” that I have seen in some time, and I wanted to share it with readers.
Aptly entitled “Leftist Jargon Is Village Idiocy” — and accessible here — News Limited columnist Janet Albrechtsen (herself an eternal target of left-wing bile) takes neat aim at the Left, its tactics, and its perennial hypocrisy.
Sadly, I think this sort of thing is increasingly becoming entrenched in our culture as the new normal; should this judgement ultimately prove correct it would be an amoral victory to the Left in the so-called “culture wars,” and an indictment on the type of executive, institutions and social culture we have permitted governments of the Left to create.
I know many will scream that John Howard spent 12 years in office, rolling back much of the “progress” made in the name of “compassionate, progressive” government.
My answer is simple: since the election of the Whitlam government in 1972, many traditional social standards have, by a creeping socialism and a gradual whitewash of accepted values, been replaced by a cradle-to-grave Leftist mantra that is fed into the moral food chain at every stage.
Such changes, once made, are exceedingly difficult to undo — even by a radical and driven conservative of Howard’s ilk, and by those closest to him.
It is fed to children through school curricula laced with predetermined moral defaults.
It is perpetuated in humanities and liberal arts schools in universities across the country.
It is the starting point for the “national” broadcaster at the ABC, the quality of journalism from which is heavily and disproportionately skewed leftward.
Its consequences are everywhere; a good contemporary example can be found in the steadily increasing tide of community outrage over the lenient sentencing of violent criminals, rapists and paedophiles, and the growing litany of reoffences committed by such creatures upon their premature and apparently ill-considered release from gaol.
And its hypocrisy knows no bounds; Albrechtsen’s handling of the current issue of asylum seekers, for example, is a salutary illustration of the changeable morals of “compassion” from the Left, and why no consequence ever — ever — attaches to their proponents.
I’m posting this short article — and the link to Albrechtsen’s — as a discussion point, and I will be very interested in what readers think.
Those readers of a left-wing persuasion are also welcome to rebut the Albrechtsen case or any of the points I have made, but I would ask that all comments on both sides be kept civil, reasoned and preferably to the point.
And speaking of asylum seekers — I will be posting again a little later today as I suggested at the outset; I’ve had the germs of a very radical idea on a completely different approach to this issue that I will canvass, and on that front too the feedback from readers will be of great interest indeed.