Tim Blair and the Rightwing controversy
Joe Cambria
My criticism of Australia's establishment rightwing certainly ruffled a few feathers (The Tim Blair dinner reveals what's wrong with our pathetic rightwing). Considering that I invited criticism it is only fair that I deal with the objections that were raised.
I did not write out of bitterness. Fortunately I have nothing to be bitter about. I was financially successful in America, and since my return to Australia have had some financial success here. My critics' mistake was to confuse frustration with bitterness and justified criticism with ill-intentions.
They demanded to know why the right should not have dinners and have the likes of Tim Blair address them. I never said they should not. My complaint is that they seem to do nothing but have dinners. While they are organising their next dinner the left is fanatically recruiting. When, for example, did the International Workers Party have a dinner?
Let's be honest here: Dinners are safe and comfortable venues. They are risk-free activities that give to those who attend them the false idea that they are doing something constructive. They are certainly safe in that they do not call upon the guests to actively confront the left. In other words, these dinners have become a substitute for engaging the left.
Instead of continuously challenging in the market place of ideas the socialist thinking of the likes of the Australia Institute, Quiggin, Keene, Stillwell and Setton our free-market warriors settle for speakers, regardless of their quality.
Instead of using the net to produce a daily, or even weekly, publication they resort to, you guessed it, organising dinners. They will never produce a tough net publication because they are lazy and fearful. Harsh words, you might think. But consider this: one leading member of the right said that it would be too much hard work to update a fortnightly site; another said there was no profit in tackling the left everyday, or any other day, apparently. Now tell me this is not laziness.
My point about Steve Mayne is that, regardless of his politics, he has demonstrated more guts, foresight and entrepreneurship than our right has done in the past 20 years. Rather than follow his example they would prefer to squander resources and time on dinners, among other things.
Of course, tackling the left directly has its risks. Not only does it involve hard work, something our self-appointed right appears averse to, it also invites aggression. Our right knows that truly challenging the left means outright confrontation, and they don't have the stomach for it. If this sounds like cowardice, you are dead right.
"Tim Blair never said he was an intellectual," was one response. I know that and furthermore I never said otherwise. What I said is that he had been presented as one. Now Blair was asked to address a Quadrant dinner regarding the ABC. Three of our readers also attended the dinner.
One expressed disappointment in Tim Blair's speech. He had hoped that it would contain suggestions on how the right could counter leftist bias in the media. No such luck. He also felt that it had little substance to it. In the words of another reader it was "Not an inspirational experience, to look around a room full of people in search of someone under the age of 60. Actually there were an unprecedented number in that age group last night."
The demographics of the meeting highlighted my criticism that the right, unlike the left, makes no attempt to recruit young people to its cause. Same old faces, same old names. What gives with these guys? Are they that scared of new blood? The bald fact is that for the last 20 years we have had the same old faces walking (now limping) around town and in all that time these people have consumed limited resources ie. funding, while giving very little in return.
As another reader said, "I agree with you that the rightwing in Australia needs new leadership and new direction especially since the lack of work done by a number of the right organisations."
The criticisms of the right that Brookes' readers sent in echoed those of the many businesspeople I have met with in the last 12 months. This is not a healthy sign.
The following came from another of my critics: "Okay so I agree that some of our boys aren't exactly rocket scientists, however they are all we have! Help' em don't attack' em." There are couple of points here that need answering. This gentleman's email actually confirmed one of my own criticisms: In 20 years all that our right have been able to come up with is Blair and Bolt. That's it!
He also said, "When are you and your big shot right wingers down the large end of town going to DO something to revive the right?" He is obviously unaware of the fact that our right is running a closed shop where only connections matter and old school ties matter even more.
When Tim Blair sent me a complaining email I responded by telling him that if he had not been connected the H. R. Nicholls Society would not have given him the steam off its collective piss. And the same goes for Andrew Bolt. Tim Blair wisely said nothing.
My critic also said, "I reckon the sort of 'bookish' commentary you are likely to dish up is only going to bore us to death." By bookish I meant being reasonably well-read in subjects a knowledge of which is absolutely vital if one is to successfully tackle the left. Smart-aleck commentary is no substitute for a solidly reasoned argument. Anyhow, who said you can't be 'bookish' and still be amusing?
The truth is that Tim Blair's commentary is all potatoes and no meat. There is nothing there that can be used against the likes of Quiggin. Ideas can only be beaten with other ideas.
Those who attacked me for "playing into the hands of the left" by criticising our right evidently do not know that our right is not above a little backstabbing of its own. Mike Nahan, IPA (Institute of Public Affairs) director, sent out two emails to a Mr Davis regarding Mr Jackson. I think it's fair to say that any reasonable person would conclude from the contents of these emails that Nahan was calling Gerry Jackson, Brookes' economics editor, a delusional liar. When called upon to apologise, Nahan refused.
Contrast Mr Jackson's behaviour with Nahan's. Years ago Mr Jackson was the only one who had the courage to openly challenge Bob Santamaria's dopy economics. It would be an understatement to call the attacks scathing. But the attacks were carried out in the open and without malice. Santamaria's response was to say, "I don't mind Gerry Jackson. At least he comes at you from the front." The same apparently cannot be said of Nahan — and he is not the only one.
Nahan was also negative about Mr Jackson's media commentary. Unfortunately, Mr Jackson does not have Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt's connections. Perhaps my critics would care to explain Nahan's despicable behaviour.
And while they are scratching their heads over Nahan's emails they might like to wonder why the IPA (Institute of Public Affairs) turned down an offer by Dr Aaron Oakley. Dr Oakley is a respectable research scientist who is deeply concerned about the anti-scientific activities of the greens.
Because of these concerns he offered, gratis, his scientific services in an advisory capacity to the IPA. He had one interview and that was that. A research scientist offers his services free of charge to the IPA and they turn him down! What kind of organisation is that?
Earlier on I referred to an email that Tim Blair had sent me regarding my article. In my rather lengthy and detailed response I asked him whether or not he believed that the right should embrace and encourage all those who are able and willing to engage the left, particularly at their own expense. He did not respond. What do his defenders make of that?
*I asked him a simple question and he goes silent. All he had to do is say yes or no. What's the problem? Perhaps one of his supporters can enlighten me.
I think it is pointless trying to engage our rightwing, including Tim Blair. The man refused to address my main accusation against the right, which is one of exclusiveness to the detriment of defending free markets. And he refused to respond to my email.
By the way, the number of supportive emails greatly out numbered the critical ones.
*It turns out that Tim Blair did not reply to my email because he accidentally deleted it while getting rid of spam.
Joe Cambria was a Wall Street trader for 15 years.
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 18 August 2003