Ideology
I can see why the new atheist commentators Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins want to take on the Pope. Here is someone who fears what Gareth Evans called “relevance deprivation”. He fears it for himself as Pope, he fears it for the Church. To bolster the declining authority of the Church, he has set up the straw man of “aggressive secularism” and sets his adherents against it.

Religion, the Pope told Britons in his trip this month, is being “marginalised”, relegated to the “purely private sphere”. Believers holding public roles are being asked to act against their conscience, he claims. Secularism, Britains were warned, no longer values or tolerates their traditional values such as honesty, respect and fair-mindedness.
Your Holiness, this is rubbish – ideologically motivated rubbish.
Christopher Hitchens is dying. That the 61-year-old’s body has finally given out after four decades of heavy smoking and drinking enough “to kill or stun the average mule” on a daily basis comes as little surprise to anyone, least of all the man himself. In an archly elegant and coolly analytical column for Vanity Fair, Hitchens has described how advanced his oesophageal cancer is and how he “can’t see myself smiting my brow with shock or hear myself whining about how it’s all so unfair; I have been taunting the Reaper for into taking a free scythe in my direction and have now succumbed to something so predictable and banal that it bores even me.”

No doubt, the now near-mandatory beatification of deceased public figures that saw Princess Di transformed from (in Hitchens’ own clear-eyed description) “a disco-loving airhead” to the People’s Princess, Steve Irwin from a cringe-inducing national embarrassment to a beloved folk hero and Kerry Packer from a ruthless business titan to kind-hearted philanthropist in mystical communion with the common man will all too soon befall Hitchens.
It will be interesting to see what kind of obituaries will be written by those on the progressive side of politics and, in particular, how they deal with Hitchens’ refusal to toe the party line in recent years. For decades, the brilliant, acid-tongued Brit was one of the Left’s fiercest and most effective ideological warriors and that rarest of all beasts — a radical intellectual capable of engaging and entertaining a mainstream audience.
Continue reading "The Left shouldn’t have ditched the Hitch" »
Latest 2 of 59 comments
View all comments-
Really says:
Any equation that suggests some equivalence between the actions and motivations of Adolf Hitler and those of George Bush (buffoon though he was), or that imply some equivalence between Saddam Hussein and Poland’s pre-war leaders puts it well beyond the pale. I would have thought that was obvious. Had you… Read more »
-
SkepDad says:
When Chris eventually succumbs to his body it will be a great loss to the world of rationalism. Though I occasionally disagree with his positions, one must accept that he is one of the great thinkers of our time. History will bear that out, and not entirely because of “near-mandatory… Read more »
Do any of you really care less about what the media thinks about itself? To all the philosophers out there, yes, I get there’s an infinite regress being set up here. I am, after all, in the media talking about the media talking about itself. But forget that for a moment and answer the question. I bet for most of you it’s no. But gauging from the readers’ commentariat of many online publications, for a small, but significant minority of media audiences, it’s a big yes.
What I want to know is: how did such a tedious trend take off? When did the media become obsessed with itself? And, more importantly, when did readers start to mirror this obsession?
Admittedly, I didn’t spend too much time researching the historical roots of this phenomenon. But I have a feeling that although it’s always been around, the media’s obsession with itself, and your obsession with this obsession, really took off during what the media likes to call the ‘Culture Wars’. I’m pretty sure I heard someone at a dinner party crammed with smug lefties say quite authoritatively that the phenomenon had something to do with the rise of a political movement called ‘neo-conservatism’ and the neo-cons’ need for an enemy against which they could define themselves.
Continue reading "You’re either with us, or with the cultural terrorists" »
Latest 2 of 62 comments
View all comments-
seriously says:
EVERYONE should take this test before voting this election. http://ldp.org.au/quiz/index.html Read more »
-
Septic Sceptic says:
That’s very generous of you Penny: to assume the bona fides of the “readers” of these forums. I, for one, am extremely sceptical of the genuine independence many of them espouse. Read more »
The first draft of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders was released last month by the American Psychiatric Association, adding a range of controversial new disorders.

If you hoard too much you may have hoarding disorder, moody teens may have a psychosis disorder, if your maths is rotten you may have a maths disorder and frisky people may have hypersexuality disorder.
However, one disorder surprisingly didn’t make the manual but has a depressing effect on the political discourse: ideology disorder.
Continue reading "Signs you may have a political ideology disorder" »
Latest 2 of 103 comments
View all comments-
John Christopher Sunol says:
I political ideology can be put to anyone who is obessessivee over politics. twitter.com/Johnsunol Read more »
-
Joe mauser says:
I have seen bowling for columbine, Mike Moore displays his trophy’s for the sport of target shooting , even a picture of him being presented with a prize for winning a competition from Charlton Heston himself. As for buying that rifle…he collected it on camera he did not tell the… Read more »
Note: This piece was prompted by a column by David Hetherington, the executive director of progressive think tank Per Capita, in The Australian last week.
What exactly is a ‘Progressive’? It’s a term that’s been used against Tony Abbott – he is not one, apparently – and against anyone who does not support an ETS.

Progressives’ have three things in common (a consistent political philosophy, I argue below, is not one of them).
The first characteristic is hubris. Progressives are confident that any human or earthly problem can be solved – by them. Their hubris is firmly rooted in what psychologists have described as the ‘overconfidence effect’ - a person’s unjustified confidence in the objectivity and accuracy of his judgement.
Latest 2 of 34 comments
View all comments-
Andrew Goff says:
Progressive: Bringing about progress. Conservative: Conserving what you have. Gee wouldn’t it be great if we could have a government that was BOTH. Read more »
-
TB says:
I find most ‘progressives’ are not really that ‘progressive.’ When most of these progressives attempt to seek solutions to the problems which continue to be unaddressed, they ultimately seek solutions within the confines of the systems (be they social, political or economic) that created the problems in the first place.… Read more »
This first piece should inspire the question about the political basics.
What is it that differentiates the political parties? Or is philosophy now no more than a bib handed out to be worn before the political chamber game, a contrived or acquired vocal tribalism?
A tribalism based on the coincidence of the party a person joined, rather than what they believe - as what they believe has either no genuine differentiation, or does not exist.
Latest 2 of 22 comments
View all comments-
Andrew Thomas says:
Barnaby, I just read this article in reverse with bottom paragraph first to top paragraph. It made just as much sense? Was this an intentional “palindrome” article technique or do you just have no idea how to write things without them coming out as a series of random thoughts? Andrew Read more »
-
Ben Aveling says:
Barnaby, You wrote “The Right has only political commentators to ventilate right issues. They do not have a political party like the Left has the Greens.” Could you expand on that? In particular, could you expand on the role that you think the Liberal and the National parties respectively should… Read more »
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
ICB: If I could offer you only one tip for the future…
Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit, an irregular regular column on calumny and codswallop.…
Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”
The yips. It’s an old golf term which refers to golfers who lose the ability to putt. They stand…
The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou
In I Spit On Your Grave, a young woman is gang raped in a remote woodland. She is beaten and tortured…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
marley says:
I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics
Erick says:
Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops
Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more
Latest 2 of 169 comments
View all commentsAdd your comment