"protests are a good thing as long as they are left-wing"
Lefty blogger Jeremy Sear comes out today in favour of the leftist clowns who recently occupied Melbourne central.
Why? Because the protesters are of similar political orientation to Jeremy.
But don’t take my word for it. Read his justification for the occupation:
Well, for one, it shows politicians that it’s not just the far-right who are angry with where things are going… So a protest from the other side helps balance out that pressure. Even if that’s all it does, it’s still arguably worthwhile for that reason alone.
Second, it lets politicians know that there are people out there – possibly many more than have simply attended the protest, for the reasons above – who think we’re going too far down the American path. Who want them to consider the public sphere, the poor, the community as a whole, when deciding whether or not to support legislation that either redresses the imbalances in our society or which makes them worse.
The protesters don’t need to come up with a set of specific policy proposals to have an important impact. What they’re calling for is clear – policies to redress inequality.
So there you have it – the protests achieve something because they”counter” right-wing protests and stand for more wealth redistribution.
Back to the physical world where outcomes matter, patriots can be relieved that the erstwhile occupational leftoids haven’t made any difference to anything. There will be no further tax hikes, income redistribution, protectionism or bureaucracy as a result of their foolishness. We can be glad that they in actuality they have and will achieve precisely nothing.
In true Jeremy style, he also comes up with this little howler:
Protests tell government the direction in which ordinary, engaged people would like it to go. When we have three years between elections and the blunt instrument of a mostly two-party system even then, where the voters’ precise directions are sometimes difficult to discern accurately, protests are a necessary and important part of the process of democracy.
Sadly for Jeremy, the majority of people intend to vote for or preference the Liberal /National Party at the next federal election. Fortunately, Newspoll does reflect voter’s wishes accurately enough. And whilst the protesters purported to speak on behalf of 99% of the population, their views are not shared by most Australians.
No one seems to be disputing the rights of groups to protest, even if they are fringe groups who do not reflect what most people think and feel. But it is absurd to suggest, as Jeremy does, that occupying public spaces for days on end and causing general disruption is acceptable.
Leftists such as Jezza and the Greens, Adam Bandt said much the same thing, are attempting to invest these ersatz Australian protests with a significance that isn’t there. The only point the protesters have seems to be ‘spread the wealth around’.
Unfortunately, if the wealth was to be spread around, those anti-carbon tax protesters at Parliament House, the retirees and pensioners who have worked their whole lives, would qualify far more quickly than a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears teenagers and uni students.
As Iain pointed out, even moderate lefty, David Penberthy, makes the connection that when these misguided youths are protesting about the situation in Europe, it’s actually the fault of the extreme socialist programs over there that have wrought the damage, not the capitalist system.
A little bit of knowledge goes a long way.
The only point I disagree with you on, Leon (and GD), is calling Jeremy, the Greens, Bandt and the protesters “lefties”. They’re not of the general left at all and seem more about anarchy and overthrowing societal norms than anything that benefits the great bulk of society. They might profess altruism on behalf of minority and/or marginalised groups (like gays, refugees, the poor, etc) but the reality is they just want more for themselves. They only hide behind the label of ‘the left’ to disguise the fact that they are basically very self serving. The reality is they are almost irrelevant to the political process of real representation of anyone but themselves and.most of those on the real (and less radical) left just don’t want to know them.
The fact is that Australia already has an incredible system of wealth redistribution and a world class health, education & welfare system. We would have to be on of the fairest societies in the world, which undermines the whole argument Jeremy puts forward. Nope, it’s about self interest for that lot.
Struth Ray !
You have just said something I totally agree with!!!
I will have to just take my medication now!!
Why would it surprise you that I don’t support pseudo-intellectuals posing as representatives of the underclasses, Iain? The Labor Party is streets ahead of the Greens when it comes to progressive reforms. Even the Liberals are more about governing for a fair society than the Johnny-Come-Lately Greens Party, whose real aim seems more about setting themselves up as a ruling elite.
I see your point Ray.
I think the difference between you and Jeremy, the Greens and the protesters is that you are of the centre-left, and they are of the far left.
I agree also that self-interest is a huge component of all this, since the vast majority of the protesters calling for more income redistribution are either students or bums.
There’s a bit of irony here as well. Jeremy supports free speech for the protesters to the point where they can occupy public spaces and cause damage to businesses and normal community life but often threatens his critics with defamation suits and now apparently supports Justice Bromberg’s judgment against Andew Bolt.
Jeremy Sear is a man of many contradictions.
Leon, I think it’s a real stretch to compare Bolt’s case with the protesters. I support the Bolt decision and the protesters right to free speech too and I don’t see any contradiction in that because, from what’s been reported, I don’t believe the protesters racially discriminated against anyone. But they didn’t have to set up camp for a week to exercise their right to free speech (whatever the hell it was they were talking about).
When I wrote ‘leftists’ I realised that is wasn’t quite the right nomenclature. Are they the extreme left? However, I do agree with the rest of your comments Ray.
GD, I’m not sure where the type of policies and agendas pushed by those you referred to (i.e. ‘Jezza, the Greens & Bandt’) fit on the political spectrum or what to call them. To put them on the left doesn’t seem to fit because the left already represents ordinary Australians and workers as well the disenfranchised & minority groups the Greens claim to have a monoploy on. These people are more like academics advocating nonsense and the removal of everything that has worked (and ironically, everything that has got them where they are in life). They’re basically over-educated twits who, in the main, earn salaries from the professional areas like law, universites and the State school system. They’re used to telling their clients (or students) what to do, which tends to give them a false sense of authority, whereas if they operated more in the commercial world or (God forbid) actually had to use physical labour to earn a crust, they’d soon realise that they are no better than anyone else and that our society has evolved the way it has because that’s how it works best. They seem to think we should throw out all the old conventions and do it their way, which is a recipe for anarchy & disaster in my opinion. I agree that things need improving but, hey, they ARE improving all the time and our economy, our legislature and our society in general are a constant work in progress, as they should be. The Greens et al are like someone who reads books on flying and thinks that therefore he can just hijack a plane in mid air and avoid a crash. So, as for a name, I suggest: Try hards.
Ray the term that You and GD are looking for here is “Silvertail socialists” which always seems to evoke the right sorts of images for me.
They’re not socialists because they generally enjoy the trappings of wealth and many even live in wealthy inner-city suburbs and are independently wealthy – look at Brian Walters. Authoritarians might be a better word, Iain.
“They’re not of the general left at all and seem more about anarchy and overthrowing societal norms…Authoritarians might be a better word, Iain.”
So which are they Ray, Anarchists or Authoritarians?
I’m pretty sure you can’t be both!
Hi Duncan,
I think some of them are anarchists (the more feral looking ones) while the major spokespeople like Bandt are authoritarians.
Fair enough Ray.
What are your thoughts on the Occupy wall street protests, as opposed to the ones here in Oz?
I mean, i personally feel we have no reason to be having them here in Oz (except perhaps as a display of solidarity), as we haven’t got anywhere the same issues as they have in the US, but that the protests in the US are quite understandable and a good thing.
We on the other hand have a well regulated banking system, a strong economy, a relatively competent government (yeah yeah JewLiar is Bob Downs Bitch…Yawn) low unemployment and secure borders.
WTF are they complaining about?!
As opposed to the US, which is effectively a corporatocracy run by and for the top 1%, with government of both stripes being bought and sold.
Even some on the Right in the US and many former TeaPartiers are coming on board with the occupy protests… A couple of days ago a group of Right wing patriot militia guys turned up to Occupy Phoenix, armed to the teeth to protect the freedoms of the protesters (who’s politics they despise) from what they see as a dangerous collusion of big government and big corporations. Christ, just the the other day Rand Paul called for the Koch brothers to be jailed after they were found guilty of dumping HUGE quantities of benzine into the environment!
I am amused and slightly horrified to see so many right-wingers opposing these protests, instead choosing to side with the elites, and supporting the government using violence to quash freedom of speech. (something they are supposedly opposed to)
The tea party talked the talk, but these guys walk the walk!
Occupy Wall Street seems justified to me. They have real problems in the US and were royally screwed by the banks, govt and other corporations. Good luck to the protesters over there, I say, but I see no reason for Australians to show any “solidarity” by copycatting the occupy meme over here. As you point out, we don’t have the same set of issues or magnitude of economic problems that they have. Basically, I think America has shot itself in the foot and has got what was coming to them. It’s their problem. Entirely self made. Let’s face it, it’s one screwed up country and I have no more sympathy for them than I have for, say, Carlton FC who cheated the system too.
As for the Aussie occupy protests, they were just juvenile.
I think we are pretty much on the same page here Ray.
Pingback: Protesters believe because they acheive #2 | Iain Hall's SANDPIT