Talking the Talk and Walking the Walk

From an article published in The Age:

"Many people in media and politics promote a set of attitudes that are supposed to be 'moderate' and 'progressive': republicanism, harm minimisation, the elusive ideal of reconciliation and so on," Mr Ah Mat wrote.

"We fear that if you go, there will be a shift in public discussion.

"Otherwise the whole project will regress back to progressivist platitudes about symbolic reconciliation and walking bridges."

...

"Many of the conclusions we have arrived at in Cape York Peninsula are regarded as backward conservatism by the urban elites," Mr Ah Mat reports in his four-page letter.

"They believe in harm minimisation and social engineering as the solutions to the indigenous crisis.

"They can afford to adhere to their orthodox ideological prejudice, because they are far away from the suffering in remote areas and in the segregated underclass lives of many urban indigenous people."

The solution proposed by Mr Ah Mat is a new alliance with the right of politics.

"Conservative people at least have a relationship with indigenous people because of their closer relationship with the regional and remote Australia and with the primary industries," he says.

"There are many conflicts between us and the political right, but it is pointless to advance our cause as a 'progressive cause' in opposition to the right.

"Progressive people are clueless and can't get a majority."

The world is full of people who Talk the Talk. One of the reasons I'm a liberal is simply because I don't like to see beggars in the street, widows and orphans without hope nor sustainance. OK, so I'm patronising and arrogant. But it's my money, and if I want to give it to people who are disadvantaged, that's my right, just as it's yours not to.

What I see amongst the disorganised Left are people who are too caught up in ideology and dogma to have much in the way of ordinary human decency and compassion. Like Hamlet, who's so busy musing about whether or not to Kill the Usuper (and in the process leaving a trail of bodies, Polonius, Ophelia, Rosencrantz, Guilderstern...), they are so busy being "Compassionate" and "Caring" that they don't notice the real needs of people in society who are doing it tough. The Civilian Death Rate in Iraq actually went down during the war - fewer people were killed by stray US bombs and "collateral damage" than were being massacred by the Saddamites. But of course, the liberation of Iraq was "Not in my Name" to them. Well it was in mine.

The reason I'm not a Conservative is because they don't Talk the Talk. But very often - not as much as they should - they do Walk the Walk. Viz Clinton's words that provided comfort to much of Africa - but no actual help. And Bush's speaking softly and carrying a big wallet, not a lot of comfort, just actual, objective, practical help.

Maybe that's why John Howard leads the "Liberal Party". It's not half liberal enough in my opinion, but better than the partly-sane and wholly-directionless Australian Labour Party.

Update: I see that Tim Blair has gotten to this story before me.

Update : Karl Heinz Ranitszch very properly fact-checked me in the comments re Iraqi civilian death toll. Depending on who you believe, the civilian death toll from all causes (including executions by Ba'athists) over the 43 days of the war was between 40 and 200 per day. I think a figure of 85 is most reliable, but Karl Heinz's figure of about 120 is quite reasonable, we just don't have solid data yet. On the order of 100/day, anyway.

My figures for Civilian deaths due to the Ba'athist regime were at least 500,000 over 10 years (3650 days). We know of 100,000 Kurds, and at least 50,000 Shi'ites ( Amnesty International figures pre-war plus mass graves found since then ). As more mass graves are being found all the time, 500,000 is more likely to be an underestimate than overestimate.

At this point I'll stop: talking about mass slaughter sickens me.