What do we do when somebody — anybody — proposes an idea that would appear to be heresy and a threat to some established order or narrative?
We do pretty much what we always do. We seek to isolate and “other” an individual holding a different opinion — as an example, just take the study of former prime minister Paul Keating’s criticism of the AUKUS submarine deal.
Keating’s perspective on AUKUS has been covered ad nauseam over the past week, and a range of people in the media, politics and policy have sought to isolate Keating and paint his perspective as outdated.
This “othering” of a former prime minister by those in power, who have stated that his opinion belongs to some Jurassic era, is an opportunity for reflection on how we as a society question opinions held by anybody in a democracy.
It should be said that Keating is no shrinking violet — he has the hide of a rhino and needs no defending. But the treatment he has received at the hands of his critics prompts a consideration of the Western philosophy on liberty, particularly where expression and evaluation of opinion are concerned.
Let’s go back to the 19th century and consider John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, in which he contemplated the freedom of expression and opinion and the way in which alternative views and ideas ought to be considered.
The methods used in an attempt to smother and deflect Keating’s views on AUKUS, for example, would certainly fall within the scope of Mill’s treatise: he took a particularly dim view of the phenomenon of silencing those deemed as guilty of articulating inconvenient thoughts.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind,” Mill argued.
The libertarian goes even further to state that the “peculiar evil silencing the expression of an opinion” is that it robs the current and future society of a perspective that could be valuable if it is articulated.
“If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error,” Mill explained.
Just reflect for a moment on that last paragraph. A person or group of people might change their opinion if an opinion is deemed true. Alternatively, it could result in people confirming their view if a differing opinion is found to be crap.
Mill poses a stark question to his readers that is still relevant: how sure are those people who seek to suppress other views that they are absolutely right? How are such people certain in their thinking if they have not allowed a view to be properly tested against their perspective in the first place?
“We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still,” Mill said.
But what happens when a silenced or suppressed opinion has only a portion of truth within it? Mill’s response is instructive.
“[Though] the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied,” Mill opined.
What do we learn from this in the AUKUS context? Keating attracted attention because his view was outside of the accepted orthodoxy about the alliances with the United Kingdom and the United States. The view of Keating — a senior political figure in this country for many years — was clearly inconvenient to the “prevailing opinion”.
His outsider status and remoteness from official decision-making roles made it easier for some people in political and media circles to characterise his view as being archaic, one based on an assessment of China frozen in the 1990s.
But Keating offered a difference in perspective that allowed an evaluation of the AUKUS deal that would not have been possible otherwise.
It is irrelevant whether an observer agrees or disagrees with Keating on AUKUS, or even — as Mill argued — if Keating is deemed wrong on one or more aspects of his analysis. Australians are served best when there is a proper contest of ideas, as opposed to a silencing of those views that represent a diversion from a desired consensus.
The true mischief in an open democracy is where an alternative perspective such as Keating’s does not get aired because somebody in a powerful position somewhere sees that as a threat to their control of a discourse.
Ask yourself every so often: how the heck do you know what is right if you don’t have other views against which to assess your own?
Does Australia welcome dissent or disagreement, or do we shut down discussion? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
I heard no detailed challenge to Keating’s opinions – only the generalisations that he was beyond his use-by date and pro-China.
What further discussion took place in our media regarding the size of the nuclear subs & their intended location well beyond Australian waters? What of his comments on the USA’s intrusion into the peripheral waters along China’s coastline etc…?
Instead there were character attacks on Keating but nothing addressing points he raised. It’s yet another example of how our nation is being dumbed down.
Exactly Zut. Keating raised specific points – the size and detectability of the 8,000 tonne subs, their ineffectiveness in the shallow continental shelf around china, the naval truism that only one third of your fleet is operable at any one time and 3 initial subs do not add to our “forward defence”, the alternative upgraded and cheaper (more numerous) Collins class subs defending our large coastline etc.
Mainstream media, pro attack-China hawks and defence nuts do not want to address inadequacies raised, and as usual, prefer to attack the person challenging them. Since we are not under immediate threat, the continuance of AUKUS and its eye watering billions should have been subject to parliamentary debate. Did any journo dare to separate themselves from the herd and raise these issues?
I wonder about the merits of parliamentary debate when both major parties are on a pro-America unity ticket, and take turns to lie, twist the truth, and obfuscate. Witness both houses and both sides today. I felt sick and could watch neither for very long
Actually, the discussion of Keating’s view should have been held BEFORE the decision was made.
Exactly. We are now embroiled in an argument about how we got into this mess. The debate should have occurred in September 2021.
ABC RN Saturday Extra had an excellent interview with Hugh White & James Curran expressing joint concern about AUKUS and subs in ‘Does the AUKUS plan stack up?’.
However, like the this article title suggests, what are our long term defence/security interests, strategy and long term purchasing/supply; we keep falling for media noise, an industry sponsored think tank, Anglosphere ideologues and talking points to nudge us in the right direction?
Of course, where do we fit in with our own regional neighbours vs. ‘top people’ in Australia preferring imaginary Anglosphere ‘greasy poles’ of the UK &/or US, over ourselves?
Our society is able to acknowledge different opinions. It would be a mistake to confuse “our society” with various media commentators and organisations that express their proprietor’s opinions.
You raise an interesting point and one that merits further contemplation: to what extent is an alternative view on AUKUS expressed by commentators regardless of where it appears deemed by some readers as a proxy for a view they take to exist in the community as a whole in the absence of, for example, empirical data such as the result of opinion polls or focus groups? An opinion might be justifiably held by an individual but that does not mean that it is widely held. Thanks for the input!
well, within my little echo chamber, Keating’s comments were treated as more-or-less self evident and, if anything, too polite – and most are not huge fans of Keating when it comes to things like economics
It’s unfortunate that PJK was so measured and careful in his spray – it would be good to know what he really thinks of USUKA.
Keatings was informative. He contributed the detailed technical reasons why the nuclear subs are not suitable for Australia’s Defense strategic interests. These could have been the basis for rational debate, but the current business model of news media doesn’t encompass that.
Why not?
How so?
Todays Australian news media is neither the old business model of the 20th C, with presses funded by classified and display ads, nor the TV model either. Both platforms have lost their rivers of gold to new media.
And yet, newsrooms are still operated primarily by old media proprietors – Murdoch, Nine and Stokes, even though these have been decoupled from advertising streams.
It’s an anomaly, worth a closer look.
How do Murdoch, Stokes, and Costello make it pay? Not by advertising revenue. Instead they make it work by bartering political favours in exchange for non-news. They get decisions and non-decisions and strategic inaction from government in exchange for running toothless tiger newsrooms.
Ask no questions, and print press releases verbatim. This saves 50% of newsroom costs by paying fewer journalists, and the moguls clean up with their side businesses – mining, gambling, developing, banking, and aged care. Not to mention ASIC is a joke.
The only people who miss out are the punters.
Where is the public square we can discuss matters of import, without every conversation being framed by corporate lapdogs?
A generation ago that would have been the Sydney Domain & the banks of the Yarra – 2 generations ago Brisbane also had a Speaker’s Corner but I’ve forgotten the name.
The Domain is dead as – now a corporate money making area.
Anything still happening on the Yarra?
While many people are clutching their pearls about how ‘impolite’ he was and use that to dismiss his arguments, pray tell what publicity he would have generated if he was polite and used ‘the right’ language. Whilst Turnbull is mentioned (and expressed it ‘more considered), it’s just that, a mention. I suppose the outrage in its own way worked to put the spotlight to it.
Outrage allows for a spotlight. That same outrage that allows for the spotlight also allows for deflection and distraction from the central points Keating makes. You make a great point.
Any suggestion that PJK doesn’t know what he’s doing with the media is laughable.
Yes indeed. When it’s PJK and the media it’s almost a no-contest.
Controlling the political discourse has being well and truly examined in Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” which so brilliantly outlined how governments and their backers manipulate public opinion for their own ends. I saw this while living in the US in the lead up to the Iraq war. But a key issue here is the extent to which the mainstream media participate in this manufacture. The US media did in the case of Iraq and the Australian media is also a willing participant today in the anti-China groupthink. This should be of concern to all Australians because democracy needs an enquiring open-minded press that hold governments and influencers accountable. The mainstream editors and their conspiring journalists are letting us down very badly.
If MSM was independent and fair, governments would have a lot of difficulty persuading people to go to war. Manufacturing consent would be difficult if not impossible. MSM are complicit in waging wars. MSM owners and bosses should be liable for war crimes.
While the old mainstream media has been critical of Keating’s comments, there is a somewhat different view on social media.
I recall the Robodebt Royal Commissioner Ms Catherine Holmes made a similar comment about the MSM ignoring the deliberations of the RC while social media gave a much fuller view.
Some of the other media were also supportive of PJK’s stance. Pearls and Irritations, for example, had a number of articles that supported various aspects of his statement.
I thought he was a little harsh on Penny Wong who has worked hard to re-establish connections, including with PRC, that were lost or severely compromised during the A>T>M years. But otherwise I was pretty much in agreement.
I agree with your comment on Penny. She was NOT the architect of AUKUS. In fact none of them were. It was Morrison and Dutton. Trouble is with Albo he was too weak to just can the whole thing. Marbles is a war monger and weak. Wong looked very uncomfortable during the announcements.
Agree about Penny Wong. Keating’s remarks had the ring of Whitlam waving through the Indonesian takeover of East Timor, because he was contemptuous (apparently) of tiny countries. (Insiders actually had an old shot of Keating himself in a lei.)