Thursday, December 29, 2022

CriticalTheories

 

A Quadrant Article

The Folly of Going Too Far




Declan Mansfield



The Promised Land is a symbolic dream and nothing more. Its satisfactions are beyond the reach of both individuals and society, irrespective of whether the tools used to attain happiness are politics, religion, science, economics, or philosophy. The supreme, contemporary irony, though, is that, while we’re living in an overtly moral age, it’s a fundamental, but often overlooked side of human nature to disturb our own and other people’s peace.

All of us, to our shame, are guilty of naively or even deliberately choosing the wrong path. We do it continually throughout our lives. Dostoevsky said that if all human desire was indulged, we would still, through a quirk of psychology, destroy everything that makes our lives happy and meaningful. Eden, Jannah, Nirvana, the prelapsarian state of nature, the perfect world of the future, the false gods and snake oil of communism, feminism, socialism, fascism or environmentalism, (our wildest, febrile imaginings, in other words) are permanently outside — except in brief moments of pleasure or contentment — the horizon of tangible, durable and concrete human experience. Like Moses, then, we see the Promised Land, but it always remains tantalisingly beyond our reach. In the end, we take, if we’re wise and humble, the simple joys, and are grateful.

What, you say, does the above deep and perhaps meaningless passage have to do with anything? Apart from a general observation, not much. But it does refer obliquely to the most monumental strategic blunder of modern times, which will probably take decades to undo. After centuries of stigmatisation and discrimination, homosexual people, or, in broader terms, the non-heterosexual minority, had not only seen the Promised Land from a distance, but had walked through its shady bowers, sunlit mountains and watered oases. A rejected community had reached their desired destination and were enjoying the fruits of both their exhaustive labours and their most pristine dreams. Everyone, or at least most people in Western liberal democracies, were happy. Suddenly nobody cared about other people’s sexuality.

And then, like Icarus flying too close to the sun, extremists within the movement pushed everything too far. It wasn’t enough for gay marriage to be normalised, or for good-natured tolerance of different lifestyle choices to be accepted. A suite of radical claims was put before a confused public and no debate or dissent was allowed. Men were now women and women were men, and not in the ‘let us be kind to John or Jane type of way – sure what harm could it do?’ No, a man with an actual penis and testicles and the full physiology of an adult male was now a woman with all the rights and privileges traditionally reserved for females, and any argument to the contrary was ‘transphobia’, a sin for which the only just response was to be cast into the deepest realms of hell; either that, or have your life destroyed by being cancelled socially or professionally. In other words, the purest form of bullying behaviour, a prima facie example that would sit easily in even the most enlightened psychological textbook, was being weaponised to further an ideological agenda, and by the people who shout the loudest about ‘being kind’.

The amount of anti-free speech, anti- democratic, anti-live-and-let-live ideological impositions on everyday people’s lives is extraordinary – and just as chilling in their implications. No institution has been left unmolested by what is a fusion of postmodernism, critical theory, feminism, the myth of the Noble Savage, Cultural Marxism and Queer Theory, and it’s presented to an ignorant and easily fooled public as simply being nice. It is now considered ‘hate speech’ to practice any form of religion that does not celebrate the idea that there are seventy-two genders. Science, the most accurate way of measuring the world, is being destroyed because its results often don’t conform to transgender ideology. Politics, long an arena in liberal democracies of civilised disagreement and discussion, has been co-opted into a simplistic site of black-and-white thinking, where morality, hence scapegoating, around transgender issues is the norm. Academia, and education in general, is no longer concerned with a search for truth or where intellectual gadflies have a home: conform to the ideology or forget about your career. The media, once proud of its role as the Fourth Estate, is now the official arm of an ideology that brooks no dissent. David Hume’s distinction of what is and what ought to be has been utterly extinguished. We live in a world of establishment-sponsored propaganda, and woe betide anyone who dissents from its strictures.

It didn’t need to be this way. Most people have ideas about themselves and opinions of other people that would, if they were relentlessly articulated, cause society to frown in consternation at their peculiarities. We overlook each other’s idiosyncrasies because we’re all guilty of wrongthink to some extent. What we have not done, until now, at least in liberal democracies, is force people to recognise other people’s opinions, truth claims, or psychological views of the world as absolutely sound. Disagreement has traditionally been encouraged because humility in the face of the complexity of the world is a more rational response than strict adherence to any ideology. In other words, you do your thing and I’ll do mine. And once we’re not physically harming one another or stealing property, then everything is allowed, including passionate disagreement.

This humane quintessence of civilisation is now under threat, and the danger of this situation is that the entire edifice of gay rights is also under threat. This is the disastrous outcome of not accepting reality, but instead searching for Utopia, and, like Procrustes and his bed, making society conform to an ideological vision of the world. As Newton said, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This dictum is as true in relation to social norms as it is to physics. Islamic fundamentalism, chauvinistic nationalism, and, to put it bluntly, the less intellectually developed regions of the world are inherently anti-homosexual and don’t need any encouragement to return to benighted forms of anti-gay discrimination. There are hundreds of millions of people with these attitudes. The only thing that’s stopping their worldwide negative encroachment into the lives of gay people is the political, economic and military power of the liberal democratic West – and the only thing holding the West’s political values together is an adherence to political liberty. Break this bond and everything, no matter how dreadful, is possible. This is exactly what is happening now with the imposition of transgender ideology across the institutions of free and open democracies. People are prepared to accept other people’s idiosyncrasies only when the courtesy is reciprocal; and this openness to other people’s idiosyncrasies has been broken by the extremists of the transgender movement, with the support of a whole raft of LGBTQ+ organisations. Never has the idea of playing with fire been more apposite, and the consequences more potentially lethal.

The leaders of gay rights organisations around the world need to become less ideological and more practical in their approach to what can be achieved politically and socially in relation to homosexual rights. Do not push transgender ideology so far that the tolerant majority, who are happy their gay brothers and sisters are now living dignified and socially accepted lives in open relationships, become disenchanted because their own beliefs have been proscribed by an intolerant minority. The Promised Land, remember, is almost always an illusion, or, to say it in more prosaic terms, utopias can never live up to the hype. Don’t kill the golden goose for an ideological chimera. Or, to continue the mythological, fairytale and biblical allusions, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Bismarck said that ‘politics is the art of the possible, the attainable – the next best’. This wisdom is something everyone should know. Transgender ideology is incoherent as a philosophy, and impossible, over the long term, as politics. Another quotation, this time from Rochefoucauld, which should be the slogan of every human rights movement: ‘don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good’. You’ve walked through a less than perfect Promised Land. That should be enough. It is the daily reality, in myriad ways, for everybody.

Monday, December 19, 2022

AboriginalPower

 

Always Was, Always Will Be About Power



In 1983, as a naïve youth worker and concerned by what I had been reading since the early 1970s about what was happening with Aborigines in Alice Springs, I moved there to see what I could do to help. All told, I spent six years in Central Australia, leaving both depressed and convinced that the situation could never be fixed. One thing that bothered me then and still does is the constant calls for ‘self-determination’, not so much by Aborigines but by whitefella activists, some I later learned to be card-carrying members of the Communist Party and others who now hold senior positions in academia and the bureaucracy.

The contemporary definition of ‘Aboriginal self-determination’ is not about fitting in with the mainstream, of integrating or assimilating, but of splitting from mainstream Australia. Meanwhile, the rest of us get to pay for it whilst the rent seekers contribute very little to the community and Aboriginal lives, including those of children, continue to be ruined.

Assimilation is an anathema to progressives, who prefer ‘integration’ as the term de rigueur — but they are essentially the same thing. Aborigines need to learn to fit in, be a part of, what we have known to be Australian culture for the last 200-plus years and, indeed, most of them have done just that. (So why the special treatment, benefits and funding, you may well ask? That’s a topic for another conversation.)

None of this means Aborigines need to lose their culture – far from it. Unfortunately, much of what passes for Aboriginal ‘culture’ today is an invention of the last 50 years. Fortunately, much authentic Aboriginal culture of the past has vanished. The gruesome initiations, genital mutilation, inflicted cicatrices, burns, ritual spearings, sorcery and payback murders have by and large disappeared. Nevertheless, inter-tribe clan grievances often remain, as can be seen at some football indigenous matches, both on the field and amongst the spectators. Even though these encounters can still become violent, at least those conflicts are mostly played out with a football, not spears and clubs.

Meanwhile, the Aboriginal Industry is chock full of ill-informed, urban myth-makers and illusionists, this caste of urgers and deluded pretenders giving rise to the patronising insistence on the uniqueness of ‘Aboriginal knowledge’ about everything from agriculture and fish farms (a lá Bruce Pascoe), water and fire management (a lá ‘cultural burning’) to Aboriginal ‘art’, ‘fashion’ and even ‘astronomy’, and not to mention Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley’s thoroughly overdone ‘Welcome to Country”. This is mostly snake oil fakery, an effort to convince contemporary Australians that the Aborigines of old were something they clearly never were not. Worse, histories and observational accounts of early Aboriginal life and culture are vanishing from library shelves, replaced by the anti-white post-modern dogma of ‘invasion, colonisation and inter-generational trauma’. It is unusual today to find any history book about Aborigines in a secondary or tertiary institution that is more than fifteen years old. This is cultural censure and erasure happening right under our noses. We are all the poorer for it, black and white alike.

Meanwhile, the recent invention, exaggeration, distortion and misrepresentation of the alleged ‘frontier wars’ serves as a made-to-order replacement ‘history’ intended to raise the status of Aboriginal people and degrade that of settlers. It is yet another bill of goods, a distorting sham, being hawked by a power-grabbing activist elite in whose interest it is to falsify and distort our history. The goal, need it be said, is an attempt to paint a genocidal racism as Australia’s original sin.

I, too, would like more self-determination in my own life, too, but I am constrained by the laws of the land. Unfortunately, self-determination for many people who today identify as Aboriginal is taken to mean the normal rules — keeping children in school, eschewing clan and domestic violence — aren’t thought to fully apply. This is nowhere more apparent than on the troubled streets of Alice Springs. ‘Self-determination’ means ‘we’ll do what we like and you can pay for it’. Self-determination’ is about colonising and taking control, accepting all that whitefellas have to offer while offering nothing in return. Self-determination is about undermining whitefella institutions, judiciaries, organisations and bureaucracies. Self-determination is about enculturated white people who, on the strength of what may be a mere speck of indigenous DNA, now identify exclusively as Aboriginal, thereby giving themselves an economic and social leg-up. For the activist cadre it always was and always will be about money, power and control, all underscored by the notion that members of one race enjoy a preeminent ascendency over all other Australians.

More examples of ‘self-determination’ can be found in the ban on climbing Ayers Rock (Uluru), Mt Warning (Wollumbin), Mt Gillen, and many Grampians climbs, all for ill-defined or unexplained ‘cultural’ reasons’. After much outcry, consideration is now being given to re-opening the Mt Warning climb, but only for those who pay a fee and are escorted by indigenous guides. More rent-seeking, what a surprise! Australian place names are also rapidly being overwritten with (most likely made-up) Aboriginal names (eg: K’gari, once known as Fraser Island). All of this is about claims to ownership, to ‘sovereignty’. These changes should not be mistaken for deference to Aboriginal culture; it’s no more nor less than an insidious takeover. What we are experiencing here is cultural guerrilla warfare, the picking off one target after the other. Don’t believe it? Look no further that what has happened in New Zealand.

Self-determination is not about ‘closing the gap’, nor Aborigines ‘having a voice’ — all of that can be achieved without a change to the Constitution. Indeed, the $35+ billion currently spent on Aboriginal affairs and the 11-plus current Aboriginal members of parliament are more than enough to fulfil both aims. The Voice referendum is purely and simply about the drive towards Aboriginal sovereignty, which can only be achieved by changing the nation’s foundational document and charter.

Under the Albanese government, self-determination means the coming referendum, whose barely concealed intention is to divide Australia along lines of race. To achieve this ignoble end, the federal government is stacking the deck via its Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, which states

The Bill will also allow the Commonwealth to fund educational campaigns to promote voters’ understanding of referendums and the referendum proposal.

At the same time, in a joint media release issued on December 11, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, Special Minister of State Don Farrell, Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney, and Pat Dodson, special envoy for reconciliation and implementing the Uluru Statement. Dodson’s brother, clearly stated

To support community education, the Government proposes to temporarily lift a funding restriction in the Act, to enable funding of educational initiatives to counter misinformation.

The entire media release is worth reading. But what is hiding in plain sight, is the Albanese government’s intention to de-facto fund and promote the ‘Yes’ campaign whilst hamstringing ‘No’ advocates. Anything the No campaign says can and will be construed as “misinformation”. We have seen this already with the appalling attacks by Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton’s on Jacinta Price. Brace for much more of that — and wonder, too, if the bile and attempts at character assassination are a foretaste of an empowered Voice?

To make an informed self-determination at the referendum’s ballot box, ordinary Australians must have full access to both sides of the argument, pro and con, which the Albanese government has already legislated to ensure this won’t happen. Meanwhile, Australians are subjected to a daily and massive pro-Yes propaganda barrage by the taxpayer-funded ABC and SBS. If Australians prove slow on the uptake, allow ourselves to be persuaded by the government’s nakedly rigged ‘information’ offensive and vote Yes despite changes to the Constitution having yet to be revealed, it will be too late!

Labor and their confident, conceited acolytes would have us believe that support for the Yes vote is a lay down misère. It is beholden upon the rest of us — those who care about Australia as a whole rather than advancing the narrow interests of one group only — to contest the creation of a separate and sovereign Aboriginal nation on the Australian continent, for that is where the ‘Voice’ will take us. Once embedded in the Constitution, such an internal ‘sovereign nation’ will be impossible to dismantle. Despite Albanese &Co’s efforts to promote one side of the debate and suppress the other, this is the threat and the message all Australians must hear.

Dr David Barton is a proud Celtic and Anglo-Saxon man with a long generational family history in Australia. He lives in Central Victoria.

Friday, December 16, 2022

TheVoiceRealities

 

Examining the case for the voice – an argument against

I often agreed with my eminent former High Court colleague, the honourable Kenneth Hayne. Our judicial disagreements, when they occurred, were, as I intend this to be, cordial and respectful.

Disagreement now between us arises out of a recent report in The Australian of a speech he made regarding the proposed Indigenous voice to parliament. In the public interest I feel I am obliged to put an argument, not dogmatically, against the case he confidently put for the voice.

He asserts that the lack of any legal argument against the voice provides a justification for the voice. He seems to be saying that the fears of those who oppose the voice are unfounded because, even though he doubts if anyone will have standing to challenge representations made by the voice, if some unlikely person were to do so, the public can have full confidence in the High Court in the “maintenance and enforcement of the boundaries within which the governmental powers (in respect of the voice) might be exercised”.

My former colleague states that “anyone can start litigation, including constitutional litigation, so long as their claim is not frivolous or vexatious”. He sees a problem, however, in the sort of order the court might make if some unimaginable party were to try to mount a constitutional challenge in respect of the voice. Indeed, he seeks to employ the metaphor that a fear of any credible legal challenge is merely to see a “column of smoke with no substance”.

It should be recognised that some judges have a monocle that enables them to see substance where to others there is a mere wisp of smoke.

Stretching my imagination only a little, I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of a voice whether constitutionally entrenched or not. Every state and territory is likely to have an interest in any representations and in the interactions between the voice and the cons­titutionally entrenched houses of parliament and executive govern­ment.

It is one thing to say the voice can make representations only, but in the real world of public affairs, as the Prime Minister candidly acknowledged, it would be a brave parliament that failed to give effect to representations of the voice.

Just as there is a real world of public affairs, there is a real world of judicial ones. In modern times, it is an open question whether the US constitutionalist Alexander Hamilton’s assertion that the courts are the least dangerous branch of government holds true.T

The march of administrative law is almost inexorable. In 1995, in Teoh v the Minister for Immigration, the High Court decided that the process by which the minister reached a decision to remove from Australia, on character grounds, a convicted non-national drug importer was flawed because the importer’s infant children had a “legitimate expectation” under the international Convention on the Rights of the Child that their interests should have been, but were not, taken into account by the minister. The High Court so decided even though the convention had not been enacted into Australian law.

It is an elementary principle of constitutional law that an international treaty cannot bind Australia and its peoples unless and until the treaty is enacted and assented into law by the parliament and the governor-general. It took eight years for a differently constituted High Court, of which Kenneth and I were members, to correct the heresy of legitimate expectation in the court’s Ex Parte Lam. Who knows what a future High Court might do as it seeks to juggle the respective rights, obligations and “expectations” to which the voice would give rise?

I can imagine any number of people and legal personalities in addition to the states who might plausibly argue that they have standing. Standing is a highly contestable matter. It is an opaque and plastic concept. Whether a person has standing or not is itself a justiciable question of the kind regularly heard and determined by the courts, expansively so in recent times. One has only to glance at the litigation that environmental concerns have generated as to standing to see that this is so.

Justiciability or not is a recurrent and important question. Whether, for example, the chief justice at the time, Sir Garfield Barwick, was right in his advice to the governor-general, that the governor-general could lawfully dismiss a prime minister, is not to the point here. What is to the point however is that one of Sir Garfield’s justifications for giving the advice was that the issue could never be justiciable, is, with respect, wrong because justiciability itself is justiciable.

Kenneth would put all trust in the High Court. He says, “(a)ll that the court would be doing is its job”.

It is always better to hear all of the arguments before deciding a case. In the recent past, at least, government has funded both an argument for and an argument against the case in a referendum for a change in the Constitution. That is apparently not to happen here. Rather, there is to be a “public education program” on the issue. The expression “public education” has an ominous, Orwell­ian sound to me. As much as I respect my predecessors, contemporaries and successors on the High Court, neither on my appointment nor subsequently have I experienced a Damascene conversion to an unquestioning faith in an all-seeing and infallible court. It has been said that final courts are not final because they are infallible, they are infallible because they are final.

I have no doubt that, already, courageous and ingenious legal minds both are conceiving bases upon which to litigate the many legal and cultural implications of the voice. The voice, or a member of it, is almost certain to argue in the courts that a member of the executive government, in executing a parliamentary enactment of a representation of the voice, took into account an irrelevant consideration, or failed to take into account a relevant one, or made a decision that no reasonable person could make, shifting indicia relied upon in almost every challenge brought to the actions of government. One example might suffice.

Take the live cattle ban case. Whether the 2011 ban effected by then agriculture minister Joe Ludwig was a good or a bad decision is a highly debatable as a political affair. It was, in my view, peculiarly a matter for governmental decision requiring the balancing of many important political, diplomatic, and social considerations, including animal welfare, international relations, the Australian economy, the economy of other nations, the reliability of Australian supply chains and assured access to protein by our important neighbour Indonesia.

In holding that the ban was unlawful and actionable (misfeasance in public office), the Federal Court microscopically examined the events, activities and legal advice sought or not sought in the minister’s office.

In the real world, that case can be seen as a transfer of executive decision-making of a high and sensitive kind to unelected judges. Never underestimate the reach of administrative law, its progeny and its cousins.

A voice in any form, in my view, will give rise to many arguments and division, legal and otherwise.

If the body is to be an elected body, how is the franchise for it to be determined, regionally (as so far suggested), linguistically perhaps, or some other way? Will voter registration be compulsory? Will voting itself be compulsory? Will an expended Electoral Commission oversee elections to the voice? Will the High Court or some other court be a Court of Disputed Returns? Will the voice need not only its own extensive premises in Canberra and in many other places but also its own executive and other staff to assist it? Will it have a cabinet? Is there not a real chance that it will be infiltrated by the established political parties and become more an instrument of a predominant political party in the same way as Sir Alfred Deakin predicted the progression of the Senate as a “state house” to a battleground for centralised political parties with scant regard for the states the senators nominally represent?

What is proposed seems, whether constitutionally entrenched or not, is in substance a kind of a separate parliament.

The hallmark of a parliament is its capacity to raise taxes and, one hopes, to expend them wisely. If the parliament does not do that, then the paying public gets its opportunity to express its disapproval at the next election.

There is no suggestion that the voice will be self-funding. It will have no direct accountability to its financiers, the taxpayers. The voice can be seen as powerful, costly and ultimately unaccountable to its financiers.

It is, I think, arguable that the members of the voice, and all those who may be employed in carrying out its functions, of which I think there will be many, funded as they will be by the commonwealth, may be “officers” of the commonwealth within the meaning of s 75(v) of the Constitution. That section enables certain aggrieved peoples to apply to the High Court for constitutional writs against such “officers”.

There is little clarity about what is proposed. Sir Isaac Isaacs and other justices in the majority in the Engineers Case in 1920 said the High Court thenceforth should interpret commonwealth legislation in such a way as to give it plenitude, an irresistible endowment to the commonwealth to go high, wide and far, as it will be pressured by the voice to do.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I restate my great respect and earnest hopes for the First Peoples’ welfare, improvement in life and full and undiscriminating involvement in Australian society in every respect. I write not only as an Australian, a former judge and a former patron of a charity for the support of troubled First Peoples’ youth, but also as a person who has had occasion to see in situ some sad circumstances of some First Peoples’ communities in or near Darwin, Ranger, Mornington Island, Thursday Island, Lockhart River, Alice Springs and Cherbourg.

Like senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and many other Australians, including many, many lawyers of goodwill, I do not think the voice is the way.

Ian Callinan was a justice of the High Court of Australia from 1998 to 2007.

Wednesday, December 14, 2022

Challenges In The West



Self-inflicted challenges hit West
on four fronts

TOM SWITZER


As 2022 draws to a close, most people will be glad to see the back of it. The post-Cold War era has resolutely ended with the Russian attack on Ukraine and China shaking its fist at Taiwan. Much of the Western world has been addition­ally destabilised by higher energy prices and an acceleration of inflation.

The US remains a polarised and divided society. So is the EU, with individual polities – from Italy to Hungary – railing against the Brussels orthodoxy.

In the Anglosphere, the death of Queen Elizabeth II signalled the closure of an epoch and promoted deep introspection. This was not helped by the fact in Britain itself the country had three prime ministers in a little over six weeks, crippling its international credibility and ability to exert leadership.

But the West has hardly helped itself in recent years. It faces severe challenges on four fronts, all of them caused by an unhealthy mindset of self-doubt and poor judgment.

First, many economies now seem to think the old joke about money growing on trees is actually true, and are encouraged to do so by a growing belief that it is the state’s place to sort out every problem a society faces. The result has been serious inflation and what has become known internationally as a cost-of-living crisis, which an energy crisis unquestionably has worsened.

The OECD governments, including on both sides of Australian politics, have failed to curtail runaway government spending programs – in Canberra’s case, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Gonski schools, public hospitals, aged care and childcare. The more entrenched the state becomes, the more expensive it becomes.

At the same time, in the past 15 years governments comprehensively have failed to legislate the kind of productivity-enhancing reforms that produced Australia’s prosperity from the dollar shock in the mid-1980s to the global financial crisis of 2008-09. Taken together with higher interest payments on debt, increased defence spending, an ageing society and the energy transition costs, and it is clear, as Peter Costello warns, our debt and deficit-ridden economy is left vulnerable to the next economic contagion.

Second, this notion that people are helpless without the state is indicative of a collapse of self-confidence that increasingly calls into question the fundamentals of Western society. Christianity, the conventional family unit, the canon of Western literature, its architecture and, above all, conventional interpretations of its history and its tradition of freedom of expression are coming under continued attack from a minority of left-wing activists.

The “woke” movement – from social media to corporate environmental, social and governance activists – seems to demand the re-education of entire populations to the point where they accept as norms ideas they previously saw as nonsensical, and vice-versa.

Hence, the trappings of Western civilisation are unworthy of study in their own right. People require safe spaces so they can be spared the trauma of hearing opinions different from their own.
A woman who accuses a man of sexual harassment is presumed a victim before any trial takes place. A man identifying as a woman is the same as being born biologically female. A prominent classical liberal journalist who challenges the idea of changing the Constitution to create a race-based advisory body to parliament arouses shock or hostility. Anyone who questions the new orthodoxies could be “cancelled”.

A recent example of the absurdity of this illiberal mindset was when some British academics declared that cricket had been one of the exploitative features of the British Empire. Never mind that one of the most valuable businesses in modern India is the Indian Premier League cricket franchise, worth more than $5.5bn to the mostly Indian people who own it.

Not least because of the self-appointed thought police of social media, too many people are afraid to make a stand against such bullying assertions of nonsense.

Third, because of the zealotry of environmental protesters, political and business elites have been terrified to question the feasibility of moving to net-zero emissions in a relatively short time, often by 2050. That has not stopped the climate enthusiasts in Canberra from exporting vast reserves of coal and gas, which helps boost budget coffers. Still, the process of decarbonising the economy brings huge costs to individuals, households and businesses.

It might be possible painlessly if the world were on a universal trajectory of increasing prosperity. Unfortunately, it isn’t. Along with attempts to reduce emissions, there will be reductions in employment, real incomes and wealth. This will not only undermine Western economies. It also will undermine the concept of capitalism – which is, of course, what many eco-zealots desire.

But the fourth challenge, or threat, to the Western way of life is the fact the world is becoming an intensely dangerous place just as the most powerful upholder of Western values, the US, is divided and introspective.
In an increasingly multipolar world, Russia’s conduct all too often upsets Western sensitivities. But it is communist China – as prominent social democrats from Kevin Rudd to Emmanuel Macron recognise – that poses a much greater threat. Its resources, both human and material, outstrip Russia’s. Its idea of itself directly challenges the West. It also has the means, if it chooses, to seek to enforce that power and influence – such as by attacking and seeking to occupy Taiwan, which it considers its by right.

But strong resistance to China’s aggressiveness requires a lead from a united and determined America. The sheer polarisation of US politics is so extreme that unifying the country seems beyond any of the nation’s leading politicians.

It could be dismissed as catastrophist to argue that these four threats could combine to undermine the West. But the fact remains that they are dangerously close to doing so. An economic, moral, ethical and security disaster could be on the horizon.

To challenge it requires the determination of elected governments to face down unconstitutional forces that provide internal threats. They also need to resolve to defend the core values of Western capitalism and democracy against external ones.

It should be a wake-up call for the governments of nations whose way of life is under the greatest threat. But thus far they choose only to keep their eyes firmly shut and pretend the worst won’t happen. There are few more certain ways to ensure it will.

Tom Switzer is executive director of the Centre for Independent Studies and a presenter at the ABC’s Radio National.