Oliver Kamm makes a point about fringe political parties which applies similarly to those who propound certain, er, niche viewpoints.
Fringe political parties almost invariably claim that they are disadvantaged by a lack of coverage in the press and broadcasting media. The truth is the opposite: they typically gain from the fact that few people will bother to correct their more extravagant claims
that might apply if our "fringe viewpoint" wasn't prominently featured in Nature Reviews Neuroscience and Nature Reviews Genetics...
Posted by: gc | July 30, 2004 at 02:05 AM
I've already pointed out to you how the Nature Genetics article actually contradicts your position, The fact that noone has "bothered to correct" your other "extravagant claim" ought not be taken as proof that it is true.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | July 30, 2004 at 11:37 AM
Strangely enough, the most prolific poster to the Monbiot mailing list seems to be a gentleman named Robin P Clarke (online at http://www.zazz.fsnet.co.uk/). He's a strong supporter of "scientific racist" and allegedly paedophilia-tolerant Edinburgh University professor Chris Brand.
His frenzied and frequent outpourings on the irredeemable corruption of Islam and its adherents seemed to account for at least 90% of the email traffic I have seen so far.
I'm surprised both that he hasn't been barred from the list and that so many of the posters would take the time and trouble to engage him in detail.
Nevertheless, I think his dissection of George M's journalism is apt:
"...the Guardian has a token heretic (environmentalist) in George Monbiot. But his revelations are always hidden away on the wrong side of an inside page, and greatly outweighed by copious material powerfully conveying contrary messages."
Yeah, that'll be reality, tapping on George's window panes and asking him to come outside to play.
Posted by: Peter Nolan | July 30, 2004 at 05:44 PM
However, I think that Kamm's original point is valid. It's very difficult to get the time and have the knowledge at hand to pull apart even something as obviously stupid as "The Age of Consent". I could attempt it, but who would be interested in reading it?
Posted by: Peter Nolan | July 30, 2004 at 06:01 PM
Frank, I'd rather have outrageous viewpoints from outside "the mainstream" discredited than legitimate points from there ignored.
If it hurts the more extreme claims, then so be it. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In the US, anyways, all major social justice movements in our history have been initiated from outside the framework of two party duopoly.
Posted by: Brian | July 30, 2004 at 08:04 PM
Brian, neither I nor Oliver Kamm refers to "non-mainstream viewpoints" per se - Indeed my own classic liberal/libertarian outlook is pretty far outside Ireland's mainstream - but instead the dishonest, deluded or disingenuous kooks and cranks.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | July 30, 2004 at 08:39 PM
"In the US, anyways, all major social justice movements in our history have been initiated from outside the framework of two party duopoly."
Does that imply FDR, JFK and Reagan were third-party animals?
I'm not sure that I agree with you there Brian. The third party campaigns that come to my mind are the presidential runs by Buchanan, Perot, Nader, Henry Wallace, Thurmond, and George Wallace. What did America miss out by voting against protectionism, antisemitism, leftist paranoia and segregation?
Posted by: Peter Nolan | July 31, 2004 at 12:28 AM
Peter, the progressive movement was initiated by the Progressive Party and other social justice movements. FDR and the Dems eventually adopted it because it was a politically timely move in 1932. Anti-slavery was picked up by the Liberty Party in the 1840s and eventually adopted by the GOP. Similiarly, the conservative anti-government (except for militarism) movement also started from outside the mainstream but was shoved into the GOP by the Goldwaterites and became the party's theology with Reagan and Gingrich.
This is exactly my point. These ideas were initiated from outside the mainstream and when they gained ground, the mainstream parties co-opted them.
America did vote against Buchanan's protectionism and Wallace's segreation. I'm glad they had the choice to do that. That's my whole point. Give people the choices and trust that they'll make the right decision.
Perot introduced a mentality that, for the first time, made fiscal responsibility part of the public discourse.
Oh, and Nader's an anti-Semite now? Go figure.
Posted by: Brian | August 01, 2004 at 05:33 AM
"These ideas were initiated from outside the mainstream and when they gained ground, the mainstream parties co-opted them."
Smaller parties introduce a lot of ideas. Some bad, some good. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Reject the lunacy but keep it open as a venue for good ones to filter through.
Posted by: Brian | August 01, 2004 at 05:35 AM
Oh, and Nader's an anti-Semite now? Go figure.
Well...Nader called America Israel's puppet:
Personally I think charges of anti-Semite, Islamophobic, etc. are thrown around way too frequently. So I don't know if it's *anti-Semitic", but the rhetoric is pretty harsh.
Posted by: gc | August 01, 2004 at 09:04 AM
gc, I'm a little sick of the garbage that even the slightest foreign criticism of the policies of the Israeli government of the day is anti-Semitism. The Israeli government comprises politicians and what they do is fair game just like any other government of politicians.
Posted by: Brian | August 02, 2004 at 02:06 PM
Brian, I still disagree. I think your idea of an intellectual vanguard within smaller parties isn't consistent with the events of Irish, British or American political history.
What about the Gramm-Rudman Act back in 1985? The 1986 tax reform? George H W Bush's tax increases? And then Clinton's acting as a deficit hawk? What role did H Ross Perot play in any of this?
With Goldwater's conservatism, it's hardly true that it represented the Republican mainstream, never mind the electorate's opinion. It took another sixteen years before Reagan got the presidential nomination and his sucessors have a mixed record of upholding his ideas.
Similarly in Britain, Thatcherism and Blairism were both ideas pioneered by small groups, but within their respective parties.
The SDP, who had in some sense led the way for Blair, became intellectually and electorally irrelevant. What possible means were their ideas and personnel moved into the mainstream?
Ideas can be picked up anywhere, but most of the adaptation took place within the main parties. I'd certainly dispute the importance of groups like the philo-Stalinist Progressive Party and other communist groups.
Posted by: Peter Nolan | August 03, 2004 at 03:48 PM
Peter, I already explained the influence of the Progressive Party on early 20th century US policies. This country is radically different, and better, as a result.
Gramm-Rudman didn't eliminated deficits (see today). Perot brought the issue to wider public attention because he was able to convince people that it mattered to them.
I didn't say Goldwater represented the GOP mainstream in '64. I'm pretty sure I said the opposite.
Personally, I see Blairism as merely Thatcherism with a warm and fuzzy face. It represents the capitulation of the left to right-wing economics (just as Clinton was to Reaganism).
Is this bad? I don't know. I happen to see the paralysis imposed by the British trade unions in the 70s as untenable and, frankly, anti-democratic. On the other hand, I don't fetishize deregulation simply for its own sake.
And let's be honest. Reformers within the major parties need the existence of smaller parties to serve as leverage. If reformers have no where else to go, the establishment knows they (reformers) are hostage regardless of if the party changes or not. This is why, for example, the Democratic Party is as corporate-driven as the Republicans. And why anti-war ABBers are stuck with pro-war Kerry, all because of their self-imposed limitations (the refusal to countenance a vote for a smaller party candidate).
Posted by: Brian | August 05, 2004 at 11:16 PM
And please don't keep citing the Stalinist party or whatever. I believe in multipartyism as a concept, not necessarily each individual party. Some add to public discourse, others don't. As I said above, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Posted by: Brian | August 05, 2004 at 11:18 PM
"Peter, I already explained the influence of the Progressive Party on early 20th century US policies."
No Brian, you hypothesised, you have not explained how, after leaving office, Teddy Roosevelt's two futile runs for the presidency under the Bull Moose banner did anything but the opposite of what he intended. What exactly was so socialistic about the hero of San Juan Hill anyway?
Posted by: Peter Nolan | August 07, 2004 at 12:26 AM
I was taking issue with your contention that:
"...the conservative anti-government ... movement also started from outside the mainstream but was shoved into the GOP by the Goldwaterites..."
Yes, it was outside the mainstream, but which small party exactly did it originate in? To repeat and rephrase my point, the movement to the mainstream has almost always started and ended within the parties themselves.
"If reformers have no where else to go, the establishment knows they are hostage regardless of if the party changes or not."
Another two contradictory examples:
Thatcher represented a small clique capturing the party while being somewhat unpalatable for traditional supporters. Again, where's the third party? The people who led the way were Enoch Powell, Keith Joseph, Geoffrey Howe, Airey Neave and other influential Tories. What were they going to do - join Labour?
LBJ on civil rights or the Great Society. He had his third-party threat, the Dixiecrats. They acted to undermine and block him and then left, to join with George Wallace or the Republicans. How did that threat of exit exert any leverage on the Democrats?
Posted by: Peter Nolan | August 07, 2004 at 01:10 AM