The Howard Government has decided that capitalism and globalism erode culture. As a consequence they have decided that establishing culture is the role of government. Sadly their view of what constitutes Australian culture is myopic, and backward looking. It is non-adaptive, and overly nationalistic - an attempt to keep the government and nation-state relevant. Government can encourage culture through reducing the artificial barriers to interaction, innovation and cultural memory.

Switch The Channel

The drive through eastern Pennsylvania is picturesque. Rolling fields of corn are broken by rivers, towns and the occasional city such as Harrisburg and Allentown. The scenery goes through many, and drastic changes. Sadly the music over the radio does not.

Between the major cities such as Washington DC and New York is a deadspot which Clear Channel has moved into. The spectrum is dominated by stations called the Hawk, or the River, or the Eagle. These stations pump out exceedingly soporific and non-challenging music. There is only so much Phil Collins and Bachman Turner Overdrive the mind can take before the select button is left in a permanent state of motion.

Capitalism is brutal toward art, it only rewards profitable art, and mainstream success is dependent upon almost absolute popularity. The cities and populations centers are kinder, the sheer numbers of consumers allow for greater diversity in media. The spectrum around New York is jammed with radio stations for every niche, spanish, metal, rap, hip-hop, book talk, talkback, college radio and so-on.

Eastern Pennsylvania is barren by comparison. I can recall as a teen not being able to pick up 2JJJ on the radio in far western Sydney. This was prior to 2JJJ going national and expanding their broadcast range. As a consequence I was limited to the repetitive mush of 2MMM or 2DAY FM. It wasnt until I moved into Eastern Sydney that I got exposed the underground Sydney music scene. I have been a fan of Sydney pop ever since.

Gary Sauer-Thompson makes the point that capitalism leaves little place for culture, and only tolerates culture if it is profitable, or can be used to leverage a profit. Economic liberty and culture are diametrically opposed. Culture exists despite capitalism, not because of it.

The Howard Government has decided that a unifying culture is important to maintain a nation state's identity and they have been using the power of Government to try and enforce a culture in an environment of social and economic liberty. This will ultimately fail, liberty is stronger than a nation-state, and more persistent than any government.

The Government's intrusion in this area requires a great deal of energy and expense to try and get people to follow their view of an Australian mono-culture. Liberty has a lower energy point, and is a more natural residual interaction point for a society. The Howard Government will undoubtedly be voted out one day, and the constant attention, expense and energy expended on trying to establish the anglo-australian culture will be forgotten, or morphed. It is no replacement for the emergant interactive properties of individuals interacting without interference.

If the Government truly wants to ensure an Australian culture survives, adapts and flourishes under globalisation and economic liberty, then they need to ensure the cost of interaction between individuals is zero. This will mean several artifical barriers which government controls will need to dropped to zero, and the rents extracted from them removed.

One of the greatest inhibitions to culture is the intellectual property laws that have been expanding without end. Copyright should not exist beyond a generation with a renewal being required after ten years. This would enable the majority of unprofitable culture to be shared without cost after a decade, with the highly popular being returned to the culture after a generation. In addition, the copyright cartels need to have their power broken in Australia.

The other area is to drop the cost of communication to near zero. This will mean opening up the spectrum to the public. Instead of cartels of public allocated bandwidth, or treating spectrum as a scarce good through auctioning, the spectrum should be opened to all with minimal regulation. WiFi has seen a boom of innovation, and a rapid dropping of cost. This is because it has been used as an abundant public good, rather than government controlled scarcity.

Thirdly, the government and social conservatives have to trust the people to innovate and advance the culture. Advocating an old, aged, and non-resonant view of Australian culture will not do. Maximum liberty is the only means for a culture to adapt to the constant challenges of society and economy. Government and the nation-state really don't come into it, and to be honest, aren't welcome.

cam

One of the hallmarks of the Iraq adventure has been the lack of a coherent strategy and an almost wishing that events in Iraq would fit the pre-war template of liberators etc. Policy informs strategy which informs tactics. The lack of strategy has contributed to the conditions in Iraq. Via Belgravia Dispatch, Zinni:

What has disappointed me is there hasn't been this debate on the strategy, on the policy, a regional strategy on policy, let alone an Iraq policy. We're, we're debating the tactics. The, the surge is a tactic. In what context is the surge? You can make an argument for a surge if you were going to withdraw, to cover the withdrawal, for example, or to contain, to reposition forces or to re-engage in a different way or a stronger way. And why we got caught up in the tactical debate, in my mind, is an indication that we don't understand what we want to do. What should our Middle East policy be? What should our policy be in terms of Iraq and, and the war against the extremists out there or the conflict against extremists? We seem to be strategically adrift, in my view.

From Fiasco:

Strategy, correctly formulated, shapes tactics. But tactics uninformed by strategy, or misinformed by an incorrect strategy, are like a car without a steering wheel: It may go somewhere, but probably not where its driver wants it to go.

Policy is not informing strategy, which means tactics are being pursued for domestic political reasons.

It is doubtful whether the Iraq adventure would have worked anyway, certainly not without the complete mobilisation of American national resources which was politically unachievable in the US anyway. But using it for domestic political strength, rather than a policy or strategy, is incompetent governance.

I must admit to being a little bit surprised to see the strong trend downward on this graph. It suggests that there has been a consistent strategy to lower and stabilise inflation over the last forty years. Judging by the trend it has been a very successful one.

I can recall a historian saying, "it doesn't matter who the leader is as long as the strategy is correct."

That is my paraphrasing. It was in relation to the constant civil wars during the Roman Imperial period where a new Emperor was being established every few years but the Roman boundaries continued to expand.

The historian was arguing that the military strategy was correct and as long as the emperors stuck with it this made the 'who' of the emperor position immaterial.

The converse is true as well. We look to leadership to lay out a coherent and consistent strategy. Thomas Ricks on Iraq:

It was a moment that captured in a nutshell the weakness at the core of the Bush Administration's national security team: Strategy was seen as something vague and intellectual, at best a secondary issue, when it fact it was the core of the task they faced. ...

By failing to adequately consider strategic questions, Rumsfeld, Franks, and other top leaders arguably crippled the beginning of the US Mission to transform Iraq.

One of the benefits of coherent and consistent strategy is that it permeates the decision making process at all levels - other than just the leadership. It makes for a common goal as well as a knowable and discernible set of milestones along the way. Ricks writes dramatically:

A confused strategy can be every bit as lethal as a bullet.

More discussion of Australian economic policy/strategy at troppo's graphaturday.

An interesting study from the US which suggests that American voter interests match Australian voters in wanting policy discussed. The Trends in Australian Political Opinion discovered that 49% of Australian voters use policy to guide who they cast their ballot for.

Ars Technica in discussing how media commentary of politics is the same as sports coverage linked to an article on the Project for Journalistic Excellence which discussed how media coverage was at odds with what people want covered. A Pew Research poll shows that 77% of Americans wanted more coverage of the candidates positions on issues.

From the article:

The press' focus on fundraising, tactics and polling is even more evident if one looks at how stories were framed rather than the topic of the story. Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election, while nearly nine-out-of-ten stories (86%) focused on matters that largely impacted only the parties and the candidates. Those numbers, incidentally, match almost exactly the campaign-centric orientation of coverage found on the eve of the primaries eight years ago.

All of these findings seem to be at sharp variance with what the public says it wants from campaign reporting. A new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted for this report finds that about eight-in-ten of Americans say they want more coverage of the candidates' stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates.

Supposedly the media should be giving its customers what they want but this suggests that they are not. It is probably why the blogosphere has risen in its ability to explore politics in a more detailed manner. The blogosphere has its echo-chambers of course, but for policy discussion it is far and away superior to the mainstream media.

Mead argues that the democratic nature of American foreign policy has been superior to the isolated genius' behind continentalist policy (ie Bismarck or Kissinger). Mead writes:

The [democratic policy making] system is stable because it is homeostatic; although interest groups perceive themselves in a constant struggle, the net effect of all those struggles is to keep society constantly seeking the point at which dissatisfaction is minimised.

A very succinct description of the liberal republican process.