Moral v national interest: does anyone care anymore?

Just what constitutes a worthy moral issue in federal politics? Do the constituents, soccer mums and baby boomer consumers actually care about political leadership on morals anymore? Or is self-interest king?

Kevin Rudd, perhaps in a pitch to social democrats, has spoken of the need for the “light on the hill” to be reactivated. Earlier this year in the Monthly magazine, Rudd identified three moral issues that he hopes will register with voters, namely climate change, the treatment of asylum seekers and global poverty.

Referring to theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Rudd’s appeal for politics to speak on behalf of the voiceless in our society is stirring, but will it flutter the hearts of Menzies’ forgotten people, those of the expanding middle class? Perhaps it was the underlying economic philosophy, so articulately highlighted by Menzies in his iconic 1942 speech that has so captivated the desires of working men and women, such that our social conscience has been slowly forgotten, first by public officials, and then by society at large.

The catalyst is always in historical evidence and it is in light of this, that the question must be asked, just what national issues over the past decade of economic success have been determined on moral grounds? And contrary to some who share my Christian faith, the moral issues cannot be simply limited to matters of a sexual nature. In most cases, due to their intensely personal nature and the limited impact of political and philosophical Puritanism, these are the moral issues of least importance to society.

But just how many political decisions have given moral issues due consideration over the past decade? With very few exceptions, policy has been determined solely on the catalyst of national interest. Prime Minister John Howard’s stance on guns, taken after the Port Arthur massacre, may be one of the few exceptions to this rule.

The military intervention in Timor, commissioned after decades of kowtowing to Indonesia, is today overshadowed by our subsequent commercial arrangements over Timor’s natural resources. Rather than acting on the litany of moral justifications for our presence, Australia intervened on the basis of national interest, and primarily that of economic reward.

In light of Fiji’s recent request for military support, it would be depressing if our intervention hinged on economic interests.

Recent foreign policy interventions have provided some rebuttal for this point, as Australia has provided military support to peacekeeping and security operations in the Solomon Islands and Tonga over the past year. While neither country is a major trade partner, Australian exports, primarily natural resources, represent the Solomon Islands’ highest imports.

In Tonga, Australian imports are their third highest. Earlier this year, On Line Opinion author, Tim Anderson, suggested to the Australian Review of Public Affairs that successive Australian governments have pursued foreign policy objectives that are solidly underpinned by a neo-liberal and neo-colonial philosophy.

And perhaps the philosophy of neo-colonial national interest is as valid a catalyst of public policy as any other. However, the failures of such a policy foundation to provide accountability on moral issues is particularly topical.

In every one of the 22 cases investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman into the wrongful incarceration of persons by the Department of Immigration, serious deficiencies were highlighted. In many cases, those wrongly detained were Australian citizens and many had mental health problems. Perhaps we are now hearing the voices of the “voiceless,” but is society interested in preventing such injustices from occurring in the future? There are over 200 cases that are yet to be investigated.

And on the issue of unjust detention, another Australian can be found in the headlines. December 9 marks five years of incarceration without trial for David Hicks. And while his American defence is lobbying the Australian Government, only minor parties and marginalised Liberals are vocalising their concerns about his plight.

As Mr Howard is such a consummate analyst of public opinion, perhaps his intransigence is a telling reminder of just how little the public cares about the glaring immorality of David Hicks’ lengthy incarceration.

The AWB was the single most corrupt company in its serial rorts of the UN Oil-for-food program. Yet even though Canadians and Americans raised alarm bells, and 34 diplomatic cables were duly filed, no Australian politician, bureaucrat or AWB offical recalls seeing a blip on their moral radar.

Is this symptomatic of our moral indifference? Even in spite of the lack of evidence for any executive malfeasance, does the claim that no eyebrow was furrowed raise questions as to the philosophy governing Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war from the beginning?

Perhaps the one difference between the US and Australia on the war, where voters were troubled by the ongoing violence and the descent into chaos at the recent Congressional elections, is the financial and human costs borne by the US. Perhaps in the age of economic prosperity, the radar of self-interest has replaced that of morality.

But what are the implications of such a revelation? If the determinant of our action or inaction on global issues is found primarily on the locus of self-interest, rather than by any underlying moral considerations, then this dramatically reshapes our national and individual psyches.

If relationships with neighbours, both near and far, are viewed strategically rather than for their intrinsic worth, economic alliances are as much an expected outcome as harsh divisions and exploitation. But perhaps closer to home, the lack of a political desire to understand and engage with our neighbours on intrinsic terms leads to insularity, and this fuels xenophobia.

For example, in Kevin Rudd’s first session of parliament as Opposition leader, Prime Minister John Howard attacked him on the alleged foreign origins of his stance on climate change.

“It is European-based thinking, because he quoted countries whose economies are fundamentally different to Australia’s economy”, fired the prime minister. Rather than engage with the issue of climate change, and whether the policy had merit, Mr Howard highlighted the foreign nature of such a policy without substantiating his position with specifics.

To be fair, the ALP has directed criticism towards Mr Howard based on the alleged American origin of industrial relations laws.

Regardless of the legitimacy of either claim, the foreign origins of individual policy should have less to do with its merit than moral and intellectual integrity. The danger of untamed self-interest is that our focus turns completely inward, which tends to reinforce ill-informed prejudices. Worse still, when systemic myopia fails to recognise the voiceless, injustice prospers.

If the forgotten people forget their moral compass, they are likely to be lost in a morass of mediocrity.

This is not the philosophy that has underpinned our society from the very beginning. It was our moral compass that determined the way forward against the Holocaust, against apartheid and in favour of equality in the civil rights movement in the US. It was the same moral conscience that precipitated changes to the Australian constitution regarding the rights of Aborigines in 1967.

If we wish for this proud legacy to continue, it is imperative that we confront the excesses of self-interest and mindless consumerism. Our failure to do so will continue to result in dire and despairing social externalities.