Right wing columnists - anti-democratic?

The real reason why Lucy and Mickler resemble their own nightmares in the way they argue is that they’re studiously avoiding any sort of liberal critique. This is further exemplified through the criticism of the pundits for their lack of accountability. While it’s fair comment to point to Albrechtsen’s alleged plagiarism and the blustering defence by her editor, it’s unclear what exactly they mean by accountability.

Their adoption of a postmodern (or more properly post-structuralist) idea of democracy disarms the critical weapons common to liberal notions of the function of the media. They don’t believe in objectivity or accountability to truth, or in the (admittedly problematic) idea of balance. So they’re reduced to railing at the pundits basically because they don’t choose to take up the same narrative as Lucy and Mickler.

This is very clear in the chapter on Miranda Devine. It’s a hilarious read. Devine is one of the most illogical and self-contradictory writers about. And Lucy and Mickler nail her for it. But within their own critical frame, they can only praise her for her own postmodernism (albeit with a heavy dash of irony).

There’s much to like in The War on Democracy. The authors cite the columnists chapter and verse, and pillory and skewer many of their arguments relentlessly. The absurdities of the culture wars - like the ascription of the term “elite” to anyone who doesn’t bow down to the current orthodoxy - are revealed for the parlour tricks that they are.

They’re spot on in highlighting the dishonest elision of any moderately liberal voice with a monolithic and largely non-existent “left”. The characterisation of Christopher Pearson’s writing as “diatribes against liberal society and sermons on the superior teachings of the Catholic Church” is delicious.

But some fundamental opportunities have been missed. The linkages between the American invention of the culture wars and their antipodean importation could have been traced. The mechanics of media power could have been explored.

But most importantly, the authors have done themselves a disservice by painting themselves into a postmodern corner. Aside from giving a certain amount of credibility to claims about cultural elites, the great pity of this approach is that it simultaneously lets the punditariat off a lot of hooks while reproducing a lot of what is worst about public commentary in Australia in their own style of argument.