The Stump

Crikey has started the most ideologically-eclectic blog to date, The Stump.

On the classical liberal side, it has Jason Soon, Charles Richardson and Chris Berg.

Also from somewhere right-of-centre is Counterpoint presenter Paul Comrie-Thomson.

On the left it has Guy Rundle, Phillip Adams and Andrew Bartlett.

The blogosphere (or at least my part of it) has been rather quiet the last few months, so perhaps putting this lot together will liven things up.

9 Responses to “The Stump

  • 1
    Russell
    October 5th, 2009 21:10

    Wrong thread, but over here in W.A. where daylight saving has been comprehensively rejected, Counterpoint has just finished, and I swear I heard Paul Comrie-Thomson say “There’a always problems associated with growth, isn’t there?”. If it were television I might have seen if his tongue was in his cheek, but then if it was televised I wouldn’t have been watching it.

  • 2
    JC
    October 6th, 2009 12:01

    Unfortunately, Andrew B will have to do all the heavy lifting on that side.

  • 3
    Russell
    October 6th, 2009 17:22

    Crumbs, who knew Crikey had so many blogs?
    This is the problem: too many things to look at. I didn’t know about The Stump because I can’t get around to looking at Crikey anymore.
    .
    Very annoying – Bryan Palmer’s OzPolitics has gone kaput. It had that very useful blog feed feature which helped me scan over what was being posted on politics blogs. Does anyone know of a similar thing?
    .
    Actually if Crikey wants to get readers if should have a similar thing if ony for it’s own blogs – who’s going to click on all their separate blogs. And how to keep separate conversations about politics – come the next election they’ll have Poll Bludger, Pollytics, The Stump all going on about the similar stuff.
    My first impression of The Stump is that they expect the commenters to do all the work, and it ain’t happening. Perhaps they should have paid some good writers to be commenters to get the thing going.

  • 4
    Andrew Norton
    October 6th, 2009 17:49

    Russell – There is Blogotariat, though it seems rather dominated by Crikey blogs.

  • 5
    Francis Xavier Holden
    October 6th, 2009 18:39

    hah crikey – looks like the egos are too big to comment on each others posts –

    Polanski should be one post with a thread of comments – they each have to start a new post of their own – tell ‘em they’re dreamin’ unless they get that bit right –

    crikey is now getting to o messy and starting to look like a try hard “web2″ site of a major “media” company

  • 6
    Russell
    October 6th, 2009 18:41

    Thanks Andrew – Blogotariat is now a ‘favorite’.

  • 7
    Jack Strocchi
    October 7th, 2009 08:56

    All more or less liberals. And tending to the post-modern form of liberalism, since none of them have any in-principle objections to the de-moralisation of society through rampant individual differentiation.

    Perhaps Comrie-Thomson might be excluded from that sweeping generalisation.

  • 8
    Jack Strocchi
    October 7th, 2009 09:14

    So if thats what passes for “ideologically-eclectic blog” then it shows how narrow and stunted ideological debate has become in AUS over the past decade or so. Its simply a debate within the mutated form of liberalism, whether Right-liberal like Soon or Left-liberal like Rundle.

    Liberalism is the philosophy of individual autonomy. This is surely a necessary condition for moral agency.

    But it is no way a sufficient condition. Humans need to co-operate to flourish – we are not Robinson Crusoe. In short we need institutional authority(in the good old days it was simply “the community”).

    But there are no ideological spokespersons, there isnt even a NAME, for the philosophy that explains and justifies the need for institutional authority. That is, an agency for which we sacrifice our immediate pleasures for a common good.

    Traditional conservatives typically stepped for to provide this philosophy, in a notoriously un-philosophic way. Usually to justify family, faith and flag, the so-called ever-green organizers of human communities.

    I have suggested that conservatism (which was really modernist liberalism based on gemeinschaft rather than gesellchaft) needs to get ideological to combat post-modernist liberalism. I suggest “corporalism” for a philosophy that justifies traditional gemeinschafts.

    But these traditional cultural organizers are no match for post-modern liberalism, which is like Aliens acid, just corroding every belief and loyalty into dust the moment it makes contact. Fashion trumps tradition when gratification must be now.

    The problem with post-modern liberalism is that whilst this is definitely the way for cheap thrills and fast bucks it will not create conditions for the line to survive and prosper in the long run.

    Its obvious that po-mo liberals are heading for some kind of extinction. They dont have enough children for replacement value. Their financial antics are ruining companies and states whilst their cultural antics are destroying families.

    Both are destroying the atmosphere and just pretending to do something about it.

    Po-mo liberalism is, in short, Muggeridge’s long predicted “Great Liberal Death Wish”.

    But still, in the era of so-called free expression, we have no ideological vaccine to combat this virulent ideology.

  • 9
    John Eldridge
    October 7th, 2009 12:48

    I think you misrepresent or misunderstand the agendas of some ‘postmodernists’, Jack. Rundle certainly demonstrates an awareness of the necessity of a social fabric, a shared cultural myth. His ’01 quarterly essay talks about social atomization and the incapacity of society to endure unfettered market forces.
    Obama’s philosophy appears to centre around the construction of social fabrics – new social fabrics to replace old ones displaced by economic change.
    These two are ‘postmodernists’ perhaps, but they’re hardly engaged in the relentless destruction of a common cultural bond. They just view such bonds as mutable, subject to change and abstract reflection. If anything, I would suggest that this school *is* what you’re looking for, and what you reject is the more nihilistic and theoretical ‘postmodernism’ in academia.