Political insults have their place, but better to engage in debate

By Damon Young
Updated April 23 2018 - 10:16pm, first published October 31 2014 - 12:00am

Political arguments invite insults. But not all insults are equally learned and deserved. Take the word "conservative", which is regularly spat out by pundits and punters alike.

Conservatives, we learn, are dim, vulgar, vain and greedy. To be a conservative is necessarily to be a prosperous torturer of the poor, a crude provincial racist, or the like. No doubt privileged abusers and smug xenophobes exist; no doubt some are elected to parliament or work in universities. No doubt there are genuine conflicts of value, which rightly provoke passionate debate: how to best help (rather than punish or exploit) asylum seekers, for example. But that some conservatives are apologists for poverty or bigotry, or believe shocking things to be true, does not make the category itself a slur.

Take the arguments of Michael Oakeshott, one of the 20th century's most prominent conservative thinkers. In Rationalism in Politics, the English philosopher argued against the reduction of political and ethical life to technical expertise. His point was not that such specialised knowledge was bunkum, but that it simply did not apply everywhere. Technique can be written down and taught; can be turned into rules and maxims. However, much of civilisation is actually what Oakeshott called 'practical knowledge', which can only be learned by doing.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

$0/

(min cost $0)

or signup to continue reading

See subscription options

Get the latest Canberra news in your inbox

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.