The PC class's disconnect between abstract theory and actual concrete circumstances

Edmund Burke warned in his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), a masterpiece of political writing, about the consequences of theorising about state and society without linking speculation to actual circumstances and the nature of the human person. In the first pages of the Reflections he stated what he repeated many times throughout his political speeches and writings.

...I cannot stand forward, and give praise or blame to any thing which relates to human actions, and human concerns, on a simple view of the subject, as it stands stripped on every relation, in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction.

This was the overriding problem of the architects and instigators of the French Revolution which, as he predicted, degenerated in a bloodbath - in which far more innocent citizens perished than the nobility. They were 'men of theory', said Burke, who distorted and warped society to such an extent through their efforts to bring society into line with their theories that disjunction, disconnection and then disintegration followed. The French Revolution was the paradigm of all modern revolutions, which have shown the same process of disintegration ending in the cruel dictatorship of a small class of men.

Burke's proposition about the deficiencies of abstract theory and its application without considering actual circumstances is a key thought of modern conservative thinking. Indeed, Burke is considered the father of modern Conservatism. Michael Oakeshott, one of the twentieth century's great political philosophers, took up the issue of rationalistic theory in his essay Rationalism in Politics, which gave the title to a collection of essays dealing with similar themes. Those who want a good understanding of a key thought of philosophical conservatism are urged to read and think about the essay Rationalism in Politics.

Burke's critique of abstract theorising and Oakeshott's highlighting the deficiencies of the rationalistic method in very recognisable modern circumstances have not done anything to stop the ascendancy of an intellectual class which is driven by a materialist metaphysics and an unshakable confidence in the operations of reason (the rationalistic method). This intellectual class and its horde of uncritical disciples form the PC class which has virtually the hegemony over the political process in the western world. It's only rare political figures like Prime Minister John Howard who are holding the floodgates against the building pressure of the unelected PC groups. One such powerful unelected group is the lawyer group.

The Law Reform Society, The Australian Bar Association, and the National Law Association, who have spoken out about the Haneef terrorist case, show all the classic PC signs. I should add that the Lawyer PC clubs are especially powerful because of the inability of society in general to scrutinise and assess their activities. Ironically they are in a political sense a law unto themselves. Who subjects these lawyer clubs to any competent substantial review? Nobody. I never yet heard a talkback host tackle the lawyers.

The Haneef terrorist case gives a clear picture of the PC mentality of these lawyer clubs. Dr Mohamed Haneef has been charged with recklessly supplying a terrorist organisation. The Australian Federal Police have alleged that he supported Islamic terrorist actions in the UK. All the evidence is that the government and the Federal Police have trodden very carefully in assessing Haneef, his background and his connections. The federal government has found it serious enough to put him into detention before organising his deportation.

The Haneef case is not ordinary case. We are dealing here with brutal psychotic Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorists have no regard for anyone except their political aims. Killing women and children would cause them less reflection than eating a MacDonald's cheeseburger. These are the actual concrete circumstances, and they call for special consideration. Not to give these circumstances special consideration would amount to criminal negligence and culpable failure in political responsibility. John Howard and his government are on the right track.

The grandstanding appearance of the lawyer clubs that have spoken out quite obviously do not see things in this way. In brief, their only concern is the possible transgression of the provisions of the written law, seen in a abstract context. Forget about the rest. They then draw the unwarranted conclusion that the prudential action of the government is a desecration of the law and they imply that this will lead to the breaking down of the law in general. Some seriously warn of the incipient dictatorship of the Howard government. This is so much delusion. And the ordinary person sees it. But the power is in the lawyer clubs and it will remain touch and go whether the sensible prudential action of the government will prevail.

This is not the end of it, though. The lawyer clubs are not happy with the political power they wield. They are not happy with being able to broadcast their opposition to the action of the government. They are not happy with being able to outline their legal objections. They do not see it as a question of a difference of legal opinion, with the government being mistaken and they being right. No, they go way beyond their supposed professional competence and accuse John Howard of manipulating the law for political purposes. These are people who would boast of their adherence to the operations of reason. There is no logical connection between the issue of legal interpretation and this gross political smear. There is no foundation to the claim other than the extreme political bias and the myth building of the PC class.

The lawyer clubs are strong supporters of the growing campaign to smear and discredit John Howard. The campaign has political interest, myth and bias as its foundation. One can only hope that the ordinary Australian is not gullible enough to be influenced and swayed by such unconscionable political dealing.