Public ideas
How stands the Commonwealth?
In Stephen Vincent Benet’s play The Devil and Daniel Webster, Webster’s ghost appears on stage calling “Neighbor, how stands the Union?”.
Aruna Sathanapally, CEO of the Grattan Institute gave a speech to ASIC – earlier this month – Bridging generations. Much of her speech is about “a wretched intergenerational bargain”, covering the way younger people are let down by inadequate attention to climate change, maldistribution of income and wealth, and underrepresentation in our decision-making institutions.
That’s in a wider context, in which she describes the health of our country and its institutions – a response to the question Daniel Webster may have put to an Austrailan, “How stands the Commonwealth?”.
The Commonwealth is actually in remarkably good shape, particularly in comparison with America (which Daniel Webster would surely find distressing). But we fail on one crucial dimension, the bargain between younger and older Australians. To quote Sathanapally:
We need young people to believe, and believe with good reason, that we have an economic system whereby the decks aren’t stacked against them. We cannot take for granted their acceptance of our economic institutions as currently designed – not if those institutions are not seen to be working for the long-term benefits of all, but are rather seen to deliver short-term gains for those who already have power.
There are some legitimate questions about whether our economy, and our policy choices, are in fact delivering for younger and future generations.
On history
Last week on Saturday Extra Nick Bryant interviewed Michelle Arrow, History Professor at Macquarie University, and President of the Australian Historical Association, about the importance of including history in university curricula.
The specific incidents that prompted the ABC to run the session were a decision at the University of Wollongong to scrap its history department (since partly reversed) and the Morrison government’s “job ready” prioritization of university funding – a de facto attack on the humanities.
The discussion is about the general value of history in the nation’s public life. Anyone who has studied the history of the Middle East is unlikely to take a simplistic one-sided view of the present conflicts in which Israel is involved. Those who have studied American history would know that the US has seen much greater political shocks than the election of a populist bully. A study of economic history can reveal much about the rise of totalitarianism in the twentieth century. Closer to home, those who have studied Australian history in an unsanitised form would have been more likely to vote “yes” in the Voice referendum.
Most importantly, the teaching of history can be shaped by ideological forces. That’s manifest in the shaping of curricula, and in decisions to discourage or suppress the teaching of history.