Drive-Thru Virtue

Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt were handed a bona fide opportunity to temper their compassionate conservative credentials today, on the reporting of a supposed admission by The Age’s regular lefty ranter Catherine Deveny that she’s been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

Both Bolt and Blair expressed sympathy and announced an end to their campaigns against her - presuming the reported diagnosis is true.  I don’t for one moment doubt the sincerity of their concern nor the good intentions behind their cease fire.

But this idea that the open door on cruel, personal attacks on her weight, looks and usage of mirrors slams shut the moment she’s rumoured to have admitted to a clinical diagnosis raises a few questions about our attitudes to mental illness.

I’ve never been a fan of Deveny’s work.  Her articles have always seemed to me to be laden with the sort of bilious rhetoric, bigotry and unconcealed hatred that in my younger days I’d believed the left was meant to reject.  She seems to lack any of the sense of irony and satire that one so frequently described as a comedian should hope to exhibit.  And she seemed to epitomise the The Age’s modern tendency to fill its opinion pages with uninformative leftist rants from writers who not only have no expertise or special insight into the topics on which they opine, but seem incapable of making the slightest effort to understand their opponents’ positions enough to construct remotely coherent arguments against them.

Quite simply, she’s always struck me as willfully ignorant, arrogant, bitter and miserable, and her writings would be more at home on a RMIT arts student’s little-frequented blog.

Although I don’t presume to make such accurate sanity judgments that I accurately predicted Deveny’s bipolar diagnosis, I will make the claim that it occurred to me long ago the this lady just ain’t quite right.  I’ve seen a bit of mental illness in my time, particularly bipolar, major depression and borderline, as well the milder, less precise forms like pervasive guilt and chronic self-pity that are so common amongst the perpetually downtrodden and frustrated types I’ve tended to associate with.

So I’ve generally ignored Deveny’s work, having found it too predictable and uninsightful to be worth any more of my time, but also having assessed her mental clarity and reasoning skills to be somewhat suspect, and not of any real value in advancing my own opinions.

You’d be right in detecting in the last couple of paragraphs, a euphemistic expression of the sentiment that would be better stated as “I always thought she was a bit of a nutter, and I should know”.   But of course, well-intentioned or not, if you were ever to dare to make such an assessment aloud, you would be condemned as offensive or derided as presumptuous busybody.

If a well meaning, medically aware person noticed in an acquaintance, suspicious-looking lumps on the side of the neck and recommended a medical checkup for the possible presence of cancer, the rational recipient of the warning would thank them very much for their concern, keep an eye out for further symptoms and make an appointment with their GP to get it checked out.

But notice similarly tell-tale symptoms of a mental disorder, the polite observer knows to keep his opinion well and truly to himself.   3 years ago, Jeff Kennett learned this lesson the hard way from the famously unstable former Labor opposition leader Mark Latham.  Having observed Latham’s erratic behavior and made the educated and sensitively-expressed assessment that it was consistent with bipolar, Kennett was forced into a bizarre retraction when Latham perceived Kennett’s concern as an egregious attack.

In his apology, Kennett said:

My comments were not made based on any knowledge of Mark Latham’s health, but on my considerable observations and dealings with people with depressive illnesses over the last eight years,” he said. “I did not seek to harm or embarrass Mark Latham in any way, and apologise for any hurt my comments have caused him or his family. I also withdraw my comments as he requested.

At the time, I wasn’t sure whether I should be more annoyed at Latham for reaffirming the idea that mental illness is something to be ashamed of, or at Kennett for buckling so easily to Latham’s absurd demand and letting the opportunity for wider discussion of the issue wash over.  Perhaps Kennett made the right call, that if Latham was indeed bipolar as he (and I) reasonably suspected, it would be better for Latham’s health for it to be dropped from public view as quickly as possible.

But whatever the motive, we all just went back to assuming Latham was a lunatic from the safety of our own homes, and were reminded that presuming to judge someone’s mental wellbeing and offering advice and support on that basis is something you just don’t do.

Part of the problem is that someone in Latham’s shoes can rely on a chorus of supporters rising to his defense, and accusing the well-intentioned commentator of crimes akin to racism or sexism.   In this case, it consisted largely of Labor colleagues and voters (of which I’d been one at the 2004 election Latham contested), no doubt embarrassed at how unbalanced the one-time messiah had turned out to be, and likely personally horrified to think he could end up being diagnosed as such.

The general taboo on making presumptive assessments of mental illness is understandable.  No-one likes the idea that friends or acquaintences are secretly psycho-analysing them.  It’s bad enough worrying about whether that psychologist you meet at a party is analysing you without having to consider whether everyone is doing it.  But I can’t help noticing that people’s inclination to object to it is strongest when it conflicts with their own self-interest.  All of us know people who could be regarded as mentally suspect, but who act in ways that are perceived as being of value to others, and thus are allowed or encouraged to perpetuate their unhealthy behaviour.

Whether it’s the guy who shouts the bar all night and keeps us all entertained with outrageous and brazen acts, the promiscuous lass who can always be relied on for a bit of action, the eternally miserable guy whose embittered LiveJournal mutterings about the evils of the world provide affirmation of our own views, the ever-present best friend, whose persistent neediness provides reliable companionship, and whose odd behaviour provides validation and elevated esteem by comparison, or the everyday loser who makes a great target for bullying or a rich pool of fodder for gossip, for every such person in “normal” society exhibiting unhealthy behavior, there’s any number of clients deriving some benefit from it.  And as long as the benefits are there to be had, there are those who will happily turn a blind eye to the fact that this person may be in very real need of help, and vigorously defend the “rights” of that person to behave as they choose to anyone who suggests that an intervention may be necessary.

I wonder if the frequently-stated need for society to be more tolerant and accepting of mental illness runs the risk of making this type of selfish appeasement all the more common.  I’m all for society doing more for understanding and dealing with mental illness.  But let’s not let the call for tolerance be an excuse to simply let people continue to suffer in aid of for our own self-gratification.

I can just imagine The Age coming up with all sorts of justifications for keeping Deveny on the staff, trying to convince itself that it’s doing the right thing in offering her ongoing employment to help in her recovery, but continuing to seek reader eyeballs with her unbalanced ranting, and in doing so running the risk of prolonging her recovery and deepening her plight.

Apparent good intentions notwithstanding, I’m uncomfortable with the fact that Tim Blair can, for cheap laughs and without any hint of genuine concern for her wellbeing say “the woman is insane”  and on information that she may in fact be insane, turn all stern-like and say we all have to shut up and be sensitive.  I don’t believe Blair is so naive that he can claim to have been oblivious to the possibility that Deveny might have the odd issue, and that only on public confirmation of this do all the rules change.  Blair has made plenty of easy mileage out of Deveny’s stream of nonsense, but to fail to factor the possibility of a diagnosable condition into his attacks on her work and character (not to mention the size of her arse) only to turn all principled when it’s suggested she’s actually ill, strikes me as a little disingenuous.

But whilst the person who is inclined to intervene and offer support or simply take a principled stance may also be driven by their own desire for personal satisfaction and kudos, if it actually succeeds in helping a person out of suffering then surely it is more defensible.  It’s not unusual to see a person’s revelation that they have a mental illness derided, mocked or condemned as a pathetic excuse.  It’s good to see Blair and Bolt doing nothing of the sort, and whatever their motives and their actions of the past, to have taken the stance they have in the circumstances is commendable.

Australian union leaders grabbed some easy headlines this week as Macquarie CEO Alan Moss retired with a package of over $50 million.

“I don’t think anybody deserves $50 million,” Ms Burrow told ABC radio.

“That’s so far beyond what working Australians can even grasp as reality.

And the conservative columnists joined the procession, explaining that the Alan Mosses of this world are all completely deserving and everyone should stop complaining and get to work trying to emulate his achievements so we can share in the spoils. Asks Janet Albrechtsen:

When will we grow up, put the class envy aside and accept that those responsible for creating wealth for more people should themselves end up wealthy? That way, more people try to create wealth for more people. It’s called incentive.

To those who question whether highly paid CEOs are really worth such enormous amounts of money, Paul Graham put it beautifully in his 2004 essay Mind the Gap:

Editorials about athletes’ or CEOs’ salaries remind me of early Christian writers, arguing from first principles about whether the Earth was round, when they could just walk outside and check. How much someone’s work is worth is not a policy question. It’s something the market already determines.

“Are they really worth 100 of us?” editorialists ask. Depends on what you mean by worth. If you mean worth in the sense of what people will pay for their skills, the answer is yes, apparently.

Graham’s point in this essay was that whereas it’s generally assumed - even by many committed capitalists - that a widening gap between rich and poor is inherently undesirable, in modern economies it is more likely to be an indicator of a good thing; specifically, that technology and liberty has provided leverage that will allow wealth to be generated at a faster rate, inevitably leading to a widening gap between the most productive creators of wealth, and the least. He points out however, that in practical terms, thanks to this increased productivity, everyone benefits, and the lifestyles of the rich and the not-so-rich are actually becoming more similar.

But whilst both Albrechtsen and Graham are both technically correct, neither acknowledges the important role the perception of fairness plays in the proper functioning of the economy.

In his 2004 book The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki described the 2003 case of New York Stock Exchange chairman Dick Grasso, who was awarded a compensation package of $140 million, which sparked such a public outcry that Grasso was forced to step down. But Surowiecki suggested that this type of controversy goes beyond human notions of fairness. He related it to a 2003 Emory University study of capuchin monkeys (yes, really), in which the monkeys were trained to use a form of currency to “pay” for food. The study found that the monkeys were willing to participate in the currency system as long as they perceived it as fair, but as soon as one monkey saw another receiving better food for the same payment, they would throw a violent tantrum and refuse to participate any further. Surowiecki suggested that the outcry we’ve come to expect on news of astronomical payouts to corporate executives is a natural reaction rooted in a very basic, primitive sense of what is “fair”.

If this is true, no amount of berating from the Albrechtsens of the world will persuade the public to look on approvingly at such payouts. On the contrary, if human reactions are anything like those of the capuchin monkeys, there’s a risk that where people see such huge payouts as unjust, participation in the economy may decline, leading to overall economic activity diminishing.

I find that the general public is quite discriminating in its reaction to the rewards appropriated to various corporate players. In particular, people see a distinction between the self-made entrepreneur and the board-appointed CEO. You don’t often hear anyone complain about the wealth of people like Lindsay Fox, Gerry Harvey, Frank Lowy or Kerry Stokes. The same goes for offshore squillionaires like Sir Richard Branson or the Google guys. Whether it’s because they founded companies that provide products and services that delight us and enrich our lives, or they do a good job convincing us that they’re likable, decent philanthropic folk, or that we know that they all came from humble backgrounds and built their wealth through hard work and inspired decisions, no one seems to mind that they’re so much more wealthy than the rest of us.

Yet when we see someone like Alan Moss raking in piles of cash, it seems quite different. We think “he just works for a bank!”. “He just turns up to work in a suit, signs a few contracts to build a new freeway or airport then goes home… how can that be so much harder than my job? How does he deserve $50 million for that?”. And I think particularly in the case of companies like Macquarie, we get that sense that rising to the top is as much about who you know or which private school you went to than how competent you are - no matter how untrue that may actually be. As such, any suggestion that these huge rewards are available to anyone with the right intellect and work ethic is a little insulting.

So whilst I have little time for Sharron Burrow and the ACTU trying to justify their existence with such predictable ranting, I think it’s important to remember how important the general perception of fairness is to the overall health of the economy. Whilst Macquarie can no doubt justify Moss’s package in commercial terms and would get no protest from me, they risk the country’s economic performance when they fail to acknowledge public standards.

The public doesn’t object to someone earning truckloads of money so long as you can show you’ve earned it.