The open letter

Janet Albrechtsen in today's Australian rips into John Howard for backing down on the sale of the Snowy River scheme. Personally, I don't see it as an issue worth getting too worked up about either way.

Still, her column does have this paragraph which I can agree with:

But perhaps most irritating is the fact that Howard's backflip only encourages our collective letter writers to keep on writing. The apparent victory by the 57 assorted luvvies, political has-beens and political never-beens will make them think their sentimental jottings have policy substance. These letters are blots on the political landscape that invariably feature artistes trying to prove they can do more than memorise scripts by signing up to something drafted by retirees suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.

One hopes that their saccharine superficiality has been carried prominently by newspapers such as The Australian as a cute reminder that collectivists are now reduced to the pathetic business of writing collective letters. But after Howard's surrender last week, they received a fillip.

Yes, this "open letter" tactic has irritated for a long time. Firstly, how many people actually read them (or, more importantly, people who have not yet made up their mind about an issue.) Do they think that people care what actors and former diplomats and such like think about economic and other issues? I guess some people might if the actor has some particularly high public profile for, I don't know, niceness and the common touch. But once they are highly successful, people surely just see them as rich and idle enough to dabble in politics. And even if one of them could influence the public, joining in the collective letter dilutes their own input.

No, it always seems to be mostly about posturing from a political side that everyone already knows is nearly ubiquitous in the arts world. (And in the world of retired diplomats, too.)