Much the same could be said about the situation here in Australia, where the dominant forces in the Liberal and National Parties have raced to the right and have shown little concern about the polarising effects of their stances and rhetoric. The parties and movements to their right such as One Nation, UAP, the cookers, etc, are even worse.
In this light I think it has been a strategic and political mistake for the Albanese government to seek to govern from the centre with the hope that the right of centre will make nice and make it easier for them to do that. Key Federal Labor figures such as Wayne Swan and Jim Chalmers have made clear that this is the way they would prefer to be governing, and we can read such an attitude into Albo's rebuke of Tanya Plibersek over her "Voldemort" remark about Dutton, but the role the Federal Liberal and National Party leaderships and spokespersons are playing in the Voice debate has shown the folly of such a wish.
Perhaps the race to the right is because they realise their centre-right political position is increasingly untenable. The neoliberal experiment has failed, but instead of moving back towards the centre, they've gone further right. The parties of the centre-left and left don't need to race towards the lefthand version of this (arguably espoused by China) because they know their policies are actually better for the welfare of the majority of people. Of course, there's nothing stopping Albanese from demonstrating his leftwing credentials. I agree it's a mistake on his part not to do so. Dutton shows no compunction in knocking down everything Albanese proposes.
Having said that, as long as we continue to pursue inequality, I believe our politics will be unstable.
There is a similar issue with post-apartheid “reconciliation”, which implies symmetry. To be sure, the anti-apartheid movement at times used unacceptable tactics but there is a qualitative difference between fighting for freedom and denying freedom. You can create some symmetry in tactics but there is no symmetry in goals.
Another example: climate change. Why is there any pursuit of symmetry between the best possible science and the best possible science denial? To do so is beyond idiotic.
Journalists are trained in audi alteram partem – but life isn’t a court of law. Both sides are not always equally valid, and many issues are not accurately reflected by choosing only 2 sides to “balance”.
The deep right is a well funded project of billionaire libertarians (so called) whose goal is corporate dominance of the state. When achieved, that brings them window-dressing taxation and an end to federal regulatory authority. The racist and male gender affirming social policy advanced by their stooges exists for the sole purpose of capturing a significant voter base. Those voters would rather suck on an automobile exhaust pipe, than kiss their spouse.
You express my views most articulately! Thank you, John.
I am in two minds about the Australian situation where we see Albanese attempting to capture the centrist suburban liberal vote (but not from the teals, who look cemented in) as the liberals head for the far right. So - abandoning economic justice for the very poor in favour of the Morrison government’s Stage 3 tax cuts, for example. I don't think they have read the room here.
But if Labor were to go the whole hog in abandoning the export/mining of gas and non renewables as climate science legitimately demands, the economy would surely collapse and we would have a Dutton led Government in short order; so for those of us who prefer in the medium term a moderately competent and just government to handle the impending catastrophe of climate change, the moral compromises being made by Albanese et al are forgivable but difficult.
Much the same could be said about the situation here in Australia, where the dominant forces in the Liberal and National Parties have raced to the right and have shown little concern about the polarising effects of their stances and rhetoric. The parties and movements to their right such as One Nation, UAP, the cookers, etc, are even worse.
In this light I think it has been a strategic and political mistake for the Albanese government to seek to govern from the centre with the hope that the right of centre will make nice and make it easier for them to do that. Key Federal Labor figures such as Wayne Swan and Jim Chalmers have made clear that this is the way they would prefer to be governing, and we can read such an attitude into Albo's rebuke of Tanya Plibersek over her "Voldemort" remark about Dutton, but the role the Federal Liberal and National Party leaderships and spokespersons are playing in the Voice debate has shown the folly of such a wish.
Perhaps the race to the right is because they realise their centre-right political position is increasingly untenable. The neoliberal experiment has failed, but instead of moving back towards the centre, they've gone further right. The parties of the centre-left and left don't need to race towards the lefthand version of this (arguably espoused by China) because they know their policies are actually better for the welfare of the majority of people. Of course, there's nothing stopping Albanese from demonstrating his leftwing credentials. I agree it's a mistake on his part not to do so. Dutton shows no compunction in knocking down everything Albanese proposes.
Having said that, as long as we continue to pursue inequality, I believe our politics will be unstable.
Has Matt responded?
There is a similar issue with post-apartheid “reconciliation”, which implies symmetry. To be sure, the anti-apartheid movement at times used unacceptable tactics but there is a qualitative difference between fighting for freedom and denying freedom. You can create some symmetry in tactics but there is no symmetry in goals.
Another example: climate change. Why is there any pursuit of symmetry between the best possible science and the best possible science denial? To do so is beyond idiotic.
Journalists are trained in audi alteram partem – but life isn’t a court of law. Both sides are not always equally valid, and many issues are not accurately reflected by choosing only 2 sides to “balance”.
Very good explanation, John - thanks. With a little edit would make a great op-ed piece for Bris Times, or the Courier or Oz.
The deep right is a well funded project of billionaire libertarians (so called) whose goal is corporate dominance of the state. When achieved, that brings them window-dressing taxation and an end to federal regulatory authority. The racist and male gender affirming social policy advanced by their stooges exists for the sole purpose of capturing a significant voter base. Those voters would rather suck on an automobile exhaust pipe, than kiss their spouse.
You express my views most articulately! Thank you, John.
I am in two minds about the Australian situation where we see Albanese attempting to capture the centrist suburban liberal vote (but not from the teals, who look cemented in) as the liberals head for the far right. So - abandoning economic justice for the very poor in favour of the Morrison government’s Stage 3 tax cuts, for example. I don't think they have read the room here.
But if Labor were to go the whole hog in abandoning the export/mining of gas and non renewables as climate science legitimately demands, the economy would surely collapse and we would have a Dutton led Government in short order; so for those of us who prefer in the medium term a moderately competent and just government to handle the impending catastrophe of climate change, the moral compromises being made by Albanese et al are forgivable but difficult.
Thanks for that John.
You received some interesting responces, too!
I believe it is Milan Singh, an intern, who is leaving for Decision HQ.
Thanks, i'll correct that.