Voting

Voting Values

May 8, 2019 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Voting is the expression of the rights of an individual to participate in their government, but like any expression, it can be misdirected, coerced, bought and sold. Political Parties understand the role and importance of marketing, propaganda and salesmanship in seeking your vote, irrespective of whether it is in your or your community’s best interest, or aligns with your values.

Value development.

Voting the voice of the people or the perceptually manipulated by the MSM?

For the rest of us, our political attitudes are not always based on careful consideration of policy. Instead, a range of factors including gender, family, religion, race and ethnicity, and early childhood environments are strong predictors of political beliefs.

However, we arrive at our political beliefs; the next question we need to ask is, who in the political spectrum best represents those beliefs. This may be discovered by:

an analysis of the policies and their consequences
an evaluation of the perceived integrity of the political party

There is a range of political analysis strategies to make a systematic evaluation. Though this does presume that:

Any of us spend any time to analyse the policies of political parties.
Politicians can be trusted to follow through on their promises and ideological pronouncements.
Politicians represent their constituents and not the interests of well-financed lobbyists and donors.

Instead of a rationally researched choice, research demonstrates that we engage in:

Bandwagon voting [1] in which people’s voting preferences are reflecting a desire to follow trends and “hop on the bandwagon” regardless of the underlying evidence. [2]
Reluctance to change voting patterns as other research from Europe demonstrates that voters do not adjust their perceptions according to what parties advocate in their campaigns. [3]
A lack of comprehension of essential differences between the major parties motivated by the desire to decrease the potential costs of post-decision regrets. [4]

Why discouraging small party votes disempowers voter's message. — Why discouraging small party votes disempowers voter’s message.

Major political parties actively encourage bandwagon voting. A prime example is an argument that you should vote for a major party on the pretext that that is more likely to win, instead of voting for the minor party which holds policies with which you agree. This argument ensures you throw away your real choices, for a compromise with values you don’t own, for people you would rather not have in power and relinquish your one element of control to power brokers. I can only assume this must be very empowering for someone, just not the voter.

The reluctance to change your voting patterns despite disagreeing with what parties advocate is a common problem in every democracy. Pensioners expressing anger at being shafted by the government, then declaring their continuance to vote for the same party, may seem odd to an outsider, but we know it happens.

Turnout % failure increasing in real numbers in recent decades.Turnout % failure increasing in real numbers in recent decades. — Turnout % failure increasing in real numbers in recent decades.

Failure to comprehend essential policy differences underpins the high incidence of informal voting in Australia of around 6%. The percentages of voter turnout failures and eligible voters not registering has also increased over time, although offset recently by the Marriage Equality plebiscite voter enrolments. Informal vote margins could have changed outcomes in electorates and possibly even the election of 2016. Many are content to throw away their only leverage in politics; protesting that we don’t like our options when we don’t know what our options are. These folk are highly disengaged with the ability to change politics but are very deliberate in expressing their political disappointment.

Left or Right

Other issues are the misperception of where your values lie on the spectrum between left and right wing, or “progressive” versus “tyrannical”. Some other people are sufficiently misled in concepts of political theory to associate socialism with the Nazis or can’t distinguish between communism, socialism, capitalism and democratic socialism.

ABC's insular perception of political positioning — ABC’s insular perception of political positioning

To aid objective rationality researchers examine party policies, attempting to map a parties position on the political spectrum. The ABC’s vote compass tries to help voters understand their position relative to each of the main political parties. The ABC describes its online survey as a civic engagement application, where one can:

“Based on a user’s responses to a series of propositions that reflect salient aspects of the campaign discourse, Vote Compass calculates the alignment between the user’s personal views and the positions of the political parties.”

Its critics suggest it’s an insular Australia-centric representation of political ideology, treating the Labor Party as Left-wing party and the Liberals as Right-wing party. The Greens and One Nations are treated as political extremists. The basis of the perception is that it reflects community attitudes. There is an apparent political reluctance for the ABC – and the “political scientists” who designed the “compass”, – to challenge the status quo or adopt an international perspective.

Democratic Socialism or Nationalist conservatism.

The Liberal Party in Australia sees themselves as conservative which former prime minister John Howard described as a “broad church”. The Labor party still see themselves as a left-wing “democratic socialist party”. Oddly both Labor and Liberal suffer from the delusion that they are progressive parties who are at odds with each other when they are really merely in heated agreement. Some pundits legitimately note there are left and right factions within both Parties, but the party as a whole, cannot be both. Both Labor and Liberal party candidates vote as a whole and discourage “crossing the floor“.

The party as defined by what its policies support, must by logical necessity, establish itself as either one or the other, independent of its internal divisions. As such, I am not interested in the individuals but the gestalt organisation. Also, I want to introduce a more global view of politics rather than the insular ABC Vote compass. A broader international perspective lifts us away from the tedious bias criticisms levelled at the ABC from both “sides” of the political spectrum.

The shifting polarisations of localised political perspective over time.

How the world sees the political spectrum has changed since it was simplistically regarded as American capitalism versus the communist Soviet Union. This died with the Soviet Union’s restructure via Gorbachev’s policies of glasnost and perestroika. In the latter part of the 1980s, as the walls came down in Berlin, perspectives changed. The attitudes of Menzies’ worship in the 1980s that framed perspectives for political engagement, for men like Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey, and Christopher Pine at college, have shifted significantly.

The Global Compass.

Political Compass positioning of Parties in 2016

The internet phenomenon of the political compass did not originate from the ABC but from further afield from an older body of political analysts, who review politics from an international perspective as opposed to our myopic national perception. “The Political Compass” has been analysing OECD democracies since 2001. Their perspective on the political positioning of Australian politics is very different and revealing. The political compass provides a much more accurate assessment of the exact nature of the political positioning of parties in the Australian democracy (and for that matter several other democracies such as the UK, Canada, America, Germany, New Zealand, Irish, and European Governments).

Previous Labor Party progression and direction change since 2016.

What is of particular interest to myself was to review their separately graphed analysis of each year to gain a perspective on how we have changed over time. To this end, I have overlaid the graphs from the last four elections as depicted by the analysis from https://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 to https://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2016. This show’s Labor as a right-wing authoritarian party that had been steadily marching further rightwards and more authoritarian until 2016 when it seems they took a back step.

Liberal policy blip leftwards corrected under Morrison and back on course.

It has primarily followed behind the Liberal party, which, although always further right in political ideology at any instance in time, shifted towards the centre in 2016. While this shift helped the Liberals under Turnbull win the 2016 election, the Right-wing factions of the Liberal Party subsequently reasserted themselves. After a challenge by former immigration ministers Peter Dutton and Scott Morrison, the conservative Morrison claimed the Leadership of the party. The direction of the party reassumed the previous course to the Right.

National Party being utterly consistent and never swerving from the path.

Interestingly, the only party that has made no backstep at all was the National Party. They have stopped for nobody including their partners in the Liberal Party. If you are a right-wing voter who expresses some concern that the Liberal party has softened, then the Nationals have compromised for nobody. Neither, for that matter, has Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party.

Menzies & Whitlam

White Australia Policy - Racist & misogynist — White Australia Policy – Racist & misogynist

From 1949 to 1966 Sir Robert Menzies dominated conservative politics as the Prime Minister. While described by contemporaries as the Father of the modern conservative movement he was far more pro-refugee, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-middle-class as the “The Forgotten People” broadcasts showed, then the current manifestation of the Liberal Party. Despite his support for the racist White Australia policy (which is an attitude that has run consistently through his party for generations) his later dismantling the policy and ratification of the UN Refugee Convention was far more progressive than what is exhibited by his party today with their indefinite detention programs. The conservatives held power until 1972 when Australia reacted to a long run of conservative political leadership and voted Whitlam and his agenda into power. By 1973 Whitlam’s Government changed immigration laws to repudiate race as an issue. Gough Whitlam from 1972 to 1975 shifted the political face of the country sharply to the left-wing. From the perspective of where Australia had been, his policies seemed radical. Some suggest that in comparison with the world stage, Gough was predominately only playing catch-up with many more progressive countries that had already gone down the path Gough was following. He admitted this in his 1969 election policy speech in Sydney Town Hall about education. Though to many Australians, especially the Right-wing, it was radical politics. While “The Political Compass” has taken no stock or measure of what the Labor Party looked like then, I suspect given the history of the movement of the Labor party in the socioeconomic, political spectrum, and it would be fair to suggest it was legitimately a Left-wing party at that time. It has marched steadily rightwards in the decades that followed.

Strange bedfellows

The only significant left-wing parties in existence anymore according to “The Political Compass”, were the Democrats, Bob Katter’s party and the Greens. Sadly, Don Chip’s political ambitions to “keep the bastards honest”, has been mostly lost to history. Bob Katter – while initially a member of the National Party – formed his party in 2011 and remained as a member of Parliament – neither gaining or losing ground. The Greens party, on the other hand, shifted towards the centre where the Democrats once trod, even taking on board as members, former state party politicians from the Democrats.

So regarding the left/right divides of the political spectrum, it is incorrect to think of it as between the ALP and the LNP. The real gap between left and right policies, ideologies, and social causes are primarily between the Greens on the left and the Labor/National/Liberal “coalition” on the right. Not of course, that the Liberals or Labor party would consider themselves in such an alliance, given their antipathy. In 2013 the political compass placed the Labor Party’s positioning under Kevin Rudd, to the right of the National party’s position in 2007 under Mark Vaile. Perhaps discovering the Labor party held a political policy position further to the right and closer toward authoritarian than the Liberal party’s partners (The Nationals) during the Howard years is undoubtedly challenging to some. While the conception of a Liberal/Labor coalition is unpalatable to both parties, keep in mind the Nationals under the Leadership of Barnaby Joyce had marched onwards unrelentingly rightwards and authoritarian and are no longer trailing behind the Liberal party the way Labor has done.

How far Right?

We should evaluate parties regarding their real and current political persuasions in the 21^st-century rather than what they were in the 20^th century under Menzies or Whitlam. The Labor “left” is no longer close to left-wing! If the rise of far-right nationalist movements from National Action in the 1980s, to Australia First, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, Rise Up Australia (RUA), and the Australian Protectionist Party (APP), are any indicators, the two major parties are far more closely aligned. The political compass only charted One Nation in 2007 and 2013, but it is evident where on the spectrum it sits. In the absence of a re-evaluation for 2019, we must look to policy changes in parties to determine how far to the right-wing sit Liberal, Nationals, One Nation and Labor. Given the bipartisan agreement around legislation and policies over initial Adani Coal mining support (although there are signs of change recently), refugee detention, Foreign interference, Encryption laws, journalists and whistle-blower repression, Social media laws restraints, Low targets for NEG energy , website blocking, the PM’s war powers, cutting migrant welfare, Aged care funding cuts, costly education, private healthcare, Metadata retention, globalisation of trade, mandatory sentencing agendas, static Newstart allowances, criminalisation of abuse reporting and privatisation of public assets, it is not hard to deduce the policy direction. While they have differences on minimum wage (only recently), marriage equality, climate change, Medicare, tax cuts, Federal ICAC, negative gearing and infrastructure & economy, remember that the Labor party has voted with the Liberals for at least 40% of all Liberal legislative agendas since 2013.

How Far Left?

Greens and Liberals - just who are the "Neo-liberals on bikes"? — Greens and Liberals – just who are the “Neo-liberals on bikes”?

The only representative left-wing parties noted by the “The Political Compass”, were the Democrats, Bob Katter’s party and the Greens. The Democrats being the only real centrists to speak of had largely exited the realm of political influence but have returned to contest 2019’s election. The Green’s have floated around on the left side of the political spectrum becoming more Libertarian/Progressive over time but lately shifting rightwards. The Greens have been disparagingly referred to as “neoliberals on bikes”, but while it is true, they have as a party moved rightwards they are by the Political Compass’s assessment a long way from the Labor/Liberal/National neoliberal agendas. The Democrats and Greens are the closest to centrist parties Australia has.

Beyond these parties, the “Political Compass” has not assessed other left-wing or progressive smaller parties. These would include the Pirate Party, the Arts Party, Science Party, Socialist Alliance, and Reason Party, amongst others. The rise of small parties has been marked, and while the Political Compass does not evaluate them, recent emergents have been summarised in the embedded link here.

Choices.

As 2019 election draws close, whatever values you seek in a party, left or right, socially conservative or progressive, it behoves you to consider which party aligns to your values. So perhaps it is time to reassess both your perception of where your party of choice stands in relation to what you believe. As such “The Political Compass” test, may be revelatory.

The right-wing power Block and what we can expect for 2019.

In doing so, perhaps you might adapt the fixed impression you’ve held over the past, for where the party you’ve always voted for, has moved to in the dynamic and ever-shifting landscape of Australian politics.

If you are a member of any number of right-wing nationalist parties such as “Rise Up”, “Australia First”, “Love Australia or Leave”, then your mainstream preferences would likely be extended to One Nation, the Nationals and the Liberal party in that order. If that is too far right-wing for your liking, but you are still conservative, then the Liberal Party followed by Labor makes a good choice. If you are what many refer to as a conservative “small l” liberal or a mild to a moderate right-wing constituent, then the Labor Party is the only option left to the right. Should in that process, you discover your leanings are significant enough to the left of the Labor/National/Liberal/One Nation right-wing power block, then you have three main options in Bob Katter, the Democrats and the Greens and numerous small progressive party options to choose from, depending on if they have representatives in your electorate.

To many realising that “Labor” is a right-wing party and “The Greens” are the only progressive centrist mainstream party is disturbing enough to one’s decision process, without having to evaluate the real position of smaller parties. The public’s expectations of democracy in Australia are damaged enough already.

What’s in it for ……?

While there is inevitably, the hedonistic approach to politics, on which so many politicians count. All to garner your vote, with “What’s in it for me?”, as opposed to “What’s in it for my country?”! Might I remind you of the words of Gough Whitlam when writing in the London Daily Telegraph in October of 1989?

“The punters know that the horse named Morality rarely gets past the post, whereas the nag named Self-interest always runs a good race.”

—–//—–

Postscript.

It is early Jun 2019, and the dust has settled on the election results, and the political compass has scored the positions of the parties, and I have an opportunity to assess the predictions made in the article above. The only significant miscalculation was with the Greens that appear to have moved leftwards but less progressive where – because of the rise of bipartisan agreements between the Greens and the Liberals changing from 8% under Abbott to 28% under Turnbull – that they appeared to be shifting rightwards. I conjecture that the constant references to the Greens being “neo-liberals on bikes” was responsible for a predisposition on my part to make inaccurate forecasts.

One Nation’s assessment was based on only two statistical variations (2007 & 2013), and it appears they haven’t shifted from their position from 2013.

In regards to all other parties, Labor, Liberal and Nationals, they have moved in accordance with expectations although the shift was more vertical along the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis. The Liberals moved approximately into the position the National held in 2016.

Except for the Greens, the political landscape was reasonably predictable, and it is still true to say the closest main party to centrist in the Australian political Landscape from a global political perspective are the Greens.

Footnotes:

[1] Rebecca B. Morton, Daniel Muller, Lionel Page, Benno Torgler (2015) “Exit polls, turnout, and bandwagon voting: Evidence from a natural experiment”, European Economic Review, Volume 77, July 2015, Pages 65-81, Elsevier [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292115000483]

[2] David J. Lanoue and Shaun Bowler (1988), “Picking the Winners: Perceptions of Party Viability and Their Impact on Voting Behavior”, Social Science Quarterly Vol. 79, No. 2 (June 1998), pp. 361-377, [https://www.jstor.org/stable/42863794]

[3] Fernandez-Vazquez, P., & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2017). The Informational Role of Party Leader Changes on Voter Perceptions of Party Positions. British Journal of Political Science, 1-20. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000047]

[4] Craig Goodman, Gregg R. Murray (2007), “Do You See What I See? Perceptions of Party Differences and Voting Behavior”, American Politics Research, Volume: 35 issue: 6, page(s): 905-931 [https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X07303755]

Save

The Banality of Evil

December 19, 2018 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

When we contemplate great evil, who comes to mind? Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Idi Amin, Kim Il Sung, Josef Mengele, Saddam Hussein, Emperor Nero and so on? Too easy. The reasons are apparent, the history unrefuted and the weight of affirming opinions near universal.

We all like to think of evil as insidious, intentional, cruel, focused and malodorous even. Isn’t “evil” patently recognisable by its social maladjustment? That is the comfortable illusion of how “good folk” describe evil to distinguish ourselves from it. So it may be surprising to hear that according to psychologists nobody thinks of themselves as evil. We self-justify actions and beliefs. Folks may hold their irrationality within their mindset, as they persist with the delusion of being the good guys.

Hitler, for example, grew up in a time where he experienced the open expression of anti-Semitism. He didn’t create anti-semitism, it was his honest belief, that the Jews were responsible for the economic hard times of other Germans in the post-war years. Seems almost banal, doesn’t it?

Chase Replogle writes “Arendt coined the phrase, the ‘banality of evil.’ You can define banal as, ‘so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.’ What Arendt observed was that evil feeds not just on extremism, but just as frequently on our banality. Sin works its way deepest into the most boring and apathetic lives.”

We often don’t recognise evil amidst banality as it is human nature to separate “evil” from our apathy, ignorance, “benign neglect”, “thoughtless bureaucracy”, or our an innate desire to please our perceived “superiors”. Aren’t we all just inclined to follow orders? Resistance is hard, besides “who has the time to protest”? Perhaps you vote for the good guys (however or whomever you decide are the “good guys“), and in that single choice, you make once every three years, some may consider their duty complete. “That’s a democracy“, you cry. As though to comfort ourselves we say, “I’ve done the right thing; I’m not evil or fascist!”

Last century’s Version of Fascism

But then who is fascist? Is it what it was or what it will be? How often do we accuse the comparative justification of calling the alt-right “fascist” as being too radical? “Nobody is exterminating minorities in gas chambers” one may say defensively. But recall that Hitler took seven years to bring Germany to war. When was it a step too far?

When he was promoted to Chancellor on a minority vote in a democracy?
When he consolidated the Nazi Party’s control of Germany and secretly rebuilt its army from 1933 to 1935?
When he only talked for years about the possibility of expelling Jews and removing their civil rights?
When he was objectifying women as subservient for reproductive purposes with no place in key influence roles?
When he disengaged from the Treaty of Versailles in 1936 and war-tested his military in the Spanish Civil War?
When he shifted non-german foreigners and Jews into gulags or race specific ghettos?

A thousand banal little steps were undertaken in the decade after the Nazi Party grew from 12 seats in the Reichstag to 107 seats in 1930. By the 1940s his troops were frog-marching across Europe and throwing people into gas chambers. When would you have stopped him or protested or objected in that decade? Neither current parties of the Australian nor American government have been in power as long as Hitler before the war (Jan 1933 to Sep 1939).

When I raised a draft version of the above paragraphs in social media, I was warned, “I think comparison with the holocaust needs to used carefully. The Germans did not just “go along” with the Nazi’s they fought against them until a police state was imposed upon them – while most of the political class stood by till it was too late.” This statement, although, was not entirely valid, as the elite of German society did embrace Hitler enthusiastically. While it is true that some “good” people resisted fascism, as they do today, many others, including Jews didn’t realise the consequences. Irrespective of resistance or because of obliviousness the Nazis still marched across Europe, so perhaps it is a moot point. Contemporaneously the problem is, as always, identifying how fascism has evolved. This awareness is painful for many, as they only want to recognise it in the form it took 80 years ago.

This Century’s version?

Despite refutations of such positions, Perhaps because that was before your lifetime and people are so more “woke” now, it is all very different. So let’s explore into what it may have evolved. Have your responses evolved?

Did you react when Donald Trump seized power via the electoral college on the votes of a minority?
Did you respond when Trump began to refocus on the military?
How about when he spoke of expelling Mexicans and Muslims?
Did his objectifying of women whom he grabbed by the pussy upset you?
Did launching air strikes in Syria or breaking established treaties caused you concern? Paris climate accord, Iran Deal, TPP, or NAFTA?
Did locking children in Gulags and separating many permanently from their parents, upset you?

Australian wannabe

OK, so perhaps America has dysfunctional parallels, but we in Australia are markedly different some may claim.

Our politicians are more subtle and more sophisticatedly communicators than Trump. Still, what were your responses in these circumstances?

When 41.8% of all voters voted for the coalition in 2016, did you defend and justify the preferences system for its selection of what the majority wanted?
When Abbott started spending billions on faulty American aircraft, late running Submarines and involved us in America’s pointless Syrian war, did our propensity for violence concern you?
When the social dialogue about banning Muslims entered the political fear mongering, did you speak in defence of the vast majority of adherents to a peaceful religious code?
When misogyny became a familiar and recognisable feature of legislation and leadership, did you say this went too far and defended women?
When Indigenous treaties were scrapped, and political impetus arose that sought to have us withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement were we at all surprised? Did Morrison’s undermining of Refugee Convention obligations, all while adding to our refugee push-factor in bombing raids in Syria, cause alarm?
When we against any decent moral code not only locked innocent adults and children in gulags for the “crime” of being foreign and desperate but then began actively resisting efforts to provide medical assistance to children, did any sparrows die?

Policies for the people?

Equality in Australia: How we treat anyone without wealth.

On such subjects, the coalition argues that we need secure border protection for an Island like Australia with minimal 150 km of sea between us at the tip of Queensland and Papua New Guinea to fight off refugees. Even though the majority of refugees fly in and by-pass our secretive “on water matters” border protection. There are many absurdly opposing arguments, such as desperately trying to entwine refugee policy with the war on terror. Money, alternatively, is unavailable for the likes of education, health, social and legal justice, wage equality, mediocre wage growth and affordable housing, utilities food or justice. This absurdity of fearmongering about refugee crime suggests we need be strong and prepared for an invasion of terrorism in our population but simultaneously drives policy to make our community uneducated, poor, unhealthy, un-housed, oppressed and socially divided.

So just because we can see the correlation between what we thought was the progress towards evil and contemporary examples of the same, does it mean we should rethink real “evil”? I mean, we all accept that these things happen in society. Unfortunate, perhaps, but “evil”. Let’s try to compromise surely. “We are doing this for your security and to save you from the threat of terrorism,” says our politicians. “You will hardly notice it”, they say. Moreover, that last part is right. Like the gradually heated frog in the pot you don’t mainly notice it, and by the time the pot boils, it is way too late.

What we don’t discuss over dinner

“Isn’t that politics”? “I’m not political”. “I disengage from that stuff”. What was it Martin Luthor King said? “All that needs to happen for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.” Do we by our silence, allow all of that to happen? Perhaps we are too busy to notice the correlations, too compromised by our selfish preoccupations, perhaps we don’t care. However, surely that isn’t bad. Surely that isn’t “evil”.

Amidst the same social media post commentary I previously referenced one gentleman wrote “most people aren’t evil just caught up in their own lives… “ and in this contemporary society this is, unfortunately, both accurate and a misconception.

Distractive Accuracy

“Accurate” because of our history of

deregulation of industrial relations has meant more extended unofficial work hours and strangled wage growth,
financial deregulation, negative gearing, foreign investment and Capital Gains Concessions has blown out mortgage costs
Privatisation and deregulation of Education has made higher education expenses and debt-ridden
the privatisation of energy provision, scheduled generation markets and resistance to renewables have resulted in larger utility bills increasing household debt.

It's not like there isn't plenty of issues to raise, provided we can raise ourselves — It’s not like there isn’t plenty of issues to raise, provided we can raise ourselves

Being “caught up in our own lives” is true because of more extended hours with reduced skill sets for less pay and bigger bills. These are the results of deliberate bi-partisan political policy choices. We should never forget that policies designed to redistribute wealth upwards, increase inequality, engage in a civil war on society using the tools of racism and attacks on a range of marginalised groups, have a deliberate purpose.

Misperceived evils

A “misperception” because as an act of self-protection of ego, we protest that we are not evil, just a little compromised, more compliant, obedient or scared of being socially ostracised, perhaps?” As I said before, evil is integral to life’s banality; it is everyday ordinary barely conscious choices we make. It exists in the tiny, tired, “I don’t have the time“, “it’s not that bad“, “there are worse situations” excuses we tell ourselves to support the choices we make. Evil is not in the individual decision but the cumulative. It takes thousands of bad collective small choices made over years, that lead to the exclamation of “how the Fu€ did we get here?” as we watch border patrol march down our streets, while our “authorities” detain and abuse our children and bash our disabled neighbours.

Worry not, you’re safe!

But fret not, if you never raised a voice in protest, then they are unlikely to arrest or hamper you because you played it safe with your daily banality. You remained silenced by indecision and compromise; you respected authority and the status quo; you defended the need for thoughtless bureaucracy and realised it was too much work to improve your knowledge of history and politics. Besides, our administration is acutely aware from their study of your metadata, your phone messages, your facebook posts, and even your TV set-top box that you’re still compliant, malleable, cooperative, collaborators but never, really, truly, magnanimously, unambiguously … “evil”?

Why would you still vote for him?

January 27, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Yes it’s odd, isn’t it? I read as many as 28% preferred him as PM ???????
I understand the top 1% supporting coalition government objectives (i.e. Murdoch, Rinehart, Triguboff, Lowy, Forest, Packers, Pratt, Lew & other executives, etc.). They are after all a party of primary support for the wealthy. I can comprehend the top 10% on the economic scale supporting the government financially (i.e. Property & Land Developers, Construction groups, Software & telecommunications, Media, Betting, Agriculture, Food, Banks, Mining & Oil companies, large Retailers and even large right-wing churches, etc), assuming they have no social conscience. As this is a government that pays back its supporters by supporting their financial interests. Look at the intricate web of scandals with ICAC over Developer’s bribes to Liberal party members. So this support for Abbott reaching in the top 10% financially enriched of the population, holds some degree of objectivity from a self-interested perspective. There are people associated with or in this group who, rightly or wrongly, believe there is a trickle-down effect, or have aspirations of becoming part of that 1% demographic, whose financial interests would be served, were they to reach that point. Again, self-interested parties predominately. Understandably perhaps they believe in Tony Abbott’s Australia.

Conservative following

To they for whom take pride in being unengaged

There is a portion of people either from the aforementioned families or belonging to a conservative ideological perspective, who follow in their family’s footsteps and are largely influenced – for reasons little else then – this is the way they have always voted. There is no particular strength of intellectual inquiry involved in that decision. They are more probably disengaged with politics completely, and some take pride in doing so. Of course, this latter type of group belongs to both sides of the political divide. And speaking of the political divide, there are they that swung their vote to the Liberals because of the dysfunction and corruption within the Labour Party. (Given the size of the swing against the Liberals in the last few State Elections, it is probably safe to assume the vast majority of these have regretted their choice.) It’s hard to guess what percentage these disengaged voters are represented by, that still support Liberals but most polls show ambivalent and undecided voters as small single digit figures.

Economic under-performance

It is hard to imagine what other elements of the population that the liberal party serves. Their record after one year of the “Adults” being in charge, is dismal. It is, in fact, severely under-performing. Economically, consumer and business confidence has slumped as Westpac continues to advise. The decline in the Aussie Dollar (the lowest since 2010) and the “weak pace of growth momentum” and “sharp declines in the term of trade” still concern our Bankers such as Westpac. The value of the all ordinaries on the Australian Stock Exchange has fallen and consumer confidence has collapsed. Unemployment is at the highest level in a decade and the government debt has doubled. Let’s not even discuss the false budget emergency or the cuts suffered by everything from the ABC to our children’s education or the removal of major revenue streams (mining & carbon taxes – around 6.5 billion) including the failure to collect taxes from 30% of the countries largest companies. The Hockey budget wanted cuts suffered by everything from the ABC & SBS (despite promises to the contrary) thru CSIRO and science funding (which contribute 145 billion to our economy each year), our aged pensioners and all the way down to our children’s education, medication, disability and legal protection. Of course the continued UNCUT subsidisation of mining & fossil fuels, wealthy superannuation packages, negative gearing, religious organisations (Catholics) could have killed off the “emergency deficit”.

Having a quick look at the list, there are lots of areas we can whittle a bit off here or there to find some slack that doesn’t involve penalizing the poorest amongst us:

excessive tax cuts to richest –> $15.8 billion (per year unless stated otherwise)
fossil fuel subsidies –> 10 billion
superannuation tax concessions –> $36 billion in FY15
capital gains tax discount on home –> $19 billion to FY18
capital gains tax discounts for individuals and trusts –> $28.3 billion in FY18
imputed rent exemptions –> 9.6 billion in FY12
mining industry subsidies –> 4.5 billion (fuel $2 billion)
negative gearing –> 6.4 billion
first home vendors grants –> 1 billion
private education –> 7 billion ($36 billion over 09-13)
private health insurance rebate –> 5 billion ($2 billion in 1999)
housing 2500 boat asylum-seekers overseas instead of in Australia –> 4 billion.
religious organisations –> 40 billion (2008 best estimate of $31bn + CPI)

Instead, Abbott removes the much smaller subsidisation of the car industry which generated 200,000 jobs and $30 billion into our economy, to allow the Chinese & Japanese vehicle manufacturers to dominate our transport markets – which oddly Abbott is so fond of as a means of transportation.

Who’s left to vote?

So the quandary one has to ask oneself is, why is there close to 28% of the population (aside from certainly the top 1% and maybe as much as 10% of income earners, which I do understand) feel the need to vote against their own best interests. What is the intellectual process – if there is any – that occurs for these people that encourage them to continue in their current voting pattern, given the manner in which the political process has mismanaged the social & financial economy this year. Is it merely a matter of ignorance about the state of the nation or misdirection by right wing oligopolies that control the media? (i.e. Murdock) Surely they can’t all be fascists, OR racist OR angry unemployed bogans raging against the perception that jobs are being taken by foreign nationalities & refugees OR the pretentious bourgeoisie of prosperity doctrine bound right-wing church demographics that rage against the sins of left-wing thinkers who support gays, indigenous people, refugees, disabled folk and the rights of women. Is this from what the remaining approaching 18% of Tony Abbott’s support is constructed? Is this a situation resolved by education & rational discussion or are these entrenched values of this group beyond the possibility of rethinking their values? As higher education grows more swiftly beyond the reach of the hoi polloi because of progressive deregulation of the education market, is entrenched ignorance and resilient attitudes of folk who feel the need to “Reclaim Australia” the future support of the Liberal Party?

Disengagement

November 24, 2014 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

White Australia as people appear both hedonistic and politically disengaged and strangely proud of the fact. Being apolitical as a point of pride is not allowed by our oversea’s brethren. People from without who have had to struggle, face discrimination and encounter death and torture in the political process are less willing to be so complacent. Australian by in large have no real experience and little sympathy with that struggle as evidenced by their unsympathetic reaction to refugees. While I have lived overseas in the midst of a political revolution, I am a multigenerational Australian and a bit of a rarity I suspect. My wife and I were both educated at Private schools, brought up by Conservative families. My wife has an MBA to add to her other four degrees, (I’m less educated with only three). We are self-employed although both have significant histories of working for the private sector and public sector employers (in Transport, Banking ^{{-me only}}, Insurance ^{{- her only}}, Finance, Mining, Education, Health), own our own homes and are not impoverished. In many respects a middle-class nuclear church going Anglo family and yet despite being a potential LNP voting demography, we find ourselves at odds with the political climate in Australia.

Australians are often found following the example of conforming with the un-thought-out voting position of one’s family. They are more often intransigent in their voting position, regardless of the situation or the facts available so readily in this contemporary age of internet access to information. The “writing was very obviously on the wall” for what sort of a leader Abbott would be well before the election, so there is no excuse for this level of intellectual laziness other than to protest that for some inexplicable reason, one believed his lies. Or that of Murdock’s papers which we swallowed uncritically and without considered thought. So how do you engage this intellectually lazy population? Unfortunately, it would have to be suffering the leadership of an inherent sociopath/fascist like Abbott and experiencing the consequences. A harsh lesson which our society will undoubtedly suffer from now and well into the future, as Abbott and his colleagues continue dismantling the infrastructure of our once egalitarian society. Sadly, it is probably only in experiencing this pain, which we will generate engagement in politics. Providing any of them a second term will most surely be irretrievably damaging as everything that provides a buffer against poverty and hardship is dismantled.

Why vote

November 23, 2014 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Okay, so you’re considering voting for the Coalition based on their policies? They are seeking a second term. How have you been thinking about this? Hope you don’t mind if I ask but which one of Abbott’s grand policies (that Malcolm hasn’t changed) was it that has maintained your desire to have either or any of them as your Prime Minister?

What could it be?

Was the opportunity to drive up and down the new roads being built between and in our cities, despite the trend away from it in other western nations, while incurring higher petrol prices to do that?
Was it that folks continue to enjoy prosperous employment opportunities, assuming of course you are not a public servant or work in manufacturing or education or nursing, or public broadcasting, or air transport, public communications authorities or anything to do with conservation or climate management, because the Government “cuts” (of efficiency dividends) might put you at risk?
Perhaps it was the opportunity to live a very cheap and free-spirited life on the streets for months of the year, should you be one of the increasing numbers of these unemployed people that Australia has now close to 2 million (or 800K if you follow the tightly statistically controlled measurement the government prefers you reference) people? (Roy Morgan’s Stats preferred)
Perhaps it was the opportunities available to you to get a higher education complete with a higher debt level for the rest of your life?
Perhaps, if you’re a woman, you’re encouraged by their sensitivity and support for women’s issues in his role as the Minister for women, such as over 60,000 domestic violence cases, reduction in Shelters, fair & equal pay, misogyny and his support for you while you’re ironing your husband’s clothes? Giving back $100M after you have taken $300M doesn’t count.
Perhaps if you’re gay, you’re conscious of their awareness of homophobic considerations, and what support Abbott/Malcolm will – as a devout Catholic – provide for you?
Perhaps if you’re a journalist, or blogger or involved in any information sharing role, it’s the extra security you feel knowing that you only have to write in support of “Team Australia” and that you don’t need to worry yourself about matters pertaining to the grubby issues of abuse of power and political corruption?
Perhaps you’re a property developer or in construction, and you know that the money you donate to that third party organisation, will unexpectedly turn out to be generous in passing on your largess to members of the Liberal Party?
Perhaps you’re in the Mafia, and you know you have the best political party money can buy.
Perhaps if you’re an artist, of any kind, you’re encouraged by the realisation that you have to go out and get a “real job” (perhaps in retail) because there is no party policy or increased support for the arts from this government?
Perhaps if you’re not an Australian born, you are aware of his stand on racist fear-mongering over wars in countries far across the sea, and his humanitarian bombs he is dropping on your relatives to forestall the tides of war that apparently intimately threaten us?
Perhaps if you are a true Australian born – whose ancestry originates before white settlement – you’ll be aware of how conscious they are of your existence, and that of your ancestors in the wild Bushland that constituted the Australia Abbott talked of, before 200 years ago?
Perhaps it was the chance to continue working far beyond what you once thought was your retirement age, and the increased insurgency of medical costs due to the increasingly diverse means of extracting a co-payment from you, that you will no doubt face as you get older?
Perhaps it’s because of the preservation and conservation concerns his government has towards the ageing population of “copper infrastructure” that makes up our national network and ensures that we will never have to worry about being competitive with Third World countries like India and their high-speed Internet?
Perhaps it is the opportunity he is giving other country’s companies to direct how we can legislate to protect our country’s interest, and in sure that we do not hinder their trade embargoes on cheaper medicines and the like?
Perhaps it was from some perverse curiosity of just how far and how large the deficit could grow while the “adults” were in charge and perhaps to curiously observe whether the Treasurer will give yet another $9 billion away to the RBA in the hope that the Australian dollar does eventually collapse?
Perhaps it’s because you know you don’t want to have those bastard refugees coming here and stealing your job, with the sure knowledge that they will be beaten and abused until they go back to where from they came? Unless of course, they have a 457 Visa and then you are happy for them to compete with you for the 160,200 jobs that you and 800K (or 1,186K depending on which stats you follow) Australians have to compete with along with over 103K 457 Visa entrants?
Perhaps it’s because you have a fluid relationship to things like reality, truth and lies, such that it doesn’t matter to you whether there is any truth in anything that Mr Abbott or Mr Turnbull says? Perhaps you’re invigorated intellectually by the adroit and concise manner in which either of them inspired you in his speeches?
Perhaps it’s because you had (even for a year) the opportunity to acquire a knighthood or be referred to as Dame so-and-so as you walk down the streets in your robes?
Perhaps it is the international recognition he gives to important foreign dignitaries when he hands over our knighthoods to British Royalty and our “Order Of Australia” to Japanese generals.
Perhaps it is his keen and scientific intellect that can find the minuscule faults in the science promoted by 99% of the world’s scientific community and with his sharp and insightful mind declare Anthropomorphic Climate change as “crap” or – in Turnbull’s case – only of “direct action” despite having previously thought that was “crap”?
Perhaps it is his support for jobs in the Mining sector, which – even though it employs less than 2% of the Australia population – enjoys the benefit of the largess of billion in subsidies by this government?
Perhaps his great concern over this minority Mining group losing their jobs is seen as indicative of his over all concern for industry labour markets that have the potential to employ far greater numbers. For example such as the Renewable Energy sector that he is set on reducing!??

How fair is any of that? I must admit, I am very curious to know which of these aspects have so captured over 40% of the population’s imagination and enthusiasm for Tony Abbott/Malcolm Turnbull that they are keen to give either another go at leading our country in the next term? Perhaps some of you can help me out in understanding the issues?