It is blindingly obvious that something is seriously wrong with politics at present. In the West, at least.
Barry Jones wrote a great piece on that theme for The Saturday Paper. The article included the following observations:
“Lincoln’s views, published on broadsheets, were extremely subtle and nuanced, without bitterness, personal attack or exaggeration. He could always see the other side of an argument and often set it out, fairly. … In 2016, 156 years later, Donald Trump won the Presidential nomination of Lincoln’s Party. … Lincoln was reflective, self-doubting…Trump is unreflective, posturing in a way that may conceal deep insecurity, narcissistic, always personalising issues (the hero v. the devil), talking – shouting, really – in slogans, endlessly repeated with no evidentiary base. He appeals to fear, anger, envy and conspiracy theories. …”
Here is the full article. It should be compulsory reading in Canberra: Trumpism-Barry Jones
When times are tough the tough need to get going Unfortunately in politics you need to get attention first so you have to be better at being dirty So get real dirty and be relentless If the leader can’t do it he needs an attack dog
Problem for ALP they are too academic, theoretical and nice Therefore they are easy fodder for ruthless liars
Note how LNP are on attack at present They must be blunted with simple language that attacks their integrity
Otherwise all is lost the innocent can not see past the initial logic of a bad position
What’s wrong with politics, was amply demonstrated on Q&A last night – as it usually is. Wonderful casting by the Q&A team, pitted Julian Burnside and Tanya Plibersek, both known for their openness, humanity, honesty and common sense, against the belligerence, myopia, humourlessness and Party-line, closed-mindedness of the ridiculous George “Metadata” Brandis and the extreme right, ignorant lame brain, Morgan. It was a joy to behold really, especially when Julian threw in a sly reference to George’s metadata performance.
It’s hard to believe that George has been able to occupy ANY position requiring mature,lateral thinking. Imagine having been on the receiving end of ANY of his advice as a lawyer!
My point is that, almost to a person, “liberal” Party politicians seem totally unable and unwilling (not allowed?) to BE individual people, happy to come across as open and with common sense, integrity and compassion.Ironically, the only “liberal” prepared to do that, but a severely-constrained faction toady, is the Party’s leader.
Spot-on analysis, Barry Jones. Thank you for informing me about Malcolm Fraser’s progression – from a man thoroughly hated as being “the most contemptible illiberal” by left-leaning small “l” liberals, for chucking Gough out – to being a genuine older statesman, prepared to address real issues on non-party lines.
Thank you for informing me about this – I wonder – are the ideas he developed still relevant & applicable?
I developed a sneaking respect for him as a result of his principled commitment to refugees.
However, until I read your article,I did not know of his actions towards political reform, since I don’t closely follow politics & am not a member of a political party.
I campaigned for Labour after Gough’s ousting & voted Labour for years, until they sold out, then Democrats, until they fell out,and,recently, the Greens, for whom I hand out How-to-Votes, though I am ever more concerned about the increasing waste of resources in electioneering & the money spent by all political parties jostling for election victory – even on the minutiae of how-to-votes, billboards & corflutes.
You are right about the increasing divisiveness in our social fabric. But seem to overlook growing economic inequality, evident from our 1976 Census onwards. Possibly a reason why cohorts of educated, thoughtful and/or socially concerned people have tended to withdraw from direct involvement in politics, where pork-barrelling,getting your nose in the trough & rising to the top outweighs disinterested principle as a “modus operandi”. No names in relation to domestic politics. Both sides of the political divide are not free of a stench at all levels.
Unfortunately, growing economic inequality is a reality and an international phenomenon. The Trumpcade Triumph is a product of such inequality – his rise was apparently supported by rich AND poor.
Has your research revealed which nations are socially cohesive,fair economically, environmentally responsible, strategic in their collective thinking & responsive to internal & external change? How are they organised politically? Are there any models to consider or strategies we might adapt?
These are serious questions.
I do not have the resources to look at this.
It is not on my agenda.
But YOU may be in a position of influence and have the personal resources and connections to really consider these questions, with a view to developing a much better political model than we now have.
The Trumpcade Triumph is a seriously worrying phenomenon which shows us what we do not want. And may even threaten civilisation as we know it.
But what do we want to achieve?
I am heartened by Get-Up’s harnessing of support for grass-roots funded investigations into non-payment of company taxes as an antidote to this government’s pursuit of a balanced budget by relentlessly sucking blood from the poor.
I am pleased that the ABC’s Q&A is including panellists such as Luca Belgiorno-Nettis & Michele Levine, who provide balance – even “truthiness” – to the outpourings of the conniving politicians & their supporters.
The performance of the unutterably horrid George B. on Q&A galvanised me into visiting this website and to now put my two penneth worth to the esteemed Julian Burnside.
Thank you for the insightful articles you have posted.
These accurately describe where we are.
And provoke me to ask you questions, which I keep asking myself – Where do we go from here? What are we aiming at?
I share Barry Jones’ dismay.
This is NOT the society that I thought we were aiming to create in the 1970’s.