Tuesday 3 September PM
Posted number 14 and decided to enter a period of quiet reflection. An interval of analysis, but I know it will develop into a game of mental gymnastics where my logic fights incredibly hard with my emotions. I know I will ask of myself why I take my politics and issues of social justice so seriously, and I know that I will conclude that I wished more people did.
Wednesday 4 September
I receive a Facebook friend request from Jane Dunn.
Thank you for accepting my request. Politics is in my DNA – Chris Watson was Australia’s first Labor Prime Minister – he was also my grandfather. Love reading your blog theaimn.com. Must ask you who is going to win on Saturday?
Thanks Jane. I am posting my last diary entry on Friday. Will disclose then. It may require a disclaimer. (I make a mental note to message her again. I would love to chat)
So the question has been posed. ‘’Who is going to win on Saturday’’
The sojourn continues. How do I answer? What will the release of the costing’s reveal? Will it all be all smoke and mirrors and develop into a you said, I said argument. As untrusting of the polls as I am, I must confess that they have historical relevance. I cannot just dismiss them out of hand. But what about the 15% of undecided voters? How does one factor that in? And what are younger people thinking. There are many factors to weigh up.
Thursday 5 September
I am trying to remember a piece I wrote when I first started writing for AIMN. Then it hit me. ‘’It was called Being Conned by Bullshit’’. I was thinking about the media and how they have reported this campaign.
Here are a couple of extracts.
‘’Those were the times when politics was reported with fact and objectivity (well in the broadsheets anyway) and opinion was mostly assigned to the editor. And if I disagreed I could write a letter. And I did, and for me to miss a daily scour of the “The Age” would leave me with a sense of emptiness – that somehow my day was diminished. That I would be less informed. This habit of a lifetime came to an end when I cancelled my subscription some eighteen months ago. It had become obvious to me that The Age was dumbing itself down, and in doing so was attempting to dumb me down with it. ‘’
‘’ With the inception of the Internet it has all changed. And for the better I might add. It has forced them out into the open and exposed main stream media for the lying conniving pedlars of untruthful opinion that they are. What they failed to realise, or counter was that the Internet provided other sources by which we could obtain information and that we could in fact question what they were trying to dumb us down with.
They kept writing their drivel and we in turn sent it around social media exposing their bullshit for everyone to see. Their dumbness is revealed by the fact that they allow us to share their opinion pieces with others and in doing so, believe they expand their audience. And we do share, but our contrary opinion goes along with it. And then bloggers came to the fore with opinion that is as Laurie Oakes says more widely read than some mainstream articles.
This blog, The AIMN is but one example. And so, in their ignorance and stupidity main stream media will continue to print or say whatever it considers is in its own best interests. Then it might say something interesting and truthful”
The reason I raise this is that the government, the opposition and the media rely on public trust for their very existence. Conducting politics in the manner it is currently practiced is not conducive to earning public respect in the short or long term. Nor is the main stream media’s disgraceful attempt at fair, balanced and reasoned coverage of this election.
The Forth Estate is supposedly the voice of the people but it has become the voice of its masters. Murdoch’s in particular. The media needs to, or the public should demand it to explain how it is meeting its responsibilities as the custodian of people’s ethical rights.
Or is it to be argued that it has forgone that responsibility and hand balled it to the Fifth Estate, the bloggers. I believe the latter to be the case.
Friday 6 September
Coalition’s costing’s are released at a press conference that can only be described as laughable and insulting.
Read these accounts.
I am still no further advanced in answering the question ‘’who will win the election? ’’ I think my mind is still in cause and effect mode. Thoughts of consequence invade me. So I ask the reader to indulge me for a little longer.
I have always thought that at the centre of any political philosophy should be the common good. In saying this my thoughts often drift toward a better way of doing politics and the term commongoodism is central to my internal debate. It sounds idealistic, this common good and it may not in itself be suited to all political persuasions but it is worthy of examination. Conservatives for example may never be able to overcome their dislike of equality. It is probably more acceptable to the left than the right. But politics after all is about ideas and compromise.
I ask myself if the isms of left and right have gone past their used by dates? Many questions arise. Do they suffer from the tiredness of longevity? Is there a possibility that a new politic could emerge from the ashes of this election. Can a society deeply entrenched in political negativity and malaise, rise with a renewed interest in the common good, and still retain the essential ingredients of a vigorous democracy where a wide ranging common good test could be applied to all policy. Even have a caveat placed on it.
Have left and right so fused into each other that they no longer form a demarcation of ideas? Could the ideologies of the two somehow come together to form this commongoodism? Who would decide the common good? How could one define it? Could capitalism embrace the common good or would it need a work over? Could conservatism which empathises individual responsibility and opportunity embrace it? What would common good values be? Some might even say there is no such thing.
That’s all a bit like political scrambled eggs I know but they are the sort of philosophical questions I ask myself on my daily walks. You see that although I still value my leftish views I do really believe that modern political thought and practice needs to move beyond self-interest and the attainment of power for its own sake. And not just nationally but internationally. But particularly in Australia where politics no longer meets the needs or aspirations of the people and is held in such low esteem that politicians are barely relevant.
I have long felt that the political establishment has taken ownership of a system that should serve the people but instead serves itself. It is self-indulgent, shows no respect for the people it serves and lacks transparency. These thoughts I know challenge established political thinking. They may even be controversial, but politics, as we currently practice it has no future as I see it.
There I have finished my dummy spit, my dose of idealistic medicine.
Now I will answer the question.
Who will win tomorrows election?
Well it won’t be Labor and here are three reasons why.
Firstly. Despite the growing influence of the Fifth Estate the Main Stream Media still packs an enormous punch. In advertising the success of one’s spend is measured by the resulting sales. The media can measure its influence in the Polls. Labor has been the victim of the most concerted gutter attack ever thrust upon an Australian political party. And from all sections of the media, although one in particular, News Corp, has gone well beyond the realm of impartiality. Labor has been drowned in an avalanche of lies, repugnant bile, half-truths and omissions. The media has lost its objectivity and news reporting in general has become so biased that it no longer pretends to disguise it. The MSM has forsaken truth, justice and respectability in its pursuit to protect privilege. They print and tell lies with such reprehensible consistency that a gullible and politically undiscerning Australian public has never really challenged. As a famous business man once said.’’ I spend a lot of money on advertising and I know for certain that half of it works’’
The Fifth Estate (including me) has attempted to counter these nefarious attacks but in my view it is three years away from reaching its full potential. Having said that I plead some degree of ignorance, and I must say, I am absolutely astounded at how many people participate in social media and the voice it gives them. However in three years’ time its ability to influence the younger generation will have risen exponentially. Added to that will be a declining older generation.
Secondly. Tony Abbott has been a man who has adopted an American Republican style shock and awe approach in his pursuit of power. Main stream media has hailed him the most effective opposition leader in Australian political history. This is solely based on his party’s standing in the polls and says nothing about the manner in which he lies and distorts to bring about this standing. Perhaps they should rethink the criteria they use.
On a daily basis and in the parliament he has sought to abuse, disrupt proceedings and tell untruths that normal men would not. His gutter style negativity has set a new benchmark for the behaviour of future opposition leaders. Luckily though, he may be the only one of his characterless ilk, and future opposition leaders may be more affable. However, the consistency of his negativity has had an effect on an electorate in a state of comatose.
Since the election date was announced he has portrayed himself as a different person. An indifferent public has been fooled by this chameleon disguise. He is simply a politician who climbs from the gutter to spread his pessimism everywhere.
David Marr uses these words to sum up the character of this would be Prime Minister.
“An aggressive populist with a sharp tongue; a political animal with lots of charm; a born protégé with ambitions to lead; a big brain but no intellectual; a bluff guy who proved a more than competent minister; a politician with little idea of what he might do if he ever got to the top; and a man profoundly wary of change.
“He’s a worker. No doubt about that. But the point of it all is power. Without power it’s been a waste of time.”
On the other hand John Hewson described him as lazy and indolent.
Thirdly. This where the truth hurts. My Party can at times been its own worst enemy. For the six years it has been in power it has governed well. Despite the enormous difficulty of minority governance. This is indisputable when you look closely at its economic record, the legalisation passed in the Parliament and the reforms from within a minority framework.
Its problems though have not originated from everyday governance. In this sense it has been no better or worse than any other. Rather its problems stem from personality conflict and the pursuit of power.
Politics by its very nature is confrontational and uneasy with those who pursue power for powers sake, or those who think they have some sort of ownership on righteousness.
Labor had two formidable intellects in Rudd and Gillard. In fact, combined they would total the entire opposition front bench. This clash of personalities supplemented by an inability to sell its policies has for six years damaged Labor immeasurably.
And this is the main reason why Labor will lose. Not because they haven’t governed well. But because life is about perceptions, not what is, but what it appears to be. We have painted a picture of dysfunction. Rightly or wrongly that is the perception.
In conclusion, if you are a praying person I suggest you get on your knees and ask that Abbott not be elected tomorrow night.
And in the aftermath, if we stand still in the midst of these challenging and changing times we will stagnate. We simply must move on and confront those oblivious to the common good with all the resources at our disposal.
I for one intend to do so. And thanks for reading my diary.
Hope is a wonderful word. Let’s HOPE I am wrong.
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter” W. Churchill