Easter with interruptions for religious observation has certainly dampened the campaigning of both sides.

However, Saturday certainly saw a revitalised Bill Shorten but it seemed that just as he was getting on top it was Sunday.

So in the absence of a lot to write about I thought I would write a piece on scare campaigning. As is my usual practice I gather all my information and peruse it before beginning.

I always do a search on Google looking for facts to support my argument and for anything that might complement my own thoughts, or indeed, correct them.

In this instance I typed in “scare campaigns of the Liberal Party” and I was not surprised to find that the first three pages were full of links written about Coalition scare campaigns.

In this instance I wanted to show that the Liberal Party are the masters of scare so I also draw from a piece I wrote in 2016 (albeit rehashed).

Contrary to what people may think, I believe all the scare campaigning is doing it is reinforcing the view that the Coalition is being led by negative leaders, with a destructive Ministry followed by a group of deleterious people all arguing with each other about how extremist they want to be.

The reason they find themselves in the predicament they are in is because they are guilty of the abuse of our democracy and as a result the public has said enough is enough.

We need to know that what you are telling us is the truth. We want you to reform the system so that it is transparent, honourable and reflects the fact that your interest is in us, not you. We want no more of the same old same old. You need not just restore our democracy but improve it. Change has to come.

The past 6 years has been shameful. At this election if you cannot demonstrate that you can do these things then we will come at you with baseball bats. Make that cricket bats.

Those of my vintage will well remember Robert Menzies’ “Reds under your beds.”

We are to be invaded by the red hordes from the north,” he shouted loud and clear in every election campaign he participated in.

I remember as a young boy seeing pictures on posters in trams, in the newspapers, and news shorts at the cinema with pictures depicting the communist hordes thrusting their way towards us. There were others with hundreds of Chinese rolling across Sydney Harbour Bridge in their rickshaws with guns and communist flags.

Both the Trade Unions and Labor were pursued with vigorous anti-communist slurs and scare campaigns for decades.

Tony Abbott in his tenure as both Opposition Leader and Prime Minister, on a daily basis sought to place the public in a perpetual state of shock and awe.

Remember his daily visits to businesses resulting in another deceit about a carbon tax. A Sunday roast was going to cost $100 (screamed Barnaby Joyce) and Whyalla was going to be wiped of the map. He insinuated a crisis around every corner every day. Pathetically so, without fact or reason. Yes, the Carbon Tax was going to wreck the Australian economy.

ISIS is coming to get us. And you personally. His scare campaigns were relentless dirty gutter politics. He stopped at nothing to frighten the shit out of people. It was like being on a permanent war footing.

He promoted fear like a legitimate political weapon and wielded it unapologetically.

He created a budget crisis saying that all hell was going to cut loose.

Lie after contemptible lie was told, terrifying the people into believing that the Australian economy was about to collapse.

Amazingly when they gained office we found no crisis. It was just shrill politics from a demented politician.

They had conducted a scare campaign about budget deficits and government debt, but in government Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey forgot all about it.

Make no mistake; the conservatives have been running scare campaigns for decades. Who will forget Phil Ruddock demonising Asylum Seekers always referring to them as illegals? Never in their scare mongering did they have the dignity to treat these folk as human beings.

Ruddock even told us that refugees were so evil, inhuman and violent that they throw their own children overboard. He went on to say that they were bringing diseases to our country.

Nothing was left out in their putrid zest for demonising these people.

Scott Morrison, the ‘Hillsong Christian’ at one time even went out of his way to encourage his party to be more destructive with their damnation. “Praise the Lord.”

Had Abbott continued in office their smearing of Muslims may well have reached its zenith during the election campaign. It is a scare campaign that in its longevity has shown the right of Australians to be the masters of scare.

John Howard, together with Bush and Blair with the use of blatant lies scared the world into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The consequences of the scare campaign are well known. In Australia we are constantly reminded by the right about terrorists and of course Muslims. Thanks, John.

More recently Liberal anti everything back-benchers conducted a scare campaign against the ‘Safe Schools’ legislation.

We have been told that Labor’s negative gearing proposal would wreck the property market and during the election that a Labor/Green alliance would be one of chaos.

In 2019 we have had Tim Wilson’s scare about Franking credits.

From borders to bankers the Prime Minister’s adoption of scare campaigns is straight out of the series “Yes, Prime Minister” and with the 2019 Election well underway Scott Morrison has about 5 campaigns under way simultaneously.

None worse than the latest one that the Greens and Labor have signed an agreement to, if they win, introduce an inheritance tax.

Prime Minister Jim Hacker: “Sir Humphrey, do sit down. There is a matter of great importance I wish to discuss with you.”

Sir Humphrey: “Yes Prime Minister, aren’t they all?”

Prime Minister: “What was that?”

Sir Humphrey. “Oh nothing, Sir, I have been thinking about the beginning of our election campaign.”

Prime Minister: “How on earth did you know that was what I wanted to talk to you about?”

Sir Humphrey: “Well I didn’t, Prime Minister but may I suggest a scare campaign to kick off with. Now I know you haven’t been thunderous successes.”

Prime Minister: “What?”

Sir Humphrey: “The party, Sir. I was alluding to the state of the party. Anyway if I may continue.”

Prime Minister: “Yes, yes, let’s get on with it.”

Sir Humphrey: “Well as I was saying, Sir, ideally I was thinking of a scare campaign to begin with. We are historically very good at those. However this one is a little more complicated. You see we have to entice everyone into thinking that we are the best party to manage money, which isn’t true of course, but nevertheless we tell them that just as we have many times before and they will believe it.

At the same time we tell them how well things are going and convince them that if Labor get in there will be a recession. And we do it without you mentioning the R word. Everyone else can but you deny you ever said it.

Remember, we don’t need to tell the truth. We are only trying to convince the ignorant. Scare them, no educate them. The purpose of propaganda is to make you feel good about the wrongs being perpetrated on you.

You see less-informed voters unfortunately outnumber the more politically aware. We therefore, feed them all the bullshit they need. And our menu generally contains a fair portion of untruths.

And that should leave room to explain why we dumped Malcolm.”

Prime Minister: “And why did we?”

Sir Humphrey: “Because he can’t handle money.”

Prime Minister: ”But he is a multi-millionaire.”

Sir Humphrey: “Good heavens, man, life is not about what is, but what we perceive it to be.”

Prime Minister: “But, Sir Humphrey.”

Sir Humphrey: “Please don’t interrupt, Prime Minister. That wasn’t what I thought you meant at all. I know when he says something and I take it to mean one thing he has the option of saying that what I thought I heard was not what I heard at all.

You see now you are saying isn’t what I thought he said. It is only a figment of my imagination. That what I think I said was only my interpretation of what he meant. I mean, did he say what he meant or did he mean to say what he meant or was what he meant really just a perception of what he meant.”

Prime Minister: “I think I understand now, Sir Humphrey.”

Sir Humphrey: “Yes, Prime Minister, what does it mean?

Prime Minister: “If you tell enough lies people will eventually believe whatever you tell them.”

Sir Humphrey: “Bravo Prime Minister. That’s how we start our election campaign. We continue on as usual.”

Prime Minister: “Brilliant, Sir Humphrey.”

Sir Humphrey: “Yes, Prime Minister.”

There’s a myth created by the Coalition as far back as I care to remember and perpetuated for many years since, which is nothing more or nothing less a tale. A born to rule one.

The myth is that the Conservative parties are better at managing the economy and the nation. I shot the money myth down in the article Who are the best managers of the economy? in 2019. Then I went further with a piece titled The Masters of Scare. Notwithstanding those two slap downs, I followed up with Which major political party is more qualified to embrace urgent change?

This time, I’m more specific about the new world of Artificial Intelligence and which philosophy is best qualified to manage its implementation. However, before we decide which of the major parties is best suited for this momentous task, we have to do two things.

The first identifies what changes artificial intelligence (AI will) make to our society, and the second is each party’s philosophy or ideology. 

“Artificial intelligence is the science of making machines that can think like humans. It can do things that are considered “smart.” AI technology can process large amounts of data in ways unlike humans. The goal for AI is to be able to do things such as recognise patterns, make decisions, and judge like humans.”

I found this in an A1 Superhuman email newsletter:

“Doctor With great power comes great responsibility, as the saying goes. And according to a new report, Meta and Google may have developed tech so powerful that they had to shut it down and keep it to themselves. However, recent AI developments could make the technology widely available very soon.”

In a speech to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute conference on Thursday, 14 September, Australia’s top military leader, ADF chief Gen Angus Campbell, warned that:

“… democracies will be vulnerable to “truth decay” as artificial intelligence tools eventually leave citizens struggling to sift fact from fiction.

This tech future may accelerate truth decay, greatly challenging the quality of what we call public ‘common sense’, seriously damaging public confidence in elected officials, and undermining the trust that binds us.”

How Artificial Intelligence is being used and in what areas

Examples are Health, Retail, Military, Manufacturing, Banking, Life sciences and the Public Sector.

As technology progresses, so will artificial intelligence:

“Over the next ten years, AI will become increasingly complex and sophisticated.”

“Technical advancements in this field will likely focus on creating general intelligence that rivals or surpasses human capabilities.”

It will undoubtedly be a prelude to 40 or more years further on. 

There is no area of our existence that technology will not dramatically change.

The ideology of Conservative political parties

What is a conservative?

I know I have put the same question before, but I have expanded a little more here:

Conservatives believe in free markets, individual liberty and traditional values. Change is anathema to them and should be advanced incrementally, typically in science, politics, or religion. They believe the role of the Government should be to provide people with the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

Lower taxes, less regulation, reduced spending, balanced budgets and religious freedoms are part of the Conservative ideology.

Note: Contrary to what they believe, they, the far-right, now seek to control us.

Conservative policies generally emphasise the empowerment of the individual to solve problems. And they are cautious about change or innovation, typically in science, politics, or religion. They stick to tradition and institutions.

They believe that free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs, and higher living standards than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.

The right supports the separation of church and state but allows its conservative views to affect its legislation in practice.

What is a neo-conservative?

Neo-conservatism goes back to the 1930s; however, it identifies with George W. Bush in its modern form.

Bush embraced unbridled capitalism, corporate greed, and literalist Christianity to form modern-day neoconservatism.

Carl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and others added global superiority, believing American exceptionalism was above the rest of the world in every aspect. Donald Trump completed the assortment of capitalists who would make America great again.

But a society and its traditions can only endure if it can also change.

What is a social progressive?

Social democrats (the left) believe in:

“Government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. The Government must alleviate social ills, protect civil liberties provide health services and individual human rights, thus believing the role of the Government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.”

And that:

“Government must protect citizens from the greed of big business. Progressive policies generally emphasise the need for the Government to solve problems.”

Social progressive democrats believe that a market system in which the Government regulates the economy is best. Unlike the private sector, the Government is motivated by public interest. Government regulation in all areas of the economy is needed to level the playing field.

The left also supports the separation of church and state: free health and a move to free education. The common good and that change is attached to progress.

Summary

What, then, are the rudimentary differences between the two doctrines? The difference is between individuals’ rights and the Government’s power to make worthwhile change. Those on the left believe society is best served when the collective, through the Government, can improve culture. 

Those on the right believe that:

“… the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role – and especially the power – of the government is minimised.”

We are now entering a period of even more significant change. The second Enlightenment brings with it artificial intelligence. Society must decide which political party is best placed to see its introduction.

Let us look at the qualifications of the two major parties

The Greens and others of English Liberal philosophy might argue their case for inclusion, but we only have two possibilities and a minority Government.

By scrutinising the historic social reforms of Australia’s major parties and comparing them, we can determine who is best qualified to take us through this period of change, including political, social and economic reforms and the ethics that might accompany them.

The Left side of Australian politics until now:

Has implemented the following reforms or policies that have directly contributed to change for the better.

A National Health Scheme, a National Disability scheme, compulsory superannuation, a National Broadband Network, Paid Parental leave, major educational reforms, a price on carbon, equal pay for women, the Aged Pension, Mabo and the Apology to the Stolen Generations, plus of course the Hawke – Keating major economic reforms that gave the country 25 years of continuous growth. 

Labor’s platform

To protect workers who could lose jobs to AI:

“The platform pledges Labor will enact rules to protect against harmful uses of AI while focusing on “lifting national productivity and competitiveness and supporting the development of new businesses and ideas that can improve the lives of Australians.”

The ‘right side of politics has implemented the following: Howard gun buyback, the GST that benefited the rich, increased immigration after the Second World War, and Harold Holt introduced a bi-partisan referendum that gave Indigenous people the right to vote in 1967.

And there, I have to stop. The Liberal Party website provides a list of achievements in Government as distinct from significant policy reforms. Here is the list for you to judge for yourself.

The Liberal Party AI Platform

The Coalition Government has a comprehensive strategy to make Australia a top 10 data and digital economy by 2030.

Note: Its policy only talks about artificial intelligence in terms of economics. It is much more than that. The death of truth is at stake. National security will be at risk.

In a world where science, technology, and information progress so quickly, change sometimes disregards opinion and becomes a phenomenon of its own making, with its own inevitability.

Conservatives oppose change and are wary of science and intellectualism. Never was this so evidenced by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Governments. Almost ten years of comprehensively rotten Government leaves the writer in no doubt about who is the best party to take us through this period of significant change.

The ALP, demonstrably, is best prepared to take us into this new world of the future: artificial intelligence. 

Know your place, you scum. Know your place!

I am furious with their treatment by the opposition and certain members of the fourth estate. To whom do I refer? Our First Nations folk and their treatment. A few years back, we lived in a house where my neighbour to the left and my neighbour to the right believed that Aboriginals took up too much space.

“Know your place” is a phrase used in the past by members of the Liberal Party when they observed, in their view, members of the Labor Party acting above their station.

It means to accept your position within society, an organisation, your family, etc. and not want to improve it:

“Know your place, Tanya.” The last time l recall that phrase so sarcastically being used was when Tanya Plibersek went to shake the hand of Governor General Cosgrove after he had shaken Bill Shorten’s hand at the reopening of Parliament in 2016. Plibersek’s shake was rejected, and a heckler is heard to say, “that says a lot. Know your place, Tanya.”

It continues to trouble me that the proposal for a First Nations voice is coming under such a sustained attack from the far right of the conservative side of politics and its supporters in the media.

The lessons of the last election should have left an indelible scar on those involved in the Luddite politics of the past decade. Have they not understood that the people, in their judgement, said they had had enough of their rancid unempathetic behaviour? Yet they go on unmoved as if nothing transpired while trying to give the Leader with a public image of a racist bigot a personality transplant. Queensland excepted.

But the attacks led by the Opposition leader Peter Dutton could have a fatal effect on the proposal. He knows that history tells us that without the support of the opposition, the referendum won’t pass. That is unless the people vote as they did in the election and decide to confirm their thoughts of May 21 2022, with a resounding yes vote that shatters conservative negativity for decades to come.

On the one hand, Dutton might pull the pin at the last moment and take the kudos for doing so. On the other, he might decide to kill the vote and accept the consequences of an outraged First Nations people.

Julian Leeser, the opposition spokesperson, has favoured a voice for Aboriginal folk for as long as I can remember. He is moderate, articulate and intelligent. He is also a tongue twister.

However, his following argument makes little sense:

“Shadow attorney-general Julian Leeser has crossed over to Peter Dutton’s side and is calling for Anthony Albanese to release more “detail.” He puts this view.

“It’s reasonable if you’re asking people to vote for an institution, that you explain to people how that institution is going to operate,” Leeser said.

Conversely, he adds:

“No one’s suggesting that the total detail of the Voice be outlined in the constitutional provisions.”

The point is, and he already knows, that whatever information and details Albanese gives them and in whatever form will only be backgrounding at best. And non-binding simply because it is the Parliament that decides the formal wording of the legislation, not the public, so the requests by them are nothing more than a political stunt.

And we all know that if the original owners of this great southern land are denied again, they will turn and turn hard after being told again to “know your place.”

The sewer-dwelling conservatives never explain why they oppose the original custodians having a say in their future. They fight and tell lies, never suggesting alternatives, never embracing a bold move forward.

The draft wording of the constitutional amendment to create a Voice says explicitly that it “may make representations” to Parliament and the government. “Parliament would remain sovereign.” The Voice would be advisory only. If people cannot understand that concept, they are guilty of being dumb and should abstain from voting.

That the masters of scare might win this debate is a reality.

When Australians in 50 years look back on us they’ll be astonished that we supported a national day that was an insult to the original occupants of the continent, did not mention them in our Constitution, had a British flag on our flag and had a head of state who was a foreigner.

— Craig Emerson (@DrCraigEmerson) January 27, 2023

They did it with the failed republican referendum in 2019. Then in 2017 – the marriage equality debate. And third was in 2009 – with the fight over a carbon tax.

All referendums were lost with lies, scare campaigns and misleading information. All is not lost, though.

Much water has flowed under the bridge since the last election. Recent polling tells us that the yes vote is at 30%, the no at 20%, and the undecided at 24%, meaning that the “No” vote has to pick up half of the 24% and win every state.

The much-respected George Megalognis, writing for the SMH, said:

“The conservative argument for the Voice understands the consequences of a No vote for social cohesion. The defeat of the referendum, by whatever margin, would split the country and damage the interests of Old Australians just as surely as it would crush the collective spirit of First Australians.”

And that is a fact. Dutton knows it and would revel in the slime he created. How would a man with his history know any better?

In an article for The Monthly on May 22, 2022, Rachael Withers described the Leader of the Opposition in this manner:

“It almost seems unnecessary to list it all, but Peter Dutton is the sort of politician who has done so many fucked-up things that it’s hard to remember them all (though perhaps that’s the point). He’s the man who walked out on Kevin Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations, one of the only MPs to do so. He was the minister caught on a hot mic joking about Pacific nations facing rising seas due to climate change, and who tore down Malcolm Turnbull for daring to do anything about it. He’s the guy – as Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews reminded us yesterday – who falsely claimed that Victorians were scared to go out due to “African gang violence”, and who incorrectly blamed teenager Laa Chol’s death on such gangs in a bid to score a point. He suggested that white South African visas should be “fast-tracked”, and described deporting a NZ minor as “taking the trash out”. He was slammed for accusing his Labor opponent of using her disability as an “excuse”, and had to apologise to journalist Samantha Maiden for labelling her “a mad fucking witch”, in a text message that he accidentally sent to Maiden herself.”

How do you rebrand a politician of Dutton’s ilk? Well, that’s a story for another day.

Postscript: The folk who are the original landowners of this great nation and those who took it from them need to come together to take a small opportunity that presents itself. Some say you cannot trust politicians; I say you can trust the Albanese government, and you must. There is too much at stake to say no. Only a small window opens. Say yes in good faith, and a meaningful voice awaits. It will listen and act.

Someday a conservative government will inevitably regain power. Be prepared. Don’t allow them to say, “know your place.”

Friday 15 July 2016

Coming from a party with a long history of frightening people the conservative’s accusation of a scare campaign on Medicare is an affront to ones sensibilities.

Those of my vintage will well remember Robert Menzies’ “Reds under your beds”. “We are to be invaded by the red hordes from the north” he shouted loud and clear in every election campaign he participated in.

I remember as a young boy seeing pictures on posters in trams, in the newspapers, and shorts at the cinema with pictures depicting the communist hordes thrusting their way towards us. There were others with hundreds of Chinese rolling across Sydney Harbour Bridge in their rickshaws with guns and communist flags.

Both the Trade Unions and Labor were pursued with vigorous anti-communist slurs and scare campaigns for decades.

Tony Abbott in his tenure as both Opposition Leader and Prime Minister, on a daily basis sought to place the public in a perpetual state of shock and awe. Remember his daily visits to businesses resulting in another deceit about a carbon tax. A Sunday roast was going to cost $100 (screamed Barnaby Joyce) and Whyalla was going to be wiped of the map. He insinuated a crisis around every corner every day. Pathetically so, without fact nor reason. Yes, the Carbon Tax was going to wreck the Australian economy.

ISIS are coming to get us. And you personally. His scare campaigns were relentless dirty gutter politics. He stopped at nothing to frighten the shit out of people. It was like being on a permanent war footing.

He promoted fear like a legitimate political weapon and wielded it unapologetically.

He created a budget crisis saying that all hell was going to cut loose. Lie after contemptible lie was told, terrifying the people into believing that the Australian economy was about to collapse.

Amazingly when they gained office we found no crisis. It was just shrill politics from a demented politician.

They had conducted a scare campaign about budget deficits and government debt, but in government Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey forgot all about it.

Make no mistake, the conservatives have been running scare campaigns for decades. Who will forget Phil Ruddock demonising Asylum Seekers always referring to them as illegals? Never in their scare mongering did they had the dignity to treat these folk as human beings.

Ruddock even told us that refugees were so evil and inhuman and violent that they throw their own children overboard. He went on to say that they were bringing diseases to our country. Nothing was left out in their putrid zest for demonising these people.

Scott Morrison, the ‘Hillsong Christian’ at one time even went out of his way to encourage his party to be more destructive with their damnation. Praise the Lord.

Had Abbott continued in office their smearing of Muslims may well have reached its zenith during the election campaign. It is a scare campaign that in its longevity has shown the right of Australians to be the masters of scare.

John Howard, together with Bush and Blair with the use of blatant lies scared the world into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The consequences of the scare campaign are well-known. In Australia we are constantly reminded by the right about terrorists and of course Muslims. Thanks, John.

More recently Liberal anti everything backbenchers conducted a scare campaign against the ‘Safe Schools’ legislation. We have been told that Labor’s negative gearing proposal would wreck the property market and during the election that a Labor/Green alliance would be one of chaos.

Their extravagance of language in these matters knows no bounds. Which of course makes their accusation of a Labor Medicare scare campaign bereft of historical conscience.

It’s anyone’s guess as to what sort of scare campaign Bernardi and his fellow homophobic MPs will mount during the marriage equality plebiscite but it’s sure to be chilling.

In other words, ‘they have form’ as Australians are apt to say.

So it is the height of hypocrisy to hear the conservative parties complain of a Mediscare campaign.

Malcolm Turnbull’s sullen and perplexing speech on election night blaming a result he didn’t anticipate, was full of shrill rhetoric about a well-funded Mediscare campaign. He blamed Mediscare on an unwelcome result.

What we saw was a deeply disappointed man unable to objectively point to the real reasons for a horrific performance.

An objective leader might have done some internal critical analysis and found himself wanting. He might also have questioned a hollow plan for jobs and growth.

Was it a scare campaign? There will be differing opinions. In my view a scare campaign usually has no substance in fact. In this case there was enough superficial evidence, at least, to suggest that if the conservatives had no plans to rid themselves of Medicare they certainly planned to play havoc with it. In my view Bill Shorten was correct to say that Medicare was under threat.

You only have to look at the conservative’s historical attitude to Medicare. They have been against it since Whitlam introduced it in 1974. Fraser tried to get rid of it. Hawke restored it.

They would try again if it were not for the public’s support of the programme. Conservative governments have always tried to destroy it using various methods. Turnbull’s government is no different.

Dr George Venturini in his excellent series on this blog “The facets of Australian fascism: the Abbott Government experiment (Part 40)” has this to say on fear:

“The State lives on fear. Today, it is the fear of ‘terrorists’, which is a manufactured threat, meant to scare people into handing over their rights and dignity to the tricksters in power. “Our twentieth century is the century of fear,” wrote Camus in his article ‘The century of fear’ for Combat, the newspaper which had supported the French Resistance to Nazi occupation during the Second World War. Camus said that fear could be regarded as a developed science”.

My thought for the day.

“How is it possible for the inherited rich and privileged to understand poverty – how can those with the means to pay medical costs understand the inability of those in ill-health who cannot?”

Now that Australians have, depending on where they live, gotten through fires and floods or too many days at the cricket drinking excessively, some will turn their attention to what’s happening over the dunes in the world around them.

It may be too early to discuss such an issue like the next election, but it is worth considering now that Labor has changed its mind on the stage three tax cuts.

Will the Prime Minister go for an early election later this year or wait until 2025?

The earliest date for a regular election is August 3, 2024. The latest it can be held is 27 September 2025. The stakes are high between a man who has broken a promise and another who is the most distrusted politician in the country.

No matter when Albanese chooses to go, it will be another election vital for the country’s future. I say “vital” because the country needs change. Changes that will make for a better society, a fairer one. Fundamental, meaningful changes. First, cab off the rank has to be tax reform, and then it has to be continuous reform. They have started, and Labor is the only party that can bring about the changes, but it needs three terms.

Peter Dutton has already demanded that the Prime Minister call one over Labor’s tax revisions, but that won’t happen.

The Labor Party has skillfully executed a political tactic known as a reverse wedge on the Opposition. This strategy has forced Dutton to agree with the government’s proposed changes, which are aimed at promoting equity. Despite being reluctant, Dutton had no other option but to give in. However, it remains to be seen whether he realises that most Australians aspire for a fairer distribution of resources and opportunities.

Opposing a tax break for every Australian taxpayer while simultaneously demanding that the government take steps to alleviate the burden of living expenses was not only embarrassing but also appeared contradictory. On the other hand, supporting the proposed changes would be seen as hypocritical.

Paul Bongiorno wrote that:

“The redesign of the stage-three tax cuts is a watershed moment in the conversation the nation needs to have over expanding the revenue base to pay for the sorts of things that a modern, healthy, educated, secure and caring nation demands.”

According to research by the Australia Institute, nearly three in five voters across all demographics supported the changes.

Richard Dennis, at the Press Club on Wednesday, 31 January, said that the Albanese government’s decision to change the tax cut was the most honest thing he had seen by an Australian politician for a decade.

So far, in its first term, any agenda Labor may have had toward significant changes to our democracy has been thwarted by a worldwide economic downturn over which they have had little or no control. It has spent much of its first term picking up the mess the conservatives left behind, as duly noted by the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers:

“Upon taking office, the Albanese Labor government inherited not only $1 trillion of coalition debt but also a massive skills deficit. This situation is so dire that according to the OECD Australia is experiencing the second-most severe labour shortage in the developed world.”

The latest inflation figures of 4.1% in the December quarter suggest we have turned the corner and will begin to see interest rates come down this year.

The conservatives will, of course, be subject to the same economic advantages or disadvantages that exist whenever the Prime Minister decides to go to the people. However, a fair assessment looking forward is that inflation will be under control and the economy will be in better shape. 

The average person may have a question in mind that is related to the Opposition, its leadership, and its policies for the Australian people. Peter Dutton, the current leader, is not a trusted figure for many, and some may see him as a replica of the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. According to some, the Opposition may only have little to offer except for criticism and a lack of constructive policies.

They could hardly, as they had proclaimed in many elections, claim that they are the best managers of money when they left the country a trillion dollars in debt.

Their persistent denial of a climate and energy problem over nearly a decade has also left them in a tough spot. They are now tasked with devising policies that effectively address both issues despite their earlier reluctance to acknowledge the problem. For almost ten years, they refused to admit that there was a problem with our climate and energy. Consequently, they now find it extremely challenging to formulate policies that address both issues effectively.

And all the spooky ultra-right-wing deniers are still there, as are their media supporters.

Again, on economics. It will be challenging putting forward a position of superiority on economics when your leader needs to learn more about the subject.

And it would be tough to say you had an anti-corruption policy when your own party practiced it.

When debating social services, a Royal Commission has found the LNP comprehensibly at fault over Robodebt. It will feature in the campaign. Many protagonists stand for re-election, and others will face a higher court of opinion. Added to the who you trust question is one of greater importance: why are you there?

If you are watching the ABC programme Nemesis, you would have noted that Tony Abbott, Julie Bishop, Mathias Corman, and Peter Dutton all refused to participate. I would suggest at the risk of tarnishing their images any further. If so, you will have concluded, as l did, that the Coalition spent more time on leadership infighting than actual governance. This shone through despite their inability to see that what they were doing was beyond contempt. 

Labor can also easily argue away the tax breaks as being not a broken promise but a more equitable share of the pie. The promise is kept, but the configuration is altered.

No doubt, given their expertise in the subject, the conservatives will throw in a scare or two. Still, they could be hit to the boundary without an accompanying truth.

Labor has, to a large degree, restored our trade relationship with China, and other relationships have been repaired. Needless to say, Foreign Affairs is a no-go zone for the LNP unless they intend to shirtfront a few leaders.

Dutton can hardly campaign on his party’s record when in office. In fact, it would be difficult for him to put forward anything that wasn’t touched by corruption.

There is nothing wrong with the narrative of being an innovative country with a creative economy. In fact, it should be a worthwhile pursuit. So Dutton may devise some promise he knows he will never be obliged to keep. By that I mean he may run dead.

There are three problems, though. Firstly, all innovation is generated by education. If Dutton takes the private school’s route, he will be accused of prioritising Christian and private schools. Inevitably, Labor will accuse him of religious preferentialism and class nepotism. Innovation born of educational privilege is a hard sell.

Malcolm Turnbull even once warned:

“I suspect no federal government would retreat from funding and continuing to support the non-government school sector because there would be a concern that they would not get a fair go from state governments who obviously would have a competing interest with their schools.”

Strangely, conservatives have never realised that kids from low socioeconomic backgrounds are our most untapped source of potential growth. They are the most undervalued resource.

By Steve Davies  

The normalisation and globalisation of moral disengagement

Earlier this year I created The Moral Disengagement Handbook. The handbook focusses on the Australian Government and the Australian Public Service.

Why did I focus on them? Because over the past decade Australians have lived through and witnessed an appalling decline in the behaviour and practices of politicians along with that of the government agencies whose decisions and actions effect the lives of every single Australian.

In 2023 people are very attuned to the fact that all is not well with politics and government. The trouble is that the major parties are not really listening to them. Let alone acknowledging that the problem is them – behaviours and practice – and its systemic.

The persistent sentiments that runs through people’s disquiet is that politicians and government will never change, they are out of touch, they don’t care about people, and they don’t listen. Numerous real-life examples have created and reinforced that sentiment.

These sentiments have not changed with the election of the Albanese Government. If anything those sentiments are stronger than ever. Hence, for example, the rise and rise of the Teal independents.

It may be argued that the Albanese Government inherited the situations that have given rise to these sentiments. While there is no doubt that the extremes of the Morrison Government (along with those of previous LNP Governments), plunged the decline in behaviours and practices to new depths that does not absolve the Albanese Government of responsibility.

Why do I say that? Because … As I pointed out in the handbook:

“Tragically, within the Australian Government the moral compasses of public servants and politicians have been switched off and, indeed, are expected to be switched off. As a result, great harm is done to people, society and the land we live on. To all of our institutions and democracy itself.

Here we are in 2023 and, even with the election of the Albanese Government, we see a government that is fearful of dealing with the fact that moral disengagement has been normalised in government and, to varying degrees, all of our institutions.”

Here we are in December 2023 and what are seeing from the Albanese Government just over halfway through its term of office? A continuing failure to directly address the moral disengagement that has been normalised in government and its institutions. The statement I made in the handbook still holds true today. Moreso.

“Despite the fact that Professor Bandura’s work offers practical solutions to deal with the problem the Albanese Government and the Australian Public Service persists with a tried and failed focus – Culture change and leadership. Over decades millions of dollars has been wasted on culture change programmes and leadership development in the Australian Public Service. They have failed dismally. It is the wrong solution for what is the actual problem – the normalisation of moral disengagement.

2023. The Albanese Government and the Australian Public Service continues to waste taxpayers’ money on tried, failed and wrong approaches despite the very real threats moral disengagement poses to the lives and future of the Australian people. To the health of the public service, government, society and democracy.”

The situation is even more urgent due to the dire need to ensure the behaviours, practices, policies and actions of government actually ensure the well-being of people, households and the community in the face of:

• Social inequality
• Climate change and catastrophe
• The continuing destructive impacts of the policies and actions of the Morrison Government
• Homelessness
• The loss of opportunity to younger generations now and into the future
• The severe distortion of our economy courtesy of the military industrial complex
• The continuing demise of democracy
• Especially our participation in the war and genocide being inflicted on the Palestinian people.

What we are seeing within individual Western nations, is a slide into a 21^st century dark age driven by the normalisation of moral disengagement.

The war and genocide being sponsored and inflicted on the Palestinian people by those nations is clear indication of the globalisation of moral disengagement in action.

If the governments of Western nations dealt with moral disengagement from within would they be participating in the globalisation of moral disengagement? Would they be sponsoring, directly enabling and sanitising the industrial scale slaughter of the Palestinian people?

Would they be going down the path of a Dark Age Within. A Dark Age Without?

And what can we all do, individually and together, to put a stop to the moral disengagement that is driving this comprehensive descent into darkness?

Restoring Moral Engagement in the Australian Government – Ending the silence that feeds bad government and harms people

We all know it. We all feel its the impact. Government is a big, complicated beast. Politicians seemingly never change. Many have lost sight of their real reason for being there – that is to represent their constituents and govern for all Australians.

The only time, it seems, they are interested in us is when elections come around and then many do whatever it takes to persuade us to vote for them. Increasingly, these persuasive tactics have taken on a dark and sinister form with the Liberal party now deploying Trumpian lies, and propaganda imported from the USA to scare and confuse people halting any progress to better future – think the No campaign.

Then there is the Australian Public Service. From the outside, they seem to blindly follow orders and are more concerned about protecting their own careers and political masters than serving the people. If people dare to complain they get stuck on a bureaucratic treadmill.

It’s always the same. The majority of politicians and bureaucrats at the top are in it for themselves. Despite all the money government has (our money), and all the technology it’s got worse.

The treatment of whistle blowers such as David McBride and Richard Boyle and The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry illustrate how bad things have got.

The Robodebt Royal Commission showed us all just how bad things are inside ‘the system’. People died.

Time after time the media ‘reports’ on the goings on in the Australian Government and the Australian Public Service. However are we really getting the true picture? For several years now the mainstream Australian media have not been pulling their weight when it comes to delivering independent journalism.

The major commercial media outlets and, sadly, the ABC have lost their moral compass resorting to presenting False Balance Reporting often spruiking lies and propaganda in the form of news. And it’s very obvious the Murdoch media is running a protection racket for Liberal Party and their vested interests. When the Fourth Estate has fallen prey to vested interests we know that democracy is in trouble.

The persecution of whistleblowers, the stifling freedom of information, rampant secrecy, the win at all costs misuse of the legal system along with rampant spin and denial. The Australian Government has it all. To this day.

No wonder things are a mess, and no wonder most public servants quickly learn to shut up. The threshold for being seen as a troublemaker is nigh on paranoid.

We could go on and on. Despite the good work of many, many good people an awful lot of ‘bad’ things continue to happen. The real question is what drives all the bad things. The answer is the insidious normalisation of moral disengagement. That’s the conversation The Australian Government is afraid to have.

We can have that conversation and, at the same time, hold politicians to account in a very specific way that cuts through all the clutter and denials.

Let’s gets down to it.

What is the status of the work on moral disengagement? Where did in come from?

Professor Albert Bandura (1925 – 2021). Albert “Al” Bandura, the David Starr Jordan Professor of Social Science in Psychology, Emeritus, in the School of Humanities and Sciences Internationally recognised as the most influential psychologist of the twentieth century.

For his extraordinary contributions Professor Bandura was presented with the National Medal of Science at the White House by President Obama on May 19, 2016.

Without Albert Bandura the understanding of the importance of social learning, social modelling, observational learning and how people come to accept and repeat behaviours would be a shadow of what it is today.

Fast track to 2016. The publication of Albert Bandura’s book “Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves” is a powerful legacy. A practical tool to empower people in Australia and elsewhere to remove and prevent moral disengagement. To restore the health of government, all our institutions and our democracy.

“… people in all walks of life behave harmfully and still maintain positive self-regard and live in peace with themselves. They do so by disengaging moral self-sanctions from their harmful practices. These psychosocial mechanisms of moral disengagement operate at both the individual and social system levels” (Albert Bandura).

The research that underpins moral disengagement is work renowned and rock solid. The specific mechanisms of moral disengagement identified by Professor Bandura are of immense practical use.

Using the mechanisms of moral disengagement?

As Professor Bandura states the “… mechanisms of moral disengagement operate at both the individual and social system levels”. The Australian Government, the Parliament, political parties and the Australian Public Service are intense social systems.

The mechanisms can be used to judge and provide feedback on the behaviours and practices of politicians and officials within government (individual level).

The mechanisms also provide a reliable means of identifying the behaviours and practices that drive every harmful, corrupt, abusive, inhuman statement, decision, policy, process or action imaginable (social system level).

Consequently, we can all use the mechanisms to judge the moral health of the Australian Government in a precise and cohesive way. This is important as it prevents politicians and official from portraying complaints as isolated instances.

The mechanisms of moral disengagement

Advantageous comparison

Making something appear better or less harmful than it is by pointing to something far worse.

Attribution of blame

Blaming the victims or targets that have been harmed by immoral behaviours and practices for bringing it on themselves.

Dehumanization

Portraying people who will be harmed by behaviours and practices as less than human. As case numbers in a system or process.

Diffusion of responsibility

Minimising personal responsibility for any harm caused to people by claiming they are only responsible for a small part of the process.

Displacement of responsibility

Superficially acknowledging the harm caused to people by behaviours and practices, while claiming it’s the result of decisions made at a higher level.

Disregard, distortion, and denial of consequences

Ignoring, minimising and denying the harm (including evidence of harm), caused to people.

Euphemistic language

Using sanitised language and jargon to mask the hurt and harm caused to people.

Moral justification

Claiming behaviours and practices that cause harm to people serve a higher social and moral purpose.

Tips

Start by briefly describing the issue you are concerned about. Is it an individual or system level issue? Or both.

Is your issue about:

• A particular public service agency
• A number of public service agencies
• The Australian Public Service as a whole
• A government minister
• A particular policy or programme
• A particular administrative process
• The behaviours and practices of public servants
• The behaviours and practices of politicians
• The management of staff within a public service agency

Highlight the mechanisms of moral disengagement you have experienced or observed.

It is likely that you have experienced or observed a large number of or all of the mechanisms/behaviours. Consider the intensity with which you have experienced them.

If you have experienced one or very few of the mechanisms/behaviours also consider the intensity with which you have experienced them.

End by pointing out the harm being done, and deaths being caused.

Diary entry 29: Saturday, April 20 2022

1 If a reputable fact-checker corrects a blatant attempt to pull the wool over the public, it could reasonably be a “gotcha moment”. The culprit has been found out telling a lie, lying by omission, gilding the lily, or simply trying to cloud the issue. “Gotcha”

Following are seven examples from AAP Factcheck of what could be called “gotcha” moments. Most fact-checked examples refute a wrong, then published and quickly forgotten, particularly by a media predisposed to self-interest or straight-out propaganda.

The culprit has achieved its purpose of misleading the public. This is not to say that Labor doesn’t also do it to a lesser extent. However, the overwhelming culprits are the Prime Minister and his ministers.

i) The claim. The Government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic saved 40,000 Australian lives.

AAP Fact check verdict.

Misleading. Experts say Australia’s low death rate is due to a mixture of state and federal government policy and non-government factors.

Read more here.

To claim that you have saved 40,000 lives while at the same time your mishandling of the ordering of vaccines probably cost some is shameful.

ii) The Claim. No trees have been planted toward the coalition Government’s 2018 target of one billion new trees by 2030.

AAP Fact Check verdict. Mostly True. Around 4300 hectares of trees have been planted since 2018, equivalent to only around one per cent of the 2030 goal.

A Labor claim that proved to be a gotcha one.

iii) The Claim. Minister Dan Tehan Claimed that the Australian economy is performing better than any other country after COVID-19.

AAP Fact Check verdict. False. Australia has had a strong recovery from the pandemic, but several other countries have performed better on key indicators.

Such lies are told regularly. I shall go on:

iv) The Claim. The Prime Minister has claimed that Australia has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by around 20 per cent – more than the US, Japan, Canada, and New Zealand.

AAP Fact Check verdict. Mixture. Australia likely reduced net emissions by more than all except the United States between 2005 and 2020; however, Australia was the worst performer when comparing gross emissions.

Lying by omission.

v) The Claim. The Morrison government cut climate spending by 35 per cent in the 2022 federal budget.

AAP Fact Check verdict. Mostly True. Budget papers show a 35 per cent decline in funding for climate programs over four years, although this doesn’t necessarily account for all spending by government agencies.

vi) The Claim. The Government insists that Labor will introduce a death tax.

ABC/RMIT fact check verdict. Death taxes or an inheritance tax are not part of Labor’s current official policy platform — nor were they in the lead-up to the 2019 election. While senior Labor figures Mr Albanese and Mr Leigh may have historically indicated support for an inheritance tax in their non-parliamentary roles, both have since indicated they no longer support such a policy.

Talk about the masters of the scare!

vii) The Claim. Defence Minister Peter Dutton has claimed that Labor cut billions of dollars from the defence budget when it was last in Government.

ABC/RMIT fact check verdict. Misleading. Labor cut defence spending in two years while in office, but overall real-term spending went up while in Government.

2 The Prime Minister is facing an uphill battle to convince the electorate that he is serious about a corruption commission. Trying to present an argument that it won’t happen because Labor cannot bring itself to support his policy is a friendless argument.

3 Another observation of the first week of campaigning is that the standard of media reporting is deplorable. Of course, we have come to expect it from the Murdoch tabloids whose bias seems to have no end but is this the best we can hope for. Scott Morrison, it has to be said, is an excellent campaigner but can they at least balance that against the destruction of our democracy over the past 10 years.

But when on day one, news anchors are asking their travelling correspondents whether or not Albanese had just lost the campaign, I’m afraid they leave me somewhat breathless.

4 “The first campaign poll shows the scars of Labor’s troubled first week but still suggests they lead on two-party preferred.” Read more at The Poll Bludger.

5 On Insiders last Sunday, Marise Payne refused to endorse Katherine Deves for Tony Abbott’s former seat of Warringah. There was a time when people with views like hers were immediately dis-endorsed. But then she was personally picked by Scott.

Marise Payne also refused to enlighten us as to why Rachel Miller, a staffer in Alan Tudge’s office, is to receive over half a million dollars plus expenses after having an affair with him. And, of course, he remains in the Ministry. We are entitled to know.

6 Let’s hope that this week we will see the campaigning move to some policy debate about things that matter instead of following some immature gotcha moment of little importance.

We have to change the government to one that is indeed a representative democracy that reflects the community’s views.

I could just go on repeating all those reasons for voting this government out, recounting their dishonesty, nit-picking the Canberra gossip, cataloguing dishonesties and incompetence’s – ceaselessly doing what I have been doing and losing readers because of my passion.

But I would implore our readers to think of the future and marry science, technology, and economics to best reflect a community with a compassionate heart.

A couple of months back, a Facebook reader wrote:

“Lately, John, you’re thinking has run into a brick wall that others have built. The significant issues are not parochial, not country or city, urban or rural; they are dire ubiquitous problems that are universally threatening.”

Alas, that is true. I must redouble my efforts not to just condemn the wrongs of this vile government but to point out the possibilities the future holds for a government intent on serving the people and not themselves.

Election diary No 13. Wednesday, 23 February 2022.

‘Desperation’ in team sports is different than in individual ones. We all react differently when under pressure. For those who see victory as the only outcome, how desperate you are is often the difference between winning or losing (collectively or individually)?

Desperation can be associated with many areas of life; sport, business, politics, or anything that requires a winning attitude. Therefore, it has been interesting to study Scott Morrison’s reaction to the somewhat unaccustomed pressure placed on him this year.

Desperation often brings out the best or worst in people. It can bring out a personal fear of losing – admirable qualities that bring victory or the use of unfair tactics. Morrison is desperate to maintain the power he has become accustomed to and chooses the worst of desperations qualities: Ruthlessness.

I see his personality in two parts. Firstly, his decision-making leaves a lot to be desired. Secondly, he needs to lie when he is in trouble or when being honest would be the better course. Both are, of course, in conflict with his faith and, as a consequence, prick his conscience. His religion tells him to believe his Bible literally; however, it is only the residue of things not understood and can never be a substitute for fact.

One and two combined are in direct conflict with his religion, and subsequently, this pricks at his conscience to the point that he becomes dangerously desperate. Imagine going against what your faith tells you to do so often. Indeed, the God he believes in and worships wouldn’t ask him to do the things he does.

I could enter a theological debate on that statement, but I would rather keep my argument simple.

But let’s get back to the sort of desperation he will most likely employ in the election campaign already underway. A few commentators have picked up on this aspect of Morrison’s demeanour in the past couple of weeks. Particularly when he attacks Albanese with this manner of desperation:

From 7 News:

“Billionaire businessman Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest says ministers’ rhetoric on China has entered ‘reds under the bed’ scare campaign territory.

The prime minister and defence minister have been leading the charge against Labor, accusing the party of being soft on China and labelling opposition leader Anthony Albanese as the communist party’s preferred candidate.”

Then Rachael Withers writing for The Monthly, reported that when:

“… speaking to RN Breakfast, The AFR’s Phil Coorey said that recent statements on national security by some government MPs were ‘fairly out there’, noting these were ‘desperate times’.”

Rachael Withers, in the same piece, reported that:

“In yesterday’s party room meeting, the PM basically admitted how desperate he was.”

Although he stopped short of using that word himself, his comments were nevertheless so direct that they surprised long-time political journo Katharine Murphy.

Desperate times may call for desperate measures, but just how low is this Government willing to go?”

The Australian’s editor-at-large Paul Kelly wrote that:

“… the prime minister’s partisan tactics on China “reveal a strand of desperation from the government”.”

Two years ago Morrison bragged that Chinese investment in Australia had grown 800% from 2008-2018

"We would be mugs if we denied ourselves access to this capital"

In this time Morrison's govt let the Ports of Darwin & Newcastle be sold to China

Who's soft on national security? pic.twitter.com/XXOLbQpzpI

— Media Analyst (@MediaAnalystOz) February 17, 2022

On this day in 2020, I wrote on Facebook that:

“At this time in the electoral cycle, why would Labor want its internal policy debates to distract from a government running from crisis to crisis – from Hawaii to sports rorts to coronavirus to robot debt?”

Who’s soft on national security?

The Government’s outrageous comments have drawn condemnation from former ASIO head Dennis Richardson, who said:

“… when it comes to national security issues – foreign affairs head, defence head, Asio head, ambassador to Washington, our most important ambassador – he has said it only serves the rhetoric of the government, only serves the interests of one country: China, not Australia.the Federal Government was ‘doing the work of China’ by eroding bipartisanship on national security.”

Anthony Albanese responded to all the damaging personal abuse by saying:

“What I want to do is unite the country. I want to unite the country because unity is strength. What Scott Morrison is trying to do as a desperate political measure is to divide the country. It’s not in Australia’s national interest to have a divided country based on fake news.

We know what his own colleagues think about his capacity to not tell the truth. The fact is, his deputy prime minister has said that over a long period of time he’s observed that Scott Morrison is a hypocrite and a liar.

I say when it comes to national security, he should listen to what the director general of ASIO said this week. He should listen to what no less than the former secretary of the department of foreign affairs, head of ASIO, ambassador to Washington, appointed by John Howard – that’s Dennis Richardson’s credentials and he’s made some very strong comments this week.”

Twiggy Forrest – again – pleaded the message that the Government ought to tone down or scrap its security concerns over China, saying the “rhetoric on China has entered “reds under the bed” scare campaign territory.”

The Governments who have lost control of their public standing become desperate when polling shows them in danger of losing their power. Every time Morrison fronts the media, you can witness the desperation on his face. His speech quickens, as does his eye blink rate.

Of course, the Defence Minister, Peter Dutton, who ought to know better, has joined Morrison’s circus to sing from the clown’s book of desperate hits. To suggest China had picked Anthony Albanese as its election candidate showed why this very unpopular politician (he is the only one who doesn’t realise it) should never be given the leadership of anything.

That Morrison was prepared to trash our long-standing bi-partisanship in this area shows the depth of his desperation and how using gutter politics is just like kicking with the wind to him.

Former Australian Diplomat Bruce Haigh, a staunch government critic in a piece published in the Chinese Communist party’s tabloid, the Global Times last Monday, made an elementary point. He said that Labor might reset relations with China simply by not being Morrison and his Government if they win the election. And do so without necessarily making a substantial policy change.

Then came the deadest of dead cats:

“We now see evidence, Mr Speaker, that the Chinese Communist party, the Chinese government, has also made a decision about who they’re going to back in the next federal election, Mr Speaker, and that is open and that is obvious, and they have picked this bloke as that candidate,” Dutton said.

The art of diplomacy is not in their bag of political know-how.

Cartoon by Alan Moir (moir.com.au)

I wrote in my 2019 Election diary when referring to the Tony Abbott years:

“We need to know that what you are telling us is the truth. We want you to reform the system so that it is transparent, honourable and reflects your interest is in us, not you.

We want no more of the same old same old. You need not only restore our democracy but improve it. Change has to come.

The past six years has been shameful. If you cannot demonstrate that you can do these things at this election, we will come at you with baseball bats.

Those of my vintage will well remember Robert Menzies’ “Reds under your beds” scare campaigns.

We are to be invaded by the red hordes from the north,” he shouted loud and clear in every election campaign he participated in.

I remember as a young boy seeing pictures on posters in trams, in the newspapers, and news shorts at the cinema with images depicting the communist hordes thrusting their way towards us. There were others with hundreds of Chinese rolling across Sydney Harbour Bridge in their rickshaws with guns and communist flags.

Both the Trade Unions and Labor were pursued with vigorous anti-communist slurs and scare campaigns for decades.

Yes, the Carbon Tax was going to wreck the Australian economy. An insinuated crisis around every corner every day. Pathetically so, without fact or reason.

ISIS is coming to get us. And you personally. His scare campaigns were relentless dirty gutter politics. He stopped at nothing to frighten the shit out of people. So desperate was he that he promoted fear like a legitimate political weapon and wielded it unapologetically. It was like being on a permanent war footing.”

Not much has changed, has it?

The Prime Minister cannot sustain this desperate attack on the character of the Opposition leader. After national security, what else is there to attack? If Albo intends to play tiny target, Morrison will become more desperate. Will he trip himself up in the process?

By John Haly  

Much is made of the 21^st century being a post-truth world. Many identified it when presidential spokesperson Kellyanne Conway defended White House Press secretary Sean Spicer’s fallacious claim about attendance numbers at Donald Trump’s inauguration. Kellyanne Conway infamously referred to Spicer’s assertions as “Alternative facts“. This became a catch cry of satirists, comedians and news broadcasters reflecting the absurdity of presidential lies and fallacious propaganda. However, political manipulations of the “truth” are older than the writings of the ancient Chinese military treatise of “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu.

Populist lies

What does mark the 21st century is not the strategic lie of clever politicians but the blatant lie of the Populist. The blatant lie has replaced clever self-serving lies that take time and nuance to unravel. It’s an appeal to a demographic wanting the smallest of justifications to rise in the insurrection at the Capital or organise a packed, mask-less protest rally during a pandemic.

Great swathes of humanity descend into the 21st-century rabbit hole, emerging catatonic and confused into a world of irrationality, conspiracy theories, and QAnon. Framed by shameless populist’s admonition, whose goal is greed, popularity and personal gain/power at any cost to society. However, the political class has always been tarred with the brush of falsehoods by the public. Those goals aim to serve ideological or personal ends, but for the population, the falsehoods of this century have more dire consequences. These blatant lies blind us from the existential threats to us all, such as COVID-19 pandemics, climate change and biodiversity collapse.

Post-truth world equals Pre-Fascist realm

We should ask ourselves both why and how “alternative facts” (or, to put it bluntly, “mendacious lies”) dominate and hamper the cultures of the modern world and warp our perspective of the truth.

Here are my ten reasons why “alternative truths” hold sway.

1. Political advantage

Manipulating the populous through algorithms

Contemporary manipulations of the public for political gain are outsourced to the private capital of organisations such as Cambridge Analytica that resulted in the election of Trump and other populists. The data mining and psychological manipulation on behalf of Trump were detailed in the whistleblower’s book, “Mindf*ck” by Christopher Wylie. The broader European perspective of “This is Not Propaganda” by Peter Pomerantsev explores the dark world of influence operations run amok. It is a world of dark ads, psy-ops, hacks, bots and alternative fact propagation. This would include Firecrest technologies, Emerdata and SCL Group companies and even i360. The latter aided the conservative political gains in the South Australian elections but were abandoned despite protests from state branches by the evident lack of digital nous exhibited by federal Liberal Party operators. Nevertheless, it is a global phenomenon with many agents producing propaganda in social and mainstream media.

2. Media power and control

The dominance by organisations like the Murdoch press, OAN, and Fox News engage us in divisive propaganda instead of news and accurate journalism. Instead of holding power to account, the Fourth Estate is more frequently complicity with power. This is not merely an opinion but the legal defence used by Fox News to defend their hosts. Legal complications over the lack of veracity in reporting have long plagued the Murdoch press, but its power over parties and electoral influence is also a matter of record.

3. Cultural complacency

Cogitative progressions and the death of reasoning

There is a culture of acceptability for political lies and even allowing the lies to slide by with populist politicians. Manipulative social media posts that appeal to emotional or perceptual biases are propagated. “People feel free to make unsupported claims, assertions, and accusations in online media,” said Vint Cerf. As Dan York also notes, “The ‘mob mentality’ can be easily fed, and there is little fact-checking or source-checking these days before people spread information and links through social media.”

Not only do we disparage fact-checking and frequently could not be bothered to check political veracity, but partisan “fact-checkers” also have weaponised “fact-checking”.

4. Experiential evaluation

There is a cultural belief in the fluidity of truth in which opinion and anecdotal expressions are given identical or greater weight than fact-checking and well developed and robust methods of statistical analysis. Cognitive Research states, “People are also more persuaded by low-quality scientific claims that are accompanied by anecdotes and endorsement cues, such as a greater number of Facebook ‘likes’ as well as prior exposure to misinformation. In particular, the presence of anecdotal evidence can serve as a powerful barrier for scientific reasoning and evidence-based decision-making.”

5. Underfunding education

The defunding and elimination of free university education has resulted in an inferior quality of education for the Australian/American/British populations. As John Biggs and Richard Davis’s paper on “The Subversion of Australian Universities” concludes, “Today, our tertiary system is no longer able to fulfil its proper function in the community.” The deteriorating quality standards in Australian Universities leaves many graduates unequipped for the working world. Academic bodies have for years petitioned against the cuts to higher education to increasingly deaf ears in parliament.

It is not just tertiary education in Australia that is suffering a decline. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) reports that high school test scores have been plummeting for years.

The deteriorating education results in a plummeting of quality standards in Australian Universities. Access is based on economic capacity to afford education and the resultant financial pressure to pass mediocre students. Instead of passing students based on individual intellectual demonstrations of academic quality, a culture of grading on a curve is the acceptable standard.

6. Irresponsibility

A list of Rabbit-holes to dive down

People have not been held accountable for the results of their inane opinions, whether they range from:

• anti-vaxxers,
• the divinity of Trump,
• the benignity of Scott Morrison,
• refugees are terrorists,
• that conservatives are better economic managers,
• selfish wealthy freeloaders hoarding franking credits at the expense of the government,
• climate change denial,
• arsonist claims on bushfires, etc.

These people have largely been able to get away with their foolish choices and claims that have generated destructive results for Australian society and civil liberties as a whole.

7. Poverty

The paucity of resources available for adequate discernment or investigation of the truth is underscored by the crushing weight of surviving poverty. Ill-equipped communities, schools, and teachers have to scale inter-generational poverty and abuse that impact brain development, breadth of opportunity, material resourcing, and starting education at an expected time and age. Economic disadvantage is linked to chronic tardiness, lack of motivation, and inappropriate behaviour in school children and follows them into adulthood. Eric Jensen documents this in his book “Teaching with Poverty in Mind: What Being Poor Does to Kids’ Brains and What Schools Can Do About It.” This is before we even contemplate the issues of remote and regional education in the vastness of Australia. Underfunding public schools and TAFE and tertiary education have a long history in Australia. Extracurricular activities such as music, languages, travel/excursions, and etc are only available to children of wealthy parents or private education as public education has suffered multiple ongoing budget cuts that date back decades.

8. The “means” of production

Beyond poverty, the working class and the demands of their labour, of time and energy in terms of excessive working hours and inadequate wages and working conditions limit their socio-political awareness. One’s financial needs for personal and family obligations leave little time or energy for contemplation into the truth of State propaganda and media bias. Moreover, juggling more than one job to meet the financial demands of survival depletes time and resources for contemplative thinking. The ABS reported recently, “Filled jobs increased by 73,700 in the March quarter, 56,100 of which were jobs worked by people as a secondary job.”

9. Dismantling opposition

Diminishing critical public resources results in the inadequate assessment of proposals and developing ideas. The data necessary to evaluate deteriorating social and economic business concerns vanishes. This has been exemplified by defunding and closure of legal advice, research facilities and a raft of labour market monitoring (specifically during Abbott’s reign) along with compromising formerly independent bodies such as:

• Productivity commission with compromised business executive,
• Climate monitors stacked with fossil fuel executives.
• CSIRO being compromised with Gisera vested interests in Gas and Coal, and
• fact-checking units within public broadcasting.

The result is that critically based research becomes more inaccessible. Misinformation is easier to find, and the partisan media spoon-feeds that to the masses by the bucketful.

10. Illiteracy

Literacy is a surprisingly large issue in Australia; as Benjamin Law wrote some years ago, “…an OECD study surveyed Australians aged between 15 and 74 and rated them on their literacy skills. The results were shocking: 43.7 per cent had below-proficiency-level literacy.” Some indicators since then have seen improvement but as Helena Burke in the Australian noted: “According to the OECD, one in eight Australian adults are functionally illiterate, reading at an OECD Level 1 or below.” Unfortunately, though, she continued to say, “At present, there is no national adult literacy policy within Australia.”

Infotainment or Knowledge

Broadsheets to YouTube how conditions have worsened

Criticism of relative illiteracy notes how many in the community get their knowledge base from YouTube videos rather than reading and comprehension. Short podcasts and videos provide a superficial education with little by way of citations to follow up. In pursuit of easy to digest snippets of short-form, educational content (infotainment) provides an ephemeral intellectual reward and a diminished perspicacity. As a freelance journalist, I am aware this article exceeds the Guardian’s word limit of 800 words and Independent Australia’s at 1200. Long read articles are a small specialist market for a limited audience as the response of the larger public is usually conveyed by the acronym “TL;DR”. So even for the literate, reading can be viewed as onerous. Ask yourself when did you last read a non-fiction book? While the Australian Council for the Arts determined that 92% of Australians self-identify as ‘readers,’ the time spent doing so averages 6 hours and 18 minutes a week. That put our country in 15th place in the world.

These ten factors contribute to the ongoing undermining of truth in society.  We often seek simplistic answers to complex questions. Too many of us will not spend the time reading and examining the nuance and subtleties of issues. (Especially when they can be breezed over in a five-minute video.)

Too Long; Didn’t read!

Still, you are here reading this article. Did you just scan it quickly out of idle curiosity? Did you click on even one embedded link out of that curiosity to further your knowledge of something herein written? Perhaps, I got something wrong, but would you know from reading the link’s contents? Was that “reading”, or did you skim over what was written quickly because it was a bit long and … hell … who has the time, education, or philosophical inclination for in-depth understanding?

This article was originally published on Australia Awaken – Ignite your Torches.

As a man who is but months away from turning 80 I hope that I have inherited some characteristics of the prudent sage.

A man with awareness, and knowledge, which enables me to speak through my longevity with authority about the society, I have grown up in, taken from and invested in.

Many things disgust me about many societies of the world, none more so than the people’s aptitude for electing moronic individuals who show no understanding of life and the living of it.

In the fool’s paradise of America – who the world once viewed, rightly or wrongly, as the world’s policeman – the people elected a president who in his madness matches that of the Roman Emperor Caligula for his decadence and depravity. He is, in fact and inaction, a mass murderer of his own people.

America has always thought of itself as being exceptional which “as a lie,” has been a magnificent propaganda success.

When Donald Trump promised he would make America great again, “Instead,” writes Noel Turnbull;

“… he has presided over a significant collapse in belief in American exceptionalism.

While the rest of the western world … has always been conscious of what really makes the US exceptional – racism and limited democracy; constant waging of war; appalling health care for poorer citizens; worker exploitation; religious extremism; massive inequality; organising coups and assassinations in nations around the world; torture of prisoners; and the ignorance, hypocrisy and myopia which allows many citizens to deny it all. …and to add to that list of the exceptional, The Economist (20 June 2020) reported that the US is one of only 13 countries (along with Venezuela and Syria) where the maternal mortality rate increased between 2000 and 2017.”

We live in dark times.

The Brazilian people elected a right wing conservative politician in Jair Bolsonaro, 65, as its president. In the past few days he has announced the he has tested positive for COVID-19.

He has repeatedly flouted all of the rules of combating the virus. If infected, he would quickly shake off the illness thanks to his “athlete’s background,” he said.

“There’s no reason for fear. That’s life,” the president added. “Life goes on. I thank God for my life and the role I’ve been given to decide the future of this great nation that is called Brazil.”

Has he really been tested?

In Russia the people have voted to give their president an unprecedented lifetime in office. He is reputed to have made a fortune of $70 billion. How did he get it? No one knows.

We live in dark times.

In Australia where political apathy has grown year upon year it would seem that the worse the government governs, the more popular they become.

We have a Prime Minister on an annual salary of close to half a million dollars (in the top three in the world) saying that the Government will not be increasing the unemployment benefit of $40 a day because it might dissuade people from applying for a job.

It is then that you  understand there is something profoundly wrong, something seriously flawed with his understanding of the world and how people survive in it.

In 2013 Australia’s citizens elected the far-right politician Tony Abbott whose sole aim in life seemed to be to destroy things, not to build things. His first budget was universally acclaimed as the most uncaring ever.

Now approaching their 8^th year in power it is hard to point out any major advances made by the three conservative Prime Ministers of the period. Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison have all been consumed with the power that personal entitlement brings to the job rather than what they could have done bettering the lives of the people.

So corrupt has Australian politics become under these scoundrels, its democracy in tatters, that on questions of trust, Transparency International’s recent research found that 85% of Australians thought that some federal politicians were corrupt.

And now the art of diplomacy has also suffered … in favour of an aggressive defence policy toward China.

We live in dark times.

British citizens, of course, not to be left out of the world’s irrational need of the far-right brought about by endless fear campaigns rejected any hope of a leftist revival by snubbing Jeremy Corbyn over the buffoon Boris Johnson. Now with Brexit behind it the people expect that Conservatives will make things right again.

We live in dark times.

Throughout Europe, France excepted, a swing to the right is occurring with Italy, Germany, Spain, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Poland, Hungry, Slovenia and Greece are tending toward anti immigration, nationalism and far right-policies.

Why then do ordinary folk vote against their own self-interest? Conservatives in Australia have never given pensioners, for example, a raise in their pension. As I said earlier, the dole will be kept low and benefits to the rich and privileged won’t be touched. Yet it is amongst this cohort that the conservatives have their greatest strength. The over 65s form a solid base.

“Just why these people put their faith in conservative leadership?” you might ask. “Why do they instinctively vote for the LNP when it is Labor who is more likely to address their concerns?”

The answer is in a psychology of fear that conservatives portray. A fear of change of instability, insecurity, having something taken away. Conservatives are averse to both change and science.

The conservative has a need to convince his potential followers and adherents that they are always under threat, real or imagined, and it is only their leader who can control events that might affect their well being.

Conservatives also have a built-in fear of the aforementioned and when it overlaps with the same fears in the poor and middle classes they form a mighty powerful voting group.

Religion too plays its part in the psychological fear campaigns of the conservatives. They focus on religions (particularly the Pentecostal) aversion to change and the preservation of life as is.

I previously wrote that:

“I remember as a young boy seeing pictures on posters in trams, in the newspapers, and news shorts at the cinema with pictures depicting the communist hordes thrusting their way towards us. There were others with hundreds of Chinese rolling across Sydney Harbour Bridge in their rickshaws with guns and communist flags.”

If their religion is under threat then so to is their well-being. Threats come in abundance, anything from foreign military threats to domestic terrorism, exaggerated fears of minorities and immigrants, pluralism, disease, violent crime, or government overreach. Even a virus that is a sign from God.

Fear draws people into protection from it. It gives poor people approval to vote against their own best interests.

I began this piece by saying that.

It is so true of Australia. Australian conservatives have long been the champions of fear. They have won many elections with it and will continue to do so until confronted.

We live in dark times.