In the wake of the murder of United Health CEO Brian Thompson, the New York Times (NYT) has come forth with a remarkable piece of propaganda designed to garner sympathy for Mr Thompson and his family. I, for one, find it very difficult to muster sympathy, good will and empathy for this ghoul who made billions of dollars in profit every year by denying health insurance claims.

Let us be clear: insurance is people paying into a pool of money, thereby reducing individual costs. The expectation is that they will receive part of that money back when they need it most. This good idea, when combined with the toxic profit motive, leads to companies denying claims. Why? Simple: paying out claims is a cost, and since profit equals revenue minus costs, the lower the costs, the higher the profit. This cretin, Thompson, increased his profit margins by denying people access to their own money which they had put aside for healthcare. My sympathy for this man is low.

The Public Reaction

The reaction of the people was not subtle. Indeed, it was simply brutal. Some of the highlights include

Thoughts and copays

Unfortunately thoughts & prayers are out-of-network

He died doing what he loved, not getting medical care in time

There are scores more of these, but you get the point: an unapologetic F this guy. As I said above, mustering sympathy for a man whose insurance company denied 32% of all claims it received in order to increase profits is something I am struggling with. To add my own humble contribution to this peasant pile-on, Thompson found out what it is like to have someone you’ve never heard of determine your fate. Bitch, isn’t it?

The Media Reaction: Corporate Propaganda, Part One

The NYT started it’s propaganda piece with a remarkable headline

Torrent of Hate for Health Insurance Industry Follows C.E.O.’s Killing

That headline is a great example of something Rome’s first Emperor, Augustus, was good at: you say something that is technically true, but leave out rather important details. The focus of the headline is not what an utterly evil and parasitic capitalist disease Thompson is, oh no. The focus is on the (admittedly brutal) public response. Left to the side is the context about the people he sacrificed at the altar of profit. Now, headline or not, the slant of the NYT is on glaring display here.

The pathetic defence of the corporate structure continues with this gem

The fatal shooting on Wednesday of a top UnitedHealthcare executive, Brian Thompson, on a Manhattan sidewalk has unleashed a torrent of morbid glee from patients and others who say they have had negative experiences with health insurance companies at some of the hardest times in their lives

Negative experiences with insurance companies? You mean they were refused access to their own money so a company could make ever more Holy, Sacred Profit? Also, you speak of ‘the hardest times in their lives’ – yes. That is what insurance is for. The insurance industry is perhaps best summed up by this pearler ‘the insurance industry is not in the business of paying claims. It is in the business of collecting premiums’. Amen. Finally, morbid glee? Nice rhetorical flourish there, but I see through it. This man was head of an insurance company that decided who lived and who died based on how much money it would cost the company. I think the public is quite within its rights to utterly decimate this man and laugh at his death.

The Media Reaction: Corporate Propaganda, Part Two

After noting that the motive for Thompson’s murder is not clear (again, technically true, but I think his job may have something to do with it), the NYT offers this brutal sentence

But that did not stop social media commenters from leaping to conclusions and from showing a blatant lack of sympathy over the death of a man who was a husband and father of two children

Oh cry me a river. How about garnering some sympathy for the thousands of individuals, who were also wives and mothers and sons and fathers, that Thompson is responsible for the deaths of? Why do they not count? They don’t advertise with your paper? Why are humanity and dignity given exclusively to the corporate CEO? The death of the CEO is a tragedy, the deaths of the thousands of people denied continuation of life because it costs money are called ‘cost saving measures’. The American motto e Pluribus Unum, meaning one from many, referring to the so-called melting pot of different people that make up America, is dead. It is most certainly dead, Jim. The rich matter, the poor do not.

The Media Reaction: Corporate Propaganda, Part Three

The NYT was hardly alone in its sycophantic, pandering slop in response to Thompson’s death. The following headline from The New Yorker aptly encapsulates the elite’s outrage at the peasants’ glee at the murder of this ghoul

A Man Was Murdered in Cold Blood and You’re Laughing?

All that headline was missing was Greta Thunberg’s ‘HOW DARE YOU?’. That the media would rear up on its hind legs to defend the corporate structure is not news. What is news here is that the media is actually chastising the people for reacting with fitting glee to the death of this boil on the arse of humanity. This is the equivalent of blaming the victim of years of abuse when they finally fight back. How dare you hit your abusive partner after years of mistreatment? RUDE.

My response to this tone-policing crap can only partially be said on TV before certain times of day. The nerve of these rich, pampered, corrupt, profit-obsessed goons to band together and lecture the peasants for their reaction to this act is palpable. Also, what happened to the First Amendment? Free Speech? People are allowed to express dark opinions; yes, even about the corporate structure you love so much.

Conclusion: If Non-Violence is Impossible…

There is a saying around revolution, that if non-violent revolution is impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable. This is not to justify violence, simply to say placing profits over the people while gloating insufferably about being the greatest country in the world was not a sustainable model. Eventually, your continued petulant demands that the status quo (from which you benefit handsomely) be maintained and that any and all calls for reform were Communism was going to blow up in your face.

I used to end posts on a blog some years ago with NVRN – Non-Violent Revolution Now. The corporate structure, with its childlike demands that ‘line on profit graph go up forever’ was going to eventually provoke some reaction. There simply are not enough circuses (and do not mention the price of bread) to keep the peasants fed and occupied anymore.

Choke, you greedy bastards.

Outgoing US President Joe Biden has issued what his statement calls ‘a full and unconditional pardon’ to his son Hunter Biden. The pardon has raised more than a few eyebrows, so I want to look at President Biden’s statement, as well as some of the Federalist Papers written by James Madison describing the original intent of the pardon power. Then I want to consider the Constitutional citation for the power. Finally, I want to look at some of the more recent, and controversial, uses of this power to put Joe Biden’s actions into perspective.

Foundations, Part One: Madison, The Federalist Papers and Beyond

A useful article in The Guardian outlines the history of the pardon power, from the US Constitution and before. Of interest here are the words of James Madison, in Federalist Paper Number 74

One man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men.

Madison’s argument that the power to pardon be vested exclusively in the President is interesting. Before the quote above, he says that people are inclined to serve their own interests if they are in groups, so vesting this power in one individual is preferable. Madison could obviously have not been aware of how Presidents would use the pardon power in the future, but more on this later.

In terms of the original intent, a Professor of UK and US law noted the following about the pardon power

It goes along with the president’s control also over the army and navy and military power because, in the context that it was being contemplated, it was really being thought about as another tool within the ability to control domestic unrest

The last clause seems to be the point: the pardon power was a means of maintaining domestic tranquility, seemingly by bringing the wayward back into the fold where possible (as Washington did with members of the Whiskey Rebellion). Remarkably enough, this extended even to former rebels after the Civil War, when Andrew Johnson issued pardons and amnesty to former Confederates.

Foundations, Part Two: The US Constitution

The pardon power of the US President is outlined in their Constitution, Article 2, Section 2. The text says

… [The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

For clarity, ‘offences against the United States’ here refers to federal crimes, as opposed to state crimes. The Supreme Court has defined the power as ‘plenary’ meaning that it is not subject to Congressional oversight or legislative restriction. The President’s pardon power appears to be absolute then, since the Court (one check on Executive Power) has restricted the Congress (the other check) from any involvement at all. There is seemingly no limitation on whom the President may pardon, or why.

The Power in Practice: Pardons in Modern US History

We start with perhaps the most infamous pardon in US History, that issued by President Gerald Ford on September 8th, 1974. Here, Ford pardoned former President Richard Nixon for his myriad crimes relating to the Watergate scandal. Nixon had resigned the Presidency on August 9th, 1974, showing that last iota of patriotism by jumping before he was pushed (numbers existed in the Senate to convict and remove him from office). Ford’s intent was apparently to ‘heal the nation’ by sparing it Nixon’s trial, but this is arrant nonsense. By allowing Nixon to get away with his crimes, Ford showed that members of the political class were, in fact, above the law.

Next we move to President George H.W. Bush, who, as his term was ending in 1992, issued a pardon to Caspar Weinberger, former Secretary of Defence under Ronald Reagan, and five others for their involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. Details around this pardon can be found here, but the point for our purposes is that Bush, who as Vice President under Reagan, must have known about Iran-Contra. The optics do not resound to his benefit. But, as noted above, the power of the pardon is, for all intents and purposes, absolute.

Joe Pardoning Hunter, Part One: The Statement

Having briefly looked at the history of the pardon, both from the legal and historical viewpoints, let us turn to Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter.

When President Biden issued the pardon to his son, he issued a statement through the White House. The President made the following argument to justify the pardon

The charges in his [Hunter Biden’s] cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process

If this sounds remarkably similar to the claims President-elect Trump about prosecutions being politically motivated (so-called law fare), that is because it is. The motivation behind the prosecution is actually irrelevant to whether the pardon is justified or not. It is also worth noting that Mr Biden’s decision to pardon his son after he said he would not is also irrelevant. Politicians lie. Mr Biden is not exceptional here. The fact that he lied does not render the pardon invalid, or less legitimate. As I have stated before, the pardon power is essentially absolute.

Self-Reflection: Am I asking the Right Question?

After reading through this analysis, particularly the legal texts, some of you may have reached the conclusion that I am asking, and hence answering, the wrong question: can Joe Biden pardon his son, rather than should Joe Biden pardon his son. Let us look at this.

The law defines what can be done, rather than what should be done. By focusing on the legal texts, as well as selected historical examples, perhaps I am focusing on what the President can do, rather than what he should do. Is it favouritism (or does it really, really stink) that the President is pardoning his own son? Perhaps, but if the power is plenary (ie at the absolute discretion of the President) then, as a previous President observed, the possibility of pardoning one’s self is not absurd. It is a limited extension to pardon one’s son.

So to answer the question, I appeal to the SCOTUS cases that defined the power as plenary. This is one example of the US President having a quite autocratic power, to use at his discretion without oversight, limit or restriction. If the President is so empowered, and this is how he wants to use that power, who are we to say otherwise?

The utter slaughter, ethnic cleansing and genocide that Israel has carried out over the last six months has, of course, been harrowing to watch. The glory that is instantaneous communication in the digital age has made information, up to and including video of these war crimes, available to anyone with a device in their hands. Such information should lead to the utter condemnation of Israel, and its identification as a rogue nation in the international sphere. But this is not the case, or at least it has not been up to this point.

The international response to this callous, intentional massacring of more than 40,000 people has been weak to put it very mildly. Leaders in the West (Britain, the US and Australia specifically) have spoken of ‘anger’ and ‘concern’, but have done precisely nothing tangible. Why is this? This is one of the issues I want to explore today. The other issue concerns the Western reaction to the recent murder of those international aid workers.

Inconvenient Truth, Part One a): The International Mafia

In my younger days, I used to conceive of international affairs as run like a mafia organisation, with the United States as the Godfather pulling the strings. If you were ‘outside the family’ (that is to say outside of the influences of American capital) you were a rogue nation that might ‘need some democracy’, especially if you had natural resources that Western capital wanted to exploit. In light of recent events, I have modified this description somewhat. It still very much holds, but the role of the United States has changed.

America is no longer (if it ever was) the Godfather of this international mafia organisation. It is merely the muscle. As the owner of the largest and most powerful military apparatus in human history (for now), the Americans have great influence, but they still cower in fear when it comes to the true Godfather of international affairs: Israel. Israel has carried out what the International Court of Justice has said there is reasonable evidence to call a genocide, but the Americans continue to fund, and more importantly arm, this rogue nation.

Israel is a paper tiger propped up by American money and weapons. The Americans do not know (or are choosing to ignore) the fact that this gives them tremendous power when it comes to Israel. If the US made its funding and arming of Israel conditional on, oh I do not know, adhering to international law, the Jewish state’s policy would change right quick. But they do not do this. Why? What are they afraid of?

Inconvenient Truth, Part One b): Israel’s ‘Secret Weapons’

The Jewish state has, in recent times, adopted a new secret weapon. You may have noticed that anyone, regardless of who they are, or how many facts they have on their side, is labelled, for even the most tepid criticism of Israel, an anti-semite. This pathetic conflation of disagreement with the policies of one state with hatred of an entire people, members of which live all over the world, seems to keep nations in line. Think of it as a form of extortion, as in ‘Nice international reputation you have there; be a shame if anything were to happen to it’. This slimy tactic effectively renders Israel ‘the nation who cried anti-semite’. The word is now meaningless.

Israel has another secret weapon, one of geography, which gives them power over certain American christians. There is a twist to this which I will get to in a minute, but for now some facts. There is a subset of American christians who believe that the end-times cannot happen until all the land in the middle east is under Israeli control. This partially accounts for their obsessive, almost religious, support of Israel. They need Israel to ‘win’ so jesus can come back.

But there is a twist. There is a great unspoken truth about the fate of the Jews in Israel when jesus comes back. According to this subset of christians, those Jews will be tossed into the lake of fire for eternal torture because they never accepted jesus like the christians did. That’s right: the religious support of Israel is a total con. Every Jew in Israel is to be obliterated because they did not fall in line with this very narrow subset of christianity. But remember, it is critics of Israel who are the anti-semites.

Inconvenient Truth, Part Two: The Hypocrisy of The West

The world was recently set alight with outrage over the murder of those seven international aid workers in Gaza. It was this event, rather than the indiscriminate slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinians, that got international attention. The cynics among you may have noticed that the West, for all its bleating about ‘equality’ and all the rest of that crap, actually gives less than two sh*ts about Palestinians. But you kill our citizens? Oh now we’re outraged.

The utter hypocrisy of the West is thereby exposed: if you’d just stuck to killing Palestinians, everything would have been fine. We could have gone on ignoring your obvious genocide since no-one really cares about ‘Palestinians’ anyway. But you f*cked it up. By killing UK, Australian and American citizens, we have to respond now. Our citizens expect us to. We won’t actually change our policy in any way, we promise, but we have to be seen to be doing something. Maybe a few days’ delay on the next weapons shipment. Maybe.

Analysis: Voltaire and Who Rules You

Anyone who thinks the idea that Israel is in control of international affairs is some sort of conspiracy should consider the quote attributed to Voltaire:

If you wish to know who rules you, find out who you are not allowed to criticise

In light of this, the status of Israel as hegemon (leader) in international affairs is no conspiracy. Any and all criticism of Israel has to be premised with statements about ‘Israel having the right to exist and to defend itself’ and ‘I condemn Hamas’. When medicine is given to an animal, it is commonly concealed in food to make it as palatable as possible. The comparison to criticism of Israel needing to premised with the aforementioned statements is apt. And they will still call you an anti-semite.

Conclusion

I realise I have gone for the jugular here, but I do not apologise. Israel is subject to a different standard (read no standards) precisely because it is Israel. If Iran or one of the other so-called ‘rogue nations’ bombed the living hell out of a region to this extent (whatever the provocation) the American and other nations’ response would not be strong words. The response would be a bombardment so vicious that Dresden would say ‘calm down’.

The time has come to remove Israel’s special status and hold them accountable under international law and the laws of war. This will never happen, of course, since setting a precedent of prosecuting war criminals who are ‘the good guys’ (read friends of America) is not in the interest of the international community. As Noam Chomsky said, if the Nuremberg Laws were actually enforced, every post-war US President would hang as a war criminal. Awkward.

This post is likely to cost me a friend or two, but that is ok. Friends like that I can do without. I abhor violence and indiscriminate killing of civilians and children. If condemning that makes me an anti-semite, then HH.

The week before last, a remarkable piece of political propaganda found its way into my mailbox. Rather than simply dismiss it outright, I thought a response to its main ‘arguments’ might be more useful. I want to go through the pamphlet page by page and section by section. The ‘arguments’ say much about those opposed to the Voice.

The Propaganda Pamphlet, Part One: The Front Page

The front page has the following:

THE VOICE: RISKY, UNKNOWN, PERMANENT

Ok, in order. Why is it ‘risky’? Because you say it is? Most changes are risky. Not all risk is necessarily negative. Great things can happen if you are willing to take risks. Further, the idea that the Voice is ‘unknown’ is essentially a restatement of the ‘detail’ argument, which I and others have shown is total crap. The details are readily available, but those opposed to the Voice do not want to read them. They ignore the details that are available precisely so they can make this argument.

A chief criticism of the former government under Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison was that they ‘created their own success’. This meant that they created conditions that set up their own arguments and/or policies. The go-to case here is the cutting of university funding by 20% and then turning around and proposing fee deregulation. Which of course would not have been necessary without the funding cut. Slimeballs.

We see this with the Voice also. They deliberately ignore the multi-hundred-page report detailing what the Voice will mean, and then say that Mr. Albanese is being cagey with the details. Said it before, say it again: slimeballs.

However, my favourite of all the ‘criticisms’ of the voice is the idea that it will be permanent and enshrined in the Constitution. What this boils down to, dear friends, is Conservatives complaining that they will not be able to come in and abolish this body the next time they are returned to power. The idea that they don’t have the final say over something enrages them. Born to rule sticks as a criticism for a reason.

The Propaganda Pamphlet, Part Two: Page One

The pamphlet starts by drawing in as many people as possible. It states:

All fair-minded Australians want to help Indigenous Australians in disadvantaged communities improve their lives.

The Liberal Party supports regional voices, with powers clearly defined by parliament.

This is designed to create ‘common ground’ with the majority, the goal being to lead them down the rocky path in the next sentence. You see this with conservatives all the time: everybody supports [group], but they want [unreasonable strawman of the actual position].

The pamphlet continues with this revealing statement:

However, the Albanese Government wants to go much further – enshrining a Voice in the Constitution with few limits to its scope and few details.

First, their outrage over it being ‘in the Constitution’ (the bolding was theirs) again indicates that the problem is that they will not be able to abolish it next time they are voted in. They resent the permanent nature of the Voice. They resent that its existence is not subject to their partisan whims.

Second, the very words to be added to the Constitution define the Voice’s scope and limit its powers.

Clause 3 of the proposed Section 129 of the Constitution reads as follows:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

The first Clause establishes the existence of the Voice, while the second limits its scope to issues relating to First Nations Peoples. For our purposes, this third clause is decisive. It makes clear that parliament has the power to make laws about the Voice, including composition, functions, powers and procedures. Its powers are defined by parliament. One has to seriously question if the LNP have actually read the proposed Constitutional changes.

The first page ends with the remarkably insidious:

Don’t know? SAY NO

So, they create doubt around the Voice, and then tell people to vote no if they are unsure. You have to admire the propaganda techniques on display here.

The Propaganda Pamphlet, Part Three: Page Two

The middle page begins by complaining that Australia has not changed its Constitution by referendum since 1977. What is your point? If anything, this is evidence that the country has become calcified. In addition, if I were the Liberal Party, I would be silent on the idea that the Constitution is somehow sacred. Scott Morrison swore himself into ministries, a flagrant violation of the Constitution. To now hammer that document’s sanctity is delusional. Get that garbage outta here!

Page two ends with quite possibly the least self-aware set of statements that I have seen for some time. This has to be quoted in full to be believed:

DIVISIVE

Enshrining in our Constitution a body for only one group of Australians, means permanently dividing Australians by race.

Many Indigenous Australians don’t want this. The Constitution belongs to all Australians.

We need to bring Australians together, not divide them.

Let us start with the idea that a Constitutionally-enshrined body for only certain Australians divides the country by race. You mean like Parliament? Prior to the 1967 referendum, Indigenous Australians were not even counted among the population. That racist idea was also enshrined in the much-vaunted Constitution (S127, since repealed). However, the point is that Parliament was, from its foundation, enshrined in the Constitution as a body exclusively for one group of Australians. Drop this argument, No Campaign: you will lose it!

The Voice is a response to the decades of exclusion that First Nations Peoples faced in Australia, exclusion that was based solely on their race. To say that the response to such race-based exclusion risks dividing the country by race is delusional.

Next is the idea that ‘the Constitution belongs to all Australians’. Really? A document of imperial conquest by the British belongs to Indigenous Australians, does it? Finally, it is surprising that the universe did not implode from the irony of a Liberal Party led by Peter Dutton talking about ‘not dividing Australians by race’. African Gangs, anyone? The Biloela Kids as ‘anchor babies’, anyone? Go away now!

The Propaganda Pamphlet, Part Four: Page Three

The next ‘criticisms’ are equally as vapid. As well as a restatement of the ‘permanency’ argument, we have this nonsense, under the heading of ‘Ineffective’:

Having a centralised voice – rather than regional voices – risks overlooking the needs of regional and remote communities.

Yes, because if there’s one group in the country the LNP cares about, it is regional and remote communities. More seriously, they do know that the National Voice does not replace the existing regional and local Voices, right? This is not a ‘one or the other’ situation. Similarly, does the Federal Government existing risk overlooking the needs of states and local government areas? No, of course not. Local, State and Federal governments exist in parallel. The same would be the case for the Voices.

Conclusion: This is All You Have?

If the pseudo-arguments put forward in this remarkable piece of political propaganda are the best that those opposed to the Voice can muster at this point, the campaign is dead. Simple application of basic logic and critical thinking exposes the ‘case’ against the Voice as quite ineffectual. It is standard Conservative fare: fear the unknown (despite there being ample detail about the Voice). I do find it interesting that they tipped their hand so blatantly with the ‘this is permanent’ argument. They are clearly desperate, and that argument was not thought through. Their petulance thus exposed, let us hope the electorate sees through this nonsense and votes for True National Unity with a Voice.

Much has changed since I last wrote for this fine project. I hope you are all well and ready to delve into conservatism. My own biases against this movement and what it has become are well known, and this piece is not objective. Just a series of observations about how this side of politics acts. Enjoy

Before the last election, people used to ask ‘who is Anthony Albanese’. I have a better question: why is conservatism? What is the purpose of a group of wealthy, out-of-touch elitists who insist on their right to tell others what to do? Why are they still here? I want to look at an historical definition of the movement and use it to explain the existence of this frankly regressive ideology.

Defining the Movement: William F Buckley

In the 1950s, American William F Buckley said this about the conservative movement:

We will stand athwart history yelling stop.

There is so much contained in this delicious statement. First is the open acknowledgment that history, however slowly and however many twists, turns and roadblocks exist along the way, ultimately moves toward progress. The inexorable march of history toward improvement, progress and broadening the protections once reserved for the few, Buckley acknowledges.

The second part of the statement outlines the role of conservatives in this inexorable march of history: to stop it. The very purpose of the conservative is to prevent, or delay as long as possible, the inevitable progress that human society will make. The conservative is an agent of preservation. Keep things as they are. Hidden within this of course is the unspoken insidious garbage ‘because we are doing just fine’. That old quip about conservatism being selfishness manifested as a political ideology holds up for a reason.

The Definition in Action: The Horseless Carriage to Renewable Energy

Lest you think I am merely blowing off steam here, as George Carlin said, I got a little evidence to back up my claim. Here are some examples, from very different points in history, of conservatives yelling stop as history marched on.

The first example is the motor vehicle; the ‘horseless carriage’ as it was known. This ‘new-fangled’ piece of technology was a threat to the existing horse-and-buggy industry and the associated jobs. Think of all those employed shovelling sh*t. Ok seriously, it was said the car would never take off, and the conservatives opposed it. Even arguing with 20/20 hindsight, the motorcar was a serious leap forward and the conservatives opposed it because it was different.

Example two is slightly more recent, and cuts deeper: racial segregation. By the 1950s, society had, in many places, moved beyond the point where keeping blacks and whites separated was considered acceptable. But not conservatives. This is the way we’ve always done it. Separate but Equal. They want special rights to mix with us. Society will collapse. All the same trite crap made the rounds then as it does now.

Example three is more recent again, and concerns marriage equality. By 2012 in the United States, the Supreme Court reached the decision that homosexual couples’ right to marriage, with all the associated rights and protections, was in fact guaranteed under US law. Once again, the conservatives opposed the case even going to the Court. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. They already have civil unions (separate but equal), they want special rights. Society will collapse.

Same Sh*t, Different Time: The Opposition Playbook

You may have noticed during examples two and three above that I did not have to change my description of the conservative ‘opposition’ much. This reveals, I think, something about conservative ‘opposition’ to social and political progress. It is never about the substance. At least not on the face of it. They seem to oppose change for the sake of preserving what is. Oh the conservatives of the various eras may not have liked marriage equality or racial integration as concepts, but I think their opposition was more about keeping ‘out groups’ on the out. Societal and legal protections had long been available to a restricted few, and those on the inside damn sure meant to defend those privileges.

As evidence for the argument, I advanced above, consider the fact that the ‘opposition’ lines are always the same: this violates tradition, [group] wants special rights, they already have [parallel yet inferior version of the right under debate]. It is as if they pick up the same script every time someone tries to introduce some scintilla of social progress. Almost as if it is not about the actual social progress. Almost as if conservatives are just relics of a bygone era yearning for the good old days when blacks knew their place and the little woman always had dinner and whiskey waiting for you when you got home.

Full Circle: Why is Conservatism?

To come full circle, I return to the question posed in the title: why is conservatism? The sole reason for their existence is to stymie, to delay, to be that annoying kid who asks, ‘but why’? If you had a member of a club who was always asking why the rules were ever changed for any reason (no matter the practical reason), what is their purpose?

The entire conservative movement is naught but a collective of miserly social regressives who reject change because it threatens their comfortable existence. They are the clergy and nobles of Ancien Regime France: preening dandies with incredible unearned social privileges who resent the idea of any change at all lest anyone come for their gold butt-scratcher.

Economically, conservatives serve the big end of town. Socially, they serve tradition. They do not seem to understand that arguing from tradition leads to some very dark places. Or perhaps they do know. It is unclear which is worse.

Much like the already rich arguing for Libertarian economics, only those already privileged could argue from tradition.

Why is Conservatism? It is a millstone around the neck of humanity.

The Liberal-National COALition has had, to put it lightly, a bad time in recent electoral contests. From the utter wipeout in Western Australia to the recent trouncings in both Victoria and nationwide, the conservative side of politics is not in a good way. Now, as one who thinks in terms of collective benefit rather than laser-focused self-interest and corporate cuckoldry, this is a good thing. But as one interested in the why, as well as the what, I think a deep-dive into this issue may be useful. As sources for this piece, I am using the extremely well-researched and resourced piece in The Monthly about the LNP’s troubles, among other pieces.

Dutton Misses the Mark: Style over (Lack of) Substance, Part One

During yet another attempt to use the media to rehabilitate his image, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton suggested that the LNP is suffering an ‘identity crisis’. Specifically, from The Monthly

He [Dutton] says the Liberal Party is suffering from an “identity crisis” because it has let itself be defined by its opponents including people like businessman Simon Holmes à Court and the teal candidates he backed at the election.

Identity crisis? The Party may not know what it is, but the people certainly formed their opinion. They saw exactly what the Coalition stood for and roundly rejected it. Also, given how much of the media the LNP has on its side, it takes a great deal of nerve to suggest that your opponents define you as a party. Perhaps it has something to do with the utterly vacuous, substance-free garbage that passes for your political actions. Policies that quite openly serve the wealthy: as a single example, consider the first homeowners’ grant, which did nothing but push up real estate prices, helping sellers, not buyers.

Dutton went on to say that

“We have to reassert who we are so that people see the value proposition and understand that.”

As previously stated, Sir, this will not help. People know who you and your party are. People already think you personally are a pr*ck who did little but stoke fear (African gangs, anyone?). This point is, like the previous one, also rendered hollow by the media serving as the propaganda arm of the LNP.

Pseudo-Socratic Method: Nine Media Weighs In

Another angle of Dutton’s proposed redefinition of the LNP was noted by Nine columnist Sean Kelly. Kelly, as some of you may know, is the author of the fascinating book The Game about Scott Morrison.

When discussing yet another profile published in The Age about Dutton, Kelly makes the following quite scathing comments

As the profile noted, the public perceptions are also the result of Dutton’s own actions.

When Morrison became leader, he was allowed to shrug off much of what he’d done before. It wasn’t, it seemed, really who he was. In the end, it turned out to be exactly who he was.

So it is important to ask: how many of Dutton’s previous actions does he now disavow? What actions has he taken – as opposed to interviews given and words spoken – to demonstrate he is different from who he’s always seemed to be? Or to put this another way: at a certain point, if you’ve seemed to be somebody for long enough, isn’t that who you really are?

The key point here is that actions speak louder than words. This explains the question about what Dutton has done (as opposed to repeated profiles in the media) to belie the idea that he is a callous bastard. The media has repeatedly attempted to humanise Dutton and say ‘there is more to him than what he did with power’. Precisely the opposite is true. You are what you do, particularly with power. If you have seemed to be a certain way, as Kelly notes, that is who you are. Unless, of course, you were playing a character, in which case how can we possibly trust you? Finally, on these profiles, the very fact that you have to keep doing them suggests that they are not breaking through. To put it crudely, stop trying to photograph the turd from the right angle to sell it.

What is the LNP’s Real Problem?

Peter Dutton would have us believe that the Liberal Party has an image problem. In fact, what the Liberal Party has is a reality problem. Voters, particularly younger voters, saw how the Liberals governed for the last ten years and they did not like it. Buck passing, brazen lying, media manipulation, bigotry and punishing anyone who had the nerve not to be rich. The rich will be the focus of the next section, but for the moment the real problem with the LNP is that people know exactly who and what they are, and no amount of media profiles (read propaganda pieces) is going to change their minds.

The Killing of The Goose That Lays the Golden Eggs

It used to be said that people became more conservative as they aged. This truism, as I have referenced elsewhere on this site, is not actually a function of age, at least not directly. The true basis for this ‘tory turn’ as we might call it, is that with age tends to come wealth. With wealth typically comes economic security and with that comes less need for change. I’m doing ok thank you very much, so nothing needs to change. In other words, to paraphrase Bill Clinton’s campaign in 1992, it’s the wealth, stupid.

It is no small irony that, by obsessively servicing the big end of town (broadly defined as The Owners), the LNP coalition left behind future generations. LNP policies meant that those younger voters did not share in the prosperity, did not become financially secure and so, despite being in their late thirties to forties, still want change. They are not financially stable and so have not calcified into the typical tory voter.

This actually amuses me to no end: serves you right, you bastards. You were so determined to serve the wealthy that you could not see the forest for the trees. You were so obsessed with growing their (and your own) investment property portfolios that you could not see (or simply did not care) that you were creating what is now known as Generation Rent. It is no wonder these people will not vote for you: you utterly screwed them out of the so-called Australian Dream of owning your own home. Your policies around negative gearing, tax cuts for the wealthy, superannuation concessions and so on – these tongue-baths to the rich have created a generation (and beyond) of serfs with iPhones. That, Spud, is why they will not vote for you!

Background: Slim Majorities and Factional Power

One of the more interesting aspects of the recent midterm elections has come from the race for control of the House. Per the most recent results (which are constantly changing), it seems as though Republicans will take back control of the House. The wrinkle comes when we consider the majority they are likely to have: a single seat (+/- 4). When it comes to electing a Speaker, a majority is required. Current Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is slated to become Speaker if the GOP takes over. Since the vote is likely to be partisan, a slim majority gives factions within the GOP majority great power. Where have we seen this before?

A Quick History of the Original #Forcethevote

You may recall a few years back that the Democrats had a slim majority in the House. This gave their factional groups, for instance the Squad, the chance to demand something for their vote. Specifically, activists for #medicareforall demanded that these Congresspeople withhold their vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker until she brought M4A to a vote on the floor. Whether due to pressure from colleagues, not wanting to rock the boat, or whatever BS reason they came up with, the Squad caved and Pelosi became Speaker. You had the chance to expose the corrupt duopoly for what it was and you blew it.

Not only did they not demand anything for their vote, but they also smeared those who then tried to hold them to account for their inaction (Jimmy Dore is a noted example). This showed their political ineptitude, yes, but I am more inclined to use the political science term Institutional Capture. This is where a new member of an institution starts out eager for reform, but is taken in and broken down by the institution. The Squad started out as quite ideological (AOC protested outside Nany Pelosi’s office) but the institution ultimately broke them down. If the recent example of the letter dealing with diplomacy in Ukraine is any example, the Squad has lost any political courage they ever had.

Old Band, New Members: The Freedom Caucus and #Forcethevote, Part One

A useful article from Fox News informs what follows. The article outlines the demands of the Freedom Caucus in this way

The Freedom Caucus is angling to include a provision within the House Rules package allowing for any member to offer at any time motion to vacate the speaker’s chair – a change it will push for assuming Republicans take control of the House.

A curious setup. Essentially, the Freedom Caucus is demanding that McCarthy, as the price for being made Speaker, ascent to a rule that could remove him from that position at any time. Talk about a crown of thorns. It is interesting that ‘any member’ [of the House] can originate such a motion. The question is how badly does McCarthy want to be Speaker? This brings to mind what happened during former Speaker John Boehner’s tenure: a similar group of hardliners held the Speaker’s position in their hands. They were ‘the power behind the throne’ and took full advantage. Boehner would eventually resign because he could not control his troops.

The Fox News article referenced above actually uses the magic phrase ‘force a vote’ in the next sentence

The parliamentary gambit would let hardline members force a vote on retaining the speaker

Interesting, is it not? The hardline members of the GOP potential majority are actually willing to force a vote on McCarthy as Speaker. Force a vote: where have I heard that before? Where have I heard the idea of withholding votes from a candidate for Speaker in exchange for policy/procedural concessions? I cannot place it.

Old Band, New Members; The Freedom Caucus and #Forcethevote, Part Two

There is a saying that power concedes nothing without a demand. These hardliners are likely to get what they want (at least in part), since career politicians obsessed with power will sell their souls to get it. The Freedom Caucus is many things, but politically unintelligent is not one of them. They know McCarthy values power over principles and are exploiting that. Why will the Squad not do the same?

Conclusion: The Lessons for The Squad

The concept that a subgroup of the GOP majority would essentially hold the would-be Speaker of the House hostage is hardly new. Hardline Republican Congresspeople have done this before. The Squad could learn a great deal from this: if you actually show the political spine to stick to your convictions, you can achieve great things. The so-called Progressives of the Democratic Party clearly lack the political spine to, as GOP Representative Andy Biggs called it ‘hold their own leadership accountable’.

In times of slim majorities, small subgroups within political parties can extract considerable concessions. The Freedom Caucus sees this. The so-called Progressives inside the Democratic Party are evidently too scared of getting offside with leadership (who already hold them in complete contempt anyway). Newsflash, you naive numpties: no amount of ‘playing ball’ is going to get you onside with the leadership. Giving them your vote does not earn you ‘brownie points’. They are, in their own minds, very much entitled to your vote. Your job, as far as they are concerned, is to fall in line and vote as Pelosi tells you. No independent thought, no protest, and certainly no colouring outside the lines. Get it through your thick skulls that they are never going to let you ‘in the club’.

Epilogue: Wearing the Inside Out

A question for the Squad: you are outsiders (indeed, you ran as outsiders) so why would you seek to get in the club? You were elected to be the brick through the establishment window, yet we find you doing little aside from useless showmanship (consider the recent letter around diplomacy in Ukraine). To be generous, I suppose it is not entirely your fault: Institutional Capture is a very real issue. But if the Republicans can, in Biggs’ words, hold their leadership to account (or at least threaten to do so – which is more than you did), I see no reason why you cannot do the same thing, Unless, of course, you are afraid.

This piece has probably come across as quite critical of the Squad, and there is some truth to this. The Republicans have set the example (here and in the past) of how to extract concessions from your leadership. The Progressives are either too politically cowardly, or they value their careers too much to rock the boat. It is fitting, I think, to end with a quote from AOC

The Republicans galvanize their base by inciting a lot of fear; they operate on a lot of mythmaking. So we have to have something compelling. We shouldn’t be afraid to be bold.

Indeed is all I have to say to that.

I think it is time we defined what certain terms mean in our political discourse. I do not refer to the BS definitions, talking points and buzzwords politicians use. Rather, I refer to what these terms mean in practice. Some of this is going to come across as quite cynical, but observe enough human behaviour and this becomes difficult to avoid.

The Big Cahuna: ‘Democracy’

This gem, along with The Rule of Law, is the defining feature of the much-vaunted Western Civilisation, itself a meaningless phrase. We start with democracy. Originally meaning ‘people power’, this lifeless word has come to represent nothing but the established order. When political insiders say ‘we must protect our democracy’, they perhaps reveal more than they know. They think they mean everyone’s democracy, the voice of the people and all that crap. No. Rather, it refers to the entrenched interests who long ago bought government, police forces and courts.

The politicians naively think they are part of the club, but they are, as George Carlin said, put there to give voters the illusion they have a choice. The reality is, whether it is corporate interests or political parties, many choices have already been made by the people who matter long before a vote is cast. The holy vote is a mere rubber stamp on decisions already made by much more important people much further up the chain.

Democracy may be, as Churchill said, the worst form of government except for all the others, but it is, in fact, a sham. If you prefer Twain, he said if voting made a difference they would have outlawed it years ago. Amen.

The Second Pillar: ‘Rule of Law’

Now onto The Rule of Law, the other cornerstone of ‘civilisation’. This tends to mean that we are a society of laws, and not men. The idea being that everyone is held to the same standard. It is essentially an anti-tyranny mechanism. However, anyone who has observed the justice system anywhere in the ‘west’ over the decades knows this is a lie. The rich and powerful get away with their crimes while the peasants are punished severely. So little has changed in the last thousand years.

But I will go darker: in practice, the law is nothing but the tyranny of the majority, codified and backed by state force. If you do not believe me, slavery was once law, as was segregation and women as property. It is only when the entrenched interests can no longer withstand the pressure of those annoying underclass members agitating about whatever that the law changes. While it is true, as Roscoe Pound said, that the law must be stable but must never stand still, anyone wanting to be included in those groups that receive the protection of the law has to pressure the entrenched interests until their cries can no longer be ignored. This renders rights something that the established order yields to, rather than something which all people are granted.

This is not a call to abolish the legal system and institute anarchy. Rather, it is a request to remove The Rule of Law from its pedestal and remember what it really is: a set of rules humans made up to maintain [the established] order.

An Insidious Roadblock: ‘Viable’

Whenever an innovation or new idea comes along, one of the first questions asked is ‘is it viable?’. This term really means ‘profitable’, ie can some capitalist pig make money off this new idea. Now that is a civilised society: profitability as raison d’etre. Something can only be done if it generates profit. This was not always the case. Humans were not always so obsessed with profit. The 1980s have much to answer for here, specifically in the persons of Reagan and Thatcher. As Bill Maher said a few years ago, humans had always been greedy, but they never convinced themselves it was good.

There is a brazen hypocrisy from the capitalist class here too: they refuse to do something if it does not make money, yet government doing things is bad because reasons. They utterly ignore that the reason government exists is to be involved in those things that are not designed to make money. But that is a story for another day. The point for our purposes is that ‘viability’ – read profitability – is the ultimate roadblock to progress (along with political corruption).

Orwell Never Died: ‘Religious Freedom’

This issue made the rounds recently following the removal of bigot Andrew Thornburn from a role at the Essendon AFL club. Thornburn is a member of a proud (pardon the expression) anti-gay church (a member of the so-called ‘god hates f*gs’ crowd). Another example of this crap was the Israel Folou case. Religious freedom at face value means the right to practice your religion without interference.

Sounds good until you look at it in practice. What the phrase really means is the freedom of religious people to be bigoted, intolerant and hateful clowns with no consequences because religion. Somewhat ironic given their entire edifice is based on consequences for actions (which never happened, but they do not know that), but I digress. This is not to lump in your garden variety believers with the ‘politically religious’. It is actually a shame that these innocent people are tarred with the same brush as Thornburn and the rest of the Bigot Brigade.

Save the Best for Last: Woke

What would a cynic’s guide to political parlance be without an entry on the great cultural boondoggle of our time? This one is mostly a pejorative, and usually refers to a sort of cultural authoritarianism. Specifically, it tends to refer to a certain group who have decided, because they said so, that something is offensive. Conservative control of the media tends to skew this toward the ‘loony left’ being called ‘woke’. The so-called purple hair brigade of Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) being offended at the issue du jour. But the right is no angel here either: consider the recent debacle over Hancock Prospecting and sponsorship of the Australian Diamonds Netball team. You may recall the girls were labelled ‘entitled’ and ‘woke’ in the media for refusing the sponsorship deal.

The term ‘woke’ is actually, unlike so many other things in our society, non-partisan. A working definition might go something like this: using the idea of being offended to generate outrage and enact social and cultural control through fear of ostracism. Think of it as a sort of unspoken Social Credit System. This definition is intended to be as general as possible with limited partisan bent. This is an example of both sides actually doing it.

Conclusion: Dark Times Call for Dark Words

The ongoing propaganda we see daily from the media requires a scalpel to get through. Hopefully this piece has begun to sift through the endless foray of Newspeak that we see every day.

The so-called Seven Deadly Sins are seven acts (or the associated emotions) that are said to bring about death. I hope to show here that, for all its medieval origins, the list still applies today, just with some refinement. The priesthood has also changed, from religion to monied interests (so not much really). I want to go through each of the ‘sins’ and touch briefly on how they are used to keep the lower orders in place. The modern version may not have the religious connotations the original did, but the purpose is very much the same: maintaining the status quo in money and power. So little has changed in the last thousand years.

The First Pair: Pride and Avarice

First, pride. This is usually understood as a heightened sense of self-importance, forgetting one’s limitations, or something similar. The Greek hubris is the basis for the term. It usually means disrespecting the gods and forgetting one’s place in the universe. Now apply this to people in medieval times and beyond. Pride in this sense means forgetting your place in the hierarchy of the universe. Getting ideas above your station. Defining the desire to be more than you are, to progress in life beyond your current station as a ‘sin’ is an excellent way to keep people in their place where they belong. Pick your age and the meaning is the same. I pass over in silence the sheer irony of the idea that it is the rich and powerful telling the lower orders about pride, greed, etc.

Turning now to avarice or greed, this is usually defined as wanting more than your fair share, often based on taking from someone else. Once again, we see the desire to protect the status quo and the fortunes of the wealthy. You want a share of the wealth of society? Greedy peasant. Your lord made many sacrifices for you in gaining his vast wealth so you could work his land. Know your place. Defining as a ‘sin’ the desire to improve your material conditions is nothing but a scam so people will accept low pay, poor conditions and the removal of the social contract. Religion is, as Marx said, the opiate of the masses. Again, this concept translates quite nicely into our ‘modern age’. Once again I pass over in silence the lack of self-awareness in the rich accusing others of greed.

The Second Pair: Lust and Anger

Third is lust or sexual desire. There is a joke among non-believers that religion’s prohibition on sex before marriage turns the marriage license into a sex license. It is an exaggeration, of course, but it conveys the point that by controlling sex (or at least restricting access to it except with your permission) you control the population. This is, once again, about keeping people in their place. Now, am I suggesting that, to borrow from an old mentor of mine, if you see a pretty girl you ‘monster her’ on the spot? Of course not.

But I do object to the idea that religion thinks it has the right to control people’s most basic drive based on the authority they gave themselves. Once again, these ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ can be boiled down to mechanisms of control. The translation of this to the modern age is less pronounced, I must admit, though you do still see it among the religious.

Fourth is anger. This is the desire to seek vengeance for wrongs done, real or perceived. Vengeance tends to come from pride (forgetting your place) and greed (wanting some of the material comforts the lord has). Think of pride and avarice as motivating anger. So not only are you not allowed to act on the perceived injustices, to even be aware of them is a ‘deadly sin’. This just adds fuel to the fire that the ‘seven deadly sins’ are nothing but mechanisms for controlling people. Keep both the action and the motivation behind it as taboos. Shameless.

The Third Pair: Gluttony and Envy

Fifth is gluttony, a narrowing of greed to apply to finite resources. Now in fairness, in a society with finite resources (and indeed scarcity) as medieval times were, this one has some validity. Someone eating more than their share could be the difference between starvation and survival, so there is something there. This is the only one of the seven so far that has any purpose beyond keeping peasants in line. This one is less prevalent these days, particularly in the west, but wanting more than your share being a sin generates explosive irony when looking at the monied interests in our society.

Next is envy, defined here as a form of jealousy: I want what he/she has. Think of this as an extension or variant of greed. Once again, we see the desire to keep people where they are. Oh you are upset at the fact that the lords control the land and you are a mere peasant renting from them (again, pick which age you think I am talking about). Well that is just envy.

You may recall a modern version of this ‘deadly sin’ when the LNP coined the clunker ‘the politics of envy’. This was essentially designed to delegitimise any calls for reform, including taxing the rich and corporations, the true owners of the ‘modern’ world. You’re just jealous is effectively what they said. Do not protest your lot in life: it is divinely mandated. It is pure coincidence that those making such arguments happen to be doing quite well, I am sure.

Last But Not Least: Sloth

Finally, we come to sloth. We usually understand this as laziness: not earning your keep. This one, too, has something going for it in medieval times. Life was on a knife edge, and someone not doing their share of the work could have disastrous consequences. In medieval times being the operative phrase. Lest you think this concept has not come into modern times, look at capital and its attitude to workers. The utter obsession with, and sacrifice of everything to, profit has led to dramatic changes in attitudes to hard-won worker benefits. They may not say this in so many words, but there is an undertone here. You dare to not work yourself to the bone for your betters? You demand time off? Weekends? Paid sick leave? Parental leave? Do you lazy serfs do any work? Back to the grindstone, cog.

Not Such a Medieval List: Seven ‘Deadly Sins’ in The ‘Modern World’

I referenced some examples above, but it is clear that, despite the church losing its power, the concept of the Seven ‘Deadly Sins’ is by no means dead. These actions, and the emotions behind them, are still taboos enforced by the modern priesthood of corporations, Tories and the media. Not all of the originals are still used: some refinement was necessary. But the concept of keeping the peasants in line remains on glaring display. We cannot tax super profits, reform negative gearing, or challenge the status quo in any way without being accused of one of the Seven. So little has changed in the last thousand years.

For many years, indeed since the failure of the 1999 referendum on the idea of an Australian Republic, it was predicted that the death of the Queen would resurrect the idea. This may seem a little too soon (I can practically hear the cries of ‘the body’s not even cold yet’), but if not now, when? Queen Elizabeth was a wildly popular monarch; her successor, King Charles, is another matter. The death of the Queen is the precise time to re-examine the idea of an Australian Republic. This piece is not meant to be the final word on the topic, and opinions will likely vary. These are just some of the issues around the Republic that I think are ripe for discussion.

Background: The Failure of the 1999 Referendum

In 1999, a Referendum took place in Australia on the question of the nation leaving the British Empire and becoming a Republic. The problem was the model. The idea seemed to be that the people would elect the parliament, and the parliament would choose/appoint the President. In essence, this was quite a conservative model, since the people would have no say in who the President was. For this and other reasons, the people rejected the idea. Like many unsuccessful referenda, the defeat effectively killed the issue, and there has been no serious discussion since. However, it is this void that opens up the opportunity for a new discussion.

A New Hope: An Idea for a Republic

This section title is not to conflate the British with the The Empire from Star Wars (although the various conquered peoples may disagree). Rather, I seek to portray the following discussion around the Republic as a dies nova – a new day. Acknowledging the failure of the previous model, we need to either fix the problems inherent in that model or toss it aside entirely and begin from scratch. As a reformer, I want to start with the previous model.

The President (Or Head of State), Part One: Position and Powers

The major point of the previous model was that Australia should have its own head of state, rather than a representative of a foreign power. Under the previous model, the Parliament would have chosen the President. This was, in effect, the same as the monarchy (at least in practice), where the Parliament, more specifically the ruling party, chose the Governor General. So all that was being changed here was the labels. Yes, I know that the President would have been chosen with the consent of both parties, but it was still chosen by the Parliament.

It was also not clear what the powers of the President were to be. If they were similar to the Governor General’s now (signs the laws, Commander in Chief of the armed forces etc), once again we see little more than a label change. As one with a background in abstract Mathematics, you can change labels all you like; if the structure is identical, it is the same object. Undefined powers, along with a reliance on convention, can lead to all sorts of shenanigans, as contemporary readers need no reminding. If the President were to be largely ceremonial, this was no real change. However, if the President were to be a powerful office, could they overrule the Parliament and establish some sort of autocracy?

The President (Or Head of State), Part Two: Candidates, Terms and Elections

Also left unanswered in the old model were the questions of who would be allowed to be President, whether they would be elected or appointed and for how long they would serve. No mention was made of impeachment or removal and the relationship between the President and the Prime Minister. I want to deal with each in turn.

First, the idea of who could be President. I would suggest any natural-born citizen has the potential to be President. When we think of an Australian Head of State, we think perhaps of people like John Hewson, or Gillian Triggs or someone similar. A statesman (statesperson is cringey). Someone who would act in the best interest of the nation. Academics whose decisions are grounded in evidence rather than who pays them. Now of course the office would ultimately become political, but we should start high.

Moving on to term limits and the nature of the position. One of the flaws in the previous model was the parliament choosing the President. The alternative would be to have Presidential elections similar to those in America. One way to get around this might be to extend parliamentary terms to four years and have Presidential elections say every three years. If the President is to be more than a ceremonial figure, they should be elected rather than appointed. As for term limits, perhaps no more than two consecutive terms of three years, for a maximum of nine years. Obviously they would have no say over their successor. Like any elected official (this should extend to the Prime Minister as well), the President should be able to be impeached and removed from office. Perhaps a 2/3 majority in both houses could achieve this.

The United States of Australia?

I sympathise with the claim that my description of an Australian Republic sounds quite American. This is the model with which I am most familiar. But if we want to really change the nature of our governance, a new coat of paint on an old car is just that: an old car with a new coat of paint. The old model was just a monarchy with a few new labels and was rightly defeated.

As for how my proposed model would work, every four years the people would elect the parliament as we do now, with the majority in the House forming a government. The Senate would serve a similar purpose to what it does now. The real change would be the President. The details of this position would need to be carefully worked out, with lawyers wrangling over details, interpretations and all that fun stuff. Is the President to be a figurehead or a real political force? I mentioned above the relationship between the Prime Minister and the President: this too would need to be made clear. The paradox here is poignant: if the President can overrule the Prime Minister, the risk for chaos is high. But if the President has little power, they are a figurehead and nothing has changed.

Conclusion: Carpe Diem

The passing of Queen Elizabeth and the accession of King Charles is the ideal time for the Republic debate to rise again. The practicalities may prove difficult, however. Mr Albanese already has one referendum he wishes to pose: that of the Voice to Parliament. A second referendum in one term may stretch the friendship a little. If he were to receive a second term (and the state of the opposition makes this likely) perhaps he can do it then. But at the very least, the issue should be raised again and discussed. Ignore the bellyaching from the monarchists (including that remarkable letter from Victorian Liberal Tim Smith to Charles) and focus on what is best for Australia. We can still remain a member of the Commonwealth (as, for instance, Canada (eh?) has done) and clean up at the Commonwealth Games, we would just not be shackled to a foreign, unelected, ceremonial institution anymore.

Two journalists, Simon Benson and Geoff Chambers, are soon to publish a book entitled Plagued, dealing with the Morrison Government’s response to COVID-19. The part of the book making headlines currently is the claim that Mr Morrison swore himself into various government ministries, without his colleagues’ knowledge. I want to look at a few articles dealing with this issue and offer some analysis.

The Allegations

The following is taken from a Sydney Morning Herald piece, and outlines what Mr. Morrison is alleged to have done

Morrison secretly swore himself into the health and finance portfolios…News.com.au has subsequently reported Morrison was also sworn in as second resources minister

So, three additional portfolios. One wonders if he was compensated according to the salaries for those portfolios, but that is an issue for another time. More to the point is the suggestion that he ‘swore himself in’. Our Constitution is quite clear: it is Their Excellency the Governor General who swears ministers in. Mr. Morrison’s high opinion of himself is well known, but this is ridiculous. If he truly did swear himself into these additional portfolios, he usurped the authority of the Governor General.

The Law Responds, Part One: The Office of The Governor General

In response to these frankly explosive allegations, the office of the Governor General issued a statement, which says, in part,

The Governor-General, following normal process and acting on the advice of the government of the day, appointed former prime minister Morrison to administer portfolios other than the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The appointments were made consistently with section 64 of the Constitution

There is an interesting element of buck-passing there: Hurley acted on the advice of the government of the day. This essentially places the blame on Mr Morrison and his government. As if any further evidence were needed that the Governor General is a ceremonial figurehead. More to the point though, let us consider Section 64 of The Consitution Act of 1901. I am no constitutional scholar, and we will go to Professor Anne Twomey in a moment, but I want to look at this for myself.

Section 64 reads, in full

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

It is somewhat archaic, but the point seems to be that the Governor General appoints officers of state (ministers) to their portfolios. Further, since those ministers serve at the pleasure of the Governor General, they may dismiss them at any time. The demarcation of authority is clear: the Prime Minister does not have the authority to swear himself into any position.

The Law Responds, Part Two: Professor Anne Twomey

The ABC, specifically Radio National, interviewed renowned Constitutional Law expert Professor Anne Twomey recently. I want to deal first with a remarkable example of bias from a clip of an interview with current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

The clip runs as follows

Interviewer: Have you been briefed about how many other portfolios the Prime Minister swore himself into?

Did you catch it? Australian Prime Ministers are not, as much as Mr Morrison thinks they are, like US Presidents. They are not referred to as Prime Minister after they leave office. No talks about Prime Minister John Howard, or Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Mr Albanese and his troops have been in office for months now. Kindly acknowledge the result of the election and show a little respect.

Now to Professor Twomey. She notes that since the Governor General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, unless the Prime Minister told him to do something that was unlawful, he cannot be blamed. An interesting take: should the Governor General not be aware of his responsibilities and duties and any restrictions on his actions? Regardless of that, she notes that there is a lack of clarity in legislation around which minister administers which part of which law. Further, finding these details requires an inception-level investigation. This seemingly makes something like what Morrison is alleged to have done possible, if not easier to pull off.

Dissent in The Ranks: The Opposition Piles on Morrison

Members of the Liberal Party have responded variously to these accusations. Naturally, current Opposition Leader Peter Dutton defended his master and said that Mr Morrison ‘had his reasons’. Others were not so forgiving.

Current Nationals Leader David Littleproud gave this response to the allegations, noting that he did not know about Mr Morrison’s alleged actions

That’s pretty ordinary, as far as I’m concerned. If you have a cabinet government, you trust your cabinet. You create that environment in the cabinet room to have those discussions. If you don’t think a minister’s suitable to do that, that’s a discussion with the minister [and you] probably ask him or her to remove themselves

Mr Little proud advocates, rightly, for a consultative process. This seems to fit a cabinet-based model of government. Essentially, Mr Littleproud castigated Morrison as an autocrat, concentrating power in himself. Littleproud also seems annoyed with not being kept in the loop, and understandably so.

A second National, Kevin Hogan, said this to the echo-chamber of choice, Sky so-called News

The pandemic meant some conventions were thrown out the window but I look forward to the rationale for those being explained

Conventions? The Governor General appointing and swearing in ministers is a convention? It is the damned law of the land! Even accounting for the pandemic, rather than throwing the law out the window as Morrison is alleged to have done, you adapt. Have the Governor General swear in would-be ministers over Zoom or something similar. It is difficult to conclude that this situation is not the culmination of Mr Morrison’s career: self-appointed supreme power. But what does the alleged autocrat of the hour have to say for himself?

The Would-Be King Speaks: Morrison Responds

It should come as a surprise to precisely no-one that Mr Morrison defended his actions. This section is based on an article from MSN.

Going on one of the other echo-chambers of choice, radio 2GB, Mr Morrison said, in regard to specifically taking over the Social Services portfolio

I don’t recall that … I don’t dispute that and my answer for all that is the same, we were dealing with an incredible amount of discretion and money being paid.

They were unprecedented times and as a result they were very unconventional times.

Fortunately, none of these [appointments] in the case of the finance and the health portfolio were ever required to be used

As usual with Mr Morrison, there is much to unpack. The phrase ‘I don’t recall’ immediately makes a politician look suspicious, regardless of what actually happened. But he does not deny that he assumed control of the social services portfolio, even if he does not recall doing it. He is actually going through multiple stages of crisis management in one go: I do not know if I did it, but if I did it I was justified. Many birds, one stone; you get the idea. Unprecedented times, he says. Perhaps, but as I argued above, adapting the law to circumstances, rather than jettisoning it entirely in an authoritarian personal power grab, is, to put it mildly, strongly preferred.

Finally, the fact that none of the appointments actually needed to be used is a red herring. You still did it. You still blatantly subverted the very system under which the nation is governed.

Please note that this is not me doing the whole ‘civilitah, good Sir’ norm-humping that so many seem to do these days. Such is not my purpose. Scott John Morrison is alleged to have subverted not only the Constitution, but the very Westminster system purely for personal gain. Any claim of pragmatism is rendered nonsense by the fact that the powers were not used.

Beyond the Pandemic: Morrison’s New Powers

Following on from the previous paragraph about pragmatism, Morrison’s own actions belie that claim too. The previously referenced MSN piece says that Morrison also took over the Resources portfolio from the aptly named Keith Pitt. The issue is a petroleum license on the NSW coast

Specifically

“That was a very different issue … it was one I sought to be the decision-maker on that issue because of the importance of that issue,” Mr Morrison said.

“This is a power a minister has that is not overseen by cabinet … the minister makes their own decision and the prime minister can’t direct the minister.”

“I always respected Keith’s role as the decision-maker, and if I wanted to be the decision-maker, I had to take the steps that I took.”

This took place in 2021, and had, in Morrison’s own words, nothing to do with the. pandemic. He just wanted to make the decision because it was an important issue. Since he was not able to directly instruct the minister on how to act, he simply seized control of the portfolio. Finally, to claim to have respected Pitt’s role as the decision maker is clearly crap, since you robbed him of that power. Morrison is full of crap once again.

Conclusion: What is to be Done?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is being briefed regularly on these issues. If ever there was a situation custom-built for a federal investigative body such as ICAC, this is it. So blatant a personal power grab violates not only meaningless norms, but also the very rule of law itself. To whom was Morrison accountable? If he could simply swear himself into positions sua sponte, he was effectively a king.

To end on a lighter note, if a empire is ruled by an Emperor, and a kingdom is ruled by a King, Australia was a country ruled by Scott Morrison…

Speaking at a festival recently, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese proposed a referendum to create an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Specifically, the proposal is that the following three sentences be added to the Australian Consitution Act of 1901

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

3. The parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

One of the ‘arguments’ that are brandied about concerning the Voice is ‘lack of detail’. The government is not being precise in its definitions of what these changes would mean in practice. This claim can be laid to rest if one reads the report that serves as the basis for the Voice. In this piece I want to provide some of the ‘missing detail’ by quoting from and analysing the report. Since the media will seemingly not do its job, somebody has to.

The Details, Part One: What the National Voice Actually Is

The National Voice would serve as a body representing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to both the parliament and the government. It would comprise ‘a small body’ of members. The National Voice is an extension of (and chosen from) Regional and Local Voices. In this way, Regional and Local Voices function like local, state, and federal governments. Each represents an increasingly larger territory. This should belie any claim that the National Voice is some kind of ‘fifth column’ in Australian democracy. The Voice is based on the same model, with its members chosen locally.

Specifically

Members of the Local & Regional Voices within each
state and territory would collectively determine
National Voice members from their respective
jurisdictions

This answers any questions about how members would be chosen. It is an entirely local process decided upon by ATSI citizens.

The Details, Part Two: Accountability and Member Removal

Another question I must confess I had before reading the relevant section of the report was about accountability and the potential removal of Voice members. The report addresses these issues as follows

[The process for removal should include these steps]

1. Alerting the member to the issue that may
   lead to the removal;
2. Alerting the member to their risk of removal
   and the process that will now be followed;
3. Consideration of the issue and a decision
   made on whether to remove;
4. Opportunity for the member to address
   the issue;
5. Steps put in place to mitigate the issue if
   required or remove a member; and
6. Review processes that would give an
   opportunity for the member to seek review of
   the decision, in line with protocols agreed for
   the region

A detailed process indeed. An interesting procedural countermeasure to the outrage mob that has brought about the resignation of certain parliamentary members. Of particular note is point number four, the opportunity for the member to address the issue (and presumably maintain their spot if the issue were an honest mistake). Sam Dastyari and Peter Slipper may have benefitted from something like this, but I digress.

The Details, Part Three: Term limits

The issue of term limits for members is addressed in this way

No set length of terms is being proposed for
members of Local & Regional Voices; rather, this
is to be left open for community consideration
as part of the design of the structure

It is truly amazing how much detail the media has overlooked. In their defense, the report is dense but this is the life you chose. Your responsibility is to inform the people, and obscuring details does not serve this end. One could be forgiven for thinking that the media has an agenda here: scuttle the idea of the National Voice since that is the position of their overlords and political allies. The respective motivations are different, of course: political conservatives despise social change/progress and the media makes money off social division, but the result is the same. This is perhaps a little cynical, but in this day and age, one can never be too careful.

Hell of a Hill to Die On: The Opposition

The ‘detail’ argument forms a considerable part of the opposition to the National Voice. Indeed, the very nature of the opposition says a great deal about the more – regressive – parts of our society.

Consider this extract from the report

Only a tiny minority of people said there should
not be a National Voice. This opposition was mainly
expressed through submissions from a campaign of
considerably similar submissions, as well as other
individual submissions, such as the submission from
the Institute of Public Affairs rather than many
divergent opposing views

The report makes clear that the ‘tiny minority’ of detractors is about 2% of responders. In terms of the description in the report, the phrasing is a little clunky, but the point is clear. Considerably similar submissions made up the opposition ‘input’ to the discussion. In other words, the opposition was an astroturf campaign consisting of reading the talking points rather than actual opposition. Speculation? Maybe, but the Institute of Public Affairs, a far-right ideological ‘think tank’, is not known for its reasonable takes. It is almost as if the opposition submissions were copied and pasted. Thank you for your input. Please do not call us. We will call you.

Conclusion: Devils Obsessed With Detail

The details of this report, which inform the available details around the National Voice, are plentiful. Contrary to what the opposition is saying, this project is not vague and does not lack detail. I encourage anyone who is interested to read the report linked above. In spite of how I have criticised the media here, the burden still falls on proponents of this fine idea to sell it. The details that the detractors are looking for are present in the report. Not that I believe they would actually listen to and accept those details (since that was never the point), but at least you can say you tried.

Forward, Mr. Prime Minister.

As many are no doubt aware, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the 1973 decision Roe v Wade. Given how big of an issue this is for Democrats (they have run on it for decades), one would think they would have a response ready. Sadly no. The response, if one may call it that, has been anemic, to say the least. Extra damning is the fact that a draft of the opinion was leaked to the public. They knew this was coming and have done precisely nothing in response. Today I want to take a look at a recent Executive Order from President Joe Biden issued in response to the Dobbs ruling overturning Roe. I also want to use this to look at Mr Biden’s political philosophy more generally.

They’re Called The Classics for a Reason: Joe as Gaslighter in Chief

As part of his reading of the Executive Order, the President dragged out this classic from the hymn book:

We need two more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice House to codify Roe as federal law. Your vote can make that a reality.

The President would do well to remember that he currently has 51 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House. This gives the Democrats complete control of the Legislative and Executive Branches. The suggestion seems to be that not enough of the Democratic Senators are pro-choice. So the voters have to vote not just for Democrats, but for the right type of Democrats. The situation is never quite good enough to justify action, is it, Joe? There’s always a problem, for which the voters can be blamed, that gets in the way? Democrats have had super-majorities in the past and still not codified Roe.

Now you might be wondering: if this is such an issue for Democrats, why have they not codified Roe? The answer is in the question: the issue of abortion is just about the last issue the Democrats have left. If they actually solve the issue, then it is resolved. They can no longer run on the issue if it is dead. The big bad Republicans coming for your abortion rights (which was true – they were) was designed to get the Democratic base out to vote. The Democrats running on codifying Roe was only useful as long as it was not done. You codify into federal law the protections contained in Roe and the goose that laid the golden egg is depleted. This is why the Democrats, despite many opportunities, did not codify Roe. For this, eternal and unmitigated shame on them.

The Meat: What the Executive Order Does

Krystal Ball of Breaking Points provides a useful summary of what the Executive Order says:

[The Order] largely finalises what has already been announced by the Administration. [This includes] instructions to the Justice Department to ensure women can travel out of state for abortion care. [The Order] addresses the elevated risk for patients, providers and clinics, which includes efforts to protect mobile clinics that have been deployed to state borders [for purposes of allowing women to go interstate for termination care].

It goes on, but you get the basic idea. Noteworthy here is that these actions are largely in response not to the Dobbs decision, but to state action taken in response. Many states had what were called trigger laws in place. These were laws that, once Roe was overturned, would move to severely restrict (or outright ban) abortion. The President is responding more to those actions than to the Court’s ruling. He side-stepped actually codifying Roe by blaming the voters for not giving him the political tools to do so. Cute, Mr President, but I for one see through it. You have options, but you are not willing to take any political risks to use them. Allow me to explain.

The President’s Options, Part One: The Senate

The Democrats have a majority in the Senate. They also control the House. This means they should be able to get their agenda through. The House is what we may call a tyranny of the majority. Basically, if you are in the majority, whatever you say goes: the minority has no power. This is not the case in the Senate. There is a piece of…parliamentary procedure in the Senate called the Filibuster. This is where the minority can require a sixty-vote super-majority to pass a bill.

Previously, this used to be the so-called ‘talky filibuster’. This required standing and talking for as long as possible without a break. This is no longer the case. Now all that is required is for a Senator to say ‘I filibuster’. No talking is needed and sixty votes are now required. To pass any legislation, you either require a super-majority or members from the other side to vote with the majority. How often does that happen these days?

What is left out of the discussion around the Senate is that so many of its rules are convention. All that would be required to carve out an exception to the filibuster is a majority vote. But the Democrats are reluctant to do this because they want to maintain the power of the minority for when they inevitably are back there. But this too is crap: an exception does not do away with the filibuster entirely.

Finally, for those who cite Manchin’s conservatism as an obstacle, there is a solution here too. Manchin’s daughter is a criminal. There are emails of her conspiring to price gouge epi-pen users. Threaten him with the AG or the DOJ going after her unless he changes his vote. This is called playing hardball politics.

The President’s Options, Part Two: Divide and Conquer the Opposition

Even if the Democrats could not get a full codification passed, you can still propose individual bills codifying parts of Roe. Examples here include well-known exceptions to abortion bans such as rape and incest. If the Republicans wish to vote against or filibuster these, let them do so at their own political peril. Democrats hold the majority position here. I believe I saw a poll that said abortion not being legal under any circumstances is supported by roughly 15% of the population. The Democrats then paint themselves as on the side of the people and the Republicans as the extremists that they are.

Now, of course, there are ‘pro-life’ members of the Democratic caucus, and this may explain why they do not take this path. The very exposure of the extreme Republicans I mentioned above would also expose any extreme Democrats. Evidently, the Democrats are unwilling to expose extremists in their own ranks: they value power more. So to hell with addressing this issue they have run on since Roe was decided in 1973. Power, with which Democrats do precisely nothing, is more valuable.

The President’s Options, Part Three: Abortion Clinics on Federal Land

Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez proposed building abortion clinics on federal land inside states where the procedure is severely restricted or banned. The central idea seems to be that state governments have no power on federal land, and so clinics could be built there if the federal government desired. Any state law restricting termination procedures would be null and void on federal land. It is noteworthy too that the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortion, also does not provide a problem here. Since it would be the provider paying the government to lease the land, no federal money would go towards termination procedures. It is a clever workaround.

The President’s Options, Part Four: Court Reform

The final option that the President has that was notably absent from the statement, the Order itself, or general discussion, is Court packing. Since three seats were arguably stolen from the Democrats (Gorsuch, Coney-Barret and Kavanaugh), many have floated the idea of expanding the Court. This idea, if the Administration were ever considering it at all, has been, if you will pardon the expression, aborted. The Supreme Court has gone full rogue authoritarian and the Executive and Legislative Branches, nominally meant to be a check on the Court, are doing nothing.

Former President FDR similarly faced a rogue Court. All he had to do was threaten to reform/pack the Court and they saw the error of their ways. Joe Biden does not have the conviction to do that. He is, at his core, an institutionalist and a conservative. Rocking the boat is not in his nature, even if it is taken over by pirates.

Conclusion: Institutionalism as Death Knell

I hinted above at Mr Biden being an institutionalist. I should define what this means. It refers to someone who defers to established norms and conventions, seemingly for their own sake. The actual usefulness of the institution in practical terms is irrelevant. In Mr Biden’s mind, the Court ruled this way and so the best he can do is tweaks around the edges. This exposes the fundamental conservatism of Mr Biden’s approach to politics. He is unwilling to do anything that would be considered ‘uncivil’ or ‘lacking decorum, Good Sir’.

Mr President, asking people to depart in an orderly fashion and wait their turn while the theatre is on fire helps no-one. Institutions, like anything else, are ripe for reform if they no longer serve the interests of the people. The Republic is crumbling around you, Sir. Your unwillingness to do anything may be concisely summed up as an argumentum ad morem fallacy. This is the argument from tradition. In other words, something is correct not because of the substance of the argument, but because it comes from tradition. Basically, traditional equals correct. If this is your guiding principle, Sir, America should be very different than it is now. Slavery should still exist, along with prohibition and the infamous ‘three-fifths clause’. This is not an effective argument, Mr President.

Like any body-politic that hopes to survive, America must be adaptive. She cannot afford to become calcified. At this point, the incumbent President is not the man for the moment, and should be primaried.

The media and the opposition have made much of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s gall in travelling overseas. Cries of hypocrisy are flying thick and fast around criticism of Scott Morrison travelling overseas during a natural disaster when Mr Albanese is doing the same thing. This piece is intended as a follow-up/piggy-back on a great article on this site called Airbus Albo, which I encourage you all to check out.

Context is Everything; What the Opposition Left Out, Part One: Travel

Attacks from opposition politicians are usually devoid of context. They are designed to score cheap political points. The target audience of these attacks is ‘headline readers’, consumers of media who do not know the context. The specific attack being used right now is a false equivalence. The two points of comparison are Mr Albanese going overseas during the NSW floods and Scott Morrison doing the same thing during the 2019 bushfires. Left out, of course, is the vital context that Mr Albanese is on official business, whereas Scott Morrison, to use friendlyjordies’ phrase, f*cked off to Hawaii on holiday.

The idea that these two things are even remotely comparable is laughable. One is a new Prime Minister who needs to show his face to our allies early in his first term. He is also repairing Australia’s disastrous relations with foreign countries, specifically France. The other was a lazy cosplayer prime minister who went on regular holidays, seemingly ignoring his duties. The nerve it takes for the LNP opposition to complain about Mr Albanese spending time overseas cleaning up their foreign relations mess is gargantuan. Both the politicians making the claims and their media stenographers ignore all context around Albanese and Morrison’s overseas trips.

As a final parting comment for this section, it would behoove the opposition to be silent on issues of overseas travel.

Context is Everything; What the Opposition Left Out, Part Two: Ukraine and Flood Relief

As part of his trip to Europe, Mr. Albanese visited war-ravaged Ukraine. Opposition member Angus Taylor criticised the fact that we had not heard from him for forty-eight hours. Once again, Taylor ignores vital context: when travelling in a warzone, leaders observe radio silence for security reasons. Mr Albanese was not on some secret personal sojourn (unlike a certain trip to Cornwall I could mention) but was observing protocol. But this does not fit the narrative and so Taylor left it out. Slimeball.

Finally, we come to flood relief for NSW. As many are aware, a recent deluge has left many parts of the state in disarray. Authorities have declared a state of emergency. The NSW Premier, Dominic Perrottet, was at a press-conference the other day and even he had to correct as ‘untrue’ suggestions that the federal government was not helping. Indeed, Mr Perrotet said that Mr Albanese had called him and said, ‘what do you need’. Disaster payments went out in a matter of days. The response was efficient and cooperative. When even a Liberal Premier has to correct the media narrative around Mr Albanese and the flood response, there is a serious problem.

So, we have a number of problems with this attack on Mr Albanese. First, he was on official business while Scott Morrison was on holiday during a disaster: not the same thing. Second, there was communication between the Premier and Prime Minister (so Albo out of action was a lie). Third, disaster payments went out as needed rather than on a partisan basis. How quickly the LNP thinks people forget. The electorate has a long memory.

The opposition has a perpetual case of foot-in-mouth disease.

The Obvious Follow-up: Is it Deliberate?

In this piece, I have criticised the media for being opposition stenographers. They simply report what their partisan allies in the LNP say. The question above, is it deliberate, refers to whether the media is unaware of the context I outlined, or they know about it and choose to ignore it. Neither resounds to their benefit. If they are unaware of the context outlined above, they are terrible at their job. If, however, they are aware of it but choose to ignore it, that is much worse.

To his credit, Angus Taylor’s interviewer did bring up the issue of radio silence, but the framing was telling. They asked Taylor whether he accepted the idea that radio silence was necessary for security reasons. Whether or not he accepts the facts of reality is not important. The great thing about facts, as de Grasse Tyson said, is that they are true whether you believe them or not. So even when the media tries to hold the opposition to account, there are constraints. Like giving a dog medication in food, it has to be as palatable as possible.

Returning to the point, telling the full story regardless of the partisan outcome is the media’s job. Their role is to give all facts, all context and all details. This naturally clashes with the media’s narrative of ‘Labor bad’. Giving full context to events often exposes cheap political criticisms as just that. It is often difficult to discern intent, but journalists who cover politics should know better. So either way, they are terrible at their jobs.