You may have noticed over the last week or so that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has received quite the image makeover from the propaganda rags in the media. He is trying to present a kinder, gentler image of himself, as well he might. The problem, however, is that his record in government is both recent and extensive. I want to look at an extensive press conference he gave, and specifically at the transcript presented in the Financial Review.

The Press Conference: The Apology, Part One

When asked why he walked out of the Apology to the Stolen Generations, Mr. Dutton offered this in response

I made a mistake in relation to the apology, and largely that was because of my own background and experience.

Many of you have lived out in regional areas and many of you haven’t.

I worked in Townsville. I remember going to many domestic violence instances, particularly involving Indigenous communities, and for me at the time I believed that the apology should be given when the problems were resolved, and the problems are not resolved.

Is he seriously suggesting that he ignored the apology because Indigenous communities still experience problems? The idea that you do not apologise until the problem is fixed is absurd. Indeed, an apology is the first step in solving a problem since it acknowledges that there is one. Also, if your experience and background compels you to walk out on an Apology to generations of mistreated people, you need help.

The Press Conference: The Apology, Part Two

This might cost me a friend or two, but Dutton actually gets close to a point when he says

Going to a meeting here in Canberra and giving 10 acknowledgments to country, that’s fine, and I don’t say that in a disparaging way.

I want to know how it is we’re going to support those kids and how it is we’re going to get higher health outcomes and mortality rates, more kids through university, just to finish primary school and secondary school to start with. That’s the perspective that I bring to it.

He is surprisingly close to the mark when he says that doing Acknowledgements of Country without actually having practical solutions to the problems that exist is hollow. Now of course he had three terms in government to implement those practical solutions, so his criticism itself rings somewhat hollow. But I see his point: Welcome to Country while leaving the underlying problems unaddressed is tokenism. This still does not excuse him from walking out on what was a national acknowledgement of a problem. Shame.

The Press Conference, Part Three: The Teals and The New Government

Asked if the LNP would abandon any of the seats that the Independents won, Dutton gave this amazing response

I’m not giving up on any seat, but I do want to send a very clear message to those in the suburbs, particularly those in seats where there has been a swing against the Labor Party on their primary vote, in many parts of the country.

Dutton is delusional. He does not mention the broader trouncing his party took. Nor does he mention the six LNP seats the Teals won. He has to shift to the Labor party’s decreased primary vote. Your own primary vote also dropped to record lows, but you do not mention that, do you? Hack.

When asked about the new government, the new Opposition Leader said this

There is huge hesitation around Anthony Albanese and whether he is up to the job. People will give him a go, rightly – they voted for him and there will be a honeymoon period, the media will give him that…but people had big doubt about whether they would vote for him and in some cases…the[ir] primary vote went down.

This hesitation around Mr Albanese of which you speak; where did that come from? I cannot put my finger on it. Could it be from you jokers and your media enablers? Talk about manufacturing your own success. You smear your opponent, the media picks it up and then you claim that what was reported in the media is true.

Second, the idea of a ‘honeymoon period’, specifically with the media, is crap. Have you seen the coverage of the new government? Finally, you keep harping on about the ALP’s primary vote dropping. This is not unique to the ALP. Drop this point, Sir, you will lose it!

The Press Conference, Part Four: China and His Own Credentials

Dutton’s response to a question on China was as arrogant as one might expect

I will support policies which help to defend our country, decisions made by the new government in relation to rolling out AUKUS, which was an incredible achievement of the Morrison government, and other policies which will help keep us safe.

So you will support the new government as long as they continue your policies? That is essentially what he said. The phrase ‘policies which help keep us safe’ is best translated as ‘Liberal policies’. While I am not asking him to abandon his party’s policies (as much as I despise them), it is the height of hubris to say ‘we expect the new government to implement our policies despite the people voting against them’. Garbage. You also cannot stop stoking fear, can you? Australia is quite safe, thank you.

The tone-deafness continues when he cites John Howard’s endorsement (from Dutton’s first term) as some sort of credential. That man campaigned for his party in many seats that the party wound up losing. His opinion is not held in high regard. This press conference is a trainwreck so far.

The Press Conference, Part Five: Big Business and Superannuation

When asked about the LNP’s relationship with big business, Dutton came out with this howler

We will have a cordial relationship with big business, and we will work on that, but I think, frankly, a lot of CEOs now are closer to the other parties than the Liberal Party, that is the modern reality.

Priceless. You have a symbiotic and sycophantic relationship with big business you mean. Delusional. But he saved the best for last: CEOs are closer to the other parties than the Liberal Party!? It is actually impressive that he was able to say that with a straight face. You are not the party of the little guy, Spud. You service the big end of town. The gall to claim that CEOs are more aligned with the party of the workers or the more openly redistributive party is gargantuan. Get that garbage outta here!

On using superannuation to buy property, which would sabotage many people’s retirement and bring about a reverse-mortgage policy, Dutton said this

I think on home ownership, if we’d allowed people to access their super five years ago or 15 years ago, 25 years ago – when you see what property prices have done in our country – they’d be sitting on a fortune.

A pathetic post-hoc rationalisation. No more need be said

The Press Conference, Part Six: The Integrity Commission

The deflection and just total crap continues when Mr Dutton was asked about the integrity commission

I believe very much in the transparency. The reason I think it’s more important than ever is that under this Labour government, under the Albanese government, we are going to have a continuation of this unholy alliance with the CFMEU, the ETU, the MUA and the Labor Party.

Mr Dutton does not seem to realise that the federal integrity commission is a non-partisan body. Its purpose is not, like its state counterpart in NSW was originally, to be an LNP dirt unit on the Labor Party. Rather than simply yell at him to ‘SHUT UP’ as I did when I first read that ridiculous statement, focus instead on the utter lack of self-awareness.

You know it used to be said that the LNP was not built for opposition. I disagree completely. The ability to spin a federal body that will, if done correctly, decimate your own party, into something about the government is actually impressive. He is delusional once again, of course, but the mental gymnastics on display here would make professional gymnasts blush.

The Press Conference, Part Seven: The Biloela Family

Asked about calling the Biloela family ‘anchor babies’, a phrase ripped directly from US right-wing immigration rhetoric, Dutton responded with this

There are hundreds of cases where I acted on grounds of compassion in relation to migration policies. The minister of immigration is one of the most difficult jobs in the government…

So, I wish the family well, I have no gripe against the family, and as I said I acted compassionately in hundreds of cases which were not in the media.

A total and complete red-herring. You were not asked about cases where you ‘acted on grounds of compassion’. You were asked specifically about calling those children ‘anchor babies’. But you did not want to answer that question, did you?

On your complaint about Immigration Minister being a tough job, I have two questions. First, if it was so tough, why did you take it on? You could easily have told your leader ‘I do not want this job’ or refused it in some other way. Second, why does ‘strength’ have to manifest as cruelty? Why does being ‘strong’ have to result in just being a d*ck? You do not know what the word compassion means, and you now expect to be taken seriously when you speak about it? Be quiet.

Finally, you acted compassionately in hundreds of cases that were not in the media? So it is the media’s fault that people view you as an anti-immigrant sociopath. Good to know. But there is hypocrisy here that is noteworthy. Does the phrase ‘white South African farmers’ ring a bell? You wanted expedited visas for those people because they experienced violence and persecution. While this is a good idea, it was not applied consistently, and race played a part in why. Get that garbage outta here!

Conclusion: Dutton Dressed as Lamb

I hope that this article has shone some light on the sheer crap that is the media’s attempt to rehabilitate The Dark Lord. As I said in the opening paragraph, his record in government is too recent and too well documented for this to work, but I thought I would add my voice to the chorus of detractors. No matter how much the media tries to create and run with this new Dutton, the people know who he really is. His recent (and central) role in a government so thoroughly rejected in the polls should be too much to overcome, but with our press, one can never be sure.

Having lived through the last Labor government where the Greens were involved, I am cautious about how the Greens, with their increased influence, will behave under the Albanese government. Leader Adam Bandt spoke of a ‘green-slide’ on election night, despite the party holding roughly 3% of the seats in the House. The popular conception of the Greens is as a ‘non-governing party’. A minor party in the true sense of the word. I say this not to disparage the Greens, merely to acknowledge the reality of their very small numbers in the House.

I want to look today at a piece in the SMH dealing with the rise of the Greens in the recent election.

Background: The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme – Unreasonable?

The Labor Government elected in 2007 was keen to introduce a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), later demonised as the ‘carbon tax’. The statement was not accurate of course, but when did that ever stop the LNP? But back to the Greens. The Guardian outlined the timeline of events surrounding the fall of the scheme, and the role of the Greens in that process. Even under threat of a double-dissolution, the Senate still rejected the scheme a second time, seemingly because it was not up to the standards of the Greens.

While there is an argument of ‘if you plan to do it, do it right’, the Greens did not seem to acknowledge that compromise is the essence of practical politics. One may ask for much more than one wants in a negotiation, but there is a limit. It is for this reason that the Greens earned the ire of certain political observers. Their policies are rarely costed since it is known that they will likely never be implemented.

The Election Result: Ideology and The Structure of The House of Representatives

All seats in the House of Representatives (the House) have now been called. Labor will govern with a majority of 77 seats. The LNP have 58 and the remaining 18 are shared between the Greens, the Teal Independents and the Others. The Greens have four seats out of 151. Hardly the ‘green-slide’ that Mr Bandt declared.

The SMH article asks this question of all the parties

when it comes to ideology, how much is enough?

The Greens seemed to be the most ideological at the election, with Labor a close second. The Lliberals, as normal for Morrison, stood for precisely nothing. Given the Greens’ increased share of the vote (roughly one in eight), something more ideologically stringent (whatever one thinks of their policies) was the order of the day.

I want to turn briefly to the Liberals and ideology at the recent election. The piece referenced above makes an interesting observation on Morrison and his rise in the LNP

Morrison’s philosophical and ideological vacuity was not an accident. He was chosen out of panic after the Liberals had worked through Abbott, whose most successful setting was negative, and Turnbull…

Faced in 2018 with the prospect of Peter Dutton taking over, the party room gave the nod to Morrison, renowned by his colleagues for having zero ideological attachments beyond his existence as a Liberal.

That last clause is decisive: the decision to place Morrison in leadership was based on his being an empty vessel. He believed nothing beyond being a Liberal. If one may assign a core belief to Scott Morrison, it was in power. As Sean Kelly made clear in his (highly recommended) book The Game, Morrison saw politics as a match between two teams, where winning, rather than good policy, was the goal. This, however, is not an ideology.

Ideology on Steroids: The New Greens

The piece goes on to state

To hear him [Bandt] and his new MPs advocating for the immediate introduction of their climate change stance, you’d think the entire nation had voted Green, not one-in-eight voters.

It is correct to chastise Bandt and his troops for what is, by any other name, entitlement around the implementation of their policy. The party has four seats in the House. This is hardly a mandate. Their slightly increased share of the vote looks to be going to their heads. We have seen this movie before under a previous Labor government. The Greens, who have some good ideas, forget their place as a tiny minority in the grand scheme of things. The Senate is another matter, however. The Greens have at least twelve senators, so on that front they should be taken more seriously. However, the role of the Senate is different to that of the House.

The Prime Minister Responds: Albanese and The New Greens

In another SMH piece, Mr Albanese ruled out negotiating with what he called ‘fringe groups’, including the Greens. The context here was the event of a hung parliament. Interestingly, this did not change after the election. Mr Albanese said that he had confidence and supply secured, and did not need to negotiate with the Greens. The assurance of confidence and supply was presumably a reference to some of the Teal Independents. If this is the case, this lends more credence to the idea that at least some of the Teals are not just Liberals in cheaper suits.

I suspect that The Prime Minister has seen this movie before as well. He is trying to avoid being beholden to the Greens, and it is easy to see why. Having witnessed the destruction of the original CPRS by a Senate where the Greens held much sway. He does not wish to be in a place where he can be dragged too far in one direction or another. With majority government (including, if he desires, a Speaker) now secure, being beholden to the Greens (in the House at least) is now a dead letter.

Conclusion: Learn from History or Repeat It

The newly minted Prime Minister and his government seem to have learned the lesson from ten years ago. They are not willing to be beholden to the Greens because they know how that plays out. This is not to say that the Greens should be utterly shut out. Some of their policy ideas are positive (expanding Medicare to include mental health and dental care for one). But they should not be allowed to demand their policies be implemented when they received a tiny percentage of the vote. Who do they think they are, the Nationals?

More seriously, the lesson of allowing small minority parties to have large influence over policy is not a lesson that Anthony Albanese has forgotten. Long may this strategic competence continue.

At this point, some may consider anyone voting, or considering voting, for the LNP as TFG; too far gone. These are the ‘rusted ons’, the ‘dyed in the wool’ types who are unreachable. I do not think this is a productive strategy, as pleasant as the dopamine hit might be.

Instead, I will go here: I will meet these voters on their home turf and compare the LNP’s own values to their actions and see how they stack up. Some of you may recall I have taken a similar approach to Mr Morrison and his play-acting Christianity. Some points of comparison between the values that the LNP espouse on their website and their actions require no commentary beyond simple laughter, as we will see.

Values vs Action, Part One: Freedom

The first values statement says

[We believe] in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative

Inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples, you say? So, Julian Assange should be freed then? Working people should be paid a wage that keeps pace with productivity? Also, a ‘lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives’? Those on the Indue card would tend to disagree with this claim. The Biloela family would tend to disagree with this claim. As for individual and private sector initiative, this means tax cuts and deregulation. The latter refers to health and safety regulations, pay and conditions and all the rest of those pesky, what are they called, laws that get in the way of Holy, Sacred Profit. Next

Values vs Action, Part Two: Tax and Democracy

The second statement reads

[We believe] In government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor’s corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.

A government that nurtures and encourages citizens through incentive, you say? By incentives, again they mean perks and privileges for the rich and corporations. When the LNP say they are the party of lower taxes, they are not talking about you! The crack about ‘there are two types of LNP voters: the rich and the manipulated. Check your wallet to see which one you are’ carries a great deal of truth. Second, if you have to define yourself in terms that essentially say ‘we are not the other mob’, that tells me nothing about what you stand for. Also, the tax claim is a lie. Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers correctly noted that the two highest taxing governments in the last thirty years were LNP governments. Once again, the party of lower taxes means for the rich and corporations.

The third statement reads

[We believe] In those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy – the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.

Freedom of speech, you say? You crow about this often, but if I might offer a few counterpoints to this claim, here is the first one. Mr Jordan Shanks (friendlyjordies) on the claim that Morrison wants to censor government critics:

Second, every single Labor member who has been confronted with ‘Mr Speaker, I move that the member no longer be heard’ while at the dispatch box would like a word with you. That piece of parliamentary procedure was originally designed to end attempts at filibustering debate. It was never intended to silence debate altogether. But regardless of that, this action of silencing your opposition does not square with any claim to love freeze peach. Lastly, nothing quite says ‘we value freedom of religion’ (which includes non-religion) quite like trying to institute religious privilege into law.

Values vs Action, Part Three: Justice and Equality

The fourth statement reads

[We believe] In a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.

This one is the first of a couple of jokes in the LNP beliefs. Just and humane society where law and justice are maintained? Your government held a Royal Commission into Unions and appointed a man, Dyson Heydon, to preside over it despite his involvement in selecting then Prime Minister Tony Abbott for the Rhodes Scholarship! You have stacked the Fairwork Commission (among many other administrative bodies) with your close associates. Your government refused to simply legislate marriage equality, instead giving a national platform to some of the most ignorant and bigoted clowns in the country. Finally on this point, have you heard of Katherine Deves? Just and humane society indeed. Go away now.

Statement five reads

[We believe] In equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.

This one is quite funny too, but I will respond anyway. Equal opportunity? Indue card, anyone? Also, this statement tries (unsuccessfully) to hide the true beliefs of the party. Implied in this statement is the suggestion that ‘the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice’ are functions of wealth. In other words, the wealthy ‘deserve’ these things and the peasants do not. This claim partially explains the funding of private schools despite cutting money from public schools. Indeed, a recent edition of NSW Educator Journal suggests that, for every dollar that went to private schools, the federal government gave public schools a mere 27 cents. But equal opportunity, right? Get that garbage outta here.

Values vs Actions, Part Four: Privatisation, Environment and Security

Statement six reads

[We believe] That, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals – not government – are the true creators of wealth and employment.

In a word, this statement could be summed up as Libertarian. This is ra-ra privitisation free market as religion garbage. Government not competing with the private sector (usually because the government provides better services as they are not obligated to turn a profit) is code for privatising everything. These people do not understand that the reason some things are run by government (the military, the police, public schools, public hospitals) is precisely because they should not be profit-driven. Finally, if you truly believe that government is not a true creator of employment, why have you not resigned yet? Oh I see: your cushy government jobs paying hundreds of thousands per year (plus perks) are justified, but anyone down on their luck who needs a little government support is moocher and a parasite. Silly me.

Statement seven says

[We believe] In preserving Australia’s natural beauty and the environment for future generations.

I think this brief clip sums up my reaction to such a claim:

What a total, utter and complete crock. Have you ever heard something so ridiculous? Said it before, say it again: get that garbage outta here.

We end with a statement that, in light of Australia’s declining relations with our pacific neighbours, is also laughable

[We believe] That our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.

First of all, the maintenance of world peace implies that it exists. Presently, it does not. So your claim is nonsensical. Second, Australia is an irrelevancy on the world stage. The idea that Australia, an island in the middle of nowhere, has any role to play other than as a water carrier for the US, is crap. Finally, Australia has trade relations with China, one of the least free nations on earth. No, what this all really means is Australia will continue to play ball with the mafia organisation that is foreign relations.

Conclusion: You are What You Do

Political parties are free to say what they like, but it is their actions that define them. No amount of flowery rhetoric can hide the true nature of a political party, which is defined by its policies. The current Australian government may have flowery rhetoric in its beliefs, but, as I hope I have shown here, their actions and policies tell a different story.

An interesting piece from the Sydney Morning Herald (mirrored in The Age) has come out this morning, and it warrants some scrutiny. It deals with the use of the issue of political integrity and the federal ICAC to galvanise Independent campaigns.

Introduction: Not a Good Start

This piece was in the Australian print media, so we should not expect great writing, but this is something else. The piece begins as follows:

A national row over trust in politics will be used to galvanise campaigns against the Coalition in marginal seats after Prime Minister Scott Morrison abandoned a pledge to set up a corruption watchdog and blamed Labor for not supporting his preferred plan.

Mr. Morrison would do well to remember that his party was the government for the last three years (when the corruption watchdog was an issue). It is not the role of the Opposition to support your policy. It is there in the name: opposition. By definition of forming a government, you had the majority necessary to pass legislation. The support of the Labor Party was not necessary. They refused to support it because they knew, like a tax agency set up by Al Capone, it would be toothless. To then turn around and blame them for having the nerve to not mindlessly fall in line with your policy is the height of arrogance. Moving on.

Morrison and Integrity – A Match Made in Hell, Part One

The Lodge Occupant has long opposed the idea of an Integrity Commission (draw your own conclusions on that one). One of the ridiculous arguments against such a body was that it would be a ‘kangaroo court’ where reputations would be tarnished. A judge rightly demolished this idea when he noted the small number of investigations [private] compared to actual hearings [public]. More cynically, The Lodge Occupant is annoyed that Bruz and The Bin Chicken resigned (voluntarily it must be remembered) due to ICAC hearings. Not a fault in the process, Scummo, sorry. I realise that the mafia sees the court system as biased against them, but there is a reason for that.

Morrison and Integrity – A Match Made in Hell, Part Two

A journalist actually had the stones to raise the issue of integrity with The Lodge Occupant on the campaign trail. Asked if he would set up such a body, The Lodge Occupant refused to commit. The next day a journalist asked him whether the fact that he had not done so amounted to a broken promise. The response has to be quoted in full to be believed:

No, it is not [a broken promise]. “I am not going to introduce a kangaroo court. I am not going to introduce a policy that I don’t think is in the nation’s best interests.

It would be corrupted by a Labor Party that’s more interested in playing politics with this issue than addressing the real issues.

I put forward a detailed plan, a detailed proposal, which the Labor Party rejects. I have honoured my proposal. The Labor Party don’t support it. That is where the issue rests.

Indeed it is a broken promise, you liar. You said you would do something and you did not do it. That is a broken promise. Next, as we discussed above, it is not a ‘kangaroo court’ just because Liberals happen to be on the rough end of its actions sometimes. Third, how is a national political integrity body not in the nation’s best interests? You really are a clown, you know that?

Finally, as we addressed above, it is not the job of the opposition to support government policy. The nerve it takes to blame Labor for not supporting your policy is gargantuan. You had the numbers in the House. You just wanted to play politics with the issue by putting forward some non-retrospective, toothless tiger of a body and using Labor’s refusal to support it as a wedge issue. Politics truly is a game to this man.

The Rise of The Independents: Zoe Daniel and Company

Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese stated the obvious (but it is no less valuable for that) when he said:

The reason why this Prime Minister doesn’t want an anti-corruption commission is sitting on his frontbench.

An interesting statement that is vague enough to avoid defamation charges, since it does not name a specific minister. However, it still throws the spear of corruption at the government. Labor also said that the only way to achieve an anti-corruption body was to elect a Labor government. Given the last three years of inaction, obfuscation and lies around the issue from The Lodge Occupant, it is difficult to disagree.

The Independent candidates in various seats are also making an issue of integrity in politics. Zoe Daniel in Goldstein, Kylea Tink in North Sydney among others have noted the essentially hamstrung position of government MPs. The Lodge Occupant’s refusal to address the issue leaves them with nothing of substance to say aside from the lies we dissected above. Another Independent of note is Helen Haines in Indi, who actually put forward a bill for a more powerful federal corruption watchdog. Naturally, the government rejected this. Dr. Haines has some credibility on the issue of integrity since she actually took action on the issue.

Distraction: Government MPs Attack The Independents

In a useful display of public stupidity, both Dave Sharma and Tim Wilson demanded that the Independents say who they would support in the event of a hung parliament. Textbook definition of a red herring there, gentlemen. They are not obligated to say where their vote will go since it may not even be an issue. The election has not happened yet and so the structure of the parliament is unknown. Morons.

This is actually ridiculous in another way too. Nothing says well-thought-out political strategy quite like making demands of the people who could hold the keys to the kingdom. Saying that the Independents should make their allegiances known before ‘making their next set of demands’ (where is the first one?) is likely to put them offside, is it not? Also, does this not suggest that these MPs think the Independents will have a major say in the next parliament? Reminds me of Mr Turnbull’s ‘forming majority government’ comment from a few years back.

Conclusion: You Are What You Do

The current government has a tenuous relationship with integrity. Morrison could not lie straight in bed, as his remarks on the campaign trail referenced above suggest. As Senator Wells said, ‘the fish stinks from the head’. The refusal to introduce a federal corruption watchdog, along with the terrible arguments against it, speaks volumes about the Morrison Government. This cabal of (allegedly) corrupt corporate criminals must be removed and a powerful, retrospective, non-partisan watchdog introduced.

Last time I mentioned doing an analysis of a scathing Op-Ed that Catherine Cusack penned for The Guardian. The reference to Emile Zola’s critique of the Dreyfus conviction seems fitting since Cusack has accused The Lodge Occupant of destroying the Liberal Party. Let us take a look at this piece.

Introduction: The Past and Robert Menzies

Cusack begins her piece by making reference to the fact that she and Senator Wells typically do not see eye-to-eye. However, Cusack does endorse Wells’ ‘character assessment’ of The Lodge Occupant. Cusack then proceeds to go back to the original roots of the Liberal Party by bringing up its patron saint, Robert Menzies, saying

The inspirational party of Robert Menzies, whose photo today is affixed to a multitude of policies and statements that bear zero resemblance to the character and values of those tens of thousands of Australians, who formed the Liberals after the second world war.

Lest we dismiss this as a No True Scotsman fallacy, I think it is true that the Liberal Party has changed radically since the days of Menzies. This man was a conservative, yes, but that term too has changed. Cusack says as much when she describes the Menzies Era as follows

Robert Menzies invested in the CSIRO, universities and schools, and spoke with great intellectual power about the role of education and science in powering a modern Australia. These values have been totally abandoned by the Morrison government.

Remarkable, is it not? A Liberal Prime Minister who invested in science and education and saw them as a means of creating a modern Australia? Now Menzies had his flaws and the past is invariably remembered as better than it was. But the idea that a Liberal Prime Minister could actually invest in science and did not see education as the enemy is quite extraordinary. How times have changed.

You Were Doing So Well: Cusack Goes off The Rails

No Op-Ed piece is without its flaws, and former MLC Cusack delivers a howler with this gem

The Liberal party has no interest group like trade unions (Labor) or environmentalists (Greens). No, we exist for our values and ideas only.

Pick yourself up off the floor and we can continue. The Liberal Party has no vested interest groups? The coal industry, the gas industry, property developers, the Business Council? The idea that the Liberal Party has no interest groups is absurd. She even went one step further than the usual hypocritical stance of ‘it is ok when we do it’ to say ‘we do not do it at all’. Valid as her criticism of Morrison, which we turn to now, is, this statement is crap.

Cusack Goes After Morrison, Part One: The Pre-Selection of Craig Kelly

Cusack begins her account of The Lodge Occupant and his actions inside the Liberal Party of NSW like this

I thought forcing moderates to vote for Craig Kelly in Hughes prior to the last election was the worst. But he [Morrison] has outdone himself engineering a federal intervention to jump over the organisation [NSW branch of the Lliberal Party] all together. Yes, he got what he wanted – at the expense of destroying our rules-based selection system and disgusting virtually every member of the NSW division.

Morrison did, as you may recall, intervene before the 2019 election to save Craig Kelly from pre-selection. The latter process is what the Americans call a primary: an inter-party contest to determine the election candidate. Mr Kelly left the Liberal Party within eighteen months of the intervention. Evidently a well-spent splitting of the ranks there, Lodge Occupant.

The case of Craig Kelly is but one example of The Lodge Occupant manipulating the selection process of the Liberal Party to ‘get his way’. The concept of ‘parachuting in’ candidates is nothing new (Kristina Kenneley to Bennelong, Warrane Mundene etc). But these appear to be ‘hank-picked’ candidates to suit Morrison as an individual, whatever the consequences for the party. The process is, just for a change, about him. Politicians are egos on legs, but Morrison is that on steroids.

Cusack Goes After Morrison, Part Two: The Climate Debate

As an MLC from the Northern Rivers, a region recently devastated by floods, one might expect Ms Cusack to be vocal on climate change. She does not disappoint, and even the media comes in for a serve. She says

The climate change fight has divided and just exhausted many of us in the NSW Liberals. And sitting here in the flood-ravaged northern rivers I can only deplore how much time has been lost.

Somehow the federal Liberal party, encouraged by the Murdoch press, has delayed the urgent need for climate change action by at least 15 years. To give you an idea as to how completely anti-intellectual and stupid this is, just read Andrew Bolt’s opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph last week saying it was “woke warmists” (climate change activists) like Tim Flannery who caused Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Scathing, is it not? Bolt is a renowned anti-intellectual, taking the seemingly standard right-wing position of ‘anything I don’t like is the cause of [insert current tragedy here]’, so this is nothing new. But the point here is Ms Cusack, a Liberal, accurately decrying the utter lack of action on climate change. She does not go so far as to use the C-word (corruption), but the message is clear: Morrison’s inaction on climate change is inexcusable. Hear hear.

Cusack Goes After Morrison, Part Three: Partisan Relief Funding

I referenced this briefly last time, but it bears repeating. The Lodge Occupant played partisan games with public disaster funding. Ms Cusack does not allow this to slide, excoriating Morrison with these words

Scott Morrison’s brazen attempt to fund flood victims in a Nationals seat and exclude flood victims in a Labor seat that I happen to live in was just too much. I cannot deny we are all overwrought here, witnessing so much suffering. My bullshit tolerance levels are at zero. To see the self-serving ruthless bullying that has increased inside the Liberal party spill over into public policy…is simply intolerable.

There are several things with which one does not play politics: the military, health, education, disaster relief. These are things that cross, or should cross, partisan lines. The current regime has played politics with all of these things, but Ms Cusack’s focus is disaster relief. To see partisanship creep in to the assignment of disaster relief funds was simply too much for her; rightly so.

Conclusion: Why do you do This?

Why are Scott Morrison’s politics so Machievelian? What causes him to play politics with seeming third rails? Why is he so ruthless, even among his nominal allies?

A large part of the answer I think comes in the title of a book about Morrison that I am soon to start reading. The book is The Game: A Portrait of Scott Morrison by Sean Kelly. The title says much: Morrison conceives of politics as a game. Well what is the object of a game? To win. To win by whatever means necessary. You do what you have to do. Sanctified by god (as he would phrase it), any and all actions he takes, no matter how many people they hurt, are justified because you play a game to win.

This ruthless, savage brute with no conscience has no place anywhere near power in a civilised society.

After a long hiatus, I am back once again to contribute to this fine project. I trust you have all kept well in the last several weeks. I want to look today at several instances that have come out in the last week or two involving The Lodge Occupant and his status as a ‘bully’. Members of his own party, both state and federal, have lambasted The Lodge Occupant, and the description is not a pretty one.

Exhibit A: Senator Wells, Part One

New South Wales Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells took to the Senate floor this week to utterly blast The Lodge Occupant about what he has done to the Liberal Party. The speech is too long to go into in detail here, but I offer this fragment to illustrate the speech’s flavour

There is a very appropriate saying here: the fish stinks from the head. [Scott] Morrison and [Alex] Hawke have ruined the Liberal Party in NSW by trampling its constitution. Indeed, I understand that at a recent federal executive meeting, Morrison was asked if he was running a protection racket in NSW’

Damning, is it not? A protection racket, for anyone unaware, means saying ‘nice career you got there, be a shame if anything were to happen to it’. Protection is usually associated with organised crime; it is extortion. If Senator Wells is correct, Morrison and Hawke are criminals.

Analysis: All is Not as it Seems

Now this is all well and good, but Senator Wells’ remarks must be assessed in context. She admitted in her remarks that she lost a Senate pre-selection vote by a narrow margin. This relegated her to third on the ticket, making her chances of re-election very slim. Perhaps I am a cynical Sam, but I do find it curious that it is now that Senator Wells turns on The Lodge Occupant. For full context, I should note that the Lodge Occupant himself said something similar, essentially saying people lash out when they are angry. It was not my intention to parrot his line of thought, but I will not back away from a contextual assessment because it happens to mirror the argument of someone I despise.

Exhibit A: Senator Wells, Part Two

Senator Wells also included this little gem, saying that The Lodge Occupant is

An autocrat; a bully, who has no moral compass

This is from his nominal allies. You may have noticed this in recent history involving The Lodge Occupant. Once he says something, it is true, and questioning is ill-advised. Whether that is from the media, his detractors or even citizens in the street (if they can get near him). There is also no need for consistency in the things he says are true: whatever he says, regardless of how contradictory (or contradicted by evidence) it is, that is the truth today, and we have always been at war with East Asia. This is crap, and like rats off a sinking ship, his fellow Liberals are trying to take him down with them.

Ehxibit B: State MLC Catherine Cusack

A recently retired Member of the Legislative Council (MLC), Catherine Cusack, has also blasted The Lodge Occupant this week. Specifically, she targetted the politicised nature of flood relief payments. Quoting from the piece linked above

Scott Morrison’s brazen attempt to fund flood victims in a National party seat and exclude flood victims in a Labor seat that I happen to live in was just too much.

To see the self-serving ruthless bullying that has increased inside the Liberal party spill over into public policy and the poorest most vulnerable Australians who lost everything in the floods are the targets of this outrageous abuse of morality and power is simply intolerable

Does this lady work for the LNP? Complaining openly and bitterly about partisan funding arrangements? Ms Cusack, this is what he does! That is all he knows. Complaining about Morrison being partisan with public money is the equivalent of complaining about a kangaroo jumping about. It is hardwired into his nature. Like any tin-pot leader, he rewards those on his team and hands out vindictive reprisals to anyone not on that team. They should get themselves a good local member. (SARCASM)

The previous paragraph is not to normalise or rationalise partisan games with disaster funding. For that Morrison is the worst kind of bastard. I rather sought to point out that Ms Cusack is somewhat late to the party on this one, and that her commets are equivalent to calling Clive Palmer fat. Everyone can see it, no need to point it out.

Analysis

Ms Cusack actually went one step further. She said, in a piece that warrants its own analysis next time, that Morrison had so destroyed the Liberal Party that it was it no longer recognisable as the Party of Menzies. Further, she said that she would not vote for the return of Morrison’s government. I know little of Ms Cusack’s time as an MLC, and cannot say with certainty what her motivations are. She has resigned in protest over the partisanship with disaster funding, suggesting some sort of conscience. LNP scientists will get back to us on this foreign concept, once they are let out of the torture chamber.

Conclusion: Dissent in The Ranks and Unhappy Campers

These are but two examples of the dissent in the ranks of the current regime. The focus has been on themselves and their problems rather than the governance of the nation. Senator Wells and MLC Cusack have come out publicly on their way out the door and thrown a grenade over their shoulder as they left. Mr Morrison is evidently incapable of keeping the troops happy. Now two have turned on him.

With the election campaign announced today, these two women have created serious problems for The Lodge Occupant. He said he interfered in NSW to ‘protect good women’. Just not Senator Wells, apparently. Fight, you buggers, I hate peace.

Or if you prefer Tacitus:

nihil iam praestare fortuna maius potest quam hostium discordiam

Fortune can grant us nothing greater than discord among our foes.

Journalist Karen Middleton, writing for The Saturday Paper, has penned a remarkable analysis around The Lodge Occupant’s apology to those who suffered abuse in parliament. That the first, last and only consideration of The Lodge Occupant is politics should come as a surprise to precisely no-one. However, this is something special.

Delegation and Evasion: The Lodge Occupant and Responsibility

This topic also needs little introduction: recall the phrase ‘I don’t hold a hose, mate’?. But this is just delicious. Middleton reports that

Scott Morrison intended to leave his abuse apology to the presiding officers.

For clarity, ‘the presiding officers’ refers to The Speaker of The House and The President of The Senate. So the original plan was for The Lodge Occupant to delegate responsibility for a change. To give full context here, there had been an agreement between all sides (LNP, Labor, Greens and Independents) on February 3rd that the Presiding Officers would deliver the apology. It was the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese, who first considered making a personal address on the subject. There was back and forth between their two staffs, with The Lodge Occupant insisting that the original order be observed. Mr Albanese’s decision to speak regardless of what The Lodge Occupant did forced the latter’s hand. Not wishing for Mr Albanese to upstage him, he was forced to say something. Great: not wanting to be upstaged, rather than actually, you know, addressing the issue was his motivation. Clown.

The Lodge Occupant’s Speech

The speech itself deserves some attention, for there is a gem in here demonstrating The Lodge Occupant’s utter lack of self-awareness. He said, in part

“Over many decades, an ecosystem, a culture, was perpetuated where bullying, abuse, harassment and, in some cases, even violence, became normalised,”

“We don’t shy, nor have we sought to silence the valid and just complaints of people, because there is fear about electoral consequences. I am sorry. We are sorry.”

The first part is quite true, and valid. Parliament was, for a very long time, a ‘boy’s club’ dominated by men. When women became employees (and eventually members) a culture was in place that did not treat women as equals. Fair point. By contrast, the second part must surely ring hollow in light of reporting about Grace Tame receiving a threatening phone call to ‘not say anything damning’ about The Lodge Occupant before the 2022 Australian of The Year Awards. Never sought to silence valid and just complaints? Spare me.

Another Little Gem: Higgins and The Advocates for Change

A second little gem around this speech, as Middleton reports, is the fact that

The advocates’ presence in the chamber was also a late addition. They were initially not invited to watch the apology. Independent MP Zali Steggall facilitated their attendance at the last minute, as her guests, accompanied by one of her staff.

They were not intended to be there? Let us do a brief summary of what we have so far. The Lodge Occupant essentially had to be goaded into saying anything at all, and when he does decide to say something, it takes an independent MP to even have the advocates for change brought into the Chamber. It truly never ceases to amaze how a man so seemingly obsessed with marketing and optics can be so terrible at it.

The Lodge Occupant’s attitude to having to make the address is neatly summed up in this photograph, from Middleton’s piece:

Indeed is all I have to say to that.

A Horror Week for The Lodge Occupant, Part One: The Abuse Speech in Context

Between this issue and the breakdown of the Religious Discrimination Bill, this parliamentary week has not been kind to The Lodge Occupant. Middleton reports that he is feeling the heat too. She writes

The prime minister’s desperate tone would be explained two days later, when Peter van Onselen revealed that the night before, Morrison had been rolled by his own cabinet. The prime minister had put his leadership on the line over his religious freedom bill, trying to persuade his own MPs not to cross the floor against it by proposing to put legislation for a national integrity commission before parliament as well.

But his cabinet colleagues overwhelmingly rejected the strategy.

The Lodge Occupant evidently lacks the ability to read a room. Offering to bring forth the federal ICAC bill to persuade his own troops not to vote against the Religious Freedom Bill? They do not want such a bill anyway! Senator Cash (through a representative) said earlier this week that there was not enough time to debate the bill before the election. This effectively killed the bill. The point is this was not going to mollify the party room.

A Horror Week for The Lodge Occupant, Part Two: Back to What Brought Him to The Dance

A useful illustration of the utter chaos that is this government is found in what happened when the Coalition partyroom meeting continued after Question Time on Tuesday. Middleton reports that The Lodge Occupant said

“If we fail to agree on this, the mountain will be made higher. You will experience opposition – not a place you want to be. I appeal to you to come together.

Interesting, is it not? From conciliatory to issuing threats in mere hours? He must get fired up after Question Time. Instead of attempting to bribe his party room with a bill that was already dead, he was now threatening them with ‘opposition – not a place you want to be’. So, if the party room did not fall in line, they would lose the election and be in opposition. A big threat to a born to rule government. This next point may be coincidence, but is it not interesting that The Lodge Occupant said ‘you will experience opposition’ rather than ‘we will experience opposition’? This suggests either that he thinks he will lose his seat, or he is trying to blame the party (because nothing is ever his fault) for electoral defeat.

Shovels to Earthmoving Equipment: The Lodge Occupant Keeps Digging

This incident offers detailed insight into the chaos going on behind the scenes with the government, and specifically its so-called leader. The Lodge Occupant is no longer using a shovel to dig his political grave; he has brought in a backhoe. The sheer instability of the current regime means that the focus is on themselves rather than governance. The election is not far off, and it remains unclear whether the current Lodge Occupant can survive politically. As my gran used to say, fight you buggers I hate peace.

The media has made much of ‘that photograph’ of 2021 Australian of The Year Grace Tame glaring daggers through The Lodge Occupant. The Good Dr. Jennifer Wilson has penned a great piece for this website about the photo and the amazing cultural subtext, and I encourage you to check it out here. I want to focus on the media reaction, and discuss the breathtaking hypocrisy on display from those on the right. I also want to look at an excellent piece by Samantha Maiden on news.com.au (of all places). Maiden rightly puts Tame’s critics in their place.

The response from the media, by and large, has been to condemn Ms Tame as ‘uncivil’ (consider Peter Van Obsolete as Dr Wilson called him). Essentially, this photo-op is a yearly tradition and Ms Tame ruined it by refusing to be a good girl and ‘give us a smile, sweetheart’. It is worth noting that neither Ms Tame, nor anyone else, is obligated to give Scotty from Marketing a good photo-op. She, like most people, has a political stance, specifically an opinion on The Lodge Occupant. She conveyed that opinion and it is somehow a problem.

First, Have No Standards: The Hypocritic Oath, Part One: Free Speech

Many of Ms Tame’s most vocal critics on the right (including Miranda Divine) are part of the ‘free speech’ crowd. As is becoming increasingly clear, the conservative definition of this ‘right’ (which Australia does not have by the by, we never quite got to the whole ‘bill of rights’ thing) is ‘we get to say what we want and the rest of you fall in line’. In other words, for me and mine, not thee and thine. Standard practice? Maybe, but it still reeks.

Ms Tame expressed her political opinion of The Lodge Occupant in the most public and viral way possible. As we will see in the Samantha Maiden piece, Ms Tame knew exactly what she was doing. But back to the point: Ms Tame does not have ‘muh freeze peach’? Or does that sacred concept only apply to certain opinions? That consistency has never been the strong suit of the right is well known, but this gives whiplash.

First, Have No Standards: The Hypocritic Oath, Part Two: The Media and The Office of The Prime Minister

The Murdoch Media Menagerie has made much in the last day or so of ‘respect for the office of The Prime Minister’. The idea here is that even if you dislike the occupant, you show respect for the office. Anyone inclined to make such a suggestion regarding Ms Tame I direct to the following image, borrowed from the Facebook page of a Mr. Kevin Rudd:

Seems the ‘respect’ due to the office of The Prime Minister changes according to whether or not the occupant is from the right party. The brass b*lls it takes to bellyache about ‘disrespecting the office of The Prime Minister’ only when your guy is in there is something to behold. There is a real sense of ‘know your role, shut your mouth’ here that is most unbecoming. Now, am I suggesting that, as a sexual assault survivor and advocate that Ms Tame is insulated from any and all criticism? No. But of all the things to criticise someone with her past about, smiling? Seriously?

But Why So ‘Untamed’?

It should be clear that Ms Tame’s actions do not need ‘justification’ from me or anyone else. But I thought it might be useful to look at history for some motivation for her giving The Lodge Occupant the evil eye. One possible explanation for her ‘icy’ demeanour toward The Lodge Occupant might be his utter lack of action around sexual assault and family violence, specifically his defense (before the facts were known) of Non-Christian Porter around the rape of Brittany Higgins. A little detail here worth recalling is The Lodge Occupant discussing the rape of Ms Higgins with his wife, who encouraged him to think about the incident as ‘the father of two daughters’. Ms Tame rightly obliterated this nonsense when she said:

It shouldn’t take having children to have a conscience

Ms Tame does not evidently understand how the conservative mind works: something has to affect them before they care.

Now, this is but one incident, and it is not the whole story of course. But sexual assault advocacy was her issue. The Let Her Speak campaign was what brought her to prominence in the first place. Of all the issues for The Lodge Occupant not to act on, this was likely to poke the bear

Play it Again, Sam: Samantha Maiden to The Rescue

In a fantastic piece for news.com.au, actual journalist Samantha Maiden eviscerates the right wing narrative around this incident. She notes the hypocrisy of the government by pointing out (with photos) times when LNP cabinet members were playing on their phones while turning their backs on Tanya Plibersek as she addressed the House. Maiden also notes the utter non-issue that was Justice Kenneth Hayne of the Banking Royal Commission saying ‘nope’ when asked to shake hands with Treasurer Josh Frydenburg in 2019. But Grace Tame is the issue because she refused to ‘be a good girl and give us a smile, love’ to The Lodge Occupant? Spare me.

Maiden notes that the critics of Ms Tame are actually attempting to control her behaviour, a harkening back to the abuse she suffered as a child. I had not thought of it this way, and the suggestion is intriguing. But what is the most interesting part of Maiden’s piece is the comment that, through her facial expressions, Ms Tame has taught us something about activism.

The suggestion seems to be that activism comes in many forms, and this was a powerful one for Ms Tame. Her knowledge of how much The Lodge Occupant loves his photo-ops doubtless made this a tempting target. Maiden comments that Ms Tame ‘knew exactly what she was doing’ and I am inclined to agree. She hit The Lodge Occupant where she knew it would hurt him: public image. His obsession with marketing (despite his seeming incompetence at it) made him vulnerable there. She exploited that.

Conclusion: Nous Sommes Grace Tame

The lesson from this is that activism need not be bricks through windows, or even fiery rhetoric. Through her simple facial expressions and the fire in her eyes, Grace Tame has conveyed the outrage of the considerable segment of the population that has, to put it mildly, an unfavourable opinion of The Lodge Occupant. As much as her critics like to complain about her ‘lack of civility’, it is precisely that lack of civility, the idea of not being ‘the good little girl’ that makes her statement so powerful.

The time has come to expose the great fraud that has been perpetrated on the West in the last forty years. Once we have even a surface-level understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), the great lie that is Neoliberalism will come crashing down.

Now, this has been outlined and discussed in detail by far greater minds than my own; this is not original to me. But I thought it might be useful to offer a brief description of MMT, how it works and then use these basics to expose the great Neoliberal fraud.

MMT, Part One: Currency and Its Relationships

In every economy that has its own currency (Australia, the US, the UK etc), every entity in that economy has one of two relationships to that currency. One is either a user or an issuer. Obviously, the federal government is the monopoly issuer of currency (hence counterfeit money laws). So the government issues the currency, and everyone else (including state and local governments and the citizenry) uses the currency.

Currencies such as the Australian Dollar, the US Dollar, the Pound etc are called Sovereign Currencies or Fiat Currencies. This means that when the government goes to do something, it simply goes to the central bank (the Reserve Bank in Australia or The Federal Reserve in the US) and says ‘we need this amount of money to be created’ and the bank, through several keystrokes, brings that currency into existence. Similarly, the relevant bank accounts of the recipients are also augmented using keystrokes. This may seem counterintuitive, but think about it this way. Consider the recent spending of $3.5b on tanks. Are we to believe that the government went to a physical bank vault filled with stacks of $100 notes? In light of the amount of money spent by the government on the regular, this would be impractical. Government spending is essentially EFTPOS on a grand scale.

MMT, Part Two: Tax Does Not Fund the Government

Since the government simply creates (issues) the currency it uses, government spending is not ‘paid for’ in that sense. It does not need tax to fund its spending since it is spending currency it issued itself. Tax revenue, I say again, does not fund the government. This lays to rest the zombie lie that a government has to ‘live within its means’ or ‘has a budget like a household’. Households do not issue their own currency, so this statement is a lie. Government ‘living within its means’ is naught but a lie designed to justify cutting funding for things neoliberals do not like, such as universal healthcare, education, pensions and generally anything that benefits anyone making less than $250k per year.

I should be clear: taxation does not fund federal government spending. It is true that tax does fund state and local government since these entities are still currency users (recall it is the federal government that issues the currency).

MMT, Part Three: The Purpose of Taxation

A natural follow-up might be to ask

If tax does not fund [federal] government spending, why have tax at all?

I think the best answer to this was provided in a New Economic Perspectives article

[Another] reason to have taxes is to reduce aggregate demand. If we look at the United States today, the federal government spending is somewhat over 20% of GDP, while tax revenue is somewhat less—say 17%. The net injection coming from the federal government is thus about 3% of GDP. If we eliminated taxes (and held all else constant) the net injection might rise toward 20% of GDP. That is a huge increase of aggregate demand, and could cause inflation

What this seems to mean is that the act of ‘taxing’ a unit of currency serves to eliminate it from the economy. Taxation seems to have the purpose of being a sort of ‘inflation break’, removing a certain amount of currency from the economy to prevent too much currency from flying around which could lead to inflation.

The Other Great Zombie Lie: How Will You Pay For It?

You have doubtless heard some version of this whenever a policy is proposed that would help the peasants. Any talk of, for instance, raising Newstart is met with loud screams of ‘HOWYIGONPAYFRIIIIIIIIIIT’ (how are you going to pay for it) or ‘we cannot afford it’. It is unclear whether those asking making these asinine statements are not aware of the fiat currency the Australian Federal Government uses, or if they are being deliberately deceptive. I leave that decision up to you all individually.

Not only is ‘how will you pay for it’ a ridiculous statement, but its application is also highly selective. Have you ever heard this question, or some variant of it, asked around, say, the military budget (pick your country, but the Americans are the most egregious)? How about corporate subsidies? How about politicians’ own outrageous perks and entitlements?

It is almost like they know that they have a fiat currency and intentionally lie to the people about ‘debt and deficit’ whenever they do not like something, typically for ideological (or corrupt) reasons. Whether it is funding Medicare (consider Mr Morrison’s recent removal of more than 900 items), investment in renewables or anything else the Liberal National Coalition is (in my opinion) paid to oppose, they become penny-pinchers when their ideology gets in the way. Yet hypocritically when it comes to war, corporate looting of the treasury and their own perks, they are reckless. Enough.

Conclusion: The Great Fraud

Since the advent of Reagan and Thatcher, politics in the west has taken a very selfish, individualistic turn. Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is a popular Neoliberal mantra. Government has to live within its means is another. MMT shows that the very idea that a government has ‘limited means’ has narrow basis in reality. It is a monopoly currency issuer. It is, in a very real sense, not possible for a government with a fiat currency to ‘run out of money’.

I have said this before, but it is worth repeating: When it comes to helping the people, it is not money these sociopaths lack, it is the will to do it.

Governments with fiat currencies have all the money they could ever need. They could do so many wonderful things to improve society in so many ways. Means is not the issue. Conviction is. MMT, with its focus on fiat currencies, helps to expose the great hypocrisy at the core of the Neoliberal disaster of the last four decades. In an economy with a fiat currency, the use of fear-mongering about ‘debt and deficit’ to suppress policies that could help broad swaths of the population is dishonest beyond measure.

Epilogue: Still Learning

I am very much still learning about MMT, and doubtless, I have gotten some things wrong here. I encourage you to check out this podcast for detailed discussion of the theory and its applications. I hope this piece has provided a basic discussion of MMT and given some insight into the rot that is Neoliberalism.

After a quite chaotic last few months, I am back to contribute once more to this fine project. I trust you have all kept safe and well (mentally as well in these trying times). The issue I want to look at this time is the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS). Specifically, I want to look at suggestions from certain Democratic lawmakers and commentators that additional Justices be added to the Court.

The Argument, Part One: A Court Hijacked

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, commentator EJ Dionne begins to make the case for Court expansion. The insightful opening of the piece is worth quoting in full

What do We Make of This? Part One: They Did it First!

It is difficult to see past a charge of ‘but they did it first’ in the justification for this Court-packing suggestion from Dionne, Senator Elizabeth Warren and others. The difference is that McConnell did, in fact, do it first. His considered decision to place power over institutions was (or perhaps is) the cause of the current situation. But does that legitimise the Democrats doing the same thing? Dionne mentioned this too: does ‘packing the Court’ in emulation of McConnell legitimise his behaviour? He disagrees, but I am not so sure; particularly in light of what we said above about adding precisely the number of Justices to the Court necessary to flip the majority.

What do We Make of This? Part Two: Knife to a Gun Fight

The other side of the coin here is that Democrats’ ongoing insistence on what is essentially insutitonalism, with its focus on norms (good Sir), decorum and all that is the political equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight. The Republicans simply do not care about all that crap you prattle on about. They care about power, and will do what is necessary to gain and perpetuate it, institutions be damned.

This brings to mind for me an aspect of the politics of the Late Roman Republic: so much of their politics was grounded in custom (mores) and expected patterns of behaviour. A form of institutionalism if you will. The arrival on the scene of a young man named Julius Caesar who said ‘the Republic is but a word; a concept without substance’ was the true death knell of the Republic. Caesar saw through the crusty old elitists who insisted on tradition for its own sake. The analogy is not perfect, but the Republicans have seen that power can be gained and maintained if you utterly ignore institutions that have only expectation and custom backing them.

Conclusion

I hope I have presented a somewhat balanced view of the issue of ‘Court-packing’ here. The issue is complex, and there are arguments for and against. To not respond in some way to a crude power grab such as McConnell’s makes you look weak. But then there is the idea of responding in kind and legitimising such behaviour. The conservatives appear to have their opponents over a barrel here: do nothing and look weak, do something (which is actually more counter-institutional) and become the monster you oppose. As a side note, the concept of ‘they did it first’ is how wars start, so let us not go there.

Perhaps the compromise (the Democrats’ favourite word) between doing nothing and instituting a power grab is to add two Justices. This avoids the accusation of a crude power grab (that is actually worse than the Republicans since the Democrats will have given themselves four seats). Unfortunately, a charge of hypocrisy (which would be forthcoming if McConnel raised hell) when you do something more extreme kinda makes you look like an idiot. The Democrats are caught in a bind here, and I do not envy them their decision.