Define the problem
Arguably the Albanese Government is routinely tied up trying to explain their way out of a dilemma of their own creation. A recent example is the brouhaha around the potential Census question regarding how Australians identify themselves sexually. When some equivocation was displayed by the government, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton donned the hob-nailed workboots and strode into the debate decrying the ‘woke agenda’ of the Government on this issue. The Government explained their concerns were a response to the issue potentially becoming divisive, something that wasn’t an issue until the government accidentally made it one.
As The Conversation discussed late in 2023
Typically, “wokeness” and “woke ideology” are terms of abuse, used against a variety of practices that, despite their diversity, have a similar character. Often, what is dismissed as “woke” is a new practice that is recommended, requested, enacted or enforced as a replacement for an old one.
The talking heads on ‘Sky after dark’ along with their print stablemates are also expert at throwing the ’woke agenda’ claim at anything that seems to offend their particular world view. The UK’s Nigel Farage, the USA’s former President Donald Trump also seem to be expert at levelling the claim.
According to The Conversation’s definition, being ‘woke’ is discussing and implementing change to the status quo. We all know the status quo is far more comfortable than an uncertain future, the problem being the status quo is full of accidental and deliberate measures to actively disadvantage groups of people within our larger community. In the ‘rose coloured’ nostalgic view of some time in the past it’s easy to ignore that communications, health care and technology we all use and ‘need’ today were not as developed – if they existed at all.
If we want to go back 30 years, your mobile phone would have been the size of a small overnight bag and cost a fortune. Unsurprisingly not everyone had a mobile phone. Go back 50 years and computers were large devices that need climate controlled rooms. Rather than a keyboard and mouse, instructions were typically given to computers on punch cards. Nearly all of the safety, efficiency and convenience technology on new cars was only commercialised in the past 30 years. Even though Apollo 11 took three men to the moon in July 1969, the technology behind the mission is levels of magnitude behind the smartphones in common use in 2024. Those conservatives complaining that others promoting change have a ‘woke agenda’ seem to have no qualms in using social media to promote their cause, travelling in vehicles with far more inherent safety, convenience and efficiency than available in the past or even carrying and using mobile phones.
Yet the same people are resisting change in community opinion, insulting those that are suggesting change as being ‘woke’. Governments generally reflect the views of those elected to Parliament. Over time it has been realised in most countries around the world that all citizens should be equal regardless of ethnicity, religion or any other characteristic. Those resisting change, such as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton when he talks about the next census or opposing the issue of humanitarian visas to those fortunate enough to be able to escape war zones around the world seems to be hiding behind claims that the proponents of the change are pursuing a ‘woke/dangerous agenda’ without detailing the reasons for their concerns. In the case of the Albanese Government, the ‘woke card’ seems to have some magical power that ensures weeks of public introspection.
Given that there is general agreement that everyone should be considered equally in our society, why go and hide when the cards claiming the policy is some combination of ‘woke’, ‘a threat to national security’ or ‘people stop me in the street and say’ is played again? The majority of Australians don’t seem to have a problem with the multi-cultural society that exists today. Typically the LNP’s claims have no actual detail or specific concerns raised – rather (to borrow a term from a classic Australian movie) ‘it’s the vibe, your honour’.
The best form of defence is frequently to attack. To demonstrate, the effective campaign to vote against ‘The Voice’ referendum’ was based on the concept that if you don’t know the detail – vote no. While some detail was publicly available, those in opposition were asking for increasing granular detail that was impossible to provide. The Albanese Government should look at this and model their behaviour on the concept. Rather than retreat into a self made shell of deference and defeat, when the ‘card’ is played ask for more detail of exactly how the proposed change, be it questions on the census, issuing of visas or any other matter, will adversely affect the majority of Australians. If a response is made, ask for more granular detail.
A similar strategy seems to have been effective recently in the USA Presidential campaigns. While the Biden campaign was trying to defend his age and mental ability, Trump was allowed to promise to appease the concerns of all without question despite the failures of the Trump Presidency from 2016 to 2020. With Governor Tim Walz labelling the Republican’s as ‘weird’ due to some of their policies and providing examples, the momentum shifted. Not because the claim of weirdness is especially insulting or rude, rather some took an opportunity to consider the statement by Walz, think about the actions of Trump and the Republicans and realise he was correct.
If Albanese’s Government was to ask the coalition what the problem actually is when words like ‘woke’ or ‘national security’ are used, it falls on Dutton to demonstrate that there is a valid criticism or just rhetoric. More than likely there will not be a criticism that resonates with the majority of Australians. It is likely that, like Trump in the USA, the LNP’s claims will become more shrill and unbelievable. This should, if the American example is replicated, give evidence for a reasonable proportion of the population to either confirm or come to the opinion that the LNP don’t have any substance behind their increasingly ridiculous claims.
To provide a solution, the problem needs to be defined. Generalist claims such as ‘woke agendas’ or ‘national security concerns’ don’t define the problem, so no genuine solution can be offered or implemented. To solve a problem, you have to know what it is.
Like what we do at The AIMN? You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight. Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes! Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted. You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
13 comments
Login here Register here-
Shane Mortimer
-
Frank
-
wam
-
Andrew Smith
-
Max Gross
-
Arnd
-
Terence Mills
-
Phil Pryor
-
Steve Davis
-
Clakka
-
Phil Pryor
-
Cenrelink customer
-
Bert
Return to home pageMmmmmm..WOFT
If and when this question evolves in the next censors i will totally ignore it,no government or any other institution needs to know my sexual preferences,they are private and will remain so
I don’t give a rat’s what you are except xstian sect, sunni or shia.
Think maybe time to follow the Harris campaign tactics versus RW corporate media treating centrist and objective policies the same as the BS coming from conservatives, RWNJs, fossil fueled think tanks and conspiracy theories to confuse ageing voters; ‘fair & balanced’?
Time to go on front foot to attack & ridicule LNP & RW MSM talking points, same as they do?
I prefer to be “woke” than morally comatose like Deadeyes Pete.
I’ve been sitting on the fence about all this “woke” business for a long time. Fairly recently, I finally decided that I had quite enough of it.
To me, as long-standing anarcho-communist, it amounts to exactly so much excited virtue-signalling by overbearing attention-seekers. At best, “wokism” motivates feeble attempts to get a system – global corporate consumer capitalism – and its ancillary support structures – national political and legal institutions – to do things that it simply can’t, and has no real interest in doing anyway.
The worst part about the fiercely condemnatory political correctness of wokism is that it hands to the exploitative and oppressive hierarchies that dominate all our lives a few shiny humanistic baubles that those hierarchies then use to dress themselves up as progressive saviours of mankind.
I’ve had it with that bullshit!
Frank
Like many others on this non-issue of the 2026 census, the point is that this question on sexual preferences is optional.
What Albanese said was this :
“Well, we’ve been talking with the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and they’re going to test for a new question, one question about sexuality, sexual preference. They’ll be testing, making sure as well that people will have the option of not answering it, prefer not to answer. But we think that is a common sense position to be put.”
It’s optional !
Sex is an option, (and can be scarce!) so questions about it refer fairly harmlessly to a gender title, perhaps for statistical purposes we hardly regard or know. Some people get offended at plenty that might surprise one with an open attitude to most “things”, and embarrassment about sexual matters is best avoided, prevented. As for this WOKE rubbish. Dutton is not much use at anything, has so little expertise, experience, education of relevance, that he is not very woke, meaning aware, enlightened, informed, considerate, decent, open. That means he is very POOR in resources to hold his position. Dunce?
Phil, thanks, your explanation of “woke” fits with my understanding of it, and it shows why the Right has made it a target.
It exposes them.
Yes, the Oz RWNJ political hijacking of the original ‘black’ / African-American term, ‘woke’, shows how ignorant, unimaginative and pathetic they are. And the Spud leads his pack in the Duttonate. PP’s account of the real meaning is spot-on; those of expertise, experience, education of relevance.
As for the sex / gender designation question, none of my business, I’d rather leave it to those involved that have a concern.
Oh and of course the LNP perennially up tight and embarrassed – it’s either commingling via the opposition benches or big swinging dicks.
Thanks, chaps, for I hate the abuse, misuse and diffuse produce of a word, co-opted once but played with by the obtuse. May I suggest finding “The death of expertise”, by Tom Nicholls. He notes, early on, that the USA is obsessed with the worship of its own ignorance, and, they are proud of that. To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy. Many there are aggressively wrong. Isaac Asimov is one of many quoted, on “the cult of ignorance”. So, we have Trump, Fox pox, celebrity, media, actors, promoters, influencers, every con and trick.
CEO of ACOSS Cassandra Goldie,
I reported to you 2 illegal debt schemes administered by Services Australia. Your office advised me to pay off the debts or apply to AAT.
Cassandra Goldie, you have to make sure all rules affecting welfare payments are publicly available.
Scheme #1. Services Australia did not conduct a formal review I applied for 2 years ago. They sent me an objection letter and used it to rob and abuse me.
Scheme # 2. Family Assistance Office automatically issue debt notices for 100% rent assistance payments if a parent was not eligible for its FTB–dependent supplement (about 15% of Rent Assistance).
Services Australia, ACOSS, the PM’s office and many other government officials are well aware of these schemes but the public are not.
Cassandra Goldie, you have to acknowledge the schemes and provide the rules.
OMG.
Ask Dutts what he means when he makes puerile statements.
What a novel idea!