I can't remember whether I read it on
Facebook or Google+, but it was a very interesting question; why do people who
oppose onshore processing of refugees are also climate change sceptics and, no
less so, visa - versa? Great question isn't it, because there is no logical
connection between the two issues, let alone the incongruence of the two
opinions. Could it possibly be that our fellow citizens feel such an affinity to
a political party that they will blindly follow the blanket policies of the
party? Well, yes!
This of course is nothing new. In Australia
we are a loyal bunch. We follow our football teams for life. In Melbourne
marrying a supporter of another team is no less intermarriage than a Jew and
Muslim marrying. And in much the same way as the affinity to a football club is
passed on from generation to generation, so is political affinity. Both
historically reflected a socio-economic bracket and identity. This is less
obvious today, but it doesn't take much for people to show their "colours".
And to my original question of why people
buy into the party line lock, stock and barrel the correlation to football is
just as valid. We love run of the mill, grunt players (i.e. not superstars)
just because they play for our team. A player vilified by rest of the football
public would retain our support if he played for our team. Of course a player,
no matter how loved, who transfers to another team is immediately despised as a
traitor.
Our
frame of reference is determined by where we grew up, who we grew up with, our
religion and that of those around us; where we went to school and who with:
what our socio-economic background was and is now; and maybe even which
football team we support. I guess it is
natural to adopt the views of your peers and that those views wouldn't have
been too different in the beginning.
The national debate in Australia has
started to resemble a football game. Like supporters, our politicians have lost
sight of the issues to be caught up in "getting the edge" in that
day's particular encounters. Tony Abbot, I point the finger at you and say,
"J'ai accuse!". You have reduced the national debate to the national
screaming match. The people are tired and they are starting to see through the
negativity.
Paradoxically the more mantras and sound
bites are used the less the issues are blurred in the eyes of the public. It
all seems so simple. A little "American" (with no offence meant). A
party that has benefited this mentality is the Greens. This party by foundation
and association should be a one issue party. Of course there can be no such
thing in the national forum. The Greens are a party split into an overbearing
left and the foundation environmentalists. The Greens are yet to get dirty in
politics, but they are going to hold the balance of power in the senate; their
innocent façade will quickly disappear. It will be interesting to see how
united they stand.
The Liberal and Labour parties are much
more diverse in what they purport to represent and yet they clearly still have
a defined constituency (although Labour has seemed to be out of touch with its
constituents in recent years). For many years a relative small group of people,
commonly known as the swinging voters, controlled the outcome of elections.
This is qualified with the occasional third party and smattering of
independents.
I wanted to believe that "the new
paradigm" of a minority government would lead to an opening of the minds,
to discussions or at least the admission that compromise is okay. This seems to
have been taken on board by all by the Liberals, who at no stage since the
election have even looked like they would be prepared to compromise in order to
accommodate the independents. No such luck. Partisanship is rife and it means
never agreeing with your opposition.
Underlying and encouraging this stance is
the fact that the general population seems to be buying into the tactics. The
Prime Minister has been labelled a liar by a man who changes his position on
issues as easily as one may change clothes. Yet the credibility gap lay on the
side of the Prime Minister. I would continue my equation with football culture
by pointing out that although Australians love an underdog, they support
winners not losers. Losers are not respected. From one of the greats of
Australian Rules football said "Winners are grinners, losers can do what
they like".
Interestingly enough Abbot is not a winner
and although he is still to cotton to the fact, he is in fact a loser. With the passage of the Carbon Tax the tide
is turning and I think the Australian public will stay true to form and start
to support Julia. Tony Abbot will be seen as a loser not as an underdog,
largely because he doesn't see himself as an underdog. The die-hards will
always support their team, but their numbers will shrink. What about the
independents? Will the pay a price for not being on a team, or will they
benefit by being associated with a winning team? I think the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment