Cracking start to 2025 from you TD - no time to ease back into the reality of the state-of-the-nation & what's really in front of us. It's pretty digusting to see what the Coalition was & has become - the realease of the 2004 Cabinet papers -eg. (News) 'Howard Government ignored 2003 warning on capital gains tax change impact on housing affordability', Iraq war, Timor embassy bugging: (AFR) 'East Timor bugging ‘in national interest’: Howard'. Is/was Labor just as culpable in their time in power? Has the govt always acted in this way? I suspect maybe but things have got a whole lot worse. It would seem that any semblance of the national good has been thrown far, far out of the window with the egos of Albanese & Dutton & the careers of the MPs taking over. Can only hope that Fed election 2025 delivers a govt that does what is best for the country not for MSM popular political personalities and their careers.
Howard is the proximate cause of so many of our democratic bad habits and as you say, the cabinet releases are just reinforcing that. But yes, Labor have much to answer for too. Hope over the year to get into this a bit more. We need to understand 1980-2007 more clearly to lay the foundations for change. Might even be a book in it!
get writing, now! (R u exploring how AI eg. Claude can help with the mechanics of writing - not the creative aspect which should remain, at least for the time being, the human endeavour?)
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
A friend posted this poem on FB this morning. The first stanza dovetails with your article, I reckon, Tim. And the rest of the poem fleshes out the influence the Xtian element of that unholy trinity of Christianity, Colonialism and Capitalism that underpins why the world is going to hell in a hand basket. If we let it. Not that 'we' can stop its momentum other than protecting our physical, mental and inner wellbeing as much as possible. For me that means being a contemplative hermit. Easy to do as a 71 yr old woman with health issues. Not so easy for those who still need to watch out for the radicalisation of their children.
Has to be one of the great poems of all time, doesn't it Juda? The other one I turn to regularly is September 1, 1939, by Auden. I think he's my fave, though he ended up rejecting this particular work, declaring he wasn't happy with it. I still like it. It's opening also seems timeless:
The timelessness of it. And its cyclical nature. The great hope that it is a once off but knowing that those chancy times have come again. Thanks for sharing it, Tim. Another reminder to find comfort, and sometimes joy, where and when we can.
Bit of a coincidence mentioning Yellowstone. We are watching the final season at the moment (Spoilers ahead!), and I was thinking about how it does mirror politics in the USA, but probably everywhere.
The main guy gets elected as governor, not to do good or anything, but to save his ranch....stuff everyone else in the state. (Now, this is the 'good' guy in the series you need to remember).
He does roll out some homilies to justify things, but his main aim is to save his ranch from the evil corporations...just stuff anyone else, we need to keep the status-quo (as that is just going so well!).
I am sure this is common everywhere, guy (usually is a guy) gets his nose out of joint, or sees an opportunity to make some money and decides to get some power to move the political needle to help himself out.
Sort of mirrors Trump. Main reason he wanted to get elected is for purely selfish reasons. To help make his legal woes go away and to make lots and lots of money for him and his inner circle. Also to fix the system so he can anoint someone for the next election (if they have one again, that is)
Interesting. It really taps into their long history of the lone "hero". It's all very feudal, really. As I say, I haven't watched it, but I've watched a hundred YouTube clips, mainly of Beth, who seems an interesting character in some ways. I gather she is central to the show's appeal?
"My sense is that, in this era of the Internet, there are millions more fascists in this country than people think, young men in particular. And I believe that many more millions are fascinated by Trump not for his supposed business prowess but for his transparent wish to hurt others. He is an evil guy, a villain—and many Americans are excited by it. “
THIS! Remember the Underbelly series and how popular that was, yet the main characters had nothing going for them, they were dirt bags, yet…..
The media glorify the violence, there are exceptions to this, and imo, Snowtown was outstanding in this regard, portraying violence in a real light. When I watched that there were around 50 people in the cinema and a minimum of 15% walked out in the first 1/2 hr. The movie was nothing short of brutal and very realistic to watch, yet to describe it as a great movie is difficult, but it was, just not great to watch! I walked out at the end absolutely flat. If these low life criminals were presented in a more realistic manner, the celebrity infatuation people have towards them would likely be a lot lower.
I think Australia is a lot closer to the US than we care to admit, people and politics.
For the last 10+ yrs I’ve wondered what it would have been like to be homeless in a Brisbane park 30 yrs ago!
Hi Tim, I think Australians are susceptible to Trump style politics, but that will depend on the person pushing it. Dutton’s improvement in the polls as a leader are mind boggling to me, just as Jacinta Price’s standing with voters is a WTF moment.
I don’t believe someone like Musk will ever have much impact here, he’s a successful prat that the majority of Australians will dislike.
Both shows are conceived by Taylor Sheridan, who has never lived anything but a hollywood life and now writes his fantasies as realities. Reminds me of Tarantino with his need to brutalise & denigrate women in his stories
These few thoughts are tentative, meant as conversation openers and trying to add some shades of grey. They're also focused on foreign policy aspects, my primary interest when it comes to American politics.
With Trump, everything is personal, transactional, often impulsive. He is of course the most astonishing narcissist, and often vulgar to boot, but I think it's a mistake to paint him in simple black hat colours. Quite apart from anything else, it doesn't capture the nature of his appeal.
What he ran against both times (the "swamp" and foreign entanglements) aren't figments of his imagination and it seems to me the anti-Trump world tends to give his opponents a free pass. Biden and the Democrats may be "boring, boring, boring" but in terms of violence unleashed and sustained, between backing the genocide in Gaza and repeatedly encouraging the Ukrainians to destroy themselves, they haven't done too badly.
Would Trump have done any better? More importantly, will he? Probably not when it comes to Israel and Palestine, in fact he may do worse. With Ukraine, it may come down to whether his ego gets sufficiently put out, should Putin frustrate his dealmaking desires, to prompt some fresh and dangerous foolishness. He is definitely not a safe pair of hands.
But . . . but, I think he really would rather get out of wars than prolong them or initiate new ones. He consistently pushed that line long before he first ran for president and I think a reasonable argument can be made that it was only some combination of his own ineptitude in choosing staff and the workings of the "deep state" that derailed him.
Trump is uniquely divisive. He's also a living Rorschach test, encouraging Manichaean responses from all over the spectrum. It is of course part of his political secret sauce but it also makes any attempt at objective analysis exceptionally difficult.
"But . . . but, I think he really would rather get out of wars than prolong them or initiate new ones. He consistently pushed that line long before he first ran for president and I think a reasonable argument can be made that it was only some combination of his own ineptitude in choosing staff and the workings of the "deep state" that derailed him.”
IE, maybe this is true, but honestly, Trump hasn’t faced any test concerning this. Where he has nothing to personally to gain, I’m sure he’d walk away, but if he has, whether it be personally, electorally or egotistically, he’ll not give a damn about anyones life. He has consistently denigrated military personal when it suits him and no one will convince me he cares about anyone but himself.
Yes, Ukraine will be his first real test, all the more so given his boastfulness on the topic. Strange things can happen (perhaps including from the Russian side) but it's likely no US administration would find it easy, or even possible, to accept what will probably be core Russian requirements. The time for palatable solutions passed a few years ago.
Who knows what Trump does then. It's likely to be a battle between his ego and his desire for a deal, for a win. A ridiculously precarious vessel to carry the hopes of a nation, and perhaps of the world. What's interesting (and scary) is that with Trump, surprising outcomes are within the realm of the possible.
Don't apologise, that's great. Agree there are shades and that the Dems are far from blame-free. Your point about Gaza is well taken. Biden's support for what Israel is doing is every bit as psychopathic as anything Trump has done. AS I've said before, I think fascism is a fair description of Trump, but as you suggest, we have to understand it as fascism "with Amerian characteristics" rather than as a straight replication of WWII Italy or Germany. Not black and white.
Good to hear occasional longer, indulgent entries are welcome . . . within reason of course.😋
Yes indeed, definitely not black and white. I find words like fascism and evil devilishly tricky. Their meanings seem elusive to me, with each of us bringing our own baggage when using them. Is Trump a fascist or at least a proto-fascist? I truly don't know. He seems to tick some of the boxes: authoritarian; nationalistic; some corporatist instincts (I think). On the other hand, and I accept many think otherwise, I don't get the sense he's particularly racist, or a lover of hierarchy for that matter. Except, naturally, for himself deserving to be in charge.
Towards the end of his last term I decided he simply wasn't a serious man. Too impulsive, too easily distracted, in many ways too ignorant with no inclination to do the hard yards. Some say he's worked hard and seriously in the last four years to understand where and why he went wrong. If so, a more determined and better informed man may emerge. We will know soon enough.
Earlier today I read this terrific essay that echoed some of the sentiments you voice here - https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2025/01/stand-out-how-to-prevent-obeying-in-advance.html. It inspired me to try and find ways to standup for 'my' liberal values. It also implored me to act as a heroic resistor. I appreciate its rhetorical value; infact I think that piece, and a lot of similar essays from those who oppose the rightward turn to politics, including this particular post, are doing the important job of trying to spur us liberals to get our act together and open our eyes to the dangerous times we'll sleepwalk into if politics continues in this vein.
However, when I think about these alarmist warnings a little bit more, I wonder if we're doing the right thing by painting a picture of us vs them. Isn't it an inevitable part of the liberal project that we allow illiberal voice to exist and be heard? When we celebrate someone like Voltaire's dictum, "I may not agree with you, sir, but I will nonetheless protect your right to say it", aren't we implicitly agreeing that the other person can continue to spew the hatred and lies they want to? A while ago Tyler Cowen argued that fake news/ hate speech is less a supply-side problem than a demand-side one. I find that to be broadly correct though I might argue against framing society as an "information marketplace" because the economisation of everyday life deprives our politics of idealism and morality but that's a topic for another day.
Perhaps Trump, Dutton, et al are, to use Hilary Clinton's infamous phrase, "deplorables". But I don't believe all the millions who vote for them are fascists. Even if they are, I don't believe it is their only dimension. People do contain multitudes. Maybe there is a good reason why so many across the world are turning to right-wing authoritarians- One of the useful diagnoses I've read comes from Pankaj Mishra's Age of Anger- and yes while some maybe understandable reasons (neoliberal economics, cost-of-living crises, rapid changes to social demographies, social media proliferation etc.), many could indeed have terribly loathsome homophobic, xenophobic, ethnic supremacist etc. reasons. Yet, yet, I am nervous to brandish them as such. Not just because it limits them but because it limits me too. Because then I don't have to sit across the table from them and confront a challenge to my quasi-religous belief that all humans have equal rights and, for the most part, are well-meaning.
Maybe this view is a reflection of my naivity but it is what I, for all my exasperation during some of these arguments, genuinely feel. We should continue to work towards upholding our principles, help build institutions that we believe, in good faith, to promote the greater good, and yet, we should still be able to let these people say what they want to. Isn't that the highest aspiration of the modern political project? From the prospect of 'the end of history', within 30 years we've been harked back into the muddy realm of 'dirty politics' where anything can be said and nothing needs to be accountable. That seems to me the inevitability of politics itself. The more solid ground we claim, the deeper our opponents will burrow to shake our foundations. We can only keep at it, and evolve in the process too.
It's a tough issue. My inclination is to be inclusive. Bloody hell, I once wrote a long piece defending Pauline Hanson--not her politics or vews, but her right to participate. So I see where you are coming from. But liberalism isn't a suicide pact and we do have to resist. Trump is beyond compromising and while I would direct most of my critique at him and the elites around him, you can't ignore the rusted-on support he has in the electorate. I don't think Liberalism demands accomodation at every point. The lesson of history is that unless you stand up to these arseholes, you won't survive.
I think you're right. I should be able to distinguish between the person and the persona, as it were, and fight the persona without that devolving into contempt for the person. At the same time, I should be wary of sliding into smug self-rightouesness and be willing to change my convictions when presented with new, valid evidence from the opposing camp. You're right, it is a tough issue.
Also, I forgot to mention earlier: "Die young, stay masculine" is a cracker of a line mate!
Absolutely. While we know it’s going to be messy, having a Prime Minister who’s as beholden to the crossbench as he is to Dutton, Murdoch, and the usual lineup of oligarchs is a critical step forward.
Not a perfect solution, but a hell of a lot better than letting these so-called "leaders" run unchecked. Frankly, I’ll take a bit of chaos over the alternative: a smoother road to more cruelty and corruption.
Cracking start to 2025 from you TD - no time to ease back into the reality of the state-of-the-nation & what's really in front of us. It's pretty digusting to see what the Coalition was & has become - the realease of the 2004 Cabinet papers -eg. (News) 'Howard Government ignored 2003 warning on capital gains tax change impact on housing affordability', Iraq war, Timor embassy bugging: (AFR) 'East Timor bugging ‘in national interest’: Howard'. Is/was Labor just as culpable in their time in power? Has the govt always acted in this way? I suspect maybe but things have got a whole lot worse. It would seem that any semblance of the national good has been thrown far, far out of the window with the egos of Albanese & Dutton & the careers of the MPs taking over. Can only hope that Fed election 2025 delivers a govt that does what is best for the country not for MSM popular political personalities and their careers.
Howard is the proximate cause of so many of our democratic bad habits and as you say, the cabinet releases are just reinforcing that. But yes, Labor have much to answer for too. Hope over the year to get into this a bit more. We need to understand 1980-2007 more clearly to lay the foundations for change. Might even be a book in it!
get writing, now! (R u exploring how AI eg. Claude can help with the mechanics of writing - not the creative aspect which should remain, at least for the time being, the human endeavour?)
Post Script: Meant to add - 'Landman' had caught my eye as a possible watch - will elevate it to 'must-see' now. Cheers
The Second Coming
W.B.Yeats
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
A friend posted this poem on FB this morning. The first stanza dovetails with your article, I reckon, Tim. And the rest of the poem fleshes out the influence the Xtian element of that unholy trinity of Christianity, Colonialism and Capitalism that underpins why the world is going to hell in a hand basket. If we let it. Not that 'we' can stop its momentum other than protecting our physical, mental and inner wellbeing as much as possible. For me that means being a contemplative hermit. Easy to do as a 71 yr old woman with health issues. Not so easy for those who still need to watch out for the radicalisation of their children.
Has to be one of the great poems of all time, doesn't it Juda? The other one I turn to regularly is September 1, 1939, by Auden. I think he's my fave, though he ended up rejecting this particular work, declaring he wasn't happy with it. I still like it. It's opening also seems timeless:
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
The timelessness of it. And its cyclical nature. The great hope that it is a once off but knowing that those chancy times have come again. Thanks for sharing it, Tim. Another reminder to find comfort, and sometimes joy, where and when we can.
Bit of a coincidence mentioning Yellowstone. We are watching the final season at the moment (Spoilers ahead!), and I was thinking about how it does mirror politics in the USA, but probably everywhere.
The main guy gets elected as governor, not to do good or anything, but to save his ranch....stuff everyone else in the state. (Now, this is the 'good' guy in the series you need to remember).
He does roll out some homilies to justify things, but his main aim is to save his ranch from the evil corporations...just stuff anyone else, we need to keep the status-quo (as that is just going so well!).
I am sure this is common everywhere, guy (usually is a guy) gets his nose out of joint, or sees an opportunity to make some money and decides to get some power to move the political needle to help himself out.
Sort of mirrors Trump. Main reason he wanted to get elected is for purely selfish reasons. To help make his legal woes go away and to make lots and lots of money for him and his inner circle. Also to fix the system so he can anoint someone for the next election (if they have one again, that is)
Interesting. It really taps into their long history of the lone "hero". It's all very feudal, really. As I say, I haven't watched it, but I've watched a hundred YouTube clips, mainly of Beth, who seems an interesting character in some ways. I gather she is central to the show's appeal?
"My sense is that, in this era of the Internet, there are millions more fascists in this country than people think, young men in particular. And I believe that many more millions are fascinated by Trump not for his supposed business prowess but for his transparent wish to hurt others. He is an evil guy, a villain—and many Americans are excited by it. “
THIS! Remember the Underbelly series and how popular that was, yet the main characters had nothing going for them, they were dirt bags, yet…..
The media glorify the violence, there are exceptions to this, and imo, Snowtown was outstanding in this regard, portraying violence in a real light. When I watched that there were around 50 people in the cinema and a minimum of 15% walked out in the first 1/2 hr. The movie was nothing short of brutal and very realistic to watch, yet to describe it as a great movie is difficult, but it was, just not great to watch! I walked out at the end absolutely flat. If these low life criminals were presented in a more realistic manner, the celebrity infatuation people have towards them would likely be a lot lower.
I think Australia is a lot closer to the US than we care to admit, people and politics.
For the last 10+ yrs I’ve wondered what it would have been like to be homeless in a Brisbane park 30 yrs ago!
If the stories of Musk being on the verge of trying to influence Australian politics are true, it will be an interesting test of all this.
Hi Tim, I think Australians are susceptible to Trump style politics, but that will depend on the person pushing it. Dutton’s improvement in the polls as a leader are mind boggling to me, just as Jacinta Price’s standing with voters is a WTF moment.
I don’t believe someone like Musk will ever have much impact here, he’s a successful prat that the majority of Australians will dislike.
Both shows are conceived by Taylor Sheridan, who has never lived anything but a hollywood life and now writes his fantasies as realities. Reminds me of Tarantino with his need to brutalise & denigrate women in his stories
Ah, I had missed that! The women in Landman are a whole other thing and I didn't get into, but wtf? Will look into this further, thanks!
I have mixed feelings, Tim.
These few thoughts are tentative, meant as conversation openers and trying to add some shades of grey. They're also focused on foreign policy aspects, my primary interest when it comes to American politics.
With Trump, everything is personal, transactional, often impulsive. He is of course the most astonishing narcissist, and often vulgar to boot, but I think it's a mistake to paint him in simple black hat colours. Quite apart from anything else, it doesn't capture the nature of his appeal.
What he ran against both times (the "swamp" and foreign entanglements) aren't figments of his imagination and it seems to me the anti-Trump world tends to give his opponents a free pass. Biden and the Democrats may be "boring, boring, boring" but in terms of violence unleashed and sustained, between backing the genocide in Gaza and repeatedly encouraging the Ukrainians to destroy themselves, they haven't done too badly.
Would Trump have done any better? More importantly, will he? Probably not when it comes to Israel and Palestine, in fact he may do worse. With Ukraine, it may come down to whether his ego gets sufficiently put out, should Putin frustrate his dealmaking desires, to prompt some fresh and dangerous foolishness. He is definitely not a safe pair of hands.
But . . . but, I think he really would rather get out of wars than prolong them or initiate new ones. He consistently pushed that line long before he first ran for president and I think a reasonable argument can be made that it was only some combination of his own ineptitude in choosing staff and the workings of the "deep state" that derailed him.
Trump is uniquely divisive. He's also a living Rorschach test, encouraging Manichaean responses from all over the spectrum. It is of course part of his political secret sauce but it also makes any attempt at objective analysis exceptionally difficult.
Apologies for going on . . .😏
"But . . . but, I think he really would rather get out of wars than prolong them or initiate new ones. He consistently pushed that line long before he first ran for president and I think a reasonable argument can be made that it was only some combination of his own ineptitude in choosing staff and the workings of the "deep state" that derailed him.”
IE, maybe this is true, but honestly, Trump hasn’t faced any test concerning this. Where he has nothing to personally to gain, I’m sure he’d walk away, but if he has, whether it be personally, electorally or egotistically, he’ll not give a damn about anyones life. He has consistently denigrated military personal when it suits him and no one will convince me he cares about anyone but himself.
Dennis, I largely agree.
Yes, Ukraine will be his first real test, all the more so given his boastfulness on the topic. Strange things can happen (perhaps including from the Russian side) but it's likely no US administration would find it easy, or even possible, to accept what will probably be core Russian requirements. The time for palatable solutions passed a few years ago.
Who knows what Trump does then. It's likely to be a battle between his ego and his desire for a deal, for a win. A ridiculously precarious vessel to carry the hopes of a nation, and perhaps of the world. What's interesting (and scary) is that with Trump, surprising outcomes are within the realm of the possible.
Don't apologise, that's great. Agree there are shades and that the Dems are far from blame-free. Your point about Gaza is well taken. Biden's support for what Israel is doing is every bit as psychopathic as anything Trump has done. AS I've said before, I think fascism is a fair description of Trump, but as you suggest, we have to understand it as fascism "with Amerian characteristics" rather than as a straight replication of WWII Italy or Germany. Not black and white.
Good to hear occasional longer, indulgent entries are welcome . . . within reason of course.😋
Yes indeed, definitely not black and white. I find words like fascism and evil devilishly tricky. Their meanings seem elusive to me, with each of us bringing our own baggage when using them. Is Trump a fascist or at least a proto-fascist? I truly don't know. He seems to tick some of the boxes: authoritarian; nationalistic; some corporatist instincts (I think). On the other hand, and I accept many think otherwise, I don't get the sense he's particularly racist, or a lover of hierarchy for that matter. Except, naturally, for himself deserving to be in charge.
Towards the end of his last term I decided he simply wasn't a serious man. Too impulsive, too easily distracted, in many ways too ignorant with no inclination to do the hard yards. Some say he's worked hard and seriously in the last four years to understand where and why he went wrong. If so, a more determined and better informed man may emerge. We will know soon enough.
Earlier today I read this terrific essay that echoed some of the sentiments you voice here - https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2025/01/stand-out-how-to-prevent-obeying-in-advance.html. It inspired me to try and find ways to standup for 'my' liberal values. It also implored me to act as a heroic resistor. I appreciate its rhetorical value; infact I think that piece, and a lot of similar essays from those who oppose the rightward turn to politics, including this particular post, are doing the important job of trying to spur us liberals to get our act together and open our eyes to the dangerous times we'll sleepwalk into if politics continues in this vein.
However, when I think about these alarmist warnings a little bit more, I wonder if we're doing the right thing by painting a picture of us vs them. Isn't it an inevitable part of the liberal project that we allow illiberal voice to exist and be heard? When we celebrate someone like Voltaire's dictum, "I may not agree with you, sir, but I will nonetheless protect your right to say it", aren't we implicitly agreeing that the other person can continue to spew the hatred and lies they want to? A while ago Tyler Cowen argued that fake news/ hate speech is less a supply-side problem than a demand-side one. I find that to be broadly correct though I might argue against framing society as an "information marketplace" because the economisation of everyday life deprives our politics of idealism and morality but that's a topic for another day.
Perhaps Trump, Dutton, et al are, to use Hilary Clinton's infamous phrase, "deplorables". But I don't believe all the millions who vote for them are fascists. Even if they are, I don't believe it is their only dimension. People do contain multitudes. Maybe there is a good reason why so many across the world are turning to right-wing authoritarians- One of the useful diagnoses I've read comes from Pankaj Mishra's Age of Anger- and yes while some maybe understandable reasons (neoliberal economics, cost-of-living crises, rapid changes to social demographies, social media proliferation etc.), many could indeed have terribly loathsome homophobic, xenophobic, ethnic supremacist etc. reasons. Yet, yet, I am nervous to brandish them as such. Not just because it limits them but because it limits me too. Because then I don't have to sit across the table from them and confront a challenge to my quasi-religous belief that all humans have equal rights and, for the most part, are well-meaning.
Maybe this view is a reflection of my naivity but it is what I, for all my exasperation during some of these arguments, genuinely feel. We should continue to work towards upholding our principles, help build institutions that we believe, in good faith, to promote the greater good, and yet, we should still be able to let these people say what they want to. Isn't that the highest aspiration of the modern political project? From the prospect of 'the end of history', within 30 years we've been harked back into the muddy realm of 'dirty politics' where anything can be said and nothing needs to be accountable. That seems to me the inevitability of politics itself. The more solid ground we claim, the deeper our opponents will burrow to shake our foundations. We can only keep at it, and evolve in the process too.
It's a tough issue. My inclination is to be inclusive. Bloody hell, I once wrote a long piece defending Pauline Hanson--not her politics or vews, but her right to participate. So I see where you are coming from. But liberalism isn't a suicide pact and we do have to resist. Trump is beyond compromising and while I would direct most of my critique at him and the elites around him, you can't ignore the rusted-on support he has in the electorate. I don't think Liberalism demands accomodation at every point. The lesson of history is that unless you stand up to these arseholes, you won't survive.
I think you're right. I should be able to distinguish between the person and the persona, as it were, and fight the persona without that devolving into contempt for the person. At the same time, I should be wary of sliding into smug self-rightouesness and be willing to change my convictions when presented with new, valid evidence from the opposing camp. You're right, it is a tough issue.
Also, I forgot to mention earlier: "Die young, stay masculine" is a cracker of a line mate!
Absolutely. While we know it’s going to be messy, having a Prime Minister who’s as beholden to the crossbench as he is to Dutton, Murdoch, and the usual lineup of oligarchs is a critical step forward.
Not a perfect solution, but a hell of a lot better than letting these so-called "leaders" run unchecked. Frankly, I’ll take a bit of chaos over the alternative: a smoother road to more cruelty and corruption.