A view from the outside is far more revealing than the myopia offered from within. We are all apt to overlook the elephant for its trunk or ears when we are drawn too near a subject/object. In such a distorted world, teacup ‘storms’ appear as hurricanes. The loss of perspective is a precursor to the loss of FREEDOM; as the scope narrows, so our consciousness. Few in Oz seem to be aware that the opposition Labor party no longer has an ideological platform; the values of the traditional Australian Labor Party have been jettisoned for short-term gain, opportunism and expediency!
The oddity that is attempting to replace traditional Australian working values is a conservative, Christian dork from the parochial State of Queensland, Kevin (custard face) Rudd. The current prime minister John Howard can be accused of many things including war crimes but he can never be accused of abandoning the ideological platform of his party – in that sense he is a purist!
Howard belongs to the conservative school of laissez-faire capitalism, free market economics known today by the misleading terms, Economic Rationalism; however, a cursory analysis reveals little rationality in this unsustainable singularly (profit) driven philosophy!
Nevertheless, John Howard worships at this filthy (lucre) temple of Moloch. Free market capitalists believe that everything finds balance and is served by market forces; the less the government intervenes the better, in fact, government should facilitate the needs of the Corporate sector at the expense of everything else; in that regard Howard obliges to the letter.
Howard has taken non-interventionism to the extreme by allowing a shortage of bananas (due to storm activity) to push the cost of an Australian staple food to an unholy $13/kilo! In view of the fact that Australia is surrounded by cheap banana producing nations, Howard’s non-interventionism (failure to import) is unforgivable as is the huge deprivation unnecessarily inflicted on the Australian public. But Howard maintained his integrity; he did not intervene when intervention was clearly warranted.
The most costly areas in which Howard has not intervened are the environment and water resource management; the reason is simple, these critical areas offer no profit at present. Factors critical to the tenability of human and other forms of life are irrelevant to economic ‘rationalists’ if ‘monetary’ gain is not on offer – inverting value systems to this extent is not only foolhardy it is suicidal.
In view of the above factors it is a curiosity that the opposition has found it difficult to depose a pathological liar, war criminal, destroyer of Australian values, incompetent economic/environmental manager, lackey to foreign powers, a person who displays no national character whatsoever, a reprehensible coward, one who surrenders citizens to foreign torturers and is willing to take political advantage of hapless victims, a slave to self-serving corporate bosses, one who allows personal debt levels to skyrocket when the corporate sector has never made higher profits etc, etc. The qualities this prime minister manifests are offensive to all honest human beings yet the opposition finds it difficult to trap a rodent!
The opposition leader allows the prime minister to stigmatise and portray the union movement as a criminal pariah organisation and yet the opposition misses the opportunity to contrast the profits of Transnationals and the salary of Corporate directors with the rest of the population – wherefore this ‘oversight’? The fact that hundreds of millions of dollars derived from Australia’s natural wealth goes offshore seems not to interest the opposition. What is more ‘criminal’, raping and exploiting the nation to the tune of billions or a few million in wage increases for average workers?
Kevin Rudd, bereft of an ideology and principals from which to launch a victorious attack finds himself instead emulating his opponent by claiming that he too is a conservative! Then why Kevin should anyone vote for you when Howard is by far the more conservative? Faced with a challenge to reprimand a colourful union leader for inappropriate remarks, Rudd took the reactive instead of the active approach by divorcing himself from the movement and demanding the resignation of the unionist. Perhaps Mr. Rudd should join the conservatives and put an end to his identity crisis! Also, faced with the children overboard fraud, the waterfront debacle, the 'aluminium tubing' lies that involved Australia in a criminal war – Rudd remains bereft of material to attack (CRUCIFY) the war criminal, John Howard.
Australian unions do not have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians on their hands yet the opposition allows slurs from Howard and his criminal government. Arresting Howard, Downer and Ruddock for their active support and complicity in crimes that resulted in a holocaust would surely amount to material for a moral attack on the government yet custard-face Rudd, surrounded with incriminating, irrefutable evidence is unable to develop a winning strategy!
The forthcoming election should see Howard slaughtered but without an ideology or philosophical platform Rudd is appearing more like a vacillating, shallow wannabe! Howard is not the clever politician the opposition imagines, he is simply a disgusting, lying, criminal coward with the blood of innocents on his hands. The fact that Rudd has no ideological base is becoming problematic. It wouldn’t be surprising to see Rudd shredded over this very shortcoming. A contender must stand for something larger than himself!
Addendum:
In contrast to the parochial nature of Australian politics there exists a politician that has not missed a beat, picture perfect so far. The lateral approach of creating the space, the agenda and forcing an issue of his choosing onto the world political arena is a stroke of genius. Making a movie then allowing the media and others to do all the hard work while his opponents, including candidates from his own party run themselves dry, is an effort worthy of the best political strategists.
With perfect timing and when his opponents’ veins are popping from their foreheads, Al Gore, if he chooses to run, is a walk-up winner -- ‘play it again, Al’, what a ‘stroke’!
by Joel S. Hirschhorn via rialator 2007-06-01 10:03:49
Condemn progressives for voting enthusiastically for Democrats and the inevitable response is something like "just imagine how much worse voting for Republicans would be." Similarly, many true conservatives and Libertarians see voting for Republicans as a necessary evil. With many progressives regretting giving Democrats a majority in Congress and many conservatives regretting putting George W. Bush in the White House, it is timely to refute lesser evil logic.
Inevitably, lesser evil voters face personal disappointment and some shame. Politicians that receive lesser evil votes do not perform according to the values and principles that the lesser evil voter holds dear. These voters must accept responsibility for putting ineffective, dishonest and corrupt politicians in office. Though they may be lesser evils, they remain evils.
All too often lesser evil voters avoid shame and regret and prevent painful cognitive dissonance by deluding themselves that the politician they helped put in office is really not so bad after all. Corrosive lesser evil voting erodes one's principles as pragmatism replaces idealism. This makes the next cycle of lesser evil voting easier.
Lesser evil voting helps stabilize America's two-party duopoly that greatly restricts true political competition. Third party and independent candidates - and minor Democratic and Republican candidates in primaries - are defeated by massive numbers of lesser evil voters. Despite authentically having the political goals that mesh with many voters on the left or right, these minor "best" candidates fall victim to lesser evil voting. Lesser evil voters are addicted to a self-fulfilling prophesy. They think "If I vote for a minor candidate they will lose anyway." They ensure this outcome though their lesser evil voting. The truly wasted vote is the unprincipled lesser evil vote.
Effective representative democracy requires politically engaged citizens that vote. Lesser-evil voters support the current two-party system with its terribly low voter turnout and chronic dishonesty and corruption. Lesser evil voters help put into office disappointing politicians, not the best people that would restore American democracy and show more citizens that voting is valuable. Lesser evil voters demonstrate the validity of turned-off citizens' view that it really does not matter which major party wins office.
Politicians knowingly market themselves to lesser evil voters by constructing phony sales pitches, especially to certain audiences outside of their more certain base constituents. Democrats make themselves look more progressive than they really are, and Republicans make themselves look more conservative than they really are. Lesser evil voters are phony, and they produce a phony political system. Lesser evil voters contribute mightily to the travesty of our political system that no sane person respects and has confidence in.
Lesser evil voting demonstrates the worst aspects of political compromise. This is the common cause of terrible laws. When citizens surrender so much of what they truly believe in, they enable compromise politicians to create bad public policy that, in the end, satisfies very few people and puts band-aids on severe problems. Lesser evil voters concede victory to the other side - the side they view as the worse alternative because the people they vote for will not stand up for what is right and necessary. Think Iraq war. Even when their lesser evil side wins, they do not have the principled positions that would prevent awful compromises, often in the name of bipartisanship that is a clever way to justify our corrupt two-party mafia.
Lesser evil voters deride the alternatives of not voting or voting for minor candidates. The outcome should the "other" side win is deemed unacceptable. There is worse and there is worst. The core problem with lesser evil voters is that they are short term thinkers. They fail to see the repeated long term consequence of their style of voting - a system over many election cycles that persists in delivering suboptimal results. The "good" outcome in the current election (from their perspective) is the enemy of the "better" solution in the longer term (from an objective perspective). The better solution is major reform that will never happen as long as lesser evil voting persists.
Understand this: Lesser evil voting is not courageous. It is cowardly surrender to the disappointing two-party status quo. Lesser evil voters should trade regret for pride by voting for candidates they really think are the best. Voters in this presidential primary season have some remarkable opportunities to transform fine minor candidates into competitive major candidates - more honest and trustworthy people like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, for example.
Finally, the deadly decline of American democracy results in large measure from lesser evil voters electing lesser evil politicians. When virtually no elected public official is there because most voters have embraced his clear principled, trustworthy positions we get a government that is easily corrupted by corporate and other moneyed interests. We get what we have now. And if you are dissatisfied with that, then reconsider the wisdom of lesser evil voting. We will only get the best government by voting for the best candidates. Otherwise, we get what we deserve and what the power elites prefer.
Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy (www.delusionaldemocracy.com) and a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention (www.foavc.org).
© 2007 Joel S. Hirschhorn