Politics
Political polarization
In America Democrats and Republicans are moving further apart, to the extent that most see the other side as enemies rather than as rivals.
The University of Chicago has published a poll examining the extent of political polarization in the US, and reporting on the part played by the media in contributing to that polarization: Our precarious democracy: extreme polarization and alienation of our politics.
The extent of polarization and mutual contempt is revealed in a pair of questions: “Democrats/Republicans are generally bullies who want to impose their political beliefs on those who disagree”. The “Democrats” version is given to Republican supporters, and vice versa. More than 70 percent of respondents agree with this statement as it applies to the other party.
Cynicism runs deep. Republicans, in particular, are likely to believe that the government is “corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me”, and only a third of Republican supporters believe elections are conducted fairly and counted accurately. Just under a half of respondents describing themselves as “strong GOP” believe “it may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government” – a view largely confined to Republicans and not shared by “strong Democrats”.
A majority of respondents believe that strong political differences are caused less by “honest disagreement” than by the sources from which people get their information. Fox News is seen as reliable – “a good faith intent to cover the news” – by a third of respondents, while the harshest credibility judgement is reserved for social media – Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and TikTok.
For those who believe polarization has been a symmetrical phenomenon – with both the left and right moving away from the centre – Robert Reich dismisses this notion of symmetry. The “left” may have moved a little, but the “right” has moved way to the right, in a process that started with Ronald Reagan and his “small government” obsession, and has been most extremely manifest by Donald Trump who “brought America about as close as we’ve ever come to fascism”.
Reich stresses that his own views have not shifted – after all he was Labor Secretary in the Clinton Administration, and those who know him from his days as a professor at the Kennedy School would hardly call him a radical.
How might these differences play out in Australia? We could imagine Menzies turning up today with his policies on universities and public investment: he would probably be considered too radical for the Albanese government and as a dangerous revolutionary by the Dutton opposition. America, however, has an entrenched two-party system making for polarization.
Jacinda Ardern at Harvard
Political polarization is also a theme of Jacinda Ardern’s speech to graduating students at Harvard. In a diplomatic style she points out how some of New Zealand’s political practices, particularly multi-party proportional representation, have protected New Zealand from extreme polarization and have enabled reforms such as strong firearms control to be enacted. The main part of her speech is about social media – its use to spread misinformation, to undermine confidence in institutions, and to nurture terrorism. She urges citizens to take back control of the internet, and to engage their own capacities to take part in respectful political discourse.
Why don’t women love the Liberal Party: could it be about policy?
If only our Parliament hadn’t been so woke in 1902, when it extended the vote to women, Scott Morrison would probably still be prime minister.
Until around the turn of this century Australian women were generally more likely to vote Liberal rather than Labor, but increasingly women have drifted away from the Liberal and National parties, partly to Labor and also to Greens and independents.
On two successive days, on the ABC’s Breakfast program, two women now holding shadow portfolios in opposition addressed women’s disaffection with the Coalition. Linda Reynolds on Tuesday (10 minutes) and Karen Andrews on Wednesday (12 minutes). Both see a need for more women contesting winnable seats, and they do not rule out quotas, at least as a temporary approach.
Both convey the impression that the party would do better among women voters if only the party could get its message across. Reynolds says that the party’s enduring values and policies are highly favourable for women. Andrews is more specific, drawing attention to the Liberal Party’s statement of beliefs: if only the party could communicate its beliefs and principles better, surely women would come back to the party.
It’s worth having a look at that short statement of beliefs, where it states that “businesses and individuals – not government – are the true creators of wealth and employment”, and praises “lean government” as a virtue.
That means if you work in the public sector what you do counts for nothing; you’re just an overhead carried by the private sector.
It’s a great message for teachers, general practitioners and nurses – professions dominated by women and mainly paid by the public sector. And as much as Reynolds and Andrews might like to see a more equal distribution of chores between men and women, in most households women are still more involved than men in their children’s education, the family’s health care and care for aged parents – all activities where cuts in public spending have reduced the standard of services.
In its obsession to keep Australia’s taxes much lower than in other prosperous “developed” countries, and in its 23.9 percent of GDP ceiling on Commonwealth taxes, the Liberal Party is condemning Australia to an emaciated public sector, unable to provide the services that only the public sector can provide efficiently and fairly in a mixed economy. While everyone suffers because of this doctrinaire idiocy, women are the most immediately affected.
No doubt the Liberal Party has a bloke problem, partly addressed in the recent Four Corners program that delved into its factional battles.
But the real problem is policy. The problem may be that women do understand the party’s policies.
Poll miscellany
There are still no national polls on support for the main parties. William Bowe’s Poll Bludger has some observations on state polls. He has also used census data to see how electorates have changed since 2011.[1] If the Coalition were a corporation seeking long-term growth Bowe’s analysis would look grim: the Coalition holds all 10 of the lowest income electorates, 7 of the 10 oldest (age 65+) electorates, and none of the 10 electorates with the highest proportion of non-English speaking people.
Morning Consult has a poll Global Leader Approval Ratings, published on June 30, showing approval or otherwise of heads of government in 20 countries. At 56 percent Albanese comes in equal third, after India’s outstandingly popular Narendra Modi and Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Bottom place – 25 percent – is held by Boris Johnson, former prime minister of one of Europe’s offshore islands.
1. It’s a laborious task because electorates shift their boundaries: he has had to create virtual 2011 electorates based on 2022 boundaries.↩