Since the President of the United States is a symbolic figure embodying a vast and complicated nation, how bad is it that Bush could win the White House but lose the popular vote?

The split identity of the USA could be great for democracy by creating openings in deadlocked debate on core issues like gun control, environmental protection and health care.

The controversies over the Florida vote brings down to earth the “spiritual” pomposity of the rhetoric surrounding “the president”, and the intensity of focus on the Florida recount could also trigger a long-needed clean-up of campaign financing and procedures. and old boys’ networks.

It is clear that America, while confident, doesn’t quite know which direction to take with all its wealth.

In some ways, that indecision makes me sigh with relief, because it indicates the cultural and economic debates thrown up by the absolute certainties of globalisation are no where near over.

If Bush wins and the economy falters, how about Hillary for president next time round? I’m bored being depressed about the state of the world: it’s much more fun to imagine a silver lining.

 

A reader submits the following wisdom from the lips of the likely new leader of the world, George W. Bush:

“If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.”

 

“Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child.”

 

“I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.”

 

“The future will be better tomorrow.”

“When I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in LA, my answer has been direct and simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame.”

 

“We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe.”

“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”

“Welcome to Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts.”

 

“Mars is essentially in the same orbit…Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.”

“The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation’s history. I mean in this century’s history. But we all lived in this century. I didn’t live in this century.”

“I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy – but that could change.”

“I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican”

 

“A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls.”

“Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it.”

“For NASA, space is still a high priority.”

 

“Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children.”

 

“We’re all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made.”

“[It’s] time for the human race to enter the solar system.”

“Public speaking is very easy.”

…………………………………………………..

The Journalism debate has moved on to consider Hansonism, and what it might mean for our future.

Hanson was in court today trying to appoint a liquidator to the corporate arm of One Nation. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, Mr Oldfield.

Can she pull it off, run her own grass roots outfit, and convince voters to again fall for her charms?

 

ROBERT LAWTON takes issue with my claim in “Hansonism: Then and Now” (Webdiary Nov 9) that:

 

“Howard does not choose intelligent, engaged debate. He does not respect the citizens he is appealing to, he exploits them. He chooses social populism, and refuses to argue his case on the merits to equally informed citizens. He has rejected rational debate and opted out of conversation with the informed, which in my view is the most dangerous game any political leader can play.”

 

After all the argument and “intelligent, engaged debate” on your website, do you really see things in such stark terms?

 

The Liberals and Nats don’t choose “intelligent, engaged debate” because such a thing has never existed in Australian politics. Certainly Labor never indulged in such things over thirteen years before 1996.

Reading Neal Blewett’s Cabinet Diary, watching the Keating Government fudge and fabricate in order to cling to power, it is impossible to see any desire to do anything with the electorate except to manipulate it.

I suspect people who start out in politics loving the voters end up holding them in contempt.

 

Surely you can see that the anti-intellectual strain in this country reduces “debate” to silly barracking for one party line or the other. Within the party rooms, things may be different. You have access to these places, we don’t, and you can’t report what goes on because your sources will disappear.

 

Howard chooses social populism. What did Hawke choose? To be the most conservative ALP leader since Billy Hughes.

The hot issues of the intellectual Left were all buried by the Hawke government. Refugees, land rights, a republican constitution, even thoroughgoing tax reform: policy in all these areas moved to the Right or stalled. Meanwhile tariffs fell in all industries and privatisation rolled on.

 

What did Keating choose? To seize various opportunities and turn them into playthings for the liberal press, while in truth policy development halted so desperate measures might be taken to keep Labor in power.

Keating fell into Mabo and chose to shunt the issue into the courts, instead of working on a treaty at once. He declared pastoral leases negated native title, when the law was all the other way; leaving a massive mess for Howard to work on.

(MARGO: This is incorrect. Keating left the question of native title on pastoral leases open, to the chagrin of farmers. He did so because the question was undecided by the High Court, and if he had extinguished native title on pastoral leases and the Court had found it had existed – as it later did in Wik – the Commonwealth would have been liable to pay billions in compensation for appropriating Aboriginal property rights. This is because the Constitution mandates that the Commonwealth pay landowners just compensation when it takes over their property. After Wik, Howard also refused to abolish native title on pastoral leases, for the same reason.)

 

The Queen arrived for a tour, and suddenly a (non elected) president was the go. He was suitably deferential to Suharto, which clearly pleased the old man, and thenceforth we were Asians. (Suharto must have considered this last conclusion queer indeed.)

 

“The informed” in this country are a very small group, once you take out the cheer squads. People actually prepared to listen to each other are a tiny minority. This is caused by insularity, lack of real intellectual curiosity and education methods which emphasise deep and narrow technical learning above a wider involvement with culture and science.

 

As for the country (always “the bush”, why?), it will be placated for a while, until some other group looms larger in government consciousness.

I fear that consumerism is so prevalent now that people would not be interested to read the problems of an interest group not their own: your plans of shifting to Bourke might not mean much to most Herald readers and could simply mean your copy was buried or not even run.

Similarly, the more facts that there are in a story the less likely editors are to print it. Thus moving reporters to the coalface may mean less is heard on their topics, not more.

 

My answer to all this: get people travelling as soon as possible. Export Australians, let’s see them streaming out of the place. Open people’s minds to what the rest of the world thinks. Make Australia a virtual country. Let’s have some of those people enter party politics and the media. Then we might be able to start thinking about debate.

 

MARGO: My point about refusing to debate rationally was directed to Howard’s performance in human rights debates.

At least Labor in government, while seeking to limit human rights at times – most famously in its attempt to ban political advertising – was prepared to argue its case on the merits.

It produced its legal legal advice that the law may not breach international obligations to protect free speech, and countered contrary legal views with legal argument.

In contrast, Howard simply walks all over the human rights discourse. During the Wik debate, the government asserted over and over that the bill was not racially discriminatory, yet would give no reason why its view was at odds with just about every senior lawyer in the country.

It did take legal advice, but refused to publish it. A leak to the Herald showed that its very own advice warned that we were in breach of our international treaty commitments not to enact racially discriminatory laws.

When the United Nations racial discrimination committee examined the matter, the government did not lodge any legal advice.

Then, contemptibly, when the committee backed the view of its own lawyer and most others that the Wik bill was racially discriminatory, it claimed the committee was biased, out of touch etc.

The government learnt its lesson by the time the mandatory sentencing debate exploded. This time it did not even ask for legal advice, because it knew the answer was crystal clear – Australia was in breach of several international human rights instruments, in particular the covenant on civil and political rights.

Again, it did not present legal advice backing its assertion of no breach, and again, contemptibly, feigned surprise and threatened revenge when the United Nation’s racial discrimination and civil and politicial rights committees found it in breach.

 

DON ARTHUR

 

Thanks for your piece on Hanson and the media. I’d love to see more reporting which shows how the people who voted One Nation see the world.

 

Watching an Australian election campaign is as frustrating as listening to one side of an interesting conversation. The candidates are polling and focus grouping like mad and they’re using what they find to sweet talk the soft vote in the marginals. I hear what the politicians say, but I can’t hear the voice of the voters who matter most.

 

I found the whole Hanson saga disturbing in ways I’m still not sure I understand. Most people I know never bothered to read a whole speech or to look at the One Nation web site — they acted as if Hansonism was a disease, something you might catch if you read or listened to it first hand. But many of them talked as if they knew everything they needed to know – you know, the same way racists know everything they need to know about blacks or Asians.

 

When I took a look I was fascinated. Not because I agreed with it (I didn’t) but at how it was filled with what many Australians think of as common sense. It was the kind of ‘common sense’ which the policy community don’t want to see on the agenda, issues like protection for Australian industry or the idea that immigration costs jobs and undermines social cohesion.

 

I started to think about what might be going on. According to data from the Middle Australia Project respondents who were angry or unhappy with what was happening to middle Australia were most angry with:

 

1. politicians and government;

2. the economic system;

3. big business and;

4. the media (the media out-ranked ‘dole bludgers’ by a reasonable

margin).

 

Had Hanson tapped into this? These people saw themselves as working hard, trying to do the right thing and getting screwed. But not only were they getting screwed but politicians kept on doing the things which caused the problem — privatising, reducing tariffs, refusing to stand up to big-business (especially banks), letting jobs go off shore and cutting back on services. And the media seemed to encourage them. This must have been incredibly frustrating for people. They saw their world falling apart and a conspiracy of silence over what they saw as the obvious solutions.

 

A lot of this seems like standard stuff for the old fashioned left and I wondered: Why hasn’t a leftish candidate had the same kind of luck tapping into this resentment? I could think of two answers and both had to do with racism:

 

1. The media wouldn’t bother reporting a candidate who talked economic issues. Hanson wasn’t news until she said something racist. Then she got thrown out of the party, That was news and suddenly everyone knows who she is. Then she’s elected and says some more racist things, more news. For broadsheets the threat of political racism makes a great atrocity

story. It does what child sexual abuse stories do for the tabloids. The educated elites of both left and right are appalled by racism — it’s not only morally offensive but bad for business in the region.

 

2. Hanson supporters’ racism and cultural conservatism makes them enemies with people who might sympathise with their economic complaints. There are other very active groups which oppose globalisation, big corporate interests, government cut backs and business as usual politics but these groups are also, more than anything else, anti-racist. American philosopher Richard Rorty writes about the ‘cultural left’, those who are more concerned with oppression based on ascription

(gender, race, sexuality) than economic oppression of those not labelled as minorities. The One Nation people see this as favouritism and say so. The fact that many on the left have surrendered on economic issues to the economic rationalists makes them doubly sensitive on the cultural issues. It’s not that they don’t want to do something about rising inequality or the downwardly mobile lower-middle it’s just that they don’t know what the answer is — racism, rain forests and homophobia are easier more comfortable issues.

 

So maybe it’s racism which keeps the markets free. As long as the economic issues get packaged with the cultural ones the elites of the cultural left and the economically liberal right will stand together against the populists. And as long as that happens the market has nothing to fear from government.

 

MARGO: What would happen if the Hansonites stopped being racist?

 

 

DAVID DAVIS, our correspondent in Switzerland.

 

I think I am going to buy your book, Wooldridge’s book and the Canadian guy’s book. I am sure I can find them all on-line somewhere and have them sent to me in Switzerland. I want to think some more about all of this. Set to “simmer” and wait.

 

I think one of the main reasons for my “wow” reaction is because rather than merely commenting on the problem so many of us see with the media, you are coming up with some exciting and entirely viable suggestions. You are really making a real effort to understand what is going on. More of an effort than sipping on a chardonnay in a Qantas lounge somewhere musing about the problems of the distant “regions”.

 

I wonder if the Herald would have the guts and the resource commitment to do some of the things you suggest? Flying visits to the regions are not good enough. Nothing can be an adequate substitute for having someone on the ground.

 

Your idea re Bourke sounded wonderful. What a pity it was sabotaged. What you really need are some people who are lower profile and who can dig into these places.

 

I recently discovered that Swiss farmers receive around 80% of their incomes in the form of government subsidies. The more I travel and the more I read, the more I wonder which other developed country exposes its farmers and regions to the market rigour that Australia does. I have been to many “regions” in continental Europe which are awash with money because of the high levels of subsidies. In many cases the regions are wealthier than the cities!

 

The more I think about it, the more I think that some of the gripes of the regional Australians are entirely legitimate. The only reason we are all listening at last is because of the vote. Their vote is as powerful as ours.

 

I was also fascinated by your take on the “two Australias”. I think you are lucky that you were brought up in regional Australia because you cannot dismiss it out of hand. These are your roots and you dont forget them. I think Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra can become very insular. Of course they are the power centres of the nation but who does the maths? If you assume these cities have a combined population of around eight million, that leaves TEN million or more living ELSEWHERE. The MAJORITY of Australians live outside of the power bases.

 

Who thinks about Elsewhere? Why is Elsewhere marginalised so much? The reality is Elsewhere is as mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore!

I criticised you originally as being an elite. Living in Switzerland I suppose it is a bit rich for me to claim legitimately to be an average every day Aussie much more in touch than you. Like you though, I came from the “dreaded regions” and at least I believe that gives me some perspective on reality. In a country that has historically idolised the bush, it is such a tragedy to see the reality. More need to see it and understand it.

 

PETER GELLATLY, Canada

 

Wow, that was quite a synopsis.

 

The pressures which gave rise to One Nation are by no means unique to Australia. Here in Canada our version of One Nation, the Canadian Alliance, has augmented its original platform by the adoption of less extreme policies, acquired besuited and soft-spoken leaders and now sits in the federal house of commons as official opposition. It even has a remote chance of winning the upcoming federal election. As with One Nation, the Alliance’s underpinning is prior, chronic disenfranchisement.

As to the rest of your thesis, for the sake of brevity I confine myself arbitrarily to the following points:

 

(1) Michael Wooldridge’s quoted excerpt re the elite/community divide is cogent and evenhanded, but draws no conclusion. John Ralston Saul’s (he’s the partner of Canada’s Governor-General!) draws the conclusion that the elite must behave better, but misses the obvious point: sometimes (and in my experience, not infrequently) the self-tutored, unpedigreed, inelegantly oratorical, low-job-status country “bumpkin” possesses a keener raw intelligence than her “elite” debating opponent, speaks from first hand very personal experience of the issue under contention, and actually has made the correct assessment.

 

(2) You say, “What on earth do we think we’re doing thinking we’ve covered a campaign if we follow around the leaders and try to find a gaffe in their manipulative image making?” The premise seems long ago to have been made that:

(a) the public only wants to hear from “experts”,

(b) we are content to be mindlessly “led” by those we appoint as our parliamentary delegates,

(c) we regard the two-second sound bite gaffe as sufficient dialogue on matters of consequence and

(d) this is as it should be because we’re all too dimwitted to think for ourselves anyway.

 

That is, the “elite” should humour us, but on no account are we to be taken seriously. Or more bluntly, democracy is a terribly flawed system only saved from disaster by preventing the uncouth citizen from independently deciding how best to cast his franchise.

 

But, there’s hope: three cheers for Nicholas Rothwell and plaudits to the Australian for printing his reports. Your prescription for having reporters temporarily reside in marginal electorates during elections is august and would have the added benefit of showcasing the local candidates AND FORCING THEM TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE ISSUES RATHER THAN JUST REGURGITATING THEIR HANDED DOWN PARTY PLATFORMS.

 

(3) Margo, you are talking revolution! Reporters actually boning up on the practicalities of their specialties? Journos as a class living “for extended periods away from their middle class lives”.? (If you pull this off, do you think you might get the pollies to follow suit?) In both cases, the intimate exposure gained would provide a fistful of relevant quotes ready at hand together with an ability to provide fast, in-depth, insightful commentary on breaking stories. Most everybody wins, but

maybe that’s the problem – less opportunity for some to obfuscate and steer.

 

(4) Your two examples of recent insufficient media interest/objectivity – ie the defence force emergency callout bill and the WEF protests – are apt. In each case, the papers printed an assortment of readers’ letters on either side of the issue. Missing – as usual – was any at-length opinion piece from a “non-notable”. It was as if only those mysteriously anointed as having “expertise” were entitled to be heard. In other words, the validity of a viewpoint seemed to hinge on the author’s

pedigree rather than on the cogency if his argument. To me, this is the fundamental flaw which must be ovecome: recognition is required that the ordinary punter sometimes knows what he is talking about!

 

JUSTIN WHELAN:

 

 

First – wow. Your reflection on the role of the media in Australian society (as triggered by the popularity of Pauline Hanson) was excellent. I am glad I had the time to read through all of it, middle-class luxury as this itself is.

 

Your article also helped me to synthesize a few disjointed thoughts of mine about the US elections and in particular the whole Gore vs. Nader sideshow and what it means for 2 party democracies as seen here and – differently – in the USA. A lot of American media coverage has focussed on the so-called “siphoning” of Gore votes to Nader (especially in the light of the closeness of the election), and the critique of this by Democratic party supporters as counterproductive.

 

As a registered voter in the USA who aligns most closely with Nader’s political philosophy, the idea that “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush”, as some argued, made me think very hard about how to vote, even though I am registered in a safe Democratic state. I have conflicting thoughts on this matter.

 

First, the idealist in me agrees wholeheartedly with Nader when he says that it’s Gore’s own fault if he loses left-wing votes to Nader because he is a corporate puppet, and that if you vote for the lesser of two evils you shouldn’t be surprised to get evil.

 

Second, a vote for Nader is a protest vote that registers: Gore knows that he risks votes by moving to the right, that he can’t just take the left for granted just because Bush is even more conservative. (To some extent the preferential system of voting in Australia allows Labor to do exactly that with Green and Democrat voters.) If Gore does lose after all is said and done, after the name calling I expect Democratic Party officials will think long and hard about the 3% vote for Nader and how to get it back.

 

Having said that, I am very conscious of the fact that a very large number of people voted for the Coalition in 1996 on the basis that they didn’t really think the two parties were all that different, and it was (in their opinion) time to get rid of Keating and “Union rule”. How wrong were they?

 

Massive budget cuts, slashing services, repealing native title rights, the non-apology, health care policy … the list goes on. Some things they have done the same people may well agree with, but 1996-1999 showed that the two parties were indeed quite different, even if both were fundamentally global capitalists sitting broadly in the centre of the Australian political landscape. From my viewpoint, the difference between Labour and Coalition is between bad and downright offensive.

 

A Gore Administration will be similarly different, and as the most powerful politician in the world this affects everyone. Military (you can’t call it defence with the USA) and trade policy will very directly affect the whole world, even if tax cuts to American millionaires probably won’t, and the two candidates have quite different ideas on both fronts, neither of which are really dependent on Congress.

 

Of course, in the USA I did not have the option of preferential voting – perhaps the greatest impediment to a multi-party democracy in their very flawed electoral system. I also had the option of simply not voting, but that cannot be seriously considered a protest any more, when Bush lauds the “exceptional” turnout of approximately 52% of registered voters (themselves only about 75% of the population).

 

In the end I was beaten by the particularly difficult procedures for absentee voting and cast no vote. But I still wonder which was the best vote to cast – the principled, or the pragmatic?

 

MICHAEL THOMAS, Gold Coast

 

Let me draw one or two recent stories together with a present story and an old story. Reith, welfare, double-dipping, ethics, journalism, holiday pay and One Nation; along with THAT interview on Wednesday night on ABC TVs The 7.30 Report. The one when the despicable Senator Jocelyn Newman insulted all of our intelligence when avoiding answering questions put by Kerry OBrien, preferring instead to litter strange ethnic red herrings, quite at odds with her governments harsh immigration policies.

 

It has been widely reported this week that average Australians are somewhat jumpy about job security to the extent that they are avoiding taking holidays. They do this to derive a misplaced feeling of semi-security from the knowledge that x weeks of holiday pay, plus 17.5% loading, might tide them over a period of unemployment if they are unfortunate enough to be dismissed.

 

Here is why the no holidays/saving up scheme does not work. Such money, put aside for emergency, must necessarily be liquid (probably a savings account) and is therefore deducted from ones entitlement to Social Security benefits. If the amount saved for the emergency was, say, $6000; the Howard Government would pocket about $2000 of it in benefits withheld. The more you save, the more government takes when you really need it.

 

But here’s the rub. That $2000 the Howard Government takes out of the $6000 you saved for emergency is also taxable. Therefore, you have been, or will be, taxed on it – even though you did not actually get it, the ATO did. It is a clear case of double-dipping the poor. Senator Newman, on perks unmonitored, with two mobile phones and petrol supplied free for work, sees no ethical problem.

 

The Howard Government extended Peter Reith the ultimate Social Security benefit; he was considered innocent until proven guilty. Centrelink clients are regarded as guilty until proven innocent, a flagrant breach of our judicial system. In some cases, they are fined greater amounts of money than all they own in the world, and without trial. This hypocrisy threatens the unity of this nation and, in recent political history, gave rise to One Nation.

 

Ethical journalists who spend more time with the rulers and less with the ruled (not such a power trip, I know,) might be better to locate these stories and cover them; rather than remain the pathetic fawning mob with microphones and cameras they have become, seeking verbal and visual crumbs from the rich, powerful, private school kids. Labor is a tragic, disgraceful, accessory to the moral vacuum.

 

The ethical matters are clear here. Senator Newman is long overdue for a journalistic blowtorch. Apply it please.