When a politician of any persuasion uses the word ‘patriotism’, my bullshit detector goes off. The word has been devalued dramatically in recent years because of its usage by MAGAts, such that it should engender little but suspicion.
I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to de-rightify patriotism - and I think there is something in trying to say that it is being patriotic to stand against genocide, to stand for climate action etc. I don't see this government doing it though
I look upon patriotism as George Bernard Shaw explained it: ‘love of a country because you were born in it’. These days it means bugger-all if we do nothing about looking after the planet in which we were all born.
Agree but … for a long time jingoism and patriotism have been the banners behind which right wing nut jobs hide and own the concept of ‘patriotism’. I believe Albanese’s use of ‘progressive patriotism’ is clumsy but I believe it is an attempt to wrest from RWNJ the concept of ‘patriotism’. Which in my mind not a bad thing.
“Humanity moving forward” is apparently Albanese’s idea of “progressive patriotism “. These two words thrown together sound like nails scraping against a metal board ,each one arguing against the other . Does he see the ignoring of a genocide being committed against Palestinians as “Humanity moving forward “, or his tinkering around the edges of Climate policy ?
I recall his “no one left behind “ as being equally hollow. Thank you , Amy , for your excellent and incisive contribution.
Meanwhile the Labor government has kicked along the take up of solar and wind power and will push that further over coming three plus years. The difference is that The Greens do not attract people outside of a narrow band of places in capital cities and northern coastal NSW. Daniel Andrews knew this well - he did left stuff and progressive stuff. Federal Labor is more cautious but takes the same approach.
The fact that Labor has done some sensible things, like encouraging renewables, does nothing to excuse their many, frankly rather gutless, failures on housing, fossil mining, wider environmental action, Gaza and the inexcusably cruel treatment of the unemployed (particularly as the Reserve Bank's belief in the NAIRU means that something like 3.5 per cent of the population need to be unemployed to keep interest rates on mortgages lower - a truth that a genuine Labor party would be explaining and acting on). It's not enough to get elected - even though it means keeping the idiotic Coalition away from the treasury benches - you have to do worthwhile things with government, invest your political capital before it goes stale.
And the fact that Greens votes - just like National Party votes - tend to be geographically defined doesn't make them less important. Besides, with only something like a third of all primary votes (and frequently only winning because of Greens preferences) I wouldn't push the broad/universal line too hard.
I think you support my comment with that mix of points. I agree on housing, where making housing prices fall through more places is needed, albeit I keep reading how rentiers are fleeing Victoria so the Andrews model holds up. Unemployment stats are subject to various problems but the series has a consistency that shows it being lower than anytime since the early 1970s (which I remember but do you?). Wages may or may not buy what they used to, but then what they do buy people is certainly a lot more than they did at beginning of this century. Just shows more wealth does not always bring happiness.
That the Nationals are powerless without a broader based partner is exactly the limit to the Greens. A government has to draw further than those limited areas. Sure people vote Labor less than the old days elsewhere - but they are not voting Green.
And Gaza - why not Sudan, where greater numbers are subject to similar horrors? A bit too dark to worry about I guess. It’s the international issue I try to engage with.
No, my "mix" of points do not "support your comment" at all, but your latest post is a textbook illustration of contemporary Labor rhetorical shallowness: ignore what you can't answer, pretend to agree though your actions don't back it, distract, divert and play "what about"?
If you "agree" on housing, why did you so vehemently oppose Greens pressure in the last parliament to take the actions that would really make a difference, or to take adequate steps in those areas where you did act?
You completely ignored what I said about broader environmental action which, given your record, was probably a wise retreat.
You note that unemployment is down. I am well aware of this (and, yes, being 68, I remember the seventies very well - indeed the first time I got to vote was in 1975, for what I now think was the last real Labor government). I even agree that, in conventional economic terms, Labor did quite well in the last term. But that wasn't what I was talking about. I objected to cruelly low unemployment payments and Labor's stubborn refusal to tackle the problem DESPITE unemployment of roughly current levels being necessary to keep interest rates lower (the NAIRU). Again, you simply ignored this.
I could have added that Labor's quisling support for the monstrously expensive and dubious AUKUS scam completely undermines your ability to hide behind the excuse that we can't afford it at the moment.
And being in government isn't the only form of political power, as you would be wise to remember in the Senate. It's not a zero sum game. This will become increasingly so in future.
By the way a great many of the votes you lost did go to the Greens. Certainly the election was disappointing in terms of lower house seats (though these were always fragile and their loss was as much to do with factors like electorate redistributions and the collapse of the Liberal vote in three-cornered contests).
The overall Green vote was down slightly, but no more really that normal election-to-elecrtion fluctuations. Given that cashed-up propaganda groups like Advance were so active and Murdoch so virulent, this is not so bad a result. It's worth remembering that these vicious bustards dislike Labor, hate the independents and apoplectically despise the Greens - maybe that tells you something about who is really trying to make positive change and beat the climate deniers?
It's always said that nobody wins an Australian election - the other party just loses. It's true enough and was particularly so this time. This was certainly the worst, most ill-prepared opposition I have ever seen. Beating them made shooting rats in a barrel look difficult. And there's some evidence that, misunderstanding the preferential voting system as many voters do, led quite a few to switch from voting Green to voting Labor just to be sure the Coalition were defeated. So, all in all, I wouldn't advise being too satisfied with your result - you were behind right up until the actual campaign got going.
Finally, your silly (woo "too dark to worry about") comment about Sudan is the cheapest piece of evasive whataboutism that I've seen in ages.
Strange stuff. Especially the ‘you’. My first preference vote was not for Labor; it was for my local socialist.
Environmental issues - precisely my point. Greens remain at heart environmental individualists party. And stuck at 12% or so who put that above all else.
Housing packages - there would have been one earlier if Greens knew how to vote Yes after the argy bargy. Then they can argue about results and what next.
So voters moved from Labor to Green but Green vote down a tad. Suggests thus many green voters moved along ..
Sudan is not ‘what aboutism’. It is the international crisis I think most worth attending to. It is why MSF puts more funds there than Gaza (though its publicity may imply otherwise).
I gave up on Israel Paestine in 1990s. Albeit I have read all about the endless pushing out of Palestinian villages since (and I dont mean Australian media).
With your age you too will know it has been fussed over all our lives - to no avail. The Irish managed to get past the hatreds. But not so in Isreal Palestine.
So tell me why is there so much reportage about one and not the other? Its because people from middle east are seen as normal in a way we have yet to do for those from Africa so it matters to the big politics.
Now that is genuinely comic: a socialist voter bitching about vote percentages and localisation.
The housing packages that were delayed, while of marginal benefit, primarily advantaged middle-class purchasers - Hal Pawson from UNSW (one of our better urban scholars) wrote a couple of good articles about them on The Conversation - so delaying them in the hope of getting more out of Labor was a reasonable idea. In the end they had hit their point of resistance, so it probably would have been better to back off earlier, particularly politically. Nonetheless, the Greens achieved 3 billion in extra funding for housing. What did the socialists achieve?
And the fact that you have grown tired of an issue doesn't mean it's right to just abandon it.
Anyway, no point wasting more time with someone who operates from the kind of motivated reasoning you display.
The only ‘bitching’ here (great sexualised metaphor there) is ‘Albanese trying to forge a weapon with which to attack the Greens’ which you wrote up front.
I responded that government getting on with stuff, notably making the energy transition happen - something Greens tend to think important.
Then you rave on about all the things you like which matter intensely to a small set of people. Most of us go broader.
Sudan matters. Though you clearly think not. Why not? I explained why I have given up on Israel Palestine.
Thank you again , Amy , for recommending Tim Dunlop’s magnificent article on “Didn’t I hear somewhere that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel ?” A magnificent piece , where once again we are treated to the mindset of Albanese and his faction bosses that voters are as thick as fence posts . Also spot on about the reduction to rubble of the Liberal Party.
If they continue in this way , any remaining respect for government in this country will only plummet deeper . I note that Andrew Leigh , to his enormous credit , does not belong to a Faction . A sliver of hope …..
I was worried when Albo first used that word patriotism, scary I thought given the gungho use of the word by our old ally
Hoping that our new government will be revolutionary in all its actions and take this wonderful nation to a beautiful , peaceful and prosperous future for all its peoples
That is exactly what we would all like to hope . Somehow I doubt that Albanese has what it takes for such a goal. His priorities, over and above the genuine need of the Public Interest and the planet itself, demonstrate this . As does his tolerance of factional thuggery over decency and democracy .
There is a distinction between patriotism and nationalism; the difficulty is in determining where that distinction lies and may explain why so many have been recruited by Trump to the MAGA movement.
A problem is that people vote for politicians and have no clue what the government is going to do. This gets increasingly more dangerous in times of war. Our government has not yet given proper reasons, and certainly not provided any evidence, as to who or what we are supporting. If we are a democracy it has failed.
Elections have become a farce and the duopoly might use different words to appeal to a demographic, but they unite to support the worst of policies. It is not an ALP v LNP problem, it is a system of government problem.
A possible solution is amending the constitution, to include : obligations, accountability and transparency. People should have a degree of certainty of what to expect, no matter which politicians are in parliament.
My view is that we have never been a democracy, after all, when has anyone had a direct input to government decisions. More likely we started out as a Kleptocracy and have now become a Kakistocracy.
When a politician of any persuasion uses the word ‘patriotism’, my bullshit detector goes off. The word has been devalued dramatically in recent years because of its usage by MAGAts, such that it should engender little but suspicion.
I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to de-rightify patriotism - and I think there is something in trying to say that it is being patriotic to stand against genocide, to stand for climate action etc. I don't see this government doing it though
I look upon patriotism as George Bernard Shaw explained it: ‘love of a country because you were born in it’. These days it means bugger-all if we do nothing about looking after the planet in which we were all born.
Agree but … for a long time jingoism and patriotism have been the banners behind which right wing nut jobs hide and own the concept of ‘patriotism’. I believe Albanese’s use of ‘progressive patriotism’ is clumsy but I believe it is an attempt to wrest from RWNJ the concept of ‘patriotism’. Which in my mind not a bad thing.
“Humanity moving forward” is apparently Albanese’s idea of “progressive patriotism “. These two words thrown together sound like nails scraping against a metal board ,each one arguing against the other . Does he see the ignoring of a genocide being committed against Palestinians as “Humanity moving forward “, or his tinkering around the edges of Climate policy ?
I recall his “no one left behind “ as being equally hollow. Thank you , Amy , for your excellent and incisive contribution.
All I sense is Albanese trying to forge a weapon with which to attack the Greens. He doesn't seem to be interested in doing much else...
Meanwhile the Labor government has kicked along the take up of solar and wind power and will push that further over coming three plus years. The difference is that The Greens do not attract people outside of a narrow band of places in capital cities and northern coastal NSW. Daniel Andrews knew this well - he did left stuff and progressive stuff. Federal Labor is more cautious but takes the same approach.
The fact that Labor has done some sensible things, like encouraging renewables, does nothing to excuse their many, frankly rather gutless, failures on housing, fossil mining, wider environmental action, Gaza and the inexcusably cruel treatment of the unemployed (particularly as the Reserve Bank's belief in the NAIRU means that something like 3.5 per cent of the population need to be unemployed to keep interest rates on mortgages lower - a truth that a genuine Labor party would be explaining and acting on). It's not enough to get elected - even though it means keeping the idiotic Coalition away from the treasury benches - you have to do worthwhile things with government, invest your political capital before it goes stale.
And the fact that Greens votes - just like National Party votes - tend to be geographically defined doesn't make them less important. Besides, with only something like a third of all primary votes (and frequently only winning because of Greens preferences) I wouldn't push the broad/universal line too hard.
I think you support my comment with that mix of points. I agree on housing, where making housing prices fall through more places is needed, albeit I keep reading how rentiers are fleeing Victoria so the Andrews model holds up. Unemployment stats are subject to various problems but the series has a consistency that shows it being lower than anytime since the early 1970s (which I remember but do you?). Wages may or may not buy what they used to, but then what they do buy people is certainly a lot more than they did at beginning of this century. Just shows more wealth does not always bring happiness.
That the Nationals are powerless without a broader based partner is exactly the limit to the Greens. A government has to draw further than those limited areas. Sure people vote Labor less than the old days elsewhere - but they are not voting Green.
And Gaza - why not Sudan, where greater numbers are subject to similar horrors? A bit too dark to worry about I guess. It’s the international issue I try to engage with.
No, my "mix" of points do not "support your comment" at all, but your latest post is a textbook illustration of contemporary Labor rhetorical shallowness: ignore what you can't answer, pretend to agree though your actions don't back it, distract, divert and play "what about"?
If you "agree" on housing, why did you so vehemently oppose Greens pressure in the last parliament to take the actions that would really make a difference, or to take adequate steps in those areas where you did act?
You completely ignored what I said about broader environmental action which, given your record, was probably a wise retreat.
You note that unemployment is down. I am well aware of this (and, yes, being 68, I remember the seventies very well - indeed the first time I got to vote was in 1975, for what I now think was the last real Labor government). I even agree that, in conventional economic terms, Labor did quite well in the last term. But that wasn't what I was talking about. I objected to cruelly low unemployment payments and Labor's stubborn refusal to tackle the problem DESPITE unemployment of roughly current levels being necessary to keep interest rates lower (the NAIRU). Again, you simply ignored this.
I could have added that Labor's quisling support for the monstrously expensive and dubious AUKUS scam completely undermines your ability to hide behind the excuse that we can't afford it at the moment.
And being in government isn't the only form of political power, as you would be wise to remember in the Senate. It's not a zero sum game. This will become increasingly so in future.
By the way a great many of the votes you lost did go to the Greens. Certainly the election was disappointing in terms of lower house seats (though these were always fragile and their loss was as much to do with factors like electorate redistributions and the collapse of the Liberal vote in three-cornered contests).
The overall Green vote was down slightly, but no more really that normal election-to-elecrtion fluctuations. Given that cashed-up propaganda groups like Advance were so active and Murdoch so virulent, this is not so bad a result. It's worth remembering that these vicious bustards dislike Labor, hate the independents and apoplectically despise the Greens - maybe that tells you something about who is really trying to make positive change and beat the climate deniers?
It's always said that nobody wins an Australian election - the other party just loses. It's true enough and was particularly so this time. This was certainly the worst, most ill-prepared opposition I have ever seen. Beating them made shooting rats in a barrel look difficult. And there's some evidence that, misunderstanding the preferential voting system as many voters do, led quite a few to switch from voting Green to voting Labor just to be sure the Coalition were defeated. So, all in all, I wouldn't advise being too satisfied with your result - you were behind right up until the actual campaign got going.
Finally, your silly (woo "too dark to worry about") comment about Sudan is the cheapest piece of evasive whataboutism that I've seen in ages.
Strange stuff. Especially the ‘you’. My first preference vote was not for Labor; it was for my local socialist.
Environmental issues - precisely my point. Greens remain at heart environmental individualists party. And stuck at 12% or so who put that above all else.
Housing packages - there would have been one earlier if Greens knew how to vote Yes after the argy bargy. Then they can argue about results and what next.
So voters moved from Labor to Green but Green vote down a tad. Suggests thus many green voters moved along ..
Sudan is not ‘what aboutism’. It is the international crisis I think most worth attending to. It is why MSF puts more funds there than Gaza (though its publicity may imply otherwise).
I gave up on Israel Paestine in 1990s. Albeit I have read all about the endless pushing out of Palestinian villages since (and I dont mean Australian media).
With your age you too will know it has been fussed over all our lives - to no avail. The Irish managed to get past the hatreds. But not so in Isreal Palestine.
So tell me why is there so much reportage about one and not the other? Its because people from middle east are seen as normal in a way we have yet to do for those from Africa so it matters to the big politics.
Now that is genuinely comic: a socialist voter bitching about vote percentages and localisation.
The housing packages that were delayed, while of marginal benefit, primarily advantaged middle-class purchasers - Hal Pawson from UNSW (one of our better urban scholars) wrote a couple of good articles about them on The Conversation - so delaying them in the hope of getting more out of Labor was a reasonable idea. In the end they had hit their point of resistance, so it probably would have been better to back off earlier, particularly politically. Nonetheless, the Greens achieved 3 billion in extra funding for housing. What did the socialists achieve?
And the fact that you have grown tired of an issue doesn't mean it's right to just abandon it.
Anyway, no point wasting more time with someone who operates from the kind of motivated reasoning you display.
The only ‘bitching’ here (great sexualised metaphor there) is ‘Albanese trying to forge a weapon with which to attack the Greens’ which you wrote up front.
I responded that government getting on with stuff, notably making the energy transition happen - something Greens tend to think important.
Then you rave on about all the things you like which matter intensely to a small set of people. Most of us go broader.
Sudan matters. Though you clearly think not. Why not? I explained why I have given up on Israel Palestine.
Yep, motivated reasoning and cheap rhetorical manipulation. Good bye.
Thank you again , Amy , for recommending Tim Dunlop’s magnificent article on “Didn’t I hear somewhere that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel ?” A magnificent piece , where once again we are treated to the mindset of Albanese and his faction bosses that voters are as thick as fence posts . Also spot on about the reduction to rubble of the Liberal Party.
If they continue in this way , any remaining respect for government in this country will only plummet deeper . I note that Andrew Leigh , to his enormous credit , does not belong to a Faction . A sliver of hope …..
Thanks Amy
I was worried when Albo first used that word patriotism, scary I thought given the gungho use of the word by our old ally
Hoping that our new government will be revolutionary in all its actions and take this wonderful nation to a beautiful , peaceful and prosperous future for all its peoples
cheers
Rollo
That is exactly what we would all like to hope . Somehow I doubt that Albanese has what it takes for such a goal. His priorities, over and above the genuine need of the Public Interest and the planet itself, demonstrate this . As does his tolerance of factional thuggery over decency and democracy .
There is a distinction between patriotism and nationalism; the difficulty is in determining where that distinction lies and may explain why so many have been recruited by Trump to the MAGA movement.
Political leaders only look after themselves and not the people in the country who vote them in
A problem is that people vote for politicians and have no clue what the government is going to do. This gets increasingly more dangerous in times of war. Our government has not yet given proper reasons, and certainly not provided any evidence, as to who or what we are supporting. If we are a democracy it has failed.
Elections have become a farce and the duopoly might use different words to appeal to a demographic, but they unite to support the worst of policies. It is not an ALP v LNP problem, it is a system of government problem.
A possible solution is amending the constitution, to include : obligations, accountability and transparency. People should have a degree of certainty of what to expect, no matter which politicians are in parliament.
My view is that we have never been a democracy, after all, when has anyone had a direct input to government decisions. More likely we started out as a Kleptocracy and have now become a Kakistocracy.
Love that final quote from Orwell. Sums up this government to a ‘T’ on so many policy issues.
Climate change ✅ Homelessness ✅ Environmental Protection ✅
I always find Tim Dunlop's posts to be good reading, including the one you've linked.