Liberal Senator Dean Smith
Dean Smith and other Liberal backbenchers who are pressing ahead with a plan to end the ban on marriage equality are, contrary to much reportage, acting with the best interests of the government in mind. The government desperately needs to get rid of the issue, to excise it from public debate, to exhaust it as a topic of political discussion. And it’s only going to do that by legislating to remove the ban.
It doesn’t matter whether you think a plebiscite is a good idea; it doesn’t even matter if you oppose marriage equality. Every moment spent talking about marriage equality is a moment not spent on trying to communicate the government’s economic plan and achievements, such as they are, to voters.
Same-sex marriage is a no-brainer. A big majority of voters want it addressed. The current legislation is homophobic, discriminatory, and primarily based on a mix of the superstitions of desert tribes thousands of years ago and garbage “studies” by bigots of the non-existent harm caused by same-sex parenting. But however morally repugnant, it’s also a tenth order issue for most of the community, and — probably — even some LGBTI people. It doesn’t shift votes. People vote based on the economy and jobs, on health, on education, regardless of whom they sleep with. Yeah, sure, a white heterosexual guy like me is enjoying his privilege to say that, but that’s what the polls show.
And at the moment we’re at a tipping point on economic policy — the biggest since the neoliberal revolution swept the Anglophone world in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Voters are rejecting the economic dogma of the last thirty-plus years and want change. The left is well poised to exploit this — look at Jeremy Corbyn’s astonishing success. But not if it continues its “nice face of neoliberalism” approach, best exemplified by the Democrats in the US — a business-as-usual economic model but burnished with identity politics. The right, too, is equally capable of exploiting this electoral turn — even if, as Donald Trump is demonstrating, ultimately it can’t deliver what voters actually want, but simply more nativism and xenophobia — a different, more toxic form, but identity politics as well.
In Australia, Labor, better than the Democrats in the US, has picked the turn and shifted in favour of much greater intervention and anti-globalisation. Malcolm Turnbull has also worked out what’s going on, and tried to shift to the centre, but remains — like virtually all Liberals — too close to business to get that wage stagnation and inequality is what is fundamentally driving electoral disenchantment.
The more time spent appearing to be arguing over an issue like marriage equality, the more voters will be reassured that their suspicion that Turnbull doesn’t get it is right. Labor, too, should be wary of appearing to be fascinated with the issue — yesterday, back from his break, Bill Shorten couldn’t resist stirring the pot in response to reports about Dean Smith’s bill.
Turnbull’s opponents, of course, have a vested interest in ensuring that the issue doesn’t go away. That’s why the reports about Smith generated the usual reactions from his colleagues. Tony Abbott and the febrile right want the issue to keep dividing and distracting the government, to keep signalling to voters the government is focused on something other than growing their pay packets. And should Smith’s bill somehow make it through the House, those same opponents will confect outrage and declare war on Turnbull. There is no way they want this issue off the agenda — it’s crucial to their plans to keep destabilising him. But they’re doing that anyway. Tony Abbott is in open rebellion. What’s he going to do — schedule still more interviews with the airwave fascists of Sydney?
Turnbull needs to keep identity politics off the agenda and stick fiercely to the economy. The current tactic of pretending marriage equality has gone away isn’t cutting it.
Perhaps Turnbull should’ve taken the opportunity at the G20 to inquire of Angela Merkel, “Did it hurt much when you announced the snap conscience vote for same sex marriage?”
There was a resounding ‘yes’ vote & Merkel is riding high. Don’t be frightened, Malcolm – even Germany’s six Muslim MPs voted in the affirmative. Apparently they’re less hardline than Abbott, Abetz & Andrews.
Spot on Zut Alors. Take a leaf out of Merkel’s book Malcontent.
We understand that his prenup with the Fish Herpes* guy stops him from pushing the social stuff, but stick to economy stuff in what way?
Fellating banks like his former employer Goldman Sachs (“a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”)?
Because he tried that – as Mr Harbourside Mansion, remember?
*(Barnys answer to the carp problem – seriously)
Hello my BFF and councillor in all matters. My Spartan warrior and philosopher who speaks from on high. All hail the Spartan.
‘…Barnys answer to the carp problem…’
But we have yet to find an answer to Barney’s carping problem.
Nice one!
Isn’t it possible that BOTH wage stagnation/job losses/the economy AND identity/cultural politics are important, both to ‘voters’ and in themselves. That Trump was elected BOTH because he promised to bring back jobs AND appealed to a white supremacist sense of nationhood? That BOTH economic justice AND human rights (not to mention global warming and the future of the planet) are ‘on the agenda’? And that the conflict between progress and reaction must be addressed equally on all fronts?
The short answer to your question, Humphrey, is NO: class politics and identity politics are fundamentally irreconcilable. The reason is that one explains power by control over material resources, and the other explains power by control over ‘anything but’ material resources. You can’t reconcile ALTERNATIVE explanations. Bluntly put, hope lies either in politically unifying and coordinating economically disadvantaged classes, or hope lies in in fracturing and disavowing a subsuming class politics. Very simply, you really can’t be a socialist and a liberal.
Beautifully said, Will. And very, very true.
If ‘being a socialist ‘ and ‘being a liberal’ are both conceived as totalising ‘grand-narrative’ explanations/’cure-all’ remedies for all forms of injustice (political, legal, economic, environmental, cultural, racial, sexual, gender-based, etc) then they are indeed irreconcilable not only with each other but with reality. If on the other hand they each address different and specific forms of injustice then I see no contradiction in being, for example, a liberal-democratic socialist feminist environmentalist who is also anti-racist and an advocate for marriage equality,– i.e. a decent human being. Socialism doesn’t have a monopoly on social justice, and ‘identity politics’ is also about ‘material’ conditions of existence: Black Lives Matter for example is not only about economic justice but about African Americans being shot and killed in the street by police; asylum-seekers are not only deprived of economic justice, but of basic legal and human rights, including the right not to be indefinitely detained and physically/psychologically tortured without having committted a crime; and marriage equality should be a fundamental civil right in a just and democratic society. In short: it isn’t all about economic disadvantage or class politics.
I’d rather live in a world where social justice is noble pursuit regardless whether I’m intrinsically ‘liberal’ or ‘labor’ although for mine the greens currently engender more of my ideals than the others.
I have a better idea though its time has probably not come yet in Australia. Repeal all marriage legislation. People who want to live together as a family or in a marriage-like relationship with legal recognition can sign a recognised form of agreement. If they want to be married they can get a religious or secular celebrant to perform whatever wedding ceremony is appropriate for them. “I now pronounce you person and partner” or whatever. Equal rights question solved.
It’s hard to believe that these clowns are going to take an issue that could be resolved in an afternoon to the next election and argue against the tide of popular opinion.
It will be fun to watch Barnaby’s apoplexy though.
Dream on Dunc. That tide of popular opinion is a figment of your imagination. Turnbull knows full well that if he takes it to an election the Australian people will vote it out. Dean Smith would do well to focus on the essential issues that effect his immediate electorate instead of trying to save the world with marriage equality.
“…trying to save the world with marriage equality.”
A bit of overstatement there Syd.
It’s funny, Syd Thomas, that you are so convinced that the rest of Australia shares your obvious disdain for the right of same sex couples to marry, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Thankfully they don’t, according to every poll conducted on the issue. Enjoy being in the minority.
Given that the Lying Rodent created the problem in a morning session with an amendment to the Marriage Act of fewer than half a dozen words and the Abbottrocity attached the poison pill of plebiscite to delay any change, it could/should be Talcum’s “..with one bound he was free!” moment.
However that would require courage, intelligence, decency, morality & some political nous from him, none of which is thought to exist.