The unserious Peter Dutton will always be a study in bristling moral degeneracy and division, but let no-one say he lacks political nous. For more than six months, the federal opposition leader has cat-walked his chilling insights into the nation’s conscience, pandering to its basal fears, hopes and pulling contradictions.
In his stance against the Voice, we all bore witness to his shit-posting, hysterical lies, non-sequiturs and lack of good faith; the ways in which he so readily and madly oscillated between the frenzied and the confused, projecting a sense of perpetual crisis, much like someone relieved of the weight of their conscience.
But it didn’t matter. None of it did. If anything, the feeling of chaos he engendered, the sheer entropy that found amplification in his cadre of fabulists and the right-wing stone circle that passes for much of mainstream media, disguised the pathetic yet powerful coherence of his strategy of organised, unadulterated lying.
Overarching this campaign to burn Indigenous reconciliation to the ground was Dutton’s most profound political insight of all. Many Australians, the surge toward the No column on Saturday confirmed, are simply indifferent to the deep-seated suffering that sketches the lives of so many Indigenous people. While still others are blind — some wilfully so — to the slippery presence of racism in this country, preferring to see attraction in the burgeoning deceit that entrenched cycles of Indigenous disadvantage owe not to systemic discrimination or intergenerational trauma but choice.
Not all who voted No, of course, so easily meet these descriptions. The motivations of some, leaving aside the progressive No case, were reflexively partisan or transparently racist, while for so many more, the right’s fusillade of lies and conspiracies had its desired effect. But uniting the sizeable number of Australians who do meet these descriptions is a shared visceral reaction to the suggestion that these basic truths expose them as racist. That their quintessence finds expression in the quintessence of racism and white supremacy in all its sullen and concealed power.
Dutton knows this. It’s the sole reason he cleverly appropriated the rhetoric of Martin Luther King Jr in his utterly unserious appeal to colour-blind, universal equal rights. It’s why he and his lieutenants proselytised national unity over “racial division” or “special rights” as they fortified the country’s citadel of historic denial. And why, in the repertoire of classic Trumpian heel, Dutton accused Voice advocates of seeking to “divide the country by race” while busily fomenting these toxic divisions himself.
Having prowled the vacant conscience and political lessons of his predecessors, including his spirit-mirror John Howard, he understood as well as anyone that fear of being labelled racist tends to inspire more discomfort in these Australians than does the devastating and often fatal consequences of racism for their fellow Indigenous citizens. And so, confronted with this cognitive dissonance, he duly provided a respectable out — an avenue of self-deceit — to that cerebral confinement, and one which found purchase across traditional ideological lines.
The brazen lie the Voice would divide the nation by race was clever precisely because it scoped a pathway towards No that salved the conscience of those who are incapable of being honest about their true motivations. It comforted their soul-blighted selves with the delusion that neither they nor their country are irredeemably bigoted but conversely have transcended racism with a moon-shot vibe — a nation that detests racism, no less.
It’s true that the mean, pursed-lipped oppression this deceit conjures up — its cascading dissonance and false imaginings — has a screaming, self-perpetuating denial about it, and one that serves the status quo.
But it’s equally unsurprising. People have always exulted in lies about themselves and their country, seeking to disguise the gap between their lofty ideals and reality. Yet if we care to be honest, if we dare to peep through these curtains of Frankfurt-like bullshit, the truth is that the sum of a nation is no more and no less than its outcomes. To draw on American anti-racist writer Ibram X. Kendi: “Nations aren’t inherently anything — they are what they do [and] what they do is what they breathe — and what they breathe is their soul.”
Unvarnished reality, in other words, has no shadow, no buried awareness in which we can hide our lesser selves. Here, the stark facts of Indigenous disadvantage across health, education, life expectancy, wealth, suicide and incarceration speak to generations of harmful and otherwise paternalistic policies and, yes, racism. And our decision to refuse Indigenous peoples the basic courtesy of consultation on such policies in the form of non-binding advice to government thunders the emptiness of our stated egalitarian ideals.
This is why Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles’ statement on Sunday, that “Australians always get it right”, was so utterly insulting, dangerous and politically stupid. Not only was it ahistorical and counterfactual, it provided a false cover for the obvious role racism played in the campaign, thereby perpetuating the wellspring of historical denial that continues to shape and malign the country’s thinking on Indigenous peoples.
The same holds for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who following the referendum’s defeat, reiterated his view that Australians are “fair and compassionate”, telling the country that the “real division” exists not between “Yes voters or No voters” but in the (shameful) statistics which inform Closing the Gap policies. This position, too, is a false binary — a preposterous deceit too spineless to concede the link between racism and its material consequences for First Nations peoples.
Beyond this, the combined views exhibited by Labor leadership too easily shrug off the sheer damage visited on the nation’s civic space by Dutton’s racist misinformation and Trumpian attacks on our basal institutions — the courts, the AEC, and, not least, government itself among them. It bears repeating again and again that Australia is not innately immune to demagoguery and a disavowal of democratic norms and convention. In such an environment, the immediate casualties extend beyond truth and decency in public life and to citizens themselves, many of whom fail to see through the thickets of lies and are accordingly denied an informed vote. It’s like a silent, fascist coup, and one that diminishes us all.
The reality is Dutton will naturally feel emboldened by the success of his Trumpian tactics, which he will continue to deploy to his advantage across the board. In the meantime, he’ll draw on the veneer of impeachable legitimacy extended by Labor’s refrain that “Australians always get it right” to justify his suite of racist, assimilationist plans for Indigenous peoples.
As Professor Marcia Langton’s already noted, “the dark heart of the White Australia policy will be no whisper but a new national slogan” — something which already finds reflection in Dutton’s unsurprising decision to retract his promise of constitutional recognition of Indigenous peoples, and his reiteration of the need to deliver “practical outcomes” in the form of an audit of Indigenous spending and a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. Under a Dutton government, he tells us, there would be less listening to “activists” and more listening to the likes of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.
And so, the country has reached an inflection point with Indigenous peoples. Dutton has held up a mirror to Australian society, and it has reflected back an ugly image entirely at odds with our self-perception. However unfair for those who voted Yes, the referendum’s brutal defeat ensures we, all of us, are now complicit in Indigenous suffering.
Dutton is disgusting but the fact that so many fell for it says heaps about this country. I’m disheartened and angry at so many of my fellow Australians.
But should you be surprised?
Maybe not. I know the vast majority of my former colleagues (journalists) voted yes and the vast majority of my friends did too. I don’t doubt I live in an educated bubble. I’ve lived on four continents (including in Southern Africa) so I’m well acquainted with racism, but this vote was for something very, very simple that would have had no impact on the lives of the majority of Australians but would have been hugely important for First Nations people. The fact that Australians said no is just horrifying.
I think the horrifying fact here is the looming edifice of Bullsht Mountain, as John Stewart called Faux News… A term I’m employing to describe that entire ecosystem that Pox is merely the largest single element of.
The no camp couldn’t have done it without the 500mw outrage generator that is Newscorp.
And hey, we are an unreformed colonial society, with so much swept under the rug that’s a mountain range all its own.
Australians are not generous people. They just don’t like someone else getting something. Even if as you say it has no impact on their own lives.
This is a generalisation, sure, but I have been seeing this again and again in my time here.
It’s said that Australians don’t like ‘tall poppies’ and sure there is this streak of envy that makes people wish for the fall of someone who they perceive as having climbed higher than themselves. But I find that many Australians display some peculiar resentful and grudging anttitudes and prefer to kick down rather than up. They will deny the smallest things to others simply because.
On a slightly different note (or not) – the often cited Aussie ‘larrikinism’ is to me nothing more but a certain urge to inflict hurt. There is nothing likeable or good-hearted about it. It’s often quite malevolent.
I too live in an educated bubble – though that is not how #30 described us. It is the central of the three ACT electorates and slightly more than 70% of my neighbours voted YES. At the booth I voted at the YES vote was above 83%.
I have also lived on four continents. Though Australian born and having lived most of my life in Australia (though, blessedly, I missed the entire Abbott reign of terror) I simply do not understand the majority of my fellow Australians. The request seemed to me to be simple and straightforward.
I feel really disheartened.
If you look at the poll flip from April to Oct it was 20% yes votes went to no. Senator Price was the key I believe. If you didn’t know any aboriginals the whole yes voice message seemed confusing and you didn’t know which way to go but you had sympathies for the plight of Aboriginal Australians how do you vote? Senator Price and I say that because a Senator does have a ring about it. The Senator also being aboriginal was extremely important during the campaign. If you didn’t know which way to go but you had an aboriginal senator telling you if you don’t know vote No. That had enough ticks for many people to vote no. You can hardly feel racist or bad if you had an aboriginal senator telling you to vote no. You only had to watch Senator Prices press club speech to see the optics in action every time the senator made an important point the camera panned to her clapping supporters. All the old middle aged conservative white men of the LNP. So in terms of the legal status of aboriginals with no constitutional recognition and treaty it is all right back where conservatives like it. last century somewhere.
Yep. Jacinta Price. Not for nothing was she unable to be elected to the house of Representatives.
David Littleproud, when asked by ABC presenter what he thought about Jacinta Price being a challenge for his leadership nearly choked with supressed sniggers. Littleproud could not keep the smirk off his face, saying that Jacinta was free to stand for the House of Reps and challenge his leadership.
Michael Mansell was accurate saying it was very canny having 2 FN’s represent no.
Michael Mansell worked hard to argue No.
At this point I think it is pertinent to have a look at our media and its regulation. How is it that we all know the power of advertising /marketing but downplay its significance in politics?
Dutton merely employed the successful mechanisms that brought Trump to power.
‘…Richard Marles’ statement on Sunday, that “Australians always get it right”…’
What a fatuous, cloying & ingratiating remark. Regrettably we have been hearing far too much of the lightweight Marles in the past few days, due to the referendum & carnage in the Middle East. He needs spelling.
But to say otherwise would have left him open to the jackal/gotcha press (like the one he was fronting) to take him apart, ‘on behalf’ of their ‘all us non-elites’?
He could have said how the other side used fear and mistuths. I don’t think he said anything about how devisive the no campaign was. Once again Dutton and co get a free ride, not only from the media but the govt as well.
Oh dear, so we’re supposed to excuse his spinelessness because he’s scared of the gutter press? Wow.
“excuse”?
Surely a reality is that politics has become a PR ‘conflict/reality/popularity show’ – where ‘contestants’ (governments/members) can be ‘voted off’ according to popular opinion (from perceived actions/words) – and policies don’t count …. until it comes time for blame when those ‘popularly elected’ members/governments screw up.
A social situation delivered by a influencer viewsmedia (selling air-time/advertising space, chasing ‘ratings’) editing what we get to see of the world – especially their (too often subjective) view of politics.
And the alternative, given the forum? Marles acquitted himself well to keep a calm narrative. Rightly the dissection belongs to a longer more dispassionate forum with better, fuller data like academia
And that dissection will be greeted by crickets.
True, but might inform good decision making rather than base politics
Politicians attempting to look balanced will not want to emulate the losing Trump, that is what Labor is up against, this is our political landscape.
The Australians who voted and thus got “it” right as they saw it, consist of the ordinary and below ordinary, together outweighing the above ordinary every time.
The issue for the ALP is dealing with nativism and bigotry of many members, supporters and former MPs who dog whistle ia greenwashing, with much support from MSM and ageing demographics.
Piss-weak Richard.
Hopefully in 2025 he will be replaced as Deputy Labor leader and sent to the back bench.
Not likely…Marles is the CIA’s man in the cabinet.
No, that would be AA hissownself – Marles is the political agent overseeing the rest of the pack.
Marles should just have said “majority rules”. That being said, leadership in the face of the majority saying f@#$ the minority is called for.
Marles is (like) a dog with its tail between its legs facing a Rottweiler. (Hopefully we won’t all end up in that pose).
Richard Marles appears to be building quite the resume as the future neocon leader of labor.
Perhaps that’s what’s necessary to combat the trump/dutton types. Sadly
An excellent article, Meave. Thank you.
You cannot seriously expect Albanese to call the majority of his fellow Australians racist (or deluded or dupes or wilfully ignorant?)
If he did that, then good luck in ever getting re-elected.
He has a delicate line to tread, whatever progressive types might want him to say (and calling him ‘spineless’ will not help, though it may make you feel a bit better for saying it).
I don’t think it would be a good idea at all. It would be a Hillary moment (aka her “deplorables” comment). He cannot call “no” voters racist. But I can. Sure, some were just horribly misinformed and poorly educated, but to say it was a complex issue is utter nonsense. It was a simple request that would have taken nothing away from other Australians. Saying “no” was for the most part a racist response.
A nontrivial part of the No campaign was about trying to portray it as complex. Not so much the proposal itself, but the possible consequences (eg: the Voice will be able to challenge legislation in court).
It was pretty much entirely BS, of course, but that is where the “feeling” that it was a complex issue came from.
As a friend of mine said, the No campaign managed to make a very straighforward issue sound complex, while the Brexiters managed to make what was a very complex issue sound simple. Tell whatever lie gets you what you want – the right-wing way of governing.
Leads to chaos, maybe the objective?
Brexit campaign, same tactics, US think tank and Russian influence (via Tufton St.) targeting mass of older, less educated/diverse and regional voters for a ‘slow motion car crash’ that’s still rolling.
Result, chaos on the right, many of the same voter cohort have passed on, demands for Rejoin (60%+) and the EU will rightly make UK wait….. back of the queue.
It’s all about feels over reals.
Couldn’t agree more. Made worse by having to also listen to their deluded and sanctimonious justifications about why they are not.
Does he even care, though? Maybe all this went to plan, since it was all utterly predictable. It kept everybody talking about something that turned out to be worse than nothing, while the atrocities of continued government capture sell us all out ever more at an accelerating rate.
That’s a little too conspiracy theory to me. It’s like saying Hillary wanted to lose in 2016.
Hell no, it’s not. Albo won, and is using his position to do what?
Fill the national conversation with unproductive toxicity, which ended up kicking progressives in the teeth.
Go ahead with stage 3 tax cuts.
Splurge probably a trillion plus on USUKA.
Throw crumbs and lip-service to the disadvantaged, while doing nothing to address the deep structural problems which work inequality daily – in fact he’s throwing fuel on that dumpster fire.
Funny how the Voice campaign sidelined any possibility of a large conversation regarding any or all of that, huh?
Actually, it’s more like saying that the DNC conspired to nominate Hillary in spite of their charter, which said they should nominate the most electable candidate. You do recall the shonkyiness inflicted on Sanders during the primaries, I take it…
Gotta keep that corruption gravy train rolling, NO MATTER THE COST
The Yanks have DINOs and (alleged) RINOs, while we have wall-to-wall LINO.
Bernie seems like a solid bloke, but I suspect in the big picture – and particular the swing voters in what passes for “the middle” of American politics – Hillary was “more electable”.
I prefer the term ” unsophisticated ” as many seem unsure if they are actually being denigrated.
Australians, in an ageing society, are very precious nowadays, one recalls ’80s when e.g. Hawke told a pensioner pestering him to ‘p’off’ and Vic Premier Cain described drivers as idiots (after a accident spike).
However, from time of Howard above median age mostly skip voters, house values and their sentiments have been platformed over everyone else, especially kicking down on ‘immigrants’ and other types for short term and self gratification; collective narcissism and pensioner populism.
It’d be the Hillary Clinton ‘deplorables’ moment, even if it was true; we’re very thin skinned…..
I’ve never been more ashamed to be Australian than I am now.
Growing up in the 80’s we pictured ourselves as a bunch of anti-authoritarian, good natured larrikins. The last 10 years have taught me we are exactly the opposite. We are a bunch of under educated, rule following sheeple who blindly lap up whatever our favourite news station, radio show, celebrity, influencer etc dishes up.
Critical thought has completely disappeared as has any form of collaboration/cooperation – we’re just a bunch of individuals in it for ourselves.
Proud to be a 40% er & educated & not a racist and avoid of MSM.
I remember (in ’80s a signal was critical thinking being removed from HSC in Vic/NSW), yet by late ’90s Australia had a very ‘cool’ brand offshore with younger generations, then Howard et al took over….. lost generation due to obsessive catering to nostalgia and perceived needs of pre WWII oldies and baby boomers; ditto Brexit UK and US.
I agree.
Four explanations:
1. Social Media – a cesspool of anger, prejudice, vilification & swill;
2. Journalism – an essential element of a thoughtful, caring society, populated with “10 year olds”, captured/enraptured with social media;
3. “10 year old” politicians, identifying their next sentence by trolling opinion polling and, social media; and
4. Media proprietors, captives of social media, share values and devoid of objectivity.