When a political party formulates policy according to what they think people will vote for, then that party believes in nothing and will and deserves to be consigned to irrelevance.
Over Easter I spent three days with 1300 committed Marxists at Marxism Conference 2023. I wanted to understand their view of the world so I immersed myself in their activities. I've written 3 substack reports to explain what this 'Marxists student' discovered. https://kenphillipsselfemployed.substack.com/p/singing-the-communist-internationale
Their views are genuinely and passionately held. They hold to a central tenet that all social evils are caused by one thing, capitalism. They have no MPs and would be perceived as being on the fringe of politics. But they proclaim that, 'politicians think that change happens in parliament however change happens outside parliament.' Whether you agree with their world view or not, it would however be a great mistake to underestimate these modern day, home spun Marxists. They stand for something and are attracting believers. On this score (believing in something) the Liberal Party etc could learn a great deal from Australian Marxists.
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is a giant. She gives us hope! She believes in something.
Roskam's recollection of history re the uneven way Indigenous peoples got the right to vote is correct. Such checking is evidently too hard for Prof Rubenstein. Far easier for her is to lay a guilt trip on gullible readers by stating only their Yes vote can lead to equality of Australian citizenship. She must know an enshrined voice will destroy that equality not usher it in.
Another gripe of mine is the readiness of pro-voice activists to transpose 'recognition' & 'reconciliation'. Pearson etc claim recognition means recognising an ATSI uniqueness, in the absence of which there can be no reconciliation. That is bullying, but the Government declines to condemn it.
"Yes" proponents, and general Left thinking, has it that there is only one solution that is consistent with good will for indigenous people (or whatever cause they are pushing). Anyone not subscribing to their view must have poor motivation - greed, selfishness, racism, whatever. Their way is the only conceivable GOOD way, and all others must only follow from bad objectives.
Sadly, there is no a priori assumption of good will towards an alternative or opposing idea or opinion and the first point of mention must be an affirmation of the intent and the motivation, which can only then be followed by the means to achieve that.
If we fail to stress equal motivation we get nowhere. Which demonstrates a very un-liberal state of affairs.
Totally spot on analysis John.
When a political party formulates policy according to what they think people will vote for, then that party believes in nothing and will and deserves to be consigned to irrelevance.
Over Easter I spent three days with 1300 committed Marxists at Marxism Conference 2023. I wanted to understand their view of the world so I immersed myself in their activities. I've written 3 substack reports to explain what this 'Marxists student' discovered. https://kenphillipsselfemployed.substack.com/p/singing-the-communist-internationale
Their views are genuinely and passionately held. They hold to a central tenet that all social evils are caused by one thing, capitalism. They have no MPs and would be perceived as being on the fringe of politics. But they proclaim that, 'politicians think that change happens in parliament however change happens outside parliament.' Whether you agree with their world view or not, it would however be a great mistake to underestimate these modern day, home spun Marxists. They stand for something and are attracting believers. On this score (believing in something) the Liberal Party etc could learn a great deal from Australian Marxists.
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is a giant. She gives us hope! She believes in something.
Roskam's recollection of history re the uneven way Indigenous peoples got the right to vote is correct. Such checking is evidently too hard for Prof Rubenstein. Far easier for her is to lay a guilt trip on gullible readers by stating only their Yes vote can lead to equality of Australian citizenship. She must know an enshrined voice will destroy that equality not usher it in.
Another gripe of mine is the readiness of pro-voice activists to transpose 'recognition' & 'reconciliation'. Pearson etc claim recognition means recognising an ATSI uniqueness, in the absence of which there can be no reconciliation. That is bullying, but the Government declines to condemn it.
Thanks John,
I am pleased you have focused on motivations.
"Yes" proponents, and general Left thinking, has it that there is only one solution that is consistent with good will for indigenous people (or whatever cause they are pushing). Anyone not subscribing to their view must have poor motivation - greed, selfishness, racism, whatever. Their way is the only conceivable GOOD way, and all others must only follow from bad objectives.
Sadly, there is no a priori assumption of good will towards an alternative or opposing idea or opinion and the first point of mention must be an affirmation of the intent and the motivation, which can only then be followed by the means to achieve that.
If we fail to stress equal motivation we get nowhere. Which demonstrates a very un-liberal state of affairs.