I must say I’m mystified by the Liberals’ decision to open the election campaign with a series of broadsides against the Greens, the typical tone of which is given by a media statement from John Anderson entitled “Don’t Trust Your Vote with Wacky Greens”. A large part of the campaign seems to be an attempt to claim that the Greens’ policies on issues other than the environment are those of the “loony left” – economic radicalism, free drugs for kids, forcing people to ride bicycles and so on.
The first problem with this claim is that it’s nonsense, based on silly distortions that won’t stand up to even momentary scrutiny.
I looked at the Greens’ economic policy a while ago, and while I had some criticisms, I concluded that it was one of the most coherent and intellectually-defensible documents of its kind ever put forward by an Australian political party. There was a reply from Sinclair Davidson, who pointed to such lunatic “irrational” policies as support for a “Tobin” tax on international financial transactions. For readers who don’t follow economics too closely the “economic irrationalist” who advanced this policy was the late James Tobin, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics.
This time the government has singled out for attack the Greens’ commitment to restore capital gains tax at the full rate. If there is an economist in the country who endorses the governments decision to promote speculative investment by halving the rate of capital gains tax, I’m not aware of the fact. The Productivity Commission and many others have pointed to the effect of this decision in promoting the housing boom. And let’s not forget that the intellectual justification came from the “New Era” theories of the dotcom boom. If anyone is “wacky” here, it’s the government.
On drug policy, again, the Greens policy is a sensible harm minimisation approach, consistent with the recommendations of most of those who have actually worked in the field, as opposed to what will play well in focus groups. But the government picks out a single clause referring to “investigations of options for the regulated supply of social drugs such as ecstasy in controlled environments”, in support of the claim that this represents “ecstasy over the counter to kids”. Given the near-complete failure of attempts to suppress drugs like ecstasy, can anyone seriously suggest it’s not worth investigating alternative options.
Not surprisingly, the Greens have a policy of encouraging bicycles, as do most state and local governments. As a quick Google search reveals, so do the Liberals. Imagine what Anderson and Howard could have done if the Greens had advocated free train travel for bikes but not for people
To see more of the kind of bizarre distortion that’s going on it’s worth visiting Steve Edwards aptly named Daily Slander site. As part of his anti-Green line, he quotes the “terrifying” global governance policy, highlighting in bold such statements as supporting and strengthening existing multilateral bodies, regimes and treaties. . He must be easily terrified. Edwards’ piece is also notable for the reasoning “if every point in a smear campaign is not instantly denied, those not denied must be true”.
So the factual basis of this campaign is non-existent. I’m equally mystified though, by the political calculation. The effect is to set Brown up as an equal to Howard and Anderson, responding to their attacks. And Brown comes across well on TV – anything but wacky.
Even if it succeeds, I would have thought the main effect would be to persuade those considering a vote for the Greens to go for their preferred major party candidate instead. This won’t have much effect, but if it has any it is to benefit Labor.
Finally, while most Green preferences go to Labor, the Liberals have historically got 20 to 30 per cent, which could amount to 2 or 3 per cent of the electorate this time. These voters are hardly likely to be impressed and could easily switch their second preference to Labor.
John Quiggin 
I would offer two possible explanations for the Coalition’s anti-Greens campaign.
1. They believe (mistakenly) that the kind of voters who are considering voting Green are disposed to giving credence to Coalition and Murdoch Press statements about the Greens and (even more mistakenly) that such voters are likely to be impressed by bizarre allegations which are easily rebutted.
2. As per my comment on another thread, they are dog-whistling to moderately conservative voters who are considering a switch from the Coalition to Labor, with the whistle being that a Latham Labor government, lacking clear convictions and directions of its own, would be beholden to Green extremism.
Of course the two are not mutually exclusive.
I’m equally mystified. They are far left. Encouraging people who would vote green to not vote green will drive them first to the centre-left – ie Labor. How many people who were going to give their primary vote to the Greens are now going to give it to the coalition instead? and Labor can bank on most of the Green vote flowing through preferences anyway.
I think all they are doing is giving them oxygen, a strange tactic to be sure.
And yesterday, the Government, the Daily Terror and the Parrot all joined forces to put the boot in. Why?
I thought of something like #2, Pual, but you’ve formulated it more neatly than I did. Still, it’s a big stretch, given the Greens will probably lose their one seat in the Rpes. As a way to start the campaign, it seems silly to me.
The ALP would be wise to follow suit- if Brown & Co wind up with the balance in the senate, no matter who wins will be unable to govern; the greens aren’t known for their pragmatism overruling their dogmatism. As to distortions, have you READ any Greens policies? They range from mildly fruity to downright fascist.
Its a “Greens within the ALP Machine” line!
Perhaps its silly from an electoral point of view, to attack the Green Party.
But it makes sense from an ideological point of view, to attack Green philosopphies.
The ALP has converged with the Liberals on, pretty much all, signficant aspects of economic, cultural and foreign policy .
This means that there is no serious “party of the Left”, only a conservative Centrist governing philosophy.
The Liberals, by attacking the Greens, are able to brand differentiate themselves as anti-Left.
This may be a leaf taken out of the Republican Party playbook, of trying to energise their base, and play to popular fears.
It is also a way “kick the Communist can” by linking Greenie extremists to the ALP as part of the Culture war.
This mirrors the way the L/NP used to link Commie extremists to the ALP during the Cold War.
I think that most people feel that the Culture War is over. There are not many more votes to be had by campaigns that appeal to fear.
So I agree with Pr Q that the L/NP have probably made a tactical error in their campaign.
I think the tactic makes sense. Green votes are going to come primarily from the left of the ALP. A higher profile for the Greens will increase the left-right tension inside the ALP. This might force the ALP further left and away from mainstream Australia.
Also, given that the coalition have little to differentiate themselves from the ALP… they have to paint themselves as conservative somehow! So have a go at the Greens. It’s popular politics for standard conservatives and not something the ALP will do.
The tactic makes no sense. All it will do is increase the ALP’s primary votes and make them less reliant on Green preferences.
How could it possibly help Howard to paint the Greens as loonies and for the ALP to win back Cunningham from the Greens? It’s just means one less seat the ALP has to win from Liberals. Doh!
Latham should be doing some attacking of the Greens himself. This makes perfect sense, as the ALP and the greens are competing for the same piece of political real estate. They can kiss and make up ater the election.
As for the Liberals’ motivation, the dog whistle theory is a huge stretch ,the simplest explanation is usually the best bet, and that is they are in disarray and didn’t think things through.
The Coalition may have private polling and focus group feedback suggesting that liberal conservative voters who prefer Liberals such as Malcolm Fraser, John Hewson, John Valder to Liberals like the rodent and gang, are prepared to vote Green rather than Coalition in the Senate this year.
I don’t think it’d be such a stretch; there must be many people (perhaps like me) who find Bob Brown statesmanlike, the PM and the gang contemptible. They won’t vote Labor and the Democrats look spent (although I’d personally give Andrew Bartlett a vote).
I agree that it is simply a Senate strategy, with the libs expecting to use other strategies to win in the Reps. With single member electorates it is unlikely that minor parties will hold any “balance of power” in the House of Reps, but it is likely that they will in the Senate. The libs expect they can get most of their legislation through the Senate with labor support, and ANYONE (Democrats or independents) is a better choice than the greens for the bits of legislation that labor doesn’t support in the Senate.
Steve Edward’s listing of Green’s lunatic policies was very useful indeed.
Notice how Quiggin refused to acknowledge how Green policy would destroy the ANZUS alliance, just as N.Z did when they refused US nuclear submarines/ships passage throught their waters.
How hypocritical of the Green’s to adopt a policy which calls for Australia to only use military force if sanctioned by the UN. Bob Brown himself publicly called for Howard to intervene in East Timor before it was sanctioned by the UN.
The nonsense about forcing people to ride bicyles and eat less meat is equally crazed.
The idea of reintroducing capital gains tax on “expensive” family homes shows their socialist stripes.
I do agree with their liberal policy on drugs and gay marriage, but economically, the Greens are against all progress and development as far as I’m concerned. They would probably pressure the ALP to adopt the flawed and costly Kyoto protocol which is such a great waste of resources for a phenomenon, known as “global warming”, that has not been scientifically established to date.
Could you provide a reference where I referred to Tobin as a ‘lunatic’? For convenience the full quote is
“The policy contains some broad comments and then some very detailed proposals, designated as short-term targets. This extensive list includes: making the tax system more progressive; reducing tax breaks through fringe benefits tax and salary sacrifice; phasing out the GST; scrapping the capital gains discount; introducing inheritance tax (including on the family home) and a supplementary gift tax; an increase in the Medicare levy and restructuring that levy to be progressive; the removal of the private health rebate; the application of progressive rates to superannuation taxation; the removal of superannuation concessions; an increase in company tax; the reintroduction of double taxation on dividends; a reduction in negative gearing; and the introduction of environment levies.
At an international level, a Tobin tax is proposed (transactions tax on foreign exchange). As Quiggin says, minor party policies contain “large elements of wishful thinking, small-group hobby horses and plain irrationality”.”
I also wrote, “Quiggin, clearly, is relying on his reputation as one of Australia’s leading theoretical economists and is hoping that nobody will actually read the Greens’ economic policy.”
Jack Strocchi wrote:”I think that most people feel that the Culture War is over”
this coming from someone whom, as a commentator pointed out in a previous post, shells out recycled Paul Sheehan-isms
Sorry about that, Sinclair. I was quoting my own paraphrase, which is a mistake.
I’ve amended the post and deleted the snarky footnote.
Brown is Gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that!) and endorses the legalisation of Exctasy Medicare funding for transgendered sex-change operations and there are links between the Greens and the shadowy world of Critical Mass “bicycle activists”.
Why hasnt the Liberal Party Dirty Tricks Unit exploited these juicy angles?
If Brown, and his gaggle of feral Greenies, get the balance of power it is likely that Australian society will be turned into a gigantic Mardi Gras Rave.
Jack, your post reminds me of the ads run by the Nationals in the dying days of 1989 claiming that under a Labor government the Mardi Gras would move to Brisbane. Never happened, unfortunately – I’d like to have gone to watch it. Maybe the reason that the Liberals haven’t run a campaign about Brown’s sexuality is that it’s irrelevant to his public policy stance.
as opposed to simply citing ‘legalising of ecstacy’ and assuming people will go ‘outrageous!’ why not actually tell us why it’s a bad idea. As for why the Liberal Party dirty tricks unit hasn’t exploited this, it has. It’s called The Herald Sun
I am not ashamed to say that I agree with much of Paul Sheehans’s general ideological position, although occasionally he makes factual errors.
Sheehans current ideological position, which I share, is “Vital Centrist”. There is now general “liberal-conservative” centrist consensus about cultural and economic policies accross both the major parties establishments and the broader electorate.
This convergence is endorsed by both major parties chief ideological spear carriers: Tony Abbott and Mark Latham.
We are now “relaxed and comfortable” in our national identity as a cosmopolitan provincial outpost of the North Eurasian/North American metropolities.
The Culture War is over. Both the Hansonite Nativist Right and the Theophanoid Multiculturalist Left have been chased off the public stage (jailed!).
The true winner is the Vital Centre of mainstream Australia.
Your comments have a very apocalyptic tone, Jack. Just to enlighten me, what’s a “hyperfact”? Or a metropolity? However, I’m glad that you’re feeling relaxed and comfortable living in an outpost of one. I wasn’t aware that I was. Perhaps you could provide more elucidation?
Jack’s comments are always similarly ecstatic. They swing from pole to pole however, so I wouldn’t waste to much time on close study of any one comment in particular, Brian.
Also the tone of objective labelling is a ruse as is betrayed by his Theophanoid crack.
I don’t think the Lib attacks will weaken the Green vote…
It must always remain a goal of minor parties to attract the attention (including abuse) of major parties because it puts them on the centre stage. For example, if Bob Brown could get a debate with either (or both) major parties it doesn’t matter if they attack him — he would then be seen as a central player.
For new voters out there who already may see the Greens as an option but who have little experience in thinking thru on the various issues it may be a deterrent for them – and so they end up voting Liberal if they come from traditionally anti-ALP families. So I do believe it could weaken the Green vote to the benefit of the Libs. Young people often need to slightly divert from parental direction while in their twenties, and so for them Green could be a plausible option if they don’t know Green policies. After the scare campaign they will know of one anyway. Greens are drug pushers.
I find it instructive that in linking my site, John Quiggin neglected to mention the Greens’ declared support for a global parliament, a UN army, an Environmental Security Council to control global energy resources, plus their open, proven policies of transgender surgery on medicare.
I am not an apocalyptic bi-polar swinger.
I am a “relaxed and comfortable” Vital Centrist, currently performing a victory lap after “doing my bit” in the Culture War.
wbb: maybe the Greens should take the piss on this one. They should start using Curtis Mayfield in their electoral campaigns. Plus it comes with a bonus: attracting the superannuated 70’s groover demographic, and also their hip-hop-listening first-time-voting progency. (Their kids probably have at least up-and-coming DJ friend who have the original LP for “Superfly”.)
Now you know why they don’t put me in charge of campaigns…
I think the criticism of Medicare funding of sex-change surgery is based on a misconception that this surgical procedure is a cosmetic or lifestyle accessory like Elton John’s hair transplant or Michael Jackson’s nose.
The reality is that there are some people whose subjective gender identity and the body in which they were born don’t match up, and who are seriously unhappy and at risk of mental health difficulties as a result. For such people sex-change surgery is the best option for their long-term well-being. Given the drastic nature, long duration and physical discomfort of gender reassignment surgery, it is not something people choose to undergo without a lot of thought and a lot of counselling.
Mark, as I recall the National Party ads in 1989 claimed that under a Labor goverment the Mardi Gras would move to the Gold Coast, and the reference to it moving to Brisbane was in a riposte from a gay & lesbian rights campaigner.
What about the poor drug dealers that Bob Brown is going to put out of a job? Won’t they move into other more profitable areas of crime?
There are a few green-blues out there, but their vote is merely a protest anyway. It is strange tactic and I can’t see it working much.
Paul Norton, on September 1, 2004 07:14 PM, raises the tantalising possibility of a transexual-led recovery:
Who are these people? Name names Paul.
The Greens are now the Party of the Left. But the Broad Left includes a large number of eccentric, strange and crack-potted people.
The results of secret polling indicate a massive underground constituency yearning to swap their genders or turn onto dope. These tortured souls are concentrated in key marginal electorates.
The Greens are making a cynical pitch for the votes of socialists and aging hippies who have lost their former home in the Labor Party. Orwell mordantly observed this trend in the pre-war British Left:
A vote for the Greens may well be a vote for sexual debauchery, drug addiction and accross-the-board kookiness.
Paul does make a very good point. As a libertarian I would nonetheless argue that if we’re gonna have a subsidised health system, then that system should cover whatever can be characterised as a sufficiently life-debilitating condition. I mean, we subsidise lots of other arguably more trivial things. I am not willing to dismiss a priori the argument that transgenderism may fall under the category of medical condition deserving of such treatment if we take seriously the principle of equality treatment by the State.
“A vote for the Greens may well be a vote for sexual debauchery, drug addiction and accross-the-board kookiness”
Jack, you are a bigot plain and simple. Let’s just conme out with it and not have anymore of your faux leftism.
Jason, it’s hard to tell, but I assumed Jack was taking the mickey here.
The libs want druggies to switch from labor to the greens, which might help in a few marginals where their guy might get the 50% needed to avoid preference.
Deakin’s the ideal seat, and I’m the ideal voter, being about to return to Labour after voting for the Greens last time.
Unfortunately they’ve picked the wrong generation. I took an E once, and spent the afternoon cleaning the car – never again. If the Greens offered me a plant in every pot (sorry) I might be tempted to stay with them, but Brown, being a doctor, has ruled that out (although its cool he inhaled).
Out in the mortgage belt we’re stoners not ravers. Missed chance libs.
In these strange times, theres a fine line between satire and reality.
Jason Soon, September 1, 2004 08:22 PM asserts that he is
I find Jason’s construction of libertarian ideology perverse. A devotee of small government who is in favour of publicly funded sex-change operations? Thats breaking ones back to be accomodating. Its hard to see even John Stuart Mill, who was notorious for winking at “experiments in living”, coming at that one.
The Libertarian party stands for tax cuts, small government and letting people fend for themselves. It should be renamed the Proprietarian Party. Think Grover Norquist.
Jason is no a Libertarian in anything like this partisan sense. He is a Bleeding-Heart, left-liberal pinko, who happens to be conversant in nerdy sounding economic doctrine.
This is suitable for hawking his luvvy ideology in respectable scientific company. He has, on every issue, positioned himself about 2mm to the Right of the, self-confessed, Green Lefty Pr Q – just for the sake of argument.
If we are going to use such rubbery definitions, then I declare all nomenclatural bets are off. May I then hold myself out as a feminist with a soft spot for Sharia Law?
Mark: A hyperfact, as defined by the SMH article that Jack linked, is a Paul Sheehanism. It turns out that Jack’s comment is a recycled Paul Sheehan article; any words you don’t recognise, were probably make up by Paul.
Very funny, Jack.
I commented on this last night. Those in NSW may remember in the lead up to the 2003 state poll, The Daily Tele in Sydney tried to attack the Greens over their drug policy much the same way the Herald Sun did the other day.
In NSW (and WA according to ABC’s PM this evening) the Greens could poll well if the figures from last year and the local elections are guide. Given how preferences tend to flow, a vote for the Greens could be considered a vote for Labour in some seats.
Nationally the expectations are for the Greens to poll about %6 but I reckon this will be higher and significantly so in some electorates. As Howard is fond of scare campaigns he hopes that the message of a vote for the Greens will unleash hordes of drug-crazed, vegetarian, bicycle riding, pre-op transexual asylum seekers who will flood the country driving farmers and families from their homes by taxing the most expensive ones may turn some voters away.
I don’t think it will.
Howard’s usual ploy is to provoke an argument with the latte left over issues such as gay marriage hoping that their self-righteous stridency will produce sufficient backlash amongst the Vital Centrists to effect a positive net vote result.
Same thing here. He’s won Strocchi’s vote back and lost precisely none. Vital Centrists seek emotional confort in the sepia toned visage and HMV toned voice of the parent and find the idealistic yearnings for progress thru change to be anomy producing and/or emetic.
Howard is the father – stern, gruff and smelling of old cardigan. Bob Brown is the disturbing introduction of color TV and the nervous breakdown of personal choice that came with the end of childhood.
Green voters tend to be rusted on, or perhaps Democrat emigres, so I’m going for the dog-whistling theory.
And meanwhile, when it comes to libertarianism, there’s so many different groupings that describe themselves as such, from the strongly corporatist ethic of the anarcho-capitalist to the post-hippie persuasions of the psychodelilibertarians. It comes down to which novels you read in university, I guess.
In fact, the centre in Australia would fit happy into “mind your own fscking business/nice Monaro, isn’t it?” liberal-libertarianism, which is my reading of Jason Soon’s position.
Jack
You once told me that you did all your reading on the Internet. I’m now starting to believe you. You seem to be capable of reading only in soundbites as opposed to being able to follow long chains of reasoning. Which is why you substitute ‘dot points’ via Google for thinking. Let me parse this as simply as I can for your over-Googled brain. What I wrote was
(1) “As a libertarian I would nonetheless argue that **if** we’re gonna have a subsidised health system, then that system should cover whatever can be characterised as a sufficiently life-debilitating condition”
(2) *If* a reasonable case can be made for treating transgenderism/sexual identity confusion as a ‘life-debilitating’ condition like Paul Norton has attempted to do
(3) *Then* I see no reason for automatically dismissing the argument that Medicare should cover such things
(4) It is not an argument to point out that this perspective hasn’t been recognised as such yet – once upon a time medical practitioners didn’t recognise autism, manic-depression, schizophrenia, anorexia, etc.
(5) In conclusion maybe the Greens have something more to say about their proposal along the lines set out above. I’m willing to listen if so.
“Howard is the father – stern, gruff and smelling of old cardigan. Bob Brown is the disturbing introduction of color TV and the nervous breakdown of personal choice that came with the end of childhood.”
Gawd, I love the smell of WBBaboon in the morning!
Thanks, Alan. Now I know why I didn’t bother to read Paul Sheehan’s book. Parts of this thread remind me of a Law Prof I had at Uni who warned that a Bill of Rights in Australia would lead to compulsory lesbianism and witchcraft. Maybe he took a few Es before lectures?
By the way, Jason, I agree with your argument. I think with regard to your fourth point, transgenderism, or more properly, gender identity dysmorphia has been recognised as a legitimate condition by the psychiatric community. Anyone interested should check the American Psychological Association’s authoritative DSM-IV, which is the bible of disorders and conditions. There is no doubt that transgender people’s holistic well being and psychological health is improved by gender reassignment procedures. I see no reason whatever, therefore, aside from prejudice, why we ought to object to Medicare funding such procedures.
Wbb has offered the best explanation so far for the extravagant attack on the Greens: rebellious, know-nothing, middle class children probably do leap straight from Liberal to Green and back. It might matter in the Senate.
We should object because the whole issue conjures the image of hairy-legged blokes in dresses that probably vote Green – and hence is good for the political prospects of the New Vital Centrism.
And we don’t need to consult dry psychiatric journals to stake out a position – which is good time-management.
So all of this is to capture the bearded lady vote. Wow. Sometimes politics excites me.
This thread just reminded me why I like reading JohnQ, yet the posts so often turn me off… (just boring & not even funny 😦
Thanks go to Paul Norton, who almost singlehandedly made the excruciating pain a little less so.
As for Liberal strategy (or staffed up tactic), I think there’s not much more to it than very mistaken scare mongering. Totally misjudged, and has already generated the opposite result.
This is the single reason I can say that hoWARd HAS LOST the election already: Latham has thrown his instincts completely off!
BODY LANGUAGE does not lie. Remember HOW he did announce the election date, his stiffness and even the grilling he’s been getting on TV. That’s why the debate has all those cumbersome rules, no worm, etc.
Who does his attitude reminds you most of?
Paul Keating and Jeff Kennett (+pinch of the Parrot) at their peak, and just before their fall!
That is why the “rats” have started to abandon ship… just do try to find out what’s the feeling out there in public-servant-land: worry/relief.
You know, when you start to BELIEVE YOUR OWN BULLSH*T… it’s all downhill from there!
Remember, you heard it here first.
wbb, I’m a member of the Greens, I have very hairy legs as a result of regular cycling around Brisbane in sunny weather, and somewhere there is a photograph of me at a broad left fancy dress party wearing a frilly white dress and lipstick, on my hands and knees, being struck with a horsewhip by a shaven-headed woman dressed as a bondage queen who is now a Greens parliamentary staffer in NSW.
Jack – propertarian? Property always exists — all viable political philosophies accept this. The debate is primarily about how property rights should be transfered (voluntarily or through force). A libertarians is somebody who picks the volunary option most of the time.
Some of you actually think Bob Brown is HIP? Well FMD- a more cardigan-wearing ageing hippy bore couldn’t be found in a month’s scouring of Northern NSW. Most of Bob’s beliefs and policies need carbon-dating.
PB, I agree that attacking Bob & the Greens as boring and old-fashioned seems a far more promising line than the kind of hysterical scaremongering we’ve had from the Liberals. So why are we getting this stuff.
From the Libs’ point of view, attacking Bob and the Greens as old-fashioned and boring could attract unwelcome attention to another election protagonist who’s older than Bob and at least as old-fashioned and boring.