Simon Copland – Page 25

Clive and Tony are no joke

Originally published in SBS News 7 November 2013.

For too long the Left have mocked Clive Palmer and Tony Abbott, greatly underestimating their political capabilities in the process. The jokes on them, writes Simon Copland.

Aren’t they a joke? ‘Cliev’ and ‘Tony’ – the jokes of Australian politics. The ‘stupid’ things they say, and ‘ridiculous’ positions they take – it’s hilarious when you think about.

Hahahaha – ‘Cliev’ – boy, the next three years are going to be fun! And Tony – I mean, how stupid are people that they voted that joke in? Oh, God – what is the rest of the world going to think of him?

It’s really funny, isn’t it? So funny that Tony Abbott is now Prime Minister of Australia, whilst in their first election ever, the Palmer United Party have won at least two Senate seats and one seat in the House of Representatives. Whilst we’re laughing at Abbott and Palmer, they’re out there getting elected and building significant power to implement their agenda. Whilst we’re laughing at them, the rest of the community seems to be saying in one form of another ‘we like what you do and want you to keep doing it.’

We want to laugh at them to diminish them. Point out to the community how stupid and ridiculous they are – how stupid they would be if they voted for these men. I mean, come on! How could anyone vote for such jokes? I mean really?

It says a lot about how much the left has underestimated these two.

Let’s take a look at one of Tony Abbott’s classic ‘clangers’; the sort of thing that made everyone in the left laugh and ask the question, “how could anyone be so stupid to vote for this man?” It is that famous quote about an emissions trading scheme:

“It’s a so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no-one.”

Ignore the fact that when you look at the statement broken down it is relatively accurate. ETS’ are actually a market in the non-delivery (as the market is designed to stop the delivery of greenhouse gasses) of an invisible substance (CO2 is invisible to the naked eye) to no-one (the Greenhouse gasses aren’t being given to anyone as part of this market).

But more importantly in one simple phrase, what Abbott did was tap in to a lot of the complexity of an ETS. Abbott was expressing the significant confusion about what carbon pricing is all about – expressing confusion at the complexity of scheme that seemed so disconnected from everyone but at the same time was causing some pain. He expressed the sort of confusion and complexity that I often feel about carbon pricing.

This is what happens all the time. Whilst we’re laughing people like Abbott and Palmer off as if they’re jokes, what they’re doing is tapping into many of the fears, hopes and dreams of much of the community. Abbott effectively tapped into people’s fears – fears of the impact of the ‘destruction’ of a past Government and of what the future holds. Palmer instead effectively taps into people’s hopes and dreams – he is the epitome of an ‘Australian Dream’ – a self-made millionaire who has it all. Why would we not want someone like that in Parliament?

While Abbott and Palmer are convincingly engaging with the community, the left is just laughing at them. And in turn the left is laughing at the people they connect with – the people who’s fears, dreams and hopes they have managed to connect with.

That doesn’t mean we have to suddenly agree with everything Abbott and Palmer say, or even with the fears, dreams and hopes of the community at large. It is part of politics that we would at times, or even very often, disagree – even about the very fundamental values that people hold. But to laugh at people – to tell them that their values, their fears, hopes and dreams are stupid and that they are stupid for supporting people embody those fears, hopes and dreams, is well, just stupid.

For too long the left have fundamentally underestimated people like Tony Abbott and Clive Palmer. We’ve laughed them off – treated them and their supporters as morons. In some ways this just hurts us because we’re not taking our opposition seriously, but when we start laughing at people because of this, we actually hurt our own chance – we entrench people in their positions and insult them whilst doing it.

Stop laughing. Abbott and Palmer are not jokes.

They are serious politicians, with serious skills, and they are clearly serious threats. Time to treat them like it.

A couple of lessons for the ALP on climate messaging

On Friday, the ALP it will not vote for the Coalition’s carbon price repeal unless Tony Abbott accepts their amendments – amendments that would ‘scrap the tax’ and bring forward the implementation of an emissions trading scheme (ETS).

The ALP has now lined itself up to continue the climate fight that has dominated Australian politics for the past seven years. With their amendments unlikely to be accepted, the carbon pricing bills are heading for initial defeat. Unfortunately however, after years of being told, and recognising internally, that it had suffered a significant failure in climate communications, the party seems to have learnt nothing. Their messages were weak at best, and destructive at worst. Certainly not a good start to another year of a climate fight.

So here are two key lessons for the ALP on how to message its climate position over the next couple of years.

Stop talking about ‘scrapping the tax’

The ALP’s messaging on Friday seemed to be broken down into two parts – both linked, and both problematic. The first was that the ALP would ‘scrap the tax’ and instead implement an emissions trading scheme (ETS). The argument, which harks back a few months ago from when Kevin Rudd took the leadership, comes from the belief that the ALP suffered heavily from Julia Gillard’s “there will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead”. The party clearly feels that it needs to ‘remove the noose from their neck’, and that this is the way to do that whilst keeping to its commitment for a price on carbon.

It is not a winning argument. Firstly, we actually already have an ETS. As Greens leader Christine Milne said on Friday:

“Labor knows as well as I do that we have an emissions trading scheme already legislated. It is the law in Australia; it’s operating with a fixed price and will go to a flexible price.”

‘Scrapping the carbon tax’ is political spin, and not policy reality. And it’s pretty terrible spin at that. Because whilst Julia Gillard’s ‘carbon lie’ may be the symbol of why the party has suffered so much on climate change in the past few years, the issue is actually much more structural than that – an issue that can be traced back well into the party’s first term in office. In 2009/10, when Tony Abbott became leader of the Coalition, he effectively shifted the debate on climate change. However, whilst the debate moved, Abbott did not start to win until the ALP made the decision to drop the CPRS. The ALP decided that the best way to avoid Abbott’s ‘scare campaign’ was to cede ground – drop the CPRS and ‘neutralise the issue’ (which actually just means to give in so they can’t criticise you for it) until after the election.

Doing so however had the opposite effect. Instead of neutralising the issue the party bought directly into Abbott’s framing, giving him the upper hand. And that has been the problem ever since. It started with the dropping of the CPRS, then there was the ‘Citizens Assembly’, then ‘there will not carbon tax under a Government I lead’ and now a pledge to ‘scrap the tax’. Terrified of his tactics, the ALP have bought into the Coalition campaign and framing – fighting the campaign on the Coalition’s terms.

And that is lesson number one. Stop talking in Coalition terms. Stop buying into their campaigns and using their framing. Stop talking about ‘scrapping the tax’ and ‘cost of living pressures’, but instead frame it on your own terms. For years the ALP has been reacting to Abbott’s every move on the debate, but now in opposition they have the opportunity to change that – to make it the ALP’s debate once again. But that means not talking about ‘scrapping the tax’.

Stop telling us you believe in climate science

The second message Shorten tried to get out over the weekend was (in exact words):

“We accept the science. Climate change is real. Australia needs a system to reduce pollution.”

The (not so subtle) message that the ALP is trying to drive home here is that Tony Abbott doesn’t accept the science, he doesn’t believe climate change is real, and he doesn’t have a system to reduce pollution. It may all be true, but it is a bloody stupid way to go about it.

Firstly, this attack is actually one that is really easy for Abbott to rebut. He has clearly stated he believes in climate change and that he has a system to deal with it – a system he claims will result in the same cuts in emissions as the ALP’s ETS.

Beyond this though the framing is pretty shocking. Let’s have a look at some polling data. Since 2006 public positions on climate change have shifted dramatically. It is not that people have gotten more skeptical, but rather that they have become less concerned about the urgency of the issue. People still believe that climate change is real, but significantly fewer people think it is such a big issue that we need to take drastic action to address it.

When you look at this you can see why Tony Abbott is winning the debate. His approach is rather simple – yes of course he believes in the climate science – he tells as that as much as possible. For people who believe in it, but aren’t really that concerned therefore he passes the test. And then, unlike the ALP Abbott says he provides a solution that will bring very little pain.

So whilst the ALP is banging on about ‘accepting the science’, Abbott is providing people with the solution that fits their mood around the issue at the current time. He has actively managed to tap in to how people feel on the issue, and then use that to his advantage (of course there is some chicken and egg here, as the last three years of debate have also shifted the mood). It’s not therefore that saying ‘we accept the science’ hurts the ALP – it’s that it doesn’t work. It is not an effectively line of attack based on the current political mood.

So how should the ALP react? It is not to bang on about the science, but rather to start to change those numbers. It is not about convincing people that Abbott doesn’t believe in the science – it is pretty clear people either don’t believe that or they don’t care. But it is about making the issue something people would change their vote over again – making it an important issue again.

I’ve talked about how to do this in the past (here and here). But there are a few things the ALP could start doing now. First, they should start drawing the connections between the real life affects of climate change – the bushfires, heatwaves and floods, and attack Tony Abbott when he denies these connections. That makes it a really important issue again, and manages to get in the denier angle as well. And then they start drawing the connections between these real life effects and how Abbott’s plan will do nothing to solve it.

It’s a simple story – climate change is happening now, it’s impacting you, Tony Abbott denies its impacts and is doing nothing about it and our plan is the best way to deal with it. It’s not about ‘the science’, but instead about connecting to people’s values and emotions to make the climate and issue again (or as Ed Butler would tell you to make pollution an issue again) and then to make sure they are the beneficiaries of that.

The ALP can bring back the climate debate, but they cannot do it the way they are trying now. At the moment they are doing what the ALP is does best – buying into the Coalition’s framing and then trying to sell its positions not through emotions or values, but through rationality and facts. And if it continues, once again it is destined to lose.

Weekend Reads: Vale Lou Reed

It’s very rare for me to feel emotional when a famous person dies. I am not much of a idoliser. But when Lou Reed died on Monday, I couldn’t help but feel a ping of real pain. Reed, the front man of the Velvet Underground who then pursued a successful solo career was a legend of rock and roll from the 60s and 70s, a legend whose influence continues unabated today, even as he died at the age of 71.

My relationship with Reed, when reflecting on it, is actually quite shallow. I don’t own any Velvet Underground albums and I’m pretty sure I haven’t listened to any of them in full (unless my parents played them when I didn’t realise it as a child). I initially came into contact with him through his solo album – Transformer – probably his most famous piece, which included his most famous single ‘Walk on the Wild Side’.

I came across Transformer as it was produced by my all time favourite artist – David Bowie. In my ongoing quest to listen and appreciate everything Bowie I bought Transformer to get a sense of his production skills. And in doing so I gained a true appreciation of Reed as an artist. Transformer is a picture of sexual exploits, an exploration in homosexuality, and one that does so in a brooding, thinking, deep manner – an exploration of the topic that asks the listener to explore it themselves rather than screaming it in your face. And that is the true brilliance of it (despite some calling it ‘artsyfarsty homo stuff’)

Yet, despite my love for Transformer, I still think of my relationship with Reed as being quite shallow. Transformer is just one album out of a huge collection, a snap shot in time that cannot create a true picture. Yet, for some reason I still feel a connection with Reed as an artist – a connection to a legend. I suspect I am not the only one who is like this. It seems as though the relationship with Reed, whether through The Velvet Underground or his solo work, doesn’t come necessarily for many through him individually, but rather through his influence and what he represented. Reed was bigger than the individual. He was (amongst many others) a representation of a time and a space and one that will live through history.

First, obviously his influence came through his music. As Brian Eno famously said, the first Velvet Underground album only sold 30,000 copies, but every one of the people who bought one of those albums started their own band. Reed was a musicians’ musician, and in many ways there’s nothing that could be more influential.

But it wasn’t just music. Reed represented a time and a place – a space in history. Guy Rundle explains it best:

“When Dylan, Cohen or Carole King die, the grief will be general and real, because they will have at some point connected to our hearts, and death will be not merely the end of music but of a relationship.

But by definition there was no relationship with Lou Reed. His words and music were the world turned away from us, lesser and diminished, drawled from the corner of a mouth. Riding in a studz bearcat, those were different times. That’s why there cant help but feel something ersatz about this mass outpouring. Mourning not the man, but the world that could make such life possible, something so raw and real and strange and true. We work our way now, through the dying heroes of late modernity, because we know something is dying with them, an illusion about what the world might offer, in terms of radical breach, other.”

When I think about Reed – his life, his time, his sexuality, his exploits, I, like I think many sometimes see a world that is passing that I wish I could have been part of. I see pure rock that skipped the commercial vibe – rock that was about the music first and the money second. I see music, parties, drugs and sex, that is for some painted through a lense of purity (the music) and excitement (the parties, drugs and sex) – a time when music, art and culture was at its best. I see a time of the legends – the Beatles, Rolling Stones, David Bowie etc. – the legends who shaped an explosion in art and culture that we have never seen since. I see a time that many of us seem to long for and a time that is dying out.

I’m not sure whether this is real, or a fake longing for a time past. Part of me suspects that this time never really existed in the way we see it – that it wasn’t as exciting, or pure as we wish it to be. I suspect that the lives of people such as Bowie and Reed weren’t as great in many ways as we hold them up to be – the lives of drugs, sex, and alcohol were probably not as exciting as we paint them to be. In fact I suspect they were quite terrifying. I suspect as well that for many those sorts of lives – this sort of culture continues on. That’s not just about a culture of drugs, sex, rock and alcohol (although that does continue), but also one of creative expression that will live on for decades to come. Just as Reed was writing music and living a life that will influence society for decades to come, I suspect we are all doing the same today – in one way or another.

We seem to have developed a story about the past of rock and roll that we cannot and will never live up to. This was, we tell ourselves, the golden era of art and music , and it is now gone. No one will be able to live up to it, no one will ever be the same, our culture will never be as great. I don’t know why we tell this story – I suspect it may come from some for of dissatisfaction of the world in which we live today – a dissatisfaction that I truly feel. But I suspect the stories we are telling ourselves are myths – myths of the times that existed, and myths of the times that we live in today.

That doesn’t deny the real influence and value of Reed as a musician, or as a rock icon. Reed deserves his adulation – his music and life were truly influential. Albums like Transformer deserve ongoing critical acclaim – his art was exceptional.

But as we mourn him, we can also ask the question, as we look back on the time we are starting to lose, the time we are starting to mourn, was it all a myth? Have we truly lost something – or did it never really exist in the first place? Does it continue to exist today and we are just ignoring or shunning it or even more likely telling ourselves it has disappeared when it is right in front of our faces?

We tell ourselves stories of past. Stories of legends such as Reed and the times in which he existed. Stories of places, times and experiences we wish we could have been in. Reed was a legend in many senses of the word – a legend in music, a legend in time, and a legendary story.

Vale.

The Coalition are not guaranteed victory in 2016

“The Coalition’s massive victory”. “A loss that will see the ALP in opposition for potentially a decade”. “A massive win for Tony Abbott that will guarantee him the next election.”

I’m sure we’ve all heard something along these lines over the past couple of months. We’ve been told the story that the Coalition romped it home in the 2013 election, that they have a massive mandate to implement their agenda (whatever that is) and that there is no chance that the ALP could turn things around in the next three years. The ALP needs to start licking its wounds and prepare for a long stint in opposition.

It is an interesting piece of the re-writing of history that doesn’t actually reflect any reality.

Don’t get me wrong, the Coalition’s victory was impressive. They won the election with a 53.45 – 46.55% of the two-party preferred vote, winning 90 seats to the ALP’s 55. A decent election yes and one that provides the ALP with a significant challenge to turn things around by 2016. The ALP needs to find 20 seats across the country to win Government, a tough thing to do.

But history, the very thing that many use to argue that the ALP has no chance, could actually show the opposite. A sharp turnaround in fortunes is certainly not impossible.

For example, in 1996, the Coalition beat the ALP with a 53.63% – 46.37% two party preferred margin, winning 94 seats to the ALP’s 49. The two-party preferred is almost identical to 2013, but with the Coalition winning 4 more seats in 1996 than they did in 2013. A couple of years later though and every thing had turned around. In 1998 the ALP won the popular vote 50.98% – 49.02%, picking up 18 seats, closing the margin to 80 – 67. The Coalition only won because of successfully sandbagging in a number of areas.

Have a look at the next change of Government election and you can see similar trends. In 2007, the ALP won the popular vote 52.70% – 47.30%, with a margin of 83 – 65 seats – less than the current margin for the Coalition, but still significant. In 2010 though the Coalition had turned things around, losing the vote only by a 50.12% – 49.88% margin, and equalling the seat total at 72 all. This victory is actually more significant when you factor in the massive honeymoon the ALP received after the 07 election, a honeymoon that saw polling showing them potentially smashing the Coalition in the 2010 election.

What these numbers show is that in 2013 the Coalition had a pretty decent election win, but one that certainly can be turned around. The Coalition certainly does not have the sort of massive victory that we saw in the recent NSW and QLD elections which basically gave the Coalition/LNP such margins that it is virtually impossible for the ALP to win the next election.

And this is significantly more important when you take into account the fact that the Coalition has had virtually no honeymoon since their election. For example, an Essential Poll on the 15th of October saw the Coalition with a 52-48 margin, a drop in their vote since the election. Further polls on the 22nd of October had the Coalition with a 53-47 margin (Essential) or a 51.5 – 48.5 margin (Morgan). This is largely different to both the new Howard and Rudd Governments who saw decent honeymoon periods after they were elected. What this potentially shows is what many people tend to anecdotally believe. The Coalition won largely because the ALP lost. They were not the extremely popular opposition that many wanted to take over from the ALP, giving them a very weak base to govern from.

We seem to have a very essentialist view of elections. We look at the last election and determine that that is what will define the outcome of future elections. In 1996 the ALP was inherently destined to a decade in opposition, the same for the Coalition in 2007. But the history shows that what we decide on past elections doesn’t actually come true (even if the ALP did stay in opposition for 10 years after Howard was elected – a fate that was almost avoided in 1998).

Three years is a very long time in politics. Things change, campaigns create winners, and people’s views can shift. The idea that we will inherently have Tony Abbott for the next 10 years doesn’t actually reflect a political reality and for many on the left is a weak and defeatist approach.

Is defeating Tony Abbott at the next election going to be tough? Absolutely yes. But history shows us that it is absolutely not impossible. This Government is already on shaky ground and a decent campaign could easily topple them.

What will same-sex marriage actually mean?

Originally published on SBS News, 21 October 2013.

While the symbolism of same-sex marriage is important, too great a focus on this goal risks ignoring more pressing forms of LGTBI discrimination, writes Simon Copland.

With the ACT about to pass Australia’s first ever same-sex marriage bill, a natural question to ask is, what will it actually mean?

If you were to look at the debate in places like the United States you would hear horrible examples of people who have had visiting rights in hospitals denied to them, had missed out on essential tax or had been unable to migrate because they couldn’t get a marriage certificate. The denial of marriage equals the denial of a range of basic rights – rights that are completely inaccessible without the certificate.

In Australia however, one uncomfortable fact has been ignored; none of these situations are relevant here. The passage of same-sex marriage legislation will lead to virtually no improvements in rights for same-sex couples. The whole campaign is a symbolic one that has no real material affects.

Relationships in Australia are regulated by both the state and federal Government (although a little out-of-date, this link provides a great background on the issue of same-sex relationship recognition). Whilst the laws of marriage and divorce are federal (although the ACT legislation challenges that) most of the laws affecting relationships, issues such as adoption, property disputes, domestic violence protection orders, and so forth, are state laws. In both state and federal legislation, changes in legislation have gradually meant that same-sex couples have exactly the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

The origin of this comes with the changing nature of relationships in the latter half of the 20th Century. Connected with the rise of feminism in the 1960s, the latter half of the 20th Century saw more people decide not to get married. And this created problems. Legal rights were only available to couples who got married, meaning those who didn’t sign the dotted line were left in a legal hole.

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell receives a kiss from a member of the public after introducing the Marriage Equality Bill 2013

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell receives a kiss from a member of the public after introducing the Marriage Equality Bill 2013 into the Legislative Assembly in Canberra, Thursday, September 19 (AAP)

And so with a change in societal attitudes came a change in legislation. In 1984, the NSW Government introduced the De Facto Relationships Act – the first law in Australia to establish a property division scheme for couples who were living together but who weren’t married. All Australian states eventually followed suit, creating the ‘de-facto’ relationship scheme, which provided couples the same rights even if they didn’t have a marriage certificate.

However, this still didn’t extend to same-sex couples. That was until 15 years later, when in 1999 NSW and Queensland both introduced legislation to extend particular rights of de facto couples to same-sex couples. In Queensland legislation recognised same-sex ‘spouses’ in cases of property divisions, domestic violence protection orders and parental and employment leave. The NSW Government changed 20 pieces of legislation to give same-sex de facto couples the same legal footing as their heterosexual counterparts. This created a domino affect and by 2006 all states and territories had legislation of some form providing same-sex couples the same rights at their heterosexual counterparts.

Despite all of this however, same-sex couples still faced a range of federal discrimination. The Commonwealth Government controls a whole range of issues related to relationship regulation, including immigration, taxation, social security and health care benefits through Medicare. In all of these areas, the Federal Government continued to discriminate against same-sex couples.

That was until the election of the Rudd Labor Government. In what has probably been one of the most undervalued piece of legislation within the gay and lesbian community, in 2008 the Rudd Labor Government passed the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Act. The Act, which followed reforms to superannuation and family law system, removed a total of 58 pieces of federal discrimination. This included removing discrimination in areas as broad as agriculture, fisheries and forestry and defence, to health and aging and finance and taxation. The act removed all material discrimination against same-sex couples. De facto couples now had all the same rights as their married counterparts.

And this is the uncomfortable reality. When same-sex marriage legislation passes in the ACT it will lead to virtually no changes in the actual rights and responsibilities of same-sex couples. Around the country the only difference marriage will bring will be that couples would be able to formally register their relationship (which makes it easier to prove). But even that doesn’t count in the ACT, who like states such as Victoria, already have a registry system. The difference will literally be in name only.

In other words, a major campaign, with huge financing and human resources has gone into an issue that is nothing more than a symbol. And whilst the symbol of equality under the law is important, you have to question the energy placed into it.

Whilst we have focused so heavily on same-sex marriage, to the point where many see it as the ‘final hurdle’ for gay and lesbian people, we have ignored extremely pressing issues. Young queer people continue to have high rates of suicide, trans* people face a huge range of legal and societal discrimination, religious schools and organisations can still discriminate at will and intersex people are being forced into unnecessary operations that some have called genital mutilation.

Our energy has gone in to a conservative cultural institution that is nothing more than a symbol while queer people of all stripes suffer under a range of discrimination that hardly gets any airtime at all. It’s time we give up on the symbol and start to focus on the real discrimination people face – the discrimination that is seriously hurting members of our community.

Book Review – The Political Mind

As part of my Masters Thesis looking at the debate on climate change (you can see the results of my thesis here) I decided to delve into some George Lakoff. For some reason however I skipped over his eminent ‘Don’t Think of the Elephant’ (which I now need to read) and went straight to The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain.

Lakoff, a progressive Democrat, and cognitive linguist is famous for his work in discussing how progressives can change the nature of the debate in the United States and defeat conservative framing. Lakoff is a big proponent of the communications idea of ‘framing’, looking at how we frame debates to ensure victory.

In The Political Mind Lakoff looks at the brain, and how progressives have failed to understand the brain in political campaigns. He argues that progressive are stuck in an old way of thinking:

“Progressives have accepted an old view of reason, dating back to the Enlightenment, namely that reason is conscious, literal, logical, universal, unemotional, disembodied, and serves self-interest. As the cognitive and brain sciences have been showing, this is a false view of reason.”

Looking at American politics, Lakoff blames neoliberals within the Democratic party for its weaknesses. Through using an old enlightenment mentality, he argues that these neoliberals think they can win elections through a mixture of citing ‘facts’ and offering programs that serve particular voters’ interests. When they inevitably lose, they then see this as a failure of the program they have provided and then argue that the party needs to move further to the right, where voters are.

The basic argument here is that people are not rational beings in their political decision making. People do not make their decisions based on facts or reason, but rather through emotional responses based on values and morals. There is a lot of evidence to back this claim up (that link again goes to my master thesis which summarises a lot of this debate).

And in doing so, Lakoff argues that conservatives have been much better at understanding the brain and therefore pursuing their agenda. As he argues (this in an interview on the issue):

They’ve (conservatives) been working at it for over three decades. They understand the importance of morally-based framing, the importance of language, the importance of repeating language, the importance of not using the opposition’s language, and the importance of an extensive communication system that operates daily everywhere, election or no election.

So what are we to do? If progressives are losing so heavily (as one could easily argue we are) how do we change this? Simple:

“To change minds, you must change brains. You must make unconscious politics conscious.”

We need to change people’s minds. Lakoff argues that conservatives have been much better at using brain science to effectively pursue their agenda. Conservatives have framed debates with their own values, forcing progressives to play on their turf. In doing so they have ‘conditioned’ our brains better. And now it is time for progressives to fight back. It is time we gain a better understanding of how the brain works (science Lakoff aims to explain extensively in the book – although there is criticism of his work) to frame our message.

Many could see this as inherently anti-democratic, manipulative and deceitful. William Saletan for example argues:

“His proposal to re-engineer our heads is neither democratic nor scientifically warranted. It defies public accountability, the very principle he purports to serve. It also underestimates our intelligence.”

It is certainly not an unreasonable view to come to. In many ways, The Political Mind reads as a way to use science to manipulate people to our own ends.

But, it is not what the piece does. And this is where the core of Lakoff’s argument comes in. Lakoff’s book is not just an argument about progressives can people’s change minds, but also about how we understand the debate. For too long progressives have ignored the very central role values and morals have played in political decision making. We treat politics as a debate about facts, and if we are to present the facts in a clear and concise manner, then we will eventually win the argument. Look at issues like climate change for example, and the dominance of the facts based approach to campaigns around it. Whilst it sounds ideal, it is unfortunately not the way our political minds work. Not only are most ‘facts’ subjective , with the idea of reality constructed through social conditions (in other words, what I understand to be true may be different to what you understand to be true) even when many agree on the ‘facts’, values continue to come into play. Our decision making is dominated by values, and it is therefore through values that we must debate.

And when we talk about values we are inherently talking about how our minds work. Research shows that we all hold a range of values in our minds, and that our decision making processes are often determined by which value is dominant at any particular time. Values are essential to how we understand politics, much more than arguments around facts.

Lakoff’s book therefore isn’t just a call for progressive to change our language, but to understand the role of values and cognitive framing in our minds. And that isn’t anti-democratic, but rather simply understanding how we all understand the world, and in turn how we can make persuasive arguments in doing so. That is the power of Lakoff’s book. It provides a new direction, and one progressives would be smart to listen to.

In the end that is the value of Lakoff’s book. The unfortunate thing however is that that discussion is often lost within the science of the piece. Whilst it is extremely valuable and worthy of discussion, the book often gets bogged down in confusing neuroscience that can make it difficult to understand. Getting out the essence of the argument therefore can be tough. Get through that however and you have a piece every progressive should read.

How to stop the repeal of the carbon tax

This article was originally published on SBS Opinion, 17th October 2013

Proponents of the carbon tax have long struggled to articulate its purpose clearly to the public. It’s not too late to change all that, writes Simon Copland.

The battle lines have been drawn. Tony Abbott has now released the draft legislation to repeal the carbon price. With The ALP and Greens standing firm with a strong ‘no’ to the bill, the next year will be dominated with the question, will the Clean Energy Package survive?

Whilst we may all want to speculate, I don’t think we will know until July next year. It will come down to a bunch of minor party players in the Senate (unless Abbott goes for a double dissolution). At the moment it seems like those players will fall in line with a repeal, but that is not certain. Questions still remain on who will be in the Senate (in WA) and over the reliability of alliances made (particularly in the Palmer Party). And that doesn’t take into account the different elements of the package – the new legislation does not include a repeal of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – a very different vote that could see very different results.

However, there is one thing we can be certain of. At the moment, there is virtually no reason those who currently lean towards voting against the carbon price have for changing their position.

Ever since its inception, the carbon price been quite unpopular, with a recent poll even showing that people thought direct action was a better policy to tackle climate change. More importantly, concern and willingness to take action on climate change has been steadily dropping (with a little uptick last year). The political pressure against repealing the carbon package, or for any real action on climate change, is simply not there.

It paints a sobering picture. After the failure of Copenhagen and the steady campaign against the ‘great lie’, our community and politicians are less willing than they have been for a long time to take action to halt a climate catastrophe. In this scenario, it should be pretty easy for Tony Abbott to get his way.

But in the midst of the doom there is a clear lesson for climate campaigners – a lesson that if we take up, could save the clean energy package – or at least parts of it.

The message is simple – we need to make climate change an issue again. It sounds like a dumb statement. Climate change has been a major issue for decades, and dominated the last six years of political debate. It is clearly a major issue in our politics. But take a closer look and you will see what I mean. Virtually all campaigning around the carbon price since it was introduced ignored the issue at heart; the warming of our planet.

For example, the Say Yes Australia campaign, and its infamous ad featuring Cate Blanchett, hardly mention climate change at all. It talked in broad terms about putting a price on pollution, and helping those in need, whilst not providing any real life reasons for why we should do so. This was part of a greater trend within many in the climate movement, who are turning their attention away from climate change, and instead focusing on issues such as the Great Barrier Reef, land and water, or on the general idea of ‘pricing pollution’. The belief is that ‘climate change is not a winner’.

Early Government campaigns did the same thing. The Government focused almost wholly on the assistance given to families to compensate them for the price. In doing so the carbon price was framed as a burden from day one, and there was no explanation as to why this burden had to be imposed.In other words, whilst climate change was the core reason for a price on carbon, we sort of forgot to talk about it when campaigning on the policy. We’ve landed in a place where we say ‘take action on climate change’ or ‘put a price on pollution’, without going any deeper – without explaining why we should do these things. And in doing so climate change has stopped being an issue that the community is concerned about (there are a range of reasons for this) – it has just become an abstract concept that requires what seems like burdensome and extremely complex legislation.

And you can see therefore why people may rebel against action on. With evidence showing that people struggle to connect with climate change, if it isn’t seen as currently relevant in people’s minds, action on it isn’t going to get support (particularly as we buy into the jobs versus the environment framework).

And that means that if we want to win the debate on the carbon price, we need to change our focus. I have spoken about how to do this in length in an essay in Inside Story. Basically we need to make climate the issue again, and in doing so we need to make it a values-based and moral issue. Instead of talking about which mechanism is better (a carbon price or direct action), we need to focus on a simple story about the moral catastrophe that is climate change. Climate change is real, happening and hurting us now, fossil fuel companies and Tony Abbott are fueling it, and good policy such as stopping new fossil fuel developments and investing in renewable energy can stop it. It’s not about arguing which solution is better, but instead making it impossible for Senators to vote against action on climate change and survive to tell the tale.

It is a broad approach, but you can see that it is one that resonates. Even the Daily Telegraph, a long time climate skeptic, recognised the real and potential impacts of global warming earlier this week in a front page story. The story connected people to real-life impacts, presenting it as a moral dilemma we need to deal with. And in doing so a campaign can create the demand for action once again, turning that demand into pressure to stop people voting against the Clean Energy Package (as well as taking other action on the issue).

I have no idea whether we will be able to stop the carbon price being repealed. If you were to ask me today I would say it would probably be repealed after the new Senate comes in next year. However, I know that a campaign to convince us all that a price on carbon is best way to stop climate change, is the perfect way to see it repealed next year. To win we need to make climate the issue again.

Against Equality

Originally published in the Overland Journal, 16th October 2013

‘Equality is inevitable.’

This has been the catch-cry of marriage equality campaigners for years now. A call to conservatives to ‘get on the right side of history’ and finally accept that we’re all born equal.

Look across progressive movements and you can see similar messaging. Demands for equality are everywhere. One of the biggest criticisms of the new Abbott Government has been the lack of equal representation of women on the front bench. Gay and lesbian campaigners have focused heavily over recent years on equal-access to social institutions, whether the military or marriage. Equality has become a key indicator of a socially just world and therefore a key focus of progressive campaigners.

But it is about time we considered whether equality is really what we want. Because when we look at it, we can see it as a really narrow, limiting, and potentially damaging framework.

Equality is built on one simple idea: that we are all the same. Queer campaigners argue that ‘all love is the same’. Feminists argue there are no differences between the skills and attributes of men and women, meaning everyone should have the same access to power and pay. The list goes on – we are the same and therefore deserve the same treatment in society.

At its heart it makes sense. The idea is about breaking down the unequal power structures of our society – a pretty good cause. But when executed, it has become extremely problematic. This is for two reasons. Firstly, the inherent problem with the idea of ‘sameness’. Simply put, if we are in fact all the same, then that creates some desired model we must aim towards – we must all have similar careers, relationships or life structures. Given that we aren’t actually all the same – we all have different attributes, desires, goals, etc – sameness becomes inherently limiting, shutting out those who don’t fit into a norm.

Second, when marginalised groups campaign for equality they are doing so within an existing power structure. Equality campaigns are about bringing marginalised groups into the systems of the powerful. They become about gaining access to that power structure, which not only is limiting, but also stops us from being able to critique those very systems.

Let’s look at a couple of examples.

In the lead up to 2010, gay and lesbian campaigners waged a massive campaign to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the United States. Whilst the campaign made sense from an equality perspective, it very quickly became extremely problematic. To campaign for access to the military, activists had to give up any capacity to critique the military and its actions. In saying ‘we want access to it’, we had to start to express why we wanted access to it, why it was so important to us. In doing so, the movement starting making heroes out of gay soldiers and talked up the benefits gay soldiers could play within the military. We made heroes out a military that justice campaigners – the very base of a queer movement – had been criticising for decades as extremely oppressive.

In other words, a movement that was formed to fight against oppressive institutions ended up fighting for that institution, building its profile and so strengthening it.

The case of marriage equality is a little more complicated. Many feminist and queer activists have a strong critique of marriage, to the point where a significant chunk of those campaigning for marriage equality also acknowledge a need to change marriage, or to even tear it down. Yet, despite the critique, many still argue that the denial of equal access to the institution must end. We should all be able to ‘choose to get married’.

The problem is that marriage equality campaigns aren’t actually campaigns for full equality. State-based legislation will exclude trans* couples, while any legislation will exclude poly relationships. Once again, not everyone will be able to access marriage. That is because of one very simple reason: the institution of marriage is not an equal one. Marriage is built upon social practices, both in terms of traditions (that is, monogamy) as well as expectations, particularly the expectation that we all want to get married. Because of that, it becomes an inherently limiting choice. It has become the expected way of doing a relationship, a form of relationship that occurs in very particular ways. You have to fall in love, have a massive proposal, have a big white wedding and then live a happy monogamous life forever after.

So while marriage equality may give more people access to the institution, it is still not an equal institution. It is still seen as the institution that is above all others, making all other forms of relationships less equal. It is a powerful institution, one that makes a mockery of the idea of ‘equal relationships’.

This is where a lot of people talk about the ‘queering of marriage’ – that by gaining access to a powerful institution, we’ll be able to change it. Many have said the same about other institutions such as the military. The evidence, however, doesn’t show this. If you look at all the campaigning around marriage it extols the virtues of monogamy and true love, and talks about how we queers are ‘just like straight couples’. It buys directly into all the limiting factors of marriage – the things that when combined with significant social pressure make it oppressive.

In other words, equality has turned into campaigning for equal access to systems that are oppressive. With the military, it has meant equal access to a system that results in the deaths of thousands of people every year. For marriage it is equality in the ability to access to a form of relationship that is seen as more valuable than all other forms of relationships, mocking the very idea of equality in the first place. And in doing so we’ve ended up strengthening these institutions. We’re campaigning to get into oppressive institutions, in turn weakening our chances to criticise them and break them down.

I can see the value people place into such campaigns. I can see a case for being equal under the law, and, of course, I think campaigns for equal access to services and pay are essential (although I much prefer a framework that looks at making the whole system better rather than just getting equal access to bad systems). For those reasons I don’t really oppose the moves when they happen. But I have to question the energy put into them, and I really have to question the framing of equality as a big picture goal.

It’s not just that I think we should spend more time trying to build good institutions rather than gaining equal access to the crappy ones we have now, although that is the essential crunch of this argument. But it’s more than that. When critiques of these systems arise, equality campaigners often talk about these moves as being ‘important symbols’, a recognition that says ‘everyone in this society is the same’. Once we gain that ‘sameness’, they argue, then we will be able to critique the institution as equals.

While I can see the value in that symbol, I think there is a much stronger symbolism that could be established. A stronger symbol is for a movement to get up and say, ‘we don’t want to be part of these institutions and we don’t want to get access to them.’ It is much stronger to say, ‘we believe, collectively, that we need to build new institutions rather than buying in to the ones we have.’

But equality doesn’t do that. It simple spends time getting us into crappy institutions, wasting the time we could be spending on building new and better institutions. There is some inherent value in equal access campaigns but we must be more critical. I would prefer we spend our time building new and better institutions rather than trying to get access to the oppressive ones we currently have.

Born this way?

Originally published in the Sydney Star Observer, 15th October 2013

Josh Hutcherson, star of The Hunger Games, said to Out Magazine the other day:

“Maybe I could say right now I’m 100 percent straight. But who knows? In a fucking year, I could meet a guy and be like, ‘Whoa, I’m attracted to this person’…I really love women. But I think defining yourself as 100 percent anything is kind of near-sighted and close-minded.”

Hutcherson’s comments remind me of those made by Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon from a few years ago, when she said that her sexuality is a choice. Hutcherson’s comments are similar – the idea that he has agency around his sexuality – a sexuality that is fluid. Nixon’s comments received a barrage of outrage. Many argued that her comments gave fodder to homophobes who use the ‘sexuality is a choice’ argument to continue discrimination and keep open camps for ‘gay cures’. There hasn’t been a similar outrage to Hutcherson’s statement. In fact Perez Hilton, who hit out at Nixon hard, even wrote an excited column about Hutcherson’s statement (perhaps because he is a man). But his statement should reopen an important debate.

“We’re born this way!” This is the message we’ve been trying to sell to sell in anti-discrimination campaigns. We have to stop discrimination because we couldn’t choose the fate of homosexuality – we shouldn’t discriminate against what is ‘natural’. Of course many see and argue that our sexualities (however you define that) are set by biology. But the argument is also seen as a clever political tactic – a way to take away one attack bigots use against legal rights.

But it is really problematic. ‘Sexuality’, however you define it, isn’t set. It is a fluid, moving beast that flows in a range of different ways across different times – whether it our attraction to people of different sexes, attraction to different ‘types’ of people, or interest and experience in new sexual activities. “Born this way” sticks us into narrow boxes – telling us that our sexuality is set from day one. And in doing so it takes our agency – the ability to control our sexual choices and desires.

In political debates it also says that we only deserve liberation because of our biology. If we actively choose a sexual identity(s) and/or sexual experiences beyond the norm we can be discriminated against. In fact, we deserve to be discriminated against because we are going against what is ‘natural’.

The ‘born this way’ story needs to go. It not only takes away our agency around our sexuality, it also allows for discrimination against us when we try to use that agency. Sexuality is fluid in many ways, and we should be able to have an open and honest discussion about that.

Power to the People?

Originally published at SBS Opinion 11th October 2013

Opening up the Labor leadership ballot to the rank-and-file could be extremely empowering, but let’s not stop there, writes Simon Copland.

As we come to the end of the ALP’s first ever rank-and-file leadership ballot (votes close today and the new leader will be announced on Sunday) it is worth looking at how it has all gone. One thing we can certainly take out of it – and this is not unexpected – is that the ballot seems to have invigorated many in the ALP membership. Looking at the reactions of my friends in the party, I get a real sense of empowerment by the process.

For example, last week a friend of mine tweeted:

I just voted for @AlboMP. Great to be part of the first leadership election open to and empower the membership. #historic

On Facebook, another friend said that they were excited to vote in the ‘first leadership ballot of Australia’s most democratic party’.

And I can see why. This is a vote that see members of the ALP elect the future Prime Minister of Australia – a pretty important thing indeed. Coming in as a Greens member – a party that prides itself on grass-roots democracy – it is something that I think we should discuss.

Yet, at the same time, I am extremely skeptical. Whilst at the surface a vote for the leadership seems like the epitome of a democratic party, it is actually a really shallow version of democracy. In the long-run it may have real negative effects on member empowerment – no matter which party employs it.

To explain this it is really important to look at the idea and value of leadership. ‘Leadership’ has become an all important part of our society. Academic John Storey argues:

“Despite prevailing and persisting cultural differences between certain countries, the diffusion and increasingly dominant influence of American values in recent years may also help to explain the increased attention given to leadership across much of the world. The American Dream and the focus on individualism and the can-do attitude have permeated international teaching and development in relation to how organisational leadership is viewed.

“This individualised interpretation is fuelled by the media. Business magazines such as Business Week, Fortune and the Director are especially prone to focus on the supposed crucial impact of top managers. Even serious financial newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times tend also to profile and give huge prominence to individual personalities and attribute to them apparent critical importance.”

Just have a look at the last few years in Australian politics and you can see it. When the ALP took government, the Liberal Party spent a good two years tearing itself apart because of its leadership. When it finally settled, the ALP did exactly the same. And the media loved it – focusing heavily on leadership turmoil throughout the past six years. And this focus plays out in real terms. As the Liberal Party has taken government it has meant a massive amount of power being placed in the hands of the Prime Minister. Earlier this year, the ALP saw an automatic jump in polling of around 7-8 points when they changed leaders, even though at the time it came with absolutely no changes in policies (those were to come later). In our politics, just as in the rest of our society, leaders are seen as extremely important – vital in fact.

Labor MP Anthony Albanese emerges after the Labor party caucus meeting at Parliament House in Canberra (AAP)

And in this context, a vote for a leadership battle makes sense. If leadership is the key determining factor in the direction of a party – as it could be easily argued it is within our major parties today – then it makes sense to involve members as much as possible in the choice of that leader.

But it is here where the problem comes in. Because whilst a focus on electing a leader may seem empowering it could potentially have the opposite effect. Through placing such an influence on leadership we are placing power in the hands of the few, and actively de-skilling the rest of the population – or in this case, the party membership.

Here it is worth looking at the ideas of sociologist Gemmill and Oakley (for more information on this check out my review of their article). For Gemmill and Oakley, the growth in the focus on the leader is what they call the resurgence of the ‘great leader myth’. This is the idea that society and our organisations needs great leaders, who have particular and prescribed traits, to survive. Leaders “are unquestionabl(y) necessary for the functioning of an organisation.”

In doing so however, they argue:

“The social myth around leaders serves to program life out of people (non-leaders) who, with the social lobotimization, appear as cheerful robots (Mill, 1956). It is our contention that the myth making around the concept of leadership is, as Bennis arrests, and unconscious conspiracy, or social hoax, aimed at maintaining the status quo (Bennis, 1989).”

“Leadership theories espousing “traits” or “great person” explanations reinforce and reflect the widespread tendency of people to deskill themselves and idealise leaders by implying that only a select few are good enough to exercise initiative.”

The other way to describe that is to argue that through focusing our energy on selecting leaders, we are actively placing power into the hands of few, and in turn de-skilling and de-powering the rest of the population. If we see leaders as essential to the success of an organisation or a society, and then argue that only a certain few can access the role of a leader, then we are actively stopping the masses from gaining access to any form of power and influence.

So what does that mean for a political party and a membership vote? Lets be clear here in that I don’t know enough about the ALP’s processes to lay judgement on how empowered ALP members are in defining the shape of their party. So I will talk in broader terms.

The issue is that if voting for the leadership is seen as the most empowering aspect of a party membership – a sense I get from many involved in the ALP at the moment – that actually has the capacity to de-skill and remove members from any real power in shaping the direction of a party.

If the focus of political party activism turns towards leadership campaigns, party members could actually remove more power from themselves and place it into the hands of party leaders. For example, if policy debates start to be solved through leadership campaigns instead of through other processes, party members could lose their rights to be involved in policy processes – instead putting that power it into the hands of one person. The only difference will be that this person will be voted on by more people – but what difference does that make if contenders have no real differences in policies (as it seems is the case with Shorten and Albanese)?

And this is where party members of all persuasions need to be careful. Because empowerment doesn’t come just from electing the person who exercises power, it comes from having that power spread out to the membership. Empowerment is not about choosing the person who decides the policies for you, but rather having an actual say over those policies yourselves (and this is where this can be played out into broader society).

Voting for a party’s leadership has the potential to be extremely empowering. But a really engaged and empowered membership of a political party, just like one of a society, is not just one that votes for a leader, but also one that actively has a role in shaping the party and the policies it develops.