I follow a lot of people on Twitter who are very politically aware to the point of being a bit nerdy. They’ll defy a hangover to get up and watch Insiders and tweet about it; QandA is the highlight of their week and they mourn the retirement of good politicians like normal people do when football stars hang up their boots. I admire their passion, which I share to a point. However, I note their political romanticism seems to cloud the reality that politics is severely hampered by politics. Australian politics is not something that flows along and inspires like an Aaron Sorkin script. There is no wonderful oration, wunderkind political aids who are there to do the right thing for the country, or an intelligent media to keep the public properly informed. It isn’t about idealism and good ideas, it’s about reacting to what agendas are set by unpredictable events and ensuring one gets the rhetoric right.
There is no better example of the absurdity of Australian politics than the asylum seeker issue. The facts are clear. Australia has a relatively small number of people seeking asylum. The number is a fraction of Australia’s migration intake. There is a trickle of asylum seekers not a flood. And the situation is being well managed, though it could be better handled if the government wasn’t afraid to use detention centres on the mainland to process refugee applications. It shouldn’t be as big an issue, but it is because the Liberal Party has made an art form of turning it into a border security problem; while pandering to those concerned that the skin colour of those arriving allows for further fears about the impact on Australian culture. This bullshit could have been nipped in the bud a long time ago. Instead it has been allowed to fester because we have a media organisations that by and large doesn’t question such claims, but happily reports them to suit their own agendas.
What results is a chicken-egg situation where one side of politics thinks it has traction on a particular issue and runs with it. The media whips it up verbatim with little analysis apart from op-Eds that usually preach to the converted. The public is then made to think it’s a big issue and then add their own emotional comment further inflating the supposed importance. The politicians and media then turn around say this is an issue of great public importance. So, how can we expect a government to make decisions that do not have to take all this into account?
I once had the pleasure of spending a day with the great man Democrats founder Don Chipp who said that when he was elected as a Liberal MP the first thing he was told by the party whip was to forget about all his ideals about making Australia great – his duty was to the Party. And that’s what politics is about. It’s about winning. It’s not about making great policy that is open to being shot down by a vocal minority, but by making safe policy that’s seen as less shit than your opponent. Yeah that’s shit, but it’s true.
I’m amazed that people who follow politics closely don’t understand this and think Julia Gillard was in a position to come up with the ideal and humane asylum seeker policy without risking political suicide. Good practical and humanitarian outcomes sadly lose out to political realities. If we were allowed to treat this as an ongoing humanitarian situation rather than as a security concern, than both major parties would fall over themselves to be the most humane. Sadly the public put up with an unquestioning media which puts rhetoric and semantics before facts, which is why we get the policies we deserve.
Julia Gillard’s asylum seeker plan is shit, but less shit than the alternative. If it’s what she has to do to avoid an Abbott Government that would send boats back than so be it. Anyone who thinks she could have leaned further left on this issue in the current climate is sadly kidding themselves.

#1 by ellymc on 7 July 2010 - 1:55 pm
Quote
Very well put. So, what do we do??
#2 by Chasy on 7 July 2010 - 2:04 pm
Quote
I don’t think it’s that we don’t understand this, we’re just disappointed that it’s true, I suppose. A change in leader gave hope to a change in policy, but, sadly, that was not to be.
Am I the only person in Australia who is interested in politics and doesn’t watch The West Wing?
#3 by Spock... on 7 July 2010 - 2:17 pm
Quote
I sometimes like to think the best of people. I lily to think that with less cynical leadership Australian may not be so ignorant. I think that there is a tenancy to cynically exploit ignorance rather than educate, and I think that is sad.
But maybe I am just living in a fairytale world.
#4 by Chris Owens on 7 July 2010 - 2:20 pm
Quote
No Chasy, you’re not the only one. I may have watched half an episode once. I don’t see the attraction.
And I agree that it was more hopeful that we would hear a better outcome for refugees rather than any expectation.
#5 by David Bonnici on 8 July 2010 - 9:27 pm
Quote
Point taken Jimbo, and I suppose we’re not privy to the behind the scenes frustration our political leaders feel in not being able to do what they believe is right.
But it would be nice if we had a leader who stuck to their guns on a more humanitarian way to approach to the asylum seeker issue because it’s the right thing to do, and could come up with lines like: “With the clothes on their backs, they came through a storm. And those that didn’t die want a better life. And they want it here. Talk about impressive.”
#6 by Jimbo on 9 July 2010 - 12:33 am
Quote
Great article, but I’m not sure you’re particularly familiar with the West Wing.
Obviously the West Wing doesn’t reflect the reality of politics perfectly (because it’s a TV show and viewers like to see the characters they’re fond of win and act morally), but it constantly acknowledges that politicians are required to compromise their ideals to reach ‘less shit’ alternatives than those advocated by the media, other politicians and special interest groups. The plot lines on the show frequently involve the characters having to keep quiet on issues they care about or settle for fairly rotten compromises in order to stave off political catastrophe.
So, if anything, I’d say that viewers of the West Wing probably come away less inclined to expect of their politicians the idealistic absolutism you refer to.
#7 by Jeremy on 9 July 2010 - 9:21 am
Quote
I understand *why* Gillard chose to pander to ignorant xenophobic idiots – but that doesn’t mean I agree with her decision. Or that it is beyond criticism. Or that I’ll vote for her despite it.
The flaw of big old parties is that they want us to believe that they can represent more than 50% of the population simultaneously. Obviously that’s ridiculous, and impossible – but Labor insists on pretending that progressive voters should vote for it despite it not actually representing our views. That’s the thing that annoys me: by all means, represent the fears and refugee-hatred of Lib/Lab swinging voters – but don’t then claim you’re representing me.
PS I’m not a big fan of West Wing.
Pingback: Frank national conversations « Churls Gone Wild
Pingback: Frank national conversations « Overland literary journal
Pingback: Sometimes it is like The West Wing « Groupthink