“There is nothing more popular on the internet than pornography, and that extends to political pornography, the territory of trolls and zealots. Australian Senator Scott Ludlam knows this, and Ludlam is fighting for his survival. He has only just narrowly averted disaster and now he is appealing to the fringe because he cannot appeal to the majority.” –Paul Sheehan, The Age
“Australia’s highest profile unionist, Paul Howes, has broken ranks with his own union and now supports Labor and unions severing their historic link.
… Mr Howes has recently shifted position and now supports the cutting of the 123-year old formal tie between unions and Labor.” –Royce Millar and Ben Schneiders, The Sydney Morning Herald
Reading these interesting articles, I noticed a strong contrast of sorts. It was between Paul Sheehan’s piece in The Age lambasting Scott Ludlam for pandering to the fringe vote, and Paul Howes stepping down as AWU Secretary in July, with the aim of splitting the union movement at large from the Labor Party. This dichotomy is something I have observed for a long time now- how disparate the agenda is between noisy activists and Labor’s traditional unionist base.
This schism was a long time coming.
I am a conservative voter, but still respect certain Labor figures such as Craig Ferguson and Paul Howes, always wondering if they were in the right party, as Labor has been captured and cannibalised by the Greens and the social activist agenda: climate change, asylum seekers, same-sex-marriage, Aboriginal reconciliation. Howes and Ferguson are part of the old guard, realists who have not been caught by the pet issues of today’s protesters. In Nick Cater’s book, Lucky Culture, he pointed out that many union workers are not Socialist Alternative activists agitating for revolution against the bosses, no, but are actually conservative on many issues. The Green “hard-left” agenda want to foment change to a “kinder” society, while the union members paying their dues just want to have a comfortable job tomorrow protected from the bosses. So Paul Howes’ call to compromise with business, part of this union agenda, fell on deaf ears- to the academic crusader, absolutism is key and compromise is anathema.
The Internet has intensified the echo chamber of the activists, as Paul Sheehan has pointed out- they believe they are in the centre of the political spectrum, that they have the moral high ground and that they have the majority (the Green primary vote in 2013 was 8.4 per cent nationally, not including the Labor left vote). This is why speeches like Ludlam’s lambasting Abbott during his visit to WA and Gillard’s “misogyny” speech has such a profound cheer squad in the chattering classes, the Latte Left, all with university educations and who are big in Victoria, the country’s reddest (most left-leaning) state. The truth is, however, the feral Latte Left are in a minority but they clamour the loudest. They are zealots on crusade and opponents are not to be reasoned with- they are to be annihilated. They accuse their enemies (such as Abbott) of being morally bankrupt, and came out in numbers (30,000 in Melbourne) to protest.
The truth is that “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” - Eleanor Roosevelt
Attacking “AbbottAbbottAbbott” is the last and least dignified of the above three, discussing Abbott as a person instead of compromising on the policy he stands for. That’s why an effective test is to ask someone, “what did you like about Gillard? Now what do you like about Abbott,” a true zealot wearing a F*ck Tony Abbott t-shirt would not be able to answer the second.
These protesters can articulate that they don’t like Tony Abbott because he doesn’t support their pet issues, yet they forget that they, as the vocal minority, really are opposed to a majority vote that put Abbott in power. It is good that they bring up Abbott’s failings, but must realise that they have to articulate solutions rather than “oh that’s morally wrong.” Politics, unfortunately, is about ugly compromise even if one tries to be morally pure, Sarah Hansen-Young (Greens Senator) saying, “Tragedies happen. Accidents happen” when responding to the accusation that “compassionate” policies lured economic migrants to their deaths. If compassionate on-shore processing lured people to their deaths, there is no compromise except the blind one, and it reminds me of, “let them eat cake.” This is the voice of the educated, the academics, the lawyers who know better than everyone else, and believe the rest of the electorate is stupid, ignorant and bigoted. Yet these “paragons” have never seen the results of their compassion in the real world.
So I am glad if the unions make a break from strong party affiliations where their interests are co-opted, rather than represented. Already the ETU is donating to the Greens instead of Labor, because they feel that the Greens are more likely to stand up for workers than Labor. There may even be union representation one day in the LNP as this split occurs- finally conservative unionists can divorce themselves from the bleating of activists whom have captured the agenda of both the Greens and the Labor party, which is often against union interests such as woodchipping in Tasmania, and the carbon tax making it too expensive for local industry, increasing the off-shoring rate. Time for the split to happen, and to call a spade a spade. Time for the unions to realise that Labor led by activists is not in their best interests.
Otherwise Abbott will walk into the pub, order a beer and eat Labor’s lunch; and the unions will pick up the tab.
Sources:
The post Split between the Latte Left and the Unionists appeared first on Controversial News, Controversial Current Events | Intentious the Internet's Home of Controversial News.
