What Makes Them Tick: Inside The Mind Of The ...

What Makes Them Tick: Inside The Mind Of The Abbott Government | newmatilda.com

Home

Recent Articles

Articles by Topic

About Us

FAQ

Write for Us

24/07/2015 1:19 pm

Fund New Matilda

Contact

Search

Sign in Register

ANALYSIS 26 Oct 2014

What Makes Them Tick: Inside The Mind Of The Abbott Government By Lissa Johnson

If the Abbott Government was an individual, he would be a psychopath. And you wonder why they're frightened of science! Clinicial psychologist Dr Lissa Johnson explains.

Your email address

Decades of research in political psychology has opened a window onto the psychological heart of politics. The Abbott Government embodies the conservative psyche in pasquinade form. With a prime minister who threatens to shirt-front the Russian president, a finance minister who calls the opposition leader a girlie-man and a government advisor for whom “Abos”, “darkies” “muzzies”, “chinkypoos” and “whores” rolls comfortably off the tongue, it is little wonder people are asking what goes on in the minds of our politicians.

Submit

Clinical psychologist interested in the psychology of ideology and politics,

Keywords:

and the philosophy and politics of

dr lissa johnson

abbott government professor barry spurr

psychology.

john jost jim sadanius

Read Lissa Johnson's full bio

george w bush

Advertisement

For different reasons, academic psychologists have been asking the same question for some time. They say that it takes 20 years for knowledge in academic psychology to make its way into the public domain. If that is the case, the political psychology literature is just coming of age. Thanks to an invigoration in 2003 of research that had been gathering steam in the 1990s and before, we now know with considerable clarity what separates the left psychologically from the right. And the picture is revealing. Political vaudeville aside, the Abbott Government offers a vivid case study in conservative psychology that breathes life into the very definition of conservatism. In the political psychology literature conservatism is defined in two parts, resting on the pillars of equality and change: accepting versus rejecting inequality and advocating versus resisting social change. By this definition, the conservative position on any issue involves promotion of inequality and resistance to change. Where conservative change is sought it is typically in the direction of inequality, winding back historical egalitarian change. As a case study, the Abbott Government illustrates not only these two principles, but also their psychological building blocks, identified in a vast number of studies from institutions around the world. These studies, emanating from the likes of Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, UCLA and countless other universities, have been replicated time and again by different researchers using different measures (self-report, implicit tests, peer-ratings, behavioural indices) and different methods (correlational, experimental and longitudinal). In short, a reliable body of research. One consistent finding in this literature is that conservatism involves a cognitive tendency known as the need for cognitive closure. This entails an impetus to arrive at fixed and firm answers to complex questions, motivated by the drive to resolve uncertainty and ambiguity. It manifests in seizing and freezing on opinions and ideas, or swiftly and resolutely reaching final conclusions on complicated topics, which then remain closed to further review. Our government’s policy on climate change, for instance, comes to mind. As does its haste to pass legislation without debate. The conservative need for cognitive closure is broadly rooted in a personality style that https://newmatilda.com/2014/10/26/what-makes-them-tick-inside-mind-abbott-government

Page 1 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

psychologists call “closed-minded” or often simply “closed”. It involves low levels the personality trait Openness to Experience, which is widely accepted as one of the five core dimensions of personality. People low on Openness prefer certainty, order, structure, the familiar, predictability, simplicity, and sticking with the tried and true. They dislike change, complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity, novelty and flexibility. They are less intellectually curious than their more open counterparts, disinclined to examine their own ideas and views, and as a result are often suspicious of science and the arts. They also tend to dislike new experiences, frequently including but not limited to foreign people, culture and food. Our government’s distaste for science ministers and asylum seekers, then, makes sense. Another ubiquitous finding is that conservatism is inversely related to the pursuit of social and economic equality. Conservatism correlates strongly with a preference for fixed social hierarchies entailing inequality between social groups, along with punitive attitudes towards marginalised and/or non-conforming members of society, who are seen as destabilising elements that threaten social cohesion. This anti-egalitarian psychological characteristic, with over 50 years of research behind it, is known as Right Wing Authoritarianism. It is predicted by low levels of Openness, with the associated need for a predictable, orderly and controlled social world. Right Wing Authoritarianism has a younger cousin, with 20 years of research behind it, known as Social Dominance Orientation. A darker pathway to ideological views, Social Dominance Orientation is more a ruthless and competitive form of anti-egalitarianism. It not only correlates with conservatism but also with the ‘dark triad’ of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and Psychopathy. In newer research, conservatism has also been found to correlate inversely with compassion, humility, dispositional fairness, altruism and empathy. So robust are the psychological findings that John Jost of NYU and his colleagues propose that political orientation “may be structured according to a left-right dimension for primarily psychological (rather than logical or philosophical) reasons… linked to variability in the needs to reduce uncertainty and threat”.

Advertisement

Of course not all people who vote for conservative political parties embody all, or even necessarily some, of the psychological correlates. What the research indicates is that the more conservative a person is, on average, the more strongly they are likely to display these characteristics. Fortunately none of us, as individuals, is entirely average. In fact, some studies have found that the more politically active a person is the stronger the psychological underpinning of their ideology is likely to be. Thus we could expect our leaders’ political views to be more, rather than less, psychologically driven than our own. And more hell bent on inequality and opposing change. In a world of increasing egalitarianism the conservative position can make for a hard sell. Politicians with an agenda as conservative as the Abbott Government’s can’t to go to the polls wearing their manifesto on their sleeves. “We promise to preserve and intensify privilege, entrench disadvantage and wind back egalitarian change, putting a halt to its further spread.” As a result, in order to gain power conservative political parties are compelled to sugar-coat their agenda to be palatable in a putatively egalitarian world. A conservative stock-in-trade to this end is what political scientists call ‘legitmising myths’, or ideologies that justify discrimination against disadvantaged groups. Legitimising myths typically appeal to fear, which increases political conservatism; scarcity, which increases competition between social groups; and stereotypes, which smooth the way for discrimination against less privileged members of a society. For instance, “Burqa-wearing women are potential terrorists who threaten our safety and our way of life” is a myth that appeals to all three. While the Abbott Government relied more heavily on lies than myth-making on its way to the election, since gaining office Abbott and his ministers have had a crack at a few legitimising myths of their own. They have been successful with some, for example ‘The carbon tax will cripple the economy (fear and scarcity)’. They have limped along lamely with a few, such as the ‘Budget emergency’ (fear and scarcity again) and ‘Age of entitlement’ (stereotype).

https://newmatilda.com/2014/10/26/what-makes-them-tick-inside-mind-abbott-government

Page 2 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

Other efforts at legitimising mythology have received hostile reception, for instance ‘The unemployed just need to try harder’ (stereotype), and ‘Poor people don’t have cars’ (stereotype again). Some are just plain silly, such as ‘Coal is good for humanity’ (tempting to type ‘insanity’ here). On Aboriginal people, the Government has opted for the most effective and time-honoured myth of all, ‘They don’t exist – at least not really.’ Silence and collective blindness have worked for governments until now. This kind of psychological apartheid (literally “apart-hood”), keeping races psychologically apart, is a stealthy variety of stereotype that serves to obscure the very existence and legitimacy of an entire race. A prime example is the call for a more westernised version of history in the national curriculum, one that emphasises Judeo-Christian heritage and scales back focus on Aboriginal history. It not only seeks to reverse historical egalitarian change, but also serves to push Aboriginal Australians even further out of our collective awareness and understanding. The Government’s most recent legitimising rhetoric, ‘The war on terror at home’, is probably the most potent and promising of all. In numerous studies, invoking fear and even simply thinking about death increases self-reported conservatism and endorsement of conservative policies, candidates, and values. For instance, in time series analyses George W Bush’s approval ratings and policy support soared after every upgrading of the national terrorist alert. Similarly, priming threat by asking people to rate statements such as “I worry that terrorists might strike any time anywhere” raises levels of both closed-mindedness and conservatism. So strong is the fear connection that a brain structure integral to fear - the amygdala - is larger, on average, in conservatives relative to their ‘small l’ liberal counterparts. Jost explains it thus: “Stability and hierarchy appear to provide reassurance and structure inherently, whereas social change and equality imply greater chaos and unpredictability…. People may be psychologically unwilling or unable to embrace the unpredictability associated with social change and increased equality when they are feeling threatened or experiencing aversive levels of uncertainty” Exploiting ISIS for all it’s worth, then, is Tony Abbott’s best hope. The “death cult” refrain no doubt helps. Although Australians are at greater risk of death from falling off a ladder or out of bed, a cult is far more scary. And better on which to build stereotypes. Given that stereotypes and prejudice feed and thrive on fear and justify inequality, it is perhaps not surprising that prejudice has been found to correlate with conservatism in a number of studies. Conservatism is most often associated with racism, particularly of the “modern” kind, which holds that underprivileged racial groups are responsible for their own disadvantage, but also prejudice in general, including prejudice against sexual minorities, women, and other disadvantaged or marginalised groups. The attitudes of Professor Barry Spurr – the Sydney University academic and contributor to the review of the National School Curriculum who was suspended after a series of racist, misogynistic emails - may be more prototypical than we would like to think. Jim Sidanius of UCLA and colleagues say, “Political conservatism and racism should be strongly correlated, because both ideologies are motivated by a common desire to assert the superiority of the in-group over relevant out-groups, and they justify such group superiority in terms that appear both morally and intellectually justifiable.” Or at least they try. With prejudice, in pursuit of inequality we have seen the Abbott Government target “entitled” pensioners, welfare recipients, young people, single parents, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, the chronically ill and the disabled for a good kicking down the economic hierarchy. We have seen treatment of “illegal” asylum seekers sink to new lows, efforts to keep those with modest bank balances out of tertiary education, and to make healthcare inaccessible to low income groups. These latter measures are important if inequality is to be a stable feature of a society, as they lock disadvantage in place. Winding back egalitarian change has also proceeded apace. There has been the repeal of the carbon tax, axing of numerous climate change research and advisory bodies (ensuring inequality between current and future generations), abolishing a dedicated Disability Discrimination Commissioner, seeking, albeit unsuccessfully, to water down racial discrimination legislation, seeking to scale back focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history and Asia in the


Page 3 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

national curriculum, disbanding the Immigration Health Advisory Group, and proposing regressive changes to migration law described by legal experts as cruel and inhumane and designed to subvert international law. Not to forget the rushed changes to national security legislation, under fire from legal experts for encroaching on fundamental human rights and damaging the democratic cornerstone of press freedom. Increasing a Government’s powers to jail journalists and removing journalists’ rights to defences such as public interest is one way to keep a society in its place. As is giving ASIO the power to "add, copy, delete or alter" information on computer devices. But there are others. For instance, the Government’s introduction of social media guidelines prohibiting public servants from criticising the government. Or the gag clauses on community organisations such as Legal Aid Centres, also to prevent them from criticising the Government. And what of mission creep in the war on criticism? If the Government fails to expand and protect its borders around secrecy, then whistleblowers and ‘citizen/academic/activist journalists’ might continue speaking out. The two ideals most dear to our Government’s extremist ideological heart could be exposed for what they are: change-aversion and inequality. Our leaders’ policies might be outed as fanatical versions of these ideals, worthy of a terror alert all their own. That would never do. Print

googleplus

Log in or register to post comments Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab. Enter your comments here

2hot2handle Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 11:05

Classic case of over-extended science. 'Political science' is a contradiction in and of itself. You cannot have a neutral perspective on politics, and nor should you. Log in or register to post comments BlackIncal Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 12:03

I find this an interesting and timely perspective on politics. None of it is surprising as conservative politics is closely tied in with corporate/capitalist culture and the corporate/capitalist leadership is clearly made up of psychopaths (I believe there are studies to back that up). However, the conservative politics would never succeed without the active assistance of MSM and their powerful propaganda methods. When you couple the corporate/capitalist politicians, the MSM propaganda machine and a public largely sold on and comfortable with the celebrity worshipping, consumerist, me me me world, the end result is clear and awful. NM and others may offer an alternative view of things, it sadly not a mainstream thing. Until that changes only the arrival of several imminent disasters will change things. Log in or register to post comments


Page 4 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

IAIN HALL Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 12:08

Lissa Johnson You whole argument is based upon a false premise and it goes down hill from there. As a conservative myself I see nothing at all of the vices in the way that I think or the values that you claim underpin the beliefs I and other conservatives hold. In a nut shell the core of conservative thinking is the the belief that social change should be incremental, evolutionary and largely organic, most especially we believe that change for the sake of change is seldom a good thing, We are quite happy to see change when it is actually efficacious. Further your claim that conservatives are by their nature anti-egalitarian is also utter rubbish it is a cornerstone of conservative thinking that everyone should have the same opportunities to thrive and prosper. Our recognition of diversity in ability does not mean that we are seeking to make anyone less equal in their humanity. The reality is that its impossible to ensure that everyone will get an entirely "equal" outcome in the game of life but if they have the opportunities to give it a bloody good go that is enough to get a good enough level of social equality. Finally You do your argument no favours by invoking the issue of AGW and the carbon tax. Beside the fact that many conservatives actually believe in the AGW proposition ( Turnbull comes to mind) The conservative opposition to the carbon tax was largely an artifact of the fact that it was not ever going to make the slightest bit of difference to the climate and we were mortally offended by the lie that underpinned the scheme. Call us old fashioned but its a conservative virtue that we think that any change should do what is claimed for it and secondly we think that a Prime Minster should do what they promise. Log in or register to post comments calyptorhynchus Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 12:31

Ah Iain, your own words (which you have helpfully bolded) betray you. "We are quite happy to see change when it is actually efficacious." The point about change is that often you can't control it, it happens by itself, and all you can do is adapt (remember, like you were going to adapt to claimte change?) As a parallel example to demonstrate the delusional, authoritarian nature of this thinking, imagine you had just written "I am quite happy to age when it is actually efficacious" Log in or register to post comments IAIN HALL Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 12:36

Waggie

it is unsurprising a nutjob(sic) like you would not question your own sanity. Just because you fail to acknoledge(sic) something, does not mean it is false. You dont(sic) like readiong(sic) hard truths about yourself... maybe you should stop reading. Typically you are incapable of arguing without making ad hominem attacks upon your interlocutor, fortunately you are not speaking for all of the left or even a significant part of it. Log in or register to post comments IAIN HALL


Page 5 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 12:43

calyptorhynchus

Ah Iain, your own words (which you have helpfully bolded) betray you. "We are quite happy to see change when it is actually efficacious." The point about change is that often you can't control it, it happens by itself, and all you can do is adapt (remember, like you were going to adapt to claimte change?) I acknowledge with good grace that change happens and that we have to adapt when it does happen but the conservative position does not require an unchanging world, it just objects to imposed change that is unnecessary or contrived in the absence of a good reason for change. As a parallel example to demonstrate the delusional, authoritarian nature of this thinking, imagine you had just written "I am quite happy to age when it is actually efficacious" Sorry to to burst your bubble but your example does not work, aging like the passage of time is not something that can be controlled and as such it must just be accepted. Log in or register to post comments Monkeywrench Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 12:45

Iain Hall personifies the position Conservatives find themselves in when confronted with an accurate diagnosis: they deny their own symptoms. The example of the carbon tax is a felicitous one. The fact that it did make a difference to Australia's carbon emissions, and therefore did have an effect on climate chnage, (emissions are now rising again, and concomitantly our effect on AGW with them) shows that Iain did not really believe in the science, siezing and freezing on a flase reasoning for opposing the carbon price. In his own way, Iain has confirmed the arguments in this excellent article. Log in or register to post comments Mercurial Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 12:51

THanks Lissa. Of all those conservative traits you describe, how better to explain their manifestation on our current PM than to realise he is an ex-seminarian. Iain Hall "mortally offended" by the "lie" that we can make a difference to global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions - oh please, spare me the high and mighty. You are on record as advocating not ever truly believing what a politician says (though that was in defence of the current mob, and I know conservatives have different rules for theirs and others' behaviour). Don't give us the "oi I'm hurt" routine. Log in or register to post comments Mercurial Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 12:54

And Iain talks about 'believing in" AGW. It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of science. If you don't believe the science, show us your credentials. Log in or register to post comments glennyg


Page 6 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 12:55

Yes, I also picked up on the "and secondly we think that a Prime Minster should do what they promise" comment. It does leap out at you, doesn't it? In there amongst the good spelling, the correct grammar, the reasoned arguments - a big red banner with the words "I am either dishonest or delusional!" printed on it in big letters.

Log in or register to post comments calyptorhynchus Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 13:26

"Sorry to to burst your bubble but your example does not work, aging like the passage of time is not something that can be controlled and as such it must just be accepted." That was exactly my point, the fact you didn't get the parallel shows how your mind works (poorly). Log in or register to post comments frances.ashley.... Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 13:30

Excellent article. So true. The thing is how do we get rid of them and feel proud to be Australian again. In the words of Richard Flanagan -"it is embarrassing to be an Australian" at the moment. Log in or register to post comments IAIN HALL Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 14:03

Monkeywrench

Iain Hall personifies the position Conservatives find themselves in when confronted with an accurate diagnosis: they deny their own symptoms. My point is that the "diagnoses" is not correct at all, it id too full of the tropes and suppositions that brought about the downfall of Marxist dictatorships in the last century The example of the carbon tax is a felicitous one. The fact that it did make a difference to Australia's carbon emissions, and therefore did have an effect on climate chnage, (emissions are now rising again, and concomitantly our effect on AGW with them) shows that Iain did not really believe in the science, siezing and freezing on a flase reasoning for opposing the carbon price. In his own way, Iain has confirmed the arguments in this excellent article. No the Carbon tax had far less effect on our emissions than the gold plating of the distribution network which the Warministas keep telling us was the cause of the massive price rises in electricity. However even if we put that point to one side there is no evidence that the lowering of our emissions has or will make the slightest bit of difference to the global climate. Ergo the whole scheme is useless posturing Waggie

im not a clinical psycologist.. but if you keep wearing those plastic undies, everyone can clearly see your(e) nuts.


Page 7 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

Under wear? Nah I prefer to go commando thats right moron, i never claimed to be speaking for anyone but myself. to highlight your hypocrisy on ad hominem attacks, one needs not look at too many of your comments here.. however, stating a fact, that you are a stupid nut job, is not an ad hominem attack, its expressing an obvious observation. not like being called stupid? stop being stupid. You really should stop digging matey, the hole you are in is deep enough already. Mercurial

THanks Lissa. Of all those conservative traits you describe, how better to explain their manifestation on our current PM than to realise he is an exseminarian. You forget or ignore the fine catholic tradition of concern for social equity adn giving a big hand up to the poor and down trodden Iain Hall "mortally offended" by the "lie" that we can make a difference to global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions - oh please, spare me the high and mighty. You are on record as advocating not ever truly believing what a politician says (though that was in defence of the current mob, and I know conservatives have different rules for theirs and others' behaviour). Don't give us the "oi I'm hurt" routine. I don't quite get what you are saying here, I was explaining why the carbon tax was so loathed not suggesting that either side of politics have a monopoly on being entirely truthful. Waggie

"Typically you are incapable of arguing without making ad hominem attacks upon your interlocutor," actually, i am perfectly capable.. as per my initial interactions with you, however, as time went by, i realised what a total waste of time that was - and youre just not worth any respect at all. so you get none. In other words you can't cut it in civil debate so you resort to the Ad Hom attack instead maybe if you could argue a point for once based on factual substance, instead of your own retarded unqualified opinion.. we would get along better.. but i wont hold my breath for that, and im happy enough to continue as we are.. Well as a conservative writing on a post trying to describe the nature of conservatism I think I am well qualified to speak on the matter. Mercurial

And Iain talks about 'believing in" AGW. It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of science. If you don't believe the science, show us your credentials. I love a good tautology! Firstly you chide be for claiming that the Warministas "believe" in AGW and then you ask me for credentials if I don't believe in science! Pardon me while I resort to to internet speak... ROTFLMAO! (My only science qualification is a high distinction in matriculation biology) glennyg


Page 8 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

Yes, I also picked up on the "and secondly we think that a Prime Minster should do what they promise" comment. It does leap out at you, doesn't it? In there amongst the good spelling, the correct grammar, the reasoned arguments - a big red banner with the words "I am either dishonest or delusional!" printed on it in big letters.

Like a lot of people I understand the realities of politics and on balance I think that the current PM is actually just a bit better in terms of personal honesty that the one before last. You see we realists understand that dogmatism on such things is the sure fire way to be come far too cynical calyptorhynchus

"Sorry to to burst your bubble but your example does not work, aging like the passage of time is not something that can be controlled and as such it must just be accepted." That was exactly my point, the fact you didn't get the parallel shows how your mind works (poorly). Well my point is that there is natural change, that has to be embraced and then there are the the social changes dreamed up by ideologies and activists that are seeking to create some sort of utopia, the problem is that so many of those efforts end up creating something that is far worse than the status quo, as an example I give you any of the societies created under the Marxist model as enunciated by Lenin or Stalin.

Log in or register to post comments Mercurial Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 14:51

Iain, you should research your own posts better. Don't understand what I'm saying? How about "Call us old fashioned but its a conservative virtue that we think that any change should do what is claimed for it and secondly we think that a Prime Minster should do what they promise." Log in or register to post comments Mercurial Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 14:54

Tautology my arse. There's a very wide distinction between 'believing' as a matter of faith, and 'believing' because you accept what experts say. Log in or register to post comments Lissa J Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 15:42

Iain, you highlight an important point, which I hope is clear in the article, and it is that any given individual is not necessarily an exemplar of the psychological findings in the literature. Those findings are based on averages, and none of us is a walking average. Of course I don’t know you, so I can’t comment on your psychological makeup, but I did read your piece “So You Say You Want A Revolution” and in it you came across as empathic and tolerant of diversity. I think that that’s a good example of individual variability around the mean and the fact that people frequently fall far from the average. Thank you for the opportunity to address this point. Lissa Log in or register to post comments https://newmatilda.com/2014/10/26/what-makes-them-tick-inside-mind-abbott-government

Page 9 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

Bilal Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 16:38

Again commentators are letting the right-wing trolls distract the discussion. While I have no doubt about the mindset of conservatives as portrayed in this excellent article, it is a stretch to call the Abbott gang "conservative". A party which has elevated such types as Bernardi and which cosies up to Murdoch, Alan Jones and Bolt, is not conservative but rightwing radical. Log in or register to post comments thomasee73 Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 16:58

Wagsman: Well said. Not the cleverest comment I've ever read on the internet, but by far from the least. Log in or register to post comments Ken Fabos Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 17:23

Abbott and team gained office by being misleading and deceptive and, as much as possible, avoiding being forthcoming about true policy intentions. Simply not discussing and debating policy allowed them to gain the House of Reps, asided by distractions and diversions that have kept Australians in the dark. The use of hot button issues is typical; if they press people's buttons - Australians getting welfare payments, refugees getting residency, having to pay taxes that others get benefit from - then people will not be taking in information or choosing rationally. Thus they managed to get a whole lot of people to vote against their own interests. On Climate I suspect we are seeing the outward manifestation of complete rejection of climate science - that is evident yet always deniable, masked behind contradictory and inane utterances and only more directly stated by the indirect means of allied commentators. The hostility to all policy and programs that have climate as a consideration is apparent - "judge by our actions, not our words". This isn't the manifestation of a wise leader who has harbours legitimate doubts and seeks to get on top of the issue before rushing in, this is government by people who are absolutely convinced mainstream science is wrong and convinced debate doesn't work because science must be corrupt.. The self justifications for being misleading are there in the the op pieces we see; the theme of "eco-authoritarianism, political correctness, stifling debate, contrary opinions not allowed" that suggest that they are somehow, despite compliant media support, prevented from speaking their true views. Which have come from people like chosen advisors like Warbuton and Newman as well as senior ministers like Julie Bishop and George Brandis. The reality is they aren't actually prevented from speaking their true views, but they find it more expedient to eliminate the 'green infection' that is Australia having climate policies by avoiding doing so. Because to be forthcoming means they would have to justify their views and debate them - with a strong likehood they would lose. This is a course that can only be taken by those with heartfelt convictions, a belief that climate science is corrupt, infiltrated by elements with unsound political agendas, and that ordinary democratic processes, like open debate are insufficient to 'save' our nation from it's pernicious influence. They are engaged in a crusade and cannot recognise that their inability to grasp the seriousness of the environmental catastrophe that is consequence of unrestrained fossil fuel burning and determination to prevent action by others makes them the truly dangerous and irrational and ideologically driven element that needs to be stopped.

Log in or register to post comments IAIN HALL Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 17:29


Page 10 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

Mercurial Iain, you should research your own posts better. Don't understand what I'm saying? How about "Call us old fashioned but its a conservative virtue that we think that any change should do what is claimed for it and secondly we think that a Prime Minster should do what they promise." What do you mean by that?

Tautology my arse. There's a very wide distinction between 'believing' as a matter of faith, and 'believing' because you accept what experts say. Just because two beliefs have different authorities does not alter teh fact that both require acts of faith, either in an abstraction that some might call "god" or in the authority symbolised by a white coat that you call "science".

Waggie Am I to assume that your comment was too bile laden to remain here?

Lissa J

Iain, you highlight an important point, which I hope is clear in the article, and it is that any given individual is not necessarily an exemplar of the psychological findings in the literature. Those findings are based on averages, and none of us is a walking average. The trouble with articles like yours is that they are very often subject to a great deal of confirmation bias by those who read them and to be frank I think that if you were to apply the same methodology to players form the other side of politics then it would be very easyly find that some of them are very far from saint hood

Of course I don’t know you, so I can’t comment on your psychological makeup, but I did read your piece “So You Say You Want A Revolution” and in it you came across as empathic and tolerant of diversity. I like diversity. and enjoy engaging with people who have different world views to my own

I think that that’s a good example of individual variability around the mean and the fact that people frequently fall far from the average. Thank you for the opportunity to address this point. Lissa Fair point but it begs the question of just how useful generalizations are in this sort of social profile doesn't't it? Bilal

Again commentators are letting the right-wing trolls distract the discussion. While I have no doubt about the mindset of conservatives as portrayed in this excellent article, it is a stretch to call the Abbott gang "conservative". A party which has elevated such types as Bernardi and which cosies up to Murdoch, Alan Jones and Bolt, is not conservative but rightwing radical. The Coalition and its support base are clearly a broad church that encompass' a wide


Page 11 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

range of viewpoints which are mostly far more benign than you are willing to admit. No just as a thought exercise just imagine someone had made the same argument that you do here about the followers of your faith, suggesting that all are cossiing up to the Jihadists, what would you think of their argument?, thomasee73

Wagsman: Well said. Not the cleverest comment I've ever read on the internet, but by far from the least. Oh I am sorry that I missed seeing it before it was moderated LOL Log in or register to post comments Val Doxan Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 17:36

An excellent article. That fully explains the twisted mentality of this far right wing government. More disturbing is that the trait of conservatism is almost equally as present in the Labor party as it is in the LNP. Log in or register to post comments Richard Kopf Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 17:41

The problem with the Libs can be explained this way. I often thought that Tony Abbott, with his unusual behavior, his lying and the denial of lying, his strange gait, his silence and shaking when asked questions on camera, his repetition of words and his irrational logic, were symptoms of some medical condition. His paranoia about matters “green” and his denial of global warming were at odds with him attaining a Rhodes scholarship. So my conclusion was that something had happened to Tony at a later stage. Them it dawned on me. Abbott was a student boxer, earning two blues for boxing while at Oxford. According to Wikipedia, “the condition, dementia pugilistica, is a neurodegenerative disease with features of dementia that may affect amateur or professional boxers, wrestlers as well as athletes in other sports who suffer concussions. It occurs in athletes having suffered repetitive blows to the head, manifests as dementia, or declining mental ability, problems with memory, and Parkinsonism, or tremors and lack of coordination. It can also cause speech problems and an unsteady gait. Patients with DP may be prone to inappropriate or explosive behavior and may display pathological jealousy or paranoia. ” So if the leader behaves in a certain manner, those who follow him are duty bound to do likewise or end up on the back bench or even worse, like Peter Slipper. Log in or register to post comments MJoanneS Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 18:01

Gold plating the power lines and poles had nothing to do with carbon emissions, they did however cause most of the increase in power bills. Log in or register to post comments IAIN HALL Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 18:02

Ken Fabos


Page 12 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

Abbott and team gained office by being misleading and deceptive and, as much as possible, avoiding being forthcoming about true policy intentions. Simply not discussing and debating policy allowed them to gain the House of Reps, asided by distractions and diversions that have kept Australians in the dark. Don't forget the utter incompetence of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd regime Ken we essentially had all of the last four years of that government where they were constantly on the back foot or plotting against each other. That said when it comes to putting forward policy I think that its a bit of a furphy the essential policy that was hammered home time and time a gain was an undertaking to ensure that the business of government wold be soundly administered. You see its really easy for those of us worried about the ideas in politics to forget that most people just want the government to be properly run, its instrumentalities to do their jobs properly. Thus when we saw the Stuff ups like the pink batts and school halls under Rudd and Gillard its a big vote loser.

The use of hot button issues is typical; if they press people's buttons Australians getting welfare payments, refugees getting residency, having to pay taxes that others get benefit from - then people will not be taking in information or choosing rationally. Thus they managed to get a whole lot of people to vote against their own interests. Realistically all political players try to hit the right emotional notes with those they want to vote for them and personally I don't think its as effective as either side seem to think.As a conservative I just roll my eyes in dismay at this tactic form both sides I really doubt your contention that voters can be so easily manipulated though, On Climate I suspect we are seeing the outward manifestation of complete rejection of climate science - that is evident yet always deniable, masked behind contradictory and inane utterances and only more directly stated by the indirect means of allied commentators. The hostility to all policy and programs that have climate as a consideration is apparent - "judge by our actions, not our words". For most people "climate change" is just no longer a first order issue and that is largely down to the hyperbole of many of those who advocate for the Green religion, we have had a couple of decades of being told that "the end is nigh" and most people don't believe it, or of they do they don't believe in the so called cure.

This isn't the manifestation of a wise leader who has harbours legitimate doubts and seeks to get on top of the issue before rushing in, this is government by people who are absolutely convinced mainstream science is wrong and convinced debate doesn't work because science must be corrupt.. The self justifications for being misleading are there in the the op pieces we see; the theme of

"eco-authoritarianism, political correctness,

stifling debate, contrary opinions not allowed" that suggest that they are somehow, despite compliant media support, prevented from speaking their true views. Which have come from people like chosen advisors like Warbuton and Newman as well as senior ministers like Julie Bishop and George Brandis. Actually I think Abbott is plotting the right course here, seeking to lead the country towards greater energy efficiency and wiser land use without burdening the economy with futile symbolism of things like the Carbon tax or an ETS The reality is they aren't actually prevented from speaking their true views, but


Page 13 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

they find it more expedient to eliminate the 'green infection' that is Australia having climate policies by avoiding doing so. Because to be forthcoming means they would have to justify their views and debate them - with a strong likehood they would lose. Issues have their cycles and the climate as an issue is in decline, the public are just tired of being vilified and admonished by the sanctimonious Greenies. This is a course that can only be taken by those with heartfelt convictions, a belief that climate science is corrupt, infiltrated by elements with unsound political agendas, and that ordinary democratic processes, like open debate are insufficient to 'save' our nation from it's pernicious influence. They are engaged in a crusade and cannot recognise that their inability to grasp the seriousness of the environmental catastrophe that is consequence of unrestrained fossil fuel burning and determination to prevent action by others makes them the truly dangerous and irrational and ideologically driven element that needs to be stopped. The trouble with your argument is that is profoundly undemocratic because you can't accept that in a democracy the majority can be right to reject the AGW propsition and those who ride in its coat tails. Log in or register to post comments Mulga Mumblebrain Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 18:04

Excellent article. I began to realise that 'conservative' people were bad news as a child in Sunday School. You learned all about lovely Jesus, who still seems to me a great moral teacher, from adults most of whom didn't manage to hide their nastiness. It was the same at school, and by High School, the connection between Rightwing political ideology and human viciousness, ignorance, arrogance, egomania, hatred of others, lack of compassion and positive delight in the travails of others, became plain. The Right are simply the nasty end of the spectra of human characteristics. Generally stupid, or very narrowly intelligent, ignorant and happily so, lacking compassion and empathy, either relatively or, often, absolutely. Hating and fearing others, gripped by racism xenophobia, misogyny, class hatred, inter-generational hatred etc. And lying all the time, to deny their innate character, perhaps even to themselves, and to gain advantage of others. The Right have created an operating system, capitalism, that is more totalitarian than any ever before seen. Everything in existence, human beings, the natural world and the spheres of ideas in science, technology and social organisation is bent to one task-accumulating and concentrating ever more capital in ever fewer hands. Hence the growing crisis of inequality and poverty, the ecological crisis of crises and the meanness and anomic materialism of the 'Western Way of Life'. People who live only to have, not to be. The sham facade that hides the truth of this omnicidal system from duller eyes and minds, 'democracy', has two great flaws. One, it is a lie, real power residing with the rich who control all policy through their money power, and secondly, it equates the worst of society with the best, the stupid with the intelligent, the avaricious with those well-satisfied with a decent sufficiency, the vicious with the peaceful, the cruel with the compassionate. The deeper a society sinks into the mire of psychopath rule, as they project their scabrous 'moral values' onto society, the more certain it is that the ruling regime will grow more and more malignant, a process we have seen in train since 1975, with fits and starts, then going into overdrive with the rise of Howard. A society like ours is now, ever greedy, with stupidity and arrogant ignorance triumphant, with social savagery against the poor, the weak and 'the other' within, and slavish camp-following in the US Bosses' aggression abroad, hasn't a hope of coping with the catastrophes about to crash down on our heads. For a start, it is incapable of even admitting that they exist. Log in or register to post comments


Page 14 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

Mulga Mumblebrain Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 18:09

Richard Kopf, I think that Abbott is showing signs of incipient dementia. If it be dementia pugilstica he copped it sweet, being not much good at the 'noble art' apart from possessing the ability to smash walls adjacent to women's heads in some display of patriarchal displeasure. Still, his Cabinet contains many, in my opinion, even more scabrous specimens of humanity at the end of its tether, so I guess he qualifies as 'primus inter pares'. Log in or register to post comments Claudia Bowman Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 20:08

@Wagsman = Tony Abbott ......all the more difficult to take, probably because she is a woman. And WHO is this amazing woman anyway? More please. Log in or register to post comments katoombawarren Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 20:46

A superb article. The comment on the creation of scarcity was particularly interesting to me. Funny, we have to listen to people working in psychiatry to get any sense. When Edward Alsworth Ross and other progressive academics was chased out of economics at the start of the 20th century, much was lost. For them, psychology, sociology and economics were close friends. It is time they were reintroduced to each other. I am sick of listening to economists who can count but cannot feel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zEbo8PIPSc&t=5m9s Log in or register to post comments O. Puhleez Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 21:26

From the article: People low on Openness prefer certainty, order, structure, the familiar, predictability, simplicity, and sticking with the tried and true. They dislike change, complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity, novelty and flexibility. They are less intellectually curious than their more open counterparts, disinclined to examine their own ideas and views, and as a result are often suspicious of science and the arts. They also tend to dislike new experiences, frequently including but not limited to foreign people, culture and food. That is to say, ostriches. Log in or register to post comments purejuice Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 22:09

As usual nothing but negativity and attacks from the left. Just why are leftist so emotional... Log in or register to post comments boganbludging Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 22:53


Page 15 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

Ian Hall, you sound almost convincing till you parrot crap, like this"No the Carbon tax had far less effect on our emissions than the gold plating of the distribution network". I was personally involved in the so called 'gold plating' and people like you are clueless as to why the upgrading was and is necessary. Conservatives really are a primitive mind set. A lot of Australian management I would call conservative, rule by oppression often because they are actually hopeless at the actual job and need to create fear to divert attention from their own incompetence, just look at the LNP biggest bunch of hierarchical incompetents, taking orders from above. Log in or register to post comments PAW Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 22:57

Why are conservatives so afraid of new technology and the future, but like living in the past. Log in or register to post comments boganbludging Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 23:11

They are contrarians to Paw. Technophobes but don't realise they're total dependence on technology from the car they drive to the state of the art private hospitals they frequent. Log in or register to post comments Daisybookworm Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 23:14

Iain Hall's definition of the conservative view is full of rhetoric and conveniently overlooks the corporate business model behind it behind it. For all the rhetoric he forgets the obligatory "if there is a buck in it" for "those deserving". It is he who starts from a false premise as the whole story is not told. A country is not a corporation or business -- e.g. there are no shareholders as such and a country budget can't be compared to a corporate or household budget. Such comparisons are a white-wash. Corporations have the luxury of sacking staff in the downtimes --- a conservative Government systematically removes social services which only causes problems in the future. A Nation Is Not a Business http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10516-a-nation-is-not-abusiness 3 Reasons Why Government Shouldn't Be Run Like a Business http://youtu.be/MEmUgFCIyPM?list=UU-113h183alqKECl4cxjGMA The austerity budgets associated with conservative governments doesn't work --- we know that. Governments today in both Europe and the United States have succeeded in casting government spending as reckless wastefulness that has made the economy worse. In contrast, they have advanced a policy of draconian budget cuts--austerity--to solve the financial crisis. We are told that we have all lived beyond our means and now need to tighten our belts. This view conveniently forgets where all that debt came from. Not from an orgy of government spending, but as the direct result of bailing out, recapitalizing, and adding liquidity to the broken banking system. Through these actions private debt was rechristened as government debt while those responsible for generating it walked away scot free, placing the blame on the state, and the burden on the taxpayer. Austerity The History of a Dangerous Idea http://youtu.be/PhsFI74lHJg?list=UU113h183alqKECl4cxjGMA


Page 16 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

The problem with Iain Hall's position is that he hides behind a clinical definition of conservatism that he feels comfortable with when what really happens is PLUTOCRACY...Plutocracy (n.) defines a society ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. Unlike systems such as democracy, capitalism, socialism or anarchism, plutocracy is NOT rooted in an established political philosophy. http://youtu.be/1IpToLoAKmA?list=UU-113h183alqKECl4cxjGMA And finally, does Iain Hall think the Abbott Conservative Government is -- "....old fashioned but its a conservative virtue that we think that any change should do what is claimed for it and secondly we think that a Prime Minster should do what they promise." It hasn't met either criteria. Log in or register to post comments jules s Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 23:29

MS there was no "gold plating" of power infrastructure. What was called gold plating was actually an attempt to catch up - the electricity infrastructure is poorly maintained and maintainance always suffers in the budget of any electricity co. Following Black Saturday '09 electricity utilities around the country realised that skimping on maintainance would cost them in the long run as more infrastructure failed, and that infracstructure needed to be hardened against more frequent extreme weather. What Gillard described as gold plating was actually an attempt to lower the odds of another Black Saturday. (The worst destrction of the Black Saturday fires was caused by the failure of privately owned electricity infrastructure, and the company responsible got its backside kicked from one court to another until it cravenly paid half a billion dollars to avoid admitting responsibility for its failures and for 119 deaths.) Log in or register to post comments Dx2013 Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 23:30

Why didn't you just attack the Abbott government as a politics hack instead? You may have made more comrade friends here in that way. Clearly, yours is a political analysis and commentary based on your political inclination and your own open interpretation what has been said in the media rather than a credible psychoanalysis which should at least involve the interview of the subjects themselves. A dangerous practice. Log in or register to post comments jules s Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 23:42

Iain hall your face appears in the dictionary next to the words "confirmation bias' so its a bit rich that you are accusing others of it. The trouble with your argument is that is profoundly undemocratic because you can't accept that in a democracy the majority can be right to reject the AGW propsition and those who ride in its coat tails. The trouble with your argument is that democracies are actually unable to determine facts, only respond to them. If you think AGW is an incorrect idea demonstrate why. I mean demonstrate it too - debunk greenhouse gas driven radiative forcing in your own words except where you need equations. I doubt you can, in fact i know you can't, but I am daring you to try. if you were honest you'd at least say "we're fucked anyway so we may as well keep following this path, cos no one else is gonna change, and at least own your position with


Page 17 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

some honesty and self reflection.

Finally iain you are an atypical conservative - many of your ideas are not conservative, some actually show some real insight and thought - its unreasonable to criticise this article using yourself as an example given how little you resemble most conservatives. Log in or register to post comments jules s Posted Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 23:47

boganbludging: I was personally involved in the so called 'gold plating' and people like you are clueless as to why the upgrading was and is necessary. Look I've just assumed the upgrading of the electricity network was (at least in part) a response to the 09 fires and the increasing demands AGW puts on the actual physical network. Is that actually correct? (If it isn't then: WTF!!!??? and: Why isn't this being done?) Log in or register to post comments chrisdoonan Posted Monday, October 27, 2014 - 00:02

Brilliant article, but most of all I feel acknowledged by the writer, as all on the Left of politics can. What we stand for works for more people, celebrate it guys! Log in or register to post comments IAIN HALL Posted Monday, October 27, 2014 - 00:02

boganbludging

Ian Hall, you sound almost convincing till you parrot crap, like this"No the Carbon tax had far less effect on our emissions than the gold plating of the distribution network". I was personally involved in the so called 'gold plating' and people like you are clueless as to why the upgrading was and is necessary. The necessity or otherwise for upgrading the network was not my point. My point was that the upgrading of the network was the main reason tht our energy prices have more than doubled in the last couple of years and that it is that price increase that has driven down consuption and emissions Conservatives really are a primitive mind set. A lot of Australian management I would call conservative, rule by oppression often because they are actually hopeless at the actual job and need to create fear to divert attention from their own incompetence, just look at the LNP biggest bunch of hierarchical incompetents, taking orders from above. Give it up, there are good and bad people in all parts of society and the same goes for competence in all industiries Log in or register to post comments vlek1000 Posted Monday, October 27, 2014 - 00:14


Page 18 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

It's a shame -- and probably because it wanted to spend ages reciting phrases about why the Abbott Government isn't the type of government left-wing people like -- that this article didn't talk more about right-wing authoritarianism. The core RWA idea -- ie, that people with high levels of RWA support those in authority because they are in authority -- is closely linked with the backgrounds of most people from the Liberal Party, justifies what they do, and, even more importantly, explains why substantial numbers of people support them even when it's not in their interest. (The free book here, written by the creator of the RWA index -- http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ -- is excellent and should be compulsory reading.) Opposition to the current government, while certainly necessary, often takes an authoritarian turn. The ALP is essentially just as, or even more, authoritarian as the Liberal Party, and appeals to external bodies (like human rights organisations) to intervene also tend towards appeals to authority -- when what actually needs to be done is to increase the level of cynicism, develop empirical thinking, and decrease blind obedience. It's time for a new wave of anti-authoritarianism, so it's good that this article at least touches on the issue. Log in or register to post comments Rychard Posted Monday, October 27, 2014 - 00:17

An interesting series of observations, all of which are labels for the behaviour of these scoundrels and the suggestion that somehow they are unable to change their destructive greed. Scoundrels of the old school. utterly dishonest, deceitful and motivated by self interest. Did not see very much mentioned however, about the relentless craving for personal aggrandisement and financial benefits that would make Croseus blush.

Log in or register to post comments Ites Posted Monday, October 27, 2014 - 00:39

Abbott is a sociopath. People like Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm were writing about this in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. Maurice Brinton's essay on The Irrational in Politics treats the same topic from a political angle, as do others such as Silvia Federici. Log in or register to post comments Ites Posted Monday, October 27, 2014 - 00:47

Great article though Lissa, been pouring over the sources for the last hour... Log in or register to post comments jusme Posted Monday, October 27, 2014 - 01:02

I believe a huge ego is another trait of the psychopath. Mr Abbott displayed it, I think, when confronted about the Spurr emails. He said words to the effect of: "Don't worry, I have a thick skin", whilst chuckling. It's like all the rest of Spurrs bigotry didn't even exist. Then again, he also said he read it in 'the tele', so chances are the rest wasnt' reported, only that Abbott was called an 'abo-lover'. Proves those studies in the USA that people


Page 19 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

that get their 'news' from foxtel are actually dumber afterwards.

Log in or register to post comments IAIN HALL Posted Monday, October 27, 2014 - 01:30

Daisybookworm

Iain Hall's definition of the conservative view is full of rhetoric and conveniently overlooks the corporate business model behind it behind it. For all the rhetoric he forgets the obligatory "if there is a buck in it" for "those deserving". It is he who starts from a false premise as the whole story is not told. The simple fact is that there are many more ordinary people who are conservatives and have no involvement with business than there are those who are in business that is a simple demographic fact. A country is not a corporation or business -- e.g. there are no shareholders as such and a country budget can't be compared to a corporate or household budget. Such comparisons are a white-wash. Corporations have the luxury of sacking staff in the downtimes --- a conservative Government systematically removes social services which only causes problems in the future. I agree that a country is not a business but that does not mean we can't expect the same level of probity and accountability in the way that a government is run that we expect from business The austerity budgets associated with conservative governments doesn't work --- we know that. Governments today in both Europe and the United States have succeeded in casting government spending as reckless wastefulness that has made the economy worse. In contrast, they have advanced a policy of draconian budget cuts--austerity--to solve the financial crisis. We are told that we have all lived beyond our means and now need to tighten our belts. I too have my doubts about extreme austerity however i still think that there is great virtue in living within our means This view conveniently forgets where all that debt came from. Not from an orgy of government spending, but as the direct result of bailing out, recapitalizing, and adding liquidity to the broken banking system. Through these actions private debt was rechristened as government debt while those responsible for generating it walked away scot free, placing the blame on the state, and the burden on the taxpayer. Not in every case that's for sure The problem with Iain Hall's position is that he hides behind a clinical definition of conservatism that he feels comfortable with when what really happens is PLUTOCRACY...Plutocracy (n.) defines a society ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. Unlike systems such as democracy, capitalism, socialism or anarchism, plutocracy is NOT rooted in an established political philosophy. The lesson of Orwell's book Animal Farm is that no matter how righteous a revolution may be you will always end up with some sort of elite who are in some sense at the top of the


Page 20 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

social or economic hierarchy the only question is are they better or worse than the mob who they replaced. And finally, does Iain Hall think the Abbott Conservative Government is -"....old fashioned but its a conservative virtue that we think that any change should do what is claimed for it and secondly we think that a Prime Minster should do what they promise." It hasn't met either criteria. On balance Abbott is pretty honest, compared to his predecessors from Labor, jules s

MS there was no "gold plating" of power infrastructure. What was called gold plating was actually an attempt to catch up - the electricity infrastructure is poorly maintained and maintainance always suffers in the budget of any electricity co. I don't think its as simple as that Jules because I well remember the way that our local electricity supplier was very keen to push air conditioners on to consumers who were not spending enough money on electricity, my point is that there are other ways to address dissonance between electricity supply and demand other than stringing ever more poles and wires. Following Black Saturday '09 electricity utilities around the country realised that skimping on maintainance would cost them in the long run as more infrastructure failed, and that infracstructure needed to be hardened against more frequent extreme weather. What Gillard described as gold plating was actually an attempt to lower the odds of another Black Saturday. (The worst destrction of the Black Saturday fires was caused by the failure of privately owned electricity infrastructure, and the company responsible got its backside kicked from one court to another until it cravenly paid half a billion dollars to avoid admitting responsibility for its failures and for 119 deaths.) I tend to agree with you that privatizing electricity infrastructure is not such a good idea but when it comes to the "gold plating" accusation its not relly on topic. Iain hall your face appears in the dictionary next to the words "confirmation bias' so its a bit rich that you are accusing others of it. I call it as I see it

The trouble with your argument is that democracies are actually unable to determine facts, only respond to them. If you think AGW is an incorrect idea demonstrate why. I mean demonstrate it too - debunk greenhouse gas driven radiative forcing in your own words except where you need equations.

I

doubt you can, in fact i know you can't, but I am daring you to try. Frankly I am not under any obligation to disprove the AGHW proposition, after all its proponents have not been able to empirically prove the validity of the theory no matter how hard they have been trying over the last forty years if you were honest you'd at least say "we're fucked anyway so we may as well keep following this path, cos no one else is gonna change, and at least own your position with some honesty and self reflection. Well if you have been following my line of argument on AGW in recent years you might have noticed that I often suggest that even if the Warministas are right that their "cure" can not be made to work for political reasons, I suggest instead that adaptation is the only


Page 21 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

reasonable way to respond if and when its necessary Finally Iain you are an atypical conservative - many of your ideas are not conservative, some actually show some real insight and thought - its unreasonable to criticise this article using yourself as an example given how little you resemble most conservatives. Its not an unreasonable point about me being atypical as a conservative but I wasn't so much trying to say that I am the exemplar of conservatism as I was trying to say that the picture painted of conservatives by this article is not that close at all to the conservatives I know. Log in or register to post comments Annerainbow Posted Monday, October 27, 2014 - 02:36

@GlennyG.

Yes, I also picked up on the "and secondly we think that a Prime Minster should do what they promise" comment. It does leap out at you, doesn't it? In there amongst the good spelling, the correct grammar, the reasoned arguments - a big red banner with the words "I am either dishonest or delusional!" printed on it in big letters. Your comments regarding Iain's post were so hilarious I battled my way back through lost passwords to login and commend you.

Log in or register to post comments Annerainbow Posted Monday, October 27, 2014 - 02:39

My experience with trolls who comment on topics they clearly just plan to deny rather than actually try to learn from? It seems to be a choice - they can either spell and have decent grammar OR they are intelligent. I've not discovered one with both... Mostly, they have neither. Log in or register to post comments aussiegreg Posted Monday, October 27, 2014 - 05:08

Ah, 'Lissa, at first I thought you just another sufferer from the psychopathology of socialism (or at the very least delusional) but then your humourlessness seemed just a tad contrived and I tumbled to your cunning plan! You are actually doing some research on the Loony Left, and this article is a honeypot to draw out the real whackjobs, the Mad Marxists and other leftover Lefties who infest the Comments under so many New Matilda articles. And hasn't it worked wonderfully well?! Log in or register to post comments Mercurial Posted Monday, October 27, 2014 - 06:12

IAIN HALL: "Just because two beliefs have different authorities does not alter teh fact that both require acts of faith, either in an abstraction that some might call "god" or in the


Page 22 of 23


24/07/2015 1:19 pm

authority symbolised by a white coat that you call "science".' Iain, I think you just explained the Conservative mindset perfectly. You even managed to squeeze a 'teh' in there. If this is the standard of your debate, I can't really be bothered arguing further. Do you really think it is valid to equate belief in a deity and belief in science? So do you believe in gravity? Do you believe in electricity? Now here's a tough one: what about nuclear energy? Yes we're getting a bit abstract now aren't we? A little into the 'white coat' area now. What about antibiotics? Radiotherapy? Or is medicine somehow different? How bizarre it must be to look at the changing seasons and think "I have faith to believe the little men in white coats will tilt the earth and make it summer again." You really are weird, man. Log in or register to post comments 1

2

3

4

next

last

HELP SUPPORT INDEPENDENT MEDIA BY SUBSCRIBING TO NEW MATILDA TODAY.

Home

Search

Search

Search

About Us

FAQ

Contact

Topics

Your Preferences

Aboriginal Affairs

Sign-in or register to access further site preferences

Asylum Seekers Australian Politics Business & Consumerism Civil Society Editorial Education Environment International Affairs Media and Culture Satire Workers Rights All Articles


Page 23 of 23