The perennially repellent Phyllis Schafly of the USA’s Eagle Forum is one canny political operator. Those of us looking to Howard’s defeat in the next federal election could learn from her.
She has constructed a list of questions for those who look to her leadership to carry around and ask Republican presidential candidates at every stumping opportunity. Schafly’s questions cover core issues for the reactionary conservative base, phrased so as to force a definitive answer. They are exactly the questions that the candidates don’t want to be asked as they attempt to keep the base on side without losing the more politically moderate voters as well. The tactic is wearing candidates down.
Here’s just a few of Mama Schafly’s questions:
# Will you sign a law withdrawing federal court jurisdiction over attempts to prevent the acknowledgment of God in all public places (such as the Pledge of Allegiance in schools and displays of the Ten Commandments)?
# What steps will you take to protect and defend traditional marriage?
* Will you actively support a federal marriage amendment?
* Will you sign a law limiting federal court jurisdiction over DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)?
* Will you promise that, under your administration, the 1,138 federal laws identified by the GAO as affecting the rights of husbands and wives remain in full compliance with the federal DOMA law?# Will you sign a law withdrawing federal court jurisdiction over attempts to banish the Boy Scouts from public schools and public property?
# Will you sign a law to repeal the law that allows the ACLU to collect attorney’s fees from local governments and school boards every time they win a case against the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, a cross, or the Boy Scouts?
As Pam Spaulding (Pandagon) says, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Schafly doing this. It’s keeping the politicians accountable to the people who they want to vote for them. A vocal group of questioners sticking to simple, powerful soundbite questions is a tactic that’s on regular display at certain ALP sub-branches and council meetings across Australia, and is very effective at disconcerting the prepared message of a speaker and forcing them to respond off the cuff in what may be inadvertently revealing ways.
So, how can progressives get their act together and make sure, as we prepare for a federal election, that not only are we challenging the incumbent conservative Howardians but that we are also ensuring that the right-drifting centrists in Labor don’t throw progressive issues under the bus as they stick relentlessly to the middle of the road?
What issues should be coverd on our list of questions to candidates for MP and Senator positions, and how should these be phrased so they are short and unequivocal, so that they force a definite answer?
I wonder what with Santoro now bye byes,and his questions about the validity of ABC. balance now in the past..that there is a necessity as you have seemed to of thought so along your line.At the risk of being off subject,I will state politely as I can,I think a lot of people are overpaid and want to stay that way in our society,and ,progressives are not immune from that disease.I am not talking about feeling undervalued,I am talking about evidences that are without the potential for disputation.With another insulting journalistic piece in the SMH about baby boomers, dont you think this example of Journalistic mindset..will be reasons why real questions will not be asked again,at the next Federal election?And who are these progressives who will ask the questions of the flesh made manifest!?
[Edited to once again remove link to major telco in username field - Moderator]
Questions in themselves, no matter how well phrased, will do nothing.
The ALP would not be drifting to the right if it did not think there was political advantage in doing so.
Unless left-wing/progressive people unhappy with the ALP are prepared to actively with-hold their preferences (not just their first preference vote) unless they get some of what they want, the ALP will ignore them, blithely aware that the progressives have ‘nowhere else to go’.
This mirrors the way that some of the result in last year’s Congressional election has been attributed to evangelicals staying home because they do not think that President Bush is committed to their agenda, weird as that sounds to Australian secular progressives or left-wingers)
This is right, but I don’t think that your solution is the right one. Withhold preferences? And then what? Preference the even worse party instead? What would that achieve? On paper, it would tell pollsters and political party that there had been a swing to the right. Not a winning way of ensuring that candidates move leftwards.
In a two-party system, the real solution is more difficult: we have to ensure that more people want to vote for what we want. We have to convince voters, not just candidates. That’s what democracy means.
Or preference neither of them.
That is indeed the long-term solution, but what power does any left-wing voter have over the ALP if, in the end, the Party knows that they will get the preference no matter what?
Which is great if you want your vote to be invalid. It won’t be recorded, so you might as well just screw up your ballot paper and throw it in the bin in your way out.
Well, my point was fairly clear: if, in a democracy, there aren’t enough left-wing voters to win, then they shouldn’t win. Same goes for any wing. Whoever said that it would be easy, or short-term?
If the participation rate drops below 50% then neither Tweedledee or Dum can claim any meaningful mandate to do jack shit. Sharia law only applies to those idiots stupid enough to believe in it…and so must this bullshit farce end. This stupid monarchic farce where the nearest aproximation of a fake representation of a progressive government decades ago now, may be sacked without one seconds notice. This stupid farce where one million honky redneck cracker votes are worth something and one million green democratic and libertarian socialist votes are worth nothing.
This insane stupid farce of a bidding war for the shock jock crowds vote!
This stupid insane farce of proposing a new bureaucracy for National Security! The Alternative Liberal Party are now to the RIGHT on all vital issues and to the mad Marxist LEFT on picking winners and expanding their God the state.
Fuck all this for a joke – just don’t vote.
In fact vote with your bets at the various dead pools on when all these rotten turds will kick the bucket. They still wont get the hint but you never know…assassination politics could take off like the Totalitarian Information Agency did in Singapore just now.
We may turn the tables on these criminals yet with the help of the net.
Aye theres the rub
This PAM netplays the thing by which we’ll kill the king.
Not in NSW state elections where you do not have to number every box.
I am so frustrated with having no real choice other than the LP and the ALP. In last Saturday’s NSW election, the Nats get 10.2% of the vote and end up with 13 seats. The Greens get 8.6% and no seats.
Does this indicate a serious need for electoral reform?
Getting back to the topic -
How about questions like:
“Will you ratify the Kyoto protocol?”
“Will you reduce official discrimination towards gay and lesbaian couples?” (rather than going for the full “will you support gay marriage?”, although that would be better)
“Do you support paid maternity and paternity leave?”
An interesting post.
I think that “progressives” in this country need to wake up to the reality that the reason that Rudd has put Labor back in the race is because he is pretty conservative and he has abandoned all the causes that most progressives would like to champion.
From his advocacy of the role of religion and faith in political discourse, his attack on political correctness in relation to the Australian flag being banned on the Big Day Out, his aggressive condemnation of Sheik Hilaly, his support of at least maintaining Australian troops in Iraq as “military trainers”, his support of extended uranium mining, privatisation, subdued commentary in the past 48 hours in relation to David Hicks etc etc etc. These are not issues that the writers at LP seemingly have any faith or belief in.
This raises an interesting question for “progressives” in Australia. Has Howard been so successful in fundamentally changing the Australian political landscape that the only hope the progressives or Labor has nationally is to do a Tony Blair.
If so what will it be…join with the Greens or be outcasts in a Labor Party that looks increasingly like a Howard-lite outfit with sentimental union attachment. An interesting dilemma for “progressives” to ponder.
Matt makes a very good point, except that I think Mr Howard has not so much ‘changed’ the electoral landscape, as read it very well.
The short answer is what Anna Winter said at 1.469pm:
Good if obvious point, though it has taken such a long time for anyone here to say it. Such has been the degeneration, the impoverishment of left political culture over the last 25 years, primarily because of the onslaught of an insatiable system that has proved itself more powerful than existing oppositional social movements and alternative political parties, this is indeed exactly what we must expect.
It is frightening, but most people don’t believe, let alone are even saying the juggernaut can or even must be stopped.
And this blog site, therefore, unsurprisingly, is a fitting exemplification of this truth.
Some of these could do with some tweaking but I think that they are on the right track:
How will you revive Australia’s ailing research sector?
Should Australia’s research sector be able to compete with Europe, the United States, and China?
Should Australia’s future wealth be based on innovation or resources?
Should Australians enjoy the world’s best working conditions?
Do you believe that all Australians should have the right to high quality health care?
Do you agree that Australia has som of the most beautiful beaches and National Parks on the planet? What will you do to maintain this standard?
While I agree completely with
, I think that Bridie perhaps exaggerates the strength of the Left in the last 25 years.
It’s important to remember that the Hawke Government, elected 24 years ago, is considered the first shining example that Mr Blair drew inspiration from. Hawke did emotional connection with the electorate 9 years before President Clinton’s election.
Nor was Mr Whitlam a left-winger either. He was loathed by the Left of the ALP for his position on State Aid, did everything he could to minimise the power of the anti-Vietnam street marches. WRT the general attitude of LP regulars, I was surprised to have Kim pretty much agree with me on a different thread that Whitlam was not especially progressive (I had expected, clearly wrongly, an angry defence of the Great Man).
The points that Bridie and Anna Winter make are very important. Any leftward shift in politics has to begin with left-wingers taking responsibility for convincing people that a left agenda is desirable. Too often left-wingers seem merely astounded that people could have opinions other than theirs, instead of deciding to work out why people hold those opinions, and how to change them.
I’m not being facetious when I ask people to explain exactly what would be different under a Labor Government. I’m yet to receive an answer.
It’s time for die hard Labor (progressives) to emerge from the horrendous denial that they’re currently in, and admit that new Labor no longer represents their interests.
Continuing to vote for them only validates their decision to continue the move to the right.
Employers will be forbidden from forcing people to work on public holidays.
Important to those who take their religion seriously.
NSW Labor will sign over to the Commonwealth only the Kuringai Chase National Park (north) and Royal National Park (south) but not (rack off Liberals) the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, in order to allow these pig- cat- deer- and weed- infested areas to be nuclear waste dumps. Rightly so too. NIMBY baby.
Alternatively, NSW Labor will accede to the Murdoch press demand and “free up” this land to ease housing pressure for Sydney’s exponentially growing populace.
You read it here first. posterity.
tigtog:
Definitely no backsliding on getting out of Iraq. And definitely no backsliding on Howard’s work laws.
I like Mick’s points as well. We have to make our mind up whether we want our country to end up as a hole in the ground, or should we build our economy on research and industry. Politicians are naturally lazy and they normally opt for digging holes.
Exhibit A. ‘Let’s Take Over’ and ‘The Last Superpower’ on Iraq, true feminism and the “pseudo-left”.
Back OT after giving David a wedgie like the big bully I am – I reckon it’s all about framing through language. If you define “left vs right” as “community cohesiveness vs individual rights” then all civilisations drift steadily leftwards, especially as more and more people occupy the same spaces.
But then lately we’ve got this atomisation thing going on, spurred on by the webbytubes, where public spaces and services are seen more as an obstacle than an asset as one goes about one’s online-enabled and commuter driven life.
So time to erect the ladder of opportunity on the welfare trampoline.
Here’s a few random observations that could be worked up into some awkward questions for all our current and potential elected representatives.
“When and why did being middle class need two incomes?�
“Why don’t you see packs of kids playing on the streets anymore?�
“Where do you draw the line at what can be advertised and where?�
“How much freedom should we give up to protect our freedoms (Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at once)?
“What would you vote for in Parliament that never you’d never want to see in your own neighbourhood?�
“When did you stop screwing your electoral officer?�
Will you vote against laws that punish Internet filesharing?
Will you agitate to remove Section 45D from the Trades Practices Act?
(Section 45D makes sympathy strikes illegal).
How will you encourage unions to be more active and powerful, and have more successful strikes that have public support?