Graham Ring on the 2025 Australian Election
Australian politics is as crook as a dog. The days when we could have a gentle conversation about issues with people who saw things differently are in the rear-vision mirror. Politics now is about anger, bitterness and one-upmanship. This is an ugly era of ‘echo-chamber’ chat groups where we only encounter others of like mind, and algorithms that feed us the kind of news we’ve indicated that we already like. We don’t hear different opinions because we don’t want to.
This dynamic has terrible consequences. We’ve forgotten how to ‘disagree agreeably’, so political discussion quickly descends into personal abuse. We are careening towards the kind of polarization which has rendered the US political system all but unworkable. Now it’s all about party politics, with battles that have identifiable winners and losers. The idea that our politicians might work together to come up with ideas to improve the lives of ordinary Australians is considered hopelessly naïve.
At a campaign function in the Hunter region of NSW Prime Minister Albanese slipped and fell from a stage. Fortunately, he was not hurt, and with a sheepish grin he regained the platform, presumably with a nod of thanks to the man beside him who had cushioned his fall. This unremarkable event got a run on the television news that evening because it provided some visual relief from the drudgery of political speechifying and choreographed media events. But the caravan did not move on.
Incredibly, the tumble became the subject of media analysis. There was forensic investigation as to what constituted a ‘fall’, as distinct from a ‘slip’. One media outlet reported the PM as ‘denying’ that he had slipped. Political staffers doubtless searched for a ‘form of words’ to ‘minimize the damage’. The staggering waste of column inches that followed beggared belief. People sometimes slip.
Earlier in the campaign Opposition Leader Peter Dutton did something extraordinary. He went on national television and said “I think we made a mistake and I think it’s important to recognize that.” He was, of course, widely pilloried for the heinous political crime of ‘flip-flopping’. Internal party polling had shown that the electorate was not impressed with Dutton’s proposal to curtail working from home. Hence the policy was reversed – if only as a matter of political convenience rather than high principle.
Surely, it’s refreshing to hear a politician own up to a mistake, regardless of the reason. This is the behaviour we seek to instil into our children. This is the way we hope our friends and family will conduct themselves. Einstein reputedly said that a man who never made a mistake has never tried anything new. We need our politicians to be braver than that. If we expect them to be flawless then we are – in the words of Alan Alda’s West Wing character – just begging to be deceived. We should forgive them the odd error if they are prepared to acknowledge it. People sometimes make mistakes.
In the dying days of the campaign, Trump’s wildly volatile tariff policies became a hot issue. Do you have Trump’s mobile phone number? Are you strong enough to fight with a great power in Australia’s national interests? Do you have the ticker? That’s why the radio journalist pinned the PM with the pointed enquiry “If you win the election will you fly immediately to Washington?”
Political pundits will recognize that there is no right answer to this question. A ‘Yes’ answer will be portrayed as a PM whose first act of a new term is to flee the country to prostrate himself before the world’s most powerful man. A ‘No” answer says that the PM doesn’t understand the seriousness of the issue and/or lacks the gravitas to win an appointment with the president.
Politicians have become exceedingly skilled at evading this kind of questioning. Even novice politicians will skip past this kind of enquiry with generic waffle: “Look David, what we are about is getting the country going again by supporting industry to create the jobs which will enable us to build the houses we so desperately need to help ordinary Australians to live more fulfilling and productive lives …” Skilled exponents can prolong this drivel until such time as the frustrated journalist interrupts to try another tack.
This sort of exchange may make for entertaining radio, but it obscures the fact that we are not learning anything about how our leaders intend to move the country forward. Our superficial enthusiasm for political drama reinforces the idea that this is the way we want politics to be conducted. This kind of ‘gotcha’ journalism punishes politicians who won’t take a definitive position, even when a situation demands caution and further thought. It excoriates leaders who - hopefully after much reading, talking and thinking - have the temerity to alter their position on an issue.
The moral highpoint of the campaign was reached with Peter Dutton’s gracious concession speech. Dutton – doubtless struggling with the news that he would probably lose his own seat – congratulated Mr Albanese on his victory. He generously observed that the PM’s mum – who raised Albanese in often difficult circumstances - would have been very proud of her son tonight.
Equally, the PM’s victory speech was notable for its absence of triumphalism. An understandably overjoyed PM instead made the theme of his address one of gratitude and responsibility. Right at the death of this ugly five-week-long campaign civility shone through. Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, commenting for a television network, was moved to muse about just when it became weak to be respectful and compassionate.
Politics in the USA has become grotesquely polarized and is now hopelessly dysfunctional. The president taunts his adversaries with schoolyard-bully nicknames. Unelected officials eviscerate the machinery of government without any clear mandate. People are swept off the street and incarcerated in foreign prisons without due process.
It would be catastrophic to import this kind of brutality into the Australian political firmament. Peter Dutton’s description of the Guardian and the ABC as ‘hate media’, and Senator Price’s imprecation to ‘make Australia great again’ were both dark harbingers.
Australian politics is characterized by performative mud-slinging that is conducted on a bed of fundamental decency. Civility in our politics is critically important and we must be vigilant in its preservation.
Graham Ring
Darwin
May 2025
Australian politics is as crook as a dog. The days when we could have a gentle conversation about issues with people who saw things differently are in the rear-vision mirror. Politics now is about anger, bitterness and one-upmanship. This is an ugly era of ‘echo-chamber’ chat groups where we only encounter others of like mind, and algorithms that feed us the kind of news we’ve indicated that we already like. We don’t hear different opinions because we don’t want to.
This dynamic has terrible consequences. We’ve forgotten how to ‘disagree agreeably’, so political discussion quickly descends into personal abuse. We are careening towards the kind of polarization which has rendered the US political system all but unworkable. Now it’s all about party politics, with battles that have identifiable winners and losers. The idea that our politicians might work together to come up with ideas to improve the lives of ordinary Australians is considered hopelessly naïve.
At a campaign function in the Hunter region of NSW Prime Minister Albanese slipped and fell from a stage. Fortunately, he was not hurt, and with a sheepish grin he regained the platform, presumably with a nod of thanks to the man beside him who had cushioned his fall. This unremarkable event got a run on the television news that evening because it provided some visual relief from the drudgery of political speechifying and choreographed media events. But the caravan did not move on.
Incredibly, the tumble became the subject of media analysis. There was forensic investigation as to what constituted a ‘fall’, as distinct from a ‘slip’. One media outlet reported the PM as ‘denying’ that he had slipped. Political staffers doubtless searched for a ‘form of words’ to ‘minimize the damage’. The staggering waste of column inches that followed beggared belief. People sometimes slip.
Earlier in the campaign Opposition Leader Peter Dutton did something extraordinary. He went on national television and said “I think we made a mistake and I think it’s important to recognize that.” He was, of course, widely pilloried for the heinous political crime of ‘flip-flopping’. Internal party polling had shown that the electorate was not impressed with Dutton’s proposal to curtail working from home. Hence the policy was reversed – if only as a matter of political convenience rather than high principle.
Surely, it’s refreshing to hear a politician own up to a mistake, regardless of the reason. This is the behaviour we seek to instil into our children. This is the way we hope our friends and family will conduct themselves. Einstein reputedly said that a man who never made a mistake has never tried anything new. We need our politicians to be braver than that. If we expect them to be flawless then we are – in the words of Alan Alda’s West Wing character – just begging to be deceived. We should forgive them the odd error if they are prepared to acknowledge it. People sometimes make mistakes.
In the dying days of the campaign, Trump’s wildly volatile tariff policies became a hot issue. Do you have Trump’s mobile phone number? Are you strong enough to fight with a great power in Australia’s national interests? Do you have the ticker? That’s why the radio journalist pinned the PM with the pointed enquiry “If you win the election will you fly immediately to Washington?”
Political pundits will recognize that there is no right answer to this question. A ‘Yes’ answer will be portrayed as a PM whose first act of a new term is to flee the country to prostrate himself before the world’s most powerful man. A ‘No” answer says that the PM doesn’t understand the seriousness of the issue and/or lacks the gravitas to win an appointment with the president.
Politicians have become exceedingly skilled at evading this kind of questioning. Even novice politicians will skip past this kind of enquiry with generic waffle: “Look David, what we are about is getting the country going again by supporting industry to create the jobs which will enable us to build the houses we so desperately need to help ordinary Australians to live more fulfilling and productive lives …” Skilled exponents can prolong this drivel until such time as the frustrated journalist interrupts to try another tack.
This sort of exchange may make for entertaining radio, but it obscures the fact that we are not learning anything about how our leaders intend to move the country forward. Our superficial enthusiasm for political drama reinforces the idea that this is the way we want politics to be conducted. This kind of ‘gotcha’ journalism punishes politicians who won’t take a definitive position, even when a situation demands caution and further thought. It excoriates leaders who - hopefully after much reading, talking and thinking - have the temerity to alter their position on an issue.
The moral highpoint of the campaign was reached with Peter Dutton’s gracious concession speech. Dutton – doubtless struggling with the news that he would probably lose his own seat – congratulated Mr Albanese on his victory. He generously observed that the PM’s mum – who raised Albanese in often difficult circumstances - would have been very proud of her son tonight.
Equally, the PM’s victory speech was notable for its absence of triumphalism. An understandably overjoyed PM instead made the theme of his address one of gratitude and responsibility. Right at the death of this ugly five-week-long campaign civility shone through. Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, commenting for a television network, was moved to muse about just when it became weak to be respectful and compassionate.
Politics in the USA has become grotesquely polarized and is now hopelessly dysfunctional. The president taunts his adversaries with schoolyard-bully nicknames. Unelected officials eviscerate the machinery of government without any clear mandate. People are swept off the street and incarcerated in foreign prisons without due process.
It would be catastrophic to import this kind of brutality into the Australian political firmament. Peter Dutton’s description of the Guardian and the ABC as ‘hate media’, and Senator Price’s imprecation to ‘make Australia great again’ were both dark harbingers.
Australian politics is characterized by performative mud-slinging that is conducted on a bed of fundamental decency. Civility in our politics is critically important and we must be vigilant in its preservation.
Graham Ring
Darwin
May 2025