Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » So you say you want a revolution

So you say you want a revolution

Mao is famously quoted as insisting that “all power comes from the barrel of a gun” and while that may hold true for a country in the throes of a revolution or subject to military conquest in an established democracy like our own all power comes form the most persuasive tongues and the dialogue those tongues foster within the part of the population who are politically active or engaged.  For a very long time during my lifetime those persuasive tongues were controlled by the owners of the mass media who were able to disseminate their ideas and understandings to a receptive audience who could only respond and engage with the issues via a limited facility provided by media owners in the form of “letters to the editor” they heavily controlled the choice and publication of such feed back to maintain their monopoly of political  discourse. This made owners, editors and Journalists both powerful and significant in our democracy. Political parties and aspirants to office openly courted the media and media owners and editors of both political inclinations have not hesitated to promote or deride the political players of their day especially when it came to promoting their own beliefs or vested interests. Thus we have a business focused player like Rupert Murdoch considering not only the players who will serve his political ideals but also his business interests. We should never forget that the reason that anyone publishes a news paper or owns a commercial television channel is to make a quid by selling advertising on or in it so it naturally follows that a media entity has to be responsive to its audience and to some extent reflect the needs desires and aspirations of that audience as well. Thus no matter what the ideology of a media owner may be (and I’m sure that some readers are imagining Rupert Murdoch as an evil manipulative puppet master right now) he or she also  has to respect and reflect the audience who buy his product.

The media landscape changed with the rise of the internet and the invention of the blog. All of a sudden political discourse was not controlled by mega rich gate keepers who shaped the discourse through their cohorts of authorized writers and speakers (journalists) Suddenly ANYONE  could write anything they pleased about the issues of the day and more importantly ANYONE could comment freely on what had been written. And comment people did with spirit and gusto. In the political blogs that were the pioneers of this brave new online world it was not uncommon to have comment threads that had many hundreds of postings as commentators had lively debates in real time as they tried to “find the plan” to explore an issue with great thoroughness. The problem is that most of these blogs have become very tribal indeed. A sort of mob rule mentality and tribalism has become the norm in most of the online spaces where politics are discussed. Thus if you visit any popular political site you will find that the commentators who have views consistent with the slant of the site tend to gang up on anyone with a dissenting voice who happens to raise their heads above the parapets and offer a contrary opinion. I’ve seen this happen on both left-wing and right-wing sites and it almost always devolves into personal attacks upon the person espousing a heterodox position along with the accusation that they are “trolling”.

My question is does it have to be this way forever? Surely the better way to go would be for those who have a passion for politics to do more than just seek the affirmation of those with a like minded.  Democratic politics is first and foremost about the art of persuasion. If you want change you have to persuade those who disagree with that change that they are in error and that the changes you propose have real virtue. No one is ever going to be persuaded to change their opinion if they never even encounter a rationale for a contrary opinion or if they never have their own beliefs challenged which means that even the most spirited but  “within the tribe” discussion is ever going to change a single mind. To make change within a democracy you have to change the minds and vote of those who give our political candidates their jobs.

What I advocating here is that those who want to see a better standard of political debate in this country learn to respect political difference and to embrace diversity in their interlocutors and further that everyone who wants a  better Australia needs to try to breakdown the tribalism in the online spaces where we discuss the issues. At the very least you could learn more about why those you disagree with think the way that they do, and you may even find that you can persuade them to a position that is closer to the way you see things.

Of course if you are going to be at all convincing you will have to interact with your interlocutors sincerely and with a generosity in debate that many culture warriors (as so many long time blog commentators become) find difficult. You see snarky comebacks and put downs become quite addictive when you are arguing with someone in an online forum (I know because I have not always  been a saint on that myself) but if you can resist that temptation you will discover a couple of things pretty quickly. Firstly your “political opposites” are often  not that different to yourself and that you may well have more in common than your think you do. From common ground you can find a common purpose and from a common purpose you can find a way to try to reconcile the differences in your positions. Even if you can’t reconcile those differences you can at least learn to respect each other.

As I suggested with the tittle “So you say you want a revolution ” its very easy to want change if you don’t think about how that change is to happen and what is to be built in the place of that which you want to tear down. Well I want to see a revolution in political discourse where those on the right and those on the left are willing to engage in productive online  debate that does not just degenerate in to acrimony and rancor. Hopefully in time we will see roughly equal numbers of players in the modern electronic sandpits but if we can’t have equal numbers any time soon can we at least have some respect for those of one political persuasion who go and play in the sand pits of the other-side? These brave souls bring that most rare and valued thing to these debates and that is what the Catholics used to call “an advocate for the devil”. You see once you have an advocate for the devil in your debates the depth to which you can explore the issues increases as a consequence. Of course those who just go into online comment threads for a bit of venting and affirmation from the like minded will probably hate having their blinkered thinking challenged, they will also hate having to justify many of the notions that they have previously taken for granted but the totality of the debate will have benefited. In the end we all want to change the world, we all want to see the plan, but you need to do more than carry pictures of Chairman Mao if you want to make it with anyone.

With a hat-tip to John and Paul

Advertisements

10 Comments

  1. Richard Ryan says:

    IN the art of barbarism and death cults the West outshines Islam. The west gave us the holocaust and the gas chambers. The west gave us nuclear war and napalm. The west gave us the deaths of over 3 million innocent people during the American War in Vietnam, a war based on a lie.. The west gave us the protestant beheading of Catholics in London. The west gave us the deaths of over half a million people in Iraq, a war based on a lie. Quite natural really, war breeds terrorism. If Olympic medals were awarded for barbarism and death cults, the west would win hands down,in these war games. Shalom, Richard Ryan.

  2. Richard Ryan says:

    The West gave us Andrew Bolt and Rupert Murdoch, both who supported the illegal invasion of Iraq.

  3. richard ryan says:

    “all powercomes from the barrel of a gun” -Mao. where the aborigines were concerned it did.

  4. richard ryan says:

    I wonder if Howard’s children are embarrassed, that daddy sent this country to war with Iraq, a war based on a lie, resulting in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of citizens of that country.

  5. Iain Hall says:

    Reblogged this on Iain Hall's SANDPIT and commented:

    Chris Graham over at New Matilda kindly agreed to publish this article by yours truly which was shock to the minions of the left who frequent the website so please check it out and enjoy the comment thread as well
    Cheers Comrades

  6. mitch says:

    Reblogged this on like this! and commented:
    So – not about ‘liking’ per se, but very relevant to issues of echo chambers and slacktivism in my earlier posts

  7. Peter says:

    Hi Ian, a very good article indeed. Regrettably I hold little hope that logic and truth will hold a candle to the ideologists view of politics and the world in general….enjoy your blog….incidentally we had Julia Gillard in Bendigo yesterday with her book signing. Seemed to attract a few people. However I can’t help wonder if this and some others released recently will be displayed in the fiction section of your local book store…keep up the great work

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Its been interesting to follow and respond to the comments over at NM which I would say have been more positive than negative .I agree with you though when you say that thing s won’t change noticeably any time soon.

    Re Gillard and her book she is trying really hard to join Gough as a Labor Saint because she knows that in many ways hers was a very failed government.I don’t think taht history will be as kind to her as it has been to Gough though because I think that Gough was a far better player in the game of politics than Gillard.

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    Who’s the idiot @ NM who keeps saying you’re Leon Bertrand? I’d give that guy an IQ rating of around 85 … you know, mentally retarded.

    And the mamma one – is he/she f*cking insane or what?

    They just don’t get it – if you’re going to comment from anonymity you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to personally attack and/or denigrate others who are using their real identity. Well, okay, you shouldn’t do that under your real name either but, if you do, you’re the one who looks bad and who will eventually pay the higher price.

    Freakin’ keyboard cowards, the lot of them, mate. Well done on your article.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Do you remember that idiot “Paul Wello” that I have had to ban here under a couple of different names? Well he has been following me around the net for some time he currently post at NM under the “PAW” tag He would have to be the dumbest of all of those who have played the baiting Iain game, Heck he makes Lygo look like the head of Mensa!
    “fightMumma” is a woman called Cathy and she is usually quite fun to debate but she does have a few moments when she is less than lucid none the less.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: