Tag: Politics

• Q Told Me So

  August 28, 2018 10:01 pm Comments Off on Q Told Me So

  When, in 2016, Donald J. Trump was elected President of the United States, none claimed to be certain of the consequences except the vast majority of his supporters. They were absolutely sure that Trump would drain the swamp, lock up Hillary Clinton, “just keep winning.” However, in the first nine months following Trump’s inauguration Clinton was not locked up, the swamp appeared as full as ever; the joys of winning seemed hard to spot. In the face of apparent chaos in the White House, some Trump supporters became disillusioned. But, many more avid supporters stayed in support of Trump, on a variety of platforms such as Reddit, Twitter, and 4chan. It was on 4chan in particular that one of the most complicated conspiracy theories of the century cropped up, that of the elaborate pro-Trump conspiracy QAnon.
   
  The story started during a photo-op before a military dinner on October 5, 2017, where Trump claimed that the dinner may just be “the calm before the storm”. Regarded as an alarming comment by some, it was instantly latched onto by the subreddit /r/conspiracy, as well as 4chan’s board /pol/ as the defining feature of the Trump era. The Storm, they argued, would be a sweeping series of arrests and restructurings, all led by Trump, to oust the “Deep State” and reclaim America from its “oppressors”. Three weeks later, a poster on 4chan’s /pol/ board made a bizarre series of claims. Hillary Clinton was to be arrested on October 30th, and /pol/’s readers were warned that “mass riots would occur”, and to “be ready”. This poster identified themselves simply as “Q”, supposedly an allusion to Q-level security clearance, a high-ranking security classification in the Department of Energy pertaining to knowledge of nuclear weapons. Hours later Q posted a series of oblique statements, left behind nominally for /pol/ to decode the hidden meaning behind.
   
  There is a common appeal to many conspiracy theories, from flat-earthers and moon landing deniers to QAnon and Pizzagate. It is the feeling of knowing a hidden truth about the world. It makes the theorist feel smart, powerful, one of a select few people who know things about the world that everyone else does not. To QAnon’s followers, all die-hard Trump supporters, that hidden truth was panacea: Trump was in control. The apparent chaos in the White House was staged. The oppressive reign of the ‘evil liberals’ was at an end. The winning they had been promised was just around the corner. And the man they were willing to put their absolute faith in was just about to bring it about. The secret truth was not merely something that they wanted to believe to feel smart, it was something that they had no choice but to believe since, to the Trump supporter, it made so much sense. How else could it be but that the brilliant billionaire businessman would be able to drain the swamp in such a huge way? Everything was going to be okay.
   
  October 30th came and went, and Clinton was not, despite Q’s predictions, arrested. The majority of QAnon’s followers were undeterred. On November 1st, Q later claimed that DNC campaign chair John Podesta was to be arrested. Further, to prevent the spreading of fake news around the issue, Trump would use the Emergency Broadcast System to “provide a direct message… to all citizens”. The Emergency Broadcast System has been defunct since 1997, when it was replaced with the Emergency Alert System, although to QAnon this was but a tiny detail. One might imagine that QAnon may have been more deterred when Mr. Podesta was not arrested as Q claimed. But from here on the conspiracy theory had gained a sizeable amount of momentum, and with its growth it became far vaguer. Broad, seemingly meaningless claims by Q such as “Epicenter. Full House. They are all here. 24/7/365. Enjoy the show.” became far more common, and the vagueness of the theory allowed supporters to map their own theories and ideals onto Q’s claims. Branches of the theory have incorporated everything between the pizzagate conspiracy, false flag shootings, the power of the illuminati, and Jewish bankers being secretly in control of the world. Many insisted that Q’s seemingly vast knowledge of both these conspiracies and the inside workings of the Trump administration were indicative of Trump’s secret moves to end all of these evils and more. They were moves which would leave him with eventual full control of the government and the ability to usher in a new golden age.
   
  To be clear, the truth behind Q’s messages is non-existent. Kim Jong-un is not a secret CIA plant, the Democratic leadership have not all been impeached yet, and Hillary Clinton did not get arrested on October 30th. The hydra of a theory, however bizarrely totalitarian and seemingly anti-democratic it appears, is utter bunkum. The real question behind the theory is why, despite its complete untruth, it has so much support. It still draws a wide base of supporters, and one that seems to be spilling over into the real world. At some of Trump’s most recent rallies, supporters have appeared wearing “We are Q” shirts, or carrying similarly branded placards. Despite “their man” having won the election, QAnon’s followers are still holding out for more. The reason that QAnon still draws so much appeal ties directly to that belief of ‘more on the way’. It has tapped into something common among Trump supporters: blind faith. QAnon’s basis in truth is as fragile as that of the flat earth theory, but this does not worry its followers for an instant. Merely believing in QAnon is enough to be reassured that the man into which they put so much faith in 2016 will pull through. To this group of fanatics, no matter how dire the investigations into the Trump campaign seem, no matter how much chaos seems to pervade the White House, their “winning” is only just over the horizon.

  Mark Perry

• Childish Things

  August 23, 2018 12:33 pm Comments Off on Childish Things

  Of this decade’s many leadership crises, this one is by far the most infantile. We should not stand for it.
  One of the saddest condemnations of the state of Australian politics is that the last Prime Minister to serve out a full parliamentary term was John Howard. In the five prime minister-ships we’ve had since, only one was brought to office by the ballot box rather than by party room coup (Tony Abbott in 2013).
  That the Prime Ministership is an uncomfortable and precarious chair to sit in is one of best elements of the Westminster system. Our democracy is stronger because prime ministers are never fully secure, always needing to be cautious and responsive to the pressures of Parliament and the people. No one is irreplaceable on Parliament Hill, and any prime minister who forgets this finds themselves out of power.
  However, the act of disposing a government should be a decision made only in circumstances of actual need, where a change of leadership is necessary for the functioning of government, the good of the party, or for a closer reflection of the will of the people. The threat of a leadership coup is more useful than the reality, to bring prime ministers to heel and reign in the executive government from any excesses.
  An argument could be made that the coups of 2015, 2013 and 2010 met these criteria to varying degrees. Abbott in particular – with a slew of broken election promises, a deeply unpopular policy agenda, tendency to make captain’s calls and low levels of public support probably serves as the best example of a coup in the public interest. Rudd, for all of his popular support, had a deeply problematic cabinet leadership and executive management style.
  In each case, an argument could have been made that the successor had a better chance of leading the party to an electoral victory.
  And then there is… this.
  Let us be very clear. No one is arguing that Peter Dutton has anything even close to popular support – what little polling numbers exist indicate that his numbers are abysmal, verging on non-existant. No one is arguing that Dutton would have a higher chance of winning an election. No one is making an argument that Dutton could better manage cabinet or run the government. No one is saying that Dutton has better policies, more popular policies, or is indeed talking about his policies at all.
  The only reason why this appears to be happening is that a single poor Newspoll presented an opportunity for the right to seize power. And that was the only consideration, along with the opportunity for personal ministerial advancement among MPs.
  In fact, there is nothing about Australia in this leadership debacle. The Commonwealth has been disregarded, the public interest thrown to the wayside as the Liberal Party engages in one of the most spectacular exercises of collective self-absorption that has ever blighted Parliament.
  It is puerile, selfish, destructive and an insult to the people and Constitution of Australia. It is a disservice to the hundreds of thousands in the APS who serve to make the Government work.
  It is time for us to put away childish things. This transcends partisan allegiances or factional squabbling. Should the government fall, as citizens of the Commonwealth our singular demand should be an immediate dissolution of Parliament and an immediate election.

  Howard Maclean

• Meanwhile, in Canberra… no break from politicking in the long winter holiday

  July 28, 2018 6:33 pm Comments Off on Meanwhile, in Canberra… no break from politicking in the long winter holiday

  Winter is Canberra’s greatest achievement. It’s quiet and crisp, and rather than the sound of talking points and news grabs, we are left in peace with the contemplative crunch of morning frost underfoot.
  But while we locals turn our minds to preventing frostbite should our limbs prematurely protrude from a blanket in the morning, the business of politics carries on around the country.
  Parliamentarians work their electorates, Sky News hunts for outrage and repetitive strain injury becomes a serious risk for junior ministers and members tasked with nodding at the back of press conferences. Meanwhile, the government of the day carries out the usual business of distraction and obfuscation. Except they’d call it narrative management.
  With half the year already gone, there are a few narratives doing the rounds.
  Depending on who you’re talking to, we’re headed for an election in September if the Super Saturday results are looking good. There are just as many people quick to rubbish such claims. Others are talking about the end of opposition leader Bill Shorten, smarting from a couple of policy backflips and some spectacularly mediocre polling. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull seems to be making quite the go out of a skating career – specialising in underperforming on thin ice. And, of course, One Nation remains a self-destructive political concern.
  For federal politics, then, it’s business as usual.
  But in the sumptuous quiet of the long winter break, there’s plenty of time for subtler political manoeuvring.
  Philip Gaetjens was poised to head off to be Australia’s ambassador to the OECD in Paris – quite the reward for years of service to Liberal treasurers Peter Costello and Scott Morrison as chief of staff. But 
  when John Fraser announced he would be leaving the post of Treasury secretary on 31 July, Gaetjens was picked for the role.
  Opposition leader Shorten isn’t happy.  “This fellow they’ve appointed to be in charge of Treasury has spent 13 years working for the Liberals and four years working for Treasury,” he said on Friday, 13 July. “The Liberals are addicted to stacking positions in the government with their mates, and I think this is undermining the reputation of Treasury.”
  The Treasury secretary is ostensibly the government’s most senior economic advisor. And from 1 August, he’s got clear partisan credentials.
  Is it possible for someone to be a high level public servant and leave their political past behind them? Absolutely. Does it still look off when you appoint your former chief of staff to a role that’s supposed to provide independent, non-partisan advice to government? It sure does.
  The rationale is clear. If the public service is there to offer frank and fearless advice, make sure the advice you’re hearing is frankly the advice you’d give yourself. Make sure everyone is singing from the same song sheet.
  The feathers of the public service remain ruffled from when Tony Abbott fired three public service heads in 2013, and effectively showed another the door. One, as it happens, was a former chief of staff of Paul Keating’s. A political history isn’t a barrier to a public service career, but proximity is the issue. A cooling off period helps.
  Treasury is where the task of preparing the Budget is carried out. Treasury modelling is key to policy debates and the potential impact on decisions with far-reaching effect is clear. To have someone who appears like a recent political operative in such a public service role is far from ideal – and suggests a government is in it for themselves rather than to govern representatively.
  It’s not the first instance and probably won’t be the last. But it pays to be wary anytime government promotes one of its own.
  ***
  A mid-year reminder: don’t believe everything that political columnists tell you.
  In February, I wrote in this column: “By now we can only hope that Barnaby Joyce has slipped off into what passes here for ancient political history: a couple of weeks ago.”
  It seems those hopes have been dashed, with the former deputy prime minister all set to open the Canberra Writer’s Festival in August. From the program: “He is both loved and loathed but never silent nor still.” They certainly got that right.
  Joyce will be speaking about his new book Weatherboard and Iron, a Melbourne University Publishing tome, billed as an ode to the bush. The program tells us the former deputy prime minister will “discuss the big issues confronting Australia – and provide a rare insight into the controversies that have plagued his recent career.”
  Given Joyce’s recent history, though, it’s a surprise that this event will take place at the National Press Club. Surely the Canberra Writer’s Festival is a perfect setting for some of Joyce’s trademark decentralisation?
  As we start to defrost, politics will return from the fringes to the capital. The by-elections on Saturday will give us a sense of what to expect in the back half of 2018. Will One Nation make inroads into Longman in Queensland, buoyed by the voice of Mark Latham at the helm of robocalls? Will the Downer dynasty enter into another epoch in Mayo? Will Barnaby Joyce finally slip off into ancient political history?
  Get set for warmer weather and more political heat. The year in politics certainly isn’t over yet.
  Jasper Lindell is Woroni’s political columnist and a former news editor.

  Jasper Lindell

• What can the NUS do for us: The Importance of Engagement

  6:26 pm Comments Off on What can the NUS do for us: The Importance of Engagement

  Over the mid-year break the National Union of Students (NUS) hosted its education conference. This conference, unlike the notorious National Conference (Nat Con), which has a reputation for an inability to actually achieve an outcome for students, the education conference is designed to be an event that brings together students from all over Australian campuses to have a constructive discussion about education for students at universities: this was the theory. Over the course of the conference it became apparent that the priorities of the organisation often deviated from the presumed scope of what a student union is designed to achieve.
  What was clear was that the NUS has significant potential to function as an organisation that actually helps students with what matters to them. A number of issues would be best dealt with at a national level, a response to the National Report on Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at Australian Universities being at the top of that list of priorities. When it comes to national issues that affect students, the NUS has, to some extent, worked towards addressing them – but ultimately it has delivered underwhelming results. The NUS has instead often campaigned on a range of issues that it is not ideally placed to campaign on. The fundamental reality is that if the United Nations can’t effectively resolve the Israeli-Palestine dispute, the ability of the NUS to create widespread change in the Middle East is surely limited. There are multiple issues that exist that could explain these issues within the current organisational framework of the NUS that far more experienced writers thaen I have discussed, but the fundamental issue that is apparent to me is engagement with the organisation.
  It would not surprise me if many reading this article had never heard of the NUS, or if they have, they either don’t understand its role or associate it with political actions far removed from their interest. If students want the NUS to function as an organisation that represents their interests, it is vital that they engage with the organisation.
  A simple way students can do this is by voting in the ANUSA elections later this year for delegates to the NUS, and ensuring that those delegates are vocal in their support for issues that have an impact on the student experience.
  In addition to this simple action, it is vital that students ensure that ANUSA continues to remain affiliated to the NUS. If the representatives that we as students elect disaffiliate from this organisation then they remove any power ANU students have to aeffect positive change within the organisation. It is important to have a student union that organises nationally and can voice student issues on that scale and, like any union, its strength comes from its membership. Disaffiliating simply weakens our ability as students to ensure our interests are being upheld.
  The sad reality is that if we, as a student body, were to give up on the NUS it would be the easier option. The problem with that is that we, as students, need to organise in order to protect our interests: giving up will remove our ability to do this. Students need to engage with the NUS in order to ensure that the NUS is an organisation that serves its members and not its officials, and further that it organises around actual student issues.
  Nick is a member of ACT Labor, and Student Unity

  Nick Pagonis

• The Aesthetic and the Political: Unearthing our Common Pulse

  July 12, 2018 5:03 pm Comments Off on The Aesthetic and the Political: Unearthing our Common Pulse

  Искусство. Letras. 艺术. L’art.アート. कला. Art.
  Although different signifiers, with a slightly different etymology, these words are irrevocably united by what they signify: a human creation fundamentally concerned with humanity, reality and the state of our world.
  This snapshot of languages displays the universality of art: the power it possesses to break down barriers that divide us by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion and class. Art, be it in any form, possesses an emotional power that probes into the human condition and questions the status quo. By deconstructing social barriers, and presenting all humans as innately equal, such probing strips back our so-called “reasoning” that often leads us down the rabbit-hole of rationalising inequality and injustice. It then crosses into the political sphere, primarily by way of social commentary and discussions on internalised power structures.
  Art stems from the imagination and can therefore evoke empathy and force the audience to consider the lives of others. Indeed, Hannah Arendt recognises the power of the imagination in the political sphere, believing that it has the particular ability of distilling our idiosyncrasies and highlighting the common pulse that beats through all of us.
  By engaging us on an emotional and intellectual level, art has the potential to entice us and draw us into a deeper discussion of social inequality. For some people, it merely reinforces what is already known, reminding of the need for continual action for change. For others, it can induce exposure to new worlds, forcing a consideration of the situation of others and expediating the process of empathy that facilitates change.
  Studying Literature, I am continually reminded of the empowering intersection of the aesthetic and the political. Art is fundamentally concerned with aesthetic experimentation, which is a far greater task than just creating something aesthetically pleasing. The modernist movement, for example, sought to revive literature (particularly the poetic and novel form), to, as Era Pound famously declares, ‘make it new’. Virginia Woolf’s quintessentially modernist novel To the Lighthouse, for example, plays with free indirect discourse and ‘multipersonal representation of consciousness’, radically altering the novel structure. It also provides a social commentary that deftly deconstructs the gender expectations of the time, illustrating that even with a focus on reviving the beauty of art, political statements cannot be avoided.
  No artist and artwork exists in a vacuum, even if the artist wishes to create their artwork for purely aesthetic reasons. Further, what is characterised as beautiful is not only context-dependent, but is itself a political statement. This is especially clear in our present-day, image-saturated and beauty-obsessed society. Context, whether explicit or implicit, is innately encapsulated in the creation. Even the artist’s wish to defy a political interpretation of their work is, in itself, a political statement.
  Artworks immediately achieve what political groups and politicians labour to do: they speak to us first through our emotions, and then on an intellectual level. In so doing, art highlights the thread that weaves through all of us, the common pulse of our humanity. To steal Miranda’s words from The Tempest, artworks, particularly literature and film, can shine light on ‘How beauteous mankind is!’ and open our eyes to this ‘brave new world’.
  Of course, this is not to suggest that art doesn’t explore the darker side of humanity. Great artworks discuss the flaws of humanity, expose them and play with possible solutions. Art can act as a caution; a foreshadowing of the depravity that threatens humanity. Literature, and particularly speculative fiction and science fiction, is notable for this – Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s 1984 and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale are just a few famous examples. By extrapolating real events in a creative manner, we become mere puppets in the hands of these authors. A twist in our favourite character’s fate tugs our heart strings, and makes us realise that what is happening within this text is not abstract from our world. The Handmaid’s Tale, made more famous by the TV adaptation, does just this. Drawing upon the Puritan movement within the United States, the 1979 Iranian Revolution and Christianity as a whole, Atwood constructs a neatly crafted, albeit horrifying, situation. Although it initially appears so extreme that we place it in the abstract realm of fantasy, on further reading it becomes all too evident that such restrictions on women’s movement have happened in the past, and, more alarmingly, are continuing to happen today.
  Yet it is not just the ability to discuss current affairs that gives art its unique powers. It is the potential to create a controlled scenario in which a certain element of the human condition can be explored. For example, within The Handmaid’s Tale, humanity’s hubris and our desire to ensure the continuation of the human species is played with, ultimately resulting in an analysis of power dynamics that run along gender and class lines. Especially within literature, relatable human characters evoke empathy, taking us on a journey into the human condition. This emotional engagement further reinforces our common pulse and can act as a galvanising force to initiate change. Beyond this political power that art, sometimes unconsciously, wields, art is intrinsic to our nature. As Doris Lessing suggests ‘the storyteller is deep inside every one of us’, natured by our imaginations that ‘shape us, keep us, create us’. Given that art is inherently human, it is a powerful tool for bridging the gap between abstract political statements that allude to the need for change and actual change. By engaging us on an emotional level and forcing as to realise the thread that binds all of us, art has a galvanising power that can prompt social change.
  Art is the culmination of our attempts to speak of our times of trial; our attempts to connect with others in this world. I fundamentally believe that art, as the intersection of beauty and social commentary, has an immensely powerful role to play in deconstructing social divisions.

  Sarah Graham-Higgs

• Meanwhile, in Canberra… #6

  May 20, 2018 10:14 pm Comments Off on Meanwhile, in Canberra… #6

  Budget Night is one of those weird Canberra spectacles. Journalists emerge from the lock up, where they have been held for six hours, cut off from the internet and holed up with the Budget papers. And then the treasurer appears at the despatch box, tasked with making the government sound wonderful.
  Last week, there was certainly a need to sound wonderful. An election is due in the next 12 months. As the clearest statement of a government’s intent, the Budget sets up a lot of the premise for the upcoming campaign.
  Gone are the days of Tony Abbott’s and Joe Hockey’s Budget emergency. The debt and deficit disaster is history now. The only emergency that matters is the one in the opinion polls.
  And what do you do when you are faced with electoral defeat? Cue up some personal income tax cuts, spread so far out over the forward estimates – the projection for years after the present budget – as to be basically meaningless. Just make sure there is something small to kick in from July.
  In the lead up, the government was touting their “Boomer friendly” Budget. At least they know their base. What they should have said was bland.
  But not bland in the “it doesn’t really matter way”. Bland in the sense of being completely devoid of vision or character.
  If you believe the government, the economy is in great shape, jobs are being created and next year treasurer Scott Morrison will deliver a slender surplus.
  Why, then, should we accept a cut to the ABC of $83.7 million over four years? The government wants to freeze the national broadcaster’s funding over forward estimates and subject it to another efficiency review. It will be the 10th review in 15 years.
  Morrison says the ABC has to “live within its means”. (He also revealed himself to be a fan of Shaun Micallef’s Mad As Hell, hoping that it would survive Aunty’s funding cut.)
  Cutting ABC funding is a pretty clear statement that a government has no regard for the intelligence and education of Australians. It sends a loud and clear signal that the government doesn’t see the importance of Australians telling Australian stories, of grappling with our national identity in intelligent, accessible forums.
  The ABC’s managing director, Michelle Guthrie, told ABC staff after the announcement: “In the coming year Australians will head to the polls for the federal election. More than 80 per cent of Australians value the ABC – a point that shouldn’t be lost on anyone seeking government.”
  SBS will have funding returned after the government couldn’t legislate to allow it to accept more advertising. It isn’t a real increase.
  But it’s not just the ABC facing cuts.
  Since coming to power, the Coalition has cut more than $50 million out of the Screen Australia budget. Now, the government is putting $3 million towards the “development of Australian film and television content.”
  The government has also announced a $140 million fund to encourage big Hollywood productions to film in Australia. It’s good for local workers and tourism, they say.
  It smacks of cultural cringe, investing in others to make Hollywood blockbusters rather than investing properly in Australian film.
  National institutions will also face cuts. While the National Gallery is getting some money to help with refurbishments, the National Archives and the National Library will lose 10 and 12 staff respectively.
  Making all of this worse is the $48.7 million over a four years earmarked for the commemoration of the 250th anniversary of James Cook’s first voyage to Australia. As the debate whether we should change the date of Australia Day has reached the mainstream, this decision shows a government not interested in any kind of reckoning about our country’s past.
  Cuts to the arts and libraries and the ABC might seem like prudent budget measures, victimless crimes with no real effect, but they are not only detrimental to the cultural life of the country, they reveal what kind of vision the government has for us: a vision of a blank face being crushed by the boot of parochialism forever.
  When I covered the Budget in 2016, I wrote in the Herald that, “For most young Australians, this Budget is not for us. We don’t benefit. We haven’t been offered our election pitch.” I could write the same again, and note once more the lack of action on housing affordability or climate change.
  It is good that there will be more places at universities for regional students and that access to Youth Allowance will be made easier for them, but it’s hardly a consolation in an environment which has prioritised cynical survival-instinct politics over the kind of long-term thinking students and young people need.
  It’s a shame for students that the Budget isn’t required to include tables of opportunity costs. It would cast very different shadows over what kind of Budget a government can get away with presenting.
  Over the next 20 years, the cost to the Budget from lower income tax receipts as a result of fewer students going to university will be between $2.2 billion and $3.9 billion, modelling commissioned by Universities Australia claimed.
  The Cadence Economics report found that the total economic impact of the higher education sector funding freeze would be between $6.9 billion and $12.3 billion over the next two decades.
  Belinda Robinson, Universities Australia chief executive, told The Guardian: “It’s a simple equation – less university funding means fewer skilled graduates, a hit to labour market productivity and less tax revenue for government.”
  But to see that, you’ve got to look beyond the ballot box at the next election and the Budget bottom line next May.
  And at the moment, the Turnbull government doesn’t have the right vantage point.
  Jasper Lindell is Woroni’s political columnist and a former news editor

  Jasper Lindell

• ANU and Ramsay Centre: Trading Academic Independence for Cash

  10:01 pm Comments Off on ANU and Ramsay Centre: Trading Academic Independence for Cash

  ANU loves to brag about its scholarships. Its brochures are plastered with smiling shiny faces of Tuckwell scholarship students reading books on green grass under blue sky, with dust and heavy industrial equipment from the nearby construction site neatly cropped out. But ANU – the thought leader that it is – is changing away from this, as it quietly releases piecemeal information and timidly defends its negotiations with the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilization (RCWC) over a divisive new scholarship and degree originally slated for 2019.
  Late last year ANU announced it was in negations with the RCWC to create a new Bachelor in Western Civilization for a cohort of 60 students, of which it would provide some 30 students with a $25,000 per annum scholarship. But this group doesn’t exactly have the same appeal as the kind-faced, generous Tuckwells, with their passion for education. No, RCWC is instead staffed by some of the most disliked politicians in Australian history and has repeatedly said it will use the degree to push its ideological beliefs.
  RCWC launched in November 2017 thanks to a $3 billion donation left by healthcare-magnate and top Liberal party donor Paul Ramsay. The group aims  to get universities to teach a positive interpretation of Western civilization. To achieve this RCWC turned to ANU, promising a fortune to the university if they establish a degree that adheres to the group’s goals.
  RCWC chairman and former prime minister John Howard described the degree as “an exercise in the unapologetic exposal of what Western Civilization has brought to mankind over the centuries.” There are three main issues with the degree: firstly, its politically biased approach; secondly, the ambiguity of RCWC’s control over the degree; finally, the involvement of sitting MPs and partisan political figures.
  Members of RCWC board and its CEO have repeatedly said that the degree will only address the positive aspects of Western civilization. Board member Tony Abbott said that RCWC is “not merely about Western Civilization but in favour of it.” Even when Howard acknowledged that western civilisation had “its share of moral failures”, he didn’t elaborate. Instead, Howard said people should look to the successes of western civilization, such as the defeat of Nazi Germany. Of course, Howard did not explain why Nazi Germany – a European nation-State influenced by Enlightenment thought, Christianity and Graeco-Roman culture – was not part of the West. Nor have any of the board members mentioned colonisation, fascism, autocracy or imperialism; governmental structures that characterised the West for far longer than modern democracies. RCWC will not address these issues. They are explicitly narrow-minded and have no intention of approaching western civilization with the complexity it requires. Such an approach is not only an insult to students, but also to those affected by the negative aspects of western civilization. 
  ANU and RCWC have both said they will respect the traditional course approval structures, but this hasn’t stopped RCWC officials from also saying the exact opposite. During negotiations, CEO Simon Haines said “we would not be wanting to hire somebody who is coming in with a long liturgy of what terrible damage western [civilization] had done to the world.” If academic integrity is respected, then a politically motivated third party should not get to have a say in the hiring and firing of staff. A similar stance has also been taken on the syllabus of the 16 new courses in the degree. RCWC said that they will choose the readings or “great texts” for the degree, while also saying that ANU will treat the courses like any other. These two things can’t be true at the same time. To drive home the strong arm tactics, Haines threatened to pull funding if the courses and teachers did not tow RCWC’s ideological line.
  There is also the issue of RCWC’s board members also being sitting politicians. On the board, there are both former MPs – Howard and Beazley – and, more worryingly, current MPs. Liberal Party parliamentarians Leeser and Abbott sit on the RCWC board and have a deep involvement with the new degree. A sitting MP – particularly an ideologically divisive one, such as Abbott – having input on the curriculum of a public university is extremely unsettling and goes beyond a simple philanthropic donation. With all these issues you might have thought that justifications for ANU’s deal would be stronger.
  The most common argument in favour of the degree is a version of: ‘well people can do Asian, studies major so why not a have a Bachelor in Western Civilization?’ The response to this is twofold. Firstly the Asian studies major is not funded by a group called the Xi Jinping Lord President for Life Appreciation Society. In fact, any whiff of political bias in any course is met with legitimate anger and concern. Courses at ANU are – or if the deal isn’t stopped, were – run by academics that have independent say over course material with the sole goal of educating students. As a result of this, the Asian studies major does not ignore negative aspects of said society or mislead their students to guarantee funding. Secondly, ANU already has a heavily Western-centric model for teaching the humanities – look no further than English, Ancient History and International Relations. And the best thing about these courses is that they don’t sell the education of their students to politicians for some extra cash.
  This extra cash will also come with its own cost. RCWC is not a charity: they are not donating, they are buying. RCWC is trying to make their own degree and is paying the university to turn a blind eye to academic independence to do so. The world will see this and treat the ANU accordingly. Secondly, there are MPs on the RCWC board. If they really wanted to properly fund universities they could do it the old-fashioned democratic way, not with the vast wealth of a political partisan’s estate. Finally, we as students also pay ANU, under the presumption that we will be given the best education possible. At a Ramsay Centre forum Rae Frances, Dean of CASS, was asked what the threshold donation for someone to create their own degree would be, she tongue in cheek replied “$50 million.” Well, we – the students – provide ANU with hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and we don’t ask for a degree that mimics our personal political bias. We just ask for the university not to sell our education to the highest bidder.
  Sam Brennan is an admin of the Facebook page ‘Keep Ramsay out of ANU’

  Woroni Comment

• Architectural Paradox: New Ramsay Centre Solely Consists of a Right Wing

  April 18, 2018 3:05 pm Comments Off on Architectural Paradox: New Ramsay Centre Solely Consists of a Right Wing

  At the bequest of our affectionate and extremely white billionaire headmasters, the newly announced Ramsay Centre has undergone such a massive last minute redesign that Kevin McCloud has dropped dead in his flat pack home. Worry not, immaculately well-dressed ghost of Kevin, as there are some downright awesome ideas in the new building plan. They include:

  Underfloor heating powered by Adani Certified coal.
  Every academic integrity issue is resolved by Alan Jones live on air from an in-house broadcast studio.
  They’ve built an actual ‘Western Cannon’ which is an exquisite reproduction of a US Confederate Army gun.
  To give the impression of diversity, they’re going to hire people straight from the catwalk to stand still and be model minorities.
  All the offices are double glazed, but the air-conditioner only works when the windows are open.
  It’s so enlightened that there’s no way to turn off the extremely powerful and hot lights.
  High security areas of the building have done away with fingerprint sensors and have been replaced by an armchair-phrenologist in-residence.
  FULL MERITOCRACY: would-be interns will battle to the death in a specially constructed Arena of Blood (unpaid).
  Secret meetings between powerful ANU figures and donors! This is not exactly an idea or a feature, just like a really cool idea that we should all support in general.
  ‘Shady Political Tie’ Racks: keep track of who really pays the bills around the place with the inbuilt storage in every desk.

  The Chancellery has assured students that they hear and understand their concerns relating to the Ramsay Centre. By this they mean that, yes, the sound waves are reaching their ears and each word individually is understood according to the relevant definition. They’ve also announced a new program aimed at dealing with the problematic aspects of the Ramsay Centre and the University in general. Senior Management Consultancy Expert Sip Lervice had this to say:
  “Going forward we’ll be engaging with our custo- the student body and various stakeholders, with a view to synergizing our aims and establishing a compromise weighted heavily towards the interests of our good political buddies and their ill-gotten fortunes”.

  Will Fletcher

• Meanwhile in Canberra #4

  April 17, 2018 3:03 pm Comments Off on Meanwhile in Canberra #4

  There was all the build up usually associated with settling in to watch a sunset. We all knew it was going to happen and we had a pretty good idea of when. And then, in a moment, it would be all over.
  This is how the wait for last Monday’s Newspoll result played out online the Sunday night before. We all wanted to be the first to see – or at least confirm for ourselves – that Malcolm Turnbull had failed his own test.
  “The one thing that is clear about our current situation is the trajectory,” Turnbull said in the infamous press conference when he publicly launched his bid to roll his predecessor, Tony Abbott. “We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row. It is clear that the people have made up their minds about Mr Abbott’s leadership.”
  Change Abbott for Turnbull in those comments and it takes on a haunting quality. It’s a statement Turnbull now regrets making.
  “Every month lost is a month of lost opportunities,” Turnbull said on 14 September 2015. In 2018, the lost months are still piling up.
  But take a moment to consider just how stupid this is: sitting up late on a Sunday night waiting for poll Twitter oracle @GhostWhoVotes to leak the results of the supposedly fateful Newspoll.
  At 10.15pm, the numbers dropped. “#Newspoll Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 48 (+1) ALP 52 (-1) #auspol”, read the all-important telegraphic tweet.
  That was it. Turnbull had lost Newspoll number 30, failing his own test.
  It’s very easy to assemble a line up of politicians ready to denounce the importance of polls. “The only poll that matters is the one on election day,” reads one of the few talking points carved in stone on both sides of politics. But it’s also nonsense.
  There is great interest in the polls. Political action is weighed up against what it will or will not do for the polls.
  “My job is not to be distracted by the polls but to focus on our policies and on delivering for the Australian people,” Turnbull told The Australian last week after the Newspoll loss. What he really meant is that his job is not to appear to be distracted by the polls.
  In politics, where, as Turnbull says himself, the “election is there to be won”, saying you don’t care about the polls is like saying Ps get degrees and still needing an exemplary GPA to walk into a well-paid consultancy job.
  Sure, plenty of people declare their marks are irrelevant and Ps get degrees after their third lunchtime schooner in week 10, but they certainly don’t believe it.
  Polling doublethink is an important part of being seen to play the game. Turnbull’s first mistake was to show his hand by citing the polling as a reason for his 2015 leadership challenge.
  Of course it was but that doesn’t mean that you should go and tell anyone.
  ***
  All of this polling has a bizarre effect on the game of politics. At a time when strong belief in our political system and the politicians who inhabit it is hard to come by, there is often a lament for a lack of authentic leadership.
  The trouble is that polling has reinforced the messiah complex in Australian politics.
  When Turnbull became prime minister and Liberal party leader in 2015, he would have got the keys to the Lodge and a much nicer office. But he didn’t get the chance to brainwash the rest of his colleagues.
  Turnbull’s Liberal party is still much the same has the party of Tony Abbott’s era. Of course, cabinet has been shuffled but there was no wholesale replacement of ideology, factional alignment and power balance. It’s the new model body work with the same under-powered engine under the bonnet.
  A leadership change may imbue a sense of optimism, or reduce the sense of failure, but it won’t present a new party to the voting public.
  So instead of having made up their minds about a leader, the Liberals must seriously entertain the idea that voters have made their minds up about the party.
  Voters have looked to leaders for vision and leadership. The last decade has left them bitterly disappointed on both sides.
  We have been looking in the wrong place.
  We seem to have assembled enough evidence, and inflicted enough political pain, since 2010 to show that the fortunes of a party can no longer solely rest in a leader and that those fortunes could be resurrected with a quick and ruthless change.
  Turnbull has remained the more popular, more trusted and more experienced capital in the eyes of Newspoll respondents. Never mind his ship has gone wildly off course, has an engine room of potential saboteurs and is taking on water, fast.
  A reliance on polling distracts us from a real conversation about what the government is, or isn’t, doing.
  Polling is easy, getting your head around the National Energy Guarantee isn’t. Trying to understand why capital-l Liberals, Tony Abbott among them, now want to intervene in their beloved free market to save a coal fired power station takes more thought than comprehending Newspoll’s two-party prefered result.
  Polling is the indicator, not the oracle. A political landscape mapped by polling leaves little room to move. Any chance for genuine engagement will always be clouded with the thought of what it will do the polls.
  Too much care for the results leaves less time, and places less emphasis on, the substance: policy, action, debate, vision.
  If the 1600-odd Newspoll respondents are cemented as the most important constituency in Australia, then we all lose out.
  Jasper Lindell is Woroni’s political columnist and a former news editor

  Jasper Lindell

• “MY COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG?” – A FRIENDLY CALL TO ACTION

  March 21, 2018 3:09 pm Comments Off on “MY COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG?” – A FRIENDLY CALL TO ACTION

  The number two seems to be everywhere in my life. I have lived in two countries, I’m doing two degrees, and I was born on the 2nd of March. Recently, I celebrated two decades of living and wasting my parents’ money. Most importantly, I’ve always felt that I am of two nations. I was born and raised in Indonesia, but my family is Chinese.
  I admire my fellow Indonesians, of course assuming that there is one central Indonesian identity. I am proud of our resilience in the face of trials and tribulations, foreign and domestic. I am proud of our boundless optimism and faith in the better future, despite being continuously let down by others and sometimes even letting ourselves down. I love the fact that we were the first people to unshackle ourselves from the yoke of colonialism and to herald in a new age that rose from the ashes of World War II. At the same time, I feel just as proud about my Chinese identity – part of a community that is 1.4 billion strong and 5,000 years old. I remember listening in awe as my grandfather delighted me with tales of the rise and fall of kingdoms and dynasties, of grand fleets and expeditions, and of the unbroken entrepreneurs and wise men.
  Indonesians and Chinese are both my people, and I love them equally – a feeling I think is shared by many of my fellow international students, particularly those from Asia. However, to love our history and way of life is one thing; to unflinchingly support a government because of this is another. The nation and the State are not the same. Pride in our history and culture should not blind us to the questions that our government and politicians have raised. Recent events in both Indonesia and China have indeed forced me to grapple with some troubling questions. I am not sure how to feel about politicians refusing to confront religious fundamentalism in Indonesia that threatens to swamp my home with hate and intolerance, with some politicians apparently tacitly approving. It is also a bitter irony that, a century after the last Qing emperor was deposed, China now has the closest thing to an emperor in power, with its government attempting to develop a ‘credit system’ that could deny public goods to millions of ‘untrustworthy’ citizens.
  It is beyond my current ability to provide you with an explanation of why it has come to this. However, I have noticed a pattern has emerged in Asia – from India to Japan, from the Philippines to Thailand – of governments tightening control, abridging civil liberties, and stoking nationalist/sectarian sentiment. This pattern has a clear result: increasing authoritarianism. You may think that we do need authoritarians to show us the way in a world that is becoming less certain and more dangerous. But, to paraphrase Yap Thiam Hien, what’s the point of our people’s fight to be free from foreign oppression and dominance if we end up being oppressed by one of our own? For me, it is self-evident that increasing authoritarianism is unacceptable given the sacrifices made by people infinitely braver to free us from exactly that – authoritarians and oppressors.
  However, I cannot answer for you. You may very well end up disagreeing with me and I will respect that. But I ask of you, at least reach this conclusion on your own. Do not base your conclusions on mere blind faith or peer-pressure. Do not feel that you have a sense of obligation to support the government unflinchingly simply because you love your people and ways of life. Do not support your government because of nationalism. In fact, don’t be a nationalist at all. Be a patriot! As Timothy Snyder said, a nationalist tells other people their country is the best; a patriot tells their country to be the best it can be. If you are going to base your support on the old adage: “My country, right or wrong”, then at least be aware that it is incomplete. The full version reads: “My country, right or wrong. If it is right, let it remain right. If it is wrong, let it be set right”. We must express our disagreement if we have any, either through demonstrations or the ballot box. For those who feel unable, remember that from little things, big things grow.
  For all this talk about the 21st Century being the ‘Asian Century’, we still haven’t addressed the question of what exactly it entails. Will we see our world split, with countries ruled by paternalistic cabals of old men on one hand and countries ruled by holier-than-thous on the other? Or will the century bring something more? Something better? The answer to this greatly hinges on whether we should accept increasingly authoritarian Asia – and we students couldn’t be better placed to formulate the answer. We are fortunate to have access to the ANU’s wealth of tomes, books, journals, and research papers, as well as its academics, so let’s use them! We have, at best, six years and at worst, if you are doing a Master degree, two. I’m pretty sure there are enough days when we are not swamped by essays or exams and can do a bit of reading at Menzies or attend a conference held here on campus. We should also try talking with people from various backgrounds and differing perspectives. Making friends with them will help insulate you from any attempts to demonise certain groups of people, and will in turn insulate them from attempts at demonising you.
  Whatever you decide, the worst option is to do nothing. To go home none the wiser about your country and apathetical about the direction the powers are taking it would be a great tragedy. If nothing else, care for the pragmatic reasons: to make sure we are not left to foot the bill for their mistakes.

  Kevin Marco