Hey Joe
The Daily Telegraph informs me that “ no one can escape Joe Hildebrand and his satirical take on life”, and believe me, this is a threat I take extremely seriously. If Joe and his satirical take ever ensnare me in their rubbery jaws, I am sure I will beg for death before the end. But in the meanwhile, I thought I’d make a few idle observations on the most recent manifestation of his “satirical take on life”, if that is indeed what this article about the Greens represents. Personally I can’t see all that much satire in it, but then as a Fairfax hack I’m pretty humourless.
The reason I wanted to make aforementioned observations is that the piece caused a bit of a stir among some of my Twitter acquaintances, and so I read it with some curiosity. Mr Hildebrand, as usual, raises some interesting points, and as usual, reminds us that there are many different meanings of the word “interesting”.
Now, having just the other day penned an article emphasising the importance of focusing on the argument rather than the arguer, I will endeavour as best I can to do so in the strange case of Joe Hildebrand and the Rotten Greens. I will not claim that Hildebrand is wrong because I happen to believe he is a smug hypocrite with an irrational hatred of one particular political party. I will, however claim that he is wrong and a smug hypocrite with an irrational hatred of one particular political party.
And to give Joe his due, he has his good moments. He’s written a lot of funny stuff over the years, and he displays flashes of insight that, if only occasional, remain far more frequent than those evidenced in the work of most of his News Ltd stablemates. He’s not even always wrong about the Greens, or “the Left”, the more nebulous way to refer to the terrifying beast who haunts the dreams of every good Daily Telegraph reader. Lefties in general, and Greens in particular, can be prone to navel-gazing, self-righteousness, and detachment from reality. I happen to think these qualities are minor annoyances when compared to the character flaws of the bigger parties, but no matter: the point is, the Greens aren’t perfect, and the odd bit of self-examination might do them some good, as it does all of us good, as they seek broader appeal.
However, there is criticism, and there is pointing out flaws, and there is even mockery and abuse, and then there is — to put it as delicately as possible — making shit up. Generally speaking, making shit up is what happens when the political warrior’s two greatest problems intersect:
- I can’t think of anything truly damning to say about my enemy.
- I have become too blinkered by my partisan agenda to care about the truth anymore.
I can’t guarantee that Satirical Joe has fallen victim to these vices, but the evidence points that way, because in his latest piece he is, if not deliberately lying, basking in ignorance to a startling degree. Tearing strips off the Greens is a popular media pastime, and there’s little that can be done about that, but we can at least do our best to correct outright falsehoods.
So let’s take a look at them. Joe says:
In 2009 the Greens blocked Kevin Rudd’s landslide mandate for an emissions trading scheme, thus leading to the destruction of his prime ministership and the ascension of climate contrarian Julia Gillard — with whom they then formed a fawning coalition and extracted a carbon tax before stabbing her in the back too.
The undemocratic and unpopular genesis of the carbon tax catapulted Tony Abbott into power, upon which he immediately abolished it. Thus the Greens both ushered in the Abbott Government and eliminated any ETS. This from a supposedly left-wing party that claims to tackle climate change.
These are grave charges, Goody Putnam. And while 2009 is a long time ago, fortunately records do go back that far, so we can take a look at the facts and see whether the facts back Joe up here.
Now, seven years ago the Greens certainly did vote against Rudd’s ETS — this was, of course, because they believed it to not just be inadequate, but harmful to the cause of emissions reduction. One can disagree with their take at the time — and I did — but even amidst all the conflict and sniping of Australian politics, few people claim that a political party is morally obliged to vote for legislation that it opposes. Unless, obviously, that party is the Greens, who many people apparently see as not a political party but some kind of youthful sidekick to Labor.
As it happens, though, the Greens, who no doubt would have blocked the ETS if they could, didn’t, because they couldn’t.
In 2009, the Rudd government, to pass its emissions trading scheme, needed seven extra votes in the Senate. This meant either getting the opposition on board — the course it chose and which failed after Malcolm Turnbull was rolled by Abbott — or getting the support of the five Greens senators, plus the Independent Nick Xenophon and Family First senator Steve Fielding.
Take note of the numbers there: seven votes needed; five Greens senators. You may notice a discrepancy there. If so, you are quicker on the uptake than most Australian political commentators.
To put it bluntly: no matter how much the Greens might have wanted to block the ETS, they couldn’t have — they didn’t have the numbers.
This also, by the way, puts the lie to the other myth about the ETS: that it was killed by Rudd’s refusal to negotiate with the Greens. Rudd “snubbed” the Greens not because he hated the party, but because he knew it would be pointless to reach out to them: the only way the Greens could help him would be if the government could somehow come up with an emissions reduction scheme acceptable to both Bob Brown and Steve Fielding. Anyone who remembers Steve Fielding knows this was a non-starter — Rudd was certainly smart enough to know that, and that negotiating with Turnbull was the only realistic bet.
Now, of course many people will point out that when the ETS was rejected by the Senate, two Coalition senators crossed the floor, and that those two, plus the five Greens, would’ve been enough to pass it. But that assumption would require believing that the two brave floor-crossers would still have gone against the party room even if they knew that doing so would get the legislation passed and deal a massive body blow to their new leader Abbott. That would’ve taken a hell of a lot more courage than an empty gesture in support of a bill they knew was doomed anyway, and I would say it’s a pretty big leap to think it would’ve panned out that way.
And remember, all that is predicated on the idea that the Greens have no legitimacy unless they defy their own beliefs to support other parties anyway.
Basically, the fact is that if anyone tries to tell you that the defeat of the 2009 ETS was due to anything but a combination of Rudd’s craven refusal to call a double dissolution after the bill was rejected, and Nick Minchin’s gang of climate denying goblins knocking off Turnbull in favour of Abbott, you should call bullshit and do it loudly.
Enough of that. What else does Joe say?
But incredibly the Greens want Abbott back. Or at least one does. The Greens candidate for Grayndler has said: “I would prefer to see Tony Abbott returned as prime minister with a Labor movement that was growing.”
A Green who wants Abbott back? That’s INSAAAAAAAANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *cue muppet arms*
Honestly, I can’t believe the Greens candidate for Grayndler would say that! I can’t believe he would say…oh wait…
“I would prefer to see Tony Abbott returned as Prime Minister with a labour movement that was growing, with an anti-war movement that was disrupting things in the streets, with a strong and vibrant women’s movement, Indigenous movement, and a climate change movement that was actually starting to disrupt the production of coal. I would prefer to see Abbott as the Prime Minister in that environment, than Bill Shorten as Prime Minister without it.”
Ah…that’s what Jim Casey, Greens candidate for Grayndler, said. In other words, he has a vision for what he believes is progress for this country, and if that vision were being fulfilled under a conservative PM, it’d be preferable than to see that vision unfulfilled under an ostensibly “progressive” one. Or in other words, again, who is prime minister is not the be-all and end-all — getting the leader you want doesn’t mean much if everything else is going to hell.
That’s not such a weird attitude for a Green to take — and it’s not something that requires magical skills of interpretation to extract from Casey’s words, either. Anyone with a modicum of sense can understand what Casey’s actually saying, so anyone going round claiming he said, “I want Abbott to be prime minister” either lacks a modicum of sense or is a liar.
Not that everyone will agree with Casey’s vision — even without the pressures of electoral survival, Anthony Albanese probably wouldn’t — but his vision sure as hell isn’t, “Abbott 4 Greens” and you’re insulting our intelligence if you claim it is.
And that’s without even noting that the above words were said by Casey in 2014, when he wasn’t a candidate and Abbott was prime minister, so a claim that “he wants Abbott back” is nonsensical in every direction you can notice.
Give us another one, Joe:
These words are from Jim Casey, who — in between overthrowing capitalism — also wants to overthrow Anthony Albanese, a hugely respected left-wing Labor leader who was probably the most decent figure in the ALP’s six sad years of office.
Oh yeah — Joe also thinks it’s dirty pool for a political party’s candidate to try t win an election against a candidate from a different political party. This is a surprisingly genteel view of electoral etiquette from Joe, and maybe doesn’t warrant much further comment. Let’s see what else he’s got up his sleeve:
And if that wasn’t bad enough, the Greens are also believed to be doing secret deals with the Coalition to effectively run dead in marginal seats targeted by the Liberals — a.k.a. giving “open preferences”. In exchange the Libs would preference the Greens in key inner-city seats to knock off ALP candidates.
OK, here we go. I don’t actually suppose there is any point linking to the Greens statement that they have not — definitely, absolutely, indubitably NOT — done a deal with the Coalition. But here it is anyway, just in case anyone cares. Now, those who claim there is a deal are free to keep on simply claiming the Greens are liars — and lying politicians are not exactly unprecedented — but if a deal is claimed, and the people accused of doing the deal say they haven’t done a deal, and nobody can actually find any evidence that a deal has been done…well I mean one might at least pause a moment and wonder whether they should ease back a bit.
However, people will believe in the conspiracies they believe in, and if Joe wants to think a dark and secret deal has been struck in the sepulchres beneath Canberra, good luck to him. What can be definitely refuted, though, is the faintly amusing claim that open preferences equate to “running dead” in marginal seats. You’d hope nobody would buy what Joe’s selling here, but I guess there could be a significant minority of Australians who actually gain all their knowledge of Australia’s political system from Hildebrand columns, so it’s a shame he’s feeding them this line.
Because “open preferences” simply means not directing your voters to place the other candidates on their ballot paper in any particular order. You know those how-to-vote cards that annoying people try to make you take when you go to vote? They’re trying to persuade you to direct preferences their way. Open preferences mean a party saying, “Vote for us, and then preference whoever you like after that”.
This is what Hildebrand calls “running dead”, even though, guess what, that’s actually what everyone is free to do anyway. A “preference deal” in the House of Representatives only means two parties agreeing to beg their voters to preference the other: every single voter is allowed to arrange their preferences in any way they choose. All the Greens’ terrifying “open preferences” do is acknowledge that, and tell voters that they should make their own minds up. Which I guess is what’s so dreadful about it, from Joe’s point of view: News Ltd hasn’t got where it is today by letting anyone make up their own mind about anything.
The Greens aren’t perfect. I mean that — there is plenty of room to criticise them, and anyone can, in perfectly good faith, simply disagree with their philosophy or their methods. I have zero interest in abusing those who do or claiming that the Greens, if elected to government by some bizarre miracle, would solve all our problems.
But I do have an interest in the truth. I have an interest in facts. I have an interest in a media that exposes lies rather than disseminating them. And if lies are the only way you can knock down your rivals, you would benefit from a bit of introspection.
Hildebrand, inimitable satirical sprite of the media forest, writes, “ The problem with the Greens is that they are ideologues, more consumed by an imaginary post-capitalist utopia than they are with real people in the real world”. Maybe so. But then, if a writer is more consumed by a desire to slam his political enemies than he is by a commitment to determining the truth, what would you call him?
