Good article, thanks very much Sarah. I really couldn't believe the shocking level politics in Australia had reached when I read Christopher Pyne's preposterous words. As a Dutchman, I have always been amazed about the kindergarten nature of Australian politics. Especially in the last months, throwing as much mud as possible seems to have taken over worrying about policies and running a country. With Pyne's words, Aussie politics has sunk to a new low.

Sarah, whilst I agree with some of the sentiments the political bias in your article takes away from what should be the real point.

To read the piece it would seem that the coalition were the only ones prone to misusing words or some exageration for the sake of political point scoring.

All sides of politics (and for that matter most of the rest of us are prone to it from time to time).

Unfortunately for them the coalition don't have buddies who will change the dictionary following the misuse of a word.

R0bert

We can expect to see more of this sort of article as the election date draws near. ALP people and their supporters on the pseudo-left will attempt to make the Coalition victory seem illegitimate by claiming the so-called 'moral high ground'. This means, I'm afraid, that we'll be subjected to more and more self-righteous moralising in the guise of political comment.

All too sadly predictable really.

I think some have short memories.

Just go back and listen to parlimentary debate by Keating. While the so-called true believers salivated on his words, because that is what true football supporters do when they can't see past their own team, I was disgusted and thought it did litle to prove a superior intellect. And i was a die hard Labor voter then working in a factory.

He he, Sarah,

"The term 'an authoritarian regime' denotes a state in which the single power holder - an individual 'dictator', a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite - monopolizes political power. However, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life including economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens. "The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into the deepest reaches of societal structure and the totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens ."[8]

Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control."

I believe we are in need of a benevolent dictator.

For those with short memories you could try this http://www.webcity.com.au/keating/ or you want a mobile version http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/smartphone-apps/keating-insult-app-proves-a-hit-20121219-2bmxa.html

That Keating was such a nasty conservative politician, not like the saints in the Labor party.

R0bert

The political words identified by the writer are alleged to be of concern, as they were used by the Opposition.

It appears that use of misleading and deceptive words such as "climate change is the greatest moral challenge", "carbon dioxide is pollution", "Tony Abbott is a misogynist", and other spin too numerous to mention, does not debase our political language because they were uttered by members of the Government

One way of improving the standard of Parliament is to ban solicitors. They are using the same dishonest abusive tactics they use in court to defame victims of crime in their quest to gain money and keep their grubby "client" out of jail.

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

David

Sarah,

That's for sure there are far too many lawyers in this world without ethics.

Oh and your hypocrisy! Forgot about the misogynist accusation. Thanks, above posts.

I'll say it again:-

I'm repeating something I put in another post (don't know how to do link).

More importantly is what the calculating PM Gillard did to Tony Abbott on accusing him of misogyny, of all people, just because he is a bit blokey. What she has done is softening the real meaning of misogyny, and then the idiots (latte sippers) try to change its meaning in the Macquarie Dictionary. In the end comparing it with sexism. Which is so demeaning to the women who have already suffered misogyny abuse. It is so disgusting what Gillard did, and then she gets applause from the insensitive dumbos. Where are the so called feminsists in all this.

One award winning Australian author, Wayne Grogan (crime writer) who knows the real meaning of misogyny, as he has written about it, has since challenged Gillard. Good on him, I say!

www.storycentral.com.au/.../terror-australis-author-takes-aim-at-gillar...

http://www.6pr.com.au/blogs/6pr-perth-blog/misogyny-defined-for-pm/20121105-28uco.html

I agree with R0bert, this article would be a lot more credible if it acknowledge that both sides of politics are stooping to vicious, overblown and inappropriate rhetoric. Is Abbott really a misogynist?

Not all of the instances that Sarah cites strike me as inappropriate. There has always been a place for hyperbole and metaphor in political debate, and some of it can be quite entertaining.

The movie Downfall depicted a man and a regime in the process of collapse. Comparing a government in disarray to a scene from the movie does not imply that the government is Nazi; it implies it is, well, in disarray. Downfall also has particular popular resonance for the dozens of youtube videos overlaying unrelated subtitles on Hitler’s famous rant. Here is one from WA, mocking Liberal Premier Colin Barnett. Does this deserve sanctimonious outrage for comparing Barnett to a Nazi? I think not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7TONKIKLjY

“Night of the long knives” is a standard journalistic cliché for a successful plot to overthrow a political leader. Abbot’s comments on “knock on the door” are a similar analogy. No-one really equates such rhetoric with the reality of life under a military dictatorship.

I agree the use of “protection racket” was odd and wrong though.

poor attempt to disguise the rotton nature of this Government. Whether it is protection of rotton unionist, pretending to be naive in your thirties (maybe young naive 30 year old females should not be allowed to vote), backing Slipper and then having the hide to bang on about misogyny, lying to the public about a carbon tax or overseeing thousands of drownings due to pigheadedness it all stinks. Election please!

A good article; expresses what the majority of voters think about today's politics. Yes, both sides are guilty but I think the Libs more so during this government.

I's like to see progressive media do an impartial weekly 'hyperbole meter'; like Crikey's 'Fact-o-meter'

The author says:

"What is lacking in the above comments is not only some perspective, but the maturity to grasp that using some of the darkest episodes of the twentieth century to score political points might be a bit irresponsible"

Yeah, right, tell that to the moralisers who describe sceptics of the AGW scam as "deniers".

Good article. Most of the Abbott supporters in the comments argue for equivalence in hyperbole and nastiness. While the Government side are not blameless, my count would be a far greater propensity by Pyne, Brandis, Mirabella and Co. for vitriol unfortunately. This stems in part from the constant abuse of Gillard and the Government by shock jocks and the News Ltd. tabloids. This sets the tone which the Opposition all too often follow.

'but I think the Libs more so during this government.'

I think that ones hard to judge, we all have a tendency to notice the bad in those we dislike more than in those we like (or dislike less as the case may be for many of us). What seems like a nasty insult when directed at our side is perhaps a sign of passion when used by our side against opponents.

My gut feel is that parties will tend to use the tactic more when in opposition than when in government.

What is clear is that author made no attempt at any objectivity in the article, the piece was an attack on the coalition rather than an honest call for better standards by our elected reps (or any other part of the community).

It would not have taken a lot to give the article some semblance of balance. It's not primarily about counts of comments but about the reality that both major parties use similar tactics to attack the other side. Both seem more interested in theatrics and getting power at almost any cost than in responsible government. We will mostly have a side we prefer for one reason or the other, that should not stop any of us from demanding better of them.

I don't believe that process is helped in any way by such blatantly partisan pieces as this article.

R0bert

Let us remember that both major parties are indeed child and human rights abusers.

That is, they lock children up without charge or trial for years, sometimes indefinitely, in circumstances well evidenced to cause, amongst other ailments, serious mental trauma, as witnessed by more than one of the members of the A.M.A.

( a.k.a. the a.ustralian m.oney grubbers a.ssociation as - oh yes, you have lots of money, I'll put a specialist bandage on your finger but no, sorry, even though you are half dead, you have insufficient money so you'll have to go out the door. )

This view that I express is what one slimy conservative on "the Drum" calls the purvey of those desperate to find a cause - what filth they are.

And of cause, the knowing and deliberate infliction of mental harm is a breach of the genocide convention act, though no doubt this trash would argue that they are doing it for their own good, as they do when challenged over the so called "Stolen Generations."

Now, when last Indonesia's Head of State was here he publicly advised that the child abusers had within their prisons/concentration camps no less than 54 Indonesian minors. And yesterday, the Indonesian government launched an action against the ALP filth in the Human Rights legal arena.

Curiously, whilst ABC 24 is renowned for playing the same simplistic and shallow crap over and over and over, this particular story appears to have been promptly pulled.

Of course, if you were to ask an Irish or Arabian fighter, they would no doubt tell you that the only sure way to deal with this kind of sh!t is BANG!

Given Labor had to reluctantly get rid of the nations Chief Legal Officer, because Roxon was so on the nose for trying to repress free speech there is a direct and correct resonance. Maybe Nazi was wrong, it was 1984 with is commentary on the Left that appears to be the model for the attempt. Stalinist or Maoist is probably better.