Why are Australians so wedded to mediocrity in their politics but not sport? What is it I've missed?

A San Francisco newspaper contained an article in the late 1800s written by a news man who'd returned from Australia. He said that the country had three plagues that wouldn't go away. I forget the first, but the second was rabbits and the third was dead-beat politicians. The rabbits apparently had no show of competing with the pollies in the destruction and damage stakes.

Why are we so wedded to mediocrity in our politics when we're such fanatics about quality of performance in sport? Does anybody have any ideas about what the real answer might be?

If you are so clever Sock why don't you put up your hand?

From a voters POV (not that I can vote) I think ocker's are more aware than most. We KNOW that our vote is merely a token gesture and a thing required by law. We KNOW that no matter what a politician promises during a campaign they'll only do what's in the best interests of their career and that of the people funding them. IT's no different anywhere else in the world.

Americans are masters at hyping up the mediocre. Just look at their football.

runner, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting it.

Sockrateez, I'd make a few points.

Yes, there is an apathy in Australia when it comes to politics. That's not unique to Australia. With the exception of a few European countries, most of the west is quite politically apathetic.

As are non-western countries, much more so. In many countries throughout Asia, people simply don't talk much about politics at all.

So if we look at this from a relative point of view, it's not an unusual situation. The politically apathetic exist everywhere.

I used to get incredibly frustrated by this state of affairs. However, on reflection, I don't think it's all bad.
Consider France. There is a much more politically engaged populace, but that doesn't translate to good governance or a good economy.
In fact, throughout history France has experienced severe upheavals and revolutions as the country as lurched between situations.

Australia's always been quite stable. If indeed Australia is more politically apathetic than most countries, look to our history for your reasons - and consider that that apathy is likely to keep us reasonably stable for the future.

i'm sure it has much to do with our lack of political journalism, investigative journalism, town meetings and a general fear or group mentality. Recently i have been searching for independent but balanced news sources on Aus politics only to find a paucity of coordinated prodigious journos or free lance writers. i know there are many but they seems so scattered across the web in obscure blogs that it's a days work just to be informed.
Daily i read Crikey, Onlineopinion, Newmatilda, theage (reluctantly). can anyone add to this list ?

I think I know what runner was getting at. The system isn't perfect so bugger it. A nice mix of cynicism and apathy. No, my question is why we're so cynical and apathetic to the point where we're the most over-governed people in the world and we have such bloody howlers for politicians.

I lived in France for two decades under presidents Valerie Giscard d'Estaing and Francois Mitterand. I'm glad you chose that example, because it is behind why I asked the question in this thread. I agree that they have the same problem, but when they get a good gutful, they wreck the joint, and wonderful changes come about. You expect leaders and pollies to get complacent and forget why they got the job, but what I don't expect is for the voters to shrug their shoulders and say 'well, that's the price of stability.' The Frogs aim much higher than that. I found their society works better than ours in what I consider to be the more important things.

Out of the wrecking comes things like a new republic. They were on the fifth when I left there in the eighties. And each time a new Constitution. We're stuck with a shabby Constitution that keeps us behind the 8-ball permanently with neither a republic nor a monarchy.
Maybe out football is too good. If it was as mediocre as American football (hell, I agree there) maybe we'd have to concentrate on other things - like the quality of our public and communal life?

I believe we're frightened of the instability, change, experimentation and progress that social creativity requires. I'd even go so far as to say that the devotion to stability at virtually any price is a form of illiteracy with cowardice complications. The NO votes out referenda evoke so consistently are indicators of a failure to understand and/or a failure of guts. Either way, it's lamentable, and could do with a good belt around the ear.

Thanks Rolph. Makes sense to me. Our journo schools are a disgrace compared to European and American equivalents. Thanks for the tips on quality news sources. I've abandoned reading newspapers and watching television news. The current affairs stuff is just as hopeless and derivative. In civilised countries, a state of emergency would have been declared by now. How mush worse does it have to get?

Dear SR,

I'm not sure that I agree with your sweeping
statement of, "Why are we politically illiterate?"

Sure there are people that express cynicism
towards traditional political structures and many
are disengaged from the broader process of
representative democracy. Then there are those
that will simply support their Party - right or
wrong - without question. But there are also
those who do examine the policies, and issues
involved before deciding where to cast their vote.
Today - there are so many resources to keep the
public informed. From TV, radio, newspapers, magazines,
onto - educational programmes, films, documentaries,
DVDs and so on.

Then there's also the wonderful computer.
Today - with electronic
communication there are alternative forms of cultural
expression through Internet blogging and accessing the many
online resources. Many people are generating global alliances
and extending their boundaries of political expression
and participation.

It's a bit patronising to assume that the public doesn't
know - or care - what is in its best interest.

In this country people have always been prepared to
make their voices heard.

cont'd ...

The Americans are very vocal politically -
but they worship baseball and American
football. The British, are very conscious
of their political climate but they
idealize their soccer and cricket. Maybe
the Aussies are more modest to express
their political views - but when it counts
at election time they're all out there
having their say.

As for the calibre of politicans - this doesn't
differ much in Western democracies. Have a look
at the previous Bush Administration - and the
Republican candidates at their last election.

Our politicians - bless them - go into politics
because they find the life irresistible. They
enjoy the highs and take the miserable lows
in their stride. They face long years with
equanimity. They take for granted the slander
of fools but they also firmly believe that the
voters will get it right in the end.

I watched Michael Moore's film, "Sicko,"
last night on SBS - dealing with the American
Health System.
Australia has a health system
that most Americans would envy.

Hold tight to some thing runner, I agree with you.
I too found it hard to believe the first post was fair dinkum.
Come now tell me, you do not think you can compare todays Australia with a 1880s visitors vies?
And an American at that?
how very different we are from some of them.
I will never except measurement of us against them.
have you heard republican hate against Obama? comparing him with Hitler?
We get what we vote for, and success full party's give us what we want.
none, ever, can do every thing we want.
and yes some vote based on no interest others on no understanding.
Right now some feel warm and comfortable about Abbott's chances, as one opposed to him totally I share that feeling, he is dead in the water.
You will find we differ a great deal in our thinking but many, on both sides do in fact think, and those who do not?
no right to complain about anything.
The thread could develop if we talk about why we think as we do, but not if it claims we do not think or except second best.
As a side issue I have got it in the neck of line for highlighting my views on Rudd and whaling/school funding but will not change my views certainly never blame all politicians because I fail to understand the subject.

The first post was serious, and I'm not surprised to find that it would be seen to be otherwise thus proving my point of asking the question. Let's get down to specifics.

Ninety years ago, we have a good banking system. We didn't make it that way; an American did. He formed the Commonwealth Bank, and he used it to build the Trans-Continental Railway without paying a cent of interest to anybody. Normally, the merchant bank fees on loans to the federal government are well above twenty percent. How did you think Turnbull and Macquarie got rich - selling pencils? Because Gough Whitlam was an economic illiterate, he wanted to borrow sleaze money off the Arab Kemlanie at some ridiculous fee to fund his government's programs when the Commonwealth Bank was sitting there doing nothing.

Are you guys starting to get my drift and are getting ready to drop all the motherhood statements that cloud these issues and are already in circulation?

The politically illiterate electorate voted for the economic illiterate when the Commonwealth (People's) Bank was flogged off to private speculators and the screwing of bank customers started in earnest. Sneeze near a bank and it costs. I went into the Commonwealth at North Sydney to get change for a parking meter and they charged me 15%, making me buy a plastic toy I didn't want.

I've got books full of these examples but would I be wasting my time bringing them up?

rolphHarris...... I too used to read Crikey, but got a little tired of it and I now read The Daily Reckoning which is a free email that one can subscribe to and it appears in your inbox every day. Mostly financial stuff and a bit one sided, but very different. I do like the style tho'.

You have every right to bring them up.
I too have the right to disagree with you.
In face to face debate, a place answers can not be found elsewhere, I would ask you to name current and past ministers and opposition spokesmen.
You would be surprised just how many who claim special understanding can not get even half the answers right.
Each failure[ in your view] of past politics can be defended, even proved not to be a failure in some cases.
Your failures are looking back wards, not without hindsight.
Self confidence can be miss placed, truly, I think you are flogging a dead horse.
Just a test I promise I know without research the answers, who was Simon Crean father?
Who was Kim Beasley's dad?
Who was June Morosi?
Who was found in a dazed condition in a hotel lobby without his trousers, his wet checks the night of his election defeat are gold in my memory but he is now a great man.

In the United States, they have anti-trust laws designed to prevent corporate fascism. Microsoft recently got cut into two separate entities because it got too big for its boots. Google is under scrutiny as we speak. We have nothing like it, so Coles and Woolies trash what we imagine to be retail food competition; so Murdoch and Packer tell us fairy tales and we love it; so the political parties make it look as though they're all there is to vote for; so ..... etc, etc, ad nauseum. It's a mediocrity making machine, this 'Australian Way'. Sock has twigged to it, as has anybody else who's spent some time abroad. Australians remind me (I'm Dutch) of the Deep (US) South. "We're okay, thank y,all."

Our education departments need to be restructured from scratch for not just failure to deliver, but for promoting the destruction of the genuine spirit of inquiry in our youth (postmodernist pseudo-intellectualism isn't cutting the mustard). There are good reasons why we're slipping way down the civilisation pole and are increasingly perceived as politically and economically illiterate by other OECD countries. Literacy requires effort, not apathy. Intelligence demands inquiry, not party loyalty. We'd have to be the laziest people on the planet when it comes to political awareness.

I've found that most Australians don't even understand the difference between right-wing and left-wing. They don't know the most fundamental parts of their own political and social history. They don't realise that for a hundred years they were an effective military dictatorship. Why? Because of denial, and denial does make one illiterate in many important areas. Sock is right, I'm afraid.
We need a bloody good shake.

CJ

CJ may I ask why you stay?

Left wing Right wing, what will this do for me knowing the diff.
Are you suggesting it would alter your vote knowing the diff.
A political party has got to be made up af all sorts of beliefs dont it.
This a democracy, with laws to protect the individual,
How ya gona do this with a one track mind.
We just got rid of one of them.

Desmond you will find, often in fact, people who make such claims do so because they hold views few others ever will.
I/most understand the difference.
My party does, while it has the word Socialism in its Constitution it is no such thing.
To be so, would be trying to sell well rotted fish next to the golden arches on a Friday night rush hour.
I think we over use words like this threads title, but am comforted by the understanding those who think like that are in fact the ones with no understanding of the subject,,,,at all.

Sock-Rateez, I get the distinct impression that in this forum, you're chalking up differences of opinion to people being politically uninformed. That's a tad insulting.

Similarly, Calamity James, you say that most people don't know the "difference" between 'left' and 'right'.

Again, it's almost as if they don't know your particular definition of left or right. When you discuss Right Wing, I'm assuming you're discussing libertarian economics coupled with authoritarian social policies? Or were you considering libertarianism versus authoritarianism across the board? Socially democratic governments? Socialist governments? Communist? Is Keynesian economics traditionally left wing?

My point is, there is no singular 'left' or 'right' we can agree on, so of course people don't know what it is.

Sock-Rateez, you state that Australians are by and large politically illiterate. I concur, but I don't agree it leads to bad government. You city one government decision, and extrapolate that therefore Australian government is measurably worse than other governments, and the US system of government is far superior.
Usually, the US government is deadlocked. It's far more difficult to pass legislation.

For decades, they've represented a massive chunk of the world economy, but they can't even get public healthcare. Their nation is gridlocked between representatives from 50 states, not to mention senators and hundreds of federal representatives. Throw some partisan bickering into the mix and absolutely nothing happens.

I don't think it's measurably better at all, in fact, quite the opposite. I think there is something to be said for the fact that American colleges teach a broad range of subjects to begin with which results in more civics knowledge, however seeing as there is NO universal government loan program, many can't go to the prohibitively expensive universities and end up woefully ignorant of politics and the world around them.

Cont'd.

Yes, we're politically illiterate. As are most western nations, and surprisingly, our government when measured against the performance of others, holds up quite well - in our favour, we established the RBA and had a robust banking sector during the recent crisis and numerous studies have indicated that when it comes to ascending through class barriers, Australia has one of the least restrictive societies in the world (granted, there are communities where people remain locked in a single class, but again, all things are relative and this holds true worldwide).

So when people politely disagree with your assessment that this political illiteracy is ultimately awful, don't chalk their disagreements up to more political illiteracy.

As I said before - more politically engaged populations don't necessarily lead to better outcomes.

It's just frustrating for people who like to discuss politics, but secretly a boon for those who like to discuss politics, but mostly just like to lord it over others.
The public aren't as stupid as you think.

I'm quite pleased that Australians tend to reject *exciting* candidates and go for boring ones. It shows that by and large, they don't trust exaggerated claims, don't go for simple advertising and showmanship, and prefer a steady hand. Far from the manipulated masses they are often made out to be.