Aidan,

1. A false dichotomy is used to force someone into and extreme position. How does Peter Smith do this? Who has he 'forced into an extreme position'. You? I would have thought that Smith merely expresses his opinions in the same way that you and I do.
2. How did you come by the view that the Right opposes “ helping disadvantaged Aussies”? Australians identified as 'battlers' flocked to John Howard's Coalition, as more recently American battlers flocked to Donald Trump. Doesn't that tell you that the Democrats in America, and Labor in Australia, are the ones who really don't want to help anyone but themselves, and the 'elite' inner city-dwelling academics? Are they really interested in “disadvantaged Aussies”?
3. “Refugees are fleeing for a reason”. Yes. They are country shopping for a better life, which is not one of the conditions of the Refugee Convention. The have 'fled' past one or more countries looking for the best welfare deal. It is not genuine refugees who have subjected themselves to the proper process who have got the backs of Australians up.
4. Illegals do not have the right to pick and choose a country, legally, or by any stretch of the imaginations that many people replace facts with.
5. There is nothing “cruel” about detaining people who have attempted to get here by boat. The are housed and fed, and away from the 'persecution' they claim to be escaping.
6. Just how many of these illegals become taxpayers? Even the MSM you people rely on reports that there many people who will never work; will never speak English; will never assimilate.

Overall, Aidan, I am wondering just how much contact you have with your fellow human beings, Right or Left. I also suspect that you don't care much “disadvantaged Aussies” yourself.

At least you have had second thoughts about Joe Blow's ability to influence the political class.

In today's Quadrant Online, Peter Smith (again, sorry) muses on what happens when a brain is trained to ignore the consequences “of repeated failure”: people become “increasingly stupid”. And, he thinks, the “progressive Left” needs to be treated as a “race apart” when it comes to IQ testing.

IQ's are on the way down in the “developed world” (who would have thought it ,wink, wink). “Younger people are dafter that old people”. He does hint that the old Lefties are pretty daft as well. But, he thinks that young conservatives have “retained he intelligence of their parents and grandparents”.

It's a short article, which includes comments about all the Lefty obsessions. I don't have the energy to properly review it, but I recommend it to the handful of conservatives on OLO. No pay wall

Hey Aiden,
You mischaracterise the issues.

• It's the Right, not the Left, who oppose helping disadvantaged Aussies.
I don't oppose helping disadvantaged Aussies but there's a difference between a handup and a handout.
I'm opposed to freely taking it from those who earned it only to be wasted via poor policy.
I support helping Aussies with a handup so long as they're willing to help themselves.
However 'disadvantaged' does not mean 'being new to the country or some weird PC victimhood socialist agenda'.
I genuinely support good policy that's fair to ALL Australians.

• Refugees are fleeing for a reason - they should not be assumed to be undeserving.
'Undeserving' has nothing to do with anything.
I don't care if they're the most deserving person on the planet.
I'm not going to spend it on a foreigner who's never paid tax and leave an Aussie citizen in hospital who's has paid high and dry, especially when the nation has unpayable level of debt.
In my mind you don't spend on non-essentials when you're in debt.
And as long as you're in debt, you're living in someone else's pocket.

• Despite the Right labelling them as "illegals", people have a legal right to seek asylum.
They also have the legal right to go somewhere else.
This isn't a halfway house for unachievers and global welfare-shoppers nor are Australian taxpayers responsible for their plight.
If individuals want to give they can, but to mandate that ALL Australians MUST pay for them is not ethically right.

• Keeping people locked up on Nauru is not only unacceptably cruel, but also very expensive.
I agree with you that it's cruel and expensive.
But those reasons alone aren't going to make me agree that every refugee without documentation should get automatic entry onto our streets.

• Although people resettling here results in an initial cost to taxpayers, they subsequently become taxpayers so in the long run it should be profitable.
'should'?
I don't want a system based on 'should'.
I want sound foolproofed policies that work, without the BS.

- Nice bullet points btw.

Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 4:26:05 AM

Interesting comments "Not_Now.Soon" you've covered the topic very well.

Aidan.

You're wrong about the left and the right. But ironically the way your wrong about it is mentioned in your second post. It's a false dichotomy.

The right aren't the heartless beasts that you convey. Much of the right supports individual freedom. Instead of being mandated to help, and suffocate from both too many taxes and the inability to make your own decisions, the right supports individual freedom to look after their own. Whether that is their own land, their own business, or even their own thoughts and words without PC threatening them with some adverse consequence. My outlook on the right is that if they hold to this foundation of a small government with less interventions, then they hold the responsibility to up hold high standards on their own. If they are successful at doing so by encouraging private generosity, or even businesses supporting local programs on their own the right is fulfilling it's role of being responsible and more self governing.

The left though holds no reliability to what they say or what they do. If they had more then just an emotional response to issues and causes, then perhaps having a government supported policy will do good to help people out. Instead too often it's unreliable, unworkable unless everyone agrees (or is forced) to act the same way, and manipulative. They also break down many safeguards, traditions, and culture of the society, all in the name of being progressive without any other reason to help or otherwise have a benefit. Just force others to change because the left says so.

Regarding the center. They stand away from right or left because they've seen extremes, corruption, or abuse. But what I see from them is just spinning their wheels in indecision more then actively seeking resolutions to issues. The center faces a similar problem the left faces. Where the left faces emotional pleas and can be lead around by lies and misdirection, the center can be lead around by false exaggerations and lies about what the right or left are doing. Still lead by lies and misdirection.

It's important to understand a concept (in this case the political landmarks) and its underlying landscape before hoping to manage it. Though the ones managing it might be advisers not politicians.

I would have gone for a more continuum based (quantitative rather than qualitative) approach as certain groups excel at moving landmarks in public psychology if you haven't defined the landscape well. At some level its all fairly arbitrary but so is language. This element of language is reminiscent of an arms race.

The Narrative of Politics is similar to the construction of a tower- it's complex, has many systems such as electrical, plumbing- it has to be stable and flexible approapriately- if it's well built the architect will have many commissions and perhaps their buildings with appear throughout the city- buildings are characteristic of their culture. British Australian's have historically been very self sufficient / self governing perhaps we can again.

Perhaps- overall at this point in history (and perhaps it always was since the 1500's) "people need Conservatism" more than anything else in politics. Even if "people need Conservatism" they also "need to want it". Wants and Needs.

Politics is war- the people have been losing for 500 years.

Bring back the villages- sweep away the masses.