Tag: politics

A Christian’s guide to the Queensland Election

So tomorrow is election day. After a year of ridiculousness we finally get to put the longest and most annoying election campaign in history to bed.

This campaign involved both parties, but particularly the ALP, sinking to new lows and treating the electorate with an incredible degree of contempt. We are not stupid.

The latest in this cascading, nay, spiralling, cycle of stupidity comes in the form of Anna Bligh’s early concession advertisements – which plead with voters not to punish her party too harshly on the basis that Campbell Newman will have “unfettered” power if he wins a significant majority. This is an interesting pitch. In some sense it’s an improvement on the horrible ad hominem negativity Labor relied on for the first 11 months of this election campaign. If this is plan B, plan C must be terribad. This line of argument is incredibly stupid. For two reasons. Essentially, so far as “power” is concerned – there is no difference between a one seat majority, and a fifty seat majority in the Queensland parliament – especially as there is no senate. The argument also strikes me as being a little hypocritical, given that back in 2004 the Labor party had a 63-20 majority. And they weren’t complaining about the damage this did to democracy then.

Anyway. As Christians, who are more than just your “tick a box on census day” Christians, there’s all sorts of pressure that different people attempt to pile on to us to sway our votes. If it’s not the ACL telling you where everybody stands on the “important moral issues” it’s Family First telling you that their stance on all those moral issues is, to quote the musician Beck, where it’s at. I listened to a panel discussion on 96.5 (a Christian radio station in Brisbane – for those of you reading outside of south east Queensland) last weekend, featuring a good and very reasonably minded friend of mine, and the implicit, if not occasionally explicit message from the show was that a Christian can’t really, in good conscience, vote anything other than conservative. Which, quite frankly, is ridiculous. While we should be mindful of employing a historical fallacy – that how things used to be, or how things were in the beginning, is equal to how they are now – both Labor and the Coalition parties were established to promote, or protect “Christian” values. And both historical party platforms have important messages in particular times and places. Thankfully, modern Australia isn’t really that place – the parties essentially agree on almost all the major issues. We have it pretty good in Australia – and our politicians, while approaching issues from different philosophical frameworks, are essentially just putting different window dressing on the same shops.

The problem with most Christian “how to vote” cards, policy trackers, and any sort of suggestion that God endorses the policy platform of any party, is that life is complex, and democratic politics involves complexity and compromise. It’s be great to be able to force everybody to do what we want, but not so great when the boot is on the other foot.

So here, before I go any further, is “how to vote” tomorrow. As a Christian. Or as anybody.

Vote with your head.

That’s it. You can stop reading now. If that’s all you were after. Participating in a democratic process is an incredible privilege, and abusing it is a sure-fire way to end up with a bad government, and a lowest common denominator form of political campaigning.

Here’s my handy “how to vote” card for any Australian election – it was prepared for the last Federal Election, but is still relevant for tomorrow.

This may be an over simplification, because we have to acknowledge that there are hot-button issues for Christian voters. Some of us feel so strongly about a Christian moral framework that we only want Christians governing the country. And we want the country governed using a Christian worldview. We like to appeal to Australia’s so called “Christian heritage” to justify lording it over our heathen neighbours, who on the whole, just want to eat, drink, and be merry – without us interfering. The Christian heritage assumption is based on a pretty questionable interpretation of some historical data, I’m not going to argue that our system of laws isn’t based on Judea-Christian values – because they are – but I doubt that Christianity was ever practiced by the majority of Australians in any meaningful way (church attendance has consistently been much lower than those who nominate as Christian in the census). If you want you can read my Australian Church History essay on this question.

I posted on abortion recently – and it’s an issue many people feel pretty strongly about. Strongly enough that it might influence their vote. And possibly With good reason. Abortion, to my mind, involves speaking out on behalf of the voiceless (the unborn) and attempting to protect and uphold life. But, the reality is that Labor and the LNP are in a two horse race to be the decision makers for the state (Katter’s Australia Party, the Greens, and Family First might compete in each electorate – but their policy platforms aren’t big enough for them to be treated as worthy of a vote). And their positions on the issue of abortion are almost impossible to tell apart. So, Campbell Newman, refused to outline his party’s position on the issue. There’s no real choice here anyway – and the way forward on this issue is something I discussed in the post linked above.

This isn’t really anything I haven’t said before. But a couple of people have asked me if I was going to post about the election. And now I have. There’s a second post following this one very shortly.

At this point, in terms of my own vote, the similarity of the major parties, and the craziness of the fringes, means that my vote is coming down to a question of style rather than substance. I feel inclined to punish Labor for their horrible campaign. Relentless negativity based on spurious accusations, directed at an individual, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I can’t possibly vote for the Labor party after their campaign.

March 23, 2012

Lest we forget: Kevin Rudd wasn’t very popular last time round

K-Rudd looks set to have another tilt at the lodge. Which, for non-Australians, is where the Prime Minister of Australia lives.

I’d rather the Labor party just install Bill Shorten. He seems eloquent and clever. Or Tanya Plibersek. I think I’d consider voting Labor if there was a Shorten/Plibersek ticket.

K-Rudd was a control freak, and just as power hungry as Gillard. And he eats ear wax… it’s the result of some bizarre hagiographic redaction, and the sour taste his public knifing left in our mouth, that gives him his position in the polls. Partly I think the electorate relishes the chance to turf him out democratically.

J-Gill is just awful. A political experiment gone wrong. She can’t get anything right, and clearly moves in whatever direction is popular on the issues she doesn’t care about – so she’s strong on climate change and education, but is about to change her position on the definition of marriage (if the papers today are anything to go by).

Here’s what I think he should do when he inevitably loses his challenge next week, or whenever it happens. Instead of moving to the backbenches, he should move to the cross benches, with whatever Labor supporters feel strongly enough about ousting Gillard. He should do a Katter, and start his own party. And he should trigger a double dissolution. Leave the party in a huff. And write his memoirs.

He can’t win from here. His party hates him. He doesn’t seem to have the requisite support. If he resigns his seat there’s every chance the power grabbers in the Labor party will find some way to hold on in a messy hung parliament. So crossing the floor seems like his best option for making waves for Julia, who he clearly dislikes.

The other mob across the floor aren’t much better, Tony Abbott is a walking cliche/soundbite/bad visual pun. We should probably just draft Peter Costello or Paul Keating back into the top job. At least those guys had a bit of character and some sense of an ideology beyond the endless pursuit of staying in power and beating the other guys.

That is all.

February 22, 2012

Republican Clowns

The photoshopping in this Flickr collection is pretty amazing. The only downside is that there’s no Democrat equivalent. Bipartisan clowns would be awesome.

Michelle Bachmann.

Sarah Palin

Ron Paul

George W. Bush

Rupert Murdoch

Rick Perry

Gold. Jerry. Gold.

November 21, 2011

Thoughts on filibusters

The other day in the NSW parliament the Greens played a game that either was an incredible waste of tax payers money and a deliberate attempt to undermine democracy, or a brilliant piece of gamesmanship.

A Green spoke for almost 6 hours. Straight. One speech. He talked about dragons. He was hoping time would run out on a decision, or that the government would have to cut off debate so that they could then accuse the government of being undemocratic.

It’s called a filibuster. Which is a cool word. It’s a bit like a losing football (soccer) team keeping the ball to waste time when the score is 4-0. Trying to minimise damage.

The government put a halt to things. I would too if I had to listen to any politician talk for longer than an hour.

June 4, 2011

On a brighter note: How Abraham Lincoln got his beard

So this morning’s letter was pretty sad. I thought I’d balance it with this one – a letter from a little girl to a then clean faced Abraham Lincoln who was just embarking on his presidential campaign.

“My father has just home from the fair and brought home your picture and Mr. Hamlin’s. I am a little girl only 11 years old, but want you should be President of the United States very much so I hope you wont think me very bold to write to such a great man as you are. Have you any little girls about as large as I am if so give them my love and tell her to write to me if you cannot answer this letter. I have got 4 brothers and part of them will vote for you any way and if you let your whiskers grow I will try and get the rest of them to vote for you you would look a great deal better for your face is so thin. All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husbands to vote for you and then you would be President.”

And he replied.



“I regret the necessity of saying I have no daughters— I have three sons— one seventeen, one nine, and one seven years of age— They, with their mother, constitute my whole family—

As to the whiskers, having never worn any, do you not think people would call it a piece of silly affectation if I were to begin it now?”

He grew a beard though. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Again, via Letters of Note.

December 3, 2010

Driscoll on Christianity in public

Say what you will about Mark Driscoll – but the man is sharpest (I think) when he’s talking about how the church should interact with the surrounding culture. I like this video because we are almost completely in agreement.

Christianity, society and politics from CPX on Vimeo.

He talks about how we can learn from Calvin’s approach to Christianity and Politics, avoiding anachronistically suggesting that any imposition of Christian government is wrong, and suggesting that it’s not appropriate today because you’d need everybody in a country to be Christian in order for that to be appropriate.

“Change often times comes from the bottom up. And I think one of the great myths is that politics changes culture. Politics doesn’t change culture, it represents culture. Politics represents the views of the constituency.”

“My efforts particularly in our city have not been politically active, I’m quite frankly not, I mean, we don’t talk about politicians or issues, much, I mean as I’m teaching through the Bible there might be some corollary between a social issue and a biblical teaching, but for the most part our goal is to love and serve people, to serve the city, to be people who really do love and are committed to our city and want to see the benefit to all people in the city, not just the Christians, and I believe that as more people share that ethic that will help to turn the culture of the city over and that will lead to political change.”

Watch it. It’s good.

This is the sort of post that is eventually going to migrate to Venn Theology (in fact, it’s cross posted there).

December 3, 2010

O’Donovan on politics and the pulpit

Oliver O’Donovan was interviewed about the American elections, democracy, and the Christian. He said some good stuff (which you can read here, or summarised here at Between Two Worlds).

The essential political duties we owe to our neighbours are those of living together with them peacefully under the law, and of giving proper support to the institutions of government that uphold the law. It is very unglamorous, and very necessary. To this essential basis a democratic polity has added the specific responsibility of voting in elections. To perform that democratic task well is quite difficult. It means listening carefully to political debates and sifting the true from the false in a self-questioning way, aware of the subtle influences of prejudice upon ourselves as well as upon others. It means to be open to persuasion, ready to change one’s mind. It means achieving a clear sense of the difference between what we can and must decide and what we cannot and should not try to decide.

Then he said this. Which I’m not sure I agree with:

“The “average American in the pew” seems not uncommonly to be told (or so it appears to us as we listen in across the Atlantic Ocean) that she or he has much larger political responsibilities than this: to make the Gospel heard in public life, to bring in the Kingdom of God and to make a better world, and so on.”

These can be problematic if you think making the gospel heard and bringing in the kingdom means stamping Christianity on the forehead of those who aren’t Christians. Which some do. But they do also, to me, sound like a fair summary of our role as Christians living in society (depending on how you think you bring about the Kingdom).

Some of these tasks are indeed tasks of the Church, which all Christians share, but not distinctively political. Some are political, but not tasks of the Church so much as promises of the work of the Spirit of God, for which we must pray and wait—while fulfilling our mission and doing the work that comes to our hand—humbly and without pompous pretensions.

Hang on. What? How are these two statements mutually exclusive in the way he frames them? How are some of those things he lists “political” but not tasks of the church? Or the other way around? How is “doing the work that comes to hand” not the same as making the gospel heard, bringing in the kingdom of God and making a better world? I would have thought that was exactly what the work that comes to our hand was… How are they not both political and the task of the church through the work of the Spirit which we pray and wait for… while also acting.

I might be getting this all wrong, but it often seems that this corrective of the old thinking has chucked out baby and bath water by insisting on the same dichotomy from the other side of the spectrum. People used to say “preach the gospel, preach the gospel, preach the gospel” and good works and loving people kind of got pushed to the side so far as the church is concerned. And that’s bad. But the answer isn’t to say “do good works, do good works, do good works.” Isn’t “do good works while preaching the gospel/preach the gospel while doing good works” a better way forward.

Maybe the real distinction between my thinking and O’Donovan’s here is how the Spirit works – I don’t necessarily think we sit and wait for the spirit to move, I think we move, praying and trusting that the Spirit will work through our actions. I don’t see “doing the work before us” as distinct from waiting on the Spirit.

Finally, he offers some worthwhile thoughts on how to talk about politics from the pulpit, which I’ve summarised below.

Some Don’ts

  1. Don’t act as if you are a well informed pundit with inside knowledge just because you’re a preacher: “Political discernment is not a gift of the Spirit promised to an ordained minister with the laying on of hands. It is more than probable that a congregation will contain some who are better informed and have better judgment than their clergy.
  2. Know what to focus on, and what to ignore: “Not every wave of political enthusiasm deserves the attention of the church in its liturgy. Judging when political questions merit prophetic commentary requires a cool head and a theological sense of priorities.”
  3. Don’t buy into the idolatry of modern politics: “The worship that the principalities and powers seek to exact from mankind is a kind of feverish excitement. The first business of the church is to refuse them that worship. There are many times – and surely a major Election is one of them – when the most pointed political criticism imaginable is to talk about something else.”
  4. Don’t talk without knowing what the terms you’re using mean in both the Christian and secular political realms: “Few Christian interventions into political debate display any kind of conceptual sophistication. They sound naïve – not in the sense of being too idealistic, but simply by using words without appreciating their meaning. Every political term carries a complex freight: “rights”, “democracy”, “freedom”, “equality”, “the state”, “law”, and so on. Such an elementary blunder as using “democratic” to mean “fair” betrays a level of incompetence that disqualifies the speaker as a guide to others.”
  5. Don’t introduce concepts with baggage without knowing how those concepts relate to others: No preacher can introduce such ideas effectively without a basic sense of their relation to each other and to the Gospel: how does civil freedom relate to evangelical freedom? how do human rights relate to the righteousness of God? Nothing is contributed if the church merely echoes the current buzz-words…
  6. Don’t preach politics like a politician, do it ethically: “One should not go on as though one were a statesman oneself, trying to get a certain decision taken, using every argument in its favour, good or bad, that might appeal to somebody.”
  7. Don’t be partisan: Don’t pick a side just for the sake of picking a side: “The notion that political deliberation is basically about the rival claims of competing parties is one which the church must do everything it can to challenge. Political deliberation is about understanding our situation truthfully.”
  8. Don’t not be partisan: Sometimes the question of truth is an obvious distinction between the parties.
  9. Don’t avoid choosing a position to avoid offending people: there is no reason to be alarmed if, on any occasion, the concern of the church opens into a critical perspective on secular political events. “To convince of sin, righteousness and judgment” is the work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), which must sometimes, surely, take the form of defining a position in relation to such evils as abortion, nuclear deterrence, unemployment, North-South inequities and so on.
  10. Don’t avoid controversy for the sake of avoiding controversy: We would be less than faithful preachers of the Gospel if we made our minds never to venture onto such terrain. But to do it usefully we have to risk controversy. We will be of little use to the Holy Spirit if we save our denunciations for those evils on which we can be sure there will be little difference of opinion among our hearers.
  11. Don’t be controversial just for the sake of presenting your opinions: “Controversy may be healthy or unhealthy. It will be unhealthy if we announce our conclusions and declare, “Take them or leave them!” It will be healthy if we lead the church through the task of Christian deliberation from first principles, so helping those who differ to find the Christian ground on which they stand and building up the church’s unity in the Gospel.

Some Dos

  1. Rather than pretending you’re a pundit help equip the church to think through what is known about a situation.
  2. Don’t mix messages: The pulpit may only rightly be used for addressing the church’s own concerns. Those concerns are the truth of the Gospel and all that follows from it for Christian action.
  3. Preach politics for the purpose of fostering engaged Christian thinking and action: The justification for preaching on politics is exactly the same as that for preaching on the family or on money or on any secular concern: it assists Christians to bring an evangelical mind to bear on their responsibilities… How one speaks will be determined by what is in view, which is to assist authentic Christian deliberation.
  4. Preach politics understanding why it’s important in a democratic setting: “Political deliberation is a responsibility of the members of the church inasmuch as they participate in a political society.”
  5. Don’t preach to persuade to your point of view, preach to demonstrate the Biblical position on an issue: “…the argument should be a Christian one that commends itself to any Christian conscience. It is less important that those who hear you should concur in your conclusions than that they should respond positively to the principles from which you reason.
  6. Preach Politics from the Bible: When I address political questions I almost always adopt an exegetical form of sermon-structure, follow my text and the argument that arises from it, until it points irresistibly to some theologico-political principle. Then, in the lightest way possible, I give concreteness to the principle by showing how it bears on the public issue in question.
  7. Keep yourself out of it (mostly): “it [your own view] will be evident enough from the argument. If anyone disagrees with me, I hope that person will have been helped to articulate a more authentically Christian response, one which will take seriously the issues of principle I have raised.”
  8. Preach to the Christian conscience: “Everyone needs to come out with a clearer sense of what is unnegotiable for Christian conscience, and what, by contrst, is merely a matter of differing emphasis or differing interpretation of a given situation.”
  9. Aim to present the Gospel of Christ in the context of each political issue: In that way the judgment of the Spirit proves itself authentic, drawing the line between the Gospel and despair, between belief and unbelief, obedience and rebellion, and lighting the way for the confession of Christ in the centre of each new situation

November 2, 2010

Minority Report: Professional Athletes as victims

Here’s a hint. If you’re an ex-professional sports star, particularly an incredibly well paid member of one of the most lucrative sports in the world, say the NBA, and you’ve made millions from being an oversized white, anglo-saxon, possibly protestant male – that doesn’t entitle you to claim minority status if you’re in the running to be governor of your state. Being tall also doesn’t qualify you for “minority” status in a way that helps you empathise with the marginalised and downtrodden.

“When Republican gubernatorial nominee Chris Dudley addressed the Oregon Association of Minority Entrepreneurs’ monthly “Coffee & Issues” breakfast on Sept. 24, he reprised a comment he’d made at an earlier interview with the Urban League of Portland.

“I heard him say he ‘understood what it was like to be a minority because he had played in the NBA.”

Yeah, even if he meant it as a joke it’s a pretty stupid joke to be making when you’re running for office. Basically, if what you say as a joke kicks up a media controversy and turns significant portions of the community against you, it’s a campaign no go zone.

Especially if your “minority” is one that millions strive to become and never achieve rather than being a quirk of your birth (though being ridiculously tall probably falls in that category).

October 26, 2010

Al Mohler’s approach to politics

Al Mohler is a largely impressive figure. If you haven’t heard of him you should read his blog. You should also read this profile piece (H/T Gary). And especially, I think, these paragraphs about his approach to getting his opinions heard and engaging in the political sphere:

“Mohler is not so much an intellectual or theologian as he is an articulate controversialist, a popularizer and spokesman who has branded himself as one who speaks to and for evangelicals. His multimedia finesse makes Francis Schaeffer appear amateur. His books (one is titled He Is Not Silent, a nod to Schaeffer) rehearse familiar arguments about the importance of maintaining a biblical worldview, and offer little in the way of original analysis—though Mohler is capable of nuanced scholarship, such as the dissection of Barth in his dissertation. Ivory-tower discourse is simply not his primary calling.

Rather, his vocation is to redefine the notion of “culture warrior.” Mohler rejects the clich of infiltrating Washington to take dominion in Christ’s name. “I don’t invest a lot of hope in the political sphere,” he says. “I believe in Niebuhr’s analysis, and then some—evangelicals invest too much confidence in a political recovery that Scripture doesn’t prescribe.” Mohler prefers instead to offer a stream of commentary on a diverse range of subjects, provide the secular media with a consistent evangelical viewpoint, and give constituents talking points to defend the biblical worldview on any subject that might come their way—all while running a seminary and serving the SBC.”

October 5, 2010

C.S Lewis on democracy

Some time this week I’ll be reigniting my conversation on this post about gay marriage, politics, ethics and the Christian, there are a few points in the discussion that I’m yet to address, I just need some clear head space.

But I like this quote from C.S Lewis on democracy in the meantime. It nicely articulate why I lean libtertarian on matters of government intervention in certain elements of our lives.

” I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man.

I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government.

The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . .

The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”

It’s from his chapter “Equality,” in the book Present Concerns, which I haven’t read. But I lifted it holus bolus from this post from Justin Taylor.

October 5, 2010

Unspinning politics

On my way to college today I was listening to Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser in a regular Friday morning slot he has on ABC radio with his opposition equivalent.

For those not living in Queensland, or disinterested in the comings and goings of our political scene, our politicians emerged from a crisis meeting about the unpopularity of our government with one new “policy.” Our Premier has ordered her minions to “walk a mile” in the shoes of Queensland’s constituents. She wants her MPs to spend a couple of days in the real world. Working real jobs.

Basically the whole thing is being portrayed as an extended photo opp. Which it currently is. There’s an assumption amongst our political class that being seen on a construction site wearing a fluorescent vest and a helmet wins votes. And it certainly links government policies with job creation.

But I propose a novel idea for the Bligh Government. Being in touch with the people is a valuable thing. I think there is some merit to this exercise. But if the government wants this to not be written off as a vacuous PR exercise they should ban the cameras, and do no media interviews about the experience. They should each be allowed to make a speech to parliament about their experience and changes they think should emerge from working with real people. But that should be it. A media blackout. No interviews. No contrived photo opportunities. No interrupting a real person’s work day for the sake of the 15 seconds it’ll buy on the news. That is how to make this a positive PR exercise not a negative one. The people you’re imposing yourself on don’t need to be treated like performing monkeys who happen to specialise in working a real job.

That is all.

September 3, 2010

On redeeming creation

Izaac, in reflecting on the Engage conference he was at recently, mentioned what he sees as a push towards redemption in our doctrine of creation. I think it’s probably a helpful corrective, I have been accused of having an “anaemic doctrine of creation“1 in the past. Pretty much any time I said anything about why I think caring for the environment is a secondary issue (compared to preaching the gospel).2 I’m not suggesting it has no value, just that it only has value when it aids our primary purpose.

The danger of correctives is that they push to far. As Zack points out, and Mikey reiterates. Here’s the quote from Izaac:

“But I’m concerned when redeeming creation is starting to get equal billing with the gospel. The balance hasn’t tipped yet, but it ain’t too far away. At the moment its simply good critiquing of the church.”

This issue nicely fits in with my post about work, rest and play, and my post about my ethical framework – and the “redemption angle” is probably the best articulation of the difference between my approach on the issue of gay marriage, and Mark Baddeley and Tim Adeney’s corrections (and I think, by extension, Oliver O’Donovans – who I really need to read).

Here’s my doctrine of creation in analogy form (from a comment on Mikey’s post). As you’d expect, it takes a pretty utilitarian approach to “redeeming creation” where the end is not the work in itself, but the work of the gospel.

I like to think of culture/the world as a sinking ship, Robinson Crusoe style, where any redemption is pulling stuff off the ship and waiting for a new one to come. I think sitting around on the ship polishing floors (or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic) is a little pointless in the bigger scheme of things… Even though the ship will eventually be refloated.

I think the concept of “redemption” is more helpful, and more often related, to getting people off the sinking ship as opposed to cleaning up the sinking ship. And I think, to stretch the analogy, that cleaning the ship is only useful so long as it clears a pathway to make it easy for other people to get off.

So I think we ought to work hard too, but I think we ought to work hard primarily because it’s part of the process of having a consistent witness and part of our gospel mission.

I think the restoration, Romans 8 style, is a complete renewal of Creation not just a renovation where God fixes the bits we’ve missed. It seems to me that the planet gets a refresh regardless of our efforts – while people don’t get that same second chance, so that’s where we should be focusing our energy (unless you’re a universalist, in which case being a tree hugging hippy is equally morally valid).

I guess my sinking ship analogy almost perfectly personifies a retrieval ethic. And I’m ok with that.

Also, this PDF study guide to Christian ethics from AFES is pretty good.

1Also, it’s very interesting how closely my conversation with one “David Walker” paralleled my conversation with one “Mark Baddeley” – perhaps they are the same person. Separated by oceans.
2And nothing proves the point about the danger of being a corrective like the way I put forward those views in that pretty ugly series of posts. While I agree mostly with what I said still – there was a bit of nuance missing. I don’t think either/or dichotomies are a helpful way of approaching these issues – I think primary/secondary concerns is probably better – and acting for a secondary concern can often aid in a primary concern, but should never supplant, or contradict, it. That’s my theory.

August 31, 2010

Unseparating Church and State: The right way

If you’ve been reading my thoughts on the election (particularly in the build up) you’ll know I’m no fan of Family First. And you’ll mostly know why – but in a nutshell, I think their policies tend to be myopic, theocratic, lack nuance and their existence can be harmful for the cause of evangelism. I think the perpetuating the idea that God is a social conservative who wants you to vote for one party is harmful for the cause of politics and the liberty of the church.

But I hate the idea of being a person who offers criticisms with no solutions. I think Christians should be actively engaged in the political process. I’d love to see more convicted Christians running for office. Just not on a “God Party” platform.

So here’s my solution, dear reader. Tomorrow. Go out and join a political party. Any political party. Preferably one that you feel philosophically aligned to – but if you’re feeling particularly adventurous join one that needs some Christian perspective on their policies.

Join a party. Go to branch meetings. Become active in policy discussions. If we all did this we’d have an active role in forming policies before elections rather than having to select the lesser of two evils.

Lets stage our own Greenslide. If every member of your church joined the Greens and advocated for the environment, for social justice, and for a less rabidly anti-Christian platform we’d have the makings of a fantastic party. You might even get preselected to run for office somewhere. Put your hand up and go for it. Don’t turn the government into a theocracy. Be prepared to be in a position where you have to compromise. But such is life. The process will be better for having Christian voices heard the whole way along, our parties also run democratically – just like the government. Just remember Australia is a pretty secular country and you have to govern for Muslims too.

August 24, 2010

Minority Report: Everything Election in one post

I love elections. I love voting. I love watching the coverage. I love the post campaign dissection. Even when I hate the candidates equally, all those loves still apply.

On the outcome
A hung parliament presents a fascinating political landscape. It could either see us back voting again in three months or produce an incredible picture of the democratic process. I reckon the only thing that will get in the way of the latter is egos.

I have tremendous respect, as a former North Queenslander, for Bob Katter. The Kennedy electorate is geographically huge (the biggest in the state, and representing a third of Queensland I think), and the electorate loves Katter. Some people try to claim the maverick moniker, and there is nothing more culturally awkward than someone trying to give themselves a nickname – but Katter has truly earned his maverick stripes. He’s more maverick than Tom Cruise.


Image Credit: Me, here’s Katter speaking at the AGM for my old employer.

I think the other independents are men of equal integrity and I look forward to them coming in from the sidelines of parliament.

I know that Katter has been waiting for this for a long time. He spoke quite publicly about the possibility of holding the balance of power after the 2007 election.

I can’t see the three MPs siding with Labor – I think their constituents would probably not be too enamored with that idea.

The Greens have been called “the only clear winners on the night” and they are a force to be reckoned with – but I don’t think they’re going to hold the power they think they will in the senate because I think they are likely to find the ALP and Libs agreeing on more things than they think. I think Bob Brown calls every election result a “greenslide” and claims the emergence of the Greens as a new third party on the political landscape at every turn. They’re not new anymore, and they are going to consistently poll at around 20% forever, or at least as long as they try to merge being compassionate and environmentally progressive with being radically anti-conservative. They’ll always split the ALP vote rather than winning votes from the other side.

I actually think that the two major parties are much closer in policy and in philosophy to one another than they are to any of the loose cannons jostling for influence. Wouldn’t it be great if Abbott and Gillard sat down together and said, you know what, why don’t we put together a cabinet dream team featuring the best and brightest from both our parties – and treat each issue in parliament on its merit. Someone, I think it was Andrew Bolt, suggested that Kevin Rudd should be the speaker – because it would simultaneously stroke his ego, get him out of the hair of the party who blame him for their loss, and fulfill Gillard’s promise of a senior position for him in the new parliament. Not a bad idea.

Some other little tidbits – I was disappointed to see Ironbar Tuckey lose his spot as the “mad-uncle” of the Libs, abd as one of the true characters of Australian politics, although the new National Party guy in the seat has real potential. I thought the tale of two Wyatts was pretty fascinating too – with the youngest representative probably ever in Wyatt Roy showing that he was a born politician with his ability to stay on message under pressure and his overuse of cliches, and the first indigenous representative Ken Wyatt looking the goods in Hasluck (could headline writers have picked a better name for the electorate which may decide the fate of politics in our country?).

On the coverage

I channel surfed for most of the coverage the other night. I even, very briefly, watched SBS. I thought the integration of Twitter into the coverage was largely pointless, but served to provide some light relief. Twitter does have huge potential as a means for taking the pulse of the electorate – but it needs to be more than just a small group of people using the same hashtag for it to be truly worthwhile. I don’t know many people outside of the media who are over the age of forty and using twitter.

Channel 10 – though mostly light on substance, the 7pm project team provided relief from Lisa Wilkinson’s eyebrows and Kochie’s annoyingly high pitched voice on the other two commercial networks. Their vignettes on the campaign filled the hour before counting began nicely, though curiously when the going got serious the network switched to AFL.

Channel 9 – had the most dynamic, and thus the most interesting, panel of the night. Karl and Lisa did their jobs as comperes admirably for the most part – in the scripted bits anyway, and while it appeared they completely lost control of the guests, they stepped in just at the right time – controversy is good for ratings, but snide bickering is not. Barnaby Joyce should be given his own show – the quote of the night came when he tried to ask Tony Windsor and the New England MP described him as a “fool” who wasn’t worth listening to. As the night wore on it appeared that Nine were experiencing technical difficulties – but only with his microphone. Funny that. Peter Costello was amazing. Every time the camera cut to him while a Labor figure was talking he had that Cheshire Cat grin going on. He was everything a panelist should be, and much less prone to going for the jugular than the other two right-wing reps. Michael Kroger tried to virtually maul Wayne Swan during a live cross – with the treasurer taking umbrage at the criticism, Barnaby joined in making the interview one of the most awkward and most compelling pieces of television.

Nicola Roxon was a credit to her party – and gracious in what was essentially a defeat. Mark Arbib showed why he wields such power as one of the Labor party’s “faceless men” – he was involved in the takedown of K-Rudd. Michael Kroger is essentially his equivalent in the Liberal party – and his constant cat-calling for union supremo turned politician Bill Shorten to take the party reigns seemed a little too close to home for Arbib.

The only black mark on an otherwise pretty sterling performance was the presence of Julia Gillard’s biographer, journalist Christine Wallace. Her myopic view of the election results and constant defense of Labor’s results (the lowest primary vote for a major party since World War 2, possibly an historic ousting of a first term government, the apparent loss of 16 seats, etc) was almost as annoying as the group of women at J-Gill’s party cackling in chorus “Abbott’s got no mandate” as if that made the results more palatable. Both major parties were essentially repudiated by the people – but the LNP at least has a silver lining. Wallace was snide and annoying.

Michael Usher’s virtual parliament was just as annoying. An over the top use of technology that served no purpose except to associate the coverage with the aesthetic of a mid-1990s first person shooter, or that dizzying Windows 95 screensaver that featured cartoonish brick walls. Their “dead ducks” section was amusing once. But only once. And they trotted it out over and over again with the same people and no new results.

The ABC

Red Kerry’s ALP/ABC gaffe was one of the only parts of the night that made me laugh out loud. His excuse, that the “letters are too similar” was pretty funny too.

His defense of Maxine McKew after her extraordinary outburst in an extraordinary interview was heartwarming – because nobody deserves to be compared to Cheryl Kernot.

Antony Green, Nick Minchin and Stephen Smith are the A-list of election night panelists. It’s no wonder they rated the house down.

Seven
Kochie is annoying. Peter Beattie is annoying. I can’t even remember what other panelists they had. Their coverage was annoying. Oh yeah. Alexander Downer. Don’t get me started on him.

August 23, 2010

Gay marriage, ethics and economics

The issue of gay marriage is probably going to raise its head again in the next term of government. It’s been on the periphery of this campaign, though the Greens and Family First are doing their best to bring it front and center. One of my friends emailed me yesterday saying:

“The fact we live in a country that doesn’t allow gays to marry I find completely baffling.”

He suggested any opposition is due to either homophobia or a belief in arbitrary rules.

I responded. I actually don’t have a problem with the government allowing gay marriage (what are they doing defining marriage anyway?). My concern is that churches be able to legally conduct marriages for Christians without having to also conduct gay marriages in order to keep their marriage licenses. I think there is actually a pretty sound economic argument for the government positively discriminating for stable heterosexual relationships. It turned into a bit of an email discussion – here are my points.

Why shouldn’t governments protect, incentivise, and legislate benefits for relationships that can produce children. Stable families with parental input from both genders are the “ideal” condition for raising children. Why shouldn’t positive legislation exist to promote that ideal? Economically speaking. After all, as Houston, W, says: the children are our future.

If the government moved away from defining marriage at all – and let anybody call themselves married – but maintained the benefits they provide for families and couples with children – then I wonder if that would defuse the situation? If they framed it not as “banning gay marriage” but as the provision of tax incentives for reproduction for heterosexual families.

It’s discriminatory and a restriction of the kind of freedom Christians should be advocating for to deny gay couples “partnership” rights when it comes to health and estate benefits.

I think the whole debate is framed really unhelpfully because the government has taken on more than its fair share of responsibility.

What the government should be doing is not discriminating against gay relationships, but discriminating for stable heterosexual families.

It’s comparable to indigenous benefits – I was not born indigenous, I had no say in being born non-indigenous. But I, mostly, have no problems with the government trying to incentivise better health and future outcomes for indigenous people by recognising a problem and providing financial incentives for education (Abstudy).

positive discrimination for a subset of the community is not necessarily the same as discrimination against another subset of the community. And governments do it all the time (abstudy and the other examples I mentioned before). Any policy adopted by governments comes at a cost to other proposals.

For example, the “Building Education Revolution” could be said to have discriminated against any public service that wasn’t an educational institute. A hospital couldn’t have a school hall funded under the program – because a hospital isn’t a school. It serves an important purpose and deserves government funding, but the funding will meet different needs because of the different nature of the buildings.

Equally, the program has been shown to be a lemon, because some schools (or education departments) have abused it. This abuse doesn’t mean that the program was bad for the schools that weren’t abusing it, nor does it make it a bad program (in the same way that some bad parents collect government funding). It was a policy designed to maximise the positive of schools having halls.

I also have no problem with the government positively discriminating for mothers (who receive family payments), retirees, the sick and disabled… one could argue that they should also incentivise being gay because gay couples are likely to both work, and generally1 take less time off to look after their children, and thus pay more taxes.

1I understand that some gay couples have children. I don’t think this is child abuse, but I also think different genders have different input into the lives of their children.

August 20, 2010