Barrack Obama famously said, ‘We do not have Republican states and Democratic states, we have the United States.’ Theresa May wants ‘a government that works for everyone.’
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Like President Obama and Mrs May our incoming Prime Ministers promise to govern for all Australians. It’s a high minded sentiment that quickly breaks down under the pressure from supporters, identity and interest groups claiming the spoils of victory or disrupting government if they do not win.
A few generations back most people were defined by their church, their trade union, their political leaning and whether they saw themselves as rich or poor. Today churchgoers and trade union members are minorities, the major parties between them command only about 70 per cent support and the standard of living is so high that it is unusual not to have a car, a couple of TVs and an annual holiday.
With increasing wealth and the decline of institutions, the values that bound society together have largely disappeared and without them society has fragmented. No one can count the number of identity groups, interest groups, pressure groups, lobby groups and the like representing particular interests. Social media has given everybody a voice.
The Greens were the first to rally people to a definitive non traditional position; to create a new priority that would determine a new voting imperative. The environment cut across established political lines and attracted supporters who rated it higher than church, union or social status.
LGBTQI groups forced a referendum on same sex marriage, affected education in schools and conditions in the workplace. Private and catholic schools threaten political action if more money is not provided. Supporters of the ABC tell us they oppose cuts saying “I love the ABC and I vote.” Refugee groups want better or different treatment of detainees or those who have settled here. #MeToo attracts women harassed in their careers.
It is not difficult for people to find themselves attracted to those organisations that share their concerns. That, in itself, is not a problem.
Identity politics becomes a problem when people begin to define themselves primarily by a particular interest or identity and when that interest is bent on gaining advantage from the community at large. Any sense of national interest or common good is overtaken by special interests as they vote for their identity grouping first.
To the extent that rights exist they should be respected regardless of race, skin colour, religion, sex or sexuality. Disadvantage should be addressed because it is disadvantage, not simply because it affects people who happen to be gay, coloured, Muslim or seeking refuge from persecution.
We do well to acknowledge that those who benefit from successful pressure may be winners but the losers are often the unorganized others. It is the role of good government to balance competing pressures in the national interest.
Identity politics inevitably turns ‘we’ into ‘us and them’. It requires someone or something to oppose. It thrives on competitive victimhood. Groupthink replaces the reality that we are equal, individual human beings, capable of seeing the bigger picture of the overall good and voting accordingly.
We should ask ourselves what our principal concerns are. For most of us those concerns will revolve around security, freedom, family and perhaps other higher values. We should determine our vote based on those concerns first.
Our country will always do better if we pursue shared national values. The narrow, minority causes that define identity politics will only create division and further fracture our Australian national fabric.
Stephen Lusher
Former MP for Hume
Port Macquarie