The Peace Candidate

Any reader, constant or otherwise, will appreciate my deeply held dislike of Tony Abbott. It isn’t due to any one factor. It’s partly the religious conservatism guiding his politics, but also the misogyny, the xenophobia and his rejection of scientific enquiry. It’s his pride in leading the Party of No and his smugness at being a full-time obstructionist, devoid of an original thought. However, despite this staunchly consistent track record I have conceived of a situation where I’d do the previously unthinkable: vote for him.

In a two-party democracy (I like the Greens, but they are not a 3^rd way just yet) if the parties take the same position – the issue is dead. In the US, such classics as maintaining military spending, supporting Israel at all costs and pursuing the pointless drug war are prominent examples. Here, demonising boat people, opposing marriage equality and hating Christopher Pyne are pretty unanimously held positions. Then of course there is the war in Afghanistan, off the table since the November 2010 parliamentary debate ended in galvanised agreement that we would stay to the ‘end’. While our ANZAC allies prepare for an ahead of schedule April 2013 exit – there is currently no political will to move forward our planned 2014 pull-out – an no guarantee that mission creep will not see the deadline adjusted further.

When we joined the war in 2001, some of the goals set forth made sense. Remove the Taliban from power, disrupt al-Qaeda’s operations and find Osama Bin Laden. However, a decade on, these three goals in particular have been achieved and we are left with the open-ended task of training Afghan security forces to support the democracy we have transplanted there.  Our involvement, aside from the financial burden (US estimates are $1 million per soldier, per year) – 240 of our soldiers have been wounded and 38 killed. The list is a depressingly bleak run down (read it here): IED, small arms fire, green on blue attack, helicopter crash. With goals less clear and with the trainees increasingly murdering our trainers – we should be wondering, how many more Australians are we prepared to lose?

This week, Liberal backbencher Mal Washer, whom I’ve never heard of, made some of the most sensible comments I’ve ever heard a Lib utter: "the question is, politically, why are we continuing this? Why are we risking more lives when if you've been there for 10 years and this is the result of it - what's the point of staying any longer? Do you think one more year is going to make a difference?” Amen. His party has immediately distanced themselves from his ‘rogue’ comments – but I sense opportunity. Now I’m a patriot. I support our troops. Their bravery and worth to this country greatly exceed my own. And accordingly, they should come home. Today.

I saw a clip this week of US Republican (and libertarian) Ron Paul on Bill Maher, talking about a restrained non-interventionist foreign policy (see here). To distill his message into a bumper sticker: the peace candidate always wins. The people cry out for it when they get to see the costs of war. So Tony, though you are amongst my most hated politicians, and though your climate change denying, workplace reforming, homophobic agenda pains me greatly – be the peace candidate, promise to bring the troops home – and you got my vote.

Courage

It should come as no surprise to any of us that perennial Cowardly Lion and conservative darling Alex Hawke should rise this week in parliament to offer the same tired arguments for the ongoing discrimination of his fellow Australians, based on their sexual orientation. Ceasing to be a nemesis of any intellectual depth (or even capable of an occasional novel thought), Hawke served only as a mouthpiece for the same trite justifications that the Right insists on clinging to in their stand against equality. While recent evidence points to an IQ deficiency as an important factor in conservative thinking – I will press on as though Alex and his brethren can be reasoned with.

Hawke was roused from his comfortable, affluent and largely white (homogenous) slumber by two private member’s bills (including a Bandt/Wilkie one) to be introduced to legalise gay marriage. The main tenant of his opposition (and of the Right’s) seems part historical precedent, part procreation. My first appeal though would be to drop the bullshit and just come right out and say “the bible told me so”. Hawke is transparently and enthusiastically affiliated with the Hillsong Pentecostal megachurch, bible literalists “teaching homosexuality is unnatural, opposing embryonic stem cell research and abortion on the basis that human life commences at conception” (They are also creationists and want it taught in schools… my enduring pet hate). We need not look far for the source of his illogical anti-gay message – but we should at least expect honesty about its origins (he should also pipe down on the procreation line, given that the 34 year old has no kids of his own).

In Hawkes ‘intensive research’ (its fine for me to use Wiki Alex – but you’re an MP – get an intern to do some real research), he cites the Californian referendum question (known as Prop 8) that banned gay marriage in that state (which was just overturned and heads to the Supreme Court)… and that only 10 countries and 7 US States allow it – as an indication of its non-mainstream nature. The US is an interesting case and indicative of the turning tide in favour of equality – almost certainly serving my case better than Hawkes. The 7 states have come on board in less than a decade, with additional legislative measures succeeding in Washington state and New Jersey (though their fat Republican governor is vowing a veto). Most importantly though, public opinion passed parity in 2011 – meaning a majority now support gay-marriage. Multiple polls here in Australia suggested an even larger majority in support (see Wiki). Perhaps Hawke needs to check his definition of ‘majority’.

Hawke’s conservatism on gay marriage is fundamentally flawed. First, had he a shred of insight, he’d appreciate that in championing small government and opposing the allegedly encroaching Nanny State (see his opposition to plain paper packages for cigarettes) – a non-hypocritical stance on same-sex couples should be one of equality. It isn’t the government’s role to interfere. Second, change for minorities rarely (if ever) comes through referendums, or majority support. As I saw Rev Al Sharpton recently say, if he had waited for the majority to award civil rights to black Americans, he’d still be sitting at the back of the bus – justice requires political leaders who will show leadership and moral courage to bring about change. Unfortunately for Australia (and for our Cowardly Lion in particular), courage is in short supply – and the Wizard sometimes seem far, far away.