I must start this post with two things: 1) an apology – I truly am sorry I have to write this; and 2) a warning – This is filled with political ranting. Run away now if you value your sanity. But there is also some Einstein.
Now that I’ve managed to warn all would be readers. Behold with me the absurdity that appears to be Australian politics and political debate. It’s off the rails. Totally. What would you say if I said: “The leaders of our political parties are Kevin and Malcolm”! (alphabetical order used). Seriously? How serious can we be if their names are Kevin and Malcolm. But that was not my question – the question is what would you say? I expect from the last months worth of politics that people would go “hey, yeah, they’re … names”.
COME ON! WHO CARES?
The answer should be: “what’s your point”. This should be a non-issue. And while, in truth, there are no name slinging matches – the popularist perception that “name slinging” is valid political debate is all the rage.
Kevin is a Toxic Bore!
Oh please! Don’t get me started. He is the PM of the country – not the MC of the Melbourne International Comedy Gala. (Sorry to all Accountants). I bet your Accountant is also a Toxic Bore. By the same logic you should start complaining about them doing your taxes.
So what does that all mean? We the public are not informed by political debate. I was watching Q&A (on ABC) this evening. And honestly, the idea is great, but every time I watch the panel contains a member for parliament from Liberal and Labor. And every time they end up having policy debates or debating the latest irrelevant slinging match between each other. AND NOT ANSWERING THE ACTUAL QUESTION!
Thus I am losing my sanity. Would it be so hard for our elected representatives to take the issue(s) presented to them by we the public and solve them without getting caught up in poisonous waffle? Kevin is not the Toxic Bore. Political rhetoric is. In my opinion this is all quickly engaging the popularist mass and dis-heartening the passionate.
The buck doesn’t stop there either.
Kevin went and wrote this wonderful literary piece “The Global Financial Crisis“. It is a well written essay. Worthy of reading. Not to steal the punch line, but the solution, is to re-institute, with some paint, the financial mechanisms that were outed by the mechanisms that have now failed.
To quote Einstein – and to turn this rant into something more pointed:
We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
My rant legitimisation will come later.
Solving the GFC (is very important); but solving it by perpetuating another cycle of boom-then-bust is not genius and it most assuredly is not a solution. Do I have a solution – mmm tricky and hence comes part 2 to this post.
I got so sick of my sanity being abused that earlier this week I researched the process of forming a political party. A party made of young members passionate about full non-rhetoric disclosure (which I would imagine some reckon they already try and do). I even went so far as to work out a list of policy areas and assess the likely-hood of having a successful tri-partisan parliament after the next election. Then came the inevitable lack of motivation-time (i.e. time to motivate myself during). And finally came a comment by John Symond this evening, on Q&A, when discussing the Rudd-Whitlamite similarities and differences.
Paraphrasing: … the major issue with the Whitlam government was the members of the front bench; they lacked real management experience; and Australia paid the price for it …
I have long held the view: The young should run, and the old should advise. (Run: as in operate, manage, direct, etc…). While Symond’s statement does not preclude that ideology; it certainly highlights the fault when used for “back seat driving”. I have no advisors. All I have is inexperienced honest intentions. If I wanted to pursue a true 3rd political party I should have advice from people who have experience; otherwise Australia will pay the price. And someone will be ranting about this fictional 3rd party.
More Einsteinisms:
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Ideological passion is great; many things have been achieved for all through people pursuing ideology. As as such I would call out Einstein as being wrong. However, undoubtedly, Einstein was talking about science. Not ideology. Where it is most imperative that a fact is seen as fact not as desired truth.
Action is analogous to fact. Actions are a response to what is. As an aside it is important to note: They maybe conceived to bring about what should be.
To respond to something one also needs to understand that thing. Herein lies my sanity. The action I must take is to first understand that which I wish to mould. Get out and learn what aged care patients need; empathise with people under debt; experience the roadblocks in teaching; take action on climate change; learn about finance… and so on.
Will I still run off and form a political party: not likely.
Will I do all the above “understand” exercises: yes (or at least some of them).
What then? Well then I will be in a better position to judge what is and hence in a better position to take action.