So, there's something that has been weighing on me over recent weeks. Where better to voice the inner workings of my brain than in a newspaper? Buckle up kids, it might get bumpy.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
No one can say that we aren't a passionate country. We seem to have very specific lines drawn in the sand and we align ourselves with our "tribes," staunchly ready for battle.
But ...
Does this mean that we aren't thinking about things deeply, ourselves? Are we so busy aligning ourselves with others that we don't stop to think about what is really important to ... us?
An ad hominem attack is when a person irrelevantly attacks the person (or an aspect of them) rather than addressing their argument or position. Looking at political debate in this country, we see ad hominem arguments every day, and we see Australians emulating their example in "discussions" within our communities.
Our politicians are so busy ensuring that they are opposing the actions and beliefs of their political opponents that it often feels like one side opposes the proposals of the other simply because it was proposed by their opponent.
This has never been clearer for me than in the period of transition between the Coalition and Labor governments. Last May, for example, the Coalition became critical of Labor overnight for not doing things they'd had 10 years to do themselves and had failed to address. Why? Presumably because the job of the "opposition" is to "oppose" government. It isn't about the issue. It's never about the issue. It's always about the person, or the party, and some inherent failing in them.
However, the damage such an approach can take is palpable in a community grappling with important decisions that affect the nation's development.
Debate provides the friction that moves us forward as a species, but when debate is shutdown based on ad hominem attacks, it doesn't resolve the debate, it internalises it and breeds resentment in the pool of inner turmoil that results.
We have seen ad hominem attacks on both sides of the debate regarding the Voice in recent weeks. If you oppose it, you're a racist Nazi who is too stupid to understand. If you support it, you're just a blind leftist, enemy of democracy.
MORE ZOE WUNDENBERG:
Does this sound like a safe environment to debate the proposal?
People who are uncertain, are being told to "vote no" by the Coalition, which is being slammed by supporters of the Voice as lazy. However, they can't ask their questions or learn about the "yes" side of the debate without facing attacks because they are questioning the proposal instead of blindly accepting it.
Meanwhile, people who are supporting the Voice are attacked by the loud no-voters for supporting the apparent enshrining of inequality and racism in the constitution - even to the point of creating Apartheid in Australia.
There can be no middle ground.
So how does this work? If you can't discuss the Voice with people in either/both camps without being attacked for asking questions, or being accused of being racist for either supporting or not supporting The Voice regardless of any uncertainties, then how do we move forward with any real, healthy discussion? Without discussion, ideas cannot grow, understanding doesn't develop, and community doesn't come together.
One side cannot accuse the other of being divisive when the very nature of the national "debate" is dividing us into camps along lines of abusive personal attacks on all sides.
The Voice has been politicised to death with a marketing approach that is about garnering votes, not encouraging unity. It is pitting two halves of the country against each other and neither side is innocent.
Is it too late to pull the conversation back from the brink? Is it too much to ask for the leaders of the Coalition and Labor to sit down in front of a camera and actually lead an honest discussion about the issues without attacking each other?
We already know they are on opposing sides of the aisle. We aren't going to confuse their political marketing positions. But as a nation, we need our government to actually show the way and come together to discuss (not debate) these issues (not each other) in front of us and model how we talk to each other about this (and other) challenging, potentially divisive proposals.
Just a thought.
- Zoë Wundenberg is a careers consultant and un/employment advocate at impressability.com.au, and a regular columnist for ACM.
