In the media, most issues are presented as having two “opposing” viewpoints that can be taken up- the “right-wing” and the “left-wing” view. On the whole, this doesn’t seem to be particularly constructive, because it doesn’t result in everyone tackling the most important issues together. Instead, they are marginalised because nobody has a strong opinion on them, because it doesn’t offer an opportunity to advance their own ideology and attempt to destroy the opposing one.
Instead, wedge issues take up a lot of media attention. Issues where opinion is roughly split 50-50, and where two opposing ideologies which have been fitted into the right and left view dominate. Some current examples are war on Iraq, refugees or “illegal immigrants”, gay marriages, abortion, aboriginal land rights. Opposition to refugees comes from racists, and being in favour of deregualtion is a economic rationalist view. Both of these stances on these issues are classified as right-wing views. In fact, being a racist and being an economic rationalist are also classified as right-wing. However, a true economic rationalist would be in favour of free movement of the labour force, and they wouldn’t classify any immigration as illegal. The left- and right- wing aren’t even coherent ideologies, they just borrow bits and pieces of other opinions. Really, I don’t think it makes any sense, we all know a right-wing politician will always be a economic deregulator, in bed with big companies, a Christian, a racist, and a sexist, but these things actually have nothing to do with each other.
So, the left- and right- divide doesn’t make sense and isn’t constructive. And yet they persist, opinion pages are full of people describing themselves and each other as and being introduced as right-wing or left-wing, and these labels are never challenged. Now, I don’t believe in coincidences. I believe in conspiracy theories. I think such an irrational and pointless polarisation of argument wouldn’t exist, unless it benefitted someone.
Back to the opinion pages of newspapers, most public commentators seem to fit neatly into the left- or right- category, even though most of the population doesn’t. Someone is giving public commentators jobs. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald took the ridiculous Miranda Devine from the tabloid Daily Telegraph. Miranda Devine is extremely anti- any opinion that could possibly be left-wing, and has a host of labels for left-wingers, such as “chardonnay sipper”, “bleeding heart”, “feral greenies”, etc. Her opinions are also wildly uninformed, and lacking in balance or evidence. In other words, she writes complete garbage, and reading one of her articles only encourages someone who already identifies as left-wing to feel more contempt for people with “right-wing” opinions. Although few opinion writers are that bad, pretty much all of them uncompromisingly defend their side, and write with bias. They sometimes use faulty reasoning which is transparent to anyone who doesn’t already share their view. Basically, I think every time a person who identifies as basically “left-wing” reads a “right-wing” opinion writer, their position hardens, and vice-versa. And every time a “left-wing” person reads a “left-wing” article, they are comforted because they already agree with the majority of what is said, and allow faulty reasoning to pass because they consider the “alternative”- the right- as so bad, and vice versa.
The obvious effect of this is it locks people into having rigid opinions, a choice of one or the other, and doesn’t allow for any creative alternatives or exposure of any real ideologies. It is beneficial to those in power if public debate stifles itself.
The other thing that having these two sides, named the “left” and “right”, does is give off the effect that they are the two extremes and the middle might be the sensible position. In fact, the “left” opinion usually seems to take a normal and responsible position, such as on refugees, the environment, and public funding of public services. For example on refugees, the “left” position is that asylum seekers, should be allowed into the country, and should be given permanent residency if they are found to be refugees (like 90% of recent boat arrivals have been found to be refugees). The “right-wing” position is that all of them, including children should be immediately locked up, preferably far from civilisation and off Australian soil, no effort should be made to quickly determine if they are refugees, and if they are found to be refugees, they should be sent back where they came from in 3 years anyway. I mean, clearly the “left” view is a normal position while the “right” view is extreme and bizarre. Anyway by calling these positions “left” and “right” gives the “right” position an equality of standing it does not deserve.
Basically, this means that every time a propostion is thrown up, no matter how irrational- for example, the Australian-US “Free Trade” Agreement, no matter how stupid it is, if it is thrown up by people from the right-wing (the Liberal Party in this case), all the commentators which identify as right-wing will rush to defend it. All the left-wingers will attack it. Any of the public that already agree with a wing will usually support that position. Those which identify with neither will hear an equal number of arguments for each side, so it will be harder to see a clear answer.
In this system, the side that can throw up the most extreme suggestions will win, because each time they do they can shift the boundaries of common sense and common opinion in their favour. It is really quite a ridiculous system.
But there’s one more thing. The commentators are really lazy, and think bias makes up for it. For example, look at the war on Iraq. There are many left-wing opinion writers who are against it. But they never do their research and dig up the details of Saddam’s past and American support for him, which would bury any fake humanitarian argument, the image of America as a benevolent protector, and expose its true oil-hungry imperialist face. Instead, they crap on about UN resolutions and rebut other writers articles and the minute details of speeches Howard gave. They add absolutely no information to the debate. And if this is from commentators which are portrayed as far-left (such as Phil Adams), then people are going to think there IS no stronger argument for not supporting invasions than lack of international approval. And even when evidence does come out, like about how there actually are no chemical or biological weapons, all they can do is repeat it over and over, like, YES! a tiny bit of evidence we were right. And miss discussing the implications, of the possibilities of lots of other lies. They accept the “right-wing” as their equal challenger.
