Well said by Julian Assange in this video clip, on the topic of information asymmetry, the media-ocracy and the media elites who encourage or engage in “lively debate” within such narrow boundaries that the outcome of each political battle is, these days, almost entirely inconsequential:
Assange has now founded the WikiLeaks party in Australia, where he has several candidates contending for seats in parliament. Some recent polls suggest that 26 percent of Australians are strongly considering voting for a a WikiLeaks party candidate.
“Readers by definition are ignorant. We read to quench our ignorance. Readers, in effect, are easy prey for newspapers and the people that own them. Newspapers have a knowledge advantage, an information asymmetry. They know what readers don’t know yet, but want to know. And so they can distort the news or even invent it.” – Julian Assange
The unapologetic, unrelenting neo-conservative darling Charles Krauthammer yesterday decided to hold forth on the topic of Egypt, and (of course) use the situation to bash President Obama’s foreign policy. So far, so unsurprising. And indeed, he kicks off with the usual neo-con boilerplate nonsense that we have come to expect, painting a narrative where Obama is ditherer-in-chief at best, or staunchly pro-Islamist at worst:
Obama is a bystander, again. Here are the Egyptians in the millions out on the street, trying to bring down an Islamist government, increasingly dictatorial, increasingly intolerant, arresting journalists and judges, trying to Islamicize the military and the people are saying no, and what does the president of the United States do? He takes a position of studied neutrality, says he is not supporting either side. And yet, as you point out in the Mubarak revolution, he obviously strongly took the side of the people. He demanded that Mubarak had to go, he was not neutral.
But just feast your eyes on this closing sentence from Krauthammer:
That was a shameful episode. But there’s also idea of national interest. Mubarak was pro-American, he was an ally of ours, he helped us in all kinds of ways. Obama worked against him. Morsi represents a movement which is essentially deeply anti-American, and deeply anti-democratic, yet he is neutral on this.This is a shocking position for a president to take.
Did you see it? That is Charles Krauthammer twisting himself into a pretzel to argue that Morsi (autocratic and unpleasant but democratically elected) is somehow more anti-democratic than the dictator Hosni Mubarak (for whom, of course, all sins are forgiven because he was a US “ally”).
Whether President Obama’s position is “shocking” is a matter for debate. But what is not up for debate is the fact that unlike Charles Krauthammer, Obama is at least able to articulate his position without resorting to logical contradictions that make my head explode.
An evening of political intrigue and drama tonight in Australia, in what The Guardian describes as “an unprecedented day of political bloodletting in Canberra”:
The day of high drama began in the morning, when supporters of Rudd, who had advocated his return to the leadership for the past three years of the hung parliament, began circulating a petition to try to force a contest in this, the last sitting week of parliament before the September election.
Within hours, Gillard went on the attack and made the decision to hold a snap vote on her position. “It is in the best interest of the nation and the Labor party for this to be resolved,” she said. “This is it. There are no more opportunities, tonight’s the night.”
Wednesday’s change of leader follows months of speculation, during which Gillard made clear she would not stand down despite opinion polls that repeatedly showed Rudd to be the more popular leader.
With the party’s support dwindling to about 30%, and the prospect of Labor losing at least half of its parliamentary seats, she stood firm while Rudd’s backers plotted.
After enduring near continual speculation about her grip on the Labor party leadership, very troubling polling numbers heading into the coming general election, and several very unpleasant personal attacks from people who should know better and be ashamed of themselves, Prime Minister Julia Gillard called a snap leadership election of the Federal Labor Party – and lost convincingly to longtime rival and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Gillard was, of course, the first woman prime minister of Australia, and her notable achievements include guiding the Australian economy relatively unscathed through what has been a torrid economic period for most western countries, enacting educational reform, improving foreign relations with the US, China and India and starting a crackdown on child sexual abuse in institutional settings, a problem that has plagued many countries.
Kevin Rudd’s eloquent and moving resignation speech following his loss of the Labor Party leadership to his then-deputy, Julia Gillard, in June 2010:
And Julia Gillard having to give way under much the same circumstances in June 2013:
Certainly a remarkable comeback for Kevin Rudd following once-abysmal personal polling numbers, several abortive attempts at a comeback and two separate efforts by fellow Labor colleagues to draft him back as leader.
But what is perhaps most remarkable are the anti Tony Abbott sentiments expressed by so many of the Labor party politicians who have been commenting on television today, from Kevin Rudd on downwards. Indeed, some parliamentarians and even cabinet members seem to have been willing to fall on their swords and potentially risk the wrath of the electorate and their colleagues not just to bolster Labor’s chances of clinging to power in the coming election, but more to deny Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party (currently surging in the polls) the chance to form a new government.
There are significant fears that an Abbott government would implement austerity measures similar to those enacted to such remarkable and stimulative effect in the United Kingdom, and the prevailing opinion is that Labor can best mitigate their losses at the coming election under the leadership of Kevin Rudd rather than Julia Gillard.
The two leaders seem to have very different leadership styles; it remains to be seen whether Rudd will have time to stamp his authority on his restive party and turn the polls around before the general election.
UPDATE – Kevin Rudd’s remarks to young people at the end of his brief speech to the media, his apology for the low skulduggery of politics that has alienated many young voters and promise to do better, was a nice touch.
UPDATE 2 – The Telegraph reminds us that the current constitutional settlement in Australia is far from satisfactory. Without making any comment on whether Australia should retain the Queen as Head of State or become a Republic, it is clear that an appointee from London should not be making decisions in another countries’ internal political affairs:
But Mr Rudd’s return as Labor leader leaves serious questions about Australia’s immediate political future. Labor holds power in a hung parliament, so Mr Rudd’s leadership win does not automatically mean he will become prime minister. The matter may need to be decided by the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce; complicating the matter further, her daughter is married to a senior minister, Bill Shorten, who openly supported Mr Rudd’s leadership bid.
Disaster averted on this particular occasion, but someone might want to consider tinkering with the rules and the Constitution some time soon before we risk ending up in hot water.
Another update to the stellar coverage provided by Dish readers, this one from São Paulo:
Fortunately, even though the initial demands by the protesters have been met (the transit fare has returned to its previous level), the protests have continued. In fact, they are showing this amazing level of self-organization. Groups will march together and decide which route to follow, where to stop and chant, where to sit and block the street, etc. There will be announcements about when and where the next protest will happen, and once the end time is reached, the protest will end.
There have been protests for various things, the largest being against PEC 37, which if passed, will make it much harder to catch and convict wrong doers within the government (involved in corruption, the horrors of the military government, etc).
Among the other protests, there was a protest against the Cura Gay (Gay…
Another day passes, and is followed by another night of rioting in cities across Brazil, in scenes that are becoming increasingly familiar.
Protesters in Sao Paolo – Credit: AP
The Guardian reports on the latest night of unrest and police heavy-handedness:
A vast crowd – estimated by the authorities at 300,000 and more than a million by participants – filled Rio’s streets, one of a wave of huge nationwide marches against corruption, police brutality, poor public services and excessive spending on the World Cup.
A minority of protesters threw stones, torched cars and pulled down lamp-posts. Police responded by firing volleys of pepper spray and rubber bullets into the crowd and up onto overpasses where car drivers and bus passengers were stuck in traffic jams. At least 40 people were injured in the city and many more elsewhere.
Simultaneous demonstrations were reported in at least 80 cities, with a total turnout that may have been close to 2 million. An estimated 110,000 marched in São Paulo, 80,000 in Manaus, 50,000 in Recife and 20,000 in Belo Horizonte and Salvador.
This isn’t going away any time soon – as President Dilma Rousseff seems finally to realise, as she has now cancelled her upcoming overseas visit to Japan. But what is becoming increasingly clear is the fact that the protests – ostensibly about nominal increases in public transport fares – have now taken on a life of their own, tapping into a lingering and deep-seated resentment of the Brazilian political and business establishment, and that the relatively minor affront of an increase in travel fares was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Indeed, the article continues:
Matheus Bizarria, who works for the NGO Action Aid, said people had reached the limit of their tolerance about longstanding problems that the Confederations Cup and World Cup have brought into focus because of the billions of reals spent on new stadiums rather than public services. Rio is also due to host a papal visit to World Youth Day next month, and the Olympics in 2016.
“It’s totally connected to the mega-events,” Bizarria said. “People have had enough, but last year only 100 people marched against a bus price rise. There were 1,000 last week and 100,000 on Monday. Now we hope for a million.”
I must admit that I am only now starting to familiarise myself with the political situation in Brazil and the huge, until-recently untapped reserves of anger and contempt that the population has for the incompetence of their political leaders – as manifested by a creaking infrastructure, inadequate education and healthcare outcomes, and the mismanagement of large projects such as the preparations for the 2014 World Cup.
Certainly there are some very acute problems specific to Brazil which are providing much of the fuel to this particular fire. But step back and look at the causes rather than the symptoms and we realise that they are exactly the same motives that drove people onto the streets and to protest in many other countries (most notably Turkey in recent days) – an arrogant, disengaged government that wears its contempt for the people on its sleeve.
Watch Brazil closely – when public anger can explode like this in the sixth largest economy in the world, all those other countries in the top ten should be getting nervous.
Semi-Partisan Politics 