Thread by @Vic_Rollison

Reading @NickEvershed’s data blog about characteristics of voters who determined election by swinging to Liberals (more likely unemployed, less education, lower incomes), I’m reminded of importance of cultural narratives in our understanding of politics. A thread👇🏻

I found with my research that Australians hold cultural assumptions about the legitimacy of the capital class and the working class when it comes to which groups make better political leaders.

This relates to my study of media framing of industrial disputes, where I found the boss - capital class - is given an implied legitimacy, or is assumed to be acting reasonably in a dispute with workers, and conversely workers and unions start from a position of illegitimacy.

There is an implied assumption that the boss knows best, that his/her decisions are best for the business and that the workers should just put up, shut up and not ‘bite the hand that feeds them’ by trying to negotiate a better deal with their boss.

This assumption - of the legitimacy of the capital class - flows into politics through the assumption that the party who represents the capital class - Liberals - are better economic managers than Labor.

I think this assumption comes from the idea that workers shouldn’t run a business - therefore Labor shouldn’t be put in charge of the economy. These cultural narratives are so strong that they dictate people’s understanding of politics.

What I also found was that cultural narratives overwhelm factual evidence. So, us tweeps can keep pointing out until we’re blue in the face that there are no facts that provide evidence for the assumption Labor can’t manage money. The cultural narrative is stronger so it wins.

I wrote before the election that the reason people vote for Palmer the billionaire coal miner - even one who has screwed his workers - is because they think the boss knows best and believe pretty everything he says. He’s a god in their eyes. Implied legitimacy is a powerful thing

That reminds me that Lakoff points out that the words ‘job creator’ are synonymous with ‘creator’ as in God. He or she who can give or take away a job are the ultimate authority in someone’s life. They hold their livelihoods, their identities, their pride, in their hand.

The Liberals have been advantaged by the cultural assumption that they’re better at managing money since the Liberal Party began. It’s become a deep-rooted belief that overwhelms all evidence against it.

You’ll often hear journalists either consciously or unconsciously adopting this cultural narrative by saying things like ‘Liberals are known for their superior economic management and therefore when they talk about the economy it helps their campaign’. No facts mentioned.

So, how did the Liberals use this powerful cultural assumption in their election campaign? They used it to tell voters that they would be better off economically under a capital-class government. That’s the basis of the Liberals’s scare campaign.

Abbott did same - ‘Great Big Tax’ is proxy for ‘Labor can’t manage money’. During this campaign, Liberals made up taxes that didn’t exist as sticks to beat Labor with (and media obliged). Death tax. Retirement Tax. Housing Tax.

As campaign went on, the Liberals ramped up this rhetoric. They said ‘when Labor runs out of their own money, they’ll come after yours’. There were posters and advertising everywhere saying ‘Labor - the Bill you can’t afford’. This ad was even on front of regional QLD newspapers.

Last week, I even heard Mathias Cormann say on RN that people would lose their jobs under Labor. Just like that. ‘People will lose their jobs’. Note, when a boss threatens a workers’ job, that is the ultimate threat. No job, no shelter, no food. It’s the ultimate scare campaign.

Key to this Liberal scare campaign is scaring voters who are particularly vulnerable to the fear of either not getting a job, losing a job, or having opportunities taken away- the unemployed, low income, and those with less education.

Why? Because these people are closest to poverty line. Without a job, they immediately can’t afford necessities of life. They were targeted and they responded exactly as Liberals hoped - by voting against their best interests, believing their livelihoods are threatened by Labor.

By the way, there’s a reason why Liberals threaten coal miner jobs, and pay no attention at all to the possible tourism job losses from destroying the Reef, or don’t care that they’re making thousands of public servants unemployed, or people working in car manufacturing!

People working in coal mines are the ones most scared of finding another job - they live a long way from other jobs, they are less likely to have transferable skills and therefore you threaten their jobs, you threaten every aspect of their existence.

When you think about it, the Liberals are basically bullying the most vulnerable in society by scaring them into voting for them lest they risk homelessness and lifelong poverty. When you’re scared, you do what you’re told.

In fact, there are very few jobs in coal mining, even if Adani and Clive’s climate-catastrophe coal mines go ahead. But hope of a job in coal mining - particularly for those in regional QLD who are currently unemployed, is enough to con them into voting against their interests.

Next time you hear someone say ‘Liberals are better economic managers’ - remember the cultural stereotype which biases political behaviour in line with the capital class’s interest. Liberals don’t care about coal miners or QLD unemployed. They care about mining shareholders. End.

@threadreaderapp unroll please