Thread by @Vic_Rollison

Focusing on the 5% of Labor that you disagree with damages your chance to get the 95% that you do. This is similar to when Bernie Sanders supporters refused to vote for Hillary Clinton, and we all know how that turned out. A thread👇🏻

I listened to podcast about Democratic primary and remember the description of the problem with ‘liberals’ splitting over Hillary and Bernie was caused by the focus on their differences, instead of on all the things they agree on.

Same thing happens here with Greens supporters criticising Labor for ‘not being left wing enough’. Bernie and Hillary agreed on 95% of polices, values aligned, broadly want similar outcomes.

But when Bernie and Hillary have to compete, inevitably the 5% difference becomes the focus of all attention. Particularly by the media who value conflict. This 5% becomes over emphasised - turned into 100%. It also focuses attention on personalities ahead of polices.

The 95% that they agree on falls by the wayside and is not discussed. But it’s the 95% which is at stake when Bernie supporters - as an example - refused to vote for Hillary because they didn’t get their first choice of Democratic candidate. They opt out if they can’t get 100%.

Same thing is happening on my twitter feed constantly and is way worse since the election. Instead of focusing anger and hurt at Liberal govt, many have turned on Labor and Albo in particular (personal attacks!) emphasising 2-3 areas of disagreement.

You even see people literally opting out: ‘that’s it, I’m not voting Labor/Albo because I disagree on x or y or z’. I see people constantly say ‘this is a deal breaker for me’. Disagreement is a deal breaker? How would the labour movement got anywhere with this attitude?

Worth noting at this point that no one should be surprised Greens and Labor don’t align 100%. If they did, Labor would only align their policies and political brand with 10% of the population - a much worse situation than Labor is in now.

Labor have always and must continue to appeal to broader electoral interests than the Greens because otherwise they will never win government and lefties will never get the 95-100% of left wing policies they apparently really really want.

The focus on the 5% of difference means we have a lot of left wing people saying ‘I won’t vote Labor because that 5% difference is a deal breaker for me’. It means people falsely believe a major political party can cater to 100% of their policy preferences which is just fantasy.

A great example of overemphasising the 5% is the obsessive focus of all things climate change on Adani and coal mining, when of course climate policy is much bigger and broader than this. It leads to oversimplifying and generalising Labor’s position which misrepresents it.

The emphasis on the 5% difference and ignoring of 95% same also means I constantly hear left wing people say ‘Labor are Liberals are the same’. This is blatantly not true, but I keep hearing it nonetheless. This frame is incredibly useful for Liberals for obvious reasons.

Asylum seeker policy is also an area where the statement ‘Labor is just as bad as Liberals’ not only represents Labor’s policy, but also is ultimately a win for the Liberals. It means every discussion of this policy is sidetracked by debates about Labor’s position.

Hypothetically, if you knew with absolute certainty you were too focussed on Labor opposition, and this was giving Liberals a free pass, however well meaning you are, would you keep doing it because it makes you feel good about yourself? Serious question for some to consider.

I’m an active member of the Labor Party and I have never expected to agree with 100% of their policy positions. It would be totally unrealistic to think any one person could be 100% satisfied with a party, particularly one aiming for broad majority appeal.

I choose not to over emphasise the areas I don’t agree with Labor on, and instead fight for huge range of policies that I do. These are the policies we have missed out on because Liberals are in govt. If you think that’s wrong, fine, argue that point. Don’t attack me personally.

Last thing I want to say is that the purists who constantly tell Labor people like me that we’re not progressive or we’re killing refugees or we don’t care about climate change, ask yourself - have you ever convinced anyone to your point of view with this attack? Doubt it. End.

Thank you to those engaging respectfully and addressing my arguments without resorting to blatant generalisations and misrepresentations. To those failing at first part, thanks for showing exactly the behaviour I was objecting to on the thread. Got nothing better to contribute?