Action on climate change is the most important differentiator between the counter ideologies of Labor and Liberal governments. The ideologies are entirely different and oppositional. They relate to deep ideological divides in world views which exist in the Australian community.
I’ll start with Liberal ideology, accepting I’m generalising as they often contradict themselves. Overall, just like Barnaby said, they ‘want government out of their lives’. They believe the market solves all ills and should be freed up to do that without government intervention.
This neoliberal narrative dictates their climate change position which can be summarised as ‘denial’. The reason they deny climate change is because they don’t believe in government intervention. You can’t adequately respond to climate change without government intervention.
An important thread of this neoliberal narrative is its proposition that the national interest is the interest of big business. I studied mining tax narratives and found Liberals encompass mining industry profit maximisation as literally representing the welfare of the nation.
As an aside, one of the most problematic contradictions in this narrative is that Libs pick and choose which industries represent the national interest and which don’t. For instance, car manufacturing they shut down, and tourism they’re willing to destroy through climate damage.
Mining, on the other hand, is an industry Libs are not only ideologically married to, but also financially. So, when Morrison says ‘we will do for climate what is in Australia’s national interest’, he literally means ‘what is in mining industry interest’. Which means ‘nothing’.
Libs uphold their narrative of ‘big business equals national interest’ by basically threatening Australian workers with job losses if they don’t accept this premise. ‘Do what your job creator says or he’ll take away your job’ is very effective at scaring the most insecure workers
This idea also ties to Libs saying ‘the best form of welfare is a job’. They want people to believe their job is gifted to them by a benevolent god-like job creator who has the power to give a job or can choose to take it away. Jobs are not welfare - they are the sale of skills.
Also as an aside, this same threat is used as a warning not to join a union to ‘make demands’ of your employer - Libs tell story of insubordinate thug unionists destroying the national interest and therefore destroying jobs by being greedy and putting the job creators off side.
So, back to climate change. Morrison would have to break his ‘national interest is mining industry profit’ ideology in order to take climate change action as this would mean intervening in big business carbon emitters. He can’t do that so he has to deny. No other option.
That means his response to the bushfire crisis has been tepid, lacking in real empathy, reduced to spin, underwhelming and therefore a complete display of political cowardice and failure of leadership. Morrison is trapped between a ideological rock and a crisis hard place.
Labor, on the other hand, has its ideology perfectly designed to take climate action. Yes, there are imperfect elements of Labor’s ideological position which makes this hard, but they are still the only party capable of meaningfully addressing climate change through regulation.
Labor’s narrative grew from their industrial roots - working collectively to improve the welfare of the group. From the Shearers’ Strike in 1890 to Labor’s current policy platform, Labor exists to mediate between the national interest and big business interest.
First, let me explain what Labor means by national interest and then I’ll describe why this mediating role is hard. Labor sees national interest as the outcomes of the collective. For example - social welfare is designed as a safety net that ensures the welfare of the collective.
Therefore, rather than believing the national interest is in the hands of big business, Labor believe the national interest is in a fair compromise between big business and people, to ensure people are benefiting from productivity just as much as big business are.
Labor pools collective resources - tax, to ensure they are sharing the wealth of the country more evenly across the collective, rather than segregating all the wealth in the hands of a few (which is at expense of national interest). National interest delivers opportunity for all
The mediating role Labor governments play is hard because it’s impossible to keep everyone 100% happy. Compromise is needed. For instance, Labor knows without a thriving economy, there are no jobs and jobs are central to workers’ livelihoods.
That means Labor aren’t opposed to big business, but must negotiate with them to get the best outcomes possible for everyone. Compromise is imperfect and of course Labor don’t always act perfectly in this mission. Their ideology, however, remains constant and always has.
Labor therefore are best positioned to take climate action because they know how to meditate between big business and national interest. Rudd and Wong’s ETS price mechanism (blocked by Greens) which transitioned business towards the necessary target is perfect example of that.
One more thing before I reach my maximum thread limit. Greens seem determined to destroy Labor’s ability to mediate between big business and the national interest, instead accusing Labor of not taking climate action seriously.
Big business won’t have a bar of the Greens - same as most Australians - because they believe Greens are opposed to the basic idea of capitalism. Whether Greens are or not, this is a major problem for Labor and makes it difficult to ‘do deals’ in a constructive way with Greens.
So there we have reason Morrison can’t take climate action and continues to deny, even if it means damaging himself and his future electability in the process. Let’s see how this turns out in 2020, and while I’m here HAPPY NEW YEAR to the tweeps who read all the way to the END.
@threadreaderapp unroll please
